1/12/1993 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r JAN 12199 BOOK Under discussion, Commissioner Adams asked for clarification of the access problem and how this relates to the legality of requiring marginal access. Attorney Vitunac explained that the reason the County is giving up the marginal access easement is because the County does not need to take someone's property if it is not in a five-year or ten-year plan to build a road there. The issue today is deciding whether we want one road or two roads adjacent to each other. We have the power to require -one public road, but if -the road is private, there is no way we can ensure that Michael O'Haire will have access to it. Chairman Bird pointed out that Mr. O'Haire can continue to use the driveway he has been using. Commissioner Tippin stressed that Mr. O'Haire will not be landlocked because of the Board's decision today. Commissioner Eggert asked whether staff felt requiring access or making the road public was "necessary" or merely "desirable." Director Boling explained that the word "necessary" can be used in the context of requiring a coordinated street system and felt that this will be an uncoordinated street system if the County does not require the access. He gave the example of a road in the north beach area where the Kennedy Grove 40 -acre parcel has frontage on Jungle Trail. Although the property is not technically landlocked, this rule was applied to require access from AlA through another private subdivision. Attorney Vitunac advised that the words "deemed necessary" give more discretion than the words "found necessary." Chairman Bird thought the situation today is different from the examples given because both the O'Haire and the Krovocheck property have had their own curb cuts on AlA for many years. He thought it would unfair to give Mr. O'Haire free access to a road when it was built entirely on Mr. Krovocheck's property and when Mr. Krovocheck had to bear all the construction costs. Commissioner Adams mentioned that Mr. O'Haire would in effect be getting an additional 50 feet per lot if he had access to the road. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously.