09/27/2004 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Regular Council Minutes 9-27-04 Page 18 NAYS: Dr. Parker Motion Carried BOA decision Overturned & Variance Granted A motion to approve tlae final development plan for S.O.M. Court ref. 670 S.O.M. Center Road (temp.) contingent upon Building Department's Receipt of Homeowners' Association Rules and Regulations prior to issuance of building permit (Krenzler property) Mr. Marrelli said the Law Director said he has no issue with the Council approving this tonight contingent upon his review and our review of the homeowners rules, the association rules. I also have a promise from Mr. Cappello that the couple of items they have left from engineering can be ironed out without being held up by Council any further. So we can pass it tonight and legal and engineering issues will be ironed out in the future. Council President Buckholtz asked, any further comments? Mr. Saponaro said my concern is the dedicated public street issue. That was never my understanding that it was going to be a dedicated public street and I just don't know what that means in terms of costs and just planning for the Village because I am unfamiliar with-I know we've talked about a few other streets that are private in the Village-making them public-at least the point was brought out and to my understanding that was costly to do so. I am kind of new to this and want to know what that entails in terms of making another public street and--- Mayor Rinker said first of all, I think the only non-dedicated streets we have are the Washington Extension, and the little section of Beechers Brook (and that is as much a burden to the property owners as anything) and the other would be over in Aintree Park Drive which is really a cobbling together or drives in that area. But I don't think it was-it was more a question of dealing with the deeds of those property owners and it wasn't so much a functional issue of cost to the Village. In this instance, the developer is going to be constructing--it has to meet all specs before we would dedicate it. I think the only real question then is, in the long run is the upkeep of this stretch of road providing snowplowing service, and any other amenities that we provide to our residents, is that particularly onerous. I think that is a legitimate question but I think those would be the issues. Mr. Cappello said regarding those other streets, the reason why a costly price was involved is because they weren't built to municipal standards at the time and in order for them to become dedicated to the Village, we would want them brought up to the current standards. That is what the issues were there. The Judge actually plans to construct the road to current city street standards; not necessarily what was adopted in the PUD ordinance which is a little smaller width-wise. He has decided to construct them to city standards because eventually in history a lot of times these streets-- people in the future want them to become dedicated. Now is the time and why not do it now. Mayor Rinker said I had forgotten that that little section of Beech Hill, as a matter of fact, the problem would be to widen it to get to standard spec would really whack some of the front yards of those properties. It was like a Hobson's choice. And for Aintree Drive as well. Washington Extension, I think, where there is probably enough room to play with; that might not be so problematic, I would suspect.