Laserfiche WebLink
• • <br />Board need take no position in saying who should have it. <br />County Attorney Collins advised that the County never used to say how these were <br />to be done, but the Property Appraiser in more recent years would ask how to divvy up the <br />property and, therefore, we have been more explicit in the resolution of abandonments, that <br />the property shall accrue to one or the other. He noted the Statutes (in the backup) shown <br />on pages 324 and 325 which speak of two different situations. He read, explained his <br />reasoning, and concluded that it made sense that the property owner that conveyed the <br />easement should get the easement being released. The property to the south (Wabasso Park) <br />contributed nothing to this road and it made no sense that they would reap a windfall from <br />something that they did not contribution to in the first place. <br />Commissioner Adams understood that if a road were to be made, the property owner <br />to the south would contribute 25' and then if it were later abandoned, the abutting property <br />owners (north and south) would each get half. <br />County Attorney Collins agreed. <br />Mr. Fennell concurred and pointed out that there is no question that the property <br />came from Weona Park. Mr. Miller has his full lot of 165' in his subdivision, none has been <br />taken from him. It would not be appropriate to split this; his position is supported by <br />common law and case decisions he has found. In response to Commissioner Adams, Mr. <br />Fennell confiuined that this property is being sought to enlarge Mr. Smith's property which <br />is being sold for development purposes and there is no reason for it to be utilized for a road. <br />Drainage easements will be retained by the County. <br />Discussion ensued. <br />Commissioner Neuberger commented this plat was 75 years and he argued his point <br />that it was fair to divide it. <br />September 23, 2003 <br />31 <br />