My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Agenda and Packet 1982 11 16
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
AGENDAS & PACKETS (45.010)
>
1973-1989 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
1982 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
City Council Agenda and Packet 1982 11 16
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 1:46:50 PM
Creation date
12/29/2009 12:08:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Packet
Signed Date
11/16/1982
Supplemental fields
Test
CCAGPKT 1982 11 16
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
59
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
1113/82 Page -9- <br /> Attorney Rautenstraus advised he would not <br /> know if that is the case. He felt that they <br /> would oppose our seeking Declaratory Judgement ; <br /> however after it was filed and set for argu- <br /> ments he would assume that the Court would <br /> possibly want to have arguments; if they <br /> allow this, from 2 or 3 different sides. Also, <br /> the property owner would certainly have the <br /> right to submit differing material than the <br /> City submitted, or supplementary material <br /> for argument . <br /> Leary inquired if the basic disagreement would <br /> be over whether the Court should accept this <br /> matter. <br /> Rautenstraus did not wish to imply that for <br /> the property owner - that was an assumption <br /> on his part. It would be consistent with <br /> their previous position on their part. <br /> Leary then inquired if Councilmembers do feel <br /> there are other matters pending in this case, <br /> do they have any better feeling this evening <br /> as to their resolution. <br /> Rautenstraus advised if this was filed by the <br /> property owner with the Court so that is defin- <br /> itely pending before the Court and he would <br /> assume that it is in a posture for the Judge <br /> to rule; however at their last meeting there <br /> wasn't a definite motion to file yet . <br /> Leary asked if the motion was to dismiss, rather <br /> than seek a Declaratory Judgement. <br /> Rautenstraus advised it was asking the Judge <br /> to clarify his ruling, as to whether he meant <br /> to dismiss the Declaratory Judgement and asking <br /> him to dismiss it . <br /> Leary inquired if there was any way the City <br /> could ask the Court to expedite the issue. <br /> Rautenstraus advised they could certainly ask <br /> the Court ; however there is no way the Court <br /> could be forced to do anything. Advised they <br /> would contact the Judge's Clerk and request <br /> a status report and request that the matter <br /> be dealt with. This is all that can be done. <br /> Councilman Leary inquired of Administrator <br /> Wurl if he had any data on where Neodata is <br /> in terms of proceeding on the project. Are <br /> they about to break ground? <br /> Director Rupp advised that they had made ap- <br /> plication for a building permit and the Build- <br /> ing Department has issued it . There has now <br /> been an appeal filed by the property owners <br /> in the surrounding area that they are not in <br /> agreement with the Chief Building Official's <br /> issuance of the permit . This is being scheduled <br /> with the Board of Adjustments later this month <br /> for a ruling on the Appeal. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.