Laserfiche WebLink
Commissioner Sieber stated that Mr. Fults is assuming that any project that <br />involve public money will be turned down; this charter just puts more <br />responsibility on the developer to sell his project to the public. <br /> <br />Discussion ensued as to when the 60 day clock starts and Commissioner Bauerkemper <br />stated that it begins with the first public hearing. <br /> <br />Mr. Jack Ippel pointed out that the Charter does not say the 'first' public <br />hearing. There can be more than one public hearing; does the 60 day clock <br />go into affect after each public hearing held on a particular project? <br /> <br />Mr. Schnelle stated that public would most likely assume it meant the public <br />hearing that dealt with actual costs. <br /> <br />Chairman Heitman stated that Mr. Ippel's point is credible; there could be <br />hearings dealing with zoning changes required and assessment hearings. <br />Hearings and waiting periods could lead into months. <br /> <br />Mr. Ippel stated that a situation could be created where a developer is waiting <br />out the 60 days on the project itself and then 10% of the registered voters <br />come in with a petition opposing the zoning change and the whole project is <br />stopped right there. <br /> <br />Chairman Heitman pointed out that right now 5 people can stop the pro~ect. <br />We are trying to create a situation where the developer gets some subsidy <br />from the government without the people having any say. <br /> <br />Mr. Ippel stated that Initiative and Referendum can be good, he is arguing <br />with allowing 10% of the registered voters prohibiting potential development. <br />There are more ways to bring a project to a stand still than brought out in <br />Section 8.05.02; if a development requires a zoning change, that zoning <br />ordinance is subject to initiative and referendum. <br /> <br />Chairman Heitman pointed out that a 10% petition of voters only precipitates <br />subjecting the project to an election. Chairman Heitman pointed out that <br />Mr. Ippel keeps creating scenarios where the citizens will do anything they <br />can to stop development. Why is it the citizens should not have that right <br />to determine their lifestyle and environment? <br /> <br />Mr. Ippel replied that a petition by 10% is not enough; it is too easy to <br />come by and it can hurt too many people for too long. Why does the Commission <br />want to build in more and more protection when they have Initiative and <br />Referendum? <br /> <br />Commissioner Sieber replied that stopping development could be accomplished <br />by Initiative and Referendum, but there is a better way. <br /> <br />The meeting recessed at 11:36 p.m. <br /> <br />Chairman Heitman called the meeting back to order at 11:49 p.m. <br /> <br />Motion by Commissioner Gamec and seconded by Chairman Heitman to amend <br />Section 8.05.02 as follows: In the first sentence replace '100%' with <br />'80%' <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairman Heitman, Commissioners Bauerkemper, <br />Data, Sieber, Gamec. Voting No: None. Absent: Commissioners Greenberg, <br />Buchanan, Lichter, Titterud. <br /> <br />CC/February 23, 1984 <br />Page 8 of 11 <br /> <br /> <br />