04-28-86 Zoning & Vacation - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning and Vacation Committee Page 2. Following discussion, Councilman Puzzello made a motion seconded by Councilman Serge to recommend the amended version of Bill No. 44-86 favorably to Council. The motion passed unanimously. The Committee then reviewed Bill No. 36-86 which would vacate an alley in the vicinity of Wayne Street and Eddy Street. Mr. John Sullivan, one of the petitioners was present with his family and made the presentation. He noted that the other petitioner was Mary Roemer. Using the illustration of a map, he noted that the concern for the safety of children was the overriding reason for the petition of vacation. Twenty children under the eighth grade live in the vicinity. Twenty-one adults have signed a petition in favor of the vacation. Twenty-one thousand cars per day travel Eddy Street with two accidents occurring per month. He noted that various trucks are considered "cutters" and use the alley. He noted that the alley is a 14 foot soft-surface and is a blind alley in light of the hedges. It was also indicated that discussions had been held with the principal of Jefferson School who was in favor of the vacation. It was also indicated that representatives from the Police and Fire Departments were at the site and had nothing negative to report to the vacation. A video tape of the area in question was then presented by Councilman Beck. Mr. Alex Cholis representing Mr. and Mrs. Lobdell then presented their position. He noted that he believes the map in question is improper and that the legal description was in error. The alley is now 8 feet wide and not 14 feet. Mr. Cholis noted that the Lobdell' s do in fact have their house up for sale, however, they believe that this is a private matter. He believes that the vacation of the alley would de-value the property. He also indicated that the lots each have frontage of 60 feet which front on Wayne Street. However, the co-petitioner' s lots frontage is 53 feet. Therefore with the vacation, their frontage would be substantially increased therefore increasing the value of their property. Mr. Cholis added further that several issues with regard to adverse possession, the power of condemnation, the power to sue the City will also be seriously considered.. by his clients for monetary damages. Mr. John Blackmond, Mr. and Mrs. Michlind, and Mr. Fred Bieckner also were present as remonstrators. Mrs. Bernard and the Council Attorney both advised the Committee that the legal description should be reviewed in light of the charges made by Mr. Cholis. They both indicated that this was a new issue not considered by the Board of Public Works at their meeting. A copy of the Board of Public Works' hearings on this matter are attached to this. The Council Committee agreed to continue discussion of this matter on the floor of the meeting. The meeting was then adjourned at 6 : 05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, John Voorde, Chairman