pf_00316 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

� �ar. r ar�d m�t�ars� o� the Git Co � '�Y� y unci 1 s Z u Dr. Rc�bert L. Jackson. I re�ide at 23q5 W. Count� R�oad C-2. I rise in opposition tc� �he pr�posed re--�oning from R-1 to I-1 of the property requested in tha peti�tio� baforo you eu7d the reco�aaendatiom oP �auch re-soni.n� by your plant�in� cona�daesion. Ymu �ro our last hope short of legal act�on 3m the �etxiat court to pre�*ent this ac�ion. You are the governing body. We are fex in u3umber, b�t our cause is juet. Throughout the hearings of the Fl�an�ing Comm��.on, the burdan vf proof has n�ot been on the g�titioner for re--zoning the afo�rementioned property, it hae been on the citizen� of the are�a to sho� aaus� w�r auch ra-zo�.ng ahou�.d b� rejected« �e hava accepted this tagk graoiou�ly although in our heaz•ts xe 1� that this shotil.d not be our resp.. ons�.bility. l�te haii�tee ziar,s so at heavy ex�ense in terms of time, preparation and financial aQnsiderations. The fact that tha burdeu of proof has been on propei''t�r propert� oRners of the area is illustrated by the fact that more than 3f � of iha t3me dev�oted to �he pla.rming co�ni.ssion� s hearinga on this matter has been in eta�ing our case. �lfter th� fir$t laearir�, the planni.ng com�ission postpor�d action pending th� ' de�e3.opment of a comprotaise p�.an by the 3dinn�sota �'ransfer Railway and the con- cerned citi��ns. A m��ting�nras subsequently t�eld between thesc parties, their . , : legal repr�sentatives and the planning consultant. The result of the meeting �ras un�atisfacto�g ta the citizenrs group. it v�ras tantamount to a restat�s�errt of the , original r�quest and r�he s�ggestions of th� citizans �rere largely ignored nr �:,. p��sd off �.s unreasonable� At the last hearing, ths c�se �as again presented for �-soav.ng the �action of R-�. un��i�r question. The plar�ing eommiss�.an xas gra�3.ou� ar�d gatient �rYrI.le � pZ�aded our case� Qnly one thing rras lacking; the3r � w�ere aot 1,$�t�ning, t*eally �.�.stening. IInquestionably, �mbers of the co�i.ssion � for s�me reasun had rsached an �*a priori." decision on the matt�r. Thia � r.�nclusion �as ob�3.ous to the �st naive observer present, A decision agaa.nst our �'� r�ques� had been reac�d �efors ths �'act." In the discnasion of the co�mi.ssion �:' L ` follatrin.g the hear.�.ng* not a single member of the co�ission voiced at single point :r v, " �� in .suPPor� of o�c aggumen�, Tl°iis seems s �range irideed, �`�" 7 -- � � - - ,