Laserfiche WebLink
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by <br />Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved <br />the temporary water service agreement between IRC and <br />Mr. and Mrs. B. E. Greene. <br />AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD <br />MALCOLM LEVY PUBLIC NUISANCE ABATEMENT APPEAL -- LOT #1, BLOCK <br />10 -- WHISPERING PALMS SUBDIVISION UNIT 4 <br />The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/28/90: <br />James E. Chandler <br />Cmunty Administrator <br />DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE <br />Robert M. Feat ct. A <br />Community Developmen'Director <br />FROM: Roland M. DeBlois,AICP <br />Chief. Environmental Planning <br />DATES March.28. 1990 <br />SUBJECTS 1Valgolm Levy Public nuisance Abatement Appeals <br />Lot' 1, Block 10. Whispering Palms S/D Unit 4 <br />It is remueated that the data herein presented be given formal <br />consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular ; <br />meeting of April 3, 1990. <br />DESCRIPTION .AND _CONDITIONS.: <br />At the March 13. 1990 meeting of the Board of County Commissioners. <br />Mr. Leve raised the concern that the public nuisance condition <br />abated on the old water treatment plant site in Whispering Palms <br />Subdivision was not exclusive to property under his ownership. <br />Father. Mr. Levy's position was that the fence surrounding the <br />treatment plant property encroached onto adjacent Lot 14, under <br />separate ownership. Mr. Levy also challenged the accuracy of -the <br />County Road and Bridge abatement cost calculations. As per the <br />Board's direction, county staff have since surveyed the subiect <br />property and have re-examined abatement cost calculations. for the <br />Board's further consideration. <br />ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: <br />The recant county survey of Lots 1. 2, and 14, Block 10, Whispering <br />Palms Subdivision Unit 4 reveals that the existing fence <br />9urroundinq'.the old water treatment plant site does in fact <br />encroal.h onto Lot 14 (Gee the attached survey) . It is estimated <br />that mnnrr.)xlm?t-?1v one-gnartar (t/4) of the area contained within <br />the existing feince is property riot under Mr. Levy's ownership (Lot <br />14). Tn that s=taff made the assmmntion •that the fenced area Was <br />romnletely on Mr. Levy's ure.)Dertu, the owner of Lot 14 was not.duly <br />motif Led of fhso r_nblic nuisance. <br />County Road anA. 3ridae staff hatre re-examined the abatement cost <br />calculations, •a.nd ha -9 confirmed that the original calculations are <br />cOrredt. <br />RECONMF.11DATION <br />Based on the estimated area of r•iblic nuisance abatement pot on <br />property-o'h/hed by Mr. Lavv, staff recommends that the $9.873.06 <br />a"ad9ment be reduced by one-quarter, to 'the amount of $7. 404.80. <br />11 BOOK 7 9 F'�ur.,ED <br />APR 31990 <br />