09/14/1981 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

incremental succession of the Metro Plan. The policies are being worked out by the Elected Officials Committee .and are not yet official. The City is hesitant e to advocate a program in the area that is not acceptable to the County or the City of Springfield. Mr. Lindberg questioned the timing of the resolution and whether other deci- sions should not be made first. Mr. Chenkin replied that the problem was that they were under the directive of the DEQ to sign off on all septic tank permits. The City would be less than consistent with its policy base if they signed off without these conditions. A person simply cannot get a septic tank permit now. The City has attempted in the past to point out to the County that this could lead to increased urbanization without the minimum level of urban services. This is one key area where there is a difference of opinion with the County. Since that original posture, there has been a directive from DEQ that the City shall have the authority and obligation to sign off on waste disposal permits for lots withtnth.e urba.n growth boundary and created after August 1, 1981.' Without that sign-off, there will be no lot splits and no septic tanks. The City would be acting as per DEQ direction, and development will not be stopped. However, it will occur within the context of the Metro Plan. As long as the applicant signs the annexation agreement and the conditions of the resolution are observed, the City would not stand in the way of minor partitions. Mr. Lindberg wanted to convey that the council was operating under a State mandate as opposed to their own initiative, and this action does not alter in any way the City's plans and does not mean that River Road/Santa Clara will be annexed immediately. Mr. Gleason said it was very important for the members of the media in the e audience to understand that this is a permissive act and not one that has negative connotations in regard to individual rights of citizens in the River Road/Santa Clara area. They were not attempting to lock the pincers around their geographic boundary. Mr. Lindberg referred to Section 1, subsection B.1.4.3, of the resolution. He said during approval of a new use or intensification of use on a property, it appeared that the City would be permitting a process as if that area were already annexed. He wondered if legal or administrative irregularities would be created. Mr. Chenkin said it is equivalent to existing standards in the water extension resolution. The County refers zone changes, conditional uses, and land division requests to the City if they are within the urban service boundary. This provides one additional step if the City finds that such a request complies with applicable plans and policies and the resolution, we will sign off on the septic tank request. Ms. Miller explained approval of the policy would permit someone who wants to subdivide to go through a process which was not acceptable to them previously. The resolution may not get used a great deal, but for minor lot splits those who can comply will find a way to gain approval. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 14, 1981 Page 3