My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12/9/1986
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1986
>
12/9/1986
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:53:20 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 1:19:28 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
12/09/1986
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
62
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
f.. r n <br />DEC V� Boos �', , ba <br />along canals involves right-of-way acquisition only along property <br />opposite the canal side of the developed roadway. Although this <br />may place a substantial burden on property owners who have proper- <br />ty opposite the canal, the owners who have property along the <br />canal have a substantial cost when installing large culverts or <br />bridges over the canal to afford access to their property. Also, <br />density transfers or impact fee credits compensate applicants. <br />dedicating R.O.W. for roads on the County's 20 year capital <br />improvement program. <br />RECOMMENDATION <br />The staff recommends that: (1) the request for special exception <br />approval to construct a dormitory be approved, and (2) the action <br />of the Planning and Zoning Commission be overturned by including <br />an 80 foot right-of-way dedication as a condition of site plan <br />approval. <br />Commissioner Eggert understood that because the road is on <br />the canal right-of-way, staff is afraid the drainage district may <br />take it away some day and therefore, are looking for dedication <br />of an easement along the college right-of-way. <br />Chairman Scurlock felt that we should have some right for <br />that road to exist seeing that road has been paved for a number <br />of years, but Attorney Vitunac believed that we would not get <br />that right-of-way against another public agency. We are there at <br />their sufferance, and their attorney, Michael O'Haire has made it <br />very clear that they can take it away at any time. <br />Chairman Scurlock asked what the objection is to dedicating <br />80 ft., and Commissioner Eggert asked why 80 ft. is being re- <br />quested if only 61.7 feet is going in there. <br />Planning & Development Director Keating explained that <br />Public Works has done cross sections which indicate that 80 feet <br />is needed to accommodate a secondary roadway and that we would be <br />looking at acquiring.the remainder of the right-of-way to make it <br />a full 80 ft. when those parcels to the east of the dormitory <br />came in for approval. He emphasized that there are two other <br />forms of compensation for right-of-way: 1) A developer can take <br />a credit against his impact fee liability for the value of that <br />right-of-way, or 2) he can choose to transfer the densities to <br />the rest of his parcel for the allowable units which are <br />"" attributable to that right-of-way. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.