Post by Admin on May 29, 2015 10:03:09 GMT -5
In looking over the supporting documentation for the Application, I noted the inclusion of a Deed conveyed by Owners to SLohA for 1 Queen of Waters (Lot 1 Blk 31 U-2 Parcel#xxx031010). This is the residential parcel that the Exercise Room and CAPS shed is currently on. Why, (I asked myself), is this parcel submitted with the Application? It has nothing to do with the subject property "The Office Tower" location at 499 SLRd.
Thinking that maybe there was an error in submitting documents, I noted that the (Subject) Office Tower location was noted in the property records as Block 1 (Office) U-1 --Parcel#xxx1000 and was also submitted as documentation.
So there was an additional deed submitted for the adjacent property and it would appear that the Deed was submitted with the Application for unknown reasons.
My curiosity aroused, I recalled seeing that a Deed was also submitted for the Drainage lots (L10 Blk3 & L14 Blk 4) on the Trail where the gazebo is currently built (contrary to a no-build deed restriction). I wondered why this deed was submitted to the county. Thinking it was perhaps supportive to the Impact Statement for Drainage, I read that Statement and the Deed was not referenced in support of any questions or answers offered.
So, it would appear that the Deed for these two residential parcels was submitted with the Application package for unknown reasons.
I spoke with the Polk Senior Planner, Erik Pet erson, and he validated my findings and could see no rationale for including these deeds; indeed, he maintained that these kinds of things could be avoided if Staff would do independent due diligence of the owner parcel verification. He will memo the participants in the Review, including the AG, and assure that the proper clarifications are entered into the record relating to the above.
Here are the applicable documents:
DeveloperdeedtoSLOA1977.pdf (88.91 KB)
DeedtoSLOA1_31_1994CovenantsReimposed.pdf (70.77 KB)
DeedtoSLOADrainageLotSBT.pdf (82.06 KB)
SLOAImpactstatementDrainage.pdf (60.89 KB)
Thinking that maybe there was an error in submitting documents, I noted that the (Subject) Office Tower location was noted in the property records as Block 1 (Office) U-1 --Parcel#xxx1000 and was also submitted as documentation.
So there was an additional deed submitted for the adjacent property and it would appear that the Deed was submitted with the Application for unknown reasons.
My curiosity aroused, I recalled seeing that a Deed was also submitted for the Drainage lots (L10 Blk3 & L14 Blk 4) on the Trail where the gazebo is currently built (contrary to a no-build deed restriction). I wondered why this deed was submitted to the county. Thinking it was perhaps supportive to the Impact Statement for Drainage, I read that Statement and the Deed was not referenced in support of any questions or answers offered.
So, it would appear that the Deed for these two residential parcels was submitted with the Application package for unknown reasons.
I spoke with the Polk Senior Planner, Erik Pet erson, and he validated my findings and could see no rationale for including these deeds; indeed, he maintained that these kinds of things could be avoided if Staff would do independent due diligence of the owner parcel verification. He will memo the participants in the Review, including the AG, and assure that the proper clarifications are entered into the record relating to the above.
Here are the applicable documents:
DeveloperdeedtoSLOA1977.pdf (88.91 KB)
DeedtoSLOA1_31_1994CovenantsReimposed.pdf (70.77 KB)
DeedtoSLOADrainageLotSBT.pdf (82.06 KB)
SLOAImpactstatementDrainage.pdf (60.89 KB)