Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer and resident clash with staff over process for 1219 Park reconsideration
Summary
A property owner criticized staff and the commission for using a seldom-used reconsideration procedure after the Planning & Zoning Commission's unanimous approval of a development; city attorneys and staff responded that meetings and offers to meet were made.
A Sanford resident and applicant raised procedural concerns at the Sept. 22 meeting, saying city staff's handling of a reconsideration for a development at 1219 Park undermined public trust and improperly sought to reinsert conditions that the Planning & Zoning Commission had omitted.
The speaker, who identified himself as Chase Spohr of 436 S. Scott St., said the Planning & Zoning Commission held a full public hearing on Aug. 7 and unanimously approved the application without conditions. Spohr said staff then completed the development order, sent it for legal review and later sought reconsideration that he described as an effort to "claw back the leverage they lost." He said the development order sat in the attorney's office for three weeks before reconsideration was scheduled.
Spohr questioned why a commissioner who had been absent from the original hearing returned a recording and moved to reconsider, and he alleged the reconsideration process was being used to manufacture leverage. "If these conditions are truly to be standard, then codify them in the ordinance. Don't slip them into procedural maneuvering," he told the commission.
City staff and the city attorney rebutted the account in comments during the meeting, saying staff had repeatedly offered to meet with the applicant to discuss outstanding questions and that many of the items Spohr described had been addressed on the record. The city attorney said he had made himself available "no less than six times" to meet with the applicant and staff and encouraged Spohr to accept the offered meetings to resolve outstanding issues. A city official also said the motion at the P&Z hearing had been based on testimony and included conditions noted in the record.
The exchange produced no formal action; the matter may return to the commission in a future meeting if outstanding legal or procedural issues remain. The applicant said he was seeking clarity about the ordinance provision that allows P&Z to bring matters back for reconsideration and wanted the process applied transparently.
