My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
VN-111
NewBrighton
>
Commissions
>
Commissions-OLD
>
PLANNING
>
Planning
>
Variance Files PLZ 02400
>
VN 101-200
>
VN-111
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/25/2007 2:10:32 PM
Creation date
2/20/2007 12:25:04 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
61
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />June 21, 1974 <br />TO: The Honorable Mayor and Membe3rs of the Council <br />FROM: Thomas F. Lewcock, City Manager <br />RE: VN-111, 7-Eleven Service Center, County Road E & Silver Lake Road <br />VN-111 was approved by the Council on March 12, 1974 and contained a <br />series of conditions. As a part of the Council action was the require- <br />ment that the 7-Eleven Service Center should comply with certain site <br />requirements by June 15, 1974. The corrections to the site work have at <br />this date not been completed. Normally, in situations such as this,we <br />would ask the legal department to bring this matter before the municipal <br />court; however, in this case the Council as a part of its motion <br />indicated that if the work was not completed by June 15,'1974, the <br />temporary certificate of occupancy would be subject to revocation by the <br />Council. Therefore, this matter is being brought before the Council in <br />order that the Administration be directed to the appropriate course of <br />action. <br />I have discussed this matter with the City Attorney and the following <br />alternatives are present: <br />1. That the Council revoke the temporary certificate of occupancy. <br />Such action would probably require a district court injunction <br />and there is question as to whether the certificate can be <br />legally revoked at this time since the certificate was initially <br />issued through September of this year. <br />2. We could proceed with a standard complaint at the municipal <br />court level and if the property owner was found guilty, could <br />result in a fine or jail sentence. The municipal court, <br />however, lacks jutisdiction to effectively order the site plan <br />to be completed. <br />3. The City could go directly to the District Court to solicit <br />an order of compliance. " <br />As we review this particular case, it appears that prior to <br />rectification of the site plan question, this matter may come before <br />the District Court on the part of the City or on the part of the land <br />owner. Even if the first two alternatives are selected this would appear <br />to be the case. It is believed that the least costly and the quickest <br />action would occur by going directly to the District Court with this <br />matter. It is this procedure that we recommend to the Council. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.