BOOK 18_1939-01-03 to 1942-08-10

Browse Search

Following the Manager's recommendation, on motion of Councilman Fletcher, seconded by Councilman Anderson, award of contract was made to L. C. Smith, according to his bid, $4o497•45 - As requested by the Council at a previous meeting, the City Attorney filed following written decision concerning Central Park zoning restrictions: t'With reference to the application of Thomas Nelson for a permit to construct a bungalow court on Hudson Street, and of Mr. Currie, representing property owners on King Street, in connection with the same general matter, will state that the property upon which both of these bungalow courts are proposed to be constructed is now in the process of being rezoned from the 2nd residential district to the 1st residential district, under Ordinance No. 251, and amend- ments thereto. The hearing on the same is set for next Monday, May g, 1939, at 9:00 otclock P.M. before the.Planning Commission. From my examination of the law covering this matter, I am of the opinion that if the Council intends to rezone this property from the 2nd to the lot residential district, that it may lawfully refuse to issue any permits for construction which would be in violation of the amended ordinance when passed. Neither of these property owners have secured any vested right in any permit. As a matter of fact, neither of them have secured a permit and the cases covering zoning matters such as this, even go so far as to hold that when a permit has been granted and a certain amount of work done upon the property and the property is rezoned to a zone which does not permit work as provided in the permit, unless there is a considerable amount of work already done, the work could be stopped and the property rezoned." On the strength of the attorney's decision, it was decided, on motion of Council- man McCarthy, seconded by Councilman Anderson, to deny the request fora building permit made by Thomas Nelson who intended to erect bungalow court apartments. Hearing on the petition by voters for annexation of Friendly Acres to the City of Redwood City was had at this meeting. The City Attorney, after having T. A. Peterson of 553 Hoover Street sworn in, questioned him as to whether or not he had secured signatures appearing on the petition and whether or not the names had been signed in his presence, to which he replied that he had obtained 9 names and they were signed in his presence. B. J. Smith also was sworn in and interrogated by the City Attorney toward the same end, and he replied that he had obtained the rest of the signatures on the petition and that they had been signed in his presence. (Later in the meeting it was brought out that one of the names was not signed by the person involved.) The City Attorney submitted letter from the County Clerk which indicated that of the 67 signatures, 51 were duly qualified electors and that there were 112 duly qualified electors residing within the territory to be annexed. The City Attorney also submitted a rounh sketch indicating the boundaries of the territory to be annexed, which was filed with the Clerk. Following this, there ensued a general discussion during which both opponents and proponents of the project voiced their opinion concerning the desirability of annexation. The City Attorney had prepared resolution calling for a formal hearing of this matter, but some of the councilmen were loath to D D I