Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Councilmember Dehen stated that there has been talk of sending it to EPB and getting case law. <br />He stated that he thinks that a lawyer should be doing that research. He stated that he would like <br />to take a look at whether there has been constitutional discussion on whether the City can do this <br />or not. He stated that he would like to see what the precedent is in the highest courts. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich stated that there may not be case law, but he could research it and give <br />his opinion on the constitutionality of it and the City could also seek the opinion of the Attorney <br />General. He stated that in order to repeal it, you don't need to know if it is unconstitutional or <br />not. <br /> <br />Mayor Ramsey stated that Article 5 of the Bill of Rights talks about not taking land without <br />restitution. He stated that if you cannot do anything with your land, then he doesn't think it is <br />your land. He stated that if this ordinance was written with some kind of compensation, then he <br />wouldn't have a problem with it. <br /> <br />Motion by Mayor Ramsey, seconded by Councilmember Look, to direct the Planning <br />Commission to hold a public hearing. <br /> <br />Further Discussion: City Attorney Goodrich asked if he should research some of the issues <br />mentioned. Councilmember Elvig stated that he agrees that the research should not be handled <br />by the EPB. He stated that he thinks it would be good to have that information before the public <br />meeting and noted that he supports holding a public meeting. City Attorney Goodrich stated that <br />he thinks Mayor Ramsey is referring to inverse condemnation, so he will research that issue and <br />report back to the Council. Councilmember Jeffrey stated that unless you can bring the signers <br />of the constitution in, he thinks case law is needed to have a point of reference. Councilmember <br />Look stated that he thinks it would be nice to have case law, but the bottom line is that it is pretty <br />clear that when you add opinions in you can get numerous outcomes. Community Development <br />Miller stated that a specific action is needed in the motion, such as, consideration of repealing the <br />wetland buffer ordinance. <br /> <br />Amended motion by Mayor Ramsey, seconded by Councilmember Look, to direct the Planning <br />Commission to hold a public hearing and make a recommendation to the Council on <br />consideration of repealing the Wetland Buffer Ordinance. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Ramsey, Councilmembers Look, Dehen, Elvig, and Wise. <br />Voting No: Councilmember Jeffrey. Absent: Councilmember McGlone <br /> <br />Councilmember Jeffrey stated that he opposed this motion because he doesn't agree with sending <br />it for consideration to repeal because he doesn't feel there is enough information. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich asked if this should be sent to the EPB. <br /> <br />Councilmember Look stated that they can discuss this at their next meeting if they choose, but <br />doesn't think it needs to be officially sent to the EPB. <br /> <br />City Council! February 24, 2009 <br />Page 11 of 19 <br />