Laserfiche WebLink
reactionary then substantive. He felt the expiration date should be eighteen months rather than a <br />year. Mrs. Meredith said she liked that property maintenance was included in the criteria. Mr. <br />Rerko said the ordinance was positive in that it was business friendly while in reality not many <br />projects would require an extension. Mr. Lasko said he would like to see more thought put into <br />the legislation. Mr. O'Malley said the commission votes to either recommend adoption or deny <br />as written. Although the commission can make recommendations to Council, it does not have to <br />follow the recommendation. Mr. Lasko felt the legislation didn't address the matter properly and <br />should be denied to make sure council take a good look at how the legislation is written. <br />Mr. Lasko moved, seconded by Mr. Rerko, to recommend Council adopt Ordinance 2010- <br />126. Roll call: Iterko, Malone - yes; Lasko, Bohlmann, Meredith, Para-y, Cotner - no; motion <br />failed 2-5. <br />Mr. Lasko moved, seconded by Mr. Malone, to recommend Council adopts Ordinance <br />2010-128. Roll call: Rerko, Malone, Parry - yes; Lasko, Bohlmann, Meredith, Cotner - no; <br />motion failed 3-4. Mrs. Meredith said while she believed there had been significant <br />improvements to the ordinances, she feels more changes were necessary. Since the commission <br />can only vote yes or no on what is presented and not compel Council or the Administration to <br />incorporate the changes the Commission feels are necessary, she must vote no. <br />AI)JOURNMENT <br />With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. <br />7o?nna o J. L o, Jr., Chai Rote, Clerlc f ommissions <br />Approved <br />* There is no audio recording of this meeting.