05-27-86 Council Meeting Minutes

Home Browse Search

Council Member Taylor made a motion to adopt this resolution, seconded by Council Member Barcome. The resolution was adopted by a roll call vote of nine ayes. Council Member Barcome made a motion to appoint Mary Craypo to the Human Rights Commission, seconded by Council Member Zakrzewski. The motion carried. Council Member Barcome made a motion to change to June 9th meeting to June 10, seconded by Council Member Zakrzewski. The motion carried. REPORTS Council Member Taylor indicated he had received a letter from Heritage Cablevision in regard to a public meeting to be held at Jackson School the 4th of June, however, that date is only tentative until they have confirmation from School City. Council Member Taylor indicated that the Public Safety Committee had met to discuss Bill No. 54 -86 and it received a favorable recommendation, as amended. Council Member Braboy indicated that the Human Resources Committee had met on Bill No. 53 -86 and recommended it favorable. She indicated Bill No. 55 -86 will be postponed until June 23. She indicated there will be a special committee meeting June 3 on Bill 55 -86. Council Member Voorde indicated that the Zoning and Vacation Committee had met on Bill Nos. 36, 48 and 58 -86 and recommended them favorable. Council Member Barcome indicated that the Parks Committee had met on Bill No. 56 and 57 -86 and recommended them favorable. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Be it remembered that the Common Council of the City of South Bend met in the Committee of the Whole on Tuesday, May 27, at 7:10 p.m., with nine members present. Chairman Puzzello presiding. Council Member Barcome made a motion to impose the Council's 15 minute rule, seconded by Council Member Taylor. The motion carried. BILL NO. 36 -86 A BILL TO VACATE THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: THE 1ST NORTH -SOUTH ALLEY EAST OF EDDY STREET RUNNING SOUTH FROM WAYNE STREET TO THE 1ST INTERSECTING EAST -WEST ALLEY FOR A DISTANCE OF 121.8 FEET ALL BEING IN THE SUNNYMEDE 1ST ADDITION TO THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, ST. JOSEPH COUNTY, INDIANA. This being the time heretofore set for public hearing on the above bill, proponents and opponents were given an opportunity to be heard. Council Member Voorde made a motion to accepted the amended bill, and further amend this bill in Section 5, by adding "and subject to the conditions set forth by the Board of Public Works at its meeting of April 15, 1986.11, seconded by Council Member Barcome. The motion carried. Kenneth Fedder, attorney, made the presentation for the bill. He indicated he represented Mr. and Mrs. John Sullivan and Mary Roemer the petitioners. He indicated they have filed a petition to vacate 1/2 of a north -south alley. He indicated that the Board of Public Works gave this a favorable recommendation with the understanding that a portion of land will be dedicated by Mr. & Mrs. Sullivan to assure the orderly pickup of the trash removal in the alley. He indicated the reason for the vacation was to insure the safety of the children who play in this area. He indicated there was a general increase in traffic in the neighborhood and the establishment of a business near this residential alley has increased the number of cars who use this alley. He indicated that because of the increased traffic on Eddy it is very convenient for people to use this alley as a shortcut. He indicated that many of their neighbors had enter into this petition. He indicated that Mr. & Mrs. Lobdell had asked in the committee meeting if they would still have ingress and egress to their garage. He indicated that Mr. Cholis had indicated the only way they could enter their garage is through the alley area, however, at one time he could reach the garage directly from Wayne, but an addition was built on the house across a portion of the house and patio. He indicated that in regard to alley vacations and land valuations, the case of Danser vs. Indianapolis Union Railway, when it is established that a mere inconvenience of access or a mere circuitous route of access exists this does not constitute a legal injury and there is no right action. He indicated that later on the Court ruled in a site State vs. Hensley, that while the record shows the appellant suffered inconveniences and annoyances there were not compensable appropriations and the ingress and egress made more circuitous and more difficult did not constitute a taking. He indicated there might be some inconveniences but the benefits far exceed the inconveniences. He indicated he felt that if this alley is vacated the surrounding property values will increase. John Sullivan, 1118 E. Wayne and Mary Roemer, 1112 E. Wayne, the petitioners, regarding the increased traffic in this alley and the danger to the children in the neighborhood. Alex Cholis, attorney, representing Mr. and Mr. Lobdell, indicated that the statute does not permit the vacation of an alley or a street merely for the benefit of one or two private individuals, it must be for the good of the public. He indicated the statute further provides grounds for objection, in that the vacation would make access to the lands of the aggrieved person by means of public way difficult or inconvenient,