6/27/1989 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

have the roadbed itself, we have a 10' roadbed and then an additional 50' of setback, 20' of that being a buffer and 30' being a setback. When you line them up and look at it, the difference between a 50' road R/W and what the Maintenance Map says we have now is the difference between a front yard setback and 5' of buffer or just the setback itself. In other words, in what is being proposed by the applicant right now, the buffer area would only go 5' beyond what a 50' R/W would go before they start a building setback. Mr. McQueen contended that Mr. Boling's figures were not correct, that the 10' figure is in error, and the Board members indicated that they did not understand the figures. Attorney Vitunac commented that he would like to ask Mr. McQueen if he could simplify the whole problem by just giving the County a 25' title from the centerline of the road. Mr. McQueen stated that the answer to that is yes, but he continued to argue the figures presented by Planner Boling. Attorney Vitunac believed Mr. McQueen has just said he would be willing to give us 25' of R/W from the center line for the whole road, which is the most we could ever hope to get through the historical research we were going to do. He stressed that we would want title to that R/W. Mr. McQueen stated that there is no problem with 25' versus the 201, and the reason their proposal started out at 20' and 201, or 401, is that -Is what you have south of CR 510. Attorney Vitunac again noted that if they can give us title to 25' from centerline on each side of the existing road, he would think that would solve the research problem and the delay. Commissioner Bowman asked if this would be throughout the entire Town limits. Mr. McQueen noted that they would be willing to give this through their property, but in future projects, developers may not be willing to come in and give up that 251; so, possibly the Board should do their research. 27 rvE JUN'2,11989