9/30/1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4 BOOK 65 mu.915 Chairman Scurlock asked why we are only abandoning a portion rather than the whole thing, and Planner Nearing advised that this was the only portion requested and staff deals with this on a case by case basis. Commissioner Bird wondered, in a case such as this where quite an amount of land would revert to the property owner and enhance his property, whether the county should receive some compensation. Attorney Vitunac informed the Board that it depends on how the County got the land. The law says even if you have title as opposed to an easement, when your need for the road disappears, it should go back to the property from which it came without purchase. Attorney Vitunac noted, however, that the Board in their decision to declare this property surplus could say that unless we get some money for it, we are going to keep it as a road; there is some bargaining room. . Chairman Scurlock had a great deal of reluctance to -abandon any right-of-way or easement because he could remember when the City Council had to buy back R/Ws they had abandoned. Commissioner Bird noted that if all these properties run from the railroad tracks through to Gibson Road and they can access off of Gibson Road, then perhaps we don't need that R/W. Chairman Scurlock asked if the petitioner's issue is that he needs access to the railroad for a spur, couldn't that be accomplished without giving up all our rights. Planner Nearing felt we are covering this by requesting easements. Staff at present sees no plans for ever putting in a right-of-way; it would not be a good intersection design with Roseland Road and the railroad tracks, and the right-of-way is also substandard in size. Commissioner Bowman also expressed her disinclination to give away property. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. 80 M M M