Laserfiche WebLink
City Council Regular Meeting — 02/27/06 <br />DRAFT Minutes - Page 18 <br />property, as well as that of other neighbors; a petition signed by <br />27 neighbors originally disapproving of the requested <br />variance/subdivision; and his interpretations of City Code <br />1004.016. Mr. LeTendre's letter noted his representation as <br />Counsel for himself as an affected property owner, as well as <br />other affected property owners. Mr. LeTendre opined that the <br />Council's approval of the request would, based on staffs <br />interpretation, prove to be an arbitrary decision and end up <br />producing absurd results that would not be favored by the law; <br />and would not follow the intent of City code. <br />John Kysylyczyn, 3083 N Victoria Street <br />Mr. Kysylyczyn noted that, while he did not reside in the <br />neighborhood, he was speaking from a general public policy <br />issue standpoint; opining that staffs interpretation of City code <br />may not represent the original legislative intent, specific to <br />Parcel C, and further opined that State Statute addressed local <br />legislation that shouldn't be interpreted to be unreasonable or <br />absurd. Mr. Kysylyczyn concluded by questioning whether the <br />requested action represented an unreasonable or absurd outcome <br />and didn't meet the legislative intent of previous City Councils. <br />Joel Cheney, 2172 Acorn Road <br />Mr. Cheney, while recognizing the applicant's property rights, <br />spoke in opposition to the request as an affected property owner <br />and neighbor and implications; opining that, as Mr. Forman had <br />now left the neighborhood and left the project to a developer, <br />Mr. �orman would not be impacted by fi.�ture development and <br />subdivisions. <br />Mayor Klausing sought City Attorney Anderson's opinion and <br />comments related statutory interpretation and legislative intent. <br />City Attorney Anderson provided his opinion on State Statute <br />645 and general rules of statutory construction; existing case <br />law; the plain and ordinary meaning of words and their <br />applications for interpretation of intent; potential ambiguities and <br />results; and interpretation within the entire context and <br />framework of the ordinance. City Attorney Anderson clarified <br />lot lines as defined in ordinance and actual definitions of a rear <br />lot line. <br />r <br />