HomeMy WebLinkAboutM020272February 2, 1972
2. Stan Pitman of Oroville, suggested the county furnish some sort of
control for surveying, such as corner monuments, for the benefit
of the public. '
3. Lewis Parker of Durham, not in fa~7or of adoption of Butte County
Ordinance but to follow requirements, minimum, of AB 1301.
4. Robert Brooks of Orova.lle, in favor of minimum enforcement of AB
1301 with reference to AB 98
5: Howard Johnson from Magalia, recommended adoption of AB 1301 as is.
6. Dorothy Paridis, 10 Central Way, Oroville, in favor of 1301 as is.
7. Jim Ladd of Oroville, in favor of minimum requirements.
8. N, E. Tex Gillett, a contractor from Paradise, says people do not
want good roads, they want "country" living. If the state should
repeal AB 1301, he would like to see the county do so also.
9. Don Blake of Oroville branch of the Butte County Tax Payers'
Association, is against AB 1301 and suggests deferring any action
on this matter for I20 days, or take minimum action as required by
law.
10. Ralph Hedstrum of Chico, inquiring as to cost to the property
owner for a four-way-split.
11. C, R. Howard of the Wyandotte area,
Recess from 9:55 to 10:05 p.m.
12. Melvin Trumbull of Chico, recommended the minimum of AB 1301 as
required by law until further study.
13. Helen Hi1ke of Paradise, in favor of AB 1301
14. Mrs. James M. Best of Paradise, in favor of AB 1301a
Mr. Blackstock commented regarding the ordinance.
Supervisor Maxon is of the opinion people do not want anything stronger
than AB 1301.
15. Irvin D. Schlaf of Chico, favors the very minimum requirements.
16. Marjorie Cax of Paradise, not in favor of AB 1301.
Because of questions asked generally, Mr. Blackstock told what would
happen if the county does not adopt AB I30I. Interpretation would be left up
to the Department of Fublic Works. Probably law suits would result.
Mr, John Hamby was asked to speak by Supervisor Maxon. He was asked to
give approximate costs of survey, map, fees to the County, suggested deposits
for drainage costs, etc. His estimate for a small lot was $2,000 for the whole
and that would not include pipe lines, geologists' costs, nor wells.
17. Roy Bowersox of Durham, in favor only of minimum requirements.
18. Mrs. Hortense Fernandez of Berry Creek, not in favor of AB 1301.
19. Clinton Bennett of Paradise, in favor of complying with only the
minimum requirements of Ab 1301,
Page 356. February 2, 1972
February 2, 1972
At 11:11 p.m., tkze meeting is closed to the Public,
Supervisor McKillop recommended returning the Resolution on standards
to the staff to consider the meaning of "Traversable" and other considerations.
The other members of the Board are heard. Supervisor, ,Madigan thought the county
is bound by the provisions of AB 1301 but thinks the IYepartment of Public Works
needs clarification on some of the provisions of AB 1301. Supervisor Maxon would
like to see AB 1301 repealed but if the county has to abide by AB 1301, he hopes
it w•i.11 be the most minimal:
The resolution on Standards was referred back to the committee with
recommendation to use 40-acre plots instead of 60-acre and changing the portion
referring to maps to "a map or as required by state law."
On motion of Supervisor Madigan, seconded by Supervisor Reynolds, to
adopt Ordinance No. 1238 with reference to "Travers ability" included and change
from 60 acres to 40 acres, and the Chairman is authorized to sign.
AYES: Supervisors Madigan, McKillop, Reynolds, Chairman Gilman
NOES: Supervisor Maxon
The Ordinance is effective as of March 4, 1972.
Adjournment: 'There being nothing further before the Board at this time,
the meeting was adjaurned at 11:40 p.m., to reconvene on February S, 1972, at
9:00 a.m.
airman of a Board
ATTEST; CTAILK A. NELSON, County Clerk and
ex-officio Clerk of the Board
Sy
Deputy
Page 357. February 2, 1972