My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 1982 11 03
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
1970-1999 City Council Minutes
>
1982 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 1982 11 03
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:31:20 PM
Creation date
7/8/2009 3:15:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
11/3/1982
Original Hardcopy Storage
7C3
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 1982 11 03
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
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 />11/3/82 <br /> <br />Page -10- <br /> <br />Board of Adjustments <br />Neodata - Nov. 18, 1982 <br /> <br />Attorney Rautenstraus advised this meeting <br />was scheduled for November 18, 1982 at 7:00 P.M. <br /> <br />Councilman Leary <br /> <br />Commented that he felt fairly strongly that <br />as a member of the Council he was required to <br />uphold the ordinance of the City; however <br />there is a question on the matter and it <br />has become an issue of time, now. He fel~ <br />that the City should seek the Declaratory Judge- <br />~ent when the time is appropriate. He would <br />question taking the motion off the table until <br />the Court ruling has been made. Wished to <br />make a motion that the Court be asked to ex- <br />pedite their decision on this case. <br /> <br />Councilwoman Morris <br /> <br />Wished to clarify that the property owners <br />are not asking for a Declaratory Judgement <br />they are asking for dismissal of the current <br />suit. <br />Rautenstraus said this was correct. <br />She then inquired if we had to wait for <br />that to be done before we could request a <br />Declaratory Judgement, if that is what Council <br />decided to do? <br />Rautenstraus suggested that if there is a <br />pending action requesting a Declaratory Judgement, <br />which he felt there was at this time, for us <br />to file another action basically on the same <br />issue might not make much sense. <br />C01.ll1ci1woman Morris then asked, when the Judge <br />makes a final determination regarding the pend- <br />ing MCIC suit, would that also then in turn <br />take care of the property owners request, or <br />is it two separate issues that are being dealt <br />with now? <br />Rautenstraus advised, yes it would, that is <br />what the judge would be ruling. He would be <br />ruling on the property owners' motion to clarify <br />decision. <br />Morris then stated she would support Council- <br />man Leary's motion that the Judge expedite <br />this matter. <br /> <br />Councilman Cummings <br /> <br />Commented that until such time as the ruling <br />is expedited he would like to consider recalling <br />the building pe.rmits. <br />was <br />Inquired if it/legally within the right of <br />Neodata to apply for the building permit. <br />Rautenstraus advised they have applied and <br />it has been issued. Pending the Board of <br />Adjustments hearing, however, it was his <br />feeling they .wou1d not be proceeding. <br /> <br />Councilman Cussen <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.