4/7/1976 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ft APR 7 WHICH WOULD ALLOW A MUNICIPALITY TO ABANDON OR VACATE A PARK PROPERTY AND, THEREFORE, DID NOT FEEL THAT THE COUNTY COULD LEGALLY PROCEED ON THE ABANDONMENT REQUESTED. COMMISSIONER WODTKE BROUGHT UP THE POSSIBILITY OF MOVING THE EASEMENT WITHIN THE PARK. MR. DRAGAVON NOTED THAT THE PARK UNDER DISCUSSION IS ONLY ABOUT 25 FEET WIDE NOW BECAUSE THE DRAINAGE DITCH TAKES UP THE REST OF THE AREA. HE INQUIRED HOW THE PROPERTY OWNERS ACROSS THE STREET FROM HIM GOT AUTHORITY TO PLANT IN THE PARK AREA. ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT HE FELT THERE WAS'NOTHING INCONSIS— TENT WITH THE LAW AS TO THE BALANCE OF THE PARK PROPERTY BEING PLANTED AS LONG AS IT REMAINED DESIGNATED AS A PARK AND FELT MR. DRAGAVON IS ENTITLED TO DO WHAT HIS NEIGHBORS ARE DOING. MR. DRAGAVON INFORMED THE BOARD THAT HE HAS PLANTED THERE IN THE PAST, BUT THE CHILDREN JUST DESTROY THE PLANTS. HE STATED THAT HE ALSO WATERS, FERTILIZES AND MOWS THIS AREA, COMMISSIONER Loy POINTED OUT THAT THE COUNTY HAS NEVER MAINTAINED THIS PARK AND NOTED THAT THE OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS NEVER OBTAINED PERMIS— SION TO PLANT IN THE PARK AREA; THEY JUST DID IT. MRS. DRAGAVON ASKED WHY COULDN'T THE DITCH BE MOVED BACK WHERE IT ORIGINALLY WAS? THERE IS NO LONGER A 40' PARK. THE CHILDREN HAVE BEEN CHEATED OUT OF A PLACE TO PLAY, AND THEY VENT THEIR ANGER ON THE NEIGHBORS BECAUSE OF THIS SITUATION. SHE ALSO NOTED THAT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET A ROW OF TREES HAS BEEN PLANTED, SHRINKING THAT PARK AREA DOWN TO ONLY ABOUT 10 FEET. SHE THEN QUESTIONED WHETHER IT HAD BEEN PROPER TO MOVE THE DITCH IN THE FIRST PLACE. ADMINISTRATOR JENNINGS STATED THAT THERE ARE LEGAL PROVISIONS FOR ABANDONMENT OF EASEMENTS, AND THE ABANDONMENT OF THE EASEMENT AND SUB— SEQUENT MOVING OF THE DITCH HAD BEEN ADVERTISED AND CARRIED OUT THROUGH PROPER LEGAL PROCEDURE, ATTORNEY COLLINS SUGGESTED THAT THE DRAGAVONS FENCE THEIR PROP— ERTY, BUT THEY FELT THEY COULD NOT PUT ONE UP THAT WOULD BE HIGH ENOUGH TO BE EFFECTIVE. 1976 6