03/06/1991 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

McGowen was present because there was a connection between this Ahr planning and the disposal of the Eshner estate. Mr. Packard gave attendeees a memordandum (on file at Town Hall) relating to the status of planning for his own estate. In the memorandum, Mr. Packard stated: 'It is the intention of the Trustees to take the necessary steps to implement these plans.' During the meeting, no undertakings were made to Mr. Packard by Councilmembers or Town staff." Casey stated that she had met with several of the neighbors including the Hortons, who had no objection to the vacation of the conservation easement, and Mr. Packard who had submitted the memorandum regarding his property as referenced by Johnson. One half of the Eshner estate was going to Childrens Hospital of which Mr. Packard was a major supporter. Hubbard stated that he had also met with Mr. Packard and the points of the meeting were well covered in Mr. Packard's memorandum which was a part of the public record. Tryon stated that she had received a call from Mr. Packard's office requesting her attendance at the meeting under discussion. She questioned the purpose of the meeting and was surprised that more than two Councilmembers were present. She was also surprised that Mr. McCowen was there. This was an unexpected linkage between the Eshner and Packard properties. Johnson noted that he also had been concerned about the meeting and upon calling the City Attorney was advised that they could not have a quorum at the meeting. Casey commented that she too had spoken with the City Attorney but apparently there had been a misunderstanding. She understood that if it was strictly an informational meeting, the Council could all be present. • Council had before them the Director of Public Work's staff report which included the recommendation that Council require an environmental impact report prior to the vacation of the conservation easement. Richard McGowen, attorney representing the Eshner estate, gave a brief history of the Eshner property, including an overview of the original 1971 subdivision of the Eshner property and an explanation for the conservation easement which was to protect the view of the Eshner's home. Mr. McGowen commented on the benefit to the public at large of the conservation easement as well as what benefit there might be for those in the subdivision. He also commented on the impact on those who lived on Julietta Lane. He believed the crucial issue was the acceptance of the conservation easement. They had revoked the easement because they owned it. In his opinion, the Streets and Highways Code did not apply to conservation easements. Mr. McGowen also referred to the March 5, 1991 letter to the Town from David Packard. In this letter Mr. Packard states his support of the vacation of the Ilie March 6, 1991 4