Laserfiche WebLink
MINIJTES <br />Ci.ty CouriCi.l. <br />Sept. 26, 1984 <br />IItiliCy 012DINANCr N0. 7_38 - AP91'sNDiNG SECTION 1006.040 (a) <br />Requ~ixements OP TFIE MUNICIPAL CODE OP 'CHF CITY OP L:CTTLr <br />(Cont. ) CANADA RPLATING TO R;?QUII2El) UTZLITY EASFMP~iTS <br />The £or.egoing ordi.nance was ciul.y seconded by Mr. Porsbergo <br />Ayes (4) Nardini., For,berg, Pahey, Scalze. <br />Nayes (0). <br />Ordinance decl.arecl adopted. <br />Attorney- The AtCOrney reported that he cooiil.d lilce to di.scuss Sc. Jude's anct <br />Qther Pluer Royal i.n closed session f.oll.owin~; the Council. meeti.ng. <br />~~;enda 'fhe Attorney also reporT.ed Chat he cuould be sencli.ng a letter to i9r< <br />Addi.rion Spr.o,Cy shortly. <br />ContirmaC:ion The Ci.t:y ACt:orney aslced f:or direcCi.on Erom the Counci.l on conf:irmation <br />Of Ti11e of. ti.tLes. "fhe Attorney aiso repor.ted that he is i.n the process of <br /> looki.ng into obtai.ni.ng ti_tl.e insurance i.n the name of the city. <br />Agenda <br />Adclition Mr. Fahey sug~;ested that the ordi.nance be amended so Chat an exami.nati.on <br /> of ti.tle is necessary unless the Attorn ey waives the requirement. <br /> ~ie City Cl.eric stated that in order to geC drai.nap,e easements, the <br /> At:tor.ney must examine ti.tles. <br /> 7'he Planner poi.nted out that R c?~ S was a prime exampl.e i.n that the <br /> C:ity was to receive road ease ments from them and Che Ci.ty ended up <br /> with nothi.ng. <br />The PJ.anner stated that the City must decide whether it is goi.ng to <br />loolc at storm dr.ainage. ~rIlten property 9.s developed, the drai.nage <br />i.s altere<1. 7'he Planner stated Chat thi.s cannot be handled on a <br />piecemeal basi.s leavinp the drai.nage problems to Che last piece of <br />property developed. <br />Mrs. Scalz,e stated tk~at in the case of Mr. $unde, she dict not lee1. <br />that: drai.na~;e easemenCS were necessary for a storage shed. Scal.ze <br />pointed out that th:i.s :i.ssue came up af:ter Payne Avenue was developed. <br />Mrs. Scalz,e pointed ou[ that Mr. F3unde cvas not spl.itti.np, a I.oC, but <br />building a storaP,e shed on property ChaC has already been sp1iC, <br />14r< Pahey aslced why easemenCS were necessary on t:t~e Ducharme property <br />on a fl.at lot that abuCts tlie Lreeway. Pahe:y sug~;estecl that perhaps <br />the I.nc;ineer should look at these cases anci determine iE easements <br />are necessary, Also, the Attorney should continue to try to purchase <br />t:i.tle i.nsurance i.n the namc of the Ci.ty. <br />Page -26- <br />