My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11/02/1964
LOSALTOSHILLS
>
City Clerk
>
City Council Minutes
>
1964
>
11/02/1964
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/19/2016 11:42:38 AM
Creation date
8/14/2015 3:57:23 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Minutes
Date
1964-11-02
Description
Regular Meeting Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
OTHER BUSINESS: <br />1. Councilman Bowler, who attended the October 26th Flashing <br />\. Commission meeting, reported on the results of the discussion <br />regarding the purposes and objectives of Ordinance No. 99• <br />Three points were raised by the Planning Commission; <br />1) Whether the very real expenditures of surveying <br />land was justifiable. <br />The Planning Commission realized there were map <br />errors during an earlier period, but felt the <br />Ordinance placed a burden on a great number of <br />people when only a few surveys were incorrect. It <br />was the Planning Commission's opinion that there <br />should be a procedure, where there appeared to be a <br />creditable map, a route that did not involve com- <br />plete subdivision treatment. <br />It was discussed by the Council "What appears to be a good <br />map is difficult to define and no engineer will say what <br />appears to be a good map unless he surveys the ground. <br />Survey requirements of other localities were discussed: <br />_ Some Cities have no requirements, but responsi- <br />bility for accuracy is on the owner <br />�-' Some require a survey with the issuance of <br />every building permit <br />Some, responsibility of the Building Inspector. <br />It was discussed that contractors have points on the ground <br />by which .they locate the house on the lot (although it was <br />pointed out it is a calculated risk and not a 100% situation). <br />If accuracy is not questioned in the contractor's placement <br />of the house, why is it questioned on a lot that comes under <br />Ordinance No. 99? The City Manager explained accuracy is <br />not the only reason for this ordinance, but that many surveys, <br />prior to the incorporation of the Town, were by recorded metes <br />and bounds and that record of surveys were made without <br />dedications, etc., these situations being corrected by <br />Ordinance No. 99• <br />Discussion continued that if the iron markers exist so that <br />the setbacks can be determined, that the requirements of <br />Ordinance No. 99 might be waived. On the other hand, it was <br />discussed - who makes the decision that these are the proper <br />points? The Council did not believe that it is up to the <br />Staff or that it was good for an owner to sign an affidavit <br />attesting to its accuracy, but that the civil engineer was <br />the correct source. If the burden is too great to decide, <br />put the burden on the Council who can then outweigh the cost. <br />`v -3- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.