4/9/1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

to Storm Grove Road. This was based on the assumption that Storm Grove Road would be needed in the near future as a continuous road between US 1 and Kings Highway. Since Storm Grove Road is no longer planned to be a continuous county road, a Storm Grove Road railroad crossing would not serve a necessary Thoroughfare Plan link. For that reason, the county has no reason to pay the cost of any railroad crossing improvements. Since the public interest in having this crossing is greatly -diminished, it appears more appropriate for the developer, the major beneficiary, to bear the relocation cost. ALTERNATIVES: 1. The Board can determine that there is no need for Storm Grove Road and do nothing. This could result in an inverse condemnation suit by the developer who can claim he has relied on Storm Grove Road right-of-way for access. Such a suit, if successful, could result in the County paying damages. 2. The Board could determine that there is a need for Storm Grove Road to serve the proposed development, and the County could give notice to Hawk's Nest to construct the road under the existing developer's agreement between Hawk's Nest and the County. The County would then seek to have the railroad crossing relocated to Storm Grove Road. It is likely that Hawk's Nest would refuse to perform (construct), and a law suit would necessarily follow between the County and Hawk's Nest. Under such an alternative, the cost of relocating the railroad crossing would fall on the County. 3. The Board could determine that there is a need for Storm Grove Road to serve the proposed development. However, because the function of Storm Grove Road has been altered, in that it will serve only the proposed development and Hawk's Nest, the developer as the primary beneficiary could be assigned the "Developer's Agreement", so that the developer would bear the cost of constructing the relocated railroad crossing. The Board's only cost would be to lend its good offices in processing the crossing relocation application with FEC. In as much as there is some potential future public benefit to the relocation, the County could consider funding a portion of the relocation cost. In staff's opinion, Alternative 3 is the best alternative. It places the authority, responsibility, and cost of the crossing relocation on the developer, who will be the primary beneficiary of the relocation. As previously indicated, the developer would have the right to have Storm Grove Road paved in accordance with the assigned "Developer's Agreement". Furthermore, Alternative 3 has little, if any, potential adverse consequences for the County in regard to any legal action against the county. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners choose Alternative 3. 43 April 9, 1996 'von 97 PAG 770