04-19-83 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CITY COUNCIL MEETING, APRIL 19, 1983 11. 9. COUNCIL REPORT: A. - Dave Morgan Continued, --E'der-'DoUFt that any of the residents present tonight have seen a copy of the lay -out, how it will operate, what the proposal is, number of train cars, etc, many issues. Unfortunately, by not being at the hearing or Council meeting you are unaware of any of this information. Believe this will bring about an awareness in the Community - may get lax sometimes about following what is going on in the City. Yes,ought to be concerned as everyone here is tonight. went back in the Newsletter and the notice about rezoning was in the Newsletter any issue handled by the City Council would not be handled differently except maybe the question about notice to the people within 350 feet. This seems to be the issue. Think it behooves our citizens to notify the City Office if they do not receive the Newsletter, so that they can get on the mailing list and look at the City calendar. - See what is going to happen and if it it -affects you. Eraser think the key issue in the vote two weeks ago was the legality of the matter of rezoning, which in the opinion of the City Attorney, was if the City denied the rezoning that eventually it would he granted in court and that a great deal of City money would be spent defending a case that couldn't be defended. Sorry that the basis having to deal with tonight is a narrow technicality but think very clearly the people do need to have all the information which the Council had and think it is very appropriate that we should hear from the people. But, this is not the issue being presently decided. Think to vote in favor of the motion will:`:. be to open the legal quagmire - think will be spending many dollars on legal counsel and think the end result down the road will be the same. Will vote against the motion,inspite of the fact that know it will be an unpopular vote,!-b6cause believe it will be the right thing to do for the City. --Motion was repeated. =D�fth -- questioned if the motion should mention the fact that the property has not been rezoned - we're not rescinding a rezoning we F;re:xescindinga motion. Morgan agreed this was his intent. --Eder - there has been a ordinance. adopted which rezoned the land - have to either leave it stand or - appears that the action is trying to pass a resolution to negate an earlier resolution -a-Whittaker - earlier action was an ordinance to rezone - weruid have to rescind the ordinance. -Dunn - believe there are two interpretations of this one, it was never rezoned in the first place --Mazzara - disagreed, Council took action 4-1, this makes it rezoned. --Dunn - this is a court decision - if have not followed the procedure have in effect not rezoned. --Eder - in absence of getting an exact answer needed to really vote up or down on the motion, agree with Fraser's position that the issue should be tabled pending proper legal advice. Either way it is a serious matter. --Morgan - just a legal a matter to hold an unlawful_ hearing in something that has such a+.?major impact on the City - more concerned about that. Want to start where we should have started in the first place. Motion carried 3-2. Fraser and Eder opposed.