04-19-83 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MEETING, APRIL 19, 1983 7, 9. COUNCIL REPORTS: A. Dave Morgan - 1. Hearing Procedure Clarification"- Hutchinson Rezoning - MIS/ Morgan/Dunn to amend the agenda placing Item C. Statement from Gordon Mbosibrugger be placed before Item A. --Fraser - asked the reason for changing the agenda order. --Morgan - talked to property owners adjacent to the Hutchinson property who stated that they had not been notified of the public hearing for the rezoning request. Mr. 'Mbosbrugger going to address this subject. Motion carried 5-0. Gordon Moosbrugger, Attorney -_ ;Made the -following statement to the Council: Honorable Mayor and Members of the Council - If you sometimes feel lonely because you do not have a lot of public interest in what you are doing, look around (noted the number of people present) and it is obvious that the people of the community are very interested in what their local government is doing when the word gets around. The first question is getting the word around. Based on converstations with a large number of people during the past week it is clear that there was not sufficient public input into the City Council decision to rezone the property to permit the rail car unloading yard on the Hutchinson property. Public input into a matter of that scope affects the community,as greatly as that does, is a legal right. Technically, recognize that notice of the public hearing was published on the proposed rezoning and did state that it was in reference to a rail car unloading operation; but, the fact that the notice was published and had little or no interest - when you have a turn out as tonight makes it obvious that the notice did not serve its intended purpose and the technicality does not over -ride the obvious. Also, technically there was a fatal flaw in the procedures with respect to senct%xig mailed notice to affected property owners. This, of course, is a fatal flaw in the jurisdiction cf the City to the entire proceeding of the rezoning. Have been satisfied that there was a failure in that respect. The second issue to be addressed is the fact,that based on every- thing I have been able to lea,rn,about the reccrd that you made before the City Council, you did not support the decision to rezone for this use with sufficient findings of fact to enable a reviewing court to determine whether or not the proposed use is reasonable under all the circumstances. This is the test that is applied in determining whether or not the Ordinance is valid. It is the test of reasonableness of the proposed use under all the existing circumstances. Not here to threaten you with a law suit, although, there are people whom I represent who are prepared to go to whatever length is necessary to protect their legal rights in this matter. Am here to ask in behalf of these people to reconsider your action, to rescind the zoning amendment resolution, to remand the matter back to the Planning Commission for a new public hearing and save these people and the City the time and expense of other procedures. Think this is the right way to do it and respect the fact that this is a closely knit community in which the Council members are very close to their neighbors who are their constituents. Think that you can all see that your neighbors and your constituents want to be heard on this matter. Weren't heard before because word did not get around.