Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Culler commented that the appeal process takes time, and <br />he was trying to save as much of everyone's time as possible. <br />Commissioner Lyons noted that Mr. Culler has made his point, <br />and if this should continue to prove a problem, he believed it <br />will be readdressed. <br />James Lawhon of 7805 19th Place, next wished to speak, and <br />Attorney Brandenburg reported that he has a recommendation which <br />may solve this gentlemen's concern. He explained that Mr. <br />Lawhon's concern is that he submitted a subdivision and expended <br />money processing it under the old ordinance. Attorney <br />Brandenburg, therefore, recommended that in the section regarding <br />repeal of conflicting provisions (Sec. 13, Page 64), a sentence <br />could be added saying "all applications for subdivisions <br />submitted as of the date of adoption of this ordinance may be <br />approved if compatible with former Ordinance 75-3." <br />Mr. Lawhon noted that when you put in a subdivision, you are <br />required to leave right-of-way for adjacent properties, and he <br />wished to know if you have to give that property plus pave that <br />street. <br />Mr. King believed Mr. Lawhon is talking in terms of a stub <br />street where we are talking about future access to property that <br />has not been subdivided. <br />Mr. Lawhon felt it may be 20 years before the adjacent <br />property is developed and wished to know if he has to donate that <br />property. <br />Mr. Davis stated there is no requirement to give any <br />property- just to design the road so it can connect in the <br />future. <br />Chairman Bird believed that, consistent with our existing <br />regulations, it is required to pave'the stub. <br />ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED <br />by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously <br />closed the public hearing. <br />49 <br />LOOK 4 75 <br />