OCPB minutes 060315 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 7/1/2015 8 what a developer can and cannot do would be a better solution than potentially allowing more run off into 344 the most protected areas of the county. 345 346 Tony Blake: I completely agree. The developer did not disclose what the ramifications are and it would 347 have affected his lot prices. I tend to think to put the onus back on the developer to disclose this impervious 348 surface ratio or what have you to the homeowner… 349 350 Michael Harvey: Respectfully you don’t know that what you are suggesting didn’t occur. This is a p roject 351 platted almost 10 years ago and none of us, including staff, was involved in any discussion between the 352 developer and potential property owners. 353 354 Tony Blake: I am focusing on the loop hole that this project took advantage of. If it is a matter of record, in 355 the closing, that this is disclosed, problem solved in my mind. 356 357 Herman Staats: I agree. I would be in favor or proper and effective disclosure and communication but if, 358 for these impervious surface exceptions, if they are engineering correctly, why would they be a determent 359 to the environment. 360 361 Lisa Stuckey: I am concerned about what the state will call a BMP. I don’t have enormous confidence in 362 our state’s ability to protect the environment. I haven’t heard of other instances with the rule s as they are 363 currently and I don’t know why that should be a basis of changing the rules. 364 365 Paul Guthrie: Let me tell you why I stirred it up. If you read the teacher tenure reading ruling in the state’s 366 courts, they are taking notice of issues of contract. It seems to be that someone that didn’t receive notice 367 of limitation that they eventually wanted to change could not go into court against the whole rule as a taking 368 without due process so I think we need to be very careful how the administration and the language that is 369 used as setup this system on limits on property knowing that down the road, it may or may not be 370 transferred in a way the next buyer understands what the limits on the property are. We need to be as 371 clear as we can. Is our system providing due process? 372 373 Herman Staats: In this example of what we are not supposed to be focusing on but we are, the owner was 374 the developer and he did so he knew what he was doing so it wasn’t something taken away from him, he is 375 the one who did it, he was the owner. 376 377 Lisa Stuckey: What is being recommending is giving not a taking. 378 379 Paul Guthrie: In the specific case you are talking about is that offended buyer could go after both the 380 owner and the legal authority that is running it. I was concerned how we can document that people can, 381 with due diligence, what the property is limited too or not limited to. 382 383 Craig Benedict: The County has a recorded document that lists the development restrictions in that lot in 384 writing. The plat has it and the declaration of restrictions has it as well. 385 386 Pete Hallenbeck: We have all these exceptions, etc. and for a normal person buying a house, they will not 387 wrap their head around those details unless they have been bitten in the past. 388 389 Lisa Stuckey: How big a problem is it? 390 391 Pete Hallenbeck: It is unlikely this is the first person who has run into this. 392