Agenda - 03-15-1988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

081 Sane L. Atwater Pace Three !..,ay 16 , 1986 6 . So far as I know no other public authority, agency or the like has accepted the public dedication of Cheyenne Drive . All of the above facts lead me to conclude that Cheyenne Drive does not meet the test established by Owens v. Elliott as modified by Emanuelson v. Gibbs for a court to conclude that it is a public road. It has not been (1) established by public authorities in a proceeding regularly instituted before the proper tribunal; (2) one generally used by the public and over which the proper authorities have asserted control for the period of 20 years or more; or (3) one dedicated to the public by the owner of the soil with the sanction of the authorities and either accepted for maintenance and operation by the public authorities or accepted without responsibility. for maintenance and operation b the public authorities. Y Determining the status of Cheyenne Drive does not end the inquiry, however. What to do with it must be determined. It has consistently been the policy of the Board of County Commissioners not to require upgrading of roads designated preexisting public which designation is the same as saying that they have been previously dedicated to the public. This policy may need review by the Board of County Commissioners. .t n seems to me that the issue should be ` Board for its consideration and a decision asGtoo that whether to require improvements to such road and if to what extent and under what conditions. the raised in my April nc Further , the acceptance of these - ?7 letter concerning public dedications should be addressed as soon as possible. That is That is , should the Board Of County Commissioners accept public dedications of streets and roads, without maintenance responsibility, as part of the Orange County Subdivision approval process? Very Truly yours , /{ Ge - ey Z. GEG/isg cc: E. C. Brooks, _2: Marvin Collins Barry Jacobs Don Wilwhoit