01-27-2018, 07:18 AM
Malfeasance goes back to when the original sub division was approved by the County. Statutory requirements were ignored to the benefit of the developer. At this late juncture we can only speculate as to the reasons, but time does not abrogate the responsibility of the County in allowing this to happen.
My guess would be that in declaring the lots to be designated for agricultural use, the rationale was that services were not necessary since obviously no one would ever live on these lots. However, when building of homes was permitted, there was no change made to alter the standards in order to comply with residential ordinances.
I have no expectation of the County providing mains water or sewage, but taking over the road maintenance with a resulting minimal increase in Property Tax assessment would seem to me to be a reasonable compromise.
To the point of current roads being not up to a standard such as to be taken over by the County, I would remind you that it is possible to bring an existing structure into compliance using the 'as built' provision. Surely something along those lines could be applied to roads?
My guess would be that in declaring the lots to be designated for agricultural use, the rationale was that services were not necessary since obviously no one would ever live on these lots. However, when building of homes was permitted, there was no change made to alter the standards in order to comply with residential ordinances.
I have no expectation of the County providing mains water or sewage, but taking over the road maintenance with a resulting minimal increase in Property Tax assessment would seem to me to be a reasonable compromise.
To the point of current roads being not up to a standard such as to be taken over by the County, I would remind you that it is possible to bring an existing structure into compliance using the 'as built' provision. Surely something along those lines could be applied to roads?