HomeMy WebLinkAboutCarmel clay Plan Commission3-15-94 Linkside Transcript CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
MARCH 15, 1994
LINKSIDE TRANSCRIPT
Jay Dorman: OK, so we are on to item 5i. This item has been considered at a public hearing
the public
previously. It went before the Subdivision Committee
°what this hs foe lrst r thoseein the audiente who do not
hearing portion of this is closed. Let me
have an Agenda. This is a Primary Plat Cluster Application for a Subdivision named Linkside.
The primary plat consists of 334 lots on 139 acres of land located east of Shelbourne Road and
approximately one half mile north of 96th Street. Thesitee izoned eR-1 and S-1, filed by Davis
Development. Mr. Nelson, do you care to address the
son, I
Jim Nelson: Very briefly. Members of the Commission,
thefor
publicohearing and the appearance
represent the applicant, Davis Development, L.P. Since
before the subdivision Committee, we have made one change or one amendment to our primary
plat as it was presented. At the Subdivision Committee meeting, it was suggested that the park
area that we had at the very north end of our property
extended
use the park area if somcourse
e of the
in fact, prove to be hazardous to those people who chose to
golfers were not as accomplished as they thou ha e retained it asey were. sa result open space; thathat pis the one
we have
eliminated this area as a park area, however we
change that has been made since the Committee meeting.
of lke to make many changes thatlDavis
brief
comments: The latest change which I just described to you is one
made to the original plan long before it was ever even filed with the Department of Community
Development in an effort to establish a consensus with the neighbors. Unfortunately, a consensus
has not been established with all of the neighbors but we still elo remain lan for the real estate belief we believe
plat that we have presented to you is an excellent development p
it to be far superior to prior applications that have been filedf the ordinances.we believe far superior The plat was
future plans might be if someone chose to take full
advantage
have presented to you meets all of the development standards and I will notivision Control
again elaborate
Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance,no variances are being requested, illtof compliance
on this fact, I think I have done that enough. I will say if there are any questions
or non-compliance, Dave Cunningham is probably the man to sthat
question.
done that I also
-bot'I
t
again express my views on the nature of this type ofproceeding--I've
would defer to Mr. Byers for any questions that anyone may have of him for his thoughts and
advice.
iateness and
Jim Nelson: We've heard a lot of comments bothas is toeppandrthe decision rests with youeSi
of our plan. I think you have really heard all theresay
feel confident the right decision will be reached and we thank you for all your effort in reviewing
this project. Thank you.
Jay Dorman: Thank you,
Mr. Nelson. I think all of us have expressed an opinion about this one
way or another. The "blue sheet" that we have before us is called a Finding of Fact for Primary
1
Plat consideration. I'm leaving it up on the top of the desk here and I'm not putting it in my
hand because there's a couple things we can do. You can vote for this based upon your
knowledge of the facts that have been presented before you this evening. There are those of you
who feel, for one reason or another, that you may wish to vote "No" on the particular project.
There seems to be some question about perhaps its compliance and spirit with the Cluster
Ordinance, there may be even a question about whether or not it is in conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan. I personally feel that the best course of action at this point in time, with
the knowledge that I have of the Subdivision, it not to vote on it this evening. I think the best
thing to do this evening because of the questions that remain that have not been adequately
addressed and satisfied to my satisfaction is to table this item for 30 days and vote on it then.
I think that it's in the best interest of the Community because while the petitioner has done what
they feel is a very good job to address and gain a consensus with the neighboring community in
the particular area of the City, of the County, it has not been established, I think that perhaps
some further work might yet occur in conjunction with the Department of Community
Development that would ultimately yield a win-win. Now, I feel that there are some positive,
very positive benefits to the development, yet I still feel very uncomfortable with certain aspects
of it. I would probably not vote in favor of the project, but I don't want to be labeled as
"whimsical, cavalier, non-considerate of the opportunity to develop this particular piece of
property," and that's why I have asked to perhaps table this if you feel as I do. So, I will--if
anybody feels the same way, they're welcome to make a motion to that effect with a second; if
you don't, you're not going to offend me. This is a group of individuals who I have a lot of
respect for, but I sure would appreciate it. Thank you.
