From Daylight Street to Sunnyside Heights, its history could indicate its origins were with the city until it was relocated for construction of Shoney’s Inn.
According to city attorney Tim Pirtle, records he was given by city administrator Bill Brock show when the street was relocated for the construction of Shoney’s Inn, developers sought city approval for the relocation which indicated to him the street was not privately owned but publically owned.
“Administrator Brock ferreted out records from the relocation of what was referred to as Daylight Road at the time Shoney’s Inn was developed,” said Pirtle. “That, in fact, is the genesis of the current street that we now refer to as Sunnyside Heights.”
He presented the minutes of a Planning Commission meeting from May 31, 1988 that explained site plans for Shoney’s Inn and proposed a relocation of the street that crossed through the property to accommodate a parking lot and swimming pool in front of the building.
“Daylight Street would be rerouted to the front of the property adjacent to US70 Bypass,” said Pirtle.
Pirtle continued, “The Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the plan. Approval was contingent upon obtaining any needed right of way and obtaining permission from affected property owners to relocate the street. The relocation was to be paved to Planning Commission specifications.”
Pirtle says he was familiar with the relocation of the street because his mother owned, and still does, a piece of property along the street.
“I remember the history of it because the street did formerly go right in front of the buildings,” Pirtle said. “It was a paved street. It went to Smithville Highway. When Shoney’s Inn wanted to build on the property, they wanted their parking lot in front and a swimming pool in front so the street needed to be relocated. Now, it was not built by the landowners. Administrator Brock does not recall that the city paid for the street. I assume the Shoney’s Inn developers paid for the street. I know the property owners did not pay for the street because the street was already there. The street was relocated by permission of the landowners.”
All the landowners agreed to relocation, says Pirtle, however, when time came for landowners to sign the dedication of right of way property, two decided against it.
“I would respectfully suggest to the board that it was a public street,” he said. “It was relocated with permission of the landowners. It was not a private street. It was not relocated by the landowners. It was relocated by the city and the developer. Based on what Administrator Brock told me today, it was probably the developer. I would respectfully suggest that now, because all the landowners are willing to sign a dedication, that a formal dedication be made and accepted by the city.”
Alderman Ben Newman asked, “So you are saying this was a public road.”
“Yes,” said Pirtle.
Brock stated that while its origins may have been a public street, the relocation placed the street on private property and because the two property owners refused to sign dedication of the right of way over to the developer, the new street was never accepted by the city as a public street.
“If you look at the deed, it’s on private property,” said Brock. “It might have been moved and relocat-ed and considered a public street but it was on private property. That’s why the city never maintained it.”
Newman requested deeds proving that the original street, Daylight Street, was publically owned and the city had the legal right to approve its relocation.
The measure was tabled in order to give Pirtle time to find the deeds.