Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Standards topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council directs engineer to draft new road and subdivision standards emphasizing curb-and-gutter and narrower rights-of-way
Summary
After a staff presentation, the Wellsville City Council voted 4–0 to direct the City Engineer to draft formal subdivision standards for bench-area development, moving toward curb-and-gutter, 36-foot asphalt streets, 5-foot sidewalks, and reduced 66-foot rights-of-way outside the historic 99-foot core.
City Engineer Chris Breinholt told the City Council on May 6 that bench-area topography and recurring swale failures justify moving to curb-and-gutter designs and smaller rights-of-way in new developments. Breinholt recommended reducing the historic 99-foot right-of-way to 66 feet for new construction outside the city core, pairing the narrower right-of-way with a 36-foot asphalt pavement and 5-foot sidewalks.
Breinholt said swales are regularly filled by residents, clog culverts with sediment, and fail on sloped bench terrain; curb-and-gutter provides more predictable drainage and reduces maintenance liabilities for the city. He presented a developer cost comparison showing an estimated additional infrastructure cost of about $8,000 per 100-foot lot for curb and gutter and required piping, offset by retained land value of roughly $18,000 per lot from a smaller right-of-way — an estimated net benefit near $10,000 per lot in the analysis presented to the Council.
Councilmen Bob Lindley and Carl Leatham spoke in support of wider asphalt and curb-and-gutter, saying it gives a cleaner appearance and better confines stormwater to designed drainage infrastructure. On a motion by Councilman Bob Lindley, seconded by Councilman Carl Leatham, the Council directed the City Engineer to draft formal standards incorporating the proposed elements and to prepare a map showing which existing areas would retain the 99-foot right-of-way. The motion passed unanimously 4–0.
The action at the meeting is procedural: the Council directed staff to produce draft standards for future consideration. The Council did not adopt a final ordinance or code change at the May 6 meeting; the requested map and draft standards are the next steps before any formal adoption process.
