My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
3/8/1994
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1994
>
3/8/1994
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:04:23 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 1:49:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
03/08/1994
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
70
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
Murphy Deed reservations. Attorney O'Brien advised that Murphy <br />Deed reservations exist throughout the county, and there is no easy <br />method of determining where they are. He emphasized that if we <br />pursue the lawsuit, we will have to file a counterclaim of <br />ejectment and we would be throwing people out of their homes. <br />Commissioner Macht felt that it would have been better for <br />them to ask the Board for relief before proceeding with a lawsuit. <br />He emphasized that he had not heard about this problem until it <br />appeared on the agenda for today's meeting. <br />Attorney O'Brien agreed, and he stated that one of the motions <br />will be to ask the Court to dismiss the suit due to the failure of <br />the plaintiffs to exhaust administrative remedies. <br />Public Works Director Jim Davis agreed that the Murphy Act <br />affects numerous properties that were on State roads at the time <br />the Act was passed. The County does not have a comprehensive list <br />of all those properties, but we know that many of them are on <br />larger tracts and that title companies have not always conducted <br />adequate research. He stated that staff is anxious to find out the <br />magnitude of the situation. <br />Commissioner Bird felt that we should be consistent in our <br />handling of Murphy Deed reservations. <br />Attorney O'Brien advised that any action taken by the County <br />to settle this lawsuit will not create a precedent. However, he <br />agreed that it is preferable to be consistent. <br />Commissioner Macht asked whether the County needs this right- <br />of-way. <br />ight- <br />of-way. <br />Director Davis responded that the County will not need this <br />right-of-way within the next few years. However, 4th Street has <br />been planned as a major thoroughfare because it is the only road <br />that passes under I-95. <br />Commissioner Macht recommended that we let the Court case <br />proceed. He asked whether the subject lawsuit is deficient. <br />Attorney O'Brien responded that staff will file motions on a <br />number of procedural aspects of the claim. If the case is not <br />dismissed as a result of those motions, then the County will have <br />to file an answer and counterclaim. Unfortunately, we would be <br />required to file an ejection action as part of the counterclaim. <br />Commissioner Macht stressed that it would be devastating to <br />wake up and learn one day that you do not own your living room. He <br />asked whether the County, by issuing the building permits, was <br />certifying that the parcels were free and clear. <br />Attorney O'Brien advised that there have been Court cases <br />where the government was not held responsible. <br />47 <br />�MAR 8 1994 eooK 91 F.'uGE 949 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.