10/10/1989 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1L CT ib BOOK 78 FA r 1Th now - the deficiency is 50". The issue was whether we would pay for the first 30' and that is to be decided in court; it is understood we would pay for the 20'. The Jacksons indicated they did not wish to sell the 20'. Asst. County Attorney Collins expressed some confusion. Looking at the sketch staff prepared, it says the 20' is "to be purchased at a future date." Do we want it now or don't we? We can always buy it at a future date. Director Davis stated that the main thing is that it not be encumbered by setbacks or structures, and Commissioner Bird felt we are just putting Mr. Jackson on notice today that he should `not do anything in that 20' because we are going to buy it. Attorney Collins commented that normally people want us to buy it now because they get a traffic impact fee credit. Discussion ensued regarding it being pointless to enter into Reservation Agreements because they can't be enforced, and Director Davis reiterated that we are happy with the 60' as long as the other 20' are not encumbered by structures or setbacks. Attorney Collins stated that he personally would like to refer to it as "enlightened self-interest" that they don't build so close to the road and believed we are just warning him what could happen in the future when we expand the road. Administrator Chandler stressed what we must base every- thing on is what the local ordinance says. That is the controlling factor. Debate continued among Attorneys Vitunac, Collins and Jackson, as to whether we need 50' or 30', and Chairman Wheeler recessed the meeting briefly to give the attorneys an opportunity to resolve the problem. When the meeting resumed, County Attorney Vitunac advised that during the recess, staff had a discussion and decided that since the additional 20' was not on the County's 20 year (CIP) Capital Improvement Plan, the County would not be in a position to require it t� be bought or is not willing to buy it and will 27