Jeanne Reid: With your tabling this, are you asking it to return to Subdivision Committee for
further work, or what are you asking, what's your charge?
Jay Dorman: My charge would be to allow the petitioner to work closer with the Department
re special
as well as the neighboring residents in thearea,asking
for otao have to go back of thisovote for 30 study,
days
'scuse me, Subdivision Committee; but I g postponement
before it comes back before this particular body. Let me tell you where I'm coming from. There
is somewhat of a method to my madness. Because there's questions of Finding of Fact and what
we are able to consider or not consider, I want to provide due consideration to the petitioner to
review again what they are (end of side A tape)....against this particular project at this point
in time because it does have some merit. There are, have been, as Mr. Nelson stated previous
developments that were not as good as the present one, but yet there's some, I feel, additional
work that could be done that would perhaps make this, in fact, you Jeanne, stated it very well
at our last meeting, perhaps more in keeping with the Spirit of the Cluster Ordinance. Did I
answer your question satisfactorily?
Barbara Myers: Jay, I would like to hear what the Department has to say about this and Mr.
Byers.
Gordon Byers: Well, let me, let me kind of back up, I, you know the one thing that I think,
hopefully,I consistently will say is that in the Subdivision area,the one thing that we are charged
2
with here is to review it according to the Subdivision Ordinance and the standards in the
ordinance, and that if you don't like it, the one thing the law requires us to do is vote against it,
but to articulate in a written form how it doesn't comply. The concept there is that it gives the
petitioner an opportunity to drop back, make adjustments, and bring it into compliance. So, I
guess, that's the only thing that I ask. I think the only thing the law requires when you do make
a decision on the Subdivision, it's either "yes," after hearing all the evidence, the remonstrance,
I find it to be in conformity with the Subdivision Ordinance or in this case, if you'd vote in the
negative, you would have to put in written fashion why it is against it now. Flipping over, you
do have the right to table it, you have a right to continue, the general notice that goes out it is
that these hearings may be continued from time to time; it would just take, I think, a majority
vote to do that, it would take eight members to do it. The corollary to that is it's going to take
eight members to give it any action. You know, the only thing I guess I've tried to point out
when you table is, if you have a good reason to table, and I'm not sitting here trying to judge
your reasons, if you have a good reason, then I think it's appropriate; if you don't, it's probably
not appropriate because the petitioner, of course, is delayed, he looses the use, etc., etc. But I
think people understand that if there are issues that are not satisfied and there are points of fact
that need to be covered, then you have the right to table if you can generate eight votes; but, and
I'm not trying to comment and tell you how to vote, but the Subdivisions are pretty, when you
analyze it, we don't review...we review density as it relates to the ordinance, what's in writing in
the ordinance. We don't review price, we don't review competing properties, there are certain
limited scope review that we have and we become, in a true sense, a conductor of a public
hearing, listen to both sides, weigh the evidence, and make Findings of Fact. I'll quit right there,
and if any of you have specific questions, I can try to address those, I guess.
Jay Dorman: Does the Department have any comments one way or the other at this point in
time?
Terry Jones: Ah, I believe maybe what you were saying, Jay, is something along the lines of the
potential for the applicant to get back and maybe work out some of the issues that are of concern
to those surrounding neighbors, if those can be, I mean, that's something,you know, you suggest
30 days for additional study of some of those issues and then I think there's a comment to, you
know, about whether, meeting the zoning and subdivision ordinance; I think there's a question
that could be raised 1 about the conformance of the Comprehensive Plan with the way that the
Comprehensive Plan if you look at the map and snudecentthat.
within t So, ande henlast,yearsoreso;gsos�if I'm
of
the projects that have recently come before you
understanding what your suggestion here is for the tabling of that. Again, I'm, with Gordon as
well, if you have any specific questions, maybe I can give you a better answer.
