3/16/1981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

IWAR 25 1981 BOOK 46 PAGE l4 1 5 ADMINISTRATOR NELSON REPORTED THAT THIS SUBDIVISION MEETS ALL REQUIREMENTS EXCEPT THAT PREVIOUSLY THE DEVELOPER, KENNETH PADGETT, HAD AGREED TO A 10' EASEMENT, AND.THEN INSTRUCTED HIS STAFF TO PUT A 5' EASEMENT ON THE REAR LOTS. WE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL BASED ON A 10' EASEMENT AND VERIFICATION THAT SEAGROVE STILL OWNS THE LAND TO BE CONVEYED BY QUIT CLAIM DEED. COMMISSIONER BIRD ASKED WHY MR. PADGETT OBJECTED TO THE 10' EASEMENT, AND PAT MURRAY, SECRETARY TO MR. PADGETT, STATED THAT MR. PADGETT FELT THE 10' EASEMENT IS NOT NECESSARY BECAUSE ALL UTILITIES ARE IN THE FRONT STRIP; THERE ARE NO UTILITIES IN THE REAR. THE ADMINISTRATOR STATED THAT IN 1976 THIS PROPERTY HAD A _10' BEACH ACCESS STRIP. WE TALKED TO MR. PADGETT, AND HE SAID HE HAD CHANGED THE BEACH ACCESS AND ALL UTILITIES ARE COMING THROUGH THE FRONT. WE ARE TRYING TO HOLD HIM TO WHAT IS REFLECTED BACK IN 1976. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER DID NOT KNOW OF ANY EQUIPMENT THAT CAN WORK ON 5', AND MRS. MURRAY EMPHASIZED THAT ALL UTILITIES ARE ON THE VERY FRONT 10' EASEMENT AND THERE IS NOTHING IN THE BACK AT ALL. SHE STATED THAT THERE IS A LITTLE WALKWAY FOR PEDESTRIAN BEACH ACCESS. ATTORNEY COLLINS NOTED THAT FOR SOME REASON WHEN THE FINAL PLAT FOR UNIT III WAS RECORDED, IT ONLY SHOWED A 10' UTILITY EASEMENT, AND IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE SPECIFIC WORDS "BEACH ACCESS," THEN IT IS NOT BEACH ACCESS. MRS. MURRAY CONFIRMED THIS IS ALREADY RECORDED AS A UTILITY EASEMENT. -IN FURTHER DISCUSSION, THE BOARD INDICATED THAT THEY WOULD PREFER THIS TO BE BEACH ACCESS AS ORIGINALLY INTENDED AND NOT A UTILITY EASEMENT. a ATTORNEY COLLINS DID NOT BELIEVE THE RECORDED DOCUMENT COULD BE CHANGED WITHOUT EVERY PROPERTY OWNER IN UNIT III AGREEING TO IT, AND IT IS HIGHLY DOUBTFUL THEY WOULD AGREE. MRS. MURRAY NOTED THAT THESE LOTS WERE NOT SOLD WITH SOMEONE BEING TOLD PEOPLE WOULD BE WALKING IN 10' OF THEIR BACK YARD.