My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1/7/1992
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1992
>
1/7/1992
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:30 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 10:52:15 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
01/07/1992
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
73
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
standards to satisfactorily service the proposed parcel and future <br />development in the immediate area of the subject t4 acre parcel. <br />Staff also notes that the private deed restriction can be changed <br />by the private parties having an interest in the restriction. <br />There is no guarantee that the restriction will remain. Lastly, <br />alternative uses of the subject property do exist, as described in <br />the subsequent section of this report. <br />•Alternatives: <br />Essentially, three alternatives exist in relation to use of the <br />subject parcel. These options are as follows: <br />1. Join the parcel to an adjacent, legal parcel. Thus, the <br />subject #4 acre parcel could become part of an existing <br />parcel, such as the parent tract (east) or parcels to the <br />north, west, or south. As part of an adjacent, expanded <br />parcel, the subject site could ultimately become part of a <br />future subdivision development. <br />2• A road right-of-way could be platted over adjacent <br />property(ies) from any direction, to provide right-of-way <br />frontage to the subject site. Coordination with surrounding <br />property owners would be required to carry -out this <br />alternative. <br />3• The parcel could remain as it is, "unbuildable" unless and <br />until road frontage is provided, and subject to any penalty or <br />fine imposed by the Code Enforcement Board as a result of the <br />existing subdivision ordinance violation. <br />One of these alternatives must be pursued in lieu of the county <br />granting a variance to the subdivision ordinance. <br />the <br />variance request would set an untenable precedent of legalizing Granting the <br />creation of bad development situations now prohibited by the <br />subdivision ordinance, dedicated road frontage requirements. The <br />situation from which the applicant seeks relief is self-created. <br />RECOMMENDATION: <br />Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners deny the <br />variance request and affirm the application <br />dedicated (platted) road frontage requiremeof the county's <br />39 <br />JAN 07 1992 mor <br />W <br />_ <br />74 ao <br />W <br />. - <br />4 <br />39 <br />JAN 07 1992 mor <br />W <br />_ <br />74 ao <br />W <br />Q <br />LU <br />;o <br />3 W <br />9a <br />' <br />(aa <br />s 1 <br />tLo <br />■ ; ■ <br />+s r��.. <br />g• <br />i <br />�' ....�.._... - <br />39 <br />JAN 07 1992 mor <br />_ <br />74 ao <br />s 1 <br />tLo <br />■ ; ■ <br />+s r��.. <br />g• <br />i <br />�' ....�.._... - <br />; � `-. _.... <br />\� -:• ~� <br />fit•-... S • _ <br />'-'TZ. <br />_, _. _ <br />y <br />r'�— <br />.. <br />� <br />"i � � '�•—w,•�_ <br />- 3TC U ar..•raw.n <br />t <br />39 <br />JAN 07 1992 mor <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.