7/27/1993 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

s � � must be constructed to service other sections of the urban service area. It is unfair to install lines down these roads and deny service to property on one side because it is outside the urban service area. Director Pinto stated that the Utilities Department must know the size and location of the urban service area in order to do the engineering and to design and size the lines. He confirmed that the utility lines under discussion are not assessable. He went on to explain that public utilities deal with certificated areas of service, and if property is within 1500 feet of the boundary of that certificated area, that public utility is required to provide service to that property. Likewise, if property owners outside of our urban service area want service, we should be able to accommodate them. Dr. Barkett realized all that, but he questioned the necessity of changing the land use designation because a change in land use invites development. Director Keating pointed out that it is not necessary to change the land use designations because there are alternatives. Michael Zeigler, 3375 12th Street, representing property owners in Section 35 on the map, stated that he personally was confused and was concerned that the Board also was confused. He listed the three entities involved in the proposed changes: the County Planning Department with their flexible Land Use Plan of 2010; the County Utilities Department with the Brown and Caldwell master utility plan, which could be considered a fixed plan; and the county residents who have no comprehensive plan, no consensus about the prospects for the year 2010 and very little understanding of that 2010 plan. Mr. Zeigler pointed out that staff presented recommendations at the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting in April, and at each succeeding meeting staff's recommendation was modified and more alternatives were added. He felt that we all need more time to discuss and comprehend the alternatives after we hear the presentations from everyone involved. We have heard the opinions of residents for and against development, but we have not heard what other counties have done and the consequences of their actions. The proposed change is directed at 2280 or 3200 acres, but the entire county will be affected by this change. Mr. Zeigler also believed we do not understand enough about the possible consequences of the proposed change to make a decision, whether it is a policy requirement, redesignation requirement or exception of a particular area or segment of the county. We need to understand what the implications will be regarding the cost and who will bear the assessments. Mr. Zeigler agreed with the suggestion that long - 21 JUL -271993 BOOK 90 PACE