Loading...
Agenda 09/15/2009 Item #16B 7 Agenda Item No. 16B7 September 15, 2009 Page 1 of 23 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to quitclaim to Daniel J. Griffin a 30 foot strip of property that was originally quitclaimed to Collier County for road right-of-way by Griffin's predecessor in title. (Fiscal Impact: $0) OBJECTIVE: To obtain the Board of County Commissioners' approval to quitclaim a 30 foot strip ofland to Daniel J. Griffin, the owner of the adjacent homestead property. CON SID ERA nONS: The subject property is approximately 30 feet wide and ] 65 feet in length, and is located west of and adjacent to Daniel J. Griffin's homestead property (folio # 00]6540]609). Mr. Griffin's homestead property is described as the S Yz ofthe SW ',4 of the SE y.; of the NW y.; of Section 24, Township 48, Range 25, less the West 30 feet. It is this "West 30 feet" that the owner is requesting the County quitclaim to him so that it may be incorporated into his homestead property. On May] 9, 2009, a letter was received from Peter T. Flood, Mr. Griffin's attorney, requesting that the County quitclaim said 30 foot wide strip ofland to his client. Research was conducted into the history of this parcel and a former private road project which was referred to as the Lake]and Avenue Extension. The following is a brief synopsis of the past events concerning this parcel and the above- referenced proj ect. In 1984 a group of property owners living in the area informally known as "Armadillo Estates" petitioned the Board to pave an extension of Lakeland Avenue. The owners were proposing to form a six-member assessment district and four of them quitclaimed portions of their properties to the County to allow for construction of a road. However, two of the six owners refused to join the assessment district or to convey any of their land to the County. Eventually, the four owners who wanted a paved road pooled their funds and constructed a driveway in front of their properties. Eleven years later, in 1995, several of the owners filed a petition (No. A V-95-0]6) asking the County to vacate the right-of-way and return the land to them, At the October 24, 1995 BCC meeting, Item No.12C6, one of the owners cited Section 255.22, Florida Statutes as legal justification for the County to return the owners' property. At the conclusion ofthe presentation ofBCC Agenda Item No.12C6, the County Commissioners voted unanimously to quitclaim each of the 30 foot right-of-way strips back to the property owners, but reserve the right of utility access over each one. In searching through the Collier County public records, it appears as though the 30 ft. strip adjacent to Mr. Griffin's property was never deeded back by the County. That is the reason that Mr. Griffin, through his attorney, Peter Flood, is requesting the conveyance at this time. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with this recommendation. Agenda Item No. 16B7 September 15, 2009 Page 2 of 23 LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: Section 255.22, Florida Statutes provides that if a property owner donates land to the County and the County fails to use the land for its specified purpose within a period of 60 consecutive months (or fails to identifY the proposed use of such property in a comprehensive plan or other public facilities plan), then upon written demand of the grantor's successors in title owning such adjoining land, the County may execute and deliver a quitclaim deed to the party making such demand. This item is legally slJfficient for Board action. This item is a regular item requiring a majority vote. - JBW GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no Growth Management Impact associated with this Executive Summary. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County: 1. Approve this recommendation and authorize its Chairman to execute the attached Quitclaim Deed on behalf of the Board, reserving unto the County a utility easement over, under, upon and across' the subject property; 2. Authorize the County Manager or his designee to deliver said Quitclaim Deed to Mr. Griffin's attorney. Prepared by: Rebecca Harding, Property Acquisition Specialist, Transportation Engineering & Construction Managernent Attachments: (I) Quitclaim Deed; (2) Property Location Map; (3) Item # ]2C6 from 10/24/95 BCC Meeting; (4) Florida Statute 255.22; (5) Prior Quitclaim Deed to Collier County. .L Q.,!:;C 1 Ul L Agenda Item No. 16B? September 15, 2009 Page 3 of 23 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number: Item Summary: 16B7 Meeting Date: Recommendation to quitclaim to Daniel J. Griffin a 30 foot strip of property that was originally quitclaimed to Collier County for road right-af-way by Griffins predecessor in title. (Fiscal Impact: $0) 9/15/20099:00:00 AM Prepared By Rebecca Harding Property Acquisition Specialist Date Transportation Transportation ECM 8/20/200910:26:42 AM Approved By Jennifer White Assistant County Attorney Date County Attorney County Attorney Office 8/21/200911 :14 AM Approved By Jeff Klatzkow County Attorney Date County Attorney County Attorney Office 8/24/2009 9:48 AM Approved By Lisa Taylor ManagementlBudget Analyst Date Transportation Services Transportation Administration 8/24/2009 11 :28 AM Approved By Norm E. Feder, AICP Transportation Division Administrator Date Transportation Services Transportation Services Admin. 8/24/2009 11 :31 AM Approved By Therese Stanley Grants Coordinator Date Transportation Transportation Administration 8/24/20092:54 PM Approved By Kevin Hendricks Right Of Way Acquisition Manager Date Transportation Services TECM-ROW 8/27/200912:21 PM Approved By Najeh Ahmad Director Date Transportation Services Transportation Engineering & Construction Management 8/28/20099:52 AM Approved By Pat Lehnhard Executive Secretary Date Transportation Services Transportation Services Admin 8/28/20093:46 PM .tat;"'"' L.. Vl. L.. Agenda Item No. 16B7 September 15, 2009 Page 4 of 23 Approved By Mark Isackson Budget Analyst Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 9/11200912:18 PM Approved By Leo E. Cchs, Jr. Deputy County Manager Date Board of County Commissioners County Manager's Office 9/1/20095:06 PM .L":1 _. 1/1'.1 " __.. ..1_'T'__...1 r.... __-,-11...., /I co __....__u 1. _..01 "'A1 ~ 01 "'A"'AAnl 1 r. 01 "'AI'Alll. TC1T'lll. T'T'OI "CI A I'T'lll. T CI/f"\/"'r\Cln Agenda Item NO.1 B7 September 15, 2 09 Page 5 0 23 PROJECT: PARCEL: FOLIO: # 99999 (MISCELLANEOUS) 180 00165401609 QUITCLAIM DEED THIS QUITCLAIM DEED executed this _ day of ,2009, by COLLIER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, whose mailing address is 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida 34112 (hereinafter referred as "Grantor"), to DANIEL J. GRIFFIN, a married man, whose mailing address is 840 Lakeland Avenue, Naples, Florida 34110-1320 (hereinafter referred as "Grantee"): (Wherever used herein the terms "Grantor" and "Grantee" include all the parties to this instrument and their respective heirs, legal representatives, successors and assigns. Grantor and Grantee are used for singular or plural, as the context requires.) WITNESSETH: That the Grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) in hand paid by the said Grantee, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, does hereby remise, release, and quitclaim unto the said Grantee forever, all the right, title, interest, claim and demand which was conveyed to County via quitclaim deed on April?, 1984, in Official Records Book 1076, Page 636, of the Public Records of Collier County in and to the fOllowing described lot, piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being in Collier County, Florida, to wit (the "PROPERTY"): THE WESTERLY 30 FEET OF A PARCEL OF LAND HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED AS THE SOUTH ONE HALF (S 1/2) OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE. QUARTER (SW 1/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE QUARTER (SE 1/4) OF THE NORTHWEST ONE QUARTER (NW 1/4) OF THE NORTHEAST ONE QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. THIS IS NOT THE HOMESTEAD PROPERTY OF THE GRANTOR TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same together with all appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining, and all the estate, right, title, interest, lien, equity and claim whatsoever of the said Grantor, provided however that GRANTOR retains unto itself a perpetual, non-exclusive utility easement over, under, upon and across the Property with license and privilege to enter upon, and to install and maintain utility facilities. Subject to easements, restrictions and reservations of record. