Laserfiche WebLink
Planning & Zoning Board <br />February 12, 2003 APPROVED MINUTES <br />Page 47 <br />Mr. Rafferty asked what was the differen ce between this proposed road and other <br />proposals that had been made previously by ot her applicants. Mr. Grochala replied this <br />road would service more than one residen ce, where the other proposals serviced only one <br />driveway. He expressed con cern about the maintenance of the road and questioned if a <br />road was going to fit. <br />Mr. Lyden stated he did not have an issue with the 20-foot gravel road. However, he <br />would like the cul-de-s ac not to be there. <br />Ms. Lane asked what the Ordinance said about paved accesses. Mr. Grochala replied this <br />was a rural district and they were not required to have paved accesses. <br />Chair Schaps thanked staff for their work ing on this and pushing it through the process. <br />He stated he agreed with a 20-foot road, bu t did not believe paving it was necessary. He <br />stated he believed they needed to add more than 5 inches of gravel though. He <br />questioned the easement for one of the driveway s. Mr. Grochala repl ied that should be a <br />part of the association agreement. He said the ingress/egress for that parcel should be <br />included in this process. <br />Mr. Hyden stated he was not in agreement on the road. He asked what other <br />development did they approve where they did not require a paved road. He stated what <br />was being proposed was the development of the property and gaining from that <br />development and now they were making anothe r concession. He stated the other issue <br />was what was easier to maintain and where di d all of the gravel go after three or four <br />winters. <br />Chair Schaps noted the number of trips on th e road was going to be very minimal, but <br />they may want to, in the event, it was deve loped where it was right now, a paved roadway <br />should be required. It was up to the association to maintain the road. <br />Mr. Hyden stated they needed to be fair to everyone who came before them. Chair <br />Schaps stated this was a unique situation and if another development came in, it would be <br />applied to the same standards. <br />Ms. Lane noted the difference in her mind was that this was zoned rural and had minimal <br />traffic. <br />Mr. Grochala stated Mr. Keefe wanted to ha ve the road less than 20 feet wide, which he <br />would not recommend. Chair Schaps noted the reason they did PDO was to give all sides <br />flexibility. He noted traffic would be minimal in this development. <br />Mr. Grochala stated the road has always been an issue as pieces have been split off. He <br />stated staff wanted something that would work. <br />Mr. Lyden agreed that the PDO was to look at unique pieces of property. He believed <br />they were not being incons istent in their decision.