My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
8/10/1977
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1970's
>
1977
>
8/10/1977
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:28:39 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 8:49:36 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
08/10/1977
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
81
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Yote: Should the county desire to purchase additional' rio-ht of <br />way alonr 27th Drive the pronprtr c.:::;era would consider the co,jntr' <br />proposal. ' <br />Proposal II <br />Ir" the event the county does not desire to contribute to t^e <br />cost of navinp the public nronerty, it is requested that this <br />vrorerty , known as 27th Drive, he Dronortionall- distrihrted <br />to each nronertr owrer facing•27tr Drive. The 15 feet cf right <br />of wad= along At Street facinr 27th Drive he returred to °°r. Ross <br />and . r.. '_later, ad iacert ni-onert- owners. The nrone"rty owners <br />would t?ler own and ray 100" of* the cost in navirp 27th Dri_1Te. <br />They would also snare in rresert and future r•airtenarce of <br />27th Drive prorated by footage owned. <br />lie tie undersir-ned agree with and are in accordance with <br />the forero�inp ztovosals. <br />�f�'' 9 •jelh <br />147Z� T-4 <br />4. <br />5._ 10 <br />ADMINISTRATOR JENNINGS SUGGESTED THAT 27TH DRIVE BE RETURNED <br />TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS, BUT THAT THE 15 FOOT EASEMENT ALONG CITRUS NOT <br />BE RELEASED, <br />DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ABOUT DISCLAIMING THIS STREET, AND <br />` THE AADMINISTRATOR POINTED OUT -THAT THE LETTER STATES THE PROPERTY OWNERS <br />WILL PAVE IT AND TAKE CARE OF IT, AND HE FELT WE SHOULD RELEASE IT TO <br />THEM. AS IT DOES NOT MEET COUNTY SPECIFICATIONS AND WAS NEVER ACCEPTED <br />BY THE COUNTY, ALTHOUGH IT IS MARKED ON THE TAX ASSESSOR'S MAPS AS A <br />PUBLIC ROAD, <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED HE WOULD BE HESITANT TO ABANDON THE <br />ROAD BECAUSE EACH PROPERTY OWNER WOULD THEN OWN HIS INDIVIDUAL SHARE <br />OUT TO THE CENTER LINE, WHICH HE FELT COULD CAUSE PROBLEMS, HE SAID <br />HE WOULD NOT HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH A QUIT CLAIM FROM THE COUNTY GIVING <br />AN UNDIVIDED INTEREST IN THE ENTIRE STRIP BACK TO ALL OF THE PROPERTY <br />OWNERSi AND THEN LET THEM ALL DECIDE WHAT TO DO WITH IT, <br />V <br />AUG 10 197 , <br />0 fA' <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.