Laserfiche WebLink
Commissioner Wheeler recalled being in the audience when the permit was <br />approved and questioned the additional paving requirements. <br />County Attorney Collins had looked at the P&Z recommendation and had been told <br />Mr. Godfrey was being required to do additional paving which might include another’s property. <br />County Administrator Baird said that staff was trying to follow the Board’s direction <br />to improve the safety of the roads. <br />Commissioner Neuberger understood, but Mr. Godfrey should not be required to <br />pave anything more than what the Board directed. <br />Public Works Director Jim Davis explained in detail what staff had requested to <br />make the road safe for the additional heavy truck traffic and on-coming vehicles. The mobilization <br />of equipment to do the small job was the costly part of the project and the additional paving would <br />have been at minimal cost to ensure safety. <br />Discussion ensued on this issue. <br />County Attorney Collins opined that although what has already been approved <br />cannot be changed, it would be Mr. Godfrey’s responsibility to keep the road passable. If he does <br />not, the County is supposed to have a $2,000 per mile bond to fix it. He confirmed Commissioner <br />Davis’ understanding that Mr. Godfrey could widen it but it did not have to be paved. The only <br />paving requirement was the apron on CR-507 and maybe on his own haul route just to keep it from <br />breaking down. <br />County Administrator Baird specified that there was a lot of discussion about the <br />safety issue when this was approved. <br /> Donna Keys <br />P & Z Chairman noted that Mr. Godfrey had informed the P&Z that <br />about once a week he had to pull a truck out of the ditch on the road. He also made them aware <br />there was a severe traffic and safety problem there. P&Z had been made aware of safety <br />requirements and had recommended approval by the Board. <br />Commissioner Davis understood what staff had been trying to accomplish but this <br />issue concerns additional paving beyond the specified paving of the 40’ apron and whether a dirt <br />JUNE 14, 2005 14 <br /> <br />