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has caused these presents to be executed the day and year first above written. ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: Deputy Clerk DONNA FIALA, Chairman Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: ~--R"D~ As ant County Attorne.... .. 'HIr'" :s-<-~~\rLP- IS...., c.. ~~~ ... Agenda Item No. 16B7 September 15, 2009 Page 6 of 23 Daniel J. Griffin property ~ i Folio Number: 00165401609 . Name: GRIFFIN, DANIEL J IStreet# & Name: 840 LAKELAND AVE !Legal Description: 244825 S1/2 OF SW1/4 OF SE 1/4 OF NW1/4 OF NE1/4 LESS W 30FT @ Agenda Item No. 16B7 September 15, 2009 Page 7 of 23 . PAGES EXCERPTED FROM OCTOBER 24, 1995. BCC REGULAR MEETING MINUTES Item #12C6 RESOLUTION 95-612 RE PETITION AV-95-016 FOR VACATION OF A PORTION OF ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY KNOWN AS LAKELAND AVENUE EXTENSION - ADOPTED RESERVING A UTILITY ACCESS Next item is petition AV~9S~016. This is vacating a portion of road right-at-way known as Lakeland Avenue Extension. Mr. Muller. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before Mr. Muller does his thing, I think all of us got a letter from a Ken Waltson. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Waltson. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I don't know if staff had a chance to see this. MR. MULLER: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And -- If you could address the pertinent issues as part of your presentation, that would make me feel much better. MR. MULLER: Item 12C(6) is a public hearing to consider vacation of a portion of a road right-oi-way known as Lakeland Avenue Extension. Per board direction, staff has processed the petition, requested letters of no objection, prepared appropriate replacement easements, advertised the public hearing. A brief recap of -- of the issues is there was -- Four property owners of a six-member assessment district petitioned the board to pave an extension to Lakeland Avenue. They quitclaimed their property to the county to allow construction. Two property owners refused to join, and the cost of their property for right-of-way prohibited the road from being built. The four owners pulled their money together and built a driveway, slash, road below county road standards. These four property owners want the right-of~way vacated and returned unencumbered. Letters of no objection -- eight of nine of.the letters responded and requested that they had stipulations or objections. These are in the agenda packet, pages 18 through 26. I also received two letters since the advertisement of public hearing, and those are provided in this handout -- two letters of objection from property owners Tim Maloney, parcel 107 on the map on page four, and Kazimier Dabrowski, parcel 109. Mr. Dabrowski included a copy of the 1967 dedication from the Arnn Corporation to Collier County stating that all roads in land section 24,_ township 48, 25 south are to the perpetual use of the public. He has relied on this easement since he purchased the property. Both letters object to the possibility of denied access. We were also supplied a letter from Mr. Waltson. I believe Mr. Waltson is -- is here and registered to speak. Based on the objections and stipulations of the letters of no objection, staff recommends vacation subject to conveyance of right-of-way easements prepared as exhibits to the resolution. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Say that again, please, Mr. Muller. MR. MULLER: easement back. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: MR. MULLER: Over the COMMISSIONER NORRIS: MR. MULLER: We don't the fee simple property to We want to vacate and get a replacement Over the same property? same property. What's the point of it? want the fee. We want to Leturn the property owners, but we want to retain Agenda Item f)kJ. 1987 September/t'5~ WOB Page 8 of 23 the right of public easement. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. All right. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS; I -- I believe the question here is that the -- the property owners quitclaimed the land to the county for the purpose of building a road which the county failed to build. And as far as my understanding is, they -- the property owners have no objection to a standard easement for acce -- standard access easement over this property. There is a road there privately built. MR. MULLER: Right. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And that's my understanding, that they -- they are willing to provide the proper easements for in ingress access to the properties to the north but not to be a, quote, unquote, "public thoroughfare." Is that my -- Have I said that -- MR. MULLER: We have -- Mr. Waltson and myself have went back and forth with several different options on easements. Since these letters of no objection from -- An example would be -- The sheriff's office says they need an easement to be able to patrol the -- the improved property. There's one improved property in a fenced-in area that was broken into, and homeless were living there for a while, and there was parties and painted walls and all kinds of stuff. The sheriff's office wants in there. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But -- But -- Excuse me, Mr. Muller, but isn't the property directly to the north of Lakeland Avenue a private access easement, and then this public access easement are the next properties up? So if the sheriff1s going to have a problem, he should already have a problem just by traversing the portion that's private. MR, MULLER: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. about? MR. MULLER: Well, we're talking about county ownership. we give -- give it away unencuwbered back to the property owners, could build a fence across it, they could charge a toll. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's my understanding that they -- that they are willing to give an easement back. They just don't want it to be a public road. Have I missed something here? MR. ARCHIBALD: If I could step back a couple of steps. For the record, George Archibald. In regards to the vacation of a right-at-way, what we're concerned about are the rights that have been created for those property owners to the north. And, in fact, there's been many indications that if we vacate this right-of-way, the property owners will, in fact, prohibit access and will, in fact, put the county at risk for the cost of having a public roadway, having access, and then taking it away through a vacation process. