5/1/1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MAY 1 1985 BOOK 60 PACE !82 that is there because they don't know if the Clark site plan ever will be built. Nothing physical has been done to the property in six months, which is the required period. In addition, it was discovered that there is an underlying plat that was never vacated, and this needs to be cleared up. It is staff's position that there hasn't been a good faith effort to proceed with development of the park. Commissioner Wodtke inquired as to, when staff notified the property owner of site plan revocation, and Director Keating stated that they notified him in the normal flow of events - about three weeks before the public hearing. Commissioner Wodtke then inquired about the statement that a deposit was made on a sewer plant. Attorney Clem reported that they had an approved plant; a deposit was made; and plans were drawn. At that time, there was a meeting between his clients and the utility people, and it was stated the water would be there shortly and, therefore, why put ^ h in a package plant. Now, his clients have water and are willing and ready to go forward with a sewer plant, but the plant never was delivered to the site. Commissioner Wodtke asked if there is an existing contract for the plant and whether they would lose money on it, and Mr. Clark stated that they have already lost money on it. Attorney Clem confirmed that the Clarks lost a $500 deposit on that plant waiting for the water to come in. Attorney Brandenburg noted that actually they don't have a sewer plant under contract now, and Attorney Clem agreed, but noted they can get another one under contract very quickly. Attorney Brandenburg asked if the county insisted the Clarks tie in to the county water system or if they had the option of going ahead and building their own water plant on the property, Attorney Clem stated that they probably had that option, but if the County ran by, they would have to disengage and tie 66