Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />i <br />15 <br />16 <br />.'' 17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />r <br />~ 24 <br />26 <br />i <br />• <br />509 <br />requested the notice, which was given. Subsequently, the county <br />attorney held at least some discussion, perhaps negotiation, <br />with Mr, Slovek. Mr. David, at the time they had a meeting with <br />~btr. Slovek, had received the notice, and apparently had some <br />(doubts about its validity,`but iq any event, as far as I can see, <br />in essence entered into negotiations on this subject with Mr. <br />'Slovek, which would lead Mr. Slovek to believe that no further <br />'notice was required, so as I say, I think the notice was all <br />right as it was, but strict compliance was waived. <br />Now, as to the nature of the area where all this <br />occurred, this is an area which has a long history of gravel <br />operations and apparently had been operations up and down the <br />stream. A portion of the straightening of the stream was done <br />by private parties, Mr. Adler, the Adlers in connection with the <br />(previous gravel operation that they had had, and as I say, this <br />is an area in which gravel operations were very common. In <br />agreement in the middle '70s, the county in agreement with the <br />landowners undertook a straightening of a portion of, an <br />additional portion of the river. The landowners asked, are the <br />ones who requested the county, it appears from the evidence, to <br />do the straightening, and the county received as its payment for <br />its work the gravel which was produced from the straightening. <br />i It appears to the Court that the county complied with its <br />obligations under the informal agreement that it had with the <br />adjoining landowners, including the predecessor of the plaintiff <br />