Laserfiche WebLink
SEP 1987 BOOK 69 FACE573 <br />one and not the other when they still can use that land overall <br />to figure out how big a house they can put on it, etc. <br />Attorney Barkett explained when you have the setback and can <br />justify it for safety, it is a valid police power measure, but if <br />it is much larger, i.e., 50' on a 50' road, someone can come in <br />and testify that is ridiculous and that the real purpose is <br />simply to hold them from developing their property so that it can <br />be acquired more cheaply in the future. <br />Commissioner Eggert asked what about the case where you know <br />that a road is not going to remain at 50' but that it is going to <br />get wider and that it has to be wider to be safe, and you need <br />that setback plus a proper setback from the side of the road. <br />Attorney Barkett clarified that the first part, the part <br />that you can justify as an actual safety police power measure, is <br />the actual traditional setback, but to get to that second part, <br />you also have to prevent them from using the first part. <br />Commissioner Eggert asked why you can't use the expanded <br />road plus a logical buffer as a justified safety setback, and <br />Attorney Barkett explained you can't because you don't have the <br />expanded road; you are just contemplating it in the future, and <br />the Statues now say if you want to do that, you have to record a <br />R/W map notifying people of where you intend to put the road, and <br />then the Statutes say if they come in and challenge that or want <br />to use part of that, that is when you have to pay for it. <br />Discussion continued at length as to size of setbacks, etc., <br />and Director Keating pointed out that you have to set the <br />setbacks by zoning districts and on a lot of different roadways, <br />we have different R/W widths; the setback has to be consistent <br />for all properties similarly situated. He noted that Public <br />Works Director Davis has done various cross sections to show how <br />much R/W we need, and he believes our R/W width requirements are, <br />if anything less than the optimal amounts. <br />Attorney Vitunac stressed that there is a Supreme Court case <br />from Flor_Jda that says you cannot increase your R/W requirements <br />20 <br />