Laserfiche WebLink
build on some lots there also, and all the houses they build will <br />face 12th Street. <br />Mr. Lawhon believed that one lady who said they did not <br />sign, bought the lot since the petition was signed. He further <br />stated that the cost he quoted was exactly what staff told him -- <br />somewhere between $600 to $800 -- that was back in 1983. <br />Chairman Lyons felt that this matter has been pretty well <br />aired at this point and asked for a Motion to close the hearing. <br />ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by <br />Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously (4-0) <br />closed the public hearing. <br />Considerable discussion ensued as to who receives the most <br />benefit from the pavings and should bear the cost, and Director <br />Keating agreed that the double frontage make this very difficult, <br />and that is why staff is currently doing a study and will bring <br />the Board a recommendation on the entire road paving issue within <br />the next month. <br />Commissioner Wodtke noted that county regulations require <br />the road to be paved, but because of the problem with the double <br />frontage situation, he brought up the thought of stopping this <br />petition right where it extends past 4th St. S.W., and possibly <br />have the county pick up more of the cost, i.e., 1/3 instead of <br />25%. <br />Discussion followed as to setting a precedent and the need <br />to develop a policy, etc., and the Chairman felt we should deny <br />the petition and send this back to the Planning Department to <br />come back with something consistent with what we are doing now. <br />Commissioner Scurlock noted that if we deny the petition <br />and the subdivision is developed, the developer will have to pay <br />for the road. <br />Mrs. Lowhan emphasized that up until yesterday afternoon at <br />4 o'clock, they had a verified petition. The same people who <br />54 <br />S <br />�ooK EP 5 `985 Faccf <br />