Laserfiche WebLink
Centerville City Council <br />June 9, 2004 <br /> <br />Meeting Minutes <br />parallel to Main Street and hooks into the shared driveway to be able to back his 14 foot <br />boat and suburban into the garage. He then said that there have been some recent <br />plantings in the Main Street right of way. <br /> <br />Mr. Thorson commented that there are really only two questions that come up with public <br />right of way and the first one is, does the public need it for anything at all in the <br />foreseeable future. And, the second is would the City be taking away someone’s right of <br />access. He then said that the City would not be taking away access as both properties <br />have frontage on Main Street and the City has no intention of extending Mill Road. <br /> <br />Council Member Paar asked if this has become a neighbor dispute. <br /> <br />Mr. Alcock agreed that it has and he is tired of it after 9 years because Mr. Perron treats <br />the entire area as if it is his. <br /> <br />City Attorney Hoeft clarified that Mr. Thorson is with the same law firm as he is and <br />there was a question of conflict and that leads into the main point of this proceeding. The <br />question of whether or not to vacate the easement is completely at the discretion of <br />Council based on a finding that it is in the best interest of the public to vacate that section <br />of Mill Road. He further clarified that the decision is solely the Council’s based on <br />public interest and there is no conflict of interest. <br /> <br />City Attorney Hoeft commented that the inconvenience alleged, the disputes and the <br />rhetoric are irrelevant. <br /> <br />City Attorney Hoeft indicated that if the City Council decides to vacate this portion the <br />property is divided by operation of law and the City does nothing with splitting the <br />property up. Those issues are between the property owners and the City Council needs <br />only to be concerned with whether or not this is being done in the best interest of the <br />public. <br /> <br />Council Member Paar indicated that he does not see a public use for that area. <br /> <br />Mr. Perron indicated it is his opinion that it is being used for the public right now because <br />there are two households that use it to allow one access onto Main Street rather than two. <br />He then said there is no burden to the City but this takes away something that has been in <br />use for his property for 50 years himself for 25 years. <br /> <br />Motion by Council Member Broussard Vickers, seconded by Council Member <br />Capra to close the public hearing. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. <br /> <br />Council Member Capra asked if city has any nonconforming issues with the driveway. <br /> <br />City Attorney Hoeft indicated the driveway would be a private property owners’ issue. <br /> <br />Page 5 of 13 <br /> <br />