My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
03/12/1983 Council Minutes
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
1983
>
03/12/1983 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/24/2022 7:20:40 PM
Creation date
6/24/2022 1:11:16 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
03/12/1983
Council Meeting Type
Special
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
want to go into business it ' s fine , we ' ll help ' ya but only in aiding <br /> to the rules of the city , not 'in money , I leave it at that . <br /> E in the beginning is if it were any- <br /> thing other whether the special use permit has been followed through <br /> history not whether the developer is going to <br /> come further on in the meeting and ask to float bonds to put in his <br /> sewer and if he wishes to do that , he ' ll have to get in line behind <br /> everybody else that we ' ve already said we ' re looking at a policy <br /> whereby we ' re going to discontinue this because we just don ' t feel it ' s <br /> in the best interest of the city although we have stated several times <br /> that each development and each developer will be looked at individually <br /> as to the necessity or whatever but I do think that this council should <br /> consider the fact that the 2 seperate court cases the judges have <br /> indicated that this special use permit is valid and as Bill said if <br /> you revoke this special use permit as Mr . Cody has suggested you would <br /> have no valid reason for denying it to become tomorrow and apply for <br /> it , so why fool around with the Mickey Mouse other than to get <br /> his $125? And if that ' s what you want , I guess we ' d be $125 richer <br /> or whatever the permit fee is now, but the case being , why is it nec- <br /> essary to go through a lot of business and red tape when you ' re not <br /> going to be able to deny this man a special use permit if you revoke <br /> this one because 2 judges have already said , the 2 were very valid . <br /> BB I want to correct myself. When Mr . Cody or you asked Mr . Marier <br /> if we had any physically dug anything , we do have a strom drain on <br /> Outlot H that cost $7 , 200. So the ground was broken in that respect <br /> and the assessments it ' s a petetition asking the City if they will <br /> assess it , it ' s the most economical way of going . Even <br /> that ' s assured now because you ' re requiring a bond I guess <br /> we look at history , it has to be taken out at his own risk. <br /> Mr. Johnson . <br /> I arrived a little late but couldn ' t help hearing Mr . Hawkins <br /> and Mrs . Elsenpeter also indicate they would be hard pressed if a <br /> petition comes before them again for a special use permit or rezone <br /> that particular area. Well , we comprised them of the situation that <br /> since May we 've been working on a land map , rezoning ordinance , <br /> that specifically prohibits multi-family in that particular area. <br /> -14- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.