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Archibald, so there are two issues here. One is that these folks deeded the property over to the county and they want that property back. That's one issue. The second issue is, if we vacate the right-ot-way, now therets no right of access for anyone else. So what you're saying is we have no problem with giving the property back. We just need to maintain a form of easement that -- that can be used for access. Is there -- Is there a way to do those two things? MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes, there is, and that's the recommendation of the staff, in fact, to preserve that easement as part of the vacation process, because, in fact, we've created the potential for all those property owners to the north being cut off from access. So what are we talking If they Agenda Ite~\No:?6B7 Septembf'r 15;2009 Page 9 of 23 CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But if we get this easement that is little more than whatever easement existed prior to the quitclaiming, there is access to the property to the north in their legal easements that gave them access 20 years ago or 15 -- MR. ARCHIBALD: No. They CfU\IRPERSON MATTHEWS: years ago. MR. ARCHIBALD: They have a right of access, but they have to create that. If we take it away from them, then all those property owners to the north have to recreate that, and they may have to recreate that through a process very similar to our eminent domain process. If we, in fact, reserve that easement in behalf of the public, then those property owners, in fact, will maintain access to the land. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: How come we didn't just build the road? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Because we didn't get the two southern property owners to give the -- to give the land. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's why we didn't build it. So is there a private easement along the road to the two parcels to the south of this public property? MR. MULLER: One of them there is. MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes. There's -- There continues to be lack of a county right-of-way or lack of a public dedicated right-of-way between the parcels that have been dedicated to the county and those parcels that are part of the Willoughby Acres plat. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. I'm more confused now than ever. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can we hear from the property owners on this? I'm just -- Do we have registered speakers? MR. DORRILL: We have five. I don't -- I don't know who are the actual individuals. I can call them in order or you can ask. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because maybe if the property owners can tell us what they're willing to do and Mr. Archibald has the other microphone, we can figure out which way to go on this. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It I S my understanding from meeting with Mr. Waltson a couple of times now that the property owners are willing to give back whatever easement existed prior to the quitclaim, whatever that was. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Archibald, would that be sufficient for access? MR. ARCHIBALD: No, I don't believe it will be, and that's the problem. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's what we need to do. MS. GLOECKNER: I'm here to represent one of the properties north -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You need to corne up to the microphone. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Have you registered to speak, ma'am? Okay. MR. MULLER: The easement you're talking about, Commissioner Matthews, may be the one that -- that Mr. Dabrowski supplied which -- which states that it's a -- a county right-of-way for the purpose of dedication to dedicate all streets, right-of-way, and roads to the perpetual use of the public all of land section 24 which is what we would like. What we're proposing is to get an easement over the property to the public. Agenda Item No. 16B7 Septem~~r.15/Jmo9 P~ge 10bf 23 CHAIRPERSON existed prior to MR. MULLER: the quitclaim. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Miss Ashton, MS. ASHTON: If -- If you'd like me to comment, I did review the Arnn Corporation deed that was conveyed to the public in 1967. The problem with that deed is that it conveyed all streets and roads in section 24, and we1ve been unable to determine what streets were in existence in 1967 to determine whether or not this is, you know, existing. So I don't think it's been recognized by the title companies, and so that's -- we haven't been able to rely on that easement as a public easement. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I see. MS. ASHTON: That sheds some light on that. And if I could cownent, it was my understanding that Mr. Muller had exchanged easement documents with Mr. Waltson and his agent on behalf of the property owners, and the problem with the county's proposed easement was it's just a general easement, and Mr. Waltson had recommended or had requested that there be language in the easement document that would restrict any additional subdivision -- subdividing or buildout to the north of his property so it would limit the easement, and that's why we're -- we had never reached the agreement on the easement for it to be used. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: wanted to limit the use of MS. ASHTON: Yeah. I copy of the language if you COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: MATTHEWS: How is that different from what the quitclaim? I think that's maybe what existed prior to So you're saying Mr. Waltson the easement by -- gave him -- I gave Mr. would like me to read -- The development to Muller a it in. the north MS. ASHTON: Right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- off of their property which is CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't know that we could do that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- something I don't think we can do. MR. MULLER: Yeah. There's language in this easement that -- that reads, this easement is not intended for subdivision development and should not be construed in any way as road right-of-way access for subdivision development. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is that the easement that existed prior to the quitclaim, the wording on it? MR. MULLER: No, ma'am. This is the access easement that -- that -- an access easement that Ken Waltson drafted and proposed as a replacement easement. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Weigel, do you have a suggestion of how we might be able to solve this? MR. WEIGEL: Well, yeah. I think -- I think that we have an interest of record not to continue to hold the land in fee to start with. And, secondly, if George and Russ can assist me here, if the county's easement interests -- As I see the letters of objection, we have a drainage easement request from stormwater management, and we've got emergency access, and I need to know for sure if the kind of access that the county wants by an easement is not a public road right-of-way access but limited to emergency vehicle access, things of that nature which arguably we have over private roads if you've got to Agenda IterTi N~16B7 Septeml'Jer 15,2009 P'age 11 of 23 get through anyway, but county standards nor is actual vehicular access easement. MR. MULLER: Emergency access easement would handle the letter of no objection from -- from the sheriff's office. The other easements that we are -- The reason we're wanting a public right-af-way easement is to handle the stipulations on the other letters of no objection, say, from engineering review for drainage concerns, from stormwater management for drainage concerns and -- and the other letters from private utility companies are asking for private utilities to be granted back. Our -- Our utility -- Collier County utilities have a water line that extends through that property, so there would be a utility easement. Now, that option could be that we get an easement for this, an easement for that, an easement for this and the other thing until we have all of those satisfied, but they would all be satisfied by a public right-af-way easement. MR. WEIGEL: Well, what I'm thinking is that by tailoring the language, we can have one easement. It doesn't take several easements for each of these things but one easement, but it's tailored for the specif~c needs which doesn't go quite so far as to say public -- publiC road access because each of these things are either service or utility related. Utility -- we're talking about utilities, drainage, emergency vehicular, but we're not talking about the public going up and down the road as the public chooses. It's service and government related, and we could have an easement that does those things and perhaps reach the county objective of fulfilling these letters of objection but also may work with the with the landowner. I don't know. