Minutes 09/12/1967 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

) ,i. (..~ .. 11 J TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 12. 1967 at that time the development of these streets was not subject to the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance but was subject to policies in effect covering street improvements and utility exten- sions along streets dedicated prior to the enacement of the Land Subdivision Ordinance. Council, however, permitted Mr. Beckner to develop a part of this subdivision in 1957 in accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance, related primarily to that section of the ordinance pertaining to street and utility improvements. The remaining section of Stonewall Court which Mr. Beckner now proposes to open is not actually subject to the improvement pro- visions of the Subdivision Ordinance but should be developed according to the Water and Sewer Extension Ordinance, since the dedication of this street came about prior to the adoption of present subdivision regulations. Therefore, it seems to me that if Mr. Beckner wishes to develop this street according to the terms of the Subdivision Ordinance, then certainly Mr. Beckner should be required to conform to all of the requirements of the ordinance related to improvements, including the most recent amendment involving paving. I do not believe that Mr. Beckner has been delayed in any manner in opening this street and (I do believe) the reason he attempted to accelerate the development of this street was to avoid the Developer's responsibility concerning paving as provided for in the recent Ordinance Amendment. 3. Mr. Williams and Mr. Fussell were in the process of subdividing and developing Banks Road Extension prior to the adoption of the amend- ment of the Subdivision Ordinance related to paving and had gone through pre-application procedure for the development of this property and had progressed to the extent of obtaining preliminary approval from the Planning Commission of the subdivision on March 7, 1967. In consideration of the fact that these people had contemplated and planned their development based upon the require- ments of the Subdivision Ordinance in effect at that time and had secured preliminary approval of their subdivision prior to the August 8, 1967 amendment, I would suggest that they be allowed to perform work in this subdivision according to the ordinance prior to the amendment. 4. Section III of the Subdivision Ordinance requires the Land Developer to go through certain pre-application procedures before securing approval of a subdivision. About one month prior to the adoption of the recent amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance, Mr. J. T. Weaver, acting in accordance with the requirements of the Subdivision 8rdinance, met with several of us here in City Hall concerning the development of a street which (when completed) would extend from Liberty Street to Oneida Street, a part of which would be in the County and a part in the City. I believe that about 700 feet would be located within the City and subject to the terms of the Sub- division Ordinance pertaining to improvements, etc. During our discussion with him the question came up as to whether his subdivision would be subject to any amendments of the ordinance as may be made before the completion of his development and we