11.03 - Sept 7, 2010 City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Information" from Mr. Marohn as to why the Breezy Pines resident's `-- statements at previous meetings were classified by him as not relevant or hearsay without specific relation to code or ordinance yet he could speak similarly and his comments were acceptable. It should be noted that the Point of Information was not answered as directed by Roberts Rules. It should be noted here that Mr. Sandelin (in the paragraph following the fifth bullet in his letter to the council) references the responsibility of the residents of the Breezy Pines Subdivision to produce evidence or basis. Thus, we do not believe he has seen anything we submitted. This would include information on dog barking decibels, letter and statement from realtors, covenants, the input relating to the appeal, etc. as provided for previous meetings (relating to the Jeff Garland, L &J Investments Conditional Use Permit) by Harley Simchuck, George Selvestra and Kevin Littman. The next paragraph states that Council Member Sjoblad moved to deny the appeal. The minutes should be amended to add "on the advice of the City's Legal Council" after the word appeal per his statement. (This is important because the City's Legal Council did not advise the City Council to deny the appeal. The fourth paragraph from the end of the Sandelin letter states: "If the City Council determines the (that) some or all of the above items do not support approval of the Conditional Use Permit Application then the City will need to set forth the reasons why the Application should not be approved, and vice versa. (NOTE THE VICE VERSA) - It should be noted in the record that the City Council did not provide the residents of Breezy Pines any reasons as to why they bypassed or overlooked items A.2, A.3, A.4, B.l, B.2 or B.6. It should also be noted that the City Council did not comment on the applicability or lack thereof relative to the many pages of information provided by the residents of the Breezy Pines Subdivision for this supposed appeal process meeting! In conclusion, it should be noted by the City Council that the residents of Breezy Pines are under the impression that they did not have a true appeal process and that their filing fee should be refunded! Additionally, we would request that this letter and Mr. Littman's questions be included with the minutes of the September 7, 2010 meeting as part of the record. Respectfully submitted, George Selvestra (representing the Breezy Pines Subdivision) OR