My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC Minutes 04/11/2005
Laserfiche
>
City Clerk's Public Records
>
Minutes
>
City Commission Minutes
>
City Commission Minutes Archives
>
2005 City Commission Minutes
>
CC Minutes 04/11/2005
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/3/2005 2:55:02 PM
Creation date
4/29/2005 5:25:47 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Meeting Type
Regular
City Clerk - Doc Type
Minutes
City Clerk - Date
4/11/2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
34
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />City Commission Meeting <br />April 11, 1005 <br />Page 4 <br /> <br />Commissioner Hart stated that she was under the impression at the last Commission meeting that the vote <br />favored a review process for appeals by the Commission, but not to totally rehear an appeal de novo. <br /> <br />The City Attorney stated that the Ordinance was written as de novo. The Commission discussed the de novo <br />versus the certiorari review whether this was really the Commission's desire for the de novo appeals because <br />the point had been raised and there was a lot of discussion, so instead ofleaving it either or, she inserted the <br />de novo. She said to make the distinction between de novo or certiorari would require another first reading <br />because it would be a substantial change. <br /> <br />Mayor Goff favored the de novo process. He stated that taking responsibility of hearing appeals out of the <br />hands ofthe elected officials and going straight to the Courts from the Board of Adjustment, the Commission <br />was advocating its responsibilities to the citizens that they were elected to serve. This process would also <br />expose the City to more legal fees. He stated that the Board of Adjustment deals in matters subjectively, <br />not objectively. <br /> <br />Commissioner Cook favored the de novo appeal process because the everyday citizens ofthe City deserve <br />the chance to be heard by their elected officials. The Attorney stated there had only been three cases within <br />the last ten years and the de novo process would not put an inordinate burden on the Commission. <br /> <br />VOTE ON THE MOTION: Commissioner Doerner - No; Commissioner Cook - Yes; <br />Commissioner Hufford - No; Commissioner Hart - No; <br />Mayor Goff - Yes <br /> <br />MOTION DENIED on 3 - 2 Vote <br /> <br />MOTION: <br /> <br />Moved by Commissioner Susan Doerner to defer Ordinance 05-1152, Board of <br />Adjustment Appeal Process, back to Planning and Zoning Commission for <br />review ofthe certiorari appeal and the de novo appeal process. The motion was <br />seconded by Commissioner Linda Hart. <br /> <br />VOTE ON THE MOTION: Commissioner Doerner - Yes; Commissioner Cook - No; <br />Commissioner Hufford - Yes; Commissioner Hart - Yes; <br />Mayor Goff - No <br /> <br />MOTION PASSED on a 3 - 2 Vote <br /> <br />Hearing de novo - To hear afresh as a new hearing; to hear as original case and not appellate jurisdiction. <br /> <br />2 Certiorari ~ A proceedings used by a higher court to determine irregularities by a tower court; used as a discretionary device to choose <br />the cases it wishes to hear. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.