HomeMy WebLinkAbout11252019 City Council Laydown - Griswold - Legal Service / 9,/ zs La,yzee-tuy)
November 25 2019 (C,‘V (,-e 0
0
Dear Council, Administration, and Public,
I find that the quality of the legal service given Seward by our legal firm is totally
unacceptable. Confusing, incomplete, and inconsistent legal contracts, negotiations,
resolutions, and ordinances have required extensive revision, delayed action, and
increased costs.
I understand the city's contract with Birch Horten Bitner and Cherot expires on
December 31, 2019. It is way past time for the City to issue a request for proposals to
ensure the City is getting solid legal advice. Cheap bad advice is no bargain. I would even
recommend a moratorium on any further Code revisions until we get a better law firm.
My continuing concerns with the City's law firm and attorney crystallized into alarm at
the November 12 Board of Adjustment Hearing, which was orchestrated by Attorney
Wells, making up rules on the fly. If any question could be answered with a simple,
"Yes", Ms Wells made sure to answer with reams of sentences, convoluted reasoning,
and abstract, unrelated concepts that only muddied the waters.
I spent a great deal of excruciating time transcribing parts of the hearing, as her advice
was so unbelievable. For example, the Community Development Director had a handout
of the Zoning Map to give to the Board for their reference. There was no way this was
introducing "new" evidence. In addition, Ms Wells fabricated and declared this to be a
"hybrid" hearing unheard of in our Code where at least some new testimony was
acceptable. The discussion was a ridiculous waste of time for the Board, Administration,
and the public.
Wilde asks Chair if it would be OK to give Board smaller version of Zoning Maps for their
reference. "It's up to you; I was told by the attorney to make sure to ask you if you want
them. If not, we'll use the ones on the board, on the wall."
Wells: "It's OK and I think that, generally, this is the type of thing even if we were
following the strict rules of evidence that we use in court. It is permitted because it's a,
it's used as an example, it's used as a, we use PowerPoints for example in court, and we
hand out, you know, the PowerPoint and it allows people follow along it for clarity, so
not, you're not supplementing the record. And here, the record is subject to, it's, it's
more fluid than it would be in a quasi-judicial proceeding such as a conditional use
permit hearing. But even so, these types of exemplary sort of documents or deliverables
are OK if you choose to accept them.
1
Terry "I think that would be fine. Do you have any objections?"
Lane: "I just have a clarification. Would a Venn diagram also be acceptable?"
Wells: "I think it depends on what you're going to use it for. But generally speaking, if
you're using something, and it's ultimately the decision of the Board or the Commission,
you're a decision-making, quasi-judicial body, you can say no. But, in quasi-judicial
proceedings, it's a informal process that is not subject to the formal (unintelligible). You
cannot supplement the record with new evidence though, except for in very specific
circumstances."
Lane: "We can have it because it's already in the packet and this is an enlarged
version?"
Wilde: "It's already on the wall."
Wells: "And you can even, well, even in a quasi, now here remember, we are serving in a
different capacity, you're serving in a different capacity. This hearing is really designed
to help you get information, for the community to participate, for the applicant to
participate, it is whatever helps you be a part of this process is permissible. But in a
quasi-judicial proceeding generally, you can't have new evidence submitted. So even if
you have never seen this before, say it was a new photograph that someone was using it
just to say, 'I just wanted to show you what you see, you know, when I'm talking about
x, I just want to show you where that is', that could be permissible if you so chose to
consider it. But it could not be submitted into evidence."
Terry: "Thank you."
[Zoning maps were handed out to the Board.]
Was your head spinning? Mine was.
I am submitting this comment, my partial transcription, and a sample RFP as lay-downs.
The complete Board of Adjustment appeal hearing can be heard on the city's website.
Thank you,
Carol Griswold
2
Sponsored by:
CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA
RESOLUTION 2019-
A RESOLUTION OF THE SEWARD CITY COUNCIL REQUESTING THE
CITY MANAGER ISSUE A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR GENERAL
COUNSEL LEGAL SERVICE FOR THE CITY OF SEWARD.
WHEREAS, The contract with Birch Horten Bitner and Cherot (BHBC) for general counsel
legal services for the City of Seward ends on December 31, 2019; and
WHEREAS, In (date)the Seward City Council authorized the City Manager to negotiate a
(number) year new City Attorney Contract with BHBC; and
WHEREAS, The last time the City issued a request for proposal for general counsel legal
services was (date) when BHBC was selected; and
WHEREAS, It is in the best interest of the City to routinely re-issue the request of proposal
for professional services to ensure the City is getting the best quality, value, and fit for the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Manager is directed to issue a request for
proposals for general counsel legal services for the City of Seward.
