Laserfiche WebLink
0 <br />ENGINEER BEINDORF STATED THAT HE UNDERSTOOD THE EDA (ECONOMIC <br />DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION) IS TO MAKE THEIR DETERMINATION IN REGARD TO <br />THE GRANT NEXT WEEK. <br />INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATOR THOMAS NOTED THAT ONCE THE GRANT IS <br />—APPROVED, THEN ANY COSTS ARE ELIGIBLE AND FURTHER NOTED THAT IF EDA DOES <br />NOT REPLY BY .JANUARY 22ND, THE GRANT IS AUTOMATICALLY APPROVED. <br />MR. FALB AGREED THAT HE WOULD WAIT AND ASK TO BE PUT BACK ON THE <br />AGENDA WHEN THE DECISION IN REs,aRD TO THE GRANT IS DETERMINED. <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS INFORMED THE BOARD THAT HE HAD MET WITH ATTORNEY <br />.JAMES VOCELLE IN REGARD TO THE AGREEMENT WITH THE TOWN OF INDIAN RIVER <br />SHORES ABOUT FIRE PROTECTION EQUIPMENT AND SPECIFICALLY THE AERIAL LADDER <br />TRUCK, AND ATTORNEY VOCELLE HAD CONCURRED WITH HIS SUGGESTION TO REDRAW THE <br />AGREEMENT IN A MORE BINDING FORM. <br />CHAIRMAN WODTKE ASKED HOW THE AGREEMENT WOULD DIFFER. <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT HE PLANNED TO LAY OUT A MORE DEEINITE. <br />FORMAT tiS TO HOW THE COUNTY WILL EXERCISE ITS OPTION AND POSSIBLY ATTACH <br />AN INVENTORY SETTING OUT THE SPECIFIC EQUIPMENT. <br />THE CHAIRMAN INSTRUCTED ATTORNEY COLLINS TO PROCEED WITH THE <br />DRAWING OF SUCH AN AGREEMENT WITH THE TOWN OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES. <br />DEWEY WALKER, ZONING DIRECTOR, APPEARED IN REGARD TO A SPECIAL <br />EXCEPTION TO ORDINANCE 74-20 REQUESTED BY GEORGE ANI) BETTY ESKILDSEN. HE <br />INFORMED THE BOARD THAT MR, ESKILDSEN BOUGHT A PIECE OF PROPERTY IN A. A. <br />BERRY SUBDIVISION THAT WAS IN TWO LOTS BACK IN 1972, BUT THE DEED HE PRE-__ <br />SENTED SHOWED THE PROPERTY IN ONE PIECE. THE SURVEY MADE BY.S.P.MUSICK IN <br />1972 SHOWS THE TWO LOTS, EACH 84.5' x 130'. MR. WALKER STATED THAT MR. <br />ESKILDSEN HAS ONE TRAILER RESIDENT ON LOT 5A AND WISHES TO PUT ANOTHER ON <br />HIS It SO—CALLED" LOT 5. HE NOTED THAT MR. ESKILDSEN HAS A CORRECTED DEED <br />SHOWING LOTS 5 AND 5A. <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS NOTED THAT THE 1972 CONVEYANCE ONLY MENTIONS <br />LOT 5. AT THE TIME THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE CONVEYING TWO LOTS, BUT THE <br />ACTUAL LEGAL CONVEYANCE WAS FOR ONE, THERE IS NOW A CORRECTIVE DEED FILED <br />IN 1976 CONVEYING THE TWO LOTS. THE ATTORNEY CONTINUED THAT HE FEELS THE <br />CORRECTIVE DEED PRESENTS SOME QUESTIONS, BUT IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT THE PAR— <br />TIES INTENDED, THEN HE FEELS IT WOULD APPLY UNDER A SPECIAL EXCEPTION. HE <br />STATED THAT HE FEELS THE BOARD HAS A GREAT DEAL OF DISCRETION IN THIS <br />31 <br />DEC 151976 7��6� <br />a� <br />