3/13/1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MAR 131990 PLOP. 79 Fr,ut 550 confirmed that it would. Basically, by this action we would be saying that the 35' of R/W we have.there at this time is sufficient. The local road standard actually is 60', but if we requested the additional 25' needed to meet that standard, Mr. Schlitt wouldn't have room for a septic tank and there are about 18 existing houses along this section of 4th Street. Commissioner Scurlock asked if the County has any ability to condemn Drainage District property, and County Attorney Vitunac advised that we do, but it is a different standard. When you have two governmental entities both needing the same piece of property, the court does the greater public good test. Commissioner Scurlock asked if Attorney Vitunac thought we would have a pretty good change of succeeding, and it was Attorney Vitunac's opinion that as long as the District got a canal that is just as good as the other, the court would go with the County. Commissioner Scurlock expressed concern about the canal on King's Highway that is moving closer and closer to the road and wondered if we shouldn't put railings there on an interim basis or at least some kind of warnings. Commissioner Bird felt that King's Highway will be a real problem for us in the future, and he -personally thought that 66th Avenue is the road we should look at for our main N/S corridor in the future. Discussion continued at length about a future N/S route, the dangerous situation on King's Highway caused by the erosion of the banks of the canal, the need for guard rails, etc. Christopher Schlitt arrived at the meeting. Commissioner Bird liked staff's Alternative #2, but noted the question remains - do we want to buy Mr. Schlitt's property or just let him build. He asked Mr. Schlitt if he had any problem with the county allowing him to build on his lot rather than purchasing the lot from him. 54