Section 1: The City Attorney is hired by and serves at the pleasure of the City Council. It
is the intention of the City of Seward to seek proposals for general counsel that will serve the
Seward City Council, the City Manager and City Commissions as appropriate.
Section 2: It is in the best interest of the City to occasionally issue a request for
proposals for professional services to ensure the City is receiving the highest quality and most
cost-effective legal representation and advice.
Section 3: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption.
PASSED AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Seward, Alaska, the ,
2019.
THE CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA
Christy Terry, Mayor
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Below are links to documents that may be of interest to Council to proceed with the RFP.
Homer Resolution 19-038 issue RFP for City Attorney services:
https://www.cityofhomer-ak.gov/resolution/resolution-19-038-issue-rfp-city-attorney-services
Homer Resolution 19-044 approval of an RFP for City Attorney:
https://www.cityofhomer-
ak.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/ordinance/48961/resolution 19-044.pdf
Homer Contract for General Counsel Legal Services:
https://www.cityofhomer-
ak.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/ordinance/48061/reso 19-
038 attach atty contract.pdf
Homer 2008 RFP for General Counsel Legal Services:
https://www.cityofhomer-
ak.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/ordinance/48061/reso 19-038 attach rfp-
general counsel legal services.pdf
City of Kodiak:
https://www.city.kodiak.ak.us/citymanager/page/rfp-municipal-attorney-services
https://www.city.kodiak.ak.us/sites/default/files/fileattachments/city council/meeting/8892/2
0170928 regular meeting minutes.pdf
https://www.city.kodiak.ak.us/sites/default/files/fileattachments/city manager/page/7881/att
orney rfp.pdf
Thank you for your consideration,
Carol Griswold
Board of Adjustment Appeal Hearing at 5 pm on November 12, 2019
As partially transcribed by Carol Griswold
The mayor read into the record: Rezone Application Appeal Hearing regarding Planning and
Zoning Resolution 2019-013, a Resolution of the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommending City Council approval of the rezoning of the west half of Federal Addition..."
10:47 (on the matter of Terry's potential conflict
McClure: "The suggestion was, that we vote?"
10:55 Wells: "And I think it's a little bit more formal. It doesn't follow, this is a, this is a hybrid
hearing, I would call it. I would say, you could ask for a motion to, you could either ask for a
motion to disqualify, or to find there were ex parte communications that can't be cured, or you
can ask for a motion to disqualify the chairperson of the Board based upon the disclosed ex
parte. And then if you do get a motion, then you can take a vote.
11:26 McClure: "Rather than just ruling."
11:28 Wells: "That's probably the easiest way to do it here. It's different than what we would
follow in a strict quasi-judicial proceeding. You wanna have a legislative component to all of the
decisions we issue."
11:41 McClure: "Is there a motion to disqualify her from seating, being seated on this Board?
OK. Seeing no motion, then I will rule that there is no conflict, and I'm returning the gavel."
12:19 Terry: "So, now we're on to preliminary objections or concerns. So now we're going to
follow this [proposed hearing agenda]. 'Each person raising an objection will have 5 minutes to
present their objection.' And if I could, turn it over to our attorney; could you talk about what
sort of objections people might want to provide testimony for at this time?
12:45 Wells: "Sure, so this is a time where, if there is an objection anyone in the audience has,
or the appellant has, or anybody from the administration or administrative representative,
wants to raise, this is the time to do that. So that would be if you object to the hearing process,
in that you object to the notice, or the posting of notices, or the scope of notice, I think those
types of things are all appropriate to raise here. If you object to the record, or how it was
disbursed, procedural issues that don't necessarily go to the substance of the rezone decision
issue by the Commission."
13:31 Terry: "So with that explanation, is there any one that would like to make a statement at
this time? [pause] To the dais. We'll just have you state your name, and inside or outside city
limits; we'll start the clock at five minutes."
1
13:45 Wells interrupting: "And I think this is a great time to get an oath to everybody who plans
on speaking so that we have that."
14:27 Ballou: "So raise your right hand and repeat after me: I swear under penalty of perjury,
that the statements made today, are true and correct, to the best of my knowledge."
14:58 Carol testimony: "I object to this hearing process. I have never heard of a hybrid hearing.
