Laserfiche WebLink
���� � �ape 1 <br /> Page 4 <br /> Special Meeting of the Village Council , hiarch 31 , 1g69 <br /> Gayle ' s 14iarina - 28z to end of tape <br /> Whitehead : . . . I would like to point out one thing on Gay1e ' s application <br /> it pertains to the whole ?.iaxwel.l Bay �iroblem. He states that he currently <br /> has under consideration plans for expanded use of his property and tiis <br /> It ' s in his application and i�h ' � in his letter to this Council . r�lthough <br /> he is not asking for any increase at this time . <br /> Searles � One point , the application was for the same--134, and then in <br /> a cYiange here it shows 158 , so i.t has been changed. <br /> �Phitehead: TYie �xama�a� resolution of the eri�iinal action stio�ald not be <br /> of concern to the Countil. <br /> Searles : But how about issuing a license �� again for this coming year <br /> that hasn' t been observed the previous year? As a licensing body, do we <br /> have any responsibility to the general electorate to just say well yah, <br /> we uphold the laws here , the guy doesn ' t pay any attention to the licensi.ng, <br /> he doesn ' t get another one . <br /> �hitehead : I think you sYiould takeit just as far as there has been an <br /> allegation made i��g� that last year he did not operate within the context <br /> of tiis license , and it ' s undisputed that there were certain problems with <br /> his operation, some of which were cleared up and so�e of �vhich weren ' t. <br /> I don ' t think that you should draw any conclusions from the fact that the <br /> criminal action was instituted, because it has not been processed to its <br /> conclusion, and it may not be . <br /> Searles : The fact that we ' re the one who is making the allebation doesn' t <br /> affect our issu$mg a license the next year? <br /> �hitehead: Oh, sure . But I don' t thinl: yo�a should say he viol�.ted it last <br /> year, because . . . . <br /> Franzel : tiVell , wait a minute , thovgh. It isn ' t a matter of us saying so- <br /> it ' s a fact that he put in 17 ex#�ra docks , and this isn' t any hea��say, <br /> this is a fact. Okay, now. . , . . .the fact that he put in more doeks than <br /> what he was licensed to do is one tliing, and tl�is is a fact, I me�n, our <br /> inspector verified this . �e don' t have to go to court to find out that he <br /> put in 17 more , surely. He may be contesting that he should have more on <br /> it� sY�ouldn ' t he? <br /> �hitehead : The on�y thing I 'm saying is that don ' t say we institiited a <br /> criminal action aoainst him. <br /> searles : �e don ' t have to say anything about that--just say he hasn' t <br /> lived up to his license of last year, i.sn ' t this true . Heck, we do find <br /> some facts ourselves . �e don ' t have to sit back and wait .for � court to <br /> tell us whether or not there were 17 extra. . . <br /> bZayor: �Vel�l, how can we issue a license to soruebody that di.dn ' t live up to <br /> his license last year? <br /> �hitehead : I 'm saying that I think you should try to reso].ve G�yle ' s <br /> problem now, on the best basis that you can. IP that ' snot satisfaetory <br /> to him, we ' re going to be back in court anyhow vsith this criminal ��etion. <br /> A criminal action, I don' t know--I don' t think it accomplishes a gre��t deal . <br />