Laserfiche WebLink
r <br /> Page 2. <br /> Zoning and Vacation Committee <br /> that could be met by the remonstrators. <br /> Councilman John Voorde noted that the Board of Public <br /> Works heard the petition for vacation at its meeting of April 8, 1986 <br /> where both petitioners were present. He added that one remonstrator <br /> was present and one written remonstrance had been sent to the Board. <br /> He noted that the dedication of right of way by the Board was a <br /> condition of approval. <br /> Mr. Alex Cholis, an attorney for Mr. and Mrs.. Lobdell then spoke <br /> against the proposed vacation. he noted that a petition against the <br /> vacation had already been prepared and added that a letter from a <br /> realtor would be presented (copy attached) . Mr. Cholis added that the <br /> grounds for remonstrance were found at I.C. , 36-7-3-13 and that his <br /> clients were specifically petitioning their remonstrance under Sections <br /> 2 and 4 with regard to difficulty or inconvenience that would be <br /> caused by the proposed vacation. he also added that if the vacation is <br /> granted by the City that his client should have 30 days to file a <br /> lawsuite before the Circuit Court. He added that the two petitions <br /> involved would have seven feet added to their land and he believed that <br /> there was no showing of public good or for the public welfare by such <br /> a vacation. He added that in his opinion there would be double the <br /> amount of traffic in light of the closing. He noted that the Lobdells' <br /> own Lot No. 140 and that in his opinion there would be a question of <br /> fire and police protection. He added that if the City would grant such <br /> a vacation that the City would be acting as "Santa Claus" . <br /> Mr. Fedder noted that such a vacation would not be a gift and <br /> that there would be reasonable excess to the lands in question. he <br /> noted that he would be citing case authority this evening that found that <br /> such a proposed vacation similar to the one in question would be <br /> reasonable. <br /> Mr. and Mrs. John Lackman who live at 1123 Sunnymede also were <br /> present and voiced concern as remonstrators. <br /> Councilman Beck noted that the persons on the petition objecting <br /> to the vacation all lived on Sunnymede except for the Lobdells. <br /> Several members of the Council noted that they had voiced their <br /> concerns at the prior meeting. Following discussion Councilman Beck <br /> made seconded by Councilman Zakrzewski that the Substitute version of <br /> Bill No. 36-86 go to Council favorably. The motion passed unanimously <br /> (5-0) . <br /> There being no further business to come before the Committee, <br />