My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
6/4/1980
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1980
>
6/4/1980
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:48:53 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 11:29:09 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
06/04/1980
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
134
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
THE BOARD NEXT CONSIDERED THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ABANDONMENT <br />ON 2ND STREET AND 14TH AVENUE IN INDIAN RIVER HEIGHTS AS REQUESTED <br />BY ROBERT I. GALE. <br />SENIOR PLANNER MARSH COMMENTED THAT THE PROCEDURAL GUIDE- <br />LINES ARE IN ORDER AND SUGGESTED THE RESOLUTION BE APPROVED AND THAT <br />IT BE PREDICATED ON REMUNERATION. HE REVIEWED THE SITUATION BY <br />ADVISING THE REQUEST IS FOR ABANDONMENT OF A PORTION OF THE ROAD IN <br />INDIAN RIVER HEIGHTS AND A TRAFFIC ISLAND AS WELL; THE PROPERTY ABUTS <br />LOTS I AND 9 AND A SMALL PORTION OF LOT S. MR. MARSH ADVISED THAT <br />NOTIFICATION WAS SENT OUT TO PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE AREA; PUBLICATION <br />WAS PUT IN THE LOCAL NEWSPAPER; AND AN APPRAISAL HAS BEEN PROVIDED. <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS ADVISED THAT THE COUNTY IS NOT TRANSFERRING <br />PROPERTY, BUT IS RELEASING ANY INTEREST THE COUNTY MAY HAVE IN THE <br />DEDICATION; THE COUNTY IS NOT REPRESENTING HOW THE PROPERTY WILL BE <br />TRANSFERRED OR WHAT THE EFFECT OF THE RELEASE OF THE DEDICATION WILL BE. <br />PROPERTY. <br />CHAIRMAN SIEBERT COMMENTED THAT THE COUNTY CANNOT SELL THE <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS ADVISED THAT THE STATUTE ENVISONS STRAIGHT <br />STREETS; HALF TO THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE OTHER HALF TO THE OTHER <br />PROPERTY OWNER, BUT IN THIS SITUATION THERE IS A CURVE, AND THERE <br />ARE PROPERTIES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ROAD. HE ADDED THE COUNTY <br />HAS THE RIGHT TO RELEASE THE DEDICATION BUT IT IS NOT A FEE SIMPLE <br />OWNERSHIP THAT THE COUNTY HAS; THEREFORE, HE DID NOT THINK THE COUNTY <br />HAS THE RIGHT TO INDICATE WHO WILL BENEFIT FROM THE RELEASE. <br />UNCLEAR. <br />CHAIRMAN SIEBERT COMMENTED THAT IT IS CLEAR THAT THIS IS <br />SENIOR PLANNER MARSH STATED HE UNDERSTOOD WHAT THE'ATTORNEY <br />WAS SAYING - BASICALLY, THERE IS NO LEGAL MECHANISM TO SHOW OWNERSHIP. <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS NOTED THE COMMISSION COULD CHARGE A <br />DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR THE PROCEDURE BUT ADVISED AGAINST ANY COMPENSATION <br />FOR CONVEYING A PARTICULAR TRACT OF PROPERTY TO A PARTICULAR PERSON, <br />AS THE COUNTY CANNOT MAKE THIS REPRESENTATION. <br />DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ABOUT WHAT TYPE OF MOTION WOULD BE <br />APPROPRIATE AND THE ATTORNEY ADVISED IT SHOULD BE TO APPROVE THE <br />RESOLUTION THAT APPEARS IN THE AGENDA MATERIAL, SUBJECT TO PAYMENT OF <br />A FEE FOR THE COUNTY'S ACTIONS. <br />A <br />27 ; 80ox -43 ..PAGE'629 j <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.