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Why don't we -- Why don't we hear from the property owners and see what they're willing to do. Mr. Dorrill. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Murphy. UNKNOWN VOICE: Mr. Murphy had to leave. MR. DORRILL: Excellent. Ms. Gloeckner. Waltson, you'll follow Ms. Gloeckner. MS. GLOECKNER: My name is Florence Gloeckner. I represent the partners of caxambas Equity Company Limited. They are the owners of the parcel of approximately five acres on the north side of Lakeland Avenue Extension. We are interested in whatever will promo~e the improvement of the area. Paving the street which the property owners themselves did was undeniably promoting this goal. However -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: ma'am. Right. MS. GLOECKNER: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MS. GLOECKNER: However, this proposal to vacate right-of-way will deny us the right access to our property. This is a constitutional right. We cannot be denied access to our property. Surely this proposal also would make access difficult fer others. Probably current property owners' houses would find resale difficult in a climate such as this. These same houses might not properly appreciate in the future either. How much will the county plan for an uncooperative area? Will they maintain roads and bridges to an area intent on keeping people out? Progress needs a little help, not hindrance. One abandoned house is there already. That's enough. the fact is that this road isn't built to it proposed to be. So what is the county's need might -- might assist us in tailoring the Okay. Mr. Miss, can you pull the mike down, Agenda Itefl\ N9'.: 16B7 SeptemtJet, tl1: 2009 P~ge 12 of 23 Let's think positively. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Waltson. And then, Ms. Nelson, you will follow Mr. Waltson. MR. WALTSON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Ken Waltson, and I live at 710 Lakeland Avenue, tax parcel 59. I represent the homeowners along Lakeland Avenue Extension located within a small community known as Armadillo Estates. On November 18, 1980, the Collier County commissioners accepted a petition signed by five homeowners requesting the establishment of a road improvement district. The commissioners also authorized the engineering department to obtain the needed right-af-way and prepare a preliminary report and cost estimate for the district. It wasn't until May 1984 that we received the quitclaim deeds in a letter from Mr. Kuck, the county engineering director, asking for our roadway land. The quitclaim deeds clearly noted the intent was to create a Lakeland Avenue paving assessment district and the -- and the land was specifically meant for the road construction project. Four of us signed the deeds making our land available, and two did not, ending the road project at that point. On June 4, 1985, Mr. Hubert, the engineering director for Collier County, sent a letter to the property owners. Title, status, Lakeland Avenue Extension. In closing, his letter stated, if the road right-of-way is not provided, the extension of Lakeland Avenue cannot be considered for improvement. Also, on October 2, 1985, Mr. Cuyler, the county attorney, sent a letter to one of the hold-out property owners saying, your 30 foot is an absolute necessity in order for the staff to proceed with the improvement district. If for some reason you do not wish to convey your property with the clear understanding that the improvement district will not be initiated without the conveyance, please inform this office. Mr. Hubert and Mr. Cuyler's letter clearly indicated if all roadway lands along -- along the 660-foot improvement district was not acquired, the extension of Lakeland Avenue would not be considered for improvement, and the improvement would not be initiated. And that's exactly what happened. When we deeded our land to the county on the utility easements on the land existed, our reasons for entrusting our land to the county were simple. We wanted a new road. We did not give the county a gift of our land nor did we agree to have the land held in a land bank so the road eQuId be constructed sometime in the distant future. On November 21, 1985, we hired our own contractor and built a 660-foot road ourselves. On October 3, 1994, I sent a written request to Mr. Archibald asking for the return of our roadway land. Following my request was a series of meetings and written communications with Mr. Archibald and Mr. Muller which proved fruitless. Florida Statute two five five two two titled, "Reconveyance of Lands Not Used for the Purpose Specified," says, in the event of any party owning adjacent land conveys real property without receipt, valuable consideration to any municipality or county for a specific purpose or use and if such county or municipality fails to use such property for such purpose for a period of 60 consecutive months, then upon written demand of the grantor, the municipality or county may execute quitclaim deeds returning the property. In the event the purpose for which the property was Agenda Item Nf1l16El'7 September 15,'2069 Pagel13 of 23 conveyed requires physical improvement or construction on such property or maintenance thereof, any such municipality or county that fails to construct, improve, or maintain such property for a period of 60 months shall be conclusively deemed to have abandoned the property for the purpose for which it was conveyed. I believe the issue here before the board today has two main components. Number one, the transfer of the roadway land for -- from the homeowners to the county establishes our intent. Number two, the retention of the roadway land by the county after the road improvement district ended -- ended necessitates the board's action here today. If the board recognizes the roadway land was made available to the county for the sole purpose of building a road, then the board should rule to return our land. To rule in favor of the petitioners return the land with the same rights that -- that existed before the deed -- deeds -- before we deeded the land to the county. We will not relinquish our rights to the land by granting a public easement for the return of our land. If the board moves to deny our request for the return of our land with the same rights, I feel the county has, in effect, reduced our property values which clearly makes this a private property rights issue for Collier County. Our property values would further depreciate as future development occurs on smaller lots causing flooding to encroach our homes. There are seven homes within Armadillo Estates, most situated on two-plus acres providing ag -- adequate pervious pervious -- pervious soil to prevent flooding. The character of our neighborhood would change as acquisition of public right-of-way would lead to county maintained road encouraging future subdivisions on smaller land parcels replacing the estates setting we now enjoy. Since the community beginning -- Since the communities beginning more than 30 years ago, the homeowners have -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Waltson. MR. WALTSON: Just another minute, please. