Laserfiche WebLink
-1 <br />JUNE 2 mJ 1989 <br />Boor 77 F,4GE 212 <br />10 Before any realignment can be undertaken, the County Attorney's <br />office should make a determination and issue nofopinion <br />as to to whether <br />hey <br />the management plan is enforceable in the town <br />realignment or abandonment. <br />11. One of staff's concerns that the Historical Society agrees with <br />is whether the developer owns both sides of the entire alignment. It <br />appears from the record that the developer does not own sufficient <br />land on its northern boundary to enforce the 30 foot building setback. <br />That would mean that the County could not enforce the 30 foot,building <br />setback as to that property owner. It is axiomatic that the agreement <br />between this applicant and the County would not be enforceable against <br />a third party. <br />12. Any abandoned or closed portion of the Trail must remain free of <br />anyencroachment by private property interests. Essentially, the <br />Trail must remain in its present alignment unencumbered by lot lines, <br />improvement encroachments, etc. <br />13. Stop signs and yield signs and that sort of thing must be placed <br />in such a manner as to allow the continuous and uninterrupted flow of <br />traffic on Jungle Trail. In other words, any traffic crossing the <br />Trail including at the development's entrance must yield right of way <br />to the through traffic on the historically significant Trail. <br />14. The Trail needs to be protected at all costs from inappropriate <br />light sources including residential, security lighting, etc. All <br />light sources near the Trail need to be shielded or eliminated so that <br />the Trail does not suffer from light pollution. <br />15. The developer has expressed an <br />This portion of the plan needs <br />integrity, historial character, and <br />it remain in its unpaved status. <br />intent to pave a portion of the Trail. <br />to be eliminated. The historical <br />continuity of the Trail dictate that <br />16. The developer must be prohibited from building of any kind in the <br />Oak Hammock, whether that portion is dedicated to the County or not. <br />The developer is justifying their request on the increased scenic <br />enhancement of the Trail. If building is allowing to occur in the Oak <br />Hammock, obviously the enhanced scenic quality is diminished and the <br />rationalization and justification for the realignment is defeated. <br />-I-, am attaching once again for your ease of reference, a copy of <br />r William Thurston's May 180. 1989, letter to me. As relates to public <br />access, the strongest evidence in the record clearly indicates that an <br />abandonment and denial of public access could result in jeopardizing <br />the historical integrity of the Trail. It is the Historial Society's <br />position that any closed or abandoned portion be left available to the <br />public in its original alignment. If the developer has legitimate <br />security concerns (which I point out are not criteria on which to <br />justify realignment), then and in that event, the developer can take <br />additional security measures. As an example, perhaps the developer <br />could enforce daylight traffic only, etc. <br />After you have had an opportunity to review these comments and <br />recommendations-, please call me if you have any questions. Thank you <br />for your consideration. <br />Sincerely, <br />MOSS, HENDERSON & LLOYD, P.A. <br />By: o <br />Kevin S. Doty, Esq <br />74 <br />