01/12/1983 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Planning and Zoning Board January 12, 1983 Page -2- 0 City Attorney, Bill Hawkins and he said Mr. Hawkins indicated that since these transfers actually took place prior to the subdivision moritorum, that the City is really obligated at this time to allow this particular recording to take place. Therefore, the request is that the City allow Mr. Leroux to make the transfer and create parcels #1 and #2. • Mr. Ellison who owns the lot that the easements are on to the southeast of Mr. Leroux's property explained he purchased his lot in 1979 and the problem he had to obtain proper road frontage. and how the matter of the easement came to be. Mr. Doocy asked Mr. Ellison where the easement actually is located and Mr. Ellison explained where he felt it was located. However, Mr. Bartholdi explained the recorded easements do not appear to be located as Mr. Ellison believes. The reason being the moratorum prevented the parties from changing the location of the easements. Mr. Doocy noted that the current Section Map compiled by the County does not show any easements. Mr. Bartholdi explained that a Section Map is merely a compulation of all kinds of things the County recieves and is not necessarily the status of the legal title that exists at the present time. He explained that at the present time the ease- ment that exists there is what is shown on Mr. Leroux's Certificate of Survey and is of record and is recorded with the County recorder. The description that Mr. Ellison has is a Certificate of Survey drawn up by Milner W. Carley following conversations with all the parties stating that this is how all the parties would like the easements to be but was never recorded because of the moratorum. Mr. Bartholdi said the orginal easement was recorded on March 8, 1979. The easements are a part of Mr. Ellison's legal description. Mrs. Anderson said she had checked with the County and was told the easements were not recorded. Mr. Prokop felt that until the question of whether the easements are recorded or not is resolved, the question of the easements should be tabled. Mr. Prokop asked what is the difference in terms of ownership of easements as opposed to property. Mr. Bartholdi explained normally the easement.46d'the underlying property is owned ,by someone else, the history of this particular easement is as follows: Mr. Scherer owned the full 40 acre tract. He indicated on the map the property Mr. Scherer conveyed to Mr. Leroux by contract for deed. When Mr. Scherer conveyed title of the property to Mr. Ellison's predecessor it was conveyed subject to certain easements. Mr. Scherer is actually the underlying owner of the easements because he was unable to record the conveyance to Mr. Leroux. The contracts for deed to Mr. Leroux for the easements are paid. Mr. Ellison then does not have any ownership or title to the easements since his description states his property is subject to these easements. Mr. Bartholdi explained that the underlying owner is the person who actually owns the land, one person can own the land and another person can have the right to drive over that land. Mr. Doocy noted that on July, 1980 Mr. Leroux requested a variance for the property shown in green on the certificate of survey, the homestead, and the Council did grant the var- iance. This too was never recorded. Mr. Doocy said the problem as he sees it is that Mr. Scherer cannot give Mr. Leroux a warrantee deed because of the moratorum, Ordinance #85. It was explained the County will not record a transfer of title unless the document has the City Stamp of Approval showing the City approves of the transfer. Mr. Prokop felt that since Mr. Leroux had started his transaction prior to the moratorum this is a continuing action. Mr. Leroux has paid for the land and is now entitled to a recorded deed. Pending some proof that Mr. Leroux has paid for the property, he felt a motion was in order.