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, try to do it in less than a minute because you've been well over five minutes now -- MR, WALTSON: Okay, Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- even though -- MR. WALTSON: Since the communities beginning 30 years ago, the homeowners have built and maintained a road access along Lakeland Avenue Extension. The ingress and egress along Lakeland Avenue Extension has provided unobstructed access more than 25 years. We have no intention of changing that nor would we be permitted to do so by law. I feel -- I feel we've made a mistake by -- by entrusting our roadway land to -- to Collier -- to the county and have concluded the county unworthy stewards of our land. The county pro-developmental history furthers my concern should our land remain in the county's hands. I believe the character of our older community will be negatively affected, and we want a say in the future of Armadillo Estates. In 1984 we asked the our neighborhood better. ours, and that's all. We same rights we had on the in 1984. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Waltson. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Nelson. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Ms. Nelson. MR. DORRILL: And then Mrs. Waltson. county for help so we could make Now we want -- Now we want what's rightfully want a la -- We want our land back with the land before we got involved with the county Agenda Item N. o. 1ii.B7 Septemberrt:6. ;!l)09 Pag~ 14 of 23 MS. NELSON: My name is Beth Nelson, and I live at 615 Lakeland Avenue, and, once again, the storm drainage issue is going to come up. There are several issues involved with our request here, and we were hoping to keep it to the request. We deeded the land to the county for a road. The county did not build a road. We wanted the land back. But since these other issues have been brought up, they do need to be addressed. One is public easement. We do have a problem with that. And the other is Caxambas calling development an improvement. In a large area where your home is situated on a large lot, you know, small parcels is not an improvement to the area. But, anyway, the project never got started as the land could not be acquired for the road. At that point, the county should have returned it, and instead of returning it, the county recorded it as right-af-way land, and herein lies part of the problem, that it was recorded. And rIm sure you're aware of the situation and a lot of the details, as Mr. Waltson has kept you appraised. But the county recorded the undeveloped or assessed the undeveloped properties. When we paid for our storm drainage, we paid for the storm drainage that went into Willoughby Acres. Our water does not impact Willoughby. And then -- then the sterm drainage department wants access to our land for storm drainage? Is that -- We just went through that. But undeveloped parcels north of -- north of us were assessed for the storm drainage when, in fact, they should not have been because they don't have legal access to a county road and there's -- there's another issue that's being brought up here. These are all peripheral issues. Our main thing is that the developer's interest in the land -- This is our home. This is where we live. That's our interest. It's a special area. It's a nice neighborhood. I don't know if you're familiar with it, but it's different. It has a lot of character. Welre not asking that they don't have access. We'll give them access. Welre asking -- and since this has come up, we want the land back -- that it doesn't be turned into another little subdivision in the midst of all this, destroying our property values. Okay. That would -- That would -- That's a property value issue -- private property issue right there. Another issue is the flooding. There's a flood plain to the north of us, and it has been. It's not just because of the recent rain. I realize that's a problem. We've got pictures going back to the no !lame storm, all these other little -- vJe have water running through our yard. Should developments happen to the back of us -- ~hey had the Army Corps of Engineers down a few years ago. They cannot legally obstruct the flow of water. So what happens when the new standards come in, and the new standards with it has to be so high above the road -- the crown of the road, the fill. All that water backs up into our yards, and that is another problem. But the main thing is that we would like back what was ours, the land that we gave to the county for the purpose that wasn't fulfilled. And we're not trying to deny anybody ~- emergency vehicles, utility vehicles access. Welre just trying to prevent the destruction of our neighborhood. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Waltson. She is your final speaker. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEvJS: She I s the final speaker. Thank you. MS. WALTSON: Ruth vIal tson, and be returned to us Good afternoon, Commi.ssioners. My name is I'm here today to ask that our 3D-foot roadway land with the same rights that we quitclaimed the land to Agenda Item No. 16B? September 15., 2~ Page /-S. of 43 the county in May of 1984. The only reason that I signed the quitclaim deed was to have the county build a 660-foot road for the use of six residents. The county did not pursue the project because two property owners would not sign their quitclaim deed, and we built a private road soon after. We maintain the road and mow the grass on the right-af-way. The county abandoned the project more than 11 years ago and has no legal right to our quitclaim deed, and I want my 30-foot roadway returned. And lid like to ask Mr. Archibald a question about lot number 107. Mr. Maloney -- his rights to Lakeland Avenue, when Mr. Maloney paid no assessment for the storm drainage project on 20 acres of land. MR. ARCHIBALD: I believe that all those parcels to the north paid some order of assessment. MS. WALTSON: I said lot -- parcel 107 gave an objection. MR. ARCHIBALD: Well, there are a quite a lot of objections to the assessments, including yours, and, as I recall, we reduced those to the number of units that were plausible on the parcels. MS. WALTSQN: Well, Mr. Maloney paid zero. He did not pay for the use of Lakeland Avenue Extension. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mrs. Waltson, I'm going to ask you to take that up outside of this. Our discussion today is -- deals with vacating -- MS. WALTSON: Well, I would like the board to address that. MR, ARCHIBALD: Well, the only -- MS. WALTSON: You know. MR. ARCHIBALD: The only parcel that would not have been assessed would be those parcels that we had acquired as part of Livingston Road, but all the other parcels, to my knowledge, had some assessment. Like yourselves, they may have had the ability to put more than one unit on their land, but t~ey were only assessed approximately a unit. MS. WALTSON: Well, I won't talk with Mr. Archibald, but I'll put it in my five minutes that I don't believe Mr. Maloney has any access whatsoever to Lakeland Avenue to give a -- give an objection for us to get our roadway land back, and he's parcel number 107 if you have a map, and he did send in an objection. I have a map here. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We have it. MS. WALTSON: You have a map? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We have it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We have it in our package. MS. WALTSON: Oh, okay. But that was one of the letters of objection from Mr. Muller about Mr. Maloney being able to Use Lakeland Avenue, and they had another objection from one of the other property owners. I didn't get their name. