Laserfiche WebLink
BQIIK 45 PAGF.164' <br />MR. MARSH ADVISED THAT THE FIRST THREE ITEMS HAVE BEEN RECTIFIED; THERE <br />IS A NOTE ON THE PLAT, AND THE SURVEYOR DID GO OUT, RESURVEY, AND <br />REVISE THE PLAT ACCORDINGLY. HE ADDED THAT THEY HAVE VISITED THE SITE <br />AND ARE SATISFIED THAT THE ROADS AND CULVERTS ARE AS SHOWN ON THE <br />PLAT IN THE CORRECT POSITIONS. MR. MARSH STATED THAT ITEM 4 <br />IN THE MEMO INVOLVES THE SLOUGH LOCATED ON LOT 30; THE STAFF -IS <br />STILL NOT SATISFIED THAT PERHAPS AN EASEMENT MIGHT NOT BE THE CORRECT <br />MEANS OF HANDLING THAT SITUATION BECAUSE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF FILLING <br />IN OF A DRAINAGE AREA WHICH IS GOING TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE COUNTY. <br />HE CONTINUED THAT THE DITCHES AND THE STREETS ARE PUBLIC. THE LAST <br />TWO ITEMS IN THE MEMO PERTAIN TO THE NON -COMPLETION OF THE STREETS <br />AND THE HALF -STREET AND THE ADDITIONAL DRESSING UP THAT STAFF FELT WAS <br />NEEDED PRIOR TO GETTING IT TO THE FINAL PLAT PROCESS. MR. MARSH <br />STATED THAT IT WOULD INVOLVE SEEDING, MULCHING, AND CLEANING OUT THE <br />CULVERTS BECAUSE OF THE SEDIMENTATION TAKING PLACE, REFERRING TO THE <br />MEMO DATED NOVEMBER 4TH, MR. MARSH STATED HE UNDERSTOOD THE ISSUE ABOUT <br />LOTS 3 AND 4 ON THE EASTERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY WAS ADDRESSED IN <br />THE ORIGINAL PLAT APPROVAL; HE WAS NOT A MEMBER OF THE STAFF AT THAT <br />TIME. HE CONTINUED THAT THE OTHER ITEM IS THE ENTRY ROAD LEADING <br />FROM S.R. 512 TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. IN FAIRNESS TO THE <br />DEVELOPER, MR. MARSH DID NOT KNOW IF THOSE ARE ISSUES THAT SHOULD BE <br />CONSIDERED AT THIS TIME, IN RELATION TO THE REQUEST OF EXTENSION OF <br />THE PLAT; THAT IS, THE ISSUE OF THE ROAD EXTENSION TO S.R. 512. <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS COMMENTED THAT THE LAST TWO ISSUES ARE <br />NOW NEW; THEY HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED EVERY TIME, THAT IS, EVER SINCE <br />THE PLAT FIRST CAME UP, AND THE BOARD WENT INTO GREAT DETAIL ABOUT <br />WHETHER OR NOT ACCESS COULD BE GAINED TO THE SUBDIVISION THROUGH <br />THE EASEMENT, AND WHAT WAS GOING TO HAVE TO BE DONE TO MAKE THE <br />EASEMENT SATISFACTORY FOR ACCEPTANCE OF THE PLAT. ATTORNEY COLLINS <br />STATED THE ISSUE THE BOARD DEALT WITH WAS WHETHER OR NOT THE SUB- <br />DIVISION COULD BE APPROVED SINCE IT WOULD NOT FACE ON A DEDICATED ROAD. <br />HE NOTED THAT HE GAVE AN OPINION IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, AS LONG AS THERE <br />WERE SATISFACTORY EASEMENTS TO THE PROPERTY, AND THAT THOSE EASEMENTS <br />WERE DEDICATED SO THAT THE PUBLIC HAD THE RIGHT TO USE THEM. THE <br />