Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />1 c r H <br />BOOKoma, <br />Attorney Vitunac advised that another choice would be for the <br />applicant to dedicate the title to the County but retain the right <br />to construct and maintain the road until such time that the County <br />accepts maintenance by formal act. That way, the County would have <br />title to the right-of-way but no maintenance responsibility, and <br />their association would have the legal right to construct and <br />maintain a road until such time as the County steps in, if ever. <br />Director Davis asked if the County would be liable if an <br />accident occurred on one of those roads, and Attorney Vitunac <br />advised that we would not be liable because we had never accepted <br />maintenance for the roads, just title. <br />There seemed to be some question as to whether having title <br />meant having liability, and Attorney Vitunac responded that it <br />would not. He was sure that the County would be enjoined in some <br />suits, but we would say that we never accepted maintenance of the <br />roads. <br />Chairman Eggert wondered if that would be the best approach, <br />and Director Davis preferred to see the right-of-way privately <br />dedicated with some central authority to construct and maintain the <br />rights-of-way until such time that the Board elects to receive it. <br />He pointed out that present dedication wording on a plat for a <br />private subdivision has the language that the rights-of-way are <br />dedicated privately to a property owners association. <br />Commissioner Bird felt that would be the best way to approach <br />it even though it is unlikely that a property owners association is <br />going to go in there and construct very many roads, and the <br />majority of the Board indicated their agreement. <br />Director Davis advised that there has been some negotiations <br />up to this point in time whether that should be a 30 -ft. or 60 -ft. <br />right-of-way. It is staff's opinion that 30 feet simply is not <br />adequate for a road and some drainage and that 60 feet would be the <br />bare minimum. <br />Ernie Caldwell, representing Berry Groves and Berry Holding <br />Corporation, wished to speak just to the land use issue. He could <br />appreciate this access issue, however, having served as a county <br />commissioner in Polk County for 12 years. That commission dealt <br />with this problem practically every week, but in 12 years he wasn't <br />sure they solved the problem either. If the commissioners wished, <br />he would be happy to talk with them privately and relay his <br />experience in dealing with access problems. He stated that Berry <br />Groves and Berry Holding Company does not object to the land use <br />change that is being proposed. Being in the citrus industry and <br />being farmers, they do want the Board to realize their right to <br />farm, but by the same token, they appreciate their land values and <br />108 <br />_ M W <br />