Loading...
08-26-1969 Recessed Meeting e e MINUTES f4~ xu. 607 RECESSED MEETING Mayor Don E. Smith called the Recessed Meeting to order at 7:49 P.M. on Tuesday. August 26. 1969 with all members pres.nt. Other officials present were: City Manager Johnson. City Clerk Carroll. City Controller Fleming. City Attorney Langley and Chief of Police Tynda1. Representatives of Michaels Engineering Company were also present. Property owners appearing before the Council with regards sewer assessments against their property were as follows: REUBEN JAMISON. owner of property which fronts 150 feet on DeSoto Street and 300 feet on B10xam Avenue inqiired of Council if he would be assessed footage on the short side. Mr.Jamison was advised that the assessments were made on a lot basis rather than a parcel basis and therefore he was being assessed for 150 feet on each street. It was consensus of Council that this assessment stand. MRS. C. W. MAYERS. President of the Clermont Womans C1ub.inquired of Council the reason for assessing the Womans Club when the property is owned by the City of Clermont. Mayor Smtt~ advised Mrs. Mayers there would be no assessments on city owned property under lease. WILLIAM BOYD stated to Council that he thought it unfair to assess properties owned by him that he could not obtai~ a building permit for due to Zoning. The property is described as Lots 4-5-16-17-18 and Lots 10-11 and 12 leiS the N 75 feet. all in City Block 99 and north of State Road 50. and. Lot 3 in Block 9 of Sunnyside Unit. Mayor Smith advised that it was agreement of Council that no properties would be assessed on which building permits could not be obtained. Mr. Boyd stated to the Council that he had received assessment notices on Lots 1 and 2 of Point Place Subdivision which fronted on Nita Place. a private drive. and not a dedicated.pub1ic street. Tom Sawyer of Michaels Engineering Company advised that they were not aware at the. time of assessing that Nita Place was a private drive. City Attorney Langley advised Mr. Boyd that servicing these lots with the sewer system would be prohibited inasmuch as they do not have access to a dedicated public street. Mr. Boyd further stated to the Council that he had re- ceived assessment notices of property owned by him in Herring Hooks Estates which was being assessed on both sides of the street. and that he could not obtain a building permit for that property on the lake side. Mayor Smith adtised that the agreement of Council to not assess properties on which building permits could not be obtained would be effective in this instance on the lake side property. WILLIAM GROSS submitted a survey of property owned by him in Tract 62 and which had been assessed for 428 feet and which he thought to be in error. Upon Checking by the Engineers. there had been an error made in the amount of street right-o-way and it was consensus of Council that this assessment be changed to 418 feet. Mr. Gross inquired of Council many questions of a general nature regarding policies of Council with regards the proposed sewer system construction and also their policy for sewer service in the future to properties excluded from the present system plans. . . MINUTES N~ dIIt 608 FLORENCE POOL inquired of Council as to charges to be made with regards the sewer system on vacant properties and she was advised that it would be the footage assessment only. Miss Pool protested the sewer assessments made on Lots 56 thru 64 and Lots 73 thru 78 in Indian Hills Subdivision and owned by Inland Groves Corporation as this is undeveloped property and there is no need for sewerage system service. Miss Pool was advised that assessments on this pro- perty had already been deleted as it had been determined that the sewer lines would not now be extended to service them. It was con- sensus of Council that all other assessments on properties owned by Inland Groves Corporation would stand. JOHN DORMER appeared before Council and protested assessments made on property owned by him described as Lots 12 thru 16 in City Block 31 though he only had one residence with 1~ baths located there. Mr.Dormer was advised that his assessments were made on a lot basis. the same as throughout the City. with Lots 12. 14 and 16 facing on Magnolia Street and Lots 13 and 15 facing on Seminole Street. It was consensus of Council that the assessments stand. EUNICE DARITY appeared before Council and advised she held a deed on property described as Lots 1 thru 4 and Lot 17 in City Block 88 and had received the notice of sewer assessment against same. but didn1t think it fair that she be sent the assessment inasmuch as several other persons claimed ownership of this same property. She was advised by Mayor Smith that the assessments were made against the property and not against individuals. It was consensus of Council that the assess- ment stand. ROSE BOYD appeared before Council and protested the assessment of her property descrSbed as Lot 10 in Point Place Subdivision which is a 50 foot lot but assessed for 91~ feet. The Engineers advised Miss Boyd that inasmuch as her lot was an irregular shaped lot with the rear being greater in width than the front the property was therefore assessed on a mean average/basis. It was consensus of Council that the assessment stand. Mayor Smith inquired if there be anyone present who desired to appear before the Council regarding questions on the sewer assessments. and