My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05.01 Planning and Zoning Administrator's Report
Laserfiche
>
City Council (Permanent)
>
Agenda Packets (Permanent)
>
2004
>
03-03-2004 Council Meeting
>
05.01 Planning and Zoning Administrator's Report
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/19/2016 1:22:58 PM
Creation date
7/19/2016 1:22:57 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Joseph R. Dotty <br /> 30389 Highway 371 <br /> Pequot Lakes,MN 56472 <br /> March 2,2004 <br /> Mayor and City Council <br /> City of Pequot Lakes <br /> P.O. Box 361 <br /> Pequot Lakes, MN 56472 <br /> Re: Letter from the Planning& Zoning Board dated February 26th,2004 <br /> Dear Mayor and City Council, <br /> As an appointed member of the Pequot Lakes Planning and Zoning Commission, I, along <br /> with hundreds of other residents, do not believe that the thru-town option will severely <br /> and permanently damage the Pequot Lakes community. I do not support nor do I agree <br /> with the outrageous opinions that have been presented in the Planning and Zoning <br /> Board's letter dated February 26th. Absolutely no factual evidence has been presented <br /> which would support the outlandish conclusions reached by the Planning Board. <br /> As a concerned citizen of this community, I have attended numerous public meetings and <br /> discussions regarding the proposed highway. This topic has created a lot of public and <br /> media attention during the past year. If this topic was so very important to the Planning <br /> and Zoning Board's proposed long-range community plans then why was I the only <br /> member present and the only member who spoke my opinion at the City Council's final <br /> vote? Furthermore,why in the world would the Planning Board wait until after a final <br /> decision had been reached on this highly contested and very controversial topic to submit <br /> their opinions? If these opinions were so vitally important why weren't they submitted <br /> prior to the City Council's decision regarding the highway? Also, I fail to see any <br /> procedural authority cited in the Planning Board's letter that would support reopening <br /> this topic for further discussion and review. Before any further discussions are had <br /> regarding this topic,the procedural posture and appropriateness of the Planning and <br /> Zoning Board's letter needs to be addressed by the City Attorney. <br /> Unfortunately, it appears to me that this letter is a politically motivated and underhanded <br /> method of re-visiting a closed issue. There was ample opportunity for every one to be <br /> heard regarding this topic over the past several months. When the City Council's final <br /> vote was taken, some of the members that voted in favor of the thru-town option did so <br /> not based upon their own personal thoughts but because it was what the vast majority of <br /> the townspeople wanted. (Specifically, Council Member Joann Johnson voted in favor of <br /> the thru-town option because that is what the majority of the people in town wanted to <br /> see happen.) <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.