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
• <br /> 11/3/82 Page 11 - <br /> Councilman Cussen Suggested that the motion be withheld until <br /> the Board of Adjustments meeting of November <br /> 18, 1982. <br /> Councilman Ferret's Inquired if the Judge rules on the Declaratory <br /> Judgement. would that be speedier than if <br /> Council decided to seek it? <br /> Rautenatarus advised that certainly a suit <br /> that is pending before the Court would be <br /> ruled on before a later action was filed. <br /> Ferrer* commented. as stated in the memo. <br /> by requesting a Declaratory Judgement at this <br /> time would set us up to seek other issues <br /> at different times when there is a conterver- <br /> sial issue. It was his feeling we could be <br /> going to Court every few months ; also felt <br /> that as members of the Council they should <br /> be making some decisions , such as what fits <br /> the zoning or what doesn't. Reiterated that <br /> as elected officials they should make the <br /> decision on what the ordinances state, <br /> therefore felt that the citizens did not ex- <br /> pect Court action each time there was a con- <br /> troversy and pay additional Attorney fees <br /> for this . It was his opinion Declaratory <br /> Judgement should not be sought at this time <br /> as it would be required of every special <br /> interest group that comes before Council. <br /> Councilman Fauson Agreed with Councilman Ferrera that a precedent <br /> would be set and wished clarification why <br /> Council would seek a Declaratory Judgement <br /> at this time He too felt this was the respon- <br /> sibility of Council to make the decision. <br /> Remarked that our Planning Director, Mr. Rupp <br /> was very well qualified, as well as City <br /> Attorney Rautenstraus as a legal advisor; <br /> therefore felt there was not sufficient reason <br /> to seek the Declaratory Judgement . He was <br /> of the opinion that the MCIC group should seek <br /> this action. <br /> Councilman Cussen Commented in response to dealing with a special <br /> interest group, and it was his feeling that <br /> they were dealing with such a group and citizens <br /> of this City and there are a great number of <br /> them. who have said they see this as a conflict. <br /> As long as there is some ambiguity to this he <br /> felt counciimembers had a duty and responsi- <br /> bility and do have to make that decision. He <br /> stated he didn 't want to go to Court over <br /> everyone of the decisions or ordinances , but <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.