Jay Dorman: Let me re-state where I'm at and let me be real net about it; if we vote "No" and
the petitioner feels we are incorrect, can go to court to override our decision, that's the way the
law is set up; that doesn't necessarily concern me, but I think that the project is still a little bit
shy of what the potential could be for the project as my knowledge as a planning commissioner
happens to be, and that's why I'm asking for the 30 day tabling to see if any of those can be
worked out. Now, that's obviously at the willingness of the petitioner to do so and go back to
3
the table--they feel that they have a very good position with what they have proposed, so they
may not be willing to do so, and they don't have to do so, but at least we've given them the
opportunity if they so desire, to take advantage of that.
Salim Najjar: My Byers, if someone wishes to disapprove of this petition, what are some of the
reasons that are allowed for us to disapprove?
Gordon Byers: Well, you've asked me the trick question of the evening here. Let me kind of,
I guess lawyers learn not to talk about hypotheticals,but let me talk that I think clearly, in review
of subdivisions, if, let's just focus on traffic, if there is a intersection or some dangerous condition
that would exist as it would relate to the traffic impact of this project, you could require the
petitioner to come in and make some improvements to the road surfaces, accel/decel. Now, if
it was on a hill and there was a dangerous intersection, in almost immediate proximity or next
to a project you could require it. So there, you know, we have these five, generic review
processes that talk about traffic and adjacent property, so there I think you could make a written
finding that to approve the petitioner's request and subdivide his property, there is a dangerous
condition and it's got a rational nexus back to this project that's right next to it; therefore I vote
against it because it would be a dangerous condition if this were allowed to subdivide and this
condition wasn't cured; and there, I think also, you are giving the petitioner the opportunity to
understand what, you know, the whole reason, I guess, we do things in writing is it gives the
petitioner an opportunity to understand what, specifically, you have against it and gives him a
chance to fix it. You know, one of the big theories of our ordinance is that we really kind of
need to tell them that ahead of time so they can make adjustments in their plans before they file.
The other big criteria is, I think you look to staff for substantial guidance; does this conform to
the Subdivision Ordinance, in other words, are the lots what they're supposed to be, is the density
correct, have the road rights of way been done, have we got letters on drainage, do we have
sufficient accel/decel, has the County Highway signed off on roads, etc. So, in a lot of instances,
you're looking to staff for whether or not this project conforms with the standards of the
Subdivision Ordinance. I think though, as a Plan Commission member, you can listen to
interested parties that come in and say, "I don't think the drainage is correct" and if you hear
objective evidence that you think you've heard pretty good evidence to base a finding of fact that
the drainage is not in conformity with the standards of our Subdivision Ordinance, etc., etc. So,
it's incumbent for the petitioner to convince you that he has complied with all these things, but
just to speak to the things you can't do. You can't say, "I don't like this project because the
houses are too small," or "I don't like the price points that this is going to reach." You can't vote
against it for those reasons because those are things we don't review in the Subdivision
Ordinance. I think, and I'll just read between the lines, I think in listening to the discussion here
the thing that has been implied but not really stated is some of you have concerns with Cluster
and you are trying to say "I don't like the size of the lots, I don't like the density," even though
it conforms with the Cluster. I guess what I would say there is if Staff tells you that this is in
conformity with the Cluster, then your attack is as to the Ordinance, as it exists today, it's not
to this specific project because he's in conformity with it. And my editorial comment would be
to you there, if your concerns is with the Cluster, then get rid of it. If you don't like it as it
exists, vote it out and then come back with maybe a new one or maybe none at all, if you have
4
found that the Cluster is not doing what you want it to do, and you don't like the way it's being
interpreted or applied, then change the ordinance. Once it is in existence, people have a right
to rely upon it, I guess, and to use it and interpret it; so, I think sometimes we have these implied
things that we don't talk about and, so, that was a round about way and I didn't tell you exactly,
but I think in your own mind you have to have had objective facts, you've had to receive into
evidence, in a sense, objective facts of how this petitioner does not comply with the ordinance,
and the ordinance is here being the Subdivision and the Cluster.
