My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-19-83 CCM
LakeElmo
>
City Council
>
City Council - Final Meeting Minutes
>
1980's
>
1983
>
04-19-83 CCM
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2025 8:18:56 PM
Creation date
10/2/2019 8:01:05 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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
CITY COUNCIL MEETING, APRIL 19, 1983 <br />11. <br />9. COUNCIL REPORT: <br />A. - Dave Morgan Continued, <br />--E'der-'DoUFt that any of the residents present tonight have seen <br />a copy of the lay -out, how it will operate, what the proposal <br />is, number of train cars, etc, many issues. Unfortunately, <br />by not being at the hearing or Council meeting you are unaware <br />of any of this information. Believe this will bring about an <br />awareness in the Community - may get lax sometimes about following <br />what is going on in the City. Yes,ought to be concerned as <br />everyone here is tonight. went back in the Newsletter and the <br />notice about rezoning was in the Newsletter any issue handled <br />by the City Council would not be handled differently except maybe <br />the question about notice to the people within 350 feet. This <br />seems to be the issue. Think it behooves our citizens to notify <br />the City Office if they do not receive the Newsletter, so that <br />they can get on the mailing list and look at the City calendar. - <br />See what is going to happen and if it it -affects you. <br />Eraser think the key issue in the vote two weeks ago was the <br />legality of the matter of rezoning, which in the opinion of the <br />City Attorney, was if the City denied the rezoning that eventually <br />it would he granted in court and that a great deal of City money <br />would be spent defending a case that couldn't be defended. Sorry <br />that the basis having to deal with tonight is a narrow technicality <br />but think very clearly the people do need to have all the information <br />which the Council had and think it is very appropriate that we <br />should hear from the people. But, this is not the issue being <br />presently decided. Think to vote in favor of the motion will:`:. <br />be to open the legal quagmire - think will be spending many dollars <br />on legal counsel and think the end result down the road will be <br />the same. Will vote against the motion,inspite of the fact that <br />know it will be an unpopular vote,!-b6cause believe it will be <br />the right thing to do for the City. <br />--Motion was repeated. <br />=D�fth -- questioned if the motion should mention the fact that the <br />property has not been rezoned - we're not rescinding a rezoning <br />we F;re:xescindinga motion. Morgan agreed this was his intent. <br />--Eder - there has been a ordinance. adopted which rezoned the <br />land - have to either leave it stand or - appears that the <br />action is trying to pass a resolution to negate an earlier <br />resolution <br />-a-Whittaker - earlier action was an ordinance to rezone - weruid have <br />to rescind the ordinance. <br />-Dunn - believe there are two interpretations of this one, it was <br />never rezoned in the first place <br />--Mazzara - disagreed, Council took action 4-1, this makes it rezoned. <br />--Dunn - this is a court decision - if have not followed the procedure <br />have in effect not rezoned. <br />--Eder - in absence of getting an exact answer needed to really vote <br />up or down on the motion, agree with Fraser's position that the <br />issue should be tabled pending proper legal advice. Either way <br />it is a serious matter. <br />--Morgan - just a legal a matter to hold an unlawful_ hearing in <br />something that has such a+.?major impact on the City - more concerned <br />about that. Want to start where we should have started in the <br />first place. <br />Motion carried 3-2. Fraser and Eder opposed. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.