[Vision2020] City Council's Material Change

[Scott Bauer]

  Visioniaries,
   
  I would like to help A. Lurker (whose style reminds me of A Kirker) and others understand the primary issue raised by Councilman Ament during last night’s meeting.
   
  When Mr. Ament proposed the moratorium, he expressed concerns that “material changes” to Ordinance 2005-33 could possibly expose the City to liability. According to Idaho Code § 67-6511(b), the City must amend its zoning ordinance “pursuant to the notice and hearing procedures provided in section 67-6509, Idaho Code.”
  http://www3.state.id.us/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=670650011.K
   
  Idaho Code § 67-6509 states, “Following the commission hearing, if the commission recommends a material change to the proposed amendment to the plan which was considered at the hearing, it shall give notice of its proposed recommendation and conduct another public hearing concerning the matter if the governing board will not conduct a subsequent public hearing concerning the proposed amendment.”
  http://www3.state.id.us/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=670650009.K
   
  Please note the phrase “material change” and the obligation it imposes on City Council, because this raises the question, “Did City Council materially change Planning & Zoning’s proposed amendment when they gutted the conditional-use parking requirements from the Central Business District?” Of course, the answer is obvious: “Yes, City Council made material changes to P&Z’s proposed amendment” (see e.g., Price v. Payette County, 131 Idaho 426, 958 P.2d 583). This, then, raises another question, “Why didn’t City Council remand the proposed amendment to P&Z for another hearing, as required by Idaho Code?” and I suspect the answer resembles a slap in the face.
   
  Nevertheless, Council’s failure to remand the proposed amendment exposed the City to potential lawsuits for violating the Local Land Use Planning Act, and council members Dickinson and Stout agreed to protect Moscow from unnecessary litigation. Mayor Chaney affirmed, breaking the tie. To be sure, the proposed moratorium would hurt no one and, in the end, it would protect everyone.
   
  Finally, in defense of Council members Stout, Ament, and Dickinson, as well as Mayor Chaney, I would remind opponents of the moratorium that last November was a referendum on zoning, and these elected officials voted in accordance with their mandate, which included protecting the downtown core for intensive commercial activities. Therefore, if you feel slapped in the face, then I respectfully suggest that you wear padded earplugs.
   
  Scott


		
---------------------------------
 Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060104/878b7cc5/attachment-0001.htm