03/07/05 Regular - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Regular Meeting March 7, 2005 approval of something which has not been “bought yet.” Mayor Adams responded that he could not express a legal opinion, but when property is under contract, it is considered to be equitable title. The big question is “when does title transfer” and no one really knows the answer. The Bill was given its third reading. Mr. Wagner commented that the comments made tonight are undeniably true. The ordinances that control the zoning and the building permits are flawed. They are not the result entirely of this Council, but of past Councils as well. Some ordinances have been changed successfully. The Council is currently working on ways to fix the flaws. Mr. Greenwood brought up a very legitimate question, Mr. Wagner stated. Somewhere in the ordinances there is information to answer the question whether the strip of eighteen feet has been transferred legally to Mr. Anselmo. In the absence of an answer tonight, he moved to table this Bill until the matter is straightened out. Mr. Sharpe seconded the motion. Mayor Adams said the motion to table is not debatable. Mr. Wagner moved to table and Mr. Sharpe seconded and the motion passed six to one, with Mayor Adams voting NAY. Mayor Adams commented that property transfers were in “magic land” when they transfer, but when people have a contract for property, equitable title means theoretical control of the property. Mr. Ollendorff commented that his understanding was that the sale of the eighteen feet cannot be completed until the Council approved the Plat and until the Council acts, the property cannot legally transfer. Then he invited any lawyer present to correct him, if necessary. Mr. Greenwood responded that Mr. Ollendorff’s comment did not make sense, Either Mr. Anselmo has possession or he does not and said that he was not a lawyer. Attorney Schmitt commented, addressing Councilmember Wagner directly, that if this issue is a concern, he would like for it to have been addressed with the City Attorney. He said, since it has been tabled tonight, he would point out that new developers, in new contracts, have zoning “ in feasibility contingencies”, so the owners under contract petition with a body to have a property rezoned. They do not want to “fool” with a project if they cannot build. The contract then is null and void. That is not to say they have not closed. He really doesn’t know the status of the 18’. Mr. Wagner responded that he is not a lawyer either, but he does remember in past cases that a developer cannot come with a plan for a piece of property unless he has at least a legal option that he can possess that land. That is all that we were asking for Page 11