My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1/9/1985
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1985
>
1/9/1985
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:51:11 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 10:03:36 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
01/09/1985
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
59
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
property since the section fronting the street could not be built on. <br />Attorney Cairns believed this was not in accordance with the <br />ordinance, which states that improvements should directly benefit the <br />property. He showed a map of the area and pointed out that all of the <br />lots north of Mrs. Earman's property drain into the lake, and he was <br />told that the County actually owns the lake. Therefore, he feels that <br />his client is actually providing a service to the area. <br />Attorney Cairns proposed that the matter be sent back to staff <br />for consideration on how to make a more equitable assessment on the <br />percentage attributed,to this portion of land. In addition, he <br />suggested that perhaps it could be reworked so as to provide some <br />drainage west from the lake to 46th Avenue and then south to the <br />ditch. <br />Chairman Lyons felt Attorney Cairns made an interesting point, <br />but did not know whether the Commission or staff could spend further <br />time on the matter as the petition is being heard today. <br />Mr. Vicek felt the Board has to consider the fact that a majority <br />of the property owners are in favor of the paving. He pointed out <br />that the Earmans have approximately 8 acres of property behind the lot <br />in question, and he didn't feel that they would have any hardship in <br />this assessment. In addition, the Earmans were the original <br />developers in the area, and now they are only being asked to pay part <br />of the paving. Mr. Vicek felt sure that the paving would increase the <br />value of the Earman property. <br />Attorney Cairns did not want to debate the issue in regard to <br />what his client could afford, he just wanted the Board to consider <br />whether this paving would benefit Mrs. Earman's property, because this <br />parcel of land would never be used. <br />Chairman Lyons believed that the Earman 8 -acre parcel possibly <br />could be subdivided some time in the future and the paving of 46th <br />Avenue would then be beneficial to that property. <br />Commissioner Wodtke felt that it is a dire necessity to pave that <br />road, but he would feel more comfortable if the Earman unbuildable <br />27 <br />JAN 9 1985 Boa 59 P,1cF422 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.