I did not receive any paperwork that would tell me know to approach this hearing; it's all a big
surprise and I don't know why we are not following the code. So that is my objection. How can
a person come prepared to, to deal with this if we don't what you're going to throw at us? So, I
object to the hearing process.
I object to the posting of notice. The code is very vague on noticing, it says it has to be
"visual," you have to see it. So, when the notices went up, they were 8 %2 x11 and I truly
thought someone was missing a dog or cat. They were not the usual Planning and Zoning
18x24, City of Seward logo, blah, blah, blah, date and this and this. It was an 8 % x 11 tacked to
a tree. And I don't know how anyone could have thought that that was a notice of a very
important and significant zoning change to a neighborhood. So that's my second objection.
Scope of the notice did not include the hybrid, and how it was disbursed; it wasn't. I
thought we were going to appeal this according to Title 15, and there were some clear, clear
directions there. So, this really has caught me by surprise and I do like to be prepared. But
gleaning what little tidbits I can get, I think I have something appropriate prepared to say, and
this refers to the process.
I object to the extension of this appeal window. The applicant, who serves as Chair of
the Planning and Zoning Commission, submitted her zoning request and documents on June 28
which set the rezone process in motion. The rezone was duly heard by the Planning and Zoning
Commission on August 6.
According to Code, an appeal of a P&Z decision must be filed within 10 days of the action or
determination. The mailing of the action can be made anytime within this 10-day window, that
is, August 6 through August 16. Any decision not appealed within the ten-day window shall
become final.
I fail to understand why such an intimately involved, and knowledgeable applicant did not
follow up after the vote, request the letter of determination if not received timely, and act
within the 10-day window for an appeal, which ended August 16.
There was plenty of time for Council to hold the appeal hearing within the 30-day window
before the applicant left town on September 28.
I do not know when the Clerk's office sent the letter of determination, only that the applicant
received it on September 13, well past the 10-day window of appeal. The Code does not start
the appeal countdown when the applicant receives the notice, as that is out of the Clerk's
control. If the Clerk's office delayed the notice until September 13, that is the Clerk's error.
2
There are no provisions in the Code to extend the appeal window past 10 days, and for good
reasons.
If the 10-day window of appeal is extended for this case, it sets a dangerous precedent where
any applicant can file an appeal at any time past the 10-day limit. It is unfair to the public,
interested parties, and the Board of Adjustment.
By Code, this rezone application can be resubmitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission in
9 months. I urge Council to deny this appeal and uphold the Code.
Thank you for your consideration."
19:22 Ecklund
"I'll address the objections as they were stated. As to the notices that were posted,
those notices were sent to me by the clerk's office and in that size, and so that's what I posted.
The August trip was planned prior to the agenda being set for the August 6 meeting. And I did
not receive the letter from the planning department, and when I got back from my trip, I still
hadn't received it so I went into the planning department and the letter had been drafted and
thought that they had certified, sent it certified mail to me. But there was no record of a
certified mailing, the little slip you get at the Post Office, so at that time I requested that they
print out the letter and I signed an affidavit of receipt on September 13.
Which then caused the issue of a 30-day window, because I had also planned a month-
long vacation for the month of October. So, if I had received the notice within the timeframe
stated by the objection, I would have been here and this just was, like, a comedy of errors kind
of, with the timing. I could not appeal this decision by the Planning Commission until I received
the letter. And that is what I was told by the City, I could not appeal it until I received the letter.
So, I got it on the 13th and appealed it on the 23rd which then, I thought we had two 30-
day windows. I thought I had a 30-day window to appeal and I thought there was a 30-day
window for the Council to address. That was not the case. There was a 10-day window and a
30-day window which put it within the time I would be out of state and I asked for an
extension, and it was approved, and knew there was a possibility of objection."
[Discussion of date July 31 letter sent to Community Development by applicant]
23:35 Holly Wells "When it's appropriate, your questions, when you guys are finished with your
questions, I do have clarification of the law that you may want to consider as you, as you
deliberate regarding the (unintelligible)."
23:59 Councilmember Lane: "Where in, Ms. Ecklund, did you find the information regarding the
appeal process in terms of, you can't appeal until the letter is received? Is there a process that
you're following, or was it a word of mouth, or was there a document?"
Ecklund: "It was word of mouth through the Community Development department."
3
Lane: "Can you describe a little bit more about how that happened, how you got your
information about how the process works?"
