Dear Mayor and Council Members

I spoke at last night's public invited concerning Butterball's application to vacate Emery Street between 1st and 2nd avenue and giving it to them for free. During the break, I was asked for clarity on something I had said. Because this issue is Quasi-judicial, I am responding via this e-mail. I hope it addresses that concern.

I noted that Emery Street has been in trust to the people since settling of the original colony and therefore, I believe the people should be given written notice if Butterball's request is to be considered.

Also, vacation of Emery Street and giving it to Butterball would be a change of its use. Change of use is defined as development by the municipal code (Title-15). Also, the Butterball operation is a non-conforming use, which would be expanded onto Emery Street.

Most of you may not be aware that from mid '97 through Dec. '02, I was the defendant in a prosecution by the city of Longmont because of the city's erroneous belief that my lawful property use was illegal. It was parts from two of the numerous municipal, county and the Supreme Court orders that I read from last night.

I read from page 4 of a 10/04/2002 municipal court order where it states:

"Zoning laws are meant to benefit the whole community." ---- "The basic

principal of zoning law favors reducing non-conforming uses, not extending

them." ---- "The defendant's neighbors, who are affected by the continued

expansion of his business, are entitled to expect the ordinance to be enforced."

I also read from page 3 of a 2/04/2000 Boulder District Court order where it identifies in its finding of law, how the code operates (This is the law regardless of how Longmont city officials interpret its intent and operation) where it states:

"The code contains schedules of permitted uses and provides that uses which are

not express may be allowed through the application and granting of conditional

use permits."

Note: Express means listed as permitted. Not express means not listed as permitted and requires application and granting of conditional permit.

The city utilized these orders for purpose of conviction. The Supreme Court did not overturn these orders. They are still in effect. Just as myself (and others) are required to obey them, so is the city. Many of us will be affected by vacation of this street and we are entitled to expect the city ordinances to be enforced.

To allow the street vacation to Butterball will extend its non-conforming use onto it. This use is NOT express. So far, this issue is proceeding without the required application for granting of a conditional use permit.

These court orders are part of the city's rules. Is the city exempt from its own rules? Is Butterball exempt from these rules? Will doing thes prejudice all parties having had to comply with these rules?

Clyde Ioerger