RM 02-03-78 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

6. NEW BUSINESS, Continued- co cerning downtown Lancaster, Texas. They are finding that where de elopers are able to get thru all the problems, they are coming out with su cesses. Mr. Brownell then said that he has asked Carl Ellison to the meeting this morning to tell you about the meetings in Indianapolis and Chicago, the one in Chicago I believe was attended by the Mayor and Chris Murphy. I thought that Carl could give us a rundown on those. Also, Kevin Butler is supposed to bring up the lease with the Park De- pa tment but we don't have that yet so we can't present it this morning. Chair asked if there were any questions. Ms. Derbeck asked if she had missed anything (she was late due to an early deadline at the paper). Dave Anderson: What is the importance of the Odd Fellows abstract thing? Mr. Nimtz: We have been told for a long time that this was a party wall and we have asked the lawyers to research the matter and find out what the status is. It develops that it is a party wall and it appears that there was an agreement between the two owners, Almond Bugbee and Christopher Kunstman, in 1871 to build this wall. Then fourteen years lat r, in 1885 there was an appraisal and notation added to the abstract of hat the cost and expense of the wall was - $544.40. Mr.lAnderson: What does it do for them to get that agreement? Mr. Wiggins: The whole idea here is that years ago it was common practice to uild a building adjacent to another by using the wall of the first building for the fourth wall of your building - it was a wall common to boti buildings but the problem arises when you tear down one of the buildings. If you tear the whole building down, you would rip a hole in the next one - there is a shared responsibility for the party wall. The people at the Odd Fellows Building were giving us fits because when we tore down the adjacent building, we left the wall remaining - or a part of the (party) wall. Now it turns out that there was an additional wall built since there have been two or three other buildings on this sit2 over the period of time since the original was built..there were separate walls above a certain level but a common wall below. We have now removed the remains of the separate wall above and what is left is the common wall. This is what I was saying in the first place, I was not sure that we could tear out that wall without leaving(the tenants) a g'gantic view. Ms. Mr. Mr. and wal Derbeck: Is it true then that it is a party wall? Wiggins: That's right. Brownell: It appears in one place that the cost of the wall was $544.40 in another place it says "$544.40 being one -half the value of the I "... -4-