Ecklund: "Well, I was out of town on the 6th, so I called the Community Development
department and asked about the appeals process."
Lane: "Are we talking about August 6th?"
Ecklund: "August 6, yes, after the August 6, 3-2 vote denied the rezone."
Lane: "And you were away?"
Ecklund: "Yes, away."
(No additional questions.)
25:13 Wells: "One of the things I want to make sure the Board understands is the difference
between a rezone application and that process, and the appeals process you find under what's
called Seward Zoning Code which is, which is 15.10 of the Seward City Code, as opposed to
15.01, Chapter 15.01, of the Seward City Code because it makes a VERY big difference on what
you're being asked to decide and how you analyze that.
So, Seward City Code 15.01.035 tells us how you amend the zoning code and the proc..,
I'm sorry, how you amend the zoning district. And that section is actually separate from the
zoning code or the zoning district sections themselves. And when we look at that we see really
a three part process:
One: The Commission shall hold a public hearing in accordance with the requirements of
this chapter, meaning Chapter 15.01. The Commission, meaning the Planning and Zoning
Commission. So we know we have to have a hearing and we know it has to comply with that
section, 15.01. That chapter is filled with your notice provisions. You have postings and notice
and all of these provisions that the applicant and Miss Griswold have been discussing with you.
That was all in 15.01. So those provisions also apply to other types of applications but it's
important to know those are there.
For the Commission, we're talking about the Commission hearing, all right, so the
Commission hearing is then held and a public hearing is required, and again they have to use
notice provisions, and they, and then the Commission forwards its written recommendations to
Council. And the Commission does that in the form of a Resolution. So they're not making a
decision necessarily, they're making a recommendation. Unlike when they make a decision that
is a written final decision subject to appeal, on say, a variance or conditional use permit. So they
have two hats on, this is a different hat.
At that point, the City Council, in accordance with your code, may or may not adopt the
amendment as a city ordinance. And so that's usually the next step.
(27:46) We end up in this, this particular arena that we are in right now, because your
code also gives the Board of Adjustment a more categorical ability to hear all appeals of any
decision by the Commission or the Planning Department, the administration, in the land use
4
arena. So because of that, a decision has to be made, generally speaking a decision would be
made either just deny the ability to have this hearing because this is a legislative act, we're
dealing with a recommendation to Council regarding an Ordinance and rezones as a matter of
law in Alaska are legislative, they're not quasi-judicial, and they're not specific to one individual
or entity although they really look like it, they're treated as a legislative act to change your
zoning.
(2:28:46) Or, you can go forward with the hearing to ensure that you are complying to
the utmost degree with any possible legislative due process, Open Meeting requirements they
or the public have, as much discourse as possible. But, so what, I know this is a lot of talking,
but what I want you to sort of understand where we are and why you're here because you hear
discussions of postings which are mandatory at the Planning Commission hearing level.
(28:17) So one question you may have is, was there, are any of these concerns or
objections being, are they being raised in the context of the posting for the Planning
Commission hearing. And those would likely have been raised at the Planning Commission
hearing, but you want to make sure that you understand that distinction and that that is on the
record. And the next, it's also important for you to understand that there is no requirement in
your code that those postings and that procedure is followed again after the Planning
Commission either chooses to recommend or, well, chooses to pass a resolution recommending
that the Council adopt an Ordinance.
So, that's sort of your, that's a lot of information, but, do you guys have any questions
about that or does that help you understand the scope of your decision-making role."
30:19 Baclaan: "So this is a question about the process, not the action, so, like not the feeling of
it, just that, not because I don't want to see this, but because the process was failed, or the
process happened wrong."
30:44 Wells: "Well, I don't think the process happened wrong, so your code, your code did not
anticipate, so in some, in half the country a rezone is a quasi-judicial act, and in the other half
it's legislative. And so in Alaska, after your code was adopted, the Alaska Supreme Court made a
determination that a rezone is legislative. Which means, when you're making decisions on a
rezone, you're subject to the Open Meetings Act, because you're acting in your legislative role.
We have to honor that and comply with those rules.
Your code doesn't, it treats in some ways, a rezone application as any other decision by
the Planning Commission. So, in doing that, you're honoring the quasi-judicial nature of an
application that's brought by a small group of people that is either recommended or not
recommended to Council. What you're doing, there's nothing, there's, this procedure is not
wrong and the procedure that was followed by the Commission, the Resolution, the posting,
unless you're told otherwise, you know, the posting and all of those things at the Planning
Commission hearing level were followed properly and complied with their Code. Your Code's
process in Seward City Code 15.01.35 for dealing with a rezone, is consistent with State law and
it makes sense that it's laid out pretty clear but here you have an applicant trigger an appeal.
