Laserfiche WebLink
Attorney Vitunac explained that his office was asked to look <br />at this and the mere fact that Attorney Barkett found a different <br />interpretation caused him to believe that the wording was <br />ambiguous. He had then advised that we could solve it quickly <br />through an emergency ordinance, which is what we did. Attorney <br />Barkett is right; this appeal will affect only the piece of <br />property owned by his client, but we still are able to say honestly <br />that the Code we were operating under said what Director Keating <br />thought it should. Otherwise, our Code would prohibit lot splits <br />on platted roads and good roads with less than 60 feet but allow <br />splits on lots that had no road frontage whatsoever. That is <br />illogical and he didn't think. that the Court requires us to find an <br />illogical meaning in this. However, he felt that is the Board's <br />prerogative. Attorney Vitunac noted that this whole issue is <br />coming back before the Board under the LDRs late this summer, and <br />if the Board doesn't like this type of regulation, then we can <br />change it again. If the Board's decision today is against this <br />lot, the applicant can reapply under the new ordinance, if there is <br />one, in 6 months. <br />Chairman Tippin just wanted to find some loophole so that this <br />man could do what he wants to do, and Attorney Vitunac advised that <br />if the Board wanted to find a loophole, he could find that what <br />Attorney Barkett is saying is correct, because he has found a <br />loophole. <br />Commissioner Bird was all for this gentlemen being able to do <br />what he wants to do, but there is a tremendous precedent that has <br />been established in the past to deny people's requests for splits <br />on lots that are not even on a road, just trails or easements. <br />There are all kinds of sympathetic reasons why we might want to do <br />that, but staff has been pretty consistent in not allowing that to <br />happen and this situation is not unique. <br />Attorney Barkett addressed the two precedents brought to his <br />attention -- the Ketchum situation and the Mt. Pleasant Baptist <br />Church. In contrast to those two precedents, the Hedden Place <br />situation is completely opposite. Those two precedents just don't <br />apply, because the roadway serves all the purposes that staff has <br />identified. <br />Director Keating explained that the initial ordinance was <br />adopted for good reasons, because every easement or every road out <br />there that is not platted is not particularly like Hedden Place. <br />Split lots result in more properties with more trips on the road <br />and the road requiring constant maintenance and grading. It <br />further results in a lot of requests for road improvements. Other <br />MAY 24-1994 83 <br />BOOK 92 PAGF.528 <br />