1991-10-28 Regular Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

no, one at that time ha'S the benefit of seeing a~ap of ro osed P P annexation and how it would affect their particular property. Another meeting was scheduled for Friday, December 7, to discuss what position we, as the property owners, would take with regard to the proposed annexation and in particular, at the first public hearing on the proposed annexation scheduled for Monday, December 10, 1973. During the interim period prior to the meeting on December 7, all of the property owners including ourselves obtained copies of the proposed annexation map. The map showed that a large portion of the subject property lying within LaPorte municipal utility district to the. east of new HIghway 146 was not included in the annexation. For that reason all of the property owners with the exception of Shindler/Cununins determined that they could live with the annexation and would not oppose it. Shindler/ Cummins' tract, of couse, lies entirely~to the west of.FIighway 146 and was to be totally annexed by the City. We made it plain at the meeting on December 7 that we were going to oppose the annexation and that our basis for that opposition was the patently unreasonable configuration of the proposed annexation.. ~ .' . In the meantime, our firm had begun, to research the fairly. complex legal question presented by the proposed annexation. The law places the burden on the property owner opposing a 'proposed annexation to show that the City has arbitrarily abused 'its authority ,, to annex. It became clear to us that our only potentially valid ;~~:: point in opposition to the proposed annexation was the configuration :~~ ~, ~:.: ' of the proposed annexation. The annexation map seemed more unrea- sonable in light of the fact-that the only proposed sewer line was . to run down the far eastern edge of the property to be annexed, more specifically down old Highway~146. This meant that those property owners not to be annexed were to get the most immediate benefit .from .t ~~~~' . the proposed sewer facilities while the Shindler/Cumn-ins 'tract which was to be :annexed, would not be serviced by'that sewer'l~`ne, ;~~ On December 10, at 7:00 p.m „ I appeared on behalf of ... Shindler/Cummins and made our position clear with respect the proposed