8/15/1989 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I AUG I F) 1989 agreed that is exactly what we are requiring, and it is a part of the ordinance. Actually, it is not a requirement to dedicate property, but just a requirement to facilitate the use. Commissioner Bird noted that in other words, we are just asking them to reserve it, and Director Keating explained that we just want them to record a document that says the public has the right to use their driving aisles and access points to access other properties. Attorney O'Haire contended that what he is talking about is a street or a road, and if they are going to be required to give the public the right to travel across their property, they should have credit against impact fees for what they are giving up. Attorney Vitunac addressed the question as to why the County shouldn't have to pay for this. He explained that it is the same type of road as a turning movement into someone's property. It may be a public road, but it is strictly 100% site related. If it wasn't for this development, we wouldn't need that road, and it is strictly for his own benefit. Commissioner Bird disagreed completely. He pointed out that the only people who would use this are people to the south of this property fronting on U.S.I, and they would use it to access their property rather than have another curb cut on U.S.I. This site is on the corner and doesn't need the marginal access at all; in fact, it is a nuisance to them. Director Keating noted that the whole intent of the marginal access easement is to minimize curb cuts onto U.S.I. Attorney O'Haire stated that they would be happy not to build on it, but just don't require them to let the public use it. It is theirs. Commissioner Scurlock believed we visited this issue before and decided that if we take something, we are going to pay for it and adjust our impact fees to reflect this. Commissioner Bird believed the problem we are going to find is that historically we didn't require reservation of property PW