Laserfiche WebLink
POPHAM, HAIK, SCHNOBRICH, KAUFMAN & DOTY, LTD. <br />Uctubur 1-1, 198;! 1 <br />Palle 2 <br />4. I asked that• the City Council direct its staff to <br />meet with me and my clients to discuss how the <br />ordinances would affect their properties. <br />5. I asked for an explanation of how various provisions <br />of the ordinances affected my clients and their <br />properties. <br />G. The Mayor closed the public hearing at 8:22 p.m. <br />7, The Council then refused to answer any of my <br />questions and refused to continue the public hearing <br />as I had requested even though this was the first <br />chance for public input at a public hearing after <br />ov::: three years of review by the Council and its <br />selected committees. <br />B. Instead the Mayor then read several amendments to <br />the ordinance, none of which were provided to the <br />public before (although they were dated October 8, <br />1982) and none of which were included in the notice <br />of public hearing (which public hearing, in fact, <br />was ordered only after an attorney from my office <br />had demanded a public hearing at the City Council <br />meeting of September 27, 1902). <br />Without discussion, the Council then adopted the <br />amendments. <br />9. There was then a motion and a second to approve the <br />ordinance as amended. I objected again, stating <br />that these procedures violated the procedural due <br />process rights of my clients since: <br />a) Those amendments were made orally, at the last <br />minute. <br />b) The amendments were substantial in nature, <br />affecting greatly the value of my clients' <br />properties, <br />c) Lack of prior public notice. <br />10. The Mayor and City Council then adopted the <br />ordinance as amended. <br />J <br />