Jay Dorman: Mrs. Reid?
Jeanne Reid: I would like to comment...speaking in terms of the idea that Jay has proposed of
the 30 day tabling, I listened to what Mr. Byers says and I hear the legalities in that and I agree
with the legalities; however, when we took this charge of the Plan Commission and took on this
job, we asked specifically the question if we follow strictly what Mr. Byers has proposed as our
job, then we are basically rubber-stamping, we're not needed up here. There could be....the
Department of Community Development could just as easily see if everything in the letter of the
law had been answered, had been done correctly to the letter of the law, you could pass it off,
write it off, and say this development, this project is complete and within the letter of the law.
I'd like to think that our charge includes the planning of this community of Carmel and the long
range planning, meaning that what we end up with when the buildout occurs, and that's occurring
very quickly for all of you who live in Carmel, that we like what we see, that we are marketable,
that people want to live here, that we who live here want to stay here, and that we'll continue to
put our money back into this community and keep it great as we all moved here for a purpose.
When we looked at this particular project, I think that what we all objected to, as Jay has used,
the "Spirit" of the Cluster Ordinance. The Cluster Ordinance as it is written can be revamped,
needs to be rewritten, yes, but as it is written, it still had a purpose and its purpose was to
preserve something. We had the Cluster Ordinance as an option for people to be able to build
on a particular piece of land, but still save the flavor of that land or something, that is the reason
for the Cluster Ordinance, nationwide, and there are some very creative ways that it's been used,
and I think in this particular project, what we have said again and again is that when we look at
our Comprehensive Plan, when we look at our Merriam Report, when we look at our Cluster
Ordinance, we don't see that happening here. What I would like to say is "I agree with Jay, that
we could spend the 30 days, asking our developer to please go back and take a look at that
Ordinance again, take a look at the Comprehensive Plan, take a look at the future of Carmel and
see if you could come up with something better that does satisfy the neighbors." I don't mean
that you don't put a house behind a house, I realize that, no one can get that, but what I am
saying is that we want to end up with a project that's pleasing to everyone and that can live and
smoothly fit right into Carmel and I don't think that what we have right now does that. I don't
think it's I don't think it's beyond us to ask that, I think that's part of our job as a Plan
Commission. I at least only sit here because I think my job is to help better plan our community,
which is almost finished, to be something we all are proud of when it's over. If that's not my
job
Jay Dorman: Gordon, I've got a couple of procedural type of questions. We don't want to
5
prevent the development of the land, but if we did happen to if a vote is conducted this
evening and the vote is for disapproval, what, how many months or what happens after that
occurs in terms of getting the project back in front of us; is it a six month delay, or is it a one
month or one year until this can be re-submitted?
Gordon Byers: Well, let me just think out loud. In simple terms, it takes eight votes to approve,
we typically make motions to approve. If the vote is to disapprove, the petitioner has the ability
to challenge that in Court, I guess, and try to seek a Writ Assercioria review of your decision,
so the petitioner would have, in theory, really a couple of options: they could challenge your
decision as being not based on law and ask the Court to overturn it and give them a permit, or
they could make adjustments, I believe it is six months on most things to come back. Of course,
they get caught up in re-engineering and the expenses of re-drawing plans, and re-filing and re-
noticing, and I don't know, maybe Staff does, how long that would take. But petitioners are
given the immediate ability to jump in, and let me sort of pick up, I appreciate the fact that a lot
of times from this table you hear language that makes you appear to be like a rubber stamp, but
in theory, the enabling Statutes do require you to hear evidence, listen to both sides, listen to
Staff, and make your own decision, and it does become ministerial. I think a lot of times you
get frustrated with the way things happen but your recourse, what I would suggest is, to change
the Ordinances. You know, your recourse is to step back and say, you know, in 1989 a project
went through that we didn't really like, how can we change that by changing the ordinance and
send it to the legislative body? So, I guess that would be my response, you're not just a mere
rubber stamp but when you're reviewing plats, you are, in a sense, performing a ministerial
function. You don't have a lot of discretion and the law does allow for the formation, it'll never
happen in Carmel, of a plat committee. The law gives a Community the ability to vote and
actually set up a plat committee which is like,just a big rubber stamp. But I think we take more
pride in our Community and we like to give people the opportunity to be involved, and people
come in and talk and present their views and go to these committees and try to negotiate with
the petitioner, and I think we do a pretty good job of it. I think a lot of the frustration though
is sometimes with the old nature, the nature of the Ordinances, and my charge, I guess, would
be if you don't like something, call the Staff and let them try to come up with a draft of
something that changes it, and look out to the future to solve these problems. The Cluster is a
classic example. I was here in 1984 and there was debate about the Cluster; here we are in 1994,
10 years later, and we're still talking about it. My suggestion is it doesn't take a real rocket
scientist to figure out if it's working or not working, and just get rid of it if you don't like it.
