Matthew Solitro was seeking approval on a conditional use permit application to maintain a second residence on his five-acre property so his fiancé’s adult son, who is autistic, can live with some level of independence. (Solitro is having a home built on the site and would use the existing trailer home for his fiancé’s son.) The permit is renewable every two years, and if the conditions change, the second residence would have to be removed.
Though originally approved by the P & Z on 06/13/16, the BOCC reviewed the request on 06/28/16 for final approval. Mark Guttman, county engineer, showed pictures of the width of the single lane dirt road. The county previously attempted to obtain easements to widen the road, but not all residents responded.
Nicholson did not want to approve, stating he was against allowing people to add additional residences to their properties. Concerned about County liability, Dukes asked County Attorney Garth Coller, “At what point does this become a life/safety issue?”
Coller replied that the county could always be sued, and the reality was, “You buy a swamp, you get a swamp.” In other words, the property owner was aware of the dirt road at the time of purchase. By paying taxes, residents are entitled to emergency services, but if the road is not wide enough to accommodate fire trucks and the property owners do not want the road widened, that is a risk they take. Unless you are talking about eminent domain, Coller said, you cannot force them, and that is a road the county does not want to travel.
Nicholson continued to oppose the decision, stating, “They have absolutely no concern for the safety of their son or themselves. At all. None. They just want what they want.” Chairman Jim Adkins suggested having a second hearing in August.
Solitro, who was requested to appear on 08/09/16, stated concerns about the road were a “non-issue” and did not understand the reason for the second hearing. He advised that his fiancé’s son does not have a medical condition which would require frequent emergency vehicle services. Adkins read from Zoning Ordinance Article 5, Section 4, which concerns conditional use permits and the access that is needed for emergency vehicles and utilities.
Deputy County Attorney Jon Jouben reminded the BOCC that Solitro’s request qualifies as an accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), so those standards would apply. If the special condition no longer existed, then the permit would no longer be valid, Dukes said.
Solitro was called to the podium to attest to the following: that he would accept full responsibility for the welfare of person(s) with disabilities that he plans to house in the second residence, and that he would not hold the BOCC or the County responsible in any way.
Solitro stated that he is retired and his fiancé works from home so there is limited traffic to his property. If the permit was denied and Solitro housed his fiancé’s son on another property, then traffic will increase due to the multiple trips down the road trying to take care of him.
“We can’t fix it; so why would we be a hindrance?” asked Dukes. “I think it’s the right thing to do.” Nicholson warned that due to road conditions, Solitro’s home could burn down, and may affect a neighbor’s home and potential loss of life as well. While he acknowledged Solitro’s statement of responsibility, Nicholson said, “We’re still allowing it to happen.”
The BOCC did approve Solitro’s permit, but the long-term situation will need to be addressed. The county will research ways to improve the road to provide access and will revisit the topic before the end of 2016.