My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1/22/1991
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1991
>
1/22/1991
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:07 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 10:05:09 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
01/22/1991
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
52
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
JAS. 202 799 <br />BOOK 1 4 82 <br />.approving the placement of the well on that property too close to <br />the septic tank on the property behind, and agreed that by doing <br />so they did lot -bound his lot. Mr. St. Pierre stressed that if <br />his neighbor had put his well in the front yard, where it should <br />have gone, he would have been .able to build on his property. <br />Utilities Director Terry Pinto advised that Utilities would <br />be satisfied if we had a recorded agreement saying that he would <br />pay the current fees at the time the water becomes available and <br />that he would partake in'his proportional share of the <br />assessments. However, that would put a cloud on the title to <br />his property. Mr. St. Pierre would have to understand that if <br />he were to sell his home, the new owners would have to agree to <br />sign -the agreement. <br />Chairman Bird -hoped that if we agree to this we can'come up <br />with some kind of criteria for the Public Works Department to <br />follow in the future, because he felt there are going to be other <br />requests. <br />Commissioner Scurlock explained that.where'he was coming <br />from is that it would have to be where water is available and <br />Utilities would have to sign off on it _in a 24 -month period. He <br />didn't want to see it any longer than that. <br />Commissioner Wheeler felt the water assessment would have to <br />be mandatory because of the difficulty in developing the small <br />lots in that area, and Commissioner Scurlock emphasized that <br />would be decided by the County Commission. <br />Chairman Bird knew a mandatory water assessment wasn't going <br />to be overwhelmingly popular with those people who are happy with <br />their wells, but Commissioner Bowman emphasized that we have.to <br />explain to them that they are in a very rapid percolation area <br />and septic tanks are "verboten". <br />Director Davis estimated that we are talking well over <br />$3,000 for the assessment, the impact fee, meter and hookup into <br />the house, which is more than what some -of these people paid for <br />their lots in this area. <br />-Discussion ensued regarding the placement of wells and <br />septic tanks in either the front yard or back yard, and Commis- <br />sioner Scurlock suggested that perhaps this should be tabled <br />today to give staff an opportunity to review it and establish <br />some criteria that could be applicable to other people as well. <br />Administrator Chandler estimated that staff could come back <br />to the Board in 2-3 weeks at the outset with some general <br />guidelines in terms of whether provision of utilities is imminent <br />in' -24 months. <br />22 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.