My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PL PACKET 10171995 (2)
StAnthony
>
Parks & Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
1995
>
PL PACKET 10171995 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/30/2015 5:30:52 PM
Creation date
12/30/2015 5:30:49 PM
Metadata
Fields
SP Box #
20
SP Folder Name
PL PACKETS 1995
SP Name
PL PACKET 10171995
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
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
October 11, 1995 <br /> To Whom It May Concern: <br /> As legal counsel for the City of St. Anthony in the Pirino matter, the City Council has asked me <br /> to relate its side of the story. The City has indicated that it would never want to cause problems <br /> to any family or business in the City at any time. The City takes great pride in taking care of its <br /> constituents by providing the best possible services that can be provided. However, the.Council <br /> feels, as with any dispute, there are two sides to report. Accordingly, it offers the following: <br /> First, the house and garage were placed contrary to initial plans submitted to the City. <br /> Second, the setback issue was in relation to the garage, not the house. The Pirino family could <br /> have continued working on the house while trying to work out the garage issue. <br /> Third, after the variance was denied, the Pirinos delayed for almost a year before suing the City <br /> seeking to have the Council's decision reversed. During that year they did little, if any, work on <br /> their house, which they could have done even before they filed suit. <br /> Fourth, the Pirinos sued the City, the City did not sue them. The City only reacted to this lawsuit <br /> as it would to = other lawsuit. <br /> Fifth, in 1994, after the Court of Appeals turned down their damage request, the Pirinos asked <br /> for $6,000 in an attempt to end this situation. The City offered $5,000 to settle the matter, <br /> provided the Pirinos rectify the code violations and complete the house. This was tentatively <br /> accepted by them; however, as time went on, they decided not to take it and came back requesting <br /> $18,000 in cash and asking the City Council to sign in order to refinance their mortgage. This <br /> is something the City cannot legally do. <br /> Sixth, the City allowed the Pirinos to pour the concrete for the garage before they applied for the <br /> variance. However, the City did this only after Mr. Pirino stated to the City that if the variance <br /> was not approved, he would remove the concrete. The family took the chance of spending money <br /> and knew all along that there was a chance that their request would not be approved. This is <br /> verified in minutes from the Planning Commission 1990. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.