4/9/1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Vice Chairman Eggert and Commissioner Macht expressed concerns about the railroad crossing at 53rd Street if another crossing is established at 57th Street. Public Works Director James W. Davis reported there is a verbal agreement with FEC. He thought a crossing at 57th Street would not be a problem according_to_a recent discussion with them. Director Davis explained that the current 24' wide access easement is not sufficient to allow proper paving, engineering and meet St. Johns River Water Management District drainage requirements. Also the sharp curves present a problem because geometrically the easement is not conducive to good engineering design. He reported that staff is generally finding that 80 feet of right-of-way is needed to satisfy drainage requirements. Assistant County Attorney Terry O'Brien discussed the liabilities of inverse condemnation, but this matter is more complicated because of the developer's agreement. He thought the most important paragraph in the agreement, with respect to this issue, was paragraph 6 on page 148. He felt this paragraph clearly indicated a contingency that the developer still had a right to 400 feet of pavement to access their property. He believed this language could make a very strong case for the developer, that he's entitled to access his property, and we're required to assist him in that. Attorney O'Brien counselled that we cannot not force assignment of rights on Vero Sand Pines; the assignment would have to be accepted by them. In response to Commissioner Eggert, Attorney O'Brien advised that there has been some discussion with the developers, but there has been no resolution of the matter. Commissioner Macht asked what the County's position would be if the Board approved staff's recommendation (Alternative 3). Attorney O'Brien opined that it would weaken their case and strengthen ours from a standpoint that if they don't accept and they sue us, we have given them the mechanism to access their property. They may not like the mechanism, however. It's staff's position that times have changed since the developer's agreement and the County does not necessarily have a great need for that railroad crossing at this time as compared to the developer. Another downside would be, if we offer them Alternative 3 and they turn it down, we have said, in effect, there's a need based on paragraph 6. 45 April 9, 1996 5009 97 PAGE 712