Laserfiche WebLink
a <br />0 <br />THE BOARD NEXT DISCUSSED A PROPOSED RESOLUTION WHICH <br />REQUIRES THAT A SEALED SURVEY PREPARED BY A LICENSED SURVEYOR <br />OR ENGINEER AND A TITLE POLICY OR ATTORNEY'S OPINION RE FEE <br />OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY ACCOMPANY THE PETITION FOR A ZONING <br />CHANGE. <br />COMMISSIONER SIEBERT DISCUSSED THE POSSIBILITY OF SOME <br />INDIVIDUALS NOT BEING ABLE TO AFFORD A SURVEY. <br />MR. BERG AGREED THIS POSSIBILITY COULD ARISE, BUT POINTED <br />OUT THAT THE SURVEY IS IMPORTANT TO THE OWNER HIMSELF AND HE MAY <br />NEED IT LATER FOR HIS OWN PROTECTION. <br />COMMISSIONER LAY POINTED OUT THAT BY REQUIRING SUCH SURVEYS <br />WE WOULD ELIMINATE THE PROBLEM OF PEOPLE BUILDING OVER EASEMENTS, <br />COMMISSIONER SCHMUCKER STATED THAT SURVEYS OF INDIVIDUAL <br />LOTS ARE NOT TERRIBLY EXPENSIVE, AND ATTORNEY COLLINS POINTED OUT <br />THAT THE COUNTY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR REZONING THE CORRECT PROPERTY. <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS CONTINUED THAT IN THE PAST THE BOARD HAS <br />HAD APPLICATIONS FROM SUPPOSEDLY "AUTHORIZED It <br />REPRESENTATIVES AND NEVER <br />REALLY KNOWN WHO ACTUALLY OWNED THE PROPERTY OR HOW TITLE WAS HELD. <br />THE SUGGESTED REQUIREMENTS WOULD ELIMINATE THIS PROBLEM. <br />THE BOARD DISCUSSED THE NEED FOR A TITLE POLICY AS WELL AS <br />A SURVEY, AND THE ATTORNEY POINTED OUT THAT A SURVEY DOES NOT REFLECT <br />OWNERSHIP AND HE FELT THESE ARE TWO DISTINCT REQUIREMENTS. <br />DISCUSSION ENSUED ON PROPER DESIGNATION OF AN AGENT, AND <br />MR. BERG FELT AN. AUTHORIZED AGENT MUST HAVE A NOTARIZED LETTER FROM <br />THE OWNER. HE STATED THAT THOUGH THE ORDINANCE DOES NOT REQUIRE <br />THIS, THEY HAVE BEEN REQUIRING IT BY POLICY. THE BOARD AGREED <br />THIS WAS AN IMPORTANT REQUIREMENT. <br />ATTORNEY'CQLLINS FELT THIS COULD BE ADDED TO THE PROPOSED <br />RESOLUTION AS POINT 3. <br />ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LAY, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER <br />DEESON, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED RESOLUTION 78-26 AS AMENDED <br />ADDING POINT 3. <br />N <br />31 <br />