Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Lum said it is possible, but there are costs associated with every turnout. He <br />could provide those costs to Mr. Goodwin. There is also the question of whether Zone <br />7 would approve connection for a single residence. <br /> <br /> Mr. Goodwin indicated it was his understanding that the City would buy the water <br />from Zone 7 and he would buy the water from the City. He had been given an informal <br />quote of $25,000 a year ago. <br /> <br /> There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr did not believe it was reasonable for property owners to annex to the <br />City and have fewer rights than they had in the County. What staff has proposed in this <br />report is a reasonable compromise. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver asked if the South Sycamore Area were annexed, could these same <br />development guidelines apply to that area. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swirl did not believe so, because the area is already experiencing serious <br />difficulties with well water and septic tanks and the County Department of Health has put <br />a moratorium on septic tanks in the area. The City does have a core infrastructure in the <br />road to be able to extend in the area to connect these properties. The other key issue in <br />the South Sycamore Area is land use regulations (the keeping of farm animals) and that <br />is an issue that has always been discussed in conjunction with annexation. There would <br />have to be a comprehensive review of development standards for the area. <br /> <br /> It was Mr. Tarver's understanding that if a property annexed it must connect to <br />City water and sewer. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swirl clarified there are two issues involved. The first is there are many <br />property owners in the South Sycamore area who want to build and will need water; the <br />second issue is the need for fire hydrants to maintain the overall insurance rating for the <br />City. <br /> <br />03/21/95 <br /> - 13- <br /> <br /> <br />