Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 16, 1990 <br />ZONING FILE #1475-MCDOHELL CONTINUED <br />There were no comirents from the public regarding this matter <br />and the public hearing was closed. <br />It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Cohen, to recommend <br />approval of the Hayssen/McDowe 11 lot line rearrangement as <br />proposed. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. <br />It was moved by Kelley to deny access onto Bayside Road for <br />the proposed 2-lot subdivision. <br />Mr. Owens, expanded on the reason for the access proposal. <br />He Informed the Planning Commission that: a motion to deny could <br />have disastrous results for everybody involved, including the <br />City. Mr. Owens said that he had talked with the County <br />regarding this matter. He said that if Tract A is split into 2 <br />lots and if Mr. White prevails in litigation as to accessing <br />those lots, then the Title Company will have to spend a lot of <br />money to satisfy Mr. McDowell. Mr. Owens said that this access <br />problem is due to an error made by the Title Company years ago. <br />Mr. Owens said that the obvious access that Mr. McDowell will be <br />entitled to is where his Tract A abuts Bayside Road. He said <br />there is approximately 190* of property abutting Bayside. Mr. <br />Owens indicated that Mr. White was not thrilled with the current <br />proposal, but felt it was a compromise that would avoid the need <br />to litigate the matter. <br />Hanson said that he had reached the same conclusion that <br />Kelley had. However, after listening to Mr. Owens, he was not <br />He asked Mr. McDowell what exactly he wanted. <br />Mr. McDowell said that basically he wanted what currently <br />exists. He said that everyone using the existing road loves the <br />way things are now. McDowell said that the only probler is that <br />he doesn't have access to his property. He said that v.hat he <br />wants is access to his property without the need to put in a cul- <br />de-sac and destroy what now exists for the other residents. <br />Cohen questioned why Mr. White would not give McDowell <br />access to his property, since the road is already being used by <br />Alt and Huyssen? <br />Mr. Owens replied that Mr. White does not want the traffic <br />that the two additional lots will create on his property. Mr. <br />Owens also said that everyone involved agrees that they do not <br />want the road upgraded, which would have to occur if the McDowell <br />lots are added. Mr. Owens said that the road is enclosed on both <br />sides by mature trees which would have to he removed. Mr. Owens <br />added that he did not think approval of this proposal would set <br />any precedent and furthermore, the County has aoproved the access <br />being proposed onto Bayside. <br />Drown indicated that he is compelled by a couple of things. <br />One concern is that the City does not have an easement under the <br />existing driveway so the City cannot do what it did in the Wear