Laserfiche WebLink
Centerville City Council <br />June 9, 2004 <br /> <br />Meeting Minutes <br /> <br />Mr. Larry Perron, 1798 Main Street, told Council he feels that the vacation is only to the <br />benefit of Mr. Alcock and would be a detriment to him because he could not get into his <br />garage because it faces east. <br /> <br />Mr. Perron said that he has heard that the City has things on the books that were not a <br />50/50 split. He then said that he and Mr. Alcock have attempted to come to an agreement <br />on the land split but cannot do so. <br /> <br />Mr. Perron commented that the widening of Main Street will take out his pine trees and <br />his driveway and he would have to back in from Main Street. He then said that he is <br />against the street vacation. <br /> <br />City Attorney Hoeft explained that the City is not considering the vacation of this street <br />for the benefit of any property owner but only whether this is something that the City <br />needs for the public benefit or public use. He then said that Staff has confirmed that there <br />are no utilities in the easement area and the City has no plans for extending the road. <br /> <br />City Attorney Hoeft indicated he had reviewed the letter from Mr. Perron’s attorney and <br />it addresses concerns of the property owner but those do not rise to the level of actionable <br />items against the City. <br /> <br />City Attorney Hoeft commented that if the vacation eliminated someone’s access to their <br />property there would be an issue but that is not the case here as the property owners are <br />going to gain 33 feet of additional property. <br /> <br />Mr. Perron indicated that he came to the City in the late 70’s and asked about the road <br />and what was going to happen at that time and was told that the City never gives anything <br />back to them and he was told the property next to them was unbuildable. He then said <br />that the reason the garage was built the way it was is because of the 66 feet of access. He <br />further suggested that the value of his home would suffer if this vacation were approved. <br /> <br />City Attorney Hoeft clarified that he disagrees with Mr. Perron’s opinion on valuation <br />because Mr. Perron would be receiving free property from the vacation of this road <br />making valuation a non-issue in this case. <br /> <br />Council Member Broussard Vickers asked what happens with the driveway and whether <br />Mr. Alcock would be required to remove the small piece of pavement that is over the 33 <br />foot mark. <br /> <br />City Attorney Hoeft indicated he would make no representations about property issues <br />between adjoining property owners. <br /> <br />Mr. Steve Thorson from Barna Guzy, the attorney representing Mr. Alcock addressed <br />Council and asked that Council consider that Mr. Perron has another driveway further to <br />the west and what he does is comes in on that driveway travels the driveway that runs <br />Page 4 of 13 <br /> <br />