10/22/2008 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. O'Malley said the ordinance as drafted is lawful. Mr. Meclc references a landmarlc case from Eastlalce in which the Ohio Supreme Court deteimined that a ward veto authority would violate due process laws by delegating the legislative authority to the voters. However the United States Supreme Court explained that it wasn't a delegation of legislative authority but a reseivation of power to the people and overruled the Ohio Supreine Court decision. Since then the subj ect has come up in other communities. The City Charter already has a ward veto provision within it now. If something were to be subject to an initiative or a referendum and effect a zoning change the change would need to be addressed and changed not only by the City but also the ward. In reviewing the case law on the subject he found that ward veto procedure in some communities result in extended litigation between the developers and the city. The city gets stuclc in the middle of a zoning war between a developer and his use of his property and tax payer's actions through the referendum process. While the ordinance is lawful, whether or not it is advisable is a legislative determination that should be debated. Mr. Lasko said the full Commission is not present to discuss the topic and the Commission has 30 days to review the ordinance. Ms. Wenger advised that the Commission could bring the ordinance baclc at the next meeting and still meet their timeline. Mr. Laslco advised that the Commission would review the ordinance as it pertains to any proposal within the City. The Cominission would not discuss specifics related to any active development talcing place as the discussion is a broad conceptual issue which affects the entire City. Council Member Orlowslci said the ordinance was straight forward and compared it to an action which took place in Fairview Parlc where the City put a rezoning before the residents to rezone a parcel from residential to commercial. He believes that his ordinance will give residents an opportunity to voice their opinions on developments entering their wards. Developers should first try to rezone the land to ensure expenses incurred are not in vain. Residents of each ward should have a right to decide if a rezoning is allowed in their ward. Mr. Laslco said that the cunent rezoning process in place provides residents multiple opportunities during the board, commission and City Council review process to voice their opinions. They can impact how a project will loolc and fit into their neighborhoods. The current process gives the residents and City as a whole stronger negotiating powers which can be used to ensure what is developed is the best for not only the abutting neighbors but the entire City. If the residents are still not happy after the process is completed, they have the right to petition for a referendum; therefore he questioned why the process needs to be changed. Mr. Orlowski said he toolc an oath to represent the residents and residents voiced their concerns. He does not believe that when the residents voice their concerns that they are always addressed. Mr. Lasko felt the Councilman was proposing to expand a Planning Coinmission to include every resident of the ward. There is a broader concern on behalf of the community that needs to be addressed. If this is taken to an extreme, Council is saying that individual wards in a section of the City can defeat a proposal that fi•om the City's perspective as a whole could be a viable enhancement to the community. Mr. Orlowslci agreed that the ordinance could have far reaching affects. Mrs. Meredith said she agreed with Mr. Lasko as all residents have a say when they go before Commission, the BZA, the BZD Committee and City Council whom were elected for each ward and at large to represent the residents. She questioned why the ordinance restricted the vote to those who live in the ward as it affects the entire City. If it is going to be put to a vote it should 6