Correspondence - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Albert: Which definition are you using? ~?J Lukerman: Ilm using it in the sense that I see a very low probability in implementation of this land within a five year time period. . Albert: So, you don't think that anyone can develop this sucessfully,dthin five years and by that you mean the economic return is with risk. Lukerman: Cor~ect, on 95 acreas. Albert: And you think that all 95 acreas has to be developed within five years in order for your opinion to be sucessful. Lukerman: I was just reading this statement in the planning commission minutes that within three years that this property would be developed. Albert: Did you read me correctly that that is an estimated period of time to start within three years. Lukerman: No, I thought th2t it read that it would be developed within three years. Oliphant: The statement lilithin the minutes is that they feel it will take three years to develop. Albert: Thatls right. It would take three years to develop. No one said that it would stop. Oliphant: Thatls correct. Nobody said that. LAUGHTER . Gorham: If there are no further questions of this Hr. Oliphant, do you have any further witnesses? ~ritness, you may be dismissed. Oliphant: That is the evidence we intended to present at this time, Mr. Chairman. The remaining point, essentially, are these points. The next point is that it is our position that the action 1"as arbitrary and unreasonable. The, that the City has adopted a comprehensive plan and that it has failed to establish implementation standards for achieving goals outlined in that plan. It is clear from the discussion here tonight that the City Council has not done that. And, it simply rests on the ft~r/iNt/t~ut# records...... .We also assert that the action was arbitrary and unreason- able in the view of the fact that the City has failed to establish standards by which property may be rezoned from RI to B2. There are no standards in the City ordinance by which property may be rezoned from RI to B2. It is our position that specifically permits the City Council to rezone property. The last point is that we believe that the action taken by the City Council was unreasonable and clearly against the overwhelming evidence and desires of the people of the community. I would ask thaq the petition which was signed by a large number of people in this community be made a record in support of this particular point. I also would call to the Council's attention a statement in the minutes Dec. 9, 1974, in which it is stated: If the neighbors do not want a shopping center, they donlt want to put one in. I submit that the evidence which was submitted to the City Council overwhelmingly showed opposition from the neighbors. And, I submit that the statment from the Dec. 9, 1974, if Ilm correct... .. . Albert: I am very happy that he introduced that petition. I call to your mind that on the petition that is signed by the 90 some odd people that half of them are at least husband ~nd ,fives. Secondly, I think, these petitioners "rho are on that petition, and on that ~ition, they said that there "ras no ,comprehensive plan and that is why they were signing it but they swore under oath, in this petition that there was a compre- hensive plan that was adopted. I renew my motion to dismiss for the lack of jurisdiction and since ,fe agreed to submit some kind of memorandum, I suggest that it be submitted