there were none. Written requests of property owners regarding sewer assessments were considered by the Council at this time as follows: GUS REIS. owner of property described as Tracts 49A and 49B protested the sewage assessment against this property as he felt such system would be of no benefit as his property was all in citrus groves. It was consensus of Council that the assessment stand. GERALD McLEAN requested consideration from the Council with regards being assessed on the short side. his property described as the East 2/3 of Lots l-2 and 3 in Block 8 of Sunset Heights. such property being located on the corner of Cedar and Second Streets. Mr.Sawyer advised that Mr. McLean was being assessed on the short side of his corner lot inasmuch as Lot 1. the corner lot. was assessed on the 50 foot side rather than the 100 foot side. It was consensus of Council that the assessment stand. . . MINUTES N~ xxIIik 609 WILLIE MAE RHODES protested the assessment against property owned by her described as the W 33 feet of the SW corner of Lot 6 in Block N as it was not large enough on which to build. It was consensus of Council that adjoining property could be purchased. or. this parcel of property sold to the adjoining property owners and would then be of sufficient size on which to build and therefore the assessment would stand. FRED WOLFE protested the assessment on Lot 29 of Unit 1 in Shady Nook Subdivision as it had been assessed for 80.05 foot frontage. but the actual frontage was 55.1 feet. The Engineers advised this was based on a mean average inasmuch as the lot is of irregular shape. It was consensus of Council that the assessment stand. Mr. Wolfe protested the assessment on Lots 106 and 107 of Clermont Heights as there was no actual frontage to this property. The Engineers advised this assessment was made on an availability basis of the sewer line. and it was consensus of Council that the assessment stand. Mr. Wolfe protested the assessment on Lots 15. 17 and 19 in City Block 85 as there was no actual front footage and again the Engineers advised this assessment was made on availability basis and it was CDnsensus of Council that the assessment stand. Mr. Wolfe protested the assessment on Lots 192 thru 198 in Clermont Heights as there was no actual frontage. The Engineers advised that this assessment had already been deleted insasmuch as Scott Street had been closed in this area. Mr. Wolfe protested the assessment on Lots 1.2.3 and 22 in Block 119 of Johnson1s Replat as the actual frontage was 162.5 feet instead of 199.5 feet as notified. The Engineers advised that this property being of irregular shape had been assessed on a mean average. and it was consensus of Council that the assessment stand. Mr. Wolfe protested the assessment on Lots 1 thru 13 in Block 115 of Johnson1s Rep1at as the actual footage is 618.75 feet instead of 658.75 feet as notified. The Engineers advised that this was in error as a 40 foot easement to the City of Clermont had not been deducted. but that it had already been corrected to read as 618.75 feet. Mr. Wolfe protested the assessment on Lots 9 and 10 in City Block 85. The Engineers advised that the assessment on Lot 9 had already been deleted inasmuch as the sewer line would not extend that far. but that Lot 10 was being assessed for frontage on Chestnut Street. and it was consensus of Council that this assessment stand. HELEN BROWN WILKINS protested the assessment on her property described as the E 40 feet of Lot 16 and Lots 14 and 15 in City Block 76. The Engineers advised there had been an error in the footage assessed and the correction made to read as assessment for 40 feet on DeSoto Street and assessment for 110 f'et on 7th Street. R. W. TILDEN protested his assessment being made on a mean average rather than actual front footage. The Engineers advised this property being of irregular shape with the rear being of greater width than the front was assessed as all other irregular shaped properties in the City had been assessed. and it was consensus of Council that the assessment stand. . . MINUTES N~ xII* 610 IRVING F. MORSE protested the assessment on his property based on 105 feet when it actually was 100 feet. The Engineers advised that this footage was in error and had already been corrected. STELLA LINDEMANN protested the assessment on property owned by her in Block BB. It was consensus of Council that the assessment made on the southern end extension of Lot 21 in Alta Vista of 45 feet.. stand. but that the assessment of 80 feet of property in B"lock BB whi ch has no access to a street be deleted. JAMES O. PORTER protested the assessment on property located in Block BB which is a 45 foot extension on the southern end of his property located on Lot 15 in Alta Vista. It was consensus of Council that the assessment stand. Letters from the following listed persons were submitted to the Council wherein they were opposed to the construction of a sanitary sewer system in Clermont: Mrs. Sadie Tillis Mrs. Rudolph L. Johnson Mrs. Jennie Wheater Mrs. Adrian L. Hayes Mayor Smith advised that he had called a Special Meeting of the City Council for Tuesday. September 2. 1969 at 7:30 P.M. Mr. A.Ross Evans Mrs. S. R. Livesay Mrs. Jane Dingess Mrs. Mildred K. Styan Mrs. Glennie Barfoot Miss Dorothy Rohl Mayor Smith recessed this meeting until Tuesday. September 9. 1969 following the Regular Council Meeting. ~ITf~