My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 1982 10 05
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
1970-1999 City Council Minutes
>
1982 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 1982 10 05
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:31:20 PM
Creation date
7/8/2009 3:20:49 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
10/5/1982
Original Hardcopy Storage
7C3
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 1982 10 05
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />10/5/82 <br /> <br />Page -10- <br /> <br />states that there exists minimal adverse <br />impact on quality of life in adjacent areas <br />is not being met. There was also an affi- <br />davit of loss of real estate sale due to <br />this project. She felt that it was per- <br />sonally on all Council's consciences to <br />take a close look at these petitions and the <br />affidavit and take that into account when <br />the vote is taken. For her, it finalized the <br />fact that she personally would have to vote <br />no for the Industrial Revenue Bonds. <br /> <br />Councilman Cussen <br /> <br />Commented that his concerns fell in the same <br />category as those of Councilwoman Morris. <br />He stated that he would very much like to <br />see Neodata locate in Louisville; but was <br />concerned about the impact in the area and <br />felt councilmembers should work toward helping <br />lessen that impact. He also felt that 342 <br />people felt that impact had not been lessened <br />enough to satisfy them; also referred to #8 <br />of the criteria for Industrial Revenue Bonds. <br />Therefore, would vote no on the Bonds. <br /> <br />lncilman Leary <br /> <br />Commented he too felt there are impacts to <br />the area; however was not certain that Neodata <br />was causing the impacts but rather the zoning <br />of the property, which was a mistake made some- <br />time in the past, and did not foresee any <br />evidence at this time, that given this zoning, <br />that Neodata may be in a position, being the <br />owner of the property, to have much more in- <br />terest in mitigating the impacts. It was <br />his opinion that another developer could <br />come in and be much less sensitive to the <br />problems of the neighborhood. If the issue <br />was zoning, he would be opposed to it; however <br />in his judgement, given this situation, that <br />he couldn't, as a Councilman, take the atti- <br />tude that he knew the citizens had that they <br />would beat anybody that developed the property. <br />As an elected official he did not feel he <br />could responsibly take that attitude, given <br />that the zoning is legitimately developed <br />under the City. Again stated that the problem <br />lay with the zoning rather than Neodata; there- <br />fore he would support the Industrial Revenue <br />Bond ordinance. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.