Laserfiche WebLink
at the building permit stage, and if the County Commission has a <br />concern about wetlands, it should be addressed on a county -wide <br />basis, not in terms of Ambersand Subdivision. He felt there is an <br />additional alternative to the two alternatives presented by staff, <br />and that would be for this Board to make a factual finding that it <br />was the construction of AIA that divided these lots into two <br />separate parcels of real estate. With that finding, they could go <br />back to the Board of Adjustment and say that his client had no <br />involvement in the construction of AIA. <br />Commissioner Scurlock asked if they could have built on both <br />r <br />AttorneyHaire s client <br />sides of the road back in 1980 when O' <br />Haire <br />his property, and Mr. Boling advised that it depends on <br />how efficient the checking system was at the time on whether or <br />that arcel. He not there already was a house built on part of p <br />believed that at one time staff was operating under the assumption <br />that AIA did split the lots into two parcels. <br />Robert Keating, Director of Community Development, believed <br />that the Planning Department back then hadn't asked the County <br />Attorney's office for a legal opinion. Had they acted upon what <br />is the correct criteria now, they probably could not have allowed <br />lot splits back in 1980 because the lots would not have met the <br />minimum frontage requirements. The Planning Department saw the <br />separate, distinct parcels back then, but did not challenge thee <br />splits. <br />Commissioner Scurlock asked if the owner had a reasonable <br />right to believe that he had two buildable Tots when he bought the <br />property1980, <br />in since he had two titles and he had a record <br />showing construction of other homes on both sides of the road. <br />Mr. Boling didn't believe there were houses built on both <br />sides of the road back in 1980. <br />Commissioner Bird understood that with the exception of Lots <br />1 and 5, which are zoned RS -3, the remaining lots in Ambersand <br />Subdivision are zoned RS -1, which would preclude two houses being <br />DEC 1 <br />1989 <br />37 roc. 8 GE 611 <br />