Laserfiche WebLink
Item No. 3 <br /> PC: 11-1-90 <br /> MS-90-127 <br /> Page 3 <br /> because of existing improvements, physical condition, or other <br /> unique circumstances cannot have frontage, may be created; <br /> provided, however, that each lot so created is provided with <br /> a twenty-five (25) foot wide strip of land joined to the <br /> parcel it serves and further provided that the design is such <br /> that said access strips may be combined into fifty (50) foot <br /> wide roadways when required by future development. <br /> "Parcels created under this Section shall be required to make <br /> an irrevocable offer of dedication of said strip of land for <br /> roadway purposes (emphasis added) and may be required to make <br /> an irrevocable offer to dedicate and improve said strip of <br /> land on demand of the county as a condition of approval of the <br /> map. . . " <br /> The applicant has indicated that he is unable to get the property <br /> owners on Access B or Access C to agree to give an I.O.D. across <br /> their property on the existing easements. However, the applicant <br /> could reconfigure his subdivision in such a way that would allow <br /> access over property that he controls. <br /> The applicant states that there are no provisions for entitlements <br /> in Section 66424 . 6 of the State Subdivision Map Act. Section <br /> 66424 . 6 states " . . . (b) For a designated remainder parcel. . .the <br /> fulfillment of construction requirements for improvements shall not <br /> be required until a permit or other grant of approval for <br /> development of the remainder parcel is issued by the local <br /> agency. . . " An Irrevocable Offer of Dedication would not be <br /> considered a construction requirement for improvements; therefore, <br /> this Section would not apply. All improvements for the Remainder <br /> Parcel will not be required until the Remainder Parcel is <br /> developed. <br /> APPEAL STATEMENT: <br /> The only other area of contention is the Condition (2 (a) ) that <br /> requires a soil study for septic tank suitability prior to <br /> recording the Parcel Map. <br /> Mr. Adams states that Public Health Services Condition 2 (a) , which <br /> requires a soil suitability study for septic tank development prior <br /> to recording the Parcel Map, should not be needed until development <br /> occurs. <br /> RESPONSE• <br /> This is an Ordinance Requirement of Planning Title Section 9- <br />