Laserfiche WebLink
r+T v?r~rr; <br />Cit:y Council <br />.Tuly 28, 1932 <br />Ri ].ey Grrva~i.s 1?ahey cornmenCecL tl~at the Counc:i.1. must consi.dee the :i.mpact on cl~ie <br />Lake 2nd Add> lalce and Che ~i.mpacC on th~. ~xisting ne;.t;hborkioocl, 'Chere are also <br />(Cont,) ti~ie natural boundar_i.e, oi tne ~rea Co consi.de.-. <br />P4rs. Nar<li.ni. ,tatcd thaC her coricern was thzit h!r. 1Zro~lss's pl1C. <br />rnet as mucti of the cocie~ as ~iL do~s. Nard-ini. stat¢d t:hat s~1e d:i.d <br />i~iot wanC. to ,pend C~ity money to f~.i.~;ht Lk~is tt~~~i.n~; i.n court. <br />1°ahey cornmenee.cl t.hat the rouncil musC do ~ahaC is ri.phC ancl telt thar <br />Mrs. Nard~i.ni's reason caould be a poor onc noT. to vote against <br />someChi.n;, iyr. 7?ahey also r,~ointed out t:nat the C~i.ty Attorney has <br />:i.nfor.med t:$e Cotmc~.i1 tlx:~t ~i.L may pl~ce str:i.ecer requi.remenC> on <br />a plat. <br />Mrs< 6cal.ie isked the AtCm-n~y to expla~i_n thc te,rms arbitrary anc( <br />capr-i.ci_ous. 'Che ACtorney stated thaC arbi.trary and ca~~r~i.ci_ou, <br />would be the den;ial of someth:i.ng [or no reasons. <br />iKr. J~1hey ~o~inCed out that the Gervais Sriores dc.velo}~ment of 42 ].oCs <br />meC CiC~ Code, but the Counci.J. deni.ed it ~nd. then laCer ~pproved <br />Che developracnt consistinp; of 14 l.ots rat,her than tl,~e 4.2. <br />1~4r. T~~ihey atated that hc fe7.[ ~ir, `:<roi.ss cvou7.d have a ha_d rase <br />z~a~inst tl~~e Ci.t.y. 7'ahey fclt that rohat t:ne C~i.ty i.s propos~.ing would <br />be a Ea:i.~r bal.ance between the deve7.o~>cr and the ne~~~i£;hborhood. <br />Nr. .7ok»i I.,adcne,r st~tecl tb.at because somethin; i.s 7.ega1 doe~s not. <br />malce it rioht. Mr. Lactaler aslced Che Counci7. Co do whaC ,i_s ri;hC. <br />i~9r. ;-lansou st2ted Chat Che aa71 may be a naCUral. boundary, bi.iC at the <br />1a,t ineetins; ^ir~. ':roi.>s seaLed Chent lie i~~~as repeai.red the o~al~l when )te~ <br />could have rernoved i.C. lianson comrnenCed tV~iat i.E the house were not <br />therc, t1~e arr~~n~ernent of the plat rn:i.~ht sti.11 be thE s~~me. <br />~4r. tLran,on also que,t:i.oned [haC tk~e DNR or rJ~.tershed Distr~i.ct <br />rn~i~ht pl.ace contro~l.s on tl,~e develonment of Ch~ properCy, Hanson <br />cor;~mentecl that it may be a lon~ t~i.me before Che L~roper.Cy :is <br />bu:i.It on. <br />Hanson sCatect that peopl.e do buy the.5.r property for a v:i.~~a, but t}.iat <br />could be shor_t-li_ved. 1lanson,st~ted Ch1t Chere are p,ood and va'Li.d <br />argum~ilCS on boCl~ si.d.es. }Lanson staLed tltaC h~ may not 1i1<e Ck~e. <br />dcvelopment, buC quest;ioned i.f he caere castinE; his own persona~l. <br />op~i.a~i.on. <br />P1a:~s. Scr:il.ze pointecl out that the C~iCy h<s ,its nroposed sA2orel~nd <br />ordi.nance corni.ng un ancl poi.nYed oliC t4i~ moraGOri.i.im Ciie City ,has <br />on bu:i.ldi.ng on lak~ ,l,~or,. +1rs. Scal.ze ;tated Ckiat she Chour;ht <br />that Che ox~di.n~nce. prov;i.ded thaC a l.ot on a lalce must consi.sC <br />oi 7.5,000 squl,re Eeet. Sca7.ze sCated tkiat the Council nust be <br />cautious w:i.tPi anyChino> h~vf.n~ an impacC on shoreland. <br />%'"if>c, _3_ <br />