My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1/7/1992
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1992
>
1/7/1992
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:30 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 10:52:15 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
01/07/1992
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
73
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
JAN 07 102- <br />aooK 85 FacE'ts <br />easement, or a dedicated road that was grandfathered in, and only <br />20 feet exist. <br />Director Keating felt the idea of legal access is different in <br />different people's minds. Mr. Ketchum can have legal access for <br />his purposes through an easement agreement, but for the County to <br />recognize it as a legal access, it would have to be at least 60 - <br />feet wide and it would have to be platted. <br />Mrs. Danaca Perhax, owner of an adjoining 8 -acre parcel, <br />recalled that when she was going through the purchase of her <br />property, the bank told her she could not grant Mr. Ketchum an <br />easement because she would not be granted a mortgage. The bank <br />told the title company and they researched it extensively to make <br />sure there was no easement. According to her attorney and the <br />title company, giving Mr. Ketchum access is not an alternative. <br />Her house is set back quite a distance from the road, and if she <br />were to grant him access, he would have to drive right through her <br />front yard. <br />Mrs. Gloria Salo explained that her property meets Mr. <br />Ketchum's property at the end. She wished to point out that out of <br />the 5 owners having frontage, only the two main property owners <br />gave Mr. Ketchum access. The other three owners fought it, and she <br />pointed out that only the two property owners at the front gave him <br />access. The other three owners fought it because they did not want <br />Mr. Ketchum going through there. They went to an attorney, but it <br />was too expensive to fight him. Mr. Ketchum came through with a <br />tractor and tore down the fence and some hog pens. <br />Commissioner Wheeler asked who has control over the 60 -ft <br />easement through there, and Mrs. Salo advised that they have to <br />maintain the road themselves. <br />Mr. Ketchum stated that his road has been plated; it is in <br />the public plat book. The 4 acres does have 60 feet of frontage, <br />but Chairman Eggert pointed out that his property has no frontage <br />on a recognized road. <br />Director Boling felt that when Mr. Ketchum says platted, he <br />means that there are recorded documents in the record books. <br />However, nothing is on the plat books. He pointed out that this <br />situation with access is the very situation that the ordinance <br />regulation tries to avoid. What we are looking at this morning is <br />the result of an after -the -fact violation, and we are seeing some <br />of the problems that are associated with those situations. <br />Linda Lord Fisher advised that she lives across the street <br />from Mrs. Salo and wished to state.,:, that what Mrs. Salo has said is <br />absolutely true. Their property was all joined together, and Mr. <br />Ketchum knew he had no access. She has worked very hard to get <br />42 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.