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 109. MS. WALTSON: Okay. And I believe that Mr. Dabrowski paid for one unit for the storm drainage project the same as we did and -- and I believe that he can build one house on that property, you know, the same as us. There would be no objection to something like that because most of that land is flood plain land all in there, and that's why they were assessed at such a low assessment. My neighbor across the street who did not sign the Agenda Item No. 16B7 September 15J-i\00~ {; Page 11 6f 28 quitclaim deed and she can no -- she can't subdivide her property. It was assessed for four units and paid over $3,500, and she has one house with no way to subdivide. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's all very interesting, but we're talking about the vacation of the right-of-way today. We1re not talking about assessments for some prior storm drainage project. MS. WALTSON: Okay. But I think Mr. Archibald brought up the rights of the property owners to the north and that's why I -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: He was referring to the rights of access, and we denlt have on our agenda publicly -- MS. WALTSON: Okay. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: advertised anything about MS. WALTSON: All right. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: an assessment district. MS. WALTSON: All right. Well, then I'll say that Mr. Maloney, lot number 107, has no access to Lakeland Avenue for his objection. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. That was our last speaker? MR. MCNEES: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 11m going to -- 11m going to close the public hearing. And discussion from board members or a motion? Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER BJillCOCK: Mr. Weigel, what is the minimum requirement that the county has to ensure access and keep parcels from being landlocked? Just as simple as possible, what's the minimum we have to do to make sure a parcel is not landlocked and has access? MR. WEIGEL: Well, the distinction is private property rights and -- and -- and the responsibilities of public government. Property can't be divided where it doesn't have access. I mean, it's -- it's illegal and -- It's -- It's not legal to do so. It's an improper transaction that occurs. And if we have properties that would ostensibly not have access, if the county didn't have its strip af -- of deed that it's got in there, those private propeFties would have to show an easement or ingress/egress by necessity, and that could be done through private property actions in court. One thing I note is that we have the deed recorded for the -- for this roadway from this particular owner, but we haven't built the road. It's just a paper right one might say that we have. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask this question. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Could-- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: How -- How -- How did these northern properties have access before 1980? MR. ARCHIBALD: In some cases there were easements that pre-existed, but they were not clear, and I believe that some of them would have had to create access through the original seller or sellers. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So -- All right. We -- We have this piece -- section of roadway to the south of the properties that we're talking about that is -- is still in private hands. How does Mr. Maloney get to his property traversing their private property as well as the private property north of -- of these? MR. ARCHIBALD: In the case of -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: How do the Waltsons? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, that's public -- Yeah, or how does he get over it? Agenda Item No. 16B? September 1(i, 201/9 Pagrn of 1>3 MR, ARCHIBALD: In the case of 107, that parcel that's owned by Maloney, that has access to Livingston Road or will be acquired as part of the Livingston Road project. So that's one reason why that's separate. Now, the other parcels that Maloney may own that have frontage again would be dependent upon access. If I may, very quickly, you know, the county isn't looking for deeds. And, again, recognize that there's probably thousands of cases like this where people come in and record their easements to the county or the public or some entity, and what we're doing, in fact, as you take a look on page four on that map or page three, as the case may be, all the county is doing is, in fact, holding it for the benefit of all of those property owners. At some point in time, all of those property owners are going to want and need access. And the method that was used back at the time of the acceptance and recording of these documents was, in fact, to record and hold. But, in fact, we're doing it in behalf of all the owners that have frontage for their future needs, and those future needs may be tomorrow. They may be in the very distant future. But, in fact, if we take that away from them, then they have to recreate the steps that have been outlined by Mr. Weigel, and that may involve them going through a court procedure which, in fact, we may become a party to because, in fact, we're giving away part of what they would have to acquire in the future. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let me ask Mr. Weigel a question about this Florida Statute -- what is it -- 255, that Mr. Waltson was quoting from? How does that impact us? They gave it for a specific right, and we failed to do what they gave it for. MR. WEIGEL: The gentleman did his homework. It -- It means something if it's placed of record. How does it -- How does it get placed of record? Well, conceivably a quiet title action unless this board acts and creates something of record recognizing that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Recognizing what? MR. WEIGEL: Recognizing the -- that statute and what it what it purports to do. ~here's -- It would appear that there's nothing of record in the chain of title for this property that -- that relates that statute to the property, but the statute exists, and it says what it says. So it's a player here. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So this is -- MR. WEIGEL: It may be a player here. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So this is similar to Mr. Cuyler having said a while back, we are where we are. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And that's where we are. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And that's where we are. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Maybe I'm oversimplifying this, but there are apparently five parcels that have deeded land that want the land back. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And when they get it back, it will be no different than the section line access to the south and the section line access to the north. So correct me if I'm wrong, but the owners of parcels 56 and 57 which are down right next to the north end of the -- the -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: prevent Mr. Waltson and the their home? Can they block or we don't have easements? Lakeland. -- Willoughby area -- can they Nippers and the Corles from getting to off that because the county doesn't own it Can they keep the Waltsons from getting Agenda Item No. 16B? September 15, 2009 Page 1~IOffL home along that section line? MR. ARCHIBALD: They could. At this point in time, I don't believe the legal parameters have been established for either a -- a dedicated access nor a prescriptive access. I'm not privy to that. But to date, I haven't seen any document that would create that access other than their use, and that hasn't been established in the courts. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But basically all this access is operating because everyone's friends? There's no real legal basis? