03/15/1954 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mayor Hodgson read a letter from the Planning and Zoning Commission, which expressed a•conditional approval of the plat submitted by the Associated Land and Development Company"of the Ridgebury Development in view of the fact that the plat had been approved by the former Planning and Zoning Commission on May 15, 1950. The condition of the approval was that no building permits be issued on the lots shown as lots numbered thirty-one (31) through and including lot number .forty one (1~1) as shown on the plat of the Associated Land and Development Company entitled Ridgebury Development approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Village of Mayfield .on May-15, 1950., until it has been further decided by the Flann3.ng and Zoning Commission of~the Village of Mayfield where to re-locate the roadway outlets within a period not to exceed one year from the date of its approval. by Council. Mr. H; G. .Miller, President of the Associated Land & Development Company, showed a rendering of Ridgebury Development and pointed-out the position of the.lots numbered thirty-one (~l) through and including lot number (1i1) referred to"above... Mr. Oatess asked Mr. Miller what provisions were to be made for sewage disposal. Mr. Miller stated that septic tanks were to be used for sanitary' sewage, and storm"sewers"were to be used for drainage of the area. Mr. ~'~hiting asked if the requirements of Ordinance No. 259 had been followed as a condition precedent to the approval of the plat by the Planning and Zoning Commission axed emphasized these various require- ments, showing specifically the particu7.ar utility of the requirement that a bond be furnished to insure faithful completion of the project by the building contractor. Mr. Fde].man explained that, if the plat were accepted by Council at this time, it would be accepted for record only, which acceptance did not constitute an acceptance of the streets within the development. " IVh° . UVhiting asked why a. bond should not ~ be required in any event. ~•. Edelman explained that the bond was only for dedication of the streets. Mzo. Ede]snan also explained that acceptance of the plat for record and the dedication of the streets are two separate and distinct propositions. • Mr, ~!Thiting expressed lv.s objection to the approval' the plat without meeting the requirement of furnis hang a bond to insure the proper surfacing of the.. streets• within the Ri,dgebury Development. Mr. ti~hiting also stated"that, inasmuch as Ordinance No. 259 was an Ordinance of the Vi7elage of Mayfield and should govern the conduct of the Village of Mayfield in its official capacity, the requirements of this Ordinance should be followed in any official action taken by the Village of Mayfield, ~.