6/27/1989 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

want to look at a roadway R/W of some 9' and a 16' conservation easement to be sure the road does not get expanded to a full blown 4 lane roadway. Attorney Vitunac believed the County wants 25' unrestricted title, and asked if Mr. McQueen is trying to restrict the 25' of fee simple roadway. Mr. McQueen said no; they.just want to restrict what con- struction goes in the roadway. They want it to stay in its natural condition. Attorney Vitunac noted that would be a restriction on the title, but Commissioners Bird and Scurlock did not see where that works against us. Mr. McQueen further clarified that all their drawings show 20' and 201, but we now are talking 25' on each side of the center line and a 15' buffer and 30' setback. The only thing that would affect the setback would be in the south 500' of commercial property and the 15 homesites in the realignment. He discussed the segment along the Polo property, noting that they have moved that portion 20' additional off the Polo property line so that they could dedicate 25' and 15' on both sides of the R/W and have a full 40' dedication on both sides, or 80' bordering the Polo property. Mr. McQueen continued his review noting that throughout 90-95% of this proposed project, there will be nothing other than golf course or buffers or landscape built in the 301+ setback. They would not like to lose control 9 of what they do by the homesites and entry area; they do not want to take that vegetation out, and he envisioned they would add,to it and do some landscaping. They have moved the guardhouse further back into the project, even back of the setback line, and their plan is being worked as much as possible around existing vegetation. Mr. McQueen stressed that their plan never addressed the fact that after they donated all that R/W and had the old R/W abandoned the county would keep it. They assumed once that R/W � JIUM J 1? 1989 55 BOOK � � � FAuE �•J 3 L-