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We're talking about an easement of necessity, by necessity, or by prescription. I mean, there1s a lot of other legal -- MS. ASHTON: Commissioner, if I could comment, I might be able to shed some light on this. It's my understanding that there is a revocable license over -- I think it's lot 56 or 57. So they do have permission to go over the property. But where the access issue is going to come up is when somebody north tries to subdivide because although they have access because they've been doing it for so long, they don't have legal access. In order to establish legal access, they'll need to go into court for declaratory action to declare an easement by necessity. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Miss Ashton, let me ask -- Let me see if I can understand it from layman's terms here. You're saying Well, let me ask the question this way. Before 1980 nobody had a legal access here, but then this land was deeded over to the county, and access was partially provided. Now, is the county going to be construed as legally liable at some point in time if we just reverse our deeds and turn the land back to the property owners, and at some future point in time will some property owner to the north want to take action against the county because of that? MS. ASHTON: I think that's a difficult question to answer because you never know what sort of clever argument a smart attorney is going to come up with. But with respect to section 255.22, which is the section Mr. Waltson quoted,. you're looking at two things. Number one is the county may quitclaim the property back. The second issue is that under one of the sections -- under the section 255.22, it talks of the county constructively abandoning the property. So irrespective of what you do today, if they went into court tomorrow, based upon the facts we have today, it's likely that a court would say the county doesn't have an interest. So in light of that, maybe, you know, that helps you with your decision today. But I You know, I think ~- CHAIRPERSON MNrTHEWS: So -- So why -- MS. ASHTON: You know, we've all been trying to work with everybody involved, including the northerly property owners, to come up with something that, you know, everyone would be happy with. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So why should we cause these five property owners to spend money to pay attorneys and the county spends money or spends time to pay our attorneys to defend an essentially indefensible position. MS. ASHTON: Well, the flip side of this -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There are always defenses but -- MS. ASHTON: The flip side of this is when the northerly property owners decide to subdivide and they go into court to establish their easement by necessity, all the property owners that haven't granted easements will be named in a lawsuit and will have to either, you know, default or defend their position so -- you know. Agenda Item No. 16B? September 15, 2009 Page lfj ?f 1'3 COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This one's going to court. MR. ASHTON: But that's -- That's sort of just a FYI, you know -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: matter what we do. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Isn't that the way you see it, Miss Ashton? This one is going to court one way or another, them to vacate -- to get -- to enforce the statute that they us or by the -- the -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: by necessity. MS. ASHTON: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So I don't see a way to avoid court in here if people don't grant easements. We could -- We can, however, not participate in a lawsuit by giving these people back their property, and then they can all go sue each other. The other people can sue them -- MR. WEIGEL: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- but we could be out of it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But we're out of it. MR. WEIGEL: Yeah. That's -- That's exactly right. And another thing is, as I mentioned, our interest exists on paper. We didn't build the road that's out there. But I will say from a liability standpoint that as a record owner out there, if something" should happen -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. MR. WEIGEL: ~- we'd be named in the lawsuit, whatever whatever might occur out there. So to that extent, we maybe don't have an incentive to keep this interest as it is right now. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It seems to me if -- if they gave the land to the county for the purpose of building a road which the county didn't build and even sent them a letter saying that we had abandoned it, we -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: we have an interest in it. MR. WEIGEL: No. What the board could do today just so there's something recordable would -- conceivably would be a quitclaim deed which merely says, whatever interest we have, which may be nothing, we convey back to you. And, incidentally, Mr. Waltson, I think is his name, had indicated that there was some easements on the property in the first place, and it's very possible that those easements are some of the same interests that are addressing themselves in the letters of objection today, and they may survive our quitclaiming whatever interest we have anyway. I don't think there's been -- I wouldn't expect that there's been a merger so -- because typically easements exist separate from fee. So we may not have quite the problem that we thought we did at first anyhow. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So those easements you say continue to run with this land regardless? MR. WEIGEL: If they existed -- If they existed separately and -- and prior to his quitclaim to the county for the -- for the road MSTU purposes, they would continue to exist. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If we quitclaim back to them their property, whatever its condition was on the date of their This one is going to court no either by cited to Northern property owners. Yeah. To establish an easement It's theirs. -- we don't have much to say that Agenda Item No. 16B? September ~ 2(jO.$I Page{'worin- quitclaim -- their deed to us, it reverts to that condition. If there were -- If there were easements at that point in time, then they will continue. If there weren't, they wonlt. MR. WEIGEL: And if new interests occurred in the meantime, we're not touching those either. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Exactly, MR. WEIGEL: We're just giving what we have, what little there may be. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Which one Florida Statute says we ought to do. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. MR. WEIGEL: Well, yeah. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, MR. WEIGEL: That's a great incentive. To -- To clear the r"ecord, that' 5 all we would be doing based on that statute. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Close the public hearing? CHAIRPERSON'MATTHEWS: The public hearing is closed. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. I'll make quitclaim our fee simple interest in these COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Very lawyerly. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Wow. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That!s an insult if ever I!ve heard one. I have a point of information. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You're going to wind up with a law degree, Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Oh, no. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Oh, no? you have a quick comment? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I did notice in the staff report that utilities has issued an objection because of a water line extending across the property. By taking this action, are we still going to have access to maintenance of that water line? