BOOK 19_1942-09-08 to 1945-05-07

Browse Search

Ick n Ii 0, I 1, and fire, chief had inspected the house and that there were no -violations: He said they were trying to assist in relieving the acute housing shortage and asked the Council to consider ways and means of allowing them to continue as at present. Mr. Bert L. Werder addressed the Couneil stating that he did not want anyone to feel that he was opposing anything that had to do with the^war effort but that the house in question had been a rooming house for some time and as such was in violation of the ordinance inasmuch as it was a first class residential district. He objected to the rear cottage, stating that it had started out as a room for a nurse and developed into a five room house. The rear cottage, he stated, was on the same lot as the large house. It was his opinion that it would be a detriment to the property in that location to allow a rooming and boarding house to continue there. Councilman Armstrong asked Mr. Rice if -there had been any alterations made to the property. Mr. Rice replied that there had been none in the past few months. There had been some improvements in the way of painting, etc. but no additional facilities had been installed for the past seven years. He stated that the rear cottage was on one lot and the large house on another. City Manager Mead stated that it was a difficult matter to determine whether the two houses were on the same lot. A survey had been made and one house overlapped the line by a foot and a half. City Attorney McCarthy stated that several months ago there had been an unsatis- factory tenant living in -the house and an investigation had been started in order to evict this tenant. He stated -that the house was built before the first zoning ordinance went -into effect. Councilman Armstrong asked the City Attorney if the Council had the authority to override the provisions of an ordinance. Mr. McCarthy replied that they did not in a permanent sense but believed it was a matter for the discretion of the Council as to whether or not a temporary departure was made. Councilman Armstrong stated he was in -sympathy with the owners of the property and also with Mrs. Rice but he believed that if the Council was to disregard /the provisions of the ordinance then the ordinances might as well be dispensed with and the business of the city conducted on the number of people who attended meetings or signed petitions. He moved that the permit be denied, seconded by Councilman McNulty. Mrs. E. L. Scheiber, 4 Hyde Street, spoke before the Council, stating that she had voluntarily circulated the petition and she did not feel that the present occupants of the house should be penalized for doing something that has been -going on for years. She said Mrs. Rice had improved the house and that it was in no way a nuisance. Councilman Fletcher said that he personally did not like to override an ordinm ce but he was in sympathy with Mrs. Rice. He stated he realized the acute housing shortage in Redwood City and that he was going to vote for tolerance`until after the war.