They appealed it. And your code says they can appeal it. So we have to find a method and a way
to allow them to appeal it that lets the public have comment and provides the applicant a
5
opportunity to be heard, we have to do that in a way that complies with our legislative
requirements. So. It's a very interesting situation, you don't come across it much, but, OK."
32:53 Terry recognizes Lane: "Could you simplify what you just said into one to three bullet
points, please, Madame Attorney."
Wells: "I'm sorry, could you please repeat the question?"
Lane: "I would benefit from having your discourse simplified into one to three bullet points
please. Two and two."
Wells: "I will try, but it's not, Seward City Code 15.01.35 provides the process for a rezone
application. That includes a hearing, along with notice postings, before the Planning
Commission, right? at the Planning Commission hearing level. There is no posting requirements
nor hearing requirement after the Planning Commission makes a recommendation or chooses
not to do so to the Council. At that point, it is the Council sitting as the Council that will may or
may not adopt an Ordinance. All right? Or did?"
"So when you hear testimony, when people talk about notice, what we're looking for is,
I heard discussions of postings and notice, I think it's important to understand if we're talking
about postings and notice prior to the Planning Commission hearing or if we're talking about
postings and notice prior to this Board hearing. All right? Because if it's postings and notice
prior to this meeting you may find that that is a problem, but it, there's no legal requirement
that those postings and notices occur prior to this hearing. So even if you find that there's a
problem, it's just good to know which one, which one you're considering. Is that helpful,
Councilmember Lane? I know it is, it is very hard to distill it down to one or two bullet points."
Lane: "What I take away from what you said is that we're clear, we're good, and we can
proceed. OK? Thank you."
34:54 Butts: "Could this process have been simplified more if we had just had someone who
voted no on the Resolution ask for reconsideration. Would that have simplified this whole
process."
*35:12 Wells: "Well, the reconsideration process is a Council process where something like this,
I think that, this process would be best simplified by clarifying that there is no right to appeal a
Resolution recommendation by the Commission, that would probably be the most simple
approach to clarifying the process, to cleaning up the process. But here, you're providing more
process, you're getting more public input, so while it might have been simplified, I think that
this process is, you know, is appropriate."
36:07 (Confirmation that the P&Z hearing was properly noticed, and the Board of Adjustment
hearing was posted with the 8% x 11 notices supplied by the City Clerk's office.)
37:17 (Unanimous vote on Lane's motion to continue with hearing process as outlined)
6
38:00 Wilde asks Chair if it would be OK to give Board smaller version of Zoning Maps for their
reference. "It's up to you; I was told by the attorney to make sure to ask you if you want them.
If not, we'll use the ones on the board, on the wall."
38:25 muffled, urn, well from dais.
Wells: "It's OK and I think that, generally, this is the type of thing even if we were following the
strict rules of evidence that we use in court. It is permitted because it's a, it's used as an
example, it's used as a, we use PowerPoints for example in court, and we hand out, you know,
the PowerPoint and it allows people follow along it for clarity, so not, you're not supplementing
the record. And here, the record is subject to, it's, it's more fluid than it would be in a quasi-
judicial proceeding such as a conditional use permit hearing. But even so, these types of
exemplary sort of documents or deliverables are OK if you choose to accept them.
39:10 Terry "I think that would be fine. Do you have any objections?"
29:16 Lane: "I just have a clarification. Would a Venn diagram also be acceptable?"
39:19 Wells: "I think it depends on what you're going to use it for. But generally speaking, if
you're using something, and it's ultimately the decision of the Board or the Commission, you're
a decision-making, quasi-judicial body, you can say no. But, in quasi-judicial proceedings, it's a
informal process that is not subject to the formal (unintelligible). You cannot supplement the
record with new evidence though, except for in very specific circumstances."
Lane: "We can have it because it's already in the packet and this is an enlarged version?"
Wilde: "It's already on the wall."
39:59 Wells: "And you can even, well, even in a quasi, now here remember, we are serving in a
different capacity, you're serving in a different capacity. This hearing is really designed to help
you get information, for the community to participate, for the applicant to participate, it is
whatever helps you be a part of this process is permissible. But in a quasi-judicial proceeding
generally, you can't have new evidence submitted. So even if you have never seen this before,
say it was a new photograph that someone was using it just to say, 'I just wanted to show you
what you see, you know, when I'm talking about x, I just want to show you where that is', that
could be permissible if you so chose to consider it. But it could not be submitted into evidence."