Jay Dorman: Let me get off of putting this under a microscope and let's go back up to 30,000
feet and let me address that. I am willing to entertain a motion, or I will make the motion if I
have to, that immediately without fail and hesitation, that the Department draft a revision to our
Zoning Ordinances which do away with the Cluster Ordinance as we know it today and get that
before public hearing on April's agenda if we can meet all requirements, not necessarily because
of this project, incidentally, this is kind of an aside; and also, the stipulation is that we will
replace that with another Cluster Ordinance at some point in time, so it's a temporary striking of
the existing Cluster Ordinance. So, I'm willing to entertain that motion and second, if we are
willing to do that after we get done with this item of business. Did I make myself fairly clear
6
on that?
Jeanne Reid: Jay, I don't think that's....I mean, it's not clear to me. First off, I already know
there is a draft for a new Cluster Ordinance that the Subdivision Committee is to be reviewing.
If you are saying to temporarily just cancel this one I think that anything presented prior to that
is grandfather claused anyway, would it not be?
Gordon Byers: No, I think what he is saying....what we would do is repeal it in future. We
can't, once people file, they have vested rights once they file petitions. But we could, we could
repeal it and take it out of service, I guess, is the simple, non-legal way. For individuals who
would then come in, and remember, there is a time period from when you start this until when
the legislative body acts on it, the effective date of Ordinances are when they're approved and
subject to veto at the City Council level, so you guys really don't have much control over that
date, but you're saying, I think if I understand what you're saying is you'd like a draft of public
hearing notice of a proposal to eliminate it and I think we understand that, if that's the request
of the Commission to do that.
Jay Dorman: That was my request, and you stated that very well. Thank you. But back to this
particular project yes, Salim?
Salim Najjar: I would like to move that we table this matter for 30 days.
Jeanne Reid: I'll second that.
Jay Dorman: All those in favor of tabling this for...excuse me, is there any discussion about this?
We'll take a vote. All those in favor of tabling this particular vote on Linkside for a period of
30 days, please signify by saying "Aye," (Aye!) All those opposed? We have two nays, three
nays, Mr. Kennelly, Mrs. Meighen and Barbara Myers. So, let's see, we have seven
Gordon Byers: Seven; and it's going to take eight in either direction for any decision tonight,
so, to jump ahead, you don't have any action taken there.
Dick Klar: I don't think it'll get one way or the other.
Gordon Byers: Well, I don't tend to disagree with you.
Dick Klar: Where's the Rules of Procedure, because no matter what you do, if you get a non-
incremental vote, it's going to table it automatically.
Jay Dorman: I would like you to consider and we want Mr. Nelson and his, Davis Development,
to have an opportunity to visit, the other proposal that I made as well, after this is over.
Jim Nelson: Mr. Dorman, on behalf of the applicant, we would consider requesting that this
matter be tabled for 30 days at our request; however, in making this request, my primary reason
7
is because I did not want there to be this evening a premature decision on this development plan.
