BOC ORDER - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

9. Appellants and Opponents argue that MCC 17.1 10.800 linlits the use of a private drive to serve development as follows: Evefy dwelling shall be situated on a lot having direct access by abutting upon a public street on• u preexisting driveti►�a{y �f a �tidlh ntot less Ih�n� 2U %e!. A private clrn,e shall not serve more than four cwelling units unless the parcels, on lrhich those units are proposed to be placed, were established with the approval of Marion County in accordance trith state law and A4ca•ion Count)) ordinances prior to iWay 1, 1977, or lrere approved under Chapter 17.121 AICC, Planned Development. Appellant argues that the only direct access for the homes on tax lots 2000, 2300, 2301, and 2302 is through Little Haven Lane and that Little Haven Lane already serves four units, or the rnaxinlum capacity allowed by the Code. Although Lot 2000 abuts Viewcrest Drive, it is "served" or accessed by Little Haven Lane because Viewcrest Drive does not, and perhaps could not provide direct access. 10. Carrie Richter, attorney for Appellant, testified that the easement serves Tax Lot 2000, and because the easement is there, it cannot be concluded that Viewcrest provides access to Tax Lot 2000 and no driveway could be built from Viewcrest to serve Tax Lot 2000. Ms. Richter argues there are already four homes that are served by Little Haven Lane, and that a fifth home on the subject property cannot be established without a variance. The Appellant's positions are supported by Ms. Richter's May 2 and May 16 submissions, as well as testimony presented at the hearing. Ms. Upright's appeal states that she has approached Planning regarding partitioning her land, but has been advised that adding a fifth dwelling with service on Little Haven Lane would be prohibited by MCC 17.1 10.800. Ms. Richter and the Opponents address the fact that to allow the use of the subject property for the establishment of a non -farm dwelling relies on obtaining vehicular access to the property by using the existing Little Haven Lane private drive and by extending it approximately twice the distance of its current length which will require significant tree removal on a steep slope behind Tax Lots 2300 and 2301. 1 1. Appellants Ted and Michelle Raszka reside at 3238 Little Haven Lane, which is Tax Lot 2301. The Raszkas addressed their concerns that there are already four houses accessed by Little Haven Lane. The Raszkas stated that Tax lot 2000 does not have the ability to accommodate access to Viewcrest Drive, even though it has frontage. The Raszkas also indicated that the undeveloped access road is approximately 5-10 feet wide and widening the roadway would require excavation. The access beyond the casement area that serves the residences had not been used for decades. The Raszkas state that development of the undeveloped access roadway to access the proposed dwelling will require excavation on sloped and landslide area could result in geologic consequences to the area. 12. Joseph and Pamela Vidra reside at 3288 Little Haven Lane, which is Tax Lot 2300. The Vidras' opposition to the application is based upon the fact that four dwellings are already served by Little Haven Lane and tle fact that tle engineering challenges of access to tle proposed dwelling have not been adequately addressed. The Vidras are concerned about a slide risk to their home and state that a significant retaining wall would be required for tle slope. The Vidras stated that there will be land destabilization from tree removal that would be required to develop the roadway. Tile Vidras submitted Exhibit 4 which addresses the engineering challenges associated with creating the easement road on 'fax Lot 2300. Exhibit 4 also addresses the Restated Roadway Access and Easement Agreement (Exhibit 5) which provides that the "ungraveled easement" is approved for emergency use only. CU 24-006 — ORDER Joy M. Blackman Revocable Living Trust Page 5