Laserfiche WebLink
Griffiths: <br /> <br />Howard: <br /> <br />Beaton: <br /> <br />neighbors and the Helms' claim is that they would <br />annex if it was imposed upon the neighbors. Because <br />we are giving service already, could we in fact impose <br />further conditions on their neighbors. <br /> <br />In my opinion we could not. I would just point out that <br />from the minutes of the 1984 meeting it appears that <br />some of the property owners who were seeking taps at <br />that time had requested annexation of their property to <br />the City of Louisville and the Council had denied that <br />annexation because at that time the property was <br />outside of the City's urban service area. They then <br />came to the City and said "Since you won't annex us <br />would you please provide us the outside water taps?" <br />That is what is reflected in the minutes of the meeting <br />where Council approved the three taps. We have a <br />slightly different situation here because as I understand <br />from the Community Development Director in 1988 the <br />Helms property was brought into the City's urban <br />service area, so that fact has somewhat changed since <br />1984. I don't see how you can now force those who <br />have purchased a tap to annex to the City except in the <br />very limited circumstance that the City entirely <br />surrounds them in the future. <br /> <br />This situation is not exactly the same for the neighbors <br />and the Helms'; a) we cannot impose upon the <br />neighbors the same requirements that we would <br />normally do now days; b) the original problem was that <br />because it was outside of our planning area we did not <br />wish to annex then, but now the City does wish to <br />annex. There are two significant changes in <br />circumstances; we have zoning that would guarantee <br />their current state of well being; we cannot force their <br />neighbors to annex. I guess we're back to the situation <br />of the Helms' wanting the water tap now, under new <br />situations. The City, at least myself and Councilman <br />Sackett wish to impose upon the Helms' like we have <br />imposed on other groups that have come recently to the <br />Council for annexation. I don't see anything that <br />changes that need. <br /> <br />Councilmember Howard, I guess the crux of the issue is <br />whether the Council would agree that in 1984 under the <br /> <br />10 <br /> <br /> <br />