4/23/1980 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

REZONING REQUEST THAT HAS NOT BEEN NOTICED AS REQUIRED BY STATUTE, AND EVEN THOUGH THE PROPERTY OWNER IS WILLING TO WAIVE THE NOTIFICA- TION, HE DID NOT FEEL THIS WOULD BE EFFECTIVE AGAINST AN ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER WHO MIGHT ATTACK THE PROCEEDING. HE STATED THAT HE HAS TALKED TO MR. CAIRNS, THE AGENT FOR MR, DAHLSTROM ABOUT THIS, AND ADVISED HIM THAT ANOTHER NOTICE HAS BEEN SENT OUT SETTING A HEARING ON MAY 21ST. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, SECONDED BY COM- MISSIONER Loy, THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE REZONING REQUEST MADE BY .JONN I E DAHLSTROM BE SET 'FOR MAY 21, 1980. ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT HE DID NOT FEEL THE BOARD NEEDS TO TAKE ANY ACTION OTHER THAN TO DECLINE TO HEAR THIS MATTER AT THIS TIME. ATTORNEY SUTHERLAND ARGUED THAT THE NOTICE IS INTENDED FOR THE OWNER `S PROTECTION; HIS CLIENT ALREADY HAS HAD 26 DAYS NOTICE, AND HE DID NOT SEE WHY THIS HEARING SHOULD BE DELAYED UNTIL MAY 21ST INSTEAD OF MAY 7TH. ATTORNEY COLLINS REITERATED THAT THE STATUTE REQUIRES THE CLERK TO GIVE 30 DAYS NOTICE, AND EVEN THOUGH NOTICE WAS SENT OUT PREVIOUSLY, IT WAS SENT OUT STATING THAT A HEARING WOULD BE HELD ON A DIFFERENT DATE THAN.IS NOW BEING CONSIDERED. HE DID NOT FEEL THERE IS ANY QUESTION BUT THAT THE OWNER IS BEING PUT IN AN UNREASON- ABLE POSITION, BUT HE FELT THE STATUTE IS CLEAR ABOUT WHAT MUST BE DONE. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT NOTED THAT CHAPTER 125 OF THE STATUTES DOES NOT HAVE A WAIVER PROVISION, AND COMMISSIONER LYONS AGREED THAT THIS IS AN IRRITATING SITUATION, BUT HE DID NOT SEE ANY OTHER WAY OUT. HE THEREUPON WITHDREW HIS MOTION, AND COMMISSIONER Loy WITHDREW HER SECOND. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER Loy, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AGREED THAT UPON ADVICE OF THEIR ATTORNEY AND ON THE BASIS OF STATUTE 125, THEY WOULD DECLINE TO HEAR THE ZONING REQUEST MADE BY JONNIE DAHLSTROM BECAUSE OF IMPROPER NOTICE. 73 APP 2 31990 eooK 4 :'F c 3R,57