Laserfiche WebLink
'" <br />proposed Orders herein; they were filed with Affidavit of Service <br />on October 6, 1987. If this Court has jurisdiction to determine <br />these Motions, pursuant to Rules 6.02, 52.02 and 59.03, the Order <br />will be as hereinafter provided. <br />Upon review, this Court is satisfied that the material, <br />ultimate facts at issue between the parties have been determined in <br />the Findings dated August 20, 1987. The Motion to Amend those <br />Findings of Fact is respectfully denied. <br />The Motion for Amended Conclusions of Law is also denied, <br />except as to Paragraph 2(E), w.hich shall be modified by the following <br />addition: <br />"The parties may agree on a mutually satisfactory <br />alternative compatible with requirements of law <br />for such ingress and egress;" <br />By the addition of this language, the Court intends that the <br />Judgment not be impossible to perform. It is recognized that the <br />site plan referred to in Paragraph 2(A) of the Conclusions did not <br />pro fide for a "hammerhead turnaround." It is also recognized that <br />such a turnaround was considered preferable to a widened curve in the <br />private road. The Planning Commission minutes of February 6, 1985 <br />alluded to the possibility of 'a staged development in getting to the <br />total of 13 units" in order to provide for the temporary hammerhead <br />turnaround until the extension east of the private road. <br />If the parties are not able to agree on an alternative means <br />of ingress and egress should the hammerhead turnaround not be able <br />to be provided prior to the road extension, this Court will exercise <br />jurisdiction to decide the alternative. The matter should first be <br />-2- <br />