|
Msvp s xn,-Zw:
<br />w
<br />;S
<br />--------------
<br />4? , `t?'?? i v a -_:.n? .? :- ?"•-? Y..?" ?? ?yi'' ? .:.:. _ ; ?.. ^i z Kg??` '?`M .."'?,°`,? "+saSY?
<br />, ?
<br />. . - . . . _ ....:7 ? *tk a.',
<br />_ , ? ... - ,,?. . .. , . , ., . . . •?... , . .
<br />? . . . , , . ., . . • ?? .. .
<br />
<br />course, nothing is farther from the truth. The truth is that we are a
<br />government of laws, not of inen. Therefore, Mr. Pattison's opinion
<br />notwithstanding, I am compelled to look to the laws of our city, and not to
<br />Mr. Pattison, in providing this Commission with legal advice concerning its
<br />duties under the law.
<br />In reviewing the Minutes of several of your past meetings, it appears
<br />that it has been Mr. Pattison, and not the Lauren Hill Plaza developer, who
<br />has consistently asked the city to "bend the law" in order to defeat the
<br />proposal. Mr. Pattison's latest letter continues in the same vein.
<br />Contrary to the opinion expressed in his letter, there is no thirty five
<br />foot rear yard requirement for the service station which abuts the_proposed
<br />development along Lorain. Road. In "finding" such a requirement, Mr.---
<br />Pattison referred Mr. Gorris to motorist service district requirements.
<br />The service station in question is located in a retail district and clearly
<br />is not subject to the requirements of another zoning district.
<br />?i:, Likewise, Mr. Pattison is again wrong in advising this Commi.ssion that
<br />it would' be on "perfectly sound legal footing" to deny the developer's
<br />assembly- plat proposal, because,an adjoining;neighbor, the Ground Round
<br />Restaurant,'has insufficient parkin for its=facilit .
<br />g y. , If, in fact., Ground
<br />Round has insufficient parking; thendt should be cited for a zoning code
<br />violation and penalized in accordance with law. `To deny this developer's
<br />?? - proposal-'because::of:a zoning code violation by Ground.Round is so'blatently
<br />wrongthat;,.it should be apparent to all accept those who have chosen to
<br />4 blind .themselves .to''?the `??obvious. ?., . , . :,:?, t ; , a , .:f ? • ? ,, . ,-
<br />:? ' ' . ,..,,? ?,.. ,....,. .
<br />;.?? . . .
<br />5? tt
<br />#
<br />?; •
<br />Finally, again contrary to Mr.. Pattison's'statements, I addised-him, as
<br />a member of the City's Architectural Review Board, to abstain from voting
<br />on the Lauren Hill'Plaza Proposal, not because:he had misled'the "Planning
<br />Commission into believing.,he was addressing it as a city official, but
<br />instead, because, in my opinion, he had a potential conflict"of=interest
<br />-:•under.our•city's Code of Ethics. Mr. Pattison`.did abstain from voting, and
<br />'I consider..that issue to now,be closed. _,;.It is.my understanding that Mr.. 'Pattison subsequently resigned from the Architectural Review Board.
<br />I;:hope that I.have helped to set the=record straight in this matter.
<br />If any member of the Commission has any-questions concerning this letter,
<br />please feel free to contact me.
<br />Very truly you s,
<br />. Michael R. Gareau
<br />Director of Law.
<br />MRG/cmr
<br />.
|