My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01141985 Regular Meeting
San-Marcos
>
City Clerk
>
01 City Council Minutes
>
1980 s
>
1985
>
01141985 Regular Meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/27/2009 4:52:08 PM
Creation date
12/2/2003 4:53:14 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
City Clerk - Document
Minutes
City Clerk - Type
Regular Meeting
Date
1/14/1985
Volume Book
69
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />55 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Regular Meeting January 14, 1985 Page 12 <br /> <br /> <br />McDonald, Jerry Klossner, filed the plat without the approval of the <br />Director of Planning. Our Ordinance requires the plat be filed by <br />the Director of Planning, and the Order was in variance with the <br />pleadings of the case. Frank Robbins would not have filed it without <br />the security having been approved. The Judge was not aware of this <br />because we were not a party to the lawsuit, as we are now. In regard <br />to Item 4 of the appeal, Mr. Robbins stated the Planning Commission <br />thought the water supply company was approved, based on the signatures <br />that were shown on the plat. Mr. Hankins pointed out at the January <br />11, 1985 court hearing evidence was offered Crystal Clear Water Company <br />would provide water service. The plat approved by the Planning Commission <br />was based on McCarty Water Supply, Inc. supplying the water, which means <br />if Crystal Clear Water Company was going to provide water, the plat would <br />need to be revised and presented to the Planning Commission, and Mr. <br />Hankins also pointed out Crystal Clear Water Company had not applie.d.for a <br />certificate of public convenience and necessity to serve the Woods McCarty <br />Lane area nor had it been approved. Regarding Item 5 of the appeal Terry <br />Ewald stated percolation tests were not run in the preliminary stages <br />of subdivisions prior to June when the County adopted the requirements <br />of the Edwards Board Order. With the amendments made to the Subdivision <br />Ordinance and the County's adoption last June, percolation tests will <br />be run in all subdivisions on and off the Edwards. Mr. Hankins read <br />into the record the requirements of the Texas Water Development Board - <br />Edwards Aquifer Rules, that existed at the time of the subdivision's <br />approval, from §156.20.009, entitled "Additional Requirements of a <br />Subdivision Using Private Sewage Facilities", Part B., the Licensing <br />Authority (the County in this case) will perform necessary tests and <br />inspections to determine whether a subdivision can be served with pri- <br />vate sewage facilities by agreement between the Licensing Authurity <br />and the developer. Allor part of the tests may be performed by an <br />engineering firm or soils testing laboratory approved by the Licensing <br />Authority. The Licensing Authority will notify the developer of the <br />findings of its examination and will notify the developer of any areas <br />not suitable for the use of private sewage facilities. Approval of a <br />subdivision plan for sewage disposal does not constitute a license for a <br />specific private sewage facility. An approval plan is however a prerequi- <br />site for obtaining a private sewage facility license in a subdivision. <br />The approval plan is approved by the Executive Director of the Texas Depart. <br />ment of Water Resources. Mr. McDonald secured this approval but did so <br />without getting information from the County as required by this Section. <br />Mr. Hankins expressed concern for this occurring and will try to clear <br />up this matter with the Texas Department of Water Resources. The Planning <br />Commission had relied on the County to tell them if there were any pro- <br />blems with the subdivision. Mr. Hankins stated Jack Cox, an attorney <br />with the Texas Department of Water Resources notified him they had never <br />officially been petitioned for a change of the line based on this new <br />geological information, but Mrs. Emery, our representative on the Edwards <br />Underground Water District, lS concerned and will speak to them regarding <br />this matter. Regarding the maps presented in this meeting to the Council, <br />Mr. Jenkins stated the geology presented in the maps was not new, but <br />until now, they were not in a nice, neat package as they are now. In <br />regard to Item 6 of the appeal Mr. Robbins stated the Planning Commis- <br />sion had relied on the Texas Department of Water Resources' informa- <br />tion they knew the location of the Recharge Zone, so the Commission <br />answered in the affirmative. In response to the second sentence of <br />Item 6, Mr. Robbins stated the Planning Commission had recommended ap- <br />proval because they thought the County and State were taking care of the <br />issues the City has addressed in the Subdivision Ordinance this evening, <br />and in fact they were not taking care of the Recharge Zone. Mr. Robbins <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.