Minutes - 19731001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

X25 Commissioner Flora Garrett moved that the Board forward a copy of the minutes of this meeting to the Board of Transportation and to inform them that the hoard of Commissioners feels that none of the Alternates of I-)+0 are perfect. Commissioner Richard E. Whitted aecpnded Commissioner Flora Garrett's motion. Discussion ensued. Commissioner Flora Garrett amended her motion to add "it is strongly recommended that in reworking the draft environmental impact statement that an opportunity for working on the Tnteratate projects as a team be implemented between local, Stafe and Federal officials". Commissioner Richard E. Whitted agreed to the amendment. The Chairman called for a vote on the motion. Cammissionera Garrett, Whitted and Whitfield voted eye. Commissioners Henry S. Walker and Norman Walker voted nay. The Chairman declared the motion passed. Chairman Norman Walker recognized Gera P, Sykes of Bingham Township. Mr. Sykes stated that he and the other land owners of his area wished to discuss with the Board the plane that the County. had relative to the use of the land that the County was now attempting to purchase. The County Administrator advised Mr. Sykes that it was not the policy oP the Board to discuss at a public meeting land purchase agreements. Mr. Sykes was also informed that the Board would be happy to meet with the citizens involved, but they did not, at this time, have any detailed plans for the area. Chairman Norman Walker referred the Board to Item #10 on the Agenda. He then recognized A. B. Coleman, Sr., Attorney for University Builders. Mr. Coleman requested the Beard to rescind its previous action of revoking the building permit that had been issued to his client. He stated that the lot in question was only five (~~) under the variance. It, further, appeared that a number of the lots within the subdivision wsa undersized and that the homes that had been built on these lots had not damaged the area. Mr. Coleman stated that his client would not have purchased the property if he had been aware that it did not meet the requirements of the County Zoning Ordinance, however, he was not aware of the fact and that he had spent considerable time and monies on the lot in question. Further hardship wee being imposed on his client as he now found himself in the position of having to face two law suits relative to the matter. Mr. Coleman stated that he would prefer to. have one of these law suits settled by having the Board of Commissioners to reconsider its action of revoking the building permit that had been issued for Lot #'22 of Heritage Hills. John 1~oodaon, Attorney Por Hector Farxiea and Rufus Clark, objected to the request of Mr, Coleman that the Board reverse its decision relative to the revoking of the building permit. He stated that his clients were merely trying to protect their property. That the fast that Lot #22 was only five (5~) per cent undersized was not the question. The question was the fact that the lot did not meet the requirements of the County Zoning Ordinance. He stated that his clients had complied with the provisions that require that a reasonable prise shall be offered for the purchase of property in question. He stated that his clients had offered to purchase Lot #22 from University Builders, however, the company had not responded to their offer. Mr. Clark and Mr. Parries spoke in defense of their position as the adjoining land owners to Lot #22. Discussion ensued. Commissioner Richard E. Whitted stated that he felt the Board should pursue whatever course of action that was taken by the Board on August 6, 1973. Nb?, Coleman presented a certified copy of a Quitclaim Deed from Roberts Construction Compareyy to University 3uilders. This deed had been recorded on Fridaytt September 28, 1973, and it conveyed approximately four thousand five hundred (11.,500/ additional square feet to University Builders for Lot.#22. The extra footage comas from the right of xsy and the street that fronts Lot #r22 of Heritage Hi11s, Mscussion ensued. The Board requested the County Attorney to comment on the validity of the quitclaim deed. Mr. Cheshire stated that Roberta Construction Company did riot relinquish its fee simple title in the property even though the streets had been dedicated pre the subdivision plat; and that in his opinion the quitclaim deed did convey that vested interest. Mr. Woodson stated that he wsa not aware of the existence of the quitclaim deed, therefor®, he could not render an opinion on the validity of the deed until proper 'research of the matter was completed. Discussion ensued. The Board requested the County Attorney, the Attorneys for University Builders, and the Attorney for Mr. Parries and Mr. Clark, to research the technical questions involved with the situation and to submit their opinions on the subject to the Soard on October 16, 1973.