11/05/1973 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

of the CounciL wasrJ'-ght or wrong; cOnsideration of issues of fact 'could result' in different conclusions. But the record establishes evidence of the truth of eertain facts, and they (City Attorney's office) think they are legally sufficient and that the action taken by the Council is valid. Mayor Anderson thanked OSPIRG for their interest and said Council inaction would not necessarily indicate disapproval of the procedure they followed or the argument . presented. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Murray that the Council consider adopting an ordinance ;rezoning the Valley River area. . ; Mrs. Beal said the motion was presented to give Councilwoman Campbell and CouncilmatN- McDonald an opportuni ty to vote, since they were advised to abstain from voting on - the original rezoning. . City Attorney asked Mrs. Beal if it was the intent of her motion to initiate an en- , tirely new rezoning process through the Planning Commission. Mrs. Beal responded tha tit was. " . . .' .. .. In response to question from Councilman Hershner, Manager explained that the motion .if approved would come to the Council on November 5 for formal approval. It was - his understanding that the intent then was to initiate rezoning to the original zone (County AGT) by referring the matter to the Planning Commission for public hearing, recommendation to the Council, and Council pUblic hearing. I Councilman McDonald did not favor the proposed action, saying it was setting prece- I dent. Councilman Williams said he was violently opposed, saying the Council had made a decision wholly consistent with the Fasano decision and on other bases. He noted that the full Council was present and voted on that decision, whereas Mr.Keller . was absent now and it became a case of serving the community on the basis of woo was and who was not present at meetings. Councilman Hershner agreed, not only in view of Mr. Keller's absence from this meeting but also because of the possibility of others being absent from the November 5 meeting at which formal action would be taken. Mr. Gleaves raised a point of order - that a motio~ to reconsider called for a two- thirds majority and had to be made at the same meeting or the next day. He added that the motion here was not made by one voting with the majority on the original issue. ~Stacey in clarification said that Mrs. Bea1's motion was not the request presented by OSPIRG. Their intent was to have approval of rehearing on the issue and scheduling of that rehearing at the next formal Council meeting, at which tlme they would be in favor of this type motion. City Attorney advised that reconsideration requires only a majority vote. However, the motion presented is that the Council, on its own, initiate a new rezoning pro- ceeding at the Planning Commission level, presumably to the original County designa- tion. He couldn't see where any evidence could be heard short of that procedure. Mrs. Niven-noted the original zoning on this property was County AGT and that ifre- zoning to that designation were initiated by the Council they would have the burden of proof to show tha t AGT was needed. She added that there was precedent set in pur- suing this course and said there were reasons why Planning studies were requested in ~. various areas of concern. Much too much time is consumed, she said, in hearings now on zoning issues. Mayor Anderson urged consideration of the serious consequences of approval of the motion. And Councilman Murray said he would not vote in favor of it even though his opinion on the rezoning would not change. Only if new evidence is presented, he said, would he vote for a rehearing. Mrs. Bea1 said again that her reason for making the motion was to give thO~~ not able to participate in the previous decision an opportunity to vote. Also,. the ~e1ay caused by a rehearing might give the benefit of having results of the proposed. study. ! She said since the Valley River rezoning was an integral part of the study area, re- scinding the previous action, however accomplished, would give the opportunity to look at the entire area, and under those circumstances s~e didn't think the Council would be forced to bear the burden of proof because a revised Plan ~uld be the basis. Mayor Anderson said that the Council has to recognize that it has to make decisions, and this procedure would really be prolonging the decision making' process. Elected officials refusing to make decisions is the one thing that can set back proper plan- ning and zoning procedures in any type of community. He added that this issue had been studied, reviewed, and examined, all on the basis of the existing Plan, and the decision made. .' Jeffrey Kleinman, OSPIRG, said that under the Fasano ruling inexpediency was justified. . . " --<. .-" He added that in the event the motion carried, the rezoning would not necessarily have to be AGT, it could be any desirable type of zone. Mrs. Beal, noting that she had not realized Mr. Keller's absence, withdrew her motion with consent of the second, Councilman Murray. She added that she would like to have the option of renewing it at the next formal Council meeting. 31-. 11(5(73 .~ 14