However, when we come back next month, I really don't know what we're going to be able to
tell you different than we could tell you this evening. We will talk to the Staff, I'm not sure what
change that will result in. When I listened to the tape of the original public hearing, I heard three
primary reasons for the public's opposition to this proposal: density--density is provided for in
the ordinance; it's not minimum, it's not maximum, it's just what it is. The second reason was
the price of the homes; that's not found in the ordinance. The third was traffic. The only
standards found in the ordinance pertain to the width of streets, the proposed rights of way, the
manner in which those streets are constructed, and where applicable, accel/decel lanes and
passing blisters. All of the other comments related to traffic concerns lying beyond the property.
I guess my only point is that we are asking that it be tabled, but when we come back, and if we
don't have a change that appears satisfactory to some, I hope that does not constitute further egg
on our face and period.
Jay Dorman: Mr. Nelson, would you be willing or would the Department be willing to also have
a representative of the citizens around that particular project at any meetings that could occur to
discuss the potential consensus of neighboring residents and/or perhaps a member of this
Commission to sit in on those discussions as well? Would you be willing to consider that?
Jim Nelson: Jay, I think that we as a developer have a right to develop our property the way that
we think it will be most successful and most appealing, and provide the best home for the future
residents. I don't think it appropriate that a vote of the neighborhoodism govern how our
property should be developed. Those standards are established in the ordinance and we followed
those. I passed out at the public hearing a three page letter that Chris White wrote to me
outlining the many meetings that Davis had prior to the time that the plat application was ever
filed, a series of individual meetings, a series of group meetings, and I'm going to guess ten to
fifteen changes that were made to the plan before it was ever filed with the Department of
Community Development. We're happy to investigate anything that would make this project
more acceptable, but there are many things that we can't change. Really, those are already
established, and to say that someone doesn't like the price of our homes because they have one
across the street slightly greater in value---that isn't what this is all about. Anyway, we're happy
to I'll work with the Staff and I will let the staff invite whomever they want to the meetings.
I just don't want to appear to be a bad guy when we come back next month and say "We looked
at it, and we thought about it, but we still like our plan,just like we did on March 15th." That's
all.
Jay Dorman: Any other comments, Mr. Najjar?
Salim Najjar: Question, since we had a motion and it did not pass, can we offer it again?
Jim Nelson: I think I have the I'm going to request of the Commission the right to continue
the vote on this matter until April 19th.
Jay Dorman: Mrs. Reid?
8
Jeanne Reid: Jay, there are....just to the developer, If I could give you, something that I've
enjoyed,....I'm not against Clusters actually, I've learned to admire them in the past year. They
can certainly fit things in that never could fit elsewhere or be affordable that we couldn't do
before. There is a wonderful person that I've read before, his name is Arendt. I've admired his
work and what he does is specifically work on clustering. He's written many books and he has
a lot of films that are really interesting to watch and shows creative ways of doing what you're
trying to do and making it attractive. If you haven't looked into that, I would suggest it. I think
it would be worth your while.
Jim Nelson: So I move to continue this and hopefully that was helpful to everyone. I would like
to make one more comment. You know, I went back and talked to a lot of people who were on
the City Council at the time the Cluster Option was passed many years ago, trying to find out
from them what was the motivating reason for the passage of the Cluster Option back when it
was passed. That purpose was single, it was one in number, and it was to provide affordable
housing to Carmel, Indiana. The primary person that gave me that information was Mayor
Johnson who was on the Council at that time and who was instrumental in drafting this
ordinance. It was to provide affordable housing, I thought that might be of interest.
Jay Dorman: I appreciate those comments. Many of us are faced in business every day with a
word called "change," and you actually have to embrace it, otherwise it will run you over, and
sometimes you have to re-visit your assumptions along the way and see if they still make sense;
I guess that's what I'm asking at this particular point in time, that is, if there is someone willing
to make a motion, we appreciate, Mr. Nelson, your willingness to table this and perhaps re-visit
it. I thank you for that. Is anybody willing to make a motion that the current Cluster Ordinance
in its present form be repealed until we have a new one in place? Obviously, this would not take
effect on anything already in process, but for anything coming before us or submitted new. Is
anybody willing to make that particular motion?
