8/23/1988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

even with the Drainage District being very receptive, it appeared the only workable solution was all off to one side. Director Keating further noted that even though we have had a lot of controversy about the dedication reservation requirements of the ordinance, the one part the attorneys and the Planning staff all were in agreement with was the minimum 60' dedication. Commissioner Bird noted that the options before the Board apparently are either to deny the request for the lot split and let them keep the 201; to approve the request and require that they dedicate the 201; or to approve the request and not require the 20'. Commissioner Wheeler questioned if we necessarily have the third option when the ordinance spells out that in order to meet the criteria, you have to give the 20'. Attorney Vitunac advised that if the Board chooses the third option, they should ask staff to go back and change our whole Code which would ruin our whole 20 year plan for building roads in the county. Commissioner Bird noted that while the P&Z Commission did choose the third option, it seems we only have two options if we do not wish to violate our own ordinance. He asked the.property owner which option he would prefer - keep the 20' and not split the lot or split the lot and give the 201. It was noted Mr. Douglas doesn't have to choose at this moment; he is not forced to split the lot or take the condition. If the Board passes this with the condition, it is his choice either to do nothing or take the condition and split the lot. Commissioner Bird commented that, as he understood it, until such time as 8th Street is ever widened or improved and we need that 201, they can continue to use and enjoy that 20' for their yard. This was confirmed. It was noted that no one else wished to be heard, and the Vice Chairman thereupon declared the public hearing closed. 61 �o AUG 23 1988 ,