Laserfiche WebLink
wx 48 PAGF 91 <br />Air. Ragsdale commented that the applicant would <br />not agree to the conditions, and staff's recommendation <br />would be to deny the Preliminary Plat Approval. <br />Chairman Scurlock questioned the Attorney as to the <br />basis on which this application could be denied. <br />Attorney Brandenburg stated that this matter was <br />based on the anticipated needs of the County for road <br />right-of-way and the possibility that if the County would <br />build a road at that location, it would have to condemn two <br />houses that would be situated in the right-of-way. He <br />continued that staff recommended that the applicant <br />establish a 40 foot building setback line on the two lots in <br />question in order to save the County the possibility of <br />condemnation later. Attorney Brandenburg stated that the <br />County thoroughfare plan has not been adopted; therefore, <br />the County does not have the legal authority to demand that <br />of the applicant. <br />plan. <br />Lengthy discussion followed about the thoroughfare <br />Jerome Quinn, Attorney representing the applicant, <br />George R. Frederick, came before the Board. He stated that <br />the developer believed that in complying with staff's <br />request, the lots would be shrunk to such a size that they <br />would not be useable as they had envisioned. Attorney Quinn <br />stressed that planning was essential to orderly growth, and <br />the traffic needs of the future must be taken into account. <br />He stressed that. the developers must know the rules and <br />regulations they have to work with, and he questioned when <br />and where was it first noticed that development along 1st <br />Street SW would be subject to an 80' road right-of-way; when <br />and where was it stated or published or made known to <br />anybody that this street was going to be a secondary <br />collector? <br />_ 7_ <br />