Laserfiche WebLink
Commissioner Bird did not see a 3 -lane road as a compromise at <br />this point nor at some point in the future. <br />MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by <br />Commissioner Eggert, to approve going ahead with the <br />project as scheduled and designed, but agree to <br />construction of a wall on the 10 -ft. wide portion <br />for a buffer and once that is completed, it will <br />become the property of the association and the <br />residents can plant vegetation in front of it. <br />Under discussion, Commissioner Eggert asked if it would be <br />possible to put up temporary fencing while the clearing is being <br />done, and Director Davis said that we could put up red construction <br />fencing. <br />Chairman Adams felt this would be setting a precedent and <br />might cripple future road expansion projects if we had to build <br />walls as buffers to neighborhoods. She noted that if she had a <br />concern about the safety of her children, she would have her yard <br />fenced. She didn't know that it was the County's responsibility to <br />fence that area in terms of a concrete wall. She wouldn't mind <br />something affordable whether it is buffering or a chain-link fence, <br />but building a concrete wall would set a precedent. Chairman Adams <br />believed that if the project is dangerous to the point we are going <br />to set this type of precedent, then we need to take a look at the <br />project. However, if this is a normal road widening project, then <br />we have a kink here and we should address the kink. She wasn't <br />sure that the wall does that: <br />Commissioner Eggert felt we could look at what is unique about <br />the project and what we are doing with that wall ... so that it is <br />not necessarily setting a precedent. <br />Commissioner Macht asked about the developer's responsibility, <br />and Community Development Director Bob Keating advised that the <br />original developer was not required to put up a barrier. This is <br />not a double frontage lot situation because there is a canal <br />between the road and the subdivided property. If the lots came <br />right up'to the road right-of-way, our current requirements would <br />mandate a double frontage buffer which would mean some kind of a <br />wall or fence. <br />THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion <br />carried by a 4 -1 -vote, Chairman Adams dissenting. <br />48 <br />September 10, 1996 <br />