1991-10-28 Regular Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

~~ ~ i % annexation. Shindler/Cummins was the only property owner complaining at that hearing. None of the councilmen present, nor the Mayor re- sponded to my position at the public meeting. After the meeting, I met with Mr. Kline, head of the City's Engineering Department, to discuss my position. He acknowledged that there were no proposed services to the Shindler/Cummins tract and he agreed that the con- figuration of the annexation was unreasonable-for that reason .. I also talked with the City Attorney, Knox Askins, at'that occasion and on several others and he, too, agreed that the configuration appeared to be unreasonable. The next scheduled public hearing was. to be on December 27. During the period from December l0 .until December 18 T contacted individually the Mayor and the four councilmen, Mr. Christensen,. Mr. Quebedeaux, Dir. Boyle and Mr. Price. Mr. Quebedeaux and Mr. Boyle indicated to me verbally that they were opposed to the annexation and the Mayor and Mr. Christensen indicated that they were in favor of the annexation. Mr. Price said he had not made up his mind but would give our posi"tion some consideration;. I then had several telephone conversations .and meetings with Al Lum and Wayne Blehm of Shindler/Cummins.: In those discussions ~- we considered the alternatives available to us. 1. We could file an injunctive proceeding.,as did the City of Shore Acres against the City of LaPorte and obtain a temporary restraining order prior to a hearing.on a`temporary.injunctionf.;~ ;. 2. We could await the vote of the Council and file a quo warranto suit at any time during 1974~against the City .and pay taxes under protest; or ~ - 3. We could do nothing and attempt to get a favorable zoning classification. ~ ~.~ ~ ~~ After much deliberation we determined not to.file~an injunctive proceeding to wait until we had obtained a permanent zoning classification if we were annexed prior to filing a quo ." warranto suit. I advised Al Lum that in my~opinion an injunctive proceeding would not be ultimately successful and that our burden -3-