Laserfiche WebLink
REGULAR MEETING <br />JULY 5, 1988 <br />Mr. Leszczynski inquired of Mr. Bhagavan whether he researched <br />the development of the area and whether the development was <br />denied not only because of lack of sewer and water connections <br />but because of ground water problems. Mr. Bhagavan stated that <br />the matter would have to go before the Soil Review Committee if <br />it proceeds but they did receive permission to go ahead should <br />this property revert to the County. Mr. Leszczynski inquired if <br />Area Plan Commission approval was received and informed Mr. <br />Bhagavan that they could not get a formal opinion from the Area <br />Plan Commission until this matter is resolved. Mr. Bhagavan <br />stated that they have been in contact with the Area Plan <br />Commission and have been advised that if the property reverts to <br />the County the development can proceed. <br />Mr. Leszczynski stated that the City`s concerns are if this <br />property is annexed whether the property loses the benefits of <br />the City or will they still be provided to the property without <br />tax benefits to the City. He stated that the road will continue <br />to be maintained, police and fire service will be provided and <br />snow removal will be performed. In those cases, the property <br />will be treated as though it were still in the City. Ms. <br />Humphreys added that it will be presumed that it is in the City. <br />Mr. Bhagavan stated that the County is trying to do maintenance <br />work on Linden Road and the disannexation would put the whole <br />road in the City. Mr. Leszczynski advised Mr. Bhagavan that that <br />was incorrect. According to the legal description, which goes to <br />the center line, the east one-half of the road would still remain <br />in the City. Mr. Bhagavan asked what would happen if the legal <br />description was changed. He was advised that the Petitioner does <br />not own the road and therefore it cannot be changed. <br />Ms. Humphreys asked Mr. Bhagavan if he had some type of diagram <br />of the area which he presented to the Board. <br />Mr. Knepp stated that if the City is to put in sewer and water <br />lines, the cost would be incurred to each lot. Mr. Leszczynski <br />stated that the developer could put in the line sized to service <br />this property but apparently at this time is not desirous of <br />paying the costs of the installation. <br />Mr. Michael P. Meeks, Director, Division of Engineering and Mr. <br />Bhagavan had a discussion regarding the size of the proposed <br />lots, the subdivision requirements for the size of lots with <br />septic tanks and the high water table in the area. <br />There being no one else present wishing to speak either for or <br />against the Petition for Disannexation, upon a motion made by Mr. <br />Leszczynski, seconded by Ms. Humphreys and carried, the Public <br />Hearing on the matter was closed. <br />Ms. Humphreys stated that with all due respect to the facts as <br />they have been presented, she would like to make a motion that <br />the Petition for Disannexation be denied as City services will <br />continue to be provided in the area without taxation for those <br />services. Mr. Leszczynski seconded the motion and it carried, <br />and the Petition for Disannexation as submitted was denied. <br />Mr. Leszczynski continued to field questions from the news media <br />regarding this matter. He reiterated that if annexed the eastern <br />half of Gertrude Street would remain in the City. <br />APPROVE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADDENDUM <br />The following Community Development Addendum was presented to the <br />Board for approval: <br />1 <br />