[Vision2020] Is a public vote allowable on WM for example
J Ford
privatejf32 at hotmail.com
Thu Jan 12 13:10:43 PST 2006
No, there is no "Planning Department," per se; however, there is a Planning
and Zoning Commission - which work very hard for this town.
J :]
>From: bill bonte <bbonte at moscow.com>
>To: vision2020 at moscow.com, curley at turbonet.com
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Is a public vote allowable on WM for example
>Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 12:54:02 -0800
>
>And being such an important function, it is unfortunate that the City of
>Moscow does not have a planning
>department. I has only a Community Development department. Therefore, we
>have lots of development and
>precious little planning.
>
>On Jan 12, 2006, at 11:04 AM, Michael Curley wrote:
>
>>Ron:
>>You are, of course, right that a zoning decision cannot be put to a
>>vote of the public. The matter is administrative IF an entity (I'll
>>call them BB, Inc. for big box) proposes to build at a location that
>>is within the Moscow city limits AND in a zone where the entity is
>>allowed as a matter of right by the zoning code. The administrator
>>is charged with seeing that BB complies with all portions of Moscow
>>City Code applicable to the situation--building codes, setbacks,
>>storm water runoff, signage, lighting, buffer (planting strips, etc).
>> In any other situation, the matter is quasi-judicial--BB must ask
>>for some type of permission or change to the code(s). If BB proposes
>>to locate where their type of operation is what is known as a
>>"conditional use," then BB can locate there only with permission from
>>the Board of Adjustment (whose decision can be appealed to City
>>Council). If the property is outside the city limits, it needs to be
>>annexed and then rezoned. If inside the city limits, but BB's
>>operation is not currently permitted by right or by conditional use
>>permit, then BB can ask for a rezone--which will be heard first by
>>Planning and Zoning Commission for its recommendation to City
>>Council, which will have another public hearing and render a final
>>decision.
>>
>>One piece not often mentioned in discussions on 2020 (or elsewhere
>>when I have heard them for that matter) is that a governmental entity
>>cannot discriminate against BB. It must treat BB and BB1 and BB2 all
>>the same. Thus, outside the imaginary BB world: the city cannot
>>allow Lowe's to do what it won't allow Home Depot to do--in the same
>>location at least. Certainly the city can deny HD a rezone on the
>>east side of town (if there is cause to do so) and allow Lowe's a
>>similar rezone (and sized store) on the west side (again, if there is
>>good reason to do so). Thus, the city can limit the size of new
>>retail establishments to, for example, 150,000 sq. ft. (or less, or
>>more) But the limit would apply to Tri-State and Moscow Building
>>Supply if they wanted to expand above that limit. If they (or any
>>other entity) is already above the limit, they would be a (legal) non-
>>conforming use (some refer to this as being "grandfathered in," which
>>is not exactly accurate, but...).
>>
>>The City could hold an advisory election to determine if a majority
>>of Moscow voters would want the size (or location, etc) limits
>>Council is or wants to consider. As long as it is a legislative
>>matter--concerning the passage of a code section applicable to all
>>entities, there would be no problem with the vote (in my opinion).
>>It could not be held, however, if it was related to a specific
>>application. For example, if Costco wanted to rezone a parcel, an
>>advisory vote/election would violate Costco's due process rights (and
>>probably others as well). For better or worse, the public hearing
>>process is where citizens could sound off about their interests and
>>opinions about the pending application.
>>
>>That said, perhaps one can see why "planning" is such an important
>>function. Once faced with a specific application, the council's
>>(and, thus, the citizens') options become substantially more limited.
>>
>>I apologize for the length of this post.
>>Mike Curley
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>From: "Ron Force" <rforce at moscow.com>
>>To: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>>Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Walmart
>>Date sent: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 14:44:36 -0800
>>
>>[ Double-click this line for list subscription options ]
>>
>>I don't believe there's any way under Idaho law for a zoning decision
>>to be put to a vote. Doesn't it fall under an administrative
>>decision,
>>like the 10 Commandments decision in Boise?
>>
>>**********************************************
>>Ron Force Moscow ID USA
>>rforce at moscow.com
>>**********************************************
>>
>>Phil Roderick says:
>>"I think Walmart proposal should be put to the vote of the people . .
>>."
>>
>>I don't think you'll get what you want, or what you think you'd get,
>>if you put it to a vote. Especially if you go countywide.
>>
>>I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but just what it is.
>>
>>DC
>>
>>
>>_____________________________________________________
>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>> http://www.fsr.net
>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>
>>_____________________________________________________
>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>> http://www.fsr.net
>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>
>
>
>_____________________________________________________
>List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the
>communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list