Laserfiche WebLink
JUL. 18. 2005 12;54PM <br />2. <br />COLEMAN WILLIAMS WILSON <br />N0. 042 <br />P. 4 <br />The fmdings of fact and conclusions of law in the 9/28!03 order are <br />expressly incorporated herein. <br />3 The Court notes the following from the Trial Management Order <br />stipulated facts: <br />The Old Shinn Park Road has been improved, elevated a number <br />of feet, and moved in an easterly direction, and the name on the road has <br />been changed to Kinnikin Road on the road signs. <br />4. This Court ordered further proceedings to address the tissues of <br />ownership of that portion of the Old Shinn Park Road found to bt' absindoned, <br />and the width of the new Kinnikin Road. <br />b. The testimony of the former County Attorney, Pat Coleman, <br />established that the county had no intent to abandon any part of the OId Shinn <br />Park Road which is necessary for support of the new road. More particularly, in <br />addition to the traveled portion of the road, the County necessarily int~inded to <br />continue to use the shoulder and toe to preserve the structural Integrity of the <br />road. During the ceurse of the moat recent hearing this was sometimes referred <br />to as the, °road prism" or °structural prism " <br />6. Mr. Barrett testified that the distance from top of the cut d~ the toe <br />of the fill in the portion of the properly in controversy ranges from 87 feet to 127 <br />feet. See generally Plaintiffs Exhibit 100. The Testimony of Brian Wilson was <br />that the road prism suggested by Mr. Barrett was substantially beyond vvhat was <br />reasonably necessary. He opined that 10 feet on either side of the traveled <br />portion was all that was necessary. He did acknowledge that the county plows <br />z <br />