f

a inne a

vay pate

July 24th, 1980.

A special meeting of the Municipal Council of The Corporation of the City of Port Coquitlam was held in the Council Chambers, Port Coquitlam City Hall, 2272 McAllister Avenue, Port Coquitlam, B. C. on July 24th, 1980 at 5:00 p.m.

Acting-Mayor Alderman J.J. Keryluk, Aldermen M.D. Gates, P.F. Ranger, L.M. Traboulay and M.R. Wright in attendance.

Also in attendance were Chief Administrative Officer L.D. Pollock, City Engineer F.E. Peters, P. Eng., Recreation Director K.J. Taylor and

Solicitor Kevin Anstey.

BY-LAWS: By-Law

No. 1768 -

The City Administrator advised the special meeting was called to Road Closure &

give consideration to By~law No. 1768 and advised the same is a by-law Subdivision - Warwick to relocate certain portions of road and lane shown dedicated in District Ave. Lot 255, Group 1, New Westminster District in exchange for sufficient land to relocate the said roads and lane. The City Administrator informed the Council that the by-law covering the proposed road exchange had been advertised calling for any representations with respect to the matter to be in the hands of the City Clerk by Tuesday, July 22nd, 1980. The City Administrator informed the Council that one letter of objection had been received from Mrs. Hilda Vanstone, #316 - 1955 Western Drive, Port Coquitlam, B.C., who is building a residence at 1902 Warwick Avenue. Mrs. Vanstone was present and was represented by her lawyer, Mr. Jim Barrett. Alderman Keryluk asked Mr. Barrett to make his presentation to the Council. Mr. Barrett reviewed the circumstances surrounding the construction of a home at 1902 Warwick Avenue for Mrs. Vanstone and stated that the City had assigned Mrs. Vanstone the residential street number of 1902 Warwick Avenue even though Warwick Avenue at that time was not constructed. Mr. Barrett pointed out that the dwelling was being constructed in such a manner as to face Warwick Avenue and If this street was not constructed it would impose a hardship on Mrs. Vanstone and she might suffer a loss in value. Mr. Barrett pointed out that in his opinion the by-law was not valid in view of the fact that the City was closing portions of public road allowance in exchange for City owned property and that in

his opinion this was not a valid application of Section 574 of the

Municipal Act. Mr. Barrett then stated that Mrs. Vanstone had no objection