Laserfiche WebLink
FEB 24 1987BOOK > 7 7 <br />F':jGE r, � <br />#1E was purchased in fee simple deed. It is not an easement; it <br />is a land purchase. It has been surveyed and it is land in <br />place. He pointed out that the Public Works Department has <br />issued public driveway permits and set grades for culverts which <br />have been installed for the driveways in both 35 -ft. entrance <br />ways. He pointed out that there is only one buildable area on <br />Section 14 because of the 2 -acre lake which was dug in the 1950s. <br />Mr. Mensing emphasized that the Floyds want to be able to build <br />two homes on this parcel, and the neighbors in the surrounding <br />area seem to like the idea. He believed that the logical and <br />sensible thing to do would be to give these people a variance so <br />that they can build the road, and stressed that maintenance of <br />the road would be their responsibility. Mr. Mensing urged the <br />Board to overlook staff's recommendation and give them a variance <br />to divide the lot across the middle. <br />There being no others who wished to be heard in this matter, <br />the Chairman declared the Public Hearing closed. <br />Commissioner Bird asked Attorney Vitunac if the Board had <br />the ability to grant a variance in this specific case where staff <br />has pointed out that it flails to meet 3 out of 4 criteria. <br />Attorney Vitunac advised that the Board could direct staff <br />to change the ordinance to make the waiver requirements fit the <br />case that Mr. Mensing has presented this morning. However, the <br />changes would apply county -wide in other instances. <br />Chairman Scurlock felt in that case we would have to make <br />the criteria so fine, it would be applicable only to this <br />specific situation. <br />Mr. Boling felt that the standards have to be applied <br />somewhere. <br />Mr. Mensing added the argument that they have the option of <br />getting utilities from several sides, but Commissioner Bird felt <br />the main problem is that the applicant has not met 3 out the 4 <br />criteria for granting a waiver according to the ordinance. <br />61 <br />