header-left
File #: 2008-0153    Version: 0 Name: 10924 Crystal Springs Lane - 2nd Plat of Abrogation
Type: MOTION Status: PASSED
File created: 3/3/2008 In control: Board of Trustees
On agenda: Final action: 4/21/2008
Title: 10924 Crystal Springs Lane - 2nd Plat of Abrogation
Title
10924 Crystal Springs Lane - 2nd Plat of Abrogation

History
Approval of a 2nd plat of abrogation for vacating an additional 50 ft. of an existing conservation easement on the subject property

PETITIONER: Property Owner, Mr. Ari Paxinos

LOCATION: 10924 Crystal Springs Subdivision, Lot 11

PURPOSE: Abrogation of easement to allow in ground pool construction and site grading improvements.

ATTACHMENTS: Plat of Abrogation, Board report 1996-0238 for the approval of a 1st abrogation of a portion of the conservation easement (25 ft. x 160 ft.), aerial images of the property for the years of 1999, 2001, 2002, 2004, proposed pool site plan (concept sketch), aerial topography, and plat of survey indicating the location of the residence relative the current conservation easement.

SIZE: 160 ft. x 370 ft., Residential R-1 zoning

DISCUSSION:

This request furthers a previously approved abrogation of conservation easement on the subject property, and attached is the Board Report of that previously approved request- file number 1996-0238. The Owner now requests an additional abrogation of the conservation easement to accommodate the construction of an inground pool. The attached aerial images show the existence of natural areas on the property from pre-construction of the residence, to 2004. The current request for 50 ft. abrogation approval does not impact any trees on the site. The area in question is almost entirely simple turf grass as evidenced by the aerial images.

It appears the original conservation easement (the original easement prior to the first abrogation) covered the rear 250 feet of the 370 foot lot depth. The attached plat of survey shows the front setback and house itself covers a large amount of the remaining, buildable front 120 feet and it is therefore understandable why the 1st abrogation was requested- to allow for use of the rear yard area. Given the slopes on this property (the elevation of the lot drops approximately 25 feet from ...

Click here for full text