My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5/9/1979
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1970's
>
1979
>
5/9/1979
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:43:38 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 11:01:16 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
05/09/1979
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
83
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
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER <br />LYONS, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED TENTATIVE APPROVAL OF HIDEAWAY <br />COVE SUBDIVISION. <br />S. P. MUSICK, AGENT, MADE A PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD IN REGARD <br />TO A REQUEST FOR TENTATIVE APPROVAL OF ROMAR SUBDIVISION, OWNED BY <br />ROLAND MILLER. HE CONTINUED THAT THE SITE IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST <br />CORNER OF STATE ROAD 512 AND 510 AND ZONED COMMERCIAL, AND PRESENTED <br />THE BOARD A COPY OF THE AMENDED PLAN. MR. MUSICK SAID THAT THEY WILL <br />APPLY FOR THE FRANCHISE NOW THAT THE MORATORIUM ON WATER'HAS EXPIRED. <br />HE CONTINUED THAT ADJACENT TO THE 5' EASEMENT, THERE IS 10', MAKING A <br />TOTAL EASEMENT OF 15'. <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS ASKED WHY MR. MILLER WAS KEEPING THE 5' -EASE- <br />MENT AND MR, MUSICK ADVISED HIM HE IS PUTTING THE WATER PIPES THERE. <br />THE ATTORNEY CONTINUED THAT THEY COULD ACCOMPLISH EVERYTHING WITH THE <br />10' EASEMENT; THAT MR, MILLER DOESN'T NEED THE ADDITIONAL 5'; AND IF <br />APPROVED, IT MAY CAUSE PROBLEMS ALONG THE LINE. <br />DISCUSSION FOLLOWED REGARDING THIS ADDITIONAL 5' EASEMENT. <br />COMMISSIONER LYONS ASKED WHY SHOULD THE BOARD OBJECT TO THE <br />ADDITIONAL 5' EASEMENT IF IT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW? <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS REPLIED THAT THE BOARD HAS THE RIGHT TO CREATE <br />STANDARDIZATION AND UNIFORMITY IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SO AS TO AVOID <br />PROBLEMS IN THE FUTURE. <br />CHAIRMAN WODTKE REALIZED THAT MR. MILLER MAY BE CONCERNED <br />THAT IF HE SELLS ONE OF THE COMMERCIAL LOTS, THERE MAY NOT BE A RIGHT- <br />OF-WAY TO THE ADJOINING PROPERTY THAT HE OWNS, <br />MR. MUSICK STATED THAT MR. MILLER'S INTENT IS TO GET A FRANCHISE <br />FOR WATER AND RETAIN A 5' EASEMENT. <br />ADMINISTRATOR, .JENNINGS COMMENTED THAT A DEVELOPER.OF A PROPERTY <br />CANNOT HOLD A NUISANCE STRIP - AND GAVE VERO ISLES AS.AN EXAMPLE. <br />DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ABOUT THIS AND THE RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. <br />ADMINISTRATOR JENNINGS STATED THAT MR, MILLER HAS AGREED TO <br />MEET THE DOT'S NEW REQUIREMENTS FOR HEADWALLS. <br />MAY 91979 <br />BOOK O PAGE 41 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.