Laserfiche WebLink
01/03/2017 MINUTES 2 <br />general. He suggested having something in place to notify people of <br />these types of situations, for example maybe having a pre- <br />application meeting. He felt the application for a variance to the <br />current Road Standards met the public safety, health and welfare. He <br />noted he was unaware of the ownership of the bridge. <br /> <br />LUCAS HUCK, ENGINEER provided background information about himself <br />and answered questions from Ms. Shallbetter. He said once the facts <br />were presented at the Road Variance Committee meeting relating to <br />how many lots could potentially be created, and additional unknowns <br />relating to crossing the bridge, the committee determined the <br />proposal was not in the best interest of the public and that <br />requirements for safety, fire, appearance and maintainability based <br />upon sound engineering judgment were not fully met as required by <br />County Code. He provided a history of the Road Variance Application <br />from Harlan Odegard and John Davis, owners of the Filbert Estates <br />Short Plat (SP-15-0004). He indicated the Road Variance Committee <br />unanimously denied the request based on the number of lots Filbert <br />Road serves and issues with fire, life and safety surrounding the <br />narrow bridge. He said he has not yet run across an issue with <br />unknown ownership of a bridge while working with the County. He <br />stated he had previously visited the site to look at the bridge in <br />the summer and in the winter, but could not get underneath it to do <br />a proper inspection. He answered questions from the Board of <br />Commissioners and provided clarification on issues. <br /> <br />MS. SHALLBETTER said she has not looked into the ownership of the <br />bridge but did not believe it was unique, and it is no different <br />than a road easement. She explained the only thing the applicant is <br />requesting a variance to was the width of the bridge. She suggested <br />the County create an amendment to the variance process or even have <br />special criteria which would provide the County a hard basis for <br />situations like theirs. <br /> <br />COMMISSIONER O’BRIEN explained concerns he had relating to the <br />safety of the general public and by continuing practice of past <br />decisions, as he felt it would be detrimental to the public safety. <br />He said the County has learned a lot from the recent years of <br />wildfires and had concerns of how the bridge has not been inspected <br />for the past 10 years. He stated that although previous land use <br />decisions may have not been proper in past, they must go by the <br />current requirements. COMMISSIONER OSIADACZ said the Code is clearly <br />written and that each variance is to be looked at on a case by case <br />basis. She said the County Code, regulations, and what is <br />detrimental to public life and safety seems to be changing and the <br />County has more knowledge relating to wildfires in the recent years. <br />She noted how the Interim Fire Marshal voted to deny the request for <br />a variance based on concerns of fire, life and safety. She also <br />referenced District #7 Fire Chief’s letter relating to the current <br />bridge in place and how the water tenders would not be able to cross