Laserfiche WebLink
� <br /> O'ZO?�l0 COL'TvCIL 1•SEETING HELD FEBRUARY 14, 1977 Page 17 <br /> � <br /> ��ir. �ti'agner stated the group' s intention was to NAVARRE AREA RE�ONING <br /> � �ight the proposal even if it be through (Continued) <br /> 7itigation if the rezoning is approved. The <br /> �nsensus was that this would be a diminution <br /> � of value. <br /> � Of those attending this gathering, I r�cognized <br /> only the following individuals: Ron Kullherg, <br /> � Don Ulrick, Frank Wagner, Gary Nelson, Bill <br /> � ?�icQueen, Ev Geyen, and Ray Peterson. <br /> �'ouncil Meeting - February 14 , 1977 <br /> � <br /> ��ir. MacCharles , 3502 Shoreline Drive, stated no <br /> ` objection to rezone to B-5 but does prefer B-l . <br /> � Hart property: No one present. <br /> � Mr. Stone , present owner of the Dairy Que�n, asked <br /> if the B-5 zone would include the Dairy Queen operation. <br /> � Mayor Van Nest commented that it is a legal non- <br /> conforming use now. Bruce Malkerson stated,upon <br /> �' checking the code, corrected P�sayor Van Nest by <br /> � stating that the present new B-5 zone does include <br /> ice cream sales as a conditional use, <br /> � <br /> Northwestern Bell Telephone Company: No comments. <br /> �� Mr, Bill McQueen, 3701 Shoreline Drive, stated <br /> � that the Planning Commission ignored his previous <br /> >;;Unents and felt that he was not heard out <br /> � Yroperly in an appropriate manner. He stated <br /> that the City Council should drop the rezoning in <br /> �' Navarre and leave it as it is and reinstate <br /> * original zoning as set forth by previous Councils. <br /> Mr. McQueen continued by stating that the Planning <br /> w Commission is attempting to restrict uses of <br /> the Navarre property and upon reviewing the <br /> � proposed B-5 and its uses, other uses should be <br /> � included. I have owned my property for 17 years <br /> and have paid over $21, 000 in taxes and assessments. <br /> ` Mr. McQueen continued by stating that Orono does <br /> have a comprehensive plan and a satisfactory zoning <br /> • ordinance and changing this is detrimental to our <br /> livlihood. If you now downgrade my property, I <br /> � promise legal action and will proceed to the <br /> Supreme Court if necessary, I repeat, we do not <br /> � object to the present zoning but do protest any <br /> � changes. The City of Orono has spent $2 , 000 in <br /> legal costs and has lost. Councilmember Walt <br /> � Psassengale corrected Mr. McQueen by stating that <br /> Orono reached a settlement with the litigators <br /> a and the proposed B-5 is a result of that settlement. <br /> Mr. P4cQueen said that s�ot zoning is illegal and <br /> � •-A have substantial funding to litigate this <br /> � :tion. 4Je want a 10-year moratorium on this <br /> � commercial property and want a guarantee that the <br /> t affected property owners will be protected. (Continued) <br /> 0 <br /> • <br />