Laserfiche WebLink
Chairman Adams pointed out that the County would still retain the drainage easement <br />as well as public access. <br />Commissioner Stanbridge felt that would not be fair to the property owners on the <br />other side of the right-of-way, even though they may not desire it presently. <br />Commissioner Macht added that it would make the Board vulnerable to precedent <br />setting in case the other owners were to change their mind. <br />Chairman Adams thought the difference is that on this particular lot, the encroachment <br />is non -conforming and would be such in the event of a storm, however, the one on the west <br />side is conforming because it was built later. If a future storm causes extensive damage, the <br />house on the east would not be able to be rebuilt. <br />Commissioner Macht believed that Alternative 2 would come the closest in giving <br />the Drivers the relief they need, yet totally protect the other property owners' rights to the <br />use of the right-of-way. <br />Discussion ensued and Director Keating responded to the Commissioners' questions <br />and explained in detail the unusual characteristics about the Drivers' lot and building. He <br />confirmed that there are many other non -conforming lots in the same area. <br />Commissioner Stanbridge asked if there was a way the Board could give the Drivers <br />an exception, and Director Keating advised that there is always the opportunity for a variance <br />if they meet all of the criteria and there is some unique characteristic associated with the <br />property. <br />Director Keating continued that the Drivers were pursuing this course today because <br />they perceived there was an unused right-of-way. <br />Commissioner Stanbridge understood the Drivers were trying to plan for the future. <br />Commissioner Macht pointed out they had just heard testimony that the right-of-way <br />is used. <br />August 1, 2000 <br />51 <br />BK 1 14 PG 39 1 <br />• <br />