Subdivider Ron Grant has been to the planning commission and the town trustees several times with his preliminary plat trying to work around issues that have come up with a proposed subdivision on Vaca Drive off of Happy Hollow Road.

Grant had agreed to different road and driveway configurations to try and address easement concerns, and he cut the number of lots in his subdivision proposal from three to two in order to make the split workable under town codes.

But problems persist. The town staff wants Grant to install 740 feet of four-inch water line to serve his two new lots. The last 150 feet of the line would veer off of his property and run to a connection with an existing Orchard City line creating a loop.

Grant asked the trustees if they would consider paying for that final 150 feet, since it was the town's request that he complete the loop, and because completing the loop would benefit the town and its water utility.

Grant's request set off a round of trustee soul searching in a discussion to try and determine what was right, what was "fair;" what had been done before; what was precedent setting; what the town codes actually said, and what they meant by what they said.

Grant wants to create two lots of 3.97 acres and 9.1 acres on his land. He told the trustees that he had estimates of $8 per foot for water line and trenching work to lay the 740 feet of four-inch line his development plan is requiring. (Trustee Gale Doudy observed the town is getting quotes of $16 to $18 per foot for the same kind of work.)

When Grant proposed that the town help pay for the line by contributing 150 feet of the project, Trustee Marsha Thomas said she questioned whether the town wants to set that precedent. A provision in the town's subdivision regulations makes the developer responsible for installing water line for his project.

Mayor Don Suppes explained, "It's not necessarily in our town Master Plan," that the subdivider pay that portion. "So, you have to draw the line as to how much of this (water line) is beneficial to the town, and how much is beneficial to the developer."

Doudy pointed out that the final 150 feet of the line would not be on Grant's property serving his lots. The final section would be installed at the request of the town to close a service loop in the neighborhood. That would improve water service system-wide. Doudy said he thought Grant's request was fair.

Trustee Cherrie Gilliam said that if the town has agreed to similar arrangements in the past, then, "Perhaps we should look into it and help him."

Town Administrator David Varley said, "I would suggest that what is being asked here (by the town) is what the (subdivision regulations) require, nothing more. I would suggest that if you decide to pay part of this project that you instruct us to go back and change the code." Thomas agreed. "I personally think we should follow our code as it is."

Gilliam said, "But if (the town has paid for this) in the past, then maybe we need to straighten the code out." Thomas asked, "Has this been done for everybody in the past?"

Doudy replied, "We even loaned money to (residents of) the Tuck Subdivision," for a similar type of project. Trustee Jimmie Boyd asked a question of Mike Morgan, town building official. Boyd said, "Does the code require you to put these loops in?"

Morgan replied, "No. The reason why a loop is required is that where you come off the main water line it is all up hill and the water pressure will be low." A house built on one of Grant lots could be another 30 feet higher, Morgan explained, creating problems just getting water to a home.

"The reason for the four-inch (loop) line is just to maintain what pressure the Vaca Subdivision already has," Morgan said. "It's not a benefit to the town. Right now it works as it is. Adding two lots will pull down on that system."

Doudy asked, "How many other two-lot subdivisions have been required to install a four-inch line?"

Morgan replied, "None have been this close to our (storage) tank. The code says the (subdivider) will bear all costs."

Grant added, "Again, the code does say that if additional sizing of the line is asked for by the town to enhance the system other than the subdivision, at their discretion the town can pay the additional cost." Thomas said, "The only thing is that now the system is working fine on the town's part."

Grant replied, "I would be better off without looping to Vaca subdivision, because I have such a low flow going through a four-inch line."

Suppes said, "But we're also talking about a flushing issue at the end of that (dead end) four-inch line. That will cost the town more if the line is not looped. "The other factor that we have to consider is that the town is the water provider. We don't even have to allow this thing to go through. We're trying to work together to come up with an option here."

Grant replied, "But I do feel (the looped line) is adding a benefit to the town and that the town could see fit to pay for it."

Doudy said, "I'm concerned that me may have to change the code if we agree to this one. " Varley said, "What it means is that we're not applying the code in this case, and if it doesn't apply it must mean you think it's not fair. And if it's not fair then we should look at it."

Doudy asked, "Then why are we requiring a four-inch line to a two-lot subdivision? Talk about being fair, what's wrong with letting him have a two-inch line?"

Suppes said, "The minimum town line size is four-inch." Gilliam said, "The other thing you have to think about, too, is that if the lots are subdivided again later on. By requiring a four-inch line now, we would be preventing a lot of problems in the future and that would be a benefit to the town."

Varley said, "my point was that if you think (the code) is not fair in this case, then maybe it's not fair in other cases. The fair judgment is the town board's call. Our (staff's) call is to enforce the code."

Suppes said, "Personally, I don't like using the word ‘fair' in these situations. What's fair is strictly based in the eye of the beholder. What's fair for us and what's fair for Mr. Grant are two different things. I would encourage this board to look at what is right and what is wrong."

Gilliam said, "You do have to bend sometimes. In the future we may want the four-inch line and the loop." Suppes signaled that he wanted to see a consensus arise from the discussion. "We have a preliminary plat before us to consider. Is this water line issue a deal breaker?" Grant replied, "No, its not."

Suppes said, "Then here is what, with the board's approval, I am going to suggest. The board can vote up or down on this preliminary plat tonight. Mr. Grant then gets pricing for the board on the cost of completing the loop from his property. That will give staff time to bring us exact costs and give us a better idea. It will be up to this board to decided whether it wants to (pay for the loop) or not."

The trustees voted to approve the preliminary plat for Grant's subdivision and are expected to decide on the water line issue when they act on the final plat and subdivision improvements agreement at an upcoming meeting.

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed