My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03.11.13 MINUTES
City-of-Paris
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
2010-2021
>
2013
>
03.11.13 MINUTES
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/26/2013 2:22:58 PM
Creation date
3/26/2013 2:22:58 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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).
View images
View plain text
Regular Council Meeting <br />March 11, 2013 <br />Page 4 <br />Mr. Efrussy said the design of the city could be disrupted and chipping away at the city would <br />leave no zoning control. He also said that adjacent land uses could suffer because of the <br />incompatible land uses. <br />City Clerk Janice Ellis said staff had received an application for disannexation and the <br />basis of the request was lack of city services. Ms. Ellis reported that this was an unimproved <br />piece of property consisting of 5.025 acres in the Wildwood Estates and that the City provided <br />fire protection, police protection and trash service. She said the City did not provide sewer and <br />that water was available from the City through a county water line. Ms. Ellis said to disannex <br />this piece of property would isolate the property owned by Celeste Wilcox. Mr. Napier added <br />that the piece of property would not be contiguous to the city limits if the Denison tract was <br />disannexed. City Attorney Kent McIlyar said he had not seen anyone cut out of the city limits <br />like this and that if the City disannexes this property, they would be giving up zoning <br />regulations. He also said to disannex parcels of land not on your boundaries' edge would result <br />in redesigning your boundary limits. Mr. McIlyar said he did not see any reason to support this <br />disannexation. Council Member Wright inquired about an Attorney General opinion. Council <br />Member Grossnickle said when they went through the redistricting process the City was <br />informed they had to be contiguous. Mayor Hashmi asked the Council how they wished to <br />proceed. Council Members Frierson and Lancaster said they favored getting an Attorney <br />General opinion. <br />Pending receipt of a Texas Attorney General opinion, a Motion to table this item was <br />made by Council Member Frierson and seconded by Council Member Drake. Motion carried, 7 <br />ayes — 0 nays. <br />16. Receive, discuss and provide direction to city staff on an application for disannexation <br />filed by Boyd and Deborah Hudgens. <br />City Clerk Janice Ellis said staff had received an application for disannexation and the <br />basis of the request was lack of city services. Ms. Ellis reported that this property consisted of <br />one acre and a house that the city provided fire protection, police protection and trash service. <br />She said the City did not provide water or sewer to the property. Ms. Ellis said to disannex this <br />property would mean that it would be in a land lock situation. Mr. Hudgens said he did not <br />understand how it could be landlocked from the county. Mr. Napier explained his property was <br />1,700 feet from the city limits and if disannexed, his property would create a donut hole in the <br />city limits and that would not be contiguous with the city limits. Mr. Hudgens said they were <br />paying for services they were not getting. Mr. Godwin explained that they were not getting <br />water and sewer and that they were not paying water and sewer bills. He further explained that <br />taxes collected were not spent on water and sewer, because those were separate funds. Mr. <br />Hudgens said he thought services were to be provided to them within two years of disannexation <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.