David Cremeans: Jay, I'll make that motion.
Jay Dorman: Is there a second?
? This is just for a public hearing?
Jay Dorman: That is correct.
Max Moore: I'll second the motion.
Jay Dorman: Any discussion?
Jeff Kennelly: Jay, if we move to repeal the cluster, then we have to go through the process of
public hearing, it also then is a recommendation to the City Council to repeal the Cluster in its
present form. Without having....we are in the process of coming up with a new Cluster
Ordinance and I guess I would say let's continue with that process. I don't know whether or not
9
to...we may have the one presented to the City Council before this motion to repeal would even
reach them.
Jay Dorman: Any feel from the Staff? Dave, (Cunningham) you have some surveys and other
things you are trying to gather and what a time frame could possibly be given where we are at
this point in time.
Terry Jones: One of the things, we can't really tell you the date of when a new ordinance would
be. It could be a long time, and quite frankly, having it repealed might stir the water up enough
to get one that's more workable in place. Should the one we have currently be repealed.
Jay Dorman: Obviously, one of the by-products that could occur is the opposite effect of what
I'm trying to do, and that is I don't want this to be taken the wrong way, that this Commission
or myself is against growth and development, and all of a sudden, someone wants to take me out
and hang me by a tree without....not that I don't deserve it every now and then....without due
process and everybody over-reacting. I think I'm one of these guys, one time I took a class and
the City Manager of Columbia, Missouri said at some meeting, sometime, somebody has to stand
up and say "Enough, this is B.S." and I guess I'm at that point now. Not because once again it
should not be construed that it has anything to do with this particular project, so, we have a
motion, we have a second Mrs. Reid?
Jeanne Reid: I still have discussion. What...you've told us we realize the time frame for a new
ordinance is a long time down the road; what about a repeal process, how long down the road
is that? To repeal as Jay is suggesting, what is the time frame for that versus a moratorium, as
another option?
Gordon Byers: There's no such thing as a moratorium, I guess.
Jeanne Reid: OK, then what is the repeal process time?
Gordon Byers: We could draft it, get it published, and get it on your April meeting for public
hearing, presuming, then, asking you the question, that you could act on it and suspend the rules
and vote on it immediately in theory in April and send it with a recommendation to the Common
Council, it would probably have to go to the first Monday in May or the third Monday, it's
possible it could hit the third Monday in April, but let's just say the first Monday in May. Then
it's a function of the Common Council, they would have to suspend the rules, so in theory, with
the suspension of the rules, the first Monday in May without a suspension of the rules, it could
go to the first Monday in June, I think. So it's a range a say May to June.
Jeanne Reid: And any project that we bring to you prior to June would be grandfathered as
you're saying...
Gordon Byers: It would be, maybe grandfathered is the wrong term, but they would be filing
in accordance with the existing standards and ordinances, so the effective date would be after the
10
legislative body enacts it and after the Mayor signs it, it would be subject also to Mayoral veto
which could push it back through and it would take another vote to over-ride the veto. So, the
effective date in theory would preclude people then from filing after that date of putting projects
in that encompass the standards, the development standards of the Cluster Ordinance.
Jay Dorman: Based on where we voted last time, we may not get the necessary vote. Anymore
discussion? Luci left the room, I don't know whether she wants to vote on this or not.
? Does this still take an eight vote?
Gordon Byers: Yes, anything we do tonight is going to take at least eight votes, no matter what
we do; if it's in favor or against.
Jay Dorman: Why don't we vote on this? I have the strange feeling that things may not work
out the way I want them. Ready to vote on this or is there more discussion? OK We're going
to vote on the motion before us now. All those in favor of putting in action a repeal of the
present Cluster Ordinance, please signify by saying "Aye." Could I see a show of hands, please?
Six. And all those opposed? One, two, three, four. Well, we don't have the necessary numbers
that we need, so that motion dies. I thank you for your consideration.
Jay Dorman: Thank you again, Mr. Nelson, for tabling your project until you have had a chance
to work on it.
11