In an article in the Dec. 10 Explorer, the question of volunteer boards & commissions is addressed.
It is an issue the Town Council will take up as a future agenda item.
Town volunteer & present Planning & Zoning Commissioner Bill Adler isn't sure at least some of these entities are necessary or economically practical.
We think Bill has a valid point.
Any thoughts?
Read the article here.
http://www.explorernews.com/articles/2008/12/10/news/doc493f137222dad287552304.txt
8 comments:
I think if you read Bill's comment you can readily see that he is basing his recommendation on the fact that the Town Council has chosen to ignore the advice of the advisory boards. If they are going to continue to do that then I would agree. But the problem is not the boards or commissions, it is the selection process.
I will have some comments hopefully in the next issue of the Explorer.
When you have volunteers that worry about what kind of trees were to be at the OV Marketplace without concern that a Walmart roof will be visible from two scenic corridors with scores of skylights & a multitude of A/C units, that is a problem.
The problem is only exacerbated when you have a council (as we did) that wouldn't care what was on the roof as long as it was built.
When you have a council (as we do now) that knows how to say "no" to every developer's whim, why do you need a volunteer group without any expertise?
I can readily see that was the point Mr. Adler was making.
It sounds like some folks believe that the Town Council should rubber-stamp the decisions of the commissions. If that's the case, then what is the point of bringing these decisions to the Council?
OV Mom....There is a wide gap between"rubber stamping" and ignoring the unamimous recommendation of a citizens panel who probably knows more about the OV Zoning Code and the Town staff who definately know more about code than 4 council members who probably have never read the Town Zoning Code.
We are once again getting ourselves in a similiar position as a previous Council did when they overstepped their authority in the Beztek case.
Mr. Cox---- For those who may not know the circumstances, that council in June 2004 saw fit to NOT go along with the town attorney's advice and caused themselves and the taxpayers much chagrin, not to mention money.
How does that relate to your comment suggesting this council is overstepping their authority?
That's like comparing apples---not with oranges, but with elephants!
Art...I would have hoped that you could have figured out the connection but I'll spell it out more clearly.
When an applicant files a request there is a process that he/she/they must follow. It is very detail oriented. In many cases public hearings are held to vet the proposal to insure the requests meets requirements set forth in the Town Codes and to insure that their is adequate public input. The Town Staff reviews these proposals ad nauseum. By the time it reaches the Council agenda it has not only been through the mill, so to speak, but it has become a VERY COSTLY process to the applicant. So when the board and/or commission makes a unanimous recommendation for approval AND the Town Staff recommends approval, it should be a RARE circumstance when the proposal doesn't get approved by the Town Council. That's not to say that it should be 'rubber stamped', other conditions added or deleted and that there may not be a vote or two against the proposal. After all we have one councilperson who votes no most of the time regardless of the merits of the proposed question.
Now in that RARE circumstance the Town Council, has in my opinion, a very heavy burden to explain, in detail, why they have taken such a different path. Failure to do so could very well result in the applicant seeking financial damages.
The 2004 Council that ended up in court thought their personal opinion trumped Town policies, codes, etc. They found out the hard way. This council is, in my opinion, dangerously close to that potential outcome.
To use as an excuse (and I paraphrase) that we are going to wait until the 2010 General Plan review to make a decision, after all the work has been done in good faith, is not only cowardly but may be quite costly.
I'm sure if Cox says or does something, it must be correct.
Also, his snide comment about Paula was totally inappropriate, but I'm sure he felt it was so pertinent, it had to be noted.
Also, if a developer feels his rights were violated, we have a qualified town attorney to advise the council.
Because Cox thinks "this council is dangerously close to that potential outcome"(as in 2004)doesn't mean a thing.
Art....I didn't mention any names and my comment was factual.
Nor did I make any mention of who was right or who was wrong. I was simply stating my opinion.
LOVE!!!
Post a Comment