Laserfiche WebLink
VI AY' 0 5 19 9 <br />over when it wanted instead of having it be given by the property <br />owners' association. <br />Attorney Barkett stressed that his client has not agreed to <br />that yet and that he didn't believe that was.part of Commissioner <br />Bird's motion. <br />Commissioner Bird stated that his motion was simply to approve <br />the land use amendment; however, he could not understand why Mr. <br />Kahn would have any reluctance to agree to the County having the <br />right to take it over when it wanted instead of having it be given <br />by the property owners' association. <br />Mr. Harris had a question on this because it was his <br />understanding that this property owners' association was going to <br />grant the easements as development goes from Ditch 24 to Ditch 23 <br />and from Ditch 23 to Ditch 22, satisfying the water control <br />district, until the entire property was sold. Now it is his <br />understanding from the way it has been explained today that they <br />have to give an easement throughout the whole piece of property <br />which would preclude them if they had a buyer who wanted to buy the <br />whole piece. They would be very happy to find a buyer who wanted <br />to buy the whole piece. Mr. Harris asked if they would have to <br />make this commitment on the whole piece at one time, and <br />Commissioner Bird advised that it would be on the ±888 acres that <br />are affected by this land use amendment. <br />Mr. Harris understood that is based on a 60 -ft. wide easement <br />instead of 30 feet and that if they were to have a potential <br />purchaser for the balance of the property, he would be subject to <br />that easement. <br />Attorney Collins stressed that Mr. Harris must understand that <br />the easement is running in favor of the property owners' <br />association and that Mr. Kahn, as the association, could extinguish <br />it if it became advantageous to him. <br />Commissioner Scurlock explained that if they came in with a <br />development plan for the whole property, they would vacate all <br />those easements and establish new ones consistent with their new <br />plan. <br />Mr. Harris thanked the Board and staff for answering his <br />questions. <br />Chairman Eggert asked Mr. Kahn if the oral agreement still <br />stands, and Attorney Barkett asked if it just could be said that if <br />one owner came in with the whole plan of development, it would.be <br />likely that these easements could be extinguished because he would <br />have a whole plan of development. He asked if that was a correct <br />statement. <br />112 <br />