My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5/24/1994
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1994
>
5/24/1994
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:04:25 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 2:12:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
05/24/1994
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
110
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
F, <br />MAY 241994 <br />BOOK 92 PA -E 52,9 <br />counties have more stringent requirements in that they require the <br />road to be paved prior to the lot being split. <br />Commissioner Adams understood then that the problem is that <br />Hedden Place is not platted, and Attorney Barkett pointed out that <br />the problem is the way staff is interpreting the ordinance. Hedden <br />Place is not one of the types of roads referred to. All the <br />property owners on Hedden Place own to the middle of the road and <br />they have given each other a 20 -ft. easement from the center of the <br />road outward. -The easement runs with the land and that is in the <br />deed, which can be traced back to 1957. <br />Commissioner Adams understood that would make it a private <br />access easement where the property owners voluntarily contribute'to <br />its maintenance. However, the problem is that we don't allow for <br />that type of usage in our ordinance. <br />Planning Director Stan Boling advised that there are a total <br />of 6 parcels on Hedden Place that could be split, and that includes <br />Mr. VanVorst's parcel. <br />Commissioner Macht asked if staff is saying that if we grant <br />this appeal, we would have no grounds to deny additional split <br />requests. <br />Attorney Vitunac explained that the emergency ordinance that <br />was adopted makes it clear that you can not do what Attorney <br />Barkett wants to do. <br />Commissioner Adams understood then that nobody else will be <br />allowed to split until they plat the roadway, but Attorney Barkett <br />doubted the owners would ever do that because they love where they <br />live and love the road and the way it operates. He felt the County <br />should love it, too, because it doesn't cost them anything for <br />maintenance. <br />Attorney Vitunac reiterated that we changed the ordinance <br />because it was ambiguous. <br />Commissioner Macht asked if we would be setting a precedent if <br />we approved the split, and Attorney Vitunac advised that there <br />won't be any more of this in the future, as far as he could tell, <br />because the law is changed and there are no other appeals pending <br />at this moment. The new ordinance makes it clear that Attorney <br />Barkett cannot do this lot split. If this request was approved, <br />the other five owners on Hedden Place would not be allowed to split <br />their lots. <br />Commissioner Adams was concerned about Mr. VanVorst's RS -6 <br />zoning since he is being made to keep over an acre for just one <br />home. <br />84 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.