9/25/1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

of the double frontage situation. Director Davis continued that staff feels the road should be paved. The development to the north has been approved, and if this paving is not approved, it will create 8 or 10 lots without a paved road. Commissioner Scurlock believed the ordinance requires that there be paved roads, and Director Keating advised that the developer was given the option of either going to -petition paving or paving it himself. This is not an internal road within the subdivision. Director Davis reported that the developer is dedicating 25' additional right-of-way in addition to the 35' existing. When this paving was originally proposed, we did have a valid petition. Commissioner Scurlock asked why the developer should not pay - he needs access to those lots, and that should be his burden. Director Keating explained that staff gives the developer the option of petition paving because there are other lots involved, and it is the old equity situation; if he paves, he will be giving a benefit to other lots. Administrator Wright believed this is a unique situation because the single lots going from street to street can access either road. He asked which way the houses face. Director Davis stated that there are some existing houses that front on 12th St, which is not paved either, but there are a number of vacant lots. James Lawhon, developer of the subdivision on the north side, stated that seven lots front on the street. He informed. the Board that he is putting in full 1/4 acre lots, not counting the streets, and he has a street that comes off of 11th and goes in and through the property. He did not understand why the petition he presented is no longer valid and went on to inform the Board that a lady whose signature was removed by her husband, actually is in favor of having the street paved. 50 S E P 25 1985 BOOK