3/29/1988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

taxes on property they can't use. Attorney O'Haire further noted that on the sketch of the property being discussed, there is a lot marked "New House," and the owner who bought that lot either recorded their agreement for deed at the time they entered into it or they paid cash instead of financing their purchase; so, they got a building permit simply because of the way they structured their•purchase and the church is being penalized for something it didn't do. Attorney O'Haire contended that the property of the church is unique in that it is fortunate to have probably the only lot that does indeed abut on a county owned and dedicated street - 14th St. S.W. It, therefore, does have access and there are utilities available, and he felt to require a 1i acre parcel to go through all that is involved in the subdivision process is pretty onerous. Mr. O'Haire agreed that it is nice to talk about assemblage of all these parcels, but the owners of these lots are scattered all over the United State and that is not going to happen voluntarily. Chairman Scurlock believed there is no R/W through the church property for the continuation of 14th St. S.W. Attorney O'Haire confirmed this but believed the church would be happy to dedicate the R/W. Chairman Scurlock felt the concern is that if this R/W is extended just through the church property, then the property abutting that will come in and argue that they .have access and on down the line. Attorney O'Haire agreed this would lead to "leap frogging," but continued to emphasize that the church property is unique in that it is the only one abutting a dedicated R/W. Discussion ensued as to a way to solve the problem of having this area subdivided properly, and the Chairman suggested that perhaps the church should retain Mr. O'Haire to consolidate these properties and get this done properly. MAR 29 1988 27 Ekoor 71. FADE 384