8/15/1989 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

98 R�o� 77 F49,A 622 adjacent businesses. He noted that many cities and counties have marginal access roads. They take an easement for ingress and egress the same way you do for a utility line. It is not taking title to the property; there is a benefit to the property owner that still remains. Attorney O'Haire continued to argue that it is a taking since his client doesn't need the access for any reason; and the only benefit is to someone else's property. Director Keating advised that we already have acquired quite a few marginal access easements, and the one place where you see it working the best probably is in the Gifford area on the east side of U.S.I. where you have a number of properties connected with a marginal access easement. He further noted the big thing about the marginal access easement is that parking is allowed on each side of that easement. if the county had to acquire these and it became R/W, there would be the additional setback and parking wouldn't be allowed. Commissioner Scurlock likened this to utilities and asked if we couldn't take the position that,it is developing a system that services the area. Director Davis agreed we are developing a system; it is managing the ingress and egress for a facility, particularly on an arterial roadway, which in this case happens to be a state roadway. He personally has not heard of any case where a marginal access easement has been considered a taking, and he believed the Board has been given authority for planning the county. Commissioner Bird believed that although it may not be a pure taking, you are restricting the applicant's use of his land to some degree. He asked Mr. O'Haire, if this reservation of the marginal access easement does not interfere with their site plan, is the question just as to whether they get paid for it, and Mr. O'Haire confirmed that it does not interfere with their site plan 26