Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ORDINANCE NO. 623 <br />PUBLIC HEARING <br />CONTINUED <br /> <br />January 16, 1979 <br />Minutes - page 21 <br /> <br />Council decides that; but the statement was, could <br />come into for rezoning and I think that is an <br />accurate statement. <br /> <br />Another statement that was made was the delayed <br />development planning; that we made provision for <br />this in other areas. <br /> <br />That is a very true statement. We have two kind <br />of annexation agreements that we use as general <br />guides. One is for development; when that happens <br />the annexation impact statement the fees have to <br />paid, etc. In this case there was no immediate <br />development anticipated and therefore the delay <br />guide was used which basically provides for the <br />annexation impact statement and so forth to be <br />completed at a later date. In connection with <br />that the statement was made that you can't give <br />away your water rights and expect to be agricultural <br />The annexation agreement provides for annexors <br />agrees that all water rights which have historically <br />served the subject territory shall be assigned to <br />City as stated in exhibit B. City shall make any <br />water obtained through said assignment which is <br />not required for cemetery irrigation available for <br />agricultural use on subject territory until such <br />agricultural use ceases. So in fact, while the <br />annexor was by this agreement required to dedicate <br />or deed the rights to the City, which I don't be- <br />lieve has been done, the City agreed to allow it <br />to remain with the land for agricultural purposes. <br />So I think the statement, give away your water <br />rights, you can't expect to do that and say <br />agricultural was unfounded. <br /> <br />The statement was made that we were not setting <br />a precedent, or that the Council would not be <br />setting a precedent by granting this rezoning. <br />I disagree with that, I believe that we would <br />be because we would be violating our comprehensive <br />plan; we would be infringing on the most sensitive <br />urban buffer green belt that is provided for in that <br />plan and then other areas immediately north of this, <br />I think that logically expect to be annexed to the <br />City and developed as well. <br />The two other comments which I must address was that, <br />well let me limit that to one; the statement was <br />made that open space is being changed every day in <br />Louisville, and I would like for someone to point <br />