Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Private Streets topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press council over private Ashley Park street; city to research ordinances and contact developer
Summary
Residents and council members debated whether the Ashley Park subdivision entry street is private and whether the developer must bring it to city standards; the council asked staff and the city attorney to research ordinances and meeting minutes and to contact developer Chapman for remediation.
Residents of the Ashley Park subdivision urged the Byram City Council to require the developer to repair a deteriorated entry street that residents said creates safety and nuisance concerns.
At the meeting a resident noted a plaque indicating the street was designated private when the subdivision was built and asked whether the city still has authority to require repairs. City staff and the city attorney referenced the city development ordinance and Article 4, which requires improvements and minimum construction standards for streets and subdivisions “in consideration of acceptance” by the city. The attorney read language indicating the development ordinance applies to subdivisions whether streets are public or private and said minutes and records from the 2012 plaque should be checked to confirm what was agreed at the time of development.
Council members and residents debated whether Mr. Chapman — identified in the meeting as the owner/developer associated with the subdivision plaque — signed documents or posted a bond at development. Council members said the city will search the historical minutes, ask staff to locate any signed dedication or bond documents and attempt to contact Chapman directly. One council member said the ordinance includes penalties for noncompliance and suggested sending Chapman a certified letter.
Mayor White said the council will schedule a special meeting or work session with homeowners, legal staff and public-works staff to review records and determine next steps. The council agreed not to accept the road as a public street without the developer meeting the city’s specifications and discussed potential enforcement actions and deadlines that may include fines under the city’s ordinance.
Council members asked the clerk and attorney to research the 2012 meeting minutes referenced by speakers and to report back with documentation about any planning-committee approvals, plaques or covenants. The council reiterated it will not use general funds to pay for private-road repairs; instead, it plans to pursue the developer and any applicable covenant responsibilities.
The board set a targeted follow-up: staff will attempt to locate the developer’s contact information, retrieve historical minutes and convene a focused work session to present legal options and next steps.
