3/6/1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Fr - LIAR 6 1985 BOOK 60 PA["F 89 particular properties on or near the unpaved portion of 16th St. He argued that this allows the County to treat a road which is a direct route to A -1-A and a potential evacuation route for the barrier island, and which will have greatly increased traffic due to the impact of commercial development at Route 60 and Kings Highway, in a similar manner to an unpaved subdivision street, and he did not feel property owners should be involved with something that was solely a County responsibility. Brian Weaver, 687 51st Court, agreed with Mr. Dritenbas. Although he did want the road paved, he felt there will be many others who will benefit and use the road, and he believed the residents may be the losers in the end because of the increased traffic. Commissioner Scurlock asked how 16th St. would differ from 8th Court and Oslo, and Director Davis explained that 16th St. is a secondary collector route and Oslo Road is an arterial road; 16th St. is classified as the lowest collector roadway because it ends at Kings Highway. Dan Nelson, 51st Court, felt all his neighbors agree that it is somewhat of an advantage to have the street paved, but they also feel it will be a benefit for the entire community. Commissioner Bird asked what Mr. Nelson felt would be a fair share for the residents to pay. Mr. Nelson believed that is difficult to say. He did understand that the County does not have impact fees, and if it did, he noted this could be evaluated on a Development of Regional Impact basis and bring in traffic counts for a long range plan. Commissioner Scurlock informed Mr. Nelson that we are developing an impact fee ordinance now and doing a traffic analysis of our road system, and we hope this will be in place in August or September. Mr. Nelson commended the County for doing this, but felt at this point this road is more the responsibility of the county. 48