CC 08-31-1987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, \ Minutes of the Regular .nCi! Meeting, August 31, 1987. Page 3 . . . . GLENHILL (Cont'd) Moved by Sather, seconded by Peck, that Council approve Resolution No. 87-50, RESOLUTION ADOPTING AND CONFIRMING ASSESSMENTS FOR GLENHILL ROAD IMPRO\lEMEN'1' NO. P-ST-87-1. Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) RES. 1187-51; EDGEWATER ESTS. IMPROVEMENT Mayor Woodburn opened the Public Hearing at 8:20 p.m. and asked the Clerk Administrator to verify the publication and mailing of the Notice of Hearing on the assessments for Edgewater Improvements. Morrison advised that due notice was published in the New Briahton Bulletin on August 19, and verified that the notice was mailed to affected property owners on August 13, 1987. Engineer Barry Peters explained the total cost of the improvement was $284,182.00 and would be lOO% assessed. Thomas Zappia, Attorney representing Gerald McGuire, stated that his client has no objections to the total assessmants, however, he requests Council consideration of the following proposals. Zappia advised his client proposes a more equitable allocation of assessments on the single family lots; he requests the assessments be spread equally on Lots I thru 6 and Lot 8. Zappia noted that Lot 7 was originally proposed to be split equally to Lots 6 and 8, if the flowage easement was not removed by U.S. Fish & Wildlife, however, he suggests this proposed allocation would be more equitable. Zappia stated that the assessments per lot would be $9,364.30 and would require an addendum to the Development Agreement for Edgewater Estates. Zappia explained that the assessments for the 37-unit apartment building on Lot 14 and the 29 townhomes, were calculated on a per unit basis. The owner is requesting Council consider allocating the assessments as follows: dividing the total assessment of $97,215.92 by 30 units (the apartment complex being one unit and the townhomes being 29 units) for a per units assessment cost of $6,573.86. Zappia advised the primary reason for the request relates to the financing for the apartment complex, however, he also noted that all the property is owned by McGuire and he is not opposing the total assessment figures. He further explained that the purpose of Chapter 429 is to insure fair and equitable distribution of assessments; based on effiCiency of service and difference in size of townhouse units versus apartment units it was his opinion this is a more equitable distribution. Zappia also explained that paragraph 5 C of the development agreement guaranteed payment of assessments and that McGuire would offer his personal assurance that there is more equity in the apartment complex than the total assessment figure as further guarantee. George Winiecki, 4471 Highway 10, questioned who had responsibility for replacing property stakes after construction and if the clean-up process is completed. He advised that he was assessed for one-third of the total assessment for this project. Barry Peters advised that there were two projects done in the area and he would have to check which contractor removed the stakes; he will advise Winiecki. Peters also explained that the final clean-up is not completed for the project. After determining there were no additional comments or questions, the public hearing was closed at 8:39 p.m. Attorney Robert Plunkett explained that Chapter 429 requires Council set, as best it can, the assessment allocations roughly approximate.to benefit of each property. It was Plunkett's opinion that the proposal to consider the apartments as one unit and the townhomes as 29 units would not be a roughly approximate equal benefit; he expressed concern of ability to sustain this proposed allocation of assessment in a court of law. Plunkett further stated that he had no concerns relative to the proposed allocation of assessments on the single family lots. Council question if the property owners of the townhouse units would have the right to appeal that the assessments are disproportionate if Zappia's proposal were approved. Plunkett advised that situation could arise; he advised a more ideal posture for the Village would be a rough comparison of size of parcel if such an appeal were raised and the apartment complex appears to be a larger parcel with greater use of roadway and more traffic.