Laserfiche WebLink
PC: 6-20-91 <br /> MS-91-78 <br /> • <br /> APPEAL STATEMENT: <br /> 'The proposed land division was denied on the assumption that more than six parcels are currently using <br /> the private road. This is only true for the first ± 300 feet of this road, the section that connects to State <br /> Highway Route 88.' <br /> RESPONSE TO APPEAL STATEMENT: <br /> Six existing lots have access to State Route 88 via rights-of-way along the northern property line of the <br /> subject parcel. Two existing lots are served by the private rights-of-way along the southern property line <br /> of the subject parcel (Parcels 'D' and 'C' of MS-86-48). A total of eight existing lots are served by the <br /> private rights-of-way along the 400 feet between State Route 88 and the subject property (see <br /> illustrations). <br /> APPEAL STATEMENT: <br /> 'The rear parcels had the same problem. The Board of Supervisors granted them an exception.' <br /> RESPONSE TO APPEAL STATEMENT: <br /> The Board letter regarding the rear parcels(MS-86-48) discussed the potential for creating more than sox <br /> parcels on the northern private right-of-way. The fact that six parcels were already using the first 400 feet <br /> was not addressed in the Board letter or the staff report. However, staff and the Planning Commission <br /> both felt the road should be built to public standards. <br /> APPEAL STATEMENT: <br /> 'The suggestion to construct and dedicate a 50-foot road to the County is neither in the best interest of <br /> the public or the property owners in this area for the following reasons: <br /> '1. The southerly road dead-ends to the Mokelumne River. Therefore, there is no possibility to <br /> extend it to any County road. <br /> '2. To open this area with a public road invites the public with illegal access to the river with the <br /> ensuing problems of vandalism, fitter, possible litigation for injury, and the added responsibility <br /> placed on the Sheriffs Department. <br /> '3. The owners would lose control of their access and would see the deterioration of their secluded <br /> environment. <br /> '4. Currently the owners know which cars belong in the area and which do not. With a public road <br /> this type of neighborhood watch would not be as effective.' <br /> RESPONSE TO APPEAL STATEMENT: <br /> The rationale for placing a limit on the number of parcels which can develop on a private right-of-way is <br /> _u_ <br />