Minutes 04/14/1959 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

TUESDAY APRIL Jl~, 1959 In reply to Mr. Sawyer's inquiry, I pointed out that I was not in a position to make a decision regarding the matter at the time, and when a dec is ion could be made I would prefer making my pos ition known in the presence of both he, Mr. Sa..vyer, and Mr. Irving Ramsey, who also O\vns property adjoining Zee Stt'eet and would have interest in the matter. In the course of events during last Spring, Messrs. Sawyer and Ramsey engaged in separate grading operations on the Zeo Street right-of-way. These grading operations cut over my property line and created an addit- ional embankment also on my property. The .net effect of the grading operations was a change in contour of the right-of-way and deflection to the traffic to my property-line side of the Street. Following the grading operation, Mr. Smvyer stone-surfaced approximately fifty feet of the East end of Zee street adjacent to the side of his house, which he has been using for a parking area. Then Mr. Sa'wyer suggested that he was core iderirg building a fence across the entire right-of-way and along my property line. This would have resulted in the elimination of the use of Zee street as a right-of-way. I suggested that it would be more proper to erect the fence along his property line adjacent to Zee Street. About this time he seeded 50% of the right-of-way adjacent to the side of his back year and t..l1.en proceeded to enclose this area ,"lith the fencing which is novr under protest. During the erection of the fence, I discussed with him, in a neigh- borly manner, the moral principle envolved and the illegality of his enclosing a portion of the City right-of-way for his personal use. At this tire I protested this encroachment of a public right-of-way adjacent to my property. I informed him that if he proceeded with this project I would pursue all orderly means at my disposal to affect removal of the obstruction. Following this discussion, erection and :L'TIprovement of the fence continued. I was therefare prompted to contact City Officials in regard to the matter. I was assured by the City Employee that the encroachrrent was out of order and correction would be made. The project was halted for several days but later resumed. On July 13, 1956, I discussed this matter with Mr. Hirst expressing my dissatisfaction with the project and relating to him the contacts that have been made with menIDers of his Staff. A letter confirming this discussion was forwarded to Mr. Hirst on July 16, 1956, with a copy mailed to Mayor Rieves S. Hodnett. I received a letter over Mr. Hirst's signature dated July 23, 1956, in which he acknowledged receipt of my letter and requests, by phone calls, to other members of his Staff. In paragraph four of the letter, he readily admitted the obstruction of a public right-of-way is in violation of City ordinances. However, in his concluding remarks, he expressed belief that the City should take no action at that time but further suggested if I desired to pursue the matter fur'ther and bring it to the attention of the City Coumil, the City Management would be glad to abide by arry decision of policy they might take. It is my understanding that this situation was reviewed "informally", by the City Council on August 28, 1956, and a decision was reached to have Mr. Hirst instruct Mr. Sawyer to remove the fence from Zee street.