08/21/2000 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

" I respect the fact that council members may believe sincerely this legislation is appropriate. It may be. But what insight has been afforded to the voter? I submit to you that it is one of a number of items we have seen this year alone that better lend themselves to a different and more complete review approach than has been afforded to date. Some people may have the impression it was thoroughly discussed. I do not. There was, in fact, consideration given alternatively to a new zoning designation for the land owned by Mayfield Village. It is a matter of record that the Village has rather quickly assembled a substantial amount of land into the public domain in the past few years. The reasons for the various purchases have been different, but the net effect has been to afford the Village greater control over its land use through direct ownership of property, much of it strategically situated. Some of those acquisitions have been debated more than others. Each purchase has prompted questions of public policy that concern everyone, regardless of individual perspectives. We should be mindful of the long-term implications of both the fact of purchasing, as well as the policy to be developed as a consequence of awning such properties. It is true that governmental functions can be carried out in residentially zoned areas. Given our historical efforts as a municipality to preserve and enhance residential space, this fact alone is salutary. In the long-run, it may be the most important factor. But I am more concerned that we have arrived at this point by taking short cuts rather than attempting to lay out a road map that offers multiple destinations. !t strikes me that for some, this piece of legislation-right now-is viewed as a necessary safety valve, a mechanism intended to prevent some perceived threat. If that is true, the motivation has not been addressed in any public fashion. If it is not true, then the fact remains that this specific proposed zoning change has received almost no public discussion. Under our Charter, not merely are there provisions which secure referendum powers to voters on these zoning matters, there are provisions which direct them to be handled first by the Planning and Zoning Commission for its review and recommendation. Why was that not done with this ballot item? To be sure, both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Council Ordinance Review Committee had in fact reviewed language that proposed a new zoning category; however, when that proposed language reached the floor of Council and wes met with some important challenges about certain provisions, rather than receiving any further reevaluation from either the Committee or Planning and Zoning, the matter inexplicably died in committee. No one else ever thought it important enough to exp{ain or even ask why. Presuming the 2