My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12/3/1991
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1991
>
12/3/1991
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:11 PM
Creation date
6/8/2015 10:12:48 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
12/03/1991
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
35
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
-I <br />BOOP. S4 F-;�,0400 <br />Director Pinto explained there is a ten -foot separation <br />requirement and vastly different pieces of equipment and materials <br />are needed. Unless it is a new development, it has been proven to <br />be more cost effective to do water and sewer separately. He also <br />noted we do not have anything on the drawing board for sewer at <br />this time. Our primary concern is water, which is difficult enough <br />to handle. <br />Matt Napier reappeared and questioned the fifty dollar <br />deposit. <br />Director Pinto explained the deposit is similar to that <br />charged by the telephone and electric companies. It is held to <br />cover unpaid bills and is refunded after two years with interest. <br />Mr. Napier felt _the 12 -foot easement was not usable property, <br />and thought it should not be included in the square footage <br />calculation of his property. <br />Chairman Bird explained that the easement is for his benefit <br />and is included with the deed to the property. If all easements <br />were deducted from the assessment calculations, the figures would <br />all adjust accordingly and he would be paying the same amount <br />anyway. <br />Fred Mensing, from Roseland, encouraged the Commission to go <br />ahead with the project and suggested it should be done uniformly <br />and have everyone hook up to the system and not give them a choice <br />because he felt it would be more efficient and cost-effective. <br />Tom Aldrich reappeared and wanted clarification on his <br />inference that there was a possibility Emerson Villas could be <br />excluded from this project. <br />Director Pinto explained that staff will always tell residents <br />they have the right to petition, and encourage residents to <br />petition the Board. However, this is a target area with small lots <br />and the Utility Services Department's recommendation is to include <br />Emerson Villas in the project. <br />Chairman Bird added that the comprehensive plan requires that <br />we provide water. We are committed to service these undersized <br />lots. He could not see another time when it would be more feasible <br />or more cost-effective. <br />Mr. Aldrich pointed out that everyone he spoke to did not want <br />the water now and did not indicate there might be a time in future <br />when they would want the water. <br />Chairman Bird wished it were that simple but there are too <br />many other elements as far as health, safety, welfare of the <br />citizens and the mandates of the State Comp Plan. This cannot be <br />done by a majority vote. <br />12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.