Laserfiche WebLink
_. � - - . _ .. :�� -< _ <br /> C'. _...._ uYL'i�7'clY}� a11C1 CC��liCi0u5 OY CGLLYulj' i:0 lul: . ii1� 2ti�� �. . <br /> � Li�=Jl2 ��1C-' C(?llY� ES�diJ11511E'S a su:�icieat D'uS1S fOY t7}C nC1�_'.... <br /> ;� c-" ti�e �3oard of Adjustrent. <br /> Furtner, the Court �i�tds r.o <br /> i1 I <br /> q <br /> Q (I violation of the Open PubZic .;eetings Act. Although it i� <br /> S II questionable whether the meeting was exempt as argued by the I <br /> 6 I counsel for the Board of Adjustment, the evidence does not <br /> 7' I establish any substantial violation of said Act. Although <br /> g II portions of the meeting may have been ?naudible the evidence i <br /> 9 II fails to disclose sufficient facts to allow the conclusion <br /> �' ` �p that the spirit or intent of the Act were violated. Further, <br /> ;�., , <br /> ��'i; ' : <br /> 11 there is no indication that the alleged deficiency was brought <br /> 12 to the attention of the IIoard by plaintiff or anyone else. <br /> 13 <br /> An order S(1011lCl �:11LuL ��:����+���i�•7 ���� �����er �O t:le Board <br /> 14 of Adjustment for fur�her consideration. <br /> �S DATED this ��`Y day of December, 1977. <br /> t6 , I <br /> 17 �I ��;j�. / I <br /> �8 I � '�� ^�JUDGE I / I <br /> , _ ._� <br /> i � <br /> l9 i � <br /> 20 I� �. <br /> 21 i i <br /> 22 � <br /> �' � <br /> � <br /> 23 � <br /> Z4 <br /> I <br /> I <br /> 25 j ' <br /> i i <br /> 26 � <br /> 27 I; <br /> I <br /> 2S ' <br /> 29 il � ' <br /> . ; <br /> � � i <br /> 31 <br /> 32 <br /> b;�morandum Opinion '2' � <br /> I �, ,, , � � • <br /> . . • . . .�L,� �� <br /> ' � � . . <br /> �. , <br />