1974-09-04 Regular Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

• • Regular Meeting 9/4/74 - Continued 5 8. MR. THOMAS LAY, ATTORNEY-AT-LAW, REPRESENTING SOUTH HOUSTON LUMBER COMPANY - REGARDING SANITARY SEWER - Mr. Thomas F. Lay, 825 Southmore, Pasadena, Texas was recognized and addressed the Commission. He stated that he was not exactly representing South Houston Lumber Company, present owner of Bayshore Lumber Company, but Messrs. J. F. and W. D. Mayes. He had been requested to bring the matter before the Commission concerning the sanitary sewer connection charges under Ordinance No. 759 in connection with property purchased from Messrs. J. F, and W. D. Mayes by South Houston Lumber Company in order to try and arrive at some equitable arrangement. The property in question being Lots 1 thru 16; Lots 19 thru 32, Block 1102 and part of 7th Street; had been assessed a charge of $2,282.50 for connection to sanitary sewer. Mr. Lay stated that his clients felt that only a portion of the property was being used and were willing to pay a portion of the fee; but felt that the property was not developed more than one-half. • After a lengthy discussion regarding Ordinance No. 759, Mr. Lay stated that he was not requesting special treat- ment but that the Commission reconsider, investigate the property again and come up with a more reasonable charge, based on the fact that only a portion of the property was being used at this time. At a later date if other buildings were placed on the property, then the additional fee would be due. Mr. Askins stated that the relevant issue was whether the property was developed or undeveloped. The matter had been brought before the Commission and it was the consensus of opinion that the entire block was substantially being used. The determination of the charge was consistant with other charges; for example, Jay Marks Chevrolet's property for new car storage. Mayor Thomas stated that the Commission had previously discussed this matter and it was the consensus of opinion that the assessment stand; but if the Commission wanted to bring it up at a later date they would. Mr. Lay stated that if his clients decided to appeal further, one of the defenses to such an appeal would be that they had not exhausted their administrative remedies. •