12/08/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

water source. The county, he added, should do some planning there before developing a ~jor water source for that area - to date there is no refinement plan for the area, hut rather a leapfrog urban sprawl project. e Vote was taken on the motion as stated which carried unanimously. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Hamel that the City further transmit to EWEB its conviction that extension of water into the Shade Oaks subdivision constitutes a violation of the principles of the 1990 Plan which are designed to limit urban sprawl. Mr. Williams is disturbed abo~t having to vote on that motion at this time since he received backup materials only at the beginning of this meeting. Mr. Keller concurred, saying maybe there is a responsibility Council is not aware of. To refuse to do anything in the interest of those citizens is worrisome, Mr. Keller added. Mrs. Beal commented that, though agreeing with Mr. Keller on the humanitarian issue, she feels that, when considering the possible welfare of ten families against the principles worked on for so long in development of the 1990 Plan, and against possible future costs to a great many residents within the City, there seems to be no question that extension should not be supported. A suggestion was made to schedule further discussion for the December 10 Committee meeting since EWEB would not be making a decision before then. Mr. Henry reminded Council that people from the Shade Oaks subdivision,would undoubtedly appear at that Wednesday meeting. e Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Williams to postpone further discussion Comm to the December 10 Committee meeting. 12/3/75 Aprpove Sally Weston, 2595 Highland Drive, asked if Council is foreclosing getting together to further ponder a writ of review. She added it would seem Council is placing into the laps of EWEB the very problem the Boundary Commission wrestled with and it seems EWEB should not be in the position of deciding on land use matters. Mr. Murray said that, if someone in reading the material decided to pursue the possibility of a writ of review, a special Council meeting could be called before the'December 8 meeting. Mr. Long pointed out that, if a writ of review was desired, he should be authorized to proceed by December 4 or 5, as it takes some time to put those kinds of things together. A question was raised as to whether a motion could be made to proceed with a writ of review since there is a motion on the floor to postpone. That motion, however, would postpone the discussion of a stronger statement to EWEB ~ut would not preclude consideration of a writ of review. Vote was taken on the motion to postpone which carried, all council members present voting aye except Mrs. Beal and Mr. Murray voting no. e Mr. Haws moved seconded by Mrs. Shirey to authorize staff to initiate writ of review proceedings. Motion failed, Mr. Haws voting aye and Council members Murray, Keller, williams, Beal, Hamel and Shirey voting no. (A.o 12/8/75,- 9