Laserfiche WebLink
� ORONO COUNCIL MEETIDIG HELD JANUARY 24, 1977 Page 7 <br /> f Parcel 1510 was assessed: SIDV�ELL SEL�lER STATUS <br /> �teral footage charge @ $7. 80/fte = $1,560.00 1375 Park Drive <br /> he lateral charge must be based on a 200 ' line. ) (Continued) <br /> If we do approve the division to provide the <br /> � Sidwells with a second building site, I would <br /> � recommend we assess and collect a secon� unit <br /> cha�ge of $1,270.00 and connection charge of <br /> � $225. 00. <br /> � January 19, 1977 <br /> � Called T�irs, Sidwell at 3e 15 P.Pg. informed her of <br /> assessment status, Explained to her that if <br /> �Council did approve the second building site, <br /> �another unit and connection charge would have to <br /> be Paid before signatures are on resolution <br /> � ($1,270 + $225 = $1,495 total charge due) . <br /> �She expressed some concern but said she would <br /> inform her husband. I told her the see�er status <br /> �subject would be brought to Council at the next <br /> �meeting, January 24, 1977. <br /> �Did a little more checking of records. <br /> T am attaching copies of minutes of public <br /> aring held June 8, 1976 and Sidwell sub- <br /> division application made back in 1974. Both <br /> these documents indicate that claim was made that <br /> �two sewer assessments were levied on propertye <br /> �1974 application definitely states two assessments <br /> �and the June 8, 1976 minutes show that this was <br /> mentioned during the public hearing. <br /> � <br /> i�iayor Brad Van Nest commented that the two lots <br /> 'are substandard in area and width. The City made <br /> �the decision to approve the subdivision based <br /> upon two sewer units being assessed. It appears <br /> �tliat the facts as presented were in erroro P4ayor <br /> Van Pdest continued by stating that City policy has <br /> �been not to approve substandard lots. It appears <br /> the applicant signed the original application <br /> sta�ing that there were two assessable sewer units <br /> when, in fact at that time, there was only one unit <br /> �assessed> Since the resolution has not been signed <br /> �nd park dedication fees have not been paid, the <br /> Council should move to reconsider the previous <br /> �lecision to approve the subdivision. <br /> ?aurus moved, Massengale seconded, to reconsider RF;CO21SIDER I�OTIO"T <br /> motion for the subdivision of James Sid�vell, <br /> 75 Park Drive. i4otion, Ayes (5) - I1ays (0) , (Continued) <br /> � <br /> � <br />