COLUMBIA, 7/17/11 (Beat Byte) -- Columbia city attorney
Fred Boeckmann (left) may have single-handedly short circuited
democracy during debate about the Great Hangups rezoning request at a
May City Council meeting.
Mandated by city ordinance to remain on hold for one year after Council members disapproved it in October 2010, the request to rezone four lots at the corner of West Broadway and West Blvd. from commercial to residential reappeared five months early. Fourth Ward Councilman Daryl Dudley, whose Ward includes the Hang Ups corner, "made a motion to waive the one year waiting period to reintroduce the Great Hangups rezoning request," minutes from the City Council's May 2 meeting explain.
Mandated by city ordinance to remain on hold for one year after Council members disapproved it in October 2010, the request to rezone four lots at the corner of West Broadway and West Blvd. from commercial to residential reappeared five months early. Fourth Ward Councilman Daryl Dudley, whose Ward includes the Hang Ups corner, "made a motion to waive the one year waiting period to reintroduce the Great Hangups rezoning request," minutes from the City Council's May 2 meeting explain.
Section 29-34.(a)(1)a of the Columbia City Code permits
Council members to restart stalled zoning requests earlier than the mandated
waiting period. Under standard procedure, a motion to do so would be seconded
by a fellow Council person, then put to a vote by the entire elected body.
Instead, something unexpected happened. "I'd like to raise a point of
order," Mayor Bob McDavid suddenly interrupted. "Is the motion
necessary?"
Boeckmann immediately replied, "I don't think it is
because I think the application is substantially different"
from the version denied in October.
The motion was promptly dropped, leaving the city attorney -- a non-elected
city official -- the issue's sole arbiter, while flummoxing
neighbors who had expected a formal vote on Dudley's motion, which had been in
the works for months.
In a January 24, 2011 email to Columbia Planning and
Zoning Commissioner David Brodsky and Columbia planning department staff person
Patrick Zenner, planning director Tim Teddy explained, "Fred Boeckmann has
advised...that a new, identical, city initiated [rezoning request] can be
considered if Council approves a motion to do so."
Brodsky forwarded the information to other P&Z members the following
day. "It appears the city council is going to pursue...a city initiated
rezoning petition," he wrote January 25. The planned motion then made its way
around the Sunset Lane neighborhood.
At the May meeting, neighbors who have opposed the rezoning request and
wanted the extra time to prepare for the next vote in October 2011, "were
completely caught off guard by the Mayor's question, and the motion's sudden
dismissal," Hagan told the Heart Beat. "We have no idea why they took it off
the table."
Though McDavid did not explain why he questioned the motion at the time,
he later said "the issue for me was whether or not the rezoning request
was the same as the previous request, which was defeated by
Council."
A "substantially different" rezoning request that changes key features of
the initial petition could restart the process before the year long waiting
period expired. Regardless, McDavid said he never saw the new request,
deferring to Boeckmann's judgment.
"Having not seen this new rezoning request, I was not in a position
to judge," McDavid told the Heart Beat. "It seemed that the one-year
wait should be honored if the new rezoning request was not substantially
different. If, however, the new rezoning request was substantially different,
then Council motion should not be needed to initiate the rezoning request.
That distinction was the basis for my 'point of order.'"
McDavid said he will review the new rezoning request, staff reports, public
input, and planning analysis for the July 18 meeting, deciding then if the
request is "substantially different."
"I'm sure that is true of the other members of Council," he added. "This is a complex rezoning request because the long-standing commercial use of the property has not been in compliance with existing zoning."
No comments:
Post a Comment