My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
6/22/1993
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1993
>
6/22/1993
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:53 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 1:10:06 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
06/22/1993
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
83
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
JUN 22 1993 <br />BOOK 89 PA,UE 9-14 -7 <br />Jim Wilson, local attorney, 1601 20th Street, came before the <br />Board representing Bob Havlin who is a resident of Cherry Lane. <br />Mr. Wilson also represented the residents of Cherry Lane who signed <br />the petition. He argued that this project is a result of County <br />staff following the Comp Plan without considering the wishes of the <br />residents. He argued that while it may be necessary at some future <br />time to build water lines to this area, it is premature right now. <br />The residents are opposed to the water expansion because they <br />cannot afford it and do not need it because their parcels are <br />bigger than most platted subdivisions. There is no health hazard <br />necessitating the water line. Mr. Wilson reported that staff <br />argued that the water line is mandated by the State, but there is <br />nothing in the Comprehensive Plan that states that a water line <br />must be placed down Cherry Lane at this time. The County is <br />required to provide water to 30 percent of the residential units <br />-within the urban service area having undersized lots. Cherry Lane <br />is not in that category. Mr. Wilson pointed out that staff is <br />following policy which was created by staff, and the residents feel <br />it is bad policy. He urged the Board to look at the policy and if <br />it is bad, change it. He noted that 90 percent of the 47 <br />residences in the Cherry Lane area are opposed to this project. <br />since it is not required by the Comp Plan, Cherry Lane should be <br />excluded from this project. <br />County Attorney Charles Vitunac reminded the Board that the <br />Comp Plan requires that the whole urban service area shall be <br />served with water in due time. Since Cherry Lane is within the <br />urban service area and since it is connected physically with areas <br />that are substandard sized lots, it was convenient to include it in <br />this project. <br />Commissioner Eggert emphasized that the decisions regarding <br />water service expansion were made by the Board, not staff. There <br />were a number of public hearings and advertisements, and she <br />understands why people do not see the urgency, but the opportunity <br />was available for people to become informed. <br />Mr. Wilson agreed that the Cherry Lane area lies between <br />Lateral A and Kings Highway and is within the urban service area, <br />but he pointed out that it is not necessary to pass through Cherry <br />Lane to serve the other subdivisions with smaller lots. There are <br />other areas that are in more critical stages and they should be <br />served first. Water service for Cherry Lane can be addressed at <br />some future time. <br />50 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.