Laserfiche WebLink
there. As to the "taking" issue, it is not going to be a public <br />road, and the question is how much does allowing the southern <br />neighbors access across the property reduce the value of it. He <br />felt actually that property may be worth more because of the <br />benefits from the southern customers coming. We are not taking <br />anything; we are requiring him to give one neighbor an easement. <br />It is a property development regulation. It will not be a public <br />road. <br />MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by <br />Commissioner Eggert, to approve staff's recommendation <br />with the exception of the provision that we require <br />them to save the tree, but that we do require the dedi- <br />cation of the marginal access easement as we believe <br />there is a benefit for them, and not a negative impact, <br />or in other words, approve all the conditions except #1. <br />Commissioner Bird stated that he will vote for the Motion <br />because right or wrong, he believed we have been fairly consist— <br />ent in the way we handle the marginal access issue. In regard to <br />Condition #3, he would not be in favor of sending them back to <br />the Technical Review Committee again, but Planner Boling pointed <br />out that it would only be required if they have to redesign for <br />separation distance between the proposed septic system and the <br />existing community supply well. <br />THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. <br />It was voted on and carried unanimously. <br />31 <br />A U G � 1989 <br />