4/9/1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOOK 97 PACE 769 The main issue regarding the- development of the Cairns parcel- is access. Although the parcel is served by a'24' wide access easement across Hawks Nest golf course property, and has frontage on Storm Grove Road right-of-way, neither the right-of-way nor the easement is improved. The LDRs require that all subdivisions, such as the one proposed by Mr. Cairns, must have access to paved public roads [913.09(3)] and that roadway improvements must be sufficiently designed and constructed to accommodate the volume of traffic to be generated by the project (952.10). In the opinion of the Public Works Director, the 24' wide access easement cannot be used to provide sufficient access to the parcel due to the easement's width and configuration constraints. Storm Grove Road could be used to serve the project if it is paved and a new FEC railroad crossing is constructed. The 24' wide access easemer)t is nest 813 ffi niAnt .to develop the property in accordance with the county's LDRs.Therefore, denying the property owner the ability to construct Storm Grove Road could result in denying the owner his development rights, making the county subject to an inverse condemnation action. The Cairns parcel was created as part of the Hawk's Nest golf course real estate project. In October, 1985, the county approved the Hawk's Nest golf course site plan. The parcel in question appears to have been created in 1986, using the existing Storm Grove Road right-of-way to satisfy the County's right-of-way frontage requirement [reference LDR section 913.06(1)(C)], and making the parcel split legal. As part of the golf course. approval, Vero Sand Pines (Hawk's Nest) entered into a developer's agreement with the County to construct Storm Grove Road at such time that Vero Sand Pines was put on notice by the County that Storm Grove Road construction was required and that the County was applying to -the FEC for a railroad crossing at Storm Grove Road. This agreement is secured by a mortgage on the Hawk's Nest golf course property. In similar past situations, the Board of County Commissioners has always allowed a developer access to his property via a dedicated County right-of-way, such as Storm Grove Road. Construction of a paved access in a County right-of-way is an expense that has been borne by a developer when the improvement would serve only his development project for the foreseeable future. In the instant case, there is an additional factor in that there is also a need for a new railroad crossing at Storm Grove Road. Obtaining FEC approval for a new crossing would entail giving up the present Hawk's Nest railroad crossing (a crossing obtained by the county) in exchange for a crossing at Storm Grove Road. In the case of the Cairns project, the county would need to be the applicant for the exchange, although the cost of the new crossing would not necessarily have to be the County's expense. Moving the crossing at this time, in addition to allowing the developer access via Storm Grove Road, would also ensure that the county would not lose the opportunity to exchange its present Hawk's Nest crossing for a __grossing at Storm Grove Road, Generally, the FEC attempts to close crossings. Consequently, a crossing which, in effect, serves only private interests, such as the Hawk's Nest golf course, would in all likelihood be a prime target for closure. With respect to paying for the crossing, it was the County's original intent to pay for the relocation of the railroad crossing 42 April 9, 1996