Laserfiche WebLink
MAR BOOK <br />He spoke of Mr. Platt tearing down his old home and rebuilding on <br />the other side of Park Lateral, a move he would not have made were <br />it not for the bridge. <br />Mr. Crews reported that Fellsmere Water Control District sent <br />a letter to Mr. Davis in which they stated if the County abandons <br />this bridge they would recommend to the Board of Supervisors the <br />removal of this structure, since neither the County nor Mr. Crews <br />would take responsibility for the bridge. However, Mr. Crews <br />stated the remark about him not taking responsibility was in error. <br />Mr. Crews brought up the fact that the drainage district does not <br />have in their charter that they can own structures, only waterways <br />and ditches. Mr. Crews mentioned a meeting with Fellsmere Water <br />Control District Board of Supervisors, with Director Davis in <br />attendance, when the Board of Supervisors agreed to allow the <br />bridge to remain if it is abandoned by the County but would become <br />the responsibility of Mr. Crews to see that the bridge does not in <br />any way impede the flow of water or the purpose of the canal. Mr. <br />Crews dreads the future when a different Board of Supervisors may <br />have a different opinion and repeal this decision, much the same as <br />this Board of County Commissioners is declaring null and void the <br />previous agreement to maintain the bridge. <br />Commissioner Scurlock criticized the waste of taxpayers money <br />in originally building the bridge on private property. He felt <br />some sort of deal had been cut because the County does not <br />ordinarily go out and build bridges for developers now, but it <br />seems to have been common back in those days. <br />Mr. Crews tried to explain that the bridge is not on private <br />property; it is across property owned by the water control <br />district. <br />Commissioner Scurlock asked whether the road leading to the <br />bridge is Mr. Crews' private property, and Mr. Crews admitted it is <br />but contended the development of the area would not have taken <br />place were it not for the County building the bridge and he <br />estimated it happened in the teens or the twenties. Mr. Crews <br />suggested that, were it not for the need for the waterway for <br />drainage, there would be no need for a bridge and perhaps that was <br />the reasoning of the Commission back in the 1601s, not to penalize <br />the property owners. It was for public benefit, even though it was <br />a very small part of the public. He suggested there were many <br />examples of the County work, graders working on private roads or <br />grading roads, which benefit only a few houses. <br />Mr. Crews presented three options: first, requesting the Board <br />of County Commissioners retain ownership of the bridge and be <br />responsible for its good repair as in the past; second, for it to <br />22 <br />a � � <br />