8/23/1988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

house. Mr. Douglas did not object to the county having a hearing which all property owners with frontage on 8th Street could attend and we could resolve this issue, but he did object to this singular instance of using eminent domain without economic compensation for his mother. He urged that the Board approve the split without any restriction as approved by the P&Z Commission. County Attorney Vitunac advised that the county is not using eminent domain here. This is strictly an applicant desiring a benefit of the Code, and the Code says you may split your lot and receive this benefit if you satisfy the five criteria - the one in question being the minimum road width of 60'. If there was one single house anywhere now, the County would require a 60' roadway to be dedicated at the home owner's cost because that is the minimum acceptable road. This is not eminent domain, and if the gentleman doesn't want to give the 201, the county won't take it from him, but he won't get his lot split. Commissioner Wheeler pointed out that they are giving up 20' to have the use of an additional 1/2 acre..lot. Commissioner Eggert stated that she remains forever frustrated with property all being taken off one.side of a road when we have a canal. She realized that this happens all over this county, but it never fails to make her feel that somehow there ought to be a better way of doing it and 10' should be coming off each side. Commissioner Wheeler noted the cost would be phenomenal to go in and increase the road over the canal; it probably would be cheaper to buy the house. Commissioner Eggert agreed, but she just wished there was some way to cope with the situation. Community Development Director Keating advised that staff a few years ago did look at many alternatives, i.e., the concept of boulevarding these roads and having several lanes on each side of these canals; filling the canals; culverting them, etc., but, AUG 3 198860 BOOK 73 F,, 558