I posted the city attorney’s response to the conditional use appeal on the Edgewater, but didn’t really THINK about it . . . check this out. Is this reasonable?
Here’s the city attorney response to the council, in short, they’re working on it.
But look closely at what he said:
The only role for the Council at that time is to “fix a reasonable time for the hearing of the appeal …” My understanding is that several other Edgewater items will be on that agenda, and will be referred to a future meeting. The appeal of the CUP should be set for hearing at the same time.
Was that a legal opinion? Did he read the law? Is that what he thinks is reasonable?
Here’s what the ordinance says, emphasis, is mine:
The Secretary of the Plan Commission or his/her designee shall transmit such appeal to the City Clerk who shall file such appeal with the Common Council. The Common Council shall fix a reasonable time for the hearing of the appeal, and give public notice thereof as well as due notice to the parties in interest, and decide the same within a reasonable time.
Is it really reasonable to wait until all the other matters are considered to look at the appeal? At this point they have the 1965 ordinance, the TIF, the zoning, the landmarks appeal and a conditional use appeal all to deal with on one date. Why not hear the appeal, send it back to the plan commission to make the findings and get it settled before all the other issues come up. Otherwise, it could result in unnecessary delay. And besides, we’re just waiting for Hammes Company to get their materials ready for the Landmarks Commission and their TIF application. Why not use this time to settle other matters instead of making it all a last minute rush where they make bad decisions late in the night? Is that too much to ask?
My guess is, that the city attorney is going to say that the Council cannot send the issue back to the plan commission because the ordinance says:
The action of the City Plan Commission shall be deemed just and equitable unless the Common Council, by a favorable vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the Common Council, reverses or modifies the action of the City Plan Commission. Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Common Council or any alderperson, officer, department, board or bureau of the City, may, within thirty (30) days after the filing of the decision in the office of the City Clerk, commence an action seeking the remedy available by certiorari.
I think that part of the process of reversing or modifying the plan commission decision could be asking the plan commission to look at the issues again. I suspect the city attorney “won’t allow it” even tho he doesn’t have the authority to do so. And I suspect the council will just listen to him. And then, off to court! Seems unnecessary and costly. And then it will likely result in more ordinance changes.
I hope I’m wrong. I hope they can settle this amicably, without court, by having the plan commission do their job.
