Ordinance No. 19961 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

begin at the right-of way, but the project map showed it beginning at the sewer stub. In response, Mr. Lyle noted that the intent was to measure Tax Lot 804 from two points, the street right-af way and the corner at the point of the second connection, and the lines on the project map simply showed which of the two areas had been measured first, since the second area was not allowed to overlap the first area. Mr. Lyle also noted that the map may have been drawn incorrectly if the arc was shown from the sewer stub; the computation of assessable area had correctly used the property boundaries. Mr. Draper then objected to the assessment of Tax Lot 844 far two sanitary sewer connections, since the owners had no plans to develop the property to a higher density. He also noted that the property had been connected to sewer service since I97Z, and was now being charged for two connections even though one already existed. Mr. Lyle answered these points by describing how the previous sewer line was connected via private sewer systems within another property which had been developed by the owner of Tax Lot 8o4. The creation of the subdivisian lots resulted in the lass of the easement for this private sewer line, so the property was now being assessed for two connections. Mr. Lyle added that Tax Lot S44 had never paid for a City sewer assessment, and the City's policy was that each property should be assessed once for sewer service delivery. He added that Tax Lot 84o's owner had desired a second sewer connection to the property because of its potential for development. Mr. Draper asked if the vacation of the private sewer line resulted in disconnection of sewer service, to which Mr. Lyle and Mr. weber answered that they believed that it did, but Mr. Weber added that the easement was abandoned rather than vacated. Mr. Draper asked if the property was connected to a public sewer, and Mr. Lyle answered that the private sewer line eventually did connect with the public sewer system in Hawkins Lane. Mr. Draper then stated his abjection to assessing Tax Lot S44 for a second sewer connection. The property had already paid far one sewer service, and he offered evidence of payment. He continued by pointing out that one of the new sewer connections was actually a replacement of an existing service. In response, Mr. Lyle noted that the property owner had paid for sewer lines, but had not paid for a public sewer connection for the property, and the Eugene Code requires assessment where a property has not previously paid for a public sewer connection. Mr. Draper then asked is the property immediately south of Tax Lot 844 was owned by the City, and Mr. Lyle indicated that it was part of the City's right-of way. Jose h Jas er was the next member of the audience to speak. He stated that he was the p p owner of the Meadowood subdivisian, and was responsible for approximately 65 % of the assessment costs. He stated that he was pleased that the proposed assessments were less than those estimated at the previous hearing, and indicated that he had no objection to the assessments as proposed. He also complimented the City staff for its efforts on the project. The staff thanked Mr. Jasper for his comments, and offered no response. Jon Jasper, the remaining member of the public present, declined to speak, stating that everything of concern to him had been addressed previously. 3