Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />City Council <br />July 28, 1982 <br />Neamy Mr. Fahey asked if it were likely that the City would want a road <br />Property easement through this area. The Engineer stated that he does not <br />Division think it will happen in his lifetime because the road would cost <br />(Cont.) too much money so that assessments would eat up the price of the <br />lot. <br />Mr. Hanson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION NO. 82 -7 -376 - APPROVING THE NEAMY <br />PROPERTY DIVISION WITH THE FRONT FOOTAGE ON <br />LOT A BEING SET AT 80 FEET, THE FRONT FOOTAGE <br />ON THE MIDDLE LOT BEING 100 FEET AND THE FRONT <br />FOOTAGE ON LOT B BEING 90 FEET AND WITH THE <br />DELETION OF ANY ROAD EASEMENT ON THE EAST <br />PROPERTY LINE <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Mr. Forsberg. <br />Ayes (3) Fahey, Hanson, Forsberg. <br />Nayes (2) Nardini, Scalze. <br />Resolution declared adopted. <br />This resolution appears in Resolution Book No. 8, Page 326. <br />Mr. Hanson suggested that the road plan for the area be eliminated. <br />Mr. Forsberg suggested that the road be moved over rather than <br />eliminated. <br />Mr. Fahey.did not feel the full road needed to be eliminated. Mrs. <br />Scalze pointed out that the house mentioned by Mr. Hanson previously <br />is not in the middle of the proposed street. Mr. Fahey stated that <br />if that were true, he wanted to reconsider the previous motion. <br />Mr. Forsberg pointed out that the Vanderbee lots cannot benefit from <br />the road. <br />Mr. Fahey introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION NO. 82 -7 -377 - RECONSIDERING <br />RESOLUTION NO. 82 -7 -376 <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Mrs. Nardini. <br />Ayes (3) Fahey, Nardini, Scalze. <br />Mayes (2) Hanson, Forsberg. <br />Resolution declared adopted. <br />This resolution appears in Resolution Book No. 8, Page 327. <br />Mr. Fahey introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption; <br />RESOLUTION NO. 82 -7 -378 - DENYING THE PROPOSED <br />NEAMY PROPERTY DIVISION <br />Page -11- <br />,. 8 <br />