05/03/07 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Motion Carried. V oting Yes: Acting Chairperson Brauer, Board Members Trites Rolle, Levine, Cleveland, and Hunt, and Chairperson Nixt. Voting No: None. Absent: Board Member Van Scoy. The public hearing closed at 7:55 p.m. Board Business Acting Chairperson Brimer called the Board of Adjustment meeting back to order at 7:55 p.m. Board Member Levine commented they should be planning as a Planning Commission. He is trying to determine if putting the driveway access in actually deters from any future development or not, or whether it make a difference on the overall development of the entire area. He is not certain on that. Board Member Cleveland concurred. She noted the applicant's plan to build on that property complies with the scope of the Comprehensive Plan. She requested clarification of whether the easement will be on the applicant's property or the neighbor's property. Mr. Swanson replied he had to provide a 30 foot easement when he bought the property so the McCollums could get back to their land; the easement is on his land. What he was saying before was that if someone else were to buy the land and have to put in a driveway to get to the property they would need to have him rearrange his driveway and everything as the County had said he would need to do. He stated there is no easeinent on the other side of the property line. Board Member Cleveland questioned how Mr. Swanson would get to the land behind his current house if it were to sell it. Mr. Swanson replied he could not sell his back 7 Y2 acres unless the development came in from behind, which is where the access would need to come from. Board Member Cleveland commented the Comprehensive Plan does not indicate any major development in this area other than one home per 2 Y2 acres, and much of the land is not buildable. Mr. Swanson stated the easement is strictly on his land. Mr. Enstrom does not want him to build. on the land because he wants to purchase it. Board Member Hunt commented if this develops from the east and an arrangement is made between the landowners the problem goes away, but he was trying to look at what options there are that would solve potential problems in the future. His understanding from the County's comments is that the new driveway would come in off the easement, and rather than three driveways there would be one coming off the easement. Board Member Cleveland requested clarification regarding the nunlber of residents that are able to use one driveway. Board of Adjustment/April 5, 2007 Page 7 of 10 P7