05-22-1991 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Joel R. Hanson May 1, 1991 Page Two The reasons for the denial of relocation benefits in this case were summarized in my letter to Mr. Gatti and Ms. Wicklander dated January 3, 1991. As discussed in that letter, eligibility for replacement housing benefits requires that a displaced person "has actually and lawfully occupied the displacement dwelling for at least ninety days immediately prior to the initiation of negotiations." Specifically, Richard McNamara, from whom the appellants leased the premises, confirmed in a letter dated December 27, 1989 that Mr. Gatti and Ms. Wicklander vacated the premises on November 10, 1989. Since the residence was vacated more than one month prior to the initiation of the condemnation, Mr. Gatti and Ms. Wicklander do not fall under the definition of "displaced persons" as defined in the Relocation Act. As a result, it is our position that the Act does not require the payment of relocation benefits in this case. I am forwarding with this letter for your information, copies of the applications for relocation benefits submitted to this office by Michael Gatti. I am also forwarding a copy of the letter I received from Richard McNamara dated December 27, 1989 confirming that Mary Wicklander and Michael Gatti vacated the residence on November 10. Attached to that letter and also forwarded for your file, is a copy of the Property Lease Agreement between M & M Financial Company and Patrick McNamara. Mr. McNamara has not made a claim for relocation benefits, and inspections of the property at the time of the initiation of the condemnation indicated that the property was vacant. Please forward to our office a copy of the Notice of Hearing. If you have any questions or need anything additional, please advise. PTO:gc Enclosures Very truly yours, SWEENEY & BORER Paul T. Ostrow Page 51