BOOK 20_1945-05-21 to 1946-09-03

Browse Search

1.6. C' liquor establishments in Redwood City who also conducted dancing. He ' asked if all the dance permits expired on June 30. The City Attorney' asked for time to check the matter. Communication was received from Mrs. Frank L. Cary expressing appreciation for sympathy expressed by the Council at the loss of her husband. Com- munication was ordered filed. Councilman Britsehgi entered the meeting. Communication was receivedf from Senator Parkman acknowledging receipt of Resolutions passed by the Council in regard to Senate and Assembly Bills and.pleging his support of the CouncillIs action when the bills come before the Senate. The communication was ordered filed. Communication was received from Mr. J. R. Fogal in regard to Lot 29, Block 5, Central Park, a 25 foot lot which 'he owns and on which he stated he was forced to pay taxes but on which he had been informed he Could NO not build. He asked the Council to -either cancel his taxes or exchange his lot for one on which he could buil&:. City Attorney McCarthy advised that he and Mrs. Miramontes had had considerable correspondence with Mr. Fogal in regard to this lot. Mr. Fogal had been informed that the Council did generally not approveubnildingnon aolot of this dize but that he did not believe this would hold true of his lot inasmuch as the map of that district had been filed after the houses on eAch side of the lot in question had been built. Mr. McCarthy stated he had advised Mr. Fogal to attempt to sell -the lot to the adjoining property oimers. Building Inspector Duncan advised that he had contacted the adjoining property owners in an attempt to have them buy the lot. One owner had been willing to do so and the other expressed a willingness but no ddefinite commitment had been made. He expressed the opinion that as long as Mr. Fogal did not build;. he did not believe they would buy the lot. Councilman Anderson was not in favor of -allowing a building to be built on the lot which could be a detriment td the district and there was some discussion as to how the matter could be handled. Councilman Armstrong moved that the Council instruct the City Clerk to address a letter to the property owner advising him that that there is no ordinance prohibi- ting him from building on the lot and drawing his attention to• the vari- ous restricting ordinance that do exist and advising him that there is nothing the Council -can do in the matter. The motion was seconded by Councilman Britsehgi. Councilman Anderson again expressed his unwill- ingness to allow this lot to be built on,.while Councilman Armstrong agreed but was of the opinion there was no way in which it could be pre- vented and Councilman Granger asked if it would be proper to have the Building In_epector call on the adjoining property owners advising them of the situation and hold the matter over to the next meeting. Council - 41