11/16/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ In response to Mr. Obie's remarks of no findings of fact, Mr. Delay e said the findings of fact were evident throughout the entire process, noting the records and minutes of the Planning Commission, the various public hearings, the 1990 Plan, the Blayney Report, and pUblic input before the City Council. He was not comfortable with the notion there had been no findings of fact. Mr. Delay said some persons assumed that the rezoning would detract from an individual getting a greater return on his property. He said that subject had been addressed in the Blayney Report which indicated the property owners would receive more value. He could not agree with the statement that if the government made zoning changes in the public interest, compensation should be made to persons affected. Mr. Lieuallen said he heard Mr. Williams suggesting City government was going to be required to guarantee property owners' future investments. He said that would entail predicting how much money a property owner might make under a certain zone, as against another, and compensate if the zone were changed. He said that was not the issue. Rather, it was about an application for a zone change supported by public policy, and Council should decide on the basis of the general public need. Mr. Bradley noted he would abstain as he had abstained from discussion and voting throughout the entire proceedings, having once been a property owner in the area. He questioned, since he had subsequently sold the property, whether he should enter into discussion and voting at this time. City Attorney said historically, Councilors have made the judgment to abstain on the basis of owning property that is sUbject to the discussion.4It Secondly, City Council could decide to request a Councilor to abstain. If that no longer applies and a Councilor can say he can enter into discus- sion without prejudice and he is fully informed and not biased, he may do so. The difficulty with that stance is having once declared abstention, whether other Councilors .or persons would question if that Councilor had indeed listened and had been actively involved. He again reiterated it was up to the individual Councilor to first indicate his abstention and the reasons why; secondly, City Council could require abstention if it so desired. Mr. Bradley noted he had been present at all the discussions and had listened and read the materials. He was going to abstain from voting and discussion today, but if Council had a new ordinance before it on this same issue, he would decide then whether to vote. Vote was taken on the motion as amended, which passed with Williams, Smith, Hamel, and Obie voting aye; Delay, Lieuallen, and Haws voting no and Bradley abstaining. City Attorney said Council would then have to go through first and second reading of the amended bill. e 11/16/77--10 851