07/19/1993 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Regular Council Meeting 7/19/93 Page Four landscape drawings for I'rogressive Insurance with a few contingencies. The D.O. Suxnmers final site plan drawing and sign variance requests were approved with a couple of conditions. Recreation Board - Mrs. Leppla said the Recreation Board will meet this Wednesday; they have not met since the last Council Meeting. The fields are looking better; she wants to commend the Service Department for the work they are doing. Mrs. Cinco said they did a fine job in handling the run Sunday. It was well organized. She knows they appreciated all the food that was offered. Recreation Silver Anniversary Committee - Mrs. Mikula said they had a meeting and decided at the time of the Ice Cream Social at the Historical House, that since they are historical, they will combine the two things and use that activity to do the display. If the history books are printed, they will distribute them then; if not, they will distribute them shortly after (when the Voice of the Village goes out.) Mrs. Mikula asked if there will be a Voice of the Village around September and if they could combine distribution. Mayor Rinker said that is probably a likely time. He said we plan to send the next issue to the printer this Friday if we can. Mayor Rinker said it would make a lot of sense to combine disfribution. OLD BUSINESS Mrs. Cinco said there is no "Old Business." NEW BUSINESS: Court's Ruling Against Ordinance No. 93-34: Discussion re A?peal - Mrs. Cinco said she would like discussion regarding our appeal and turned to Mr. Diemert. Mr. Diemert said we have reviewed the decision of the court and have narrowed down several errors they believe would be assignable to the Court of Appeals. The ruling appears to be contrary--in direct contradiction to the 1986 Court of Appeals ruling that had indicated Council could not rezone without going through certain review procedures, hiring an expert for the purpose of planning and zoning and giving advice and direction as to what the basis would be. There were a number of criteria the Court of Appeals had listed. Council had followed all of those criteria since 1986 and it appears this judge's ruling is in direct contradiction to that. In addition there are errors relative to the disregarding of current law which presumes your legislation to be valid