09/16/1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• Bob Fenwick and Evan Wythe, members of the Utility and Information Systems Committee, commented on the impact of such agreements. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Casey, seconded by Finn and passed unanimously to waive further reading and introduce an ordinance enabling the Town to provide for reimbursement agreements for sewer main extensions in the public right of way with the extension of the reimbursement agreements to ten years from five. 11.1 Report on Development Fees (this item is continued to the 10/21/99 Council Meeting) 6. NEW BUSINESS 6.1 Lands of LeFevre, Eshner Court and Silent Hills Lane a.) Request for a Lot Line Adjustment b) Request.to relocate path to east side of Eshner Court Tom LeFevre, applicant, addressed the lot line adjustment requests. He noted that he personally was most interested in lot#2 which was one of the reasons for the request. In addition,this was not an attempt to create additional development area. In fact it reduced it. The conservation easements would also be retained. On the issue of whether they were adjacent, he noted that Lots 2 and 4 touched at the top of Eshner Court. Concerning the path,they were requesting the Town to allow the roadside path to be relocated to the east side of Eshner Court to avoid some • construction complications on the west side near Altamont Road. Shelley LeFevre, applicant, further explained the neighbor's gate and trellis as well as the utility pole was in the path right of way. Relocating the path would be a much better alternative. Also since it was the neighbors' gate and trellis in the right of way she did not understand why they should be required to incur the cost of engineering their path to go around them. Rebecca Chan, 27150 Julietta Lane, commented that she agreed with the path relocation but suggested that it start past her gate and trellis. She also asked Mr. LeFevre to remove concrete slabs that were piled near her property. Mrs. Chan further noted a utility pole was in her view and questioned whether or not it would be removed. Les Earnest, member of the Pathways Parks and Recreation Committee, noted that this path location was different than the one reviewed by the Planning Commission or the Pathways Parks and Recreation Committee. He stated the opinion that the west side was the preferred side for the path. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Johnson, seconded by Casey and passed unanimously to deny the request to relocate the pathway to the east side of Eshner Court and to keep it on the west side beginning past the utility box. Staff referred to the lot line adjustment request and noted that there were actually two. The Planning Commission had recommended approval of the proposed lot line adjustment between Lot 4 of the Eshner Court parcel map and Parcel l of the Silent Hills Lane parcel map. The Commission recommended denial of the lot line adjustment between Lots 2 and 4 of the Eshner Court parcel map. The Commission based this denial on the awkward configuration of the connection • September 16, 1999 Regular City Council Meeting 3