Terry: "Thank you."
40:57 Ecklund:
1:17:08 Terry: "Based on the comments, is there a member that would like to make a motion
finding that the Planning Commission's recommendation in Resolution 2019-013 was rational
and not arbitrary. So that by making that motion we can affirm that the Planning and Zoning
Commission took everything into account and that we agree that the decision they made was
rational. Or there's a potential, do I have a motion form the Board finding that the Planning and
Zoning Commission's failure to approve Resolution 2019-013 was arbitrary and not in
7
furtherance of rational policy directing the Commission to reconsider Resolution 2019-013. So
in essence we can affirm the resolution that Planning and Zoning made, or, we can make a
motion sending it back to the Planning and Zoning Commission asking them to review and
revote on this. Is there a third option?"
1:18:04: Wells: "No, I think that is perfectly articulated. I would only add for edification if you
affirm, that the Planning Commission's decision not to approve the Resolution, the next step is
actually that the Resolution as well I believe the minutes and the packet from the Planning
Commission meeting are forwarded to Council where Council will either approve or not
approve, they may amend or not amend the zoning district via Ordinance. So just so you'll
know, that's very different from what you find in a lot of scenarios. That's the effect of, in
essence, affirming the Planning Commission determination."
1:19:01: Butts: "So, I just want to understand, even though they voted down the Resolution, it
would still come before City Council."
1:19:12 Wells: "Exactly, because what your code provides is that the Planning Commission
makes a, holds a hearing, and makes a recommendation via Resolution, and that that
recommendation, it doesn't say that it's a recommendation in favor of an amendment, it simply
says it makes a recommendation and that recommendation is forwarded to Council for Council
to make a determination. And that point is a purely legislative, ah, you'll be in your pure
legislative role. So this type of give and take and this type of consideration that you have on the
Board arena won't be the same. You'll be following the same standard of conduct you follow
for your Ordinances when (unintelligible) comes to Council."
1:20:10: McClure: "So,just to restate, it will come before us to decide this rezone in any event,
or, if we decide this was an arbitrary decision on the part of P&Z, it goes back to them, but then
they could make a decision again, it will still come back to us to decide, is that correct?"
1:20:35 Wells: "At that point it would come back to you as the Council."
1:20:38 McClure: "Either way, we would make the final rezone decision (interrupted) no matter
what we decide tonight."
1:20:47 Wells: "Absolutely. And so what the reason why, in addition to your code provision that
has the Board hear appeals, and therefore this is a necessary function of your, of your process,
there is also a Constitutional right to substantive due process. A lot of times we get a
procedural process. Substantive process says, you cannot make an arbitrary decision. That is
where your standard of review is coming from. It's coming from the Constitution. If your
Planning Commission makes arbitrary decision that are not rationally based, then, there are
other types of violations that are floating out there. So that is what you're doing right now,
you're acting as a gatekeeper for Constitutional substantive due process rights of your, of the
applicant."
1:21:42 Terry: "Wouldn't it just have been easier to bring this to Council in the first place?"
8
1:21:47 Wells: "It would have been easier. (Yes! from dias) Unfortunately, your code is
triggered by an appeal. So if an appeal is filed, your code requires us to follow certain steps as
currently written. Now do we need to provide that process as a City, I do not believe so. My
opinion would be that this process is, it's a lot. It's a lot of resources, it's a lot of time, it's a, a,
so changing the code to reflect the legislative nature of the rezone application process and
incorporating the public comment into the Ordinance process is a very appropriate approach.
But, so yes, yes, is the short answer."
1:24:44 Butts: "I'd like to make a motion that the Planning and Zoning Commission decision for
Resolution 2019-013 was arbitrary and should go back for reconsideration." Seconded by Seese.
1:29:01 Clerk: "Voting on the motion to overturn Planning and Zoning Commission's failure of
2019-013 because it was not rational and was arbitrary." Butts, Lane, Seese, Baclaan, yes;
Osenga, McClure, Terry, no. "That motion is approved."
1:29:32: Terry: "So, in the light of the Board's decision, the Commission is directed to
reconsider approval of 2019-013. So, this hearing is now concluded, there is no right to appeal
the determination of the Board in this proceeding to a court of law or other administrative
body." Gavel. End at 1:29:49
9