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There's a utility easement that was originally on it: What kind of easement is that? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And was that water line contained within that utility easement? If not, we're going to have to come back and provide some type of easement to a water line that's under COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Norris -- MR. MULLER: Right. I'm not privy to that -- that utility easement that existed prior to. The only easement that I've seen prior to is that easement provided, the 1967 one. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, Mr. Norris, in our quitclaim of the fee back to these people, we could reserve any necessary easement for access to the existing utility line. Would you agree to that? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: that, actually. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: problem, Mr. Muller? MR. MULLER: Drainage CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: MR. MULLER: They have a motion that we road right-af-ways. Second. Commissioner Hancock, I would amend my motion to include And so would the second. Okay. Does that solve our concerns that they've indicated Drainage. drainage concerns, the property owners? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No, they don't. No, they don't. Agenda Item No. 16B7.~ September 1ei',"2J)1iJ9'7 Page 211 of 23 COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They don't -- MR. MULLER: They don't? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- want it. No. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. No, they don't. So-- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You're confusing them with the rest of the county. MR. MULLER: The rest of the day. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That will take care of this one. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to quitclaim the county's fee simple interest in these right~of-waY5 back to the original property owners, reserving -- Help me. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Access-- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: An eosement for access to the existing drainage. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Drainage. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If there's no further discussion, I'll call the question. All in favor, please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five to zero. MS. WALTSON: The private road now. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm -- I'm sorry, ma'am. The-- The public hearing is no longer open. So you're going to have to take that up with our staff, and Mr. Weigel's office will do his best to answer your questions. Nope. Existing water line. Water line. Pardon me. Utility. Utilities. God. I said the "0" word again. The 2009 Florida Statutes Agenda Item No. 16B? September 15, 2009 Page 22 of 23 Title XVIII Chapter 255 PUBLIC LANDS AND PROPERTY PUBLIC PROPERTY AND PUBLICLY OWNED BUILDINGS 255.22 Reconveyance of lands not used for purpose specified.-- (1) In the event any party owning adjoining land conveys real property, without receipt of valuable consideration, to any municipality or county for a specific purpose or use and if such county or municipality fails to use such property for such purpose for a period of 60 consecutive months or, with respect to property conveyed on or after October 1, 1984, fails to use such property for such purpose for a period of 60 consecutive months or identify during the 60-month period the proposed use of such property in a comprehensive plan or other public facilities plan, then, upon written demand of the grantor, or grantor's successors in title owning such adjoining land, the municipality or county may execute and deliver a quitclaim deed to the party making such demand provided such party is the owner of land adjoining such property on at least one side. No such quitclaim deed shall be delivered hereunder unless the specific purpose or use to be made of the property was disclosed to the grantee at the time of delivery of the conveyance or appeared in the conveyance or in an' official record of the county; provided, however, that as to any such conveyance after July 1, 1967, the specific purpose or use must appear of record. (2) In the event the purpose for which the property was conveyed required physical improvement or construction on such property or the maintenance thereof, any such municipality or county that fails to construct, improve, or maintain such property for the period specified in subsection (1) shall be conclusively deemed to have abandoned the property for the purpose for which it was conveyed, unless, with respect to property conveyed on or after October 1, 1984, the proposed use of such property has been identified in a comprehensive plan or other public facilities plan of the municipality or county during the 60-month period specified in subsection (1). History.--ss. 1, 2, ch. 67-383; ss. 1,2,3, ch. 84-366; s. 42, ch. 93-164; s. 3, ch. 94-175; s. 3, ch. 95-297; s. 16, ch. 95-310. Note.--Consolidation of s. 255.22 and former s. 255.23. Copyright @ 1995-2009 The Florida Legislature 00866~06 19n\ ^PR II RECORDED All 8. 280 0 I 0 7 G OR BOOK' 000 6 3~genda ttemNo. 16B? September 15, 2009 P AGE Page 23 of 23 l>Ol:LIER COUNTY 1 fax 'Parcel: 10 Project: Ext. of Lakclnnd Ave. Paving A8smt. Dist. ~ BCC Minutes: H/1S/BO M.B. 57 PG. 365 ~HIS QUIT-CLAIM DEED. Executed thiB '7 tI.. doy of a.~fJ . A.D. 19 ir, by Ellwood R. Witt, Sr. and, Elsie C. Witt. husband and wife f1 at party, to Collier County, a political Bubdivision of the State of Florida, whose postofflce address 1s Collier County Government Complex, Naples, Florida 33962-4994. second party. (Wherever used herein the terms "first' party" and "second porty" shall include singular and plural, heirs. legal representatives. and asslgns of individual. and the successors and sssigns of corporations, wherever the context 80 admits or requires). WITNESSETH. That the said first party. for and in consideration of the- sum of $1.00, in hand paid by the said second party I the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged. does hereby remise. release ,and quit-claim unto the said second party forever. all the right. title. interest. claim and demand which the 8aid first party-has in and to the following described lot. piece or parcel of lsnd, situate. lying snd being in the County of Collier, State of Florida. to wit: The Westerly 30 feet of a parcel of land hereinafter described: The West ~ of the South ~ of the Southeast ~ of the Northwest ~ of the Northeast ~ of Section 24. Township 48 South. Range 2S East. Collier County. Florida. L.S. L.S. STATE OF COUNTY OF FLORIDA COLLIER I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day. before me. an officer duly authorized in the State aforesaid and 1n the County aforesaid to take acknowledgements, personally appeared Ellwood H. Witt, Sr. and Elsie C. Witt, husband and wife, to ~e known to be the person(s) described 1n and who executed the foregoing instrument and nave acknowledged before me that they executed the same. WITNESS my hond oo:jtffiB101 seal in the County and State lBst of ores aid thiB 'Ttt.. day f'FOf /?I"')- A.D.19&J-. -';1 (/./ . g; ~'" ..."u (_ tut.A. L( ~ (..IlOtory Public . Received $ . ;;:;> I ,,::_Tf Documentary Stamp To" " if.q Callier County, Florida ...... ;:: WIII~~~OgOn. Clerk ,. 1~ bY-~~'C. HOI~ ~~&lic. Stale Df Raridll>. My COIn.'":~lllh E=p;re. Fw. 20 1986:-' a-... ..~. h~, ....................:c. ,I'. ',I' '..':c:\::' '...-'r Prepared by. Kenneth B. c" ler Office of tho ~ . Esq, Col/ier County OF"' ntYd Attorney , on a /.. .." . " " I I a__ aIOd YIrrWW ftl!.l~pog~~~:VK~CR'1b. .WlllIAAlI,lltAC'''-'''' /&:I1tol Cll'Ullf t.o&lII' .",.:. "0,'.1 <. "::..;:;!::.~;::::;:~::::')./ I'.............. \r L