Laserfiche WebLink
Redevelopment Commission Meeting <br />Regular Meeting — September 17, 2004 <br />6. NEW BUSINESS (CONT.) <br />A. Public Hearing <br />(1) continued... <br />Ms. Greene asked if he would like staff to <br />come back and present the as two separate <br />resolutions, or whether the Commission <br />would prefer to modify Resolution No. 2084 <br />to delete the Nemeth/Mullen parcel. <br />Mr. Hunt stated that he believes it confuses <br />the issue to have both parcels on the same <br />resolution and inquired whether it was <br />necessary to come back with two separate <br />resolutions? <br />Ms. Greene responded that staff could <br />present the properties on two separate <br />resolutions if the Commission so desired. <br />The staff would be required to again go <br />through the noticing procedures required by <br />IC 36 -7 -14 -17.5. Ms. Greene asked the <br />Commission whether it preferred to act only <br />on the property on which there was no <br />remonstrance or whether the Commission <br />wished to act on both properties at this time? <br />Mr. Kahn said that his concern is that one <br />parcel on which there is no remonstrance <br />would be held up for the other which has a <br />remonstrance. <br />Mr. Hunt said that he believed they could <br />proceed with the one that is not in dispute. <br />Ms. Greene noted that the grounds for a <br />remonstrance concern the public utility and <br />benefit of the proposed project. She <br />understood the Commission to be expressing <br />a concern that, if it proceeded to approve <br />C 13 <br />