HomeMy WebLinkAboutTranscript 04/07/2004 April 7, 2004
The following is an excerpt from the taped recording of the City Council meeting of April 6, 2004:
Leroy Sproat: Good evening, my name is Leroy Sproat. I live at 615 Thistle Street. I originally
planned to come before the Council this evening to appeal the denial of Right-of-
Way Use Permit RWU 04-02, 615 Thistle Street, by the Director of Public
Works. I have now discovered that the City is not the legal owner of the right-
of-way in question. The legal description of my property is Fogarty & Dolan's
2nd Addition, Lots 3 - 7 ...
Mayor Headrick: Isn't this on the agenda for this evening?
Leroy Sproat: No, it's not.
Manager Quinn: Mr. Mayor, originally when we started to put together, as staff, this particular
agenda, there was an appeal filed by Mr. Sproat ...
Mayor Headrick: Oh, OK.
Manager Quinn: ...of a Right-of-Way Use Permit. He and I had a conversation last week, where
he indicated he was going to withdraw that application. I said if you withdraw
that application, there's no need of appeal; there's no action for the Council. I
took it off the agenda.
Mayor Headrick: OK, proceed Mr. Sproat.
Leroy Sproat: OK. The legal description, I'll give you again. My property is Fogarty &
Dolan's 2nd Addition, Lots 3 - 7 and 26 - 30, Block 5. This plat was developed
and recorded in 1892. In February of 1897, all unopened right-of-ways were
vacated by statute under Session Laws 1889-90, Chapter 19, Section 32, Page
603. The said property was not annexed into the City until May of 1966;
therefore, falling under this law. The right-of-way in question was still unopened
when I moved there in January of 1975. No maintenance to this section of right-
of-way has ever been performed by the City in the thirty years I have lived there.
I have maintained the right-of-way in question at my expense. I've discussed this
law with three professional land surveyors from three different firms and received
the same answer from each of them. Vacation by statute is legal and binding.
This law has been tested in our courts over the years and has always been upheld.
A presence [precedence?] has been set by the City accepting these findings on
other properties in the City. Therefore, I contend I am the legal owner of the
right-of-way in question, and a right-of-way permit becomes moot. I thought it
only prudent to come before the Council tonight to thoroughly explain why I'm
withdrawing my application for a right-of-way permit. Any questions?
Mayor Headrick: Council have any questions? [None] Thank you.