3/16/1981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

FRANK CLARK, ATTORNEY FOR THE OWNER, QUESTIONED THAT ALL THE PINES WOULD HAVE TO BE REMOVED AND, IN ANY EVENT, HE DID NOT SEE WHERE THEY LEGALLY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT SOME- THING LOCATED ON COUNTY PROPERTY. HE ALSO DID NOT FEEL THE REQUIRE- MENT TO PAY FOR HALF THE ROAD WAS BASICALLY FAIR. ADMINISTRATOR NELSON EXPLAINED THAT IT IS COUNTY POLICY TO REQUIRE THAT MONEY BE PUT IN ESCROW FOR PAVING THE HALF ROAD. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE DEVELOPER COULD LEAVE THE ROAD AS IT IS AND NEVER PAVE IT; IF, HOWEVER, THEY DID GO AHEAD AND BUILD THE ROAD, THE TREES WOULD HAVE TO BE REMOVED, AND IT IS ESTIMATED THAT TREE REMOVAL WOULD AMOUNT TO AROUND $15,000. THE ADMINISTRATOR CONTINUED THAT ONCE THE ROAD IS PAVED TO COUNTY STANDARDS, THE COUNTY ASSUMES MORE LIABILITY, AND HE RECOMMENDED LEAVING THE ROAD AS IT IS IF THE TREES ARE GOING TO BE LEFT THERE. QUESTIONS FOLLOWED ABOUT DRAINAGE. THE ADMINISTRATOR STATED THE DRAINAGE WOULD BE EAST AND WEST, AND IT IS BELIEVED THAT THREE CULVERTS CROSSING UNDER THE ROAD AND GOING INTO THE DRAINAGE DITCH ON THE WEST SIDE OF MASSEY WOULD ADEQUATELY HANDLE THE SITUATION. ATTORNEY CLARK STATED THAT HE HAD NOT SEEN ANY WATER STANDING ON THE PROPERTY, BUT THE. OWNER WOULD HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE CULVERTS. ESCROW. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED IN REGARD TO THE $10,000 PRESENTLY IN COMMISSIONER FLETCHER FELT IF WE TAKE ANY MONEY ON THIS ROAD, PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO EXPECT WE ARE GOING TO PAVE THE ROAD, AND IF WE DON T HAVE ENOUGH IN ESCROW, IT WILL BE A PROBLEM. HE FELT WE SHOULD GIVE THE MONEY BACK. t DISCUSSION CONTINUED AS TO POSSIBLE DRAINAGE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROPERTY AND WHETHER THE..POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS ARE FULLY AWARE OF THEM. ATTORNEY CLARK OBJECTED STRONGLY TO INCLUSION ON THE PLAT OF WORDING STATING THAT THIS IS BUILT ON A STUMP DUMP. HE NOTED THAT M�R,R 5 198, 1 35 BOOK 46 PAUF 140