COM 0998.003 2006-2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Honorable Angel Pilago, Chair And Members of the Committee on Planning COMMITTEE ON PLANNING Page 7 March 5, 2008 It is not too harsh to say that this is simply a stalling tactic. The landowner's attorney also complains that the Planning Department did not post a sign on the property giving notice of the proposed zoning change. I would, of course, recommend that in procedural issues like these the Council seek advice from Corporation Counsel, but posting of signs is clearly not required for zoning changes initiated by the Planning Director. The procedure is different for zoning code amendments initiated by landowner versus zoning code amendments initiated by the Planning Director or the Council. Ord. 05-136 required posting of signs to give notice of some kinds of land use changes, which are listed in Ord. 05-136. The Zoning Code section on landowner- initiated rezonings is sec. 25-2-42. Ord. 05-136 amended this section to require posting of signs, in sec. 25-2-42(b): "The applicant shall also post a sign for public notification on the property as provided by section 25-2-12." In contrast, zoning code amendments initiated by the Council and Planning Director are covered by sec. 25-2-43, which was not amended by Ord. 05-136, and which contains no sign posting requirement. Obviously, the fact that one section was changed while the other was not means that signs don't have to be posted for director and council-initiated rezonings. Sec. 25-2-12, which also discusses the posting of signs, calls the person who posts the sign "the applicant". In a landowner-initiated zoning amendment, the landowner is also called "the applicant". See sec. 25-2-42. But in a Council or Planning Director initiated zoning amendment, the Council or Planning Director are not referred to as "the applicant." See sec. 25-2-43. The landowner does not, of course, complain that they were somehow unaware of the rezoning proposal. They were informed by letter dated May 31, 2007, that this action would be proposed. The first complaint of the lack of sign posting was by letter to the Council dated February 1, 2008, asking for a deferral. Again, this is a stalling tactic. The landowner's attorney makes a number of other complaints alleging inadequate notice before the Planning Commission. Without going into unnecessary detail, the simple answer is that these involved continued hearings at the Planning Commission, where less notice is required. The landowner's attorney was notified well in advance of all hearings, and attended all of them. Conclusion The 1997 ordinance that rezoned this property from A-5a to RS-15 said, in condition V, that "should any of the conditions not be met or substantially complied with in a timely