My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC MINUTES 04281987
StAnthony
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
1987
>
CC MINUTES 04281987
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/30/2015 5:48:46 PM
Creation date
12/30/2015 5:48:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
SP Box #
21
SP Folder Name
CC MINUTES AND AGENDAS 1987
SP Name
CC MINUTES 04281987
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
-17- <br /> the City Attorney had already indicated the Ordinance <br /> wouldn' t apply to guests because the Ordinance only re- <br /> fers to vehicles operated or kept on the lot by the occupant <br /> of the residence; <br /> -told Mr. Misiac the City would not be making him get rid of <br /> of any of the cars his family needs; <br /> -reiterated what Mr. Childs and Mr. Soth had told Mr. Hastay <br /> that the Ordinance had been designed to prevent people from <br /> gravelling their backyards but no action would be taken <br /> against him because of the graveled surface he already had <br /> in that area or because he reconditioned it since it is <br /> grandfathered in; <br /> -reiterated that an ordinance was the only vehicle the City <br /> had to force some of the worst situations to be corrected <br /> because the neighbors' conversations with the offenders; <br /> police attempts to contact them; and even registered let- <br /> ters, had failed to solve the situation in the past; <br /> -told Mr. Hastay some of the complainers about certain situ- <br /> ations had not wanted to be identified; <br /> • -said the Ordinance might not solve all the problems it was <br /> geared towards, but at least future problems might be <br /> avoided if staff could make new residents aware of the <br /> Ordinance' s existance; <br /> -concurred with Councilmember Marks that paragraph 14 would <br /> not solve the problems with front loaders, etc. in front <br /> yards, but some other tack would have to be taken to solve <br /> that problem. <br /> Soth -said the problem with trying to draw the line between the <br /> type of vehicles a resident can keep on his property is one <br /> of semantics. Where do you draw the line in defining what' s <br /> "residential" and what' s not? <br /> Childs -perceived the intent of the Ordinance had been to identify <br /> problem spots and work with the people to get them squared <br /> away; <br /> -told Mr. Getter the police would always document any ongoing <br /> parking problem to be certain the vehicles belonged to the <br /> occupant and not to guests, etc. who had left them there <br /> temporarily. <br /> Marks -said he was not comfortable with telling people they have to <br /> go through a variance procedure to park more than four cars <br /> • in their driveways; <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.