Laserfiche WebLink
• 0 <br />In addition, Attorney Collins advised he received copies of additional correspondence <br />yesterday, which he reviewed. It was clear to him that in the spring of 1987, there were a <br />number of transactions being negotiated with property owners along 53' Street, not only <br />with Mr. Hatala, but several others, and there was a lot of correspondence back and forth. <br />Grand Harbor was actually seeking traffic impact fee credits for about $54,000 for building <br />the road from the Boulevard east to the River Club. Those credits were not ultimately given; <br />they were denied Grand Harbor because that portion of the road is not a collector road <br />eligible for the credits. Based on all that correspondence, he could understand some of the <br />confusion with Mr. Henderson writing on behalf of Grand Harbor and Mr. Hatala at the same <br />time. He explained that the County Attorney's office has the opinion that the County would <br />have an affirmative defense of latches. Also, there is no question that Mr. Hatala donated <br />the right-of-way; the deed was delivered in escrow and the County has built a road on <br />property that he formerly owned. The County does not know whether he was compensated <br />for it by Grand Harbor. He understood that Grand Harbor extended the water lines, and <br />asked Mr. Hatala if Grand Harbor ever compensated him for the property towards US 1. <br />Mr. Hatala stated that Grand Harbor had never compensated him for the property at <br />US 1. He stated that the Grand Harbor/Hatala reference occurred when he gave Grand <br />Harbor the 894' feet. <br />Attorney Collins stated that the application that Mr. Henderson filed on behalf of Mr. <br />Hatala applied for impact fee credits for the entire 53' Street. The impact fee credits were <br />only allowed from US 1 to the Boulevard. At this point, it appears the County would have <br />some legal defenses, but it appeared the Mr. Hatala was the innocent party and he thought <br />Mr. Hatala should not be the one to suffer. <br />In response to Commissioner Adams, Attorney Collins stated that staffrecommended <br />that Mr. Hatala file suit for declaratory judgment and the County defend it. <br />Mrs. Leonard Hatala pointed out that impact fee credits were given for development <br />and the land is still not developed. She believed that the County has erred and they do not <br />want to take responsibility. <br />Vice Chairman Macht asked who had the fiduciary responsibility, and Attorney <br />Collins replied that Mr. Henderson was the agent for both. <br />Commissioner Ginn had reviewed the backup chronologically and favored Alternative <br />2 (Allow the traffic impact fee credits to Mr. Hatala and reimburse the trust account for <br />traffic impact fee district 4). <br />March 17,1998 <br />Cpl <br />