11/25/2002 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

PRD Meeting 11-25-02 Page 30 Mayor Rinker said no, I think you are making an assumption that it happens at a lot of the settings like you talked about in different neighborhoods. But in these associations, they're usually much more tightly knit. It's like I said, the nature of a gated community--because you've got services; I mean, nothing's fail-proof; I mean it's a legitimate concern. But it's a different animal. Mr. Marrotte said Steve, I have a friend who is on that Board of that development that's opposite Sears and Robuck down that's down here off Richmond. There's 83 units there and he's one of 3 members of the Board. And speaking to the question of enforcement, he says if somebody doesn't pay their assessment, they put a lien on their property. Period. So if they go to sell it, the Association gets their money. If they don't pay their maintenance fees, they put a lien on the property. Period. Dr. Parker said well, I guess, I can see that's an easier system to do rather than somebody has a non-owner occupying it-or I don't know what but I am just saying... Mayor Rinker said but that's a perfect example.... Dr. Parker said money-that tends to be a good way-I mean that's an easier way to enforce those things-but there are other issues that I think- Council President Buckholtz said there are legal instruments for enforcing that whereas dividing the family or owner occupied-I don't know how someone would have recourse. Again, we don't have to drag it out now but I think it's something that it's worth in the final analysis that we talk about just prior to voting~r justso we're clear on that-whether that's in there or not in there. Mrs. Cinco said we might check with Joe on that. Mayor Rinker said you're right, that kind of stuff is harder to enforce. Council President Buckholtz said there's no legal instruments for defining the family-at least not unless you want to get into a whole ball of wax. Any other comments? Mr. Marquardt said I'll make two. Of course I've worked on this thing for a long time. But one thing that I'll make my argument again on the equivalency is I don't believe that it is necessary. I think that the process that we have in place right now with Planning & Zoning, Board of Appeals and Council is a good process in that you have a clearcut code that is not subject to interpretation by Planning & Zoning but is open to appeal at Board of Appeals and the second level of appeal is Council and I think that this protects the Village in that you, if you have a development that has merit; it will get through and get the variances if necessary. If you have a project that's not a good idea, it gives you snore legs to stand on to say that it didn't meet our code, we didn't want to grant the variance and it shouldn't go through. So I think that the process we have in place is fully adequate and gives us a clearcut line on what the code is, what the regulations are on the thing. The second point is, I bring it up again, as to the possibility of should we consider, in conjunction with this, potentially looking at trading off some park