04-19-83 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CITY COUNCIL MEETING, APRIL 19, 1983 9, 9,- COUNCIL REPORTS: A. Dave Morgan - Continued --Ray Marshall— There are several cases would like to look at before giving an opinion,"`Wasn''t aware,Gordon-that-l_was aware that you were coming, but this was the first I was made awarethatthere may have been some inadequacy of the actual notice. As to whether that's defective or not - would like an opportunity to look at cases in order to define it adequately." Know there is a savings clause in the ordinance and that may or may not control, --Bruce Dunn - when talked to the Administrator two days ago, specifically asked about this section and asked that Ray have an answer on it. Personal interpretation is that the entire process is invalidated because the procedure was not followed. Where it states "a bonafide:attempt to comply with the provisions of the section have been made" - this sentence does not make sense because it says there is a set of provisions, but if they are not applied it doesn't really matter. That is one of the provisions and that is this notice. It is unfortunate that we overlooked this - the point is not to blame someone, but my interpretation is that the property has not been rezoned. This is the reason for favoring Councillor Morgan's motion, Have to start the process from square one, hold the hearing with the Planning Commission and bring it before the Council again, --Ray Marshall - not prepared to answer the question without taking the opportunity to research the case>and the time to do that and respond as quickly as possible. Not prepared to answer the question as to whether or not the ordinance has been complied with as far as notice or :its adequacy, Appears that an effort was made, whether or not it was legally sufficient is the question, --Dave Morgan - this question is going to have such an impact on the City. If there is any doubt at all that we did not follow the legal procedure, we should declare our action null and void. More importantly, the fact that the people did not have alpchance to participate in the decision because they were not notified. --Whittaker - all the people that would have been notified were at the City Council meeting and given an opportunity to speak - or the Planning Commission meeting. --Morgan- they were not at the Planning Commission meeting because they did not receive proper lawful notice. Been on the Council for six year and do not recall,ever, that people were not notified when something was going to happen in their neighborhood. Have spent hours over much lesser subjects and this whole proposal was passed in less than one-half hour, --Fraser - asked the attorney what the legal implications would be should this motion pass. --Ray Marshall - have seperate questions - the question of the notice is a threshhold question;, but it also seems that action was taken You did vote to rezone;and it seems that the applicant is entitled to rely on that. Will have to look At ;the notice question - think that the applicant, assuming the Council meant what it said when granting the rezoning, could rely on that, Would assume that they incurred various expenses in reliance upon the granting of that rezoning. To rescind that now, I think, could obligate the City to damages, --Fraser - believe the prudent move would be to allow our attorney time to give us an op #ion on the notice question before we take a definitive posture,