1/12/1993 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

O'Haire property, although he did not specify the nature of those restrictions. Further, Mr. Krovocheck did not want him to have access to the roadway unless he helped pay the cost of building it. Mr. Krovocheck felt that he would be getting a windfall if he were permitted to have access to the roadway. Mr. O'Haire argued that he would not be getting a windfall and, in fact, "shoehorning" all these homes into a small piece of property will decrease the value of his property. He concluded that denying him access to the road makes no planning or economic sense, because a four -lane road would have to be built to service 14 to 16 houses within two small subdivisions, or else a road would have to be built along his north property line, creating a double frontage situation. The latter would create a domino effect because the people in the River Ridge subdivision to the north also would have double frontage and he did not want to impose that on his neighbors. Mr. O'Haire urged the Board to require that this road be dedicated to the public, or alternatively, to require on the plat a right for his property to the north to access this road upon payment of a pro rata share of the cost of maintenance and security. Commissioner Macht asked, and Director Boling confirmed, that requiring the road to be dedicated to the public would preclude a controlled security gate. Attorney Steve Henderson, representing Jack Krovocheck, announced that the Planning & Zoning Commission voted unanimously to have the road remain private and the parties negotiate a joint solution to the access problems. Attorney Henderson reminded the Board that Michael O'Haire opposed this project every step of the way. Attorney Henderson advised that he had approached Mr. O'Haire on behalf of his client with the idea of a shared road in an effort to solve the access problem, but Mr. O'Haire refused to give up any right-of-way even though a donation of just 25 feet would have improved both pieces of property. Attorney Henderson explained that his client's concern about restrictions and covenants was that any homes 'built on Mr. O'Haire's property be consistent in architecture with the homes in the Sunset Pointe development. Attorney Henderson directed the Board's attention to ordinance subsections 913.09 (3) (c) (2 ) and 913.09 (3) (c) (8 ) that were quoted by staff and stressed that these are not applicable in this situation. The key words are "deemed necessary" and "access." The Planning & Zoning Commission did not deem access to these roads to be necessary. Attorney Henderson cited examples of some roads within subdivisions in South Beach that are adjacent to other subdivisions but are not shared by those subdivisions. He added that the developer wants to provide some buffering on the north side of this 57 JAN 121993 31