Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procedural Recall topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board declines to reconsider 2101 North 16th Avenue project; commissioners have called item for de novo review
Summary
Board members discussed a previously denied variance and associated site/design for 2101 North 16th Avenue; four city commissioners requested a de novo review at the City Commission, and board members with the procedural right to move reconsideration declined to do so, so the item will proceed to the commission for review.
The Planning and Development Board on March 10 reviewed a staff update about a previously heard application for 2101 North 16th Avenue and discussed whether the board should move to reconsider its prior action. Staff said four city commissioners — the mayor, Commissioner Biederman, Commissioner Gruber and Commissioner Hernandez — filed requests to recall the item to the City Commission for a de novo hearing.
Staff explained the prior hearing involved a variance and companion site/design application; the variance was denied and, because the denial left the design and site plan without a complete approval, the design and site plan were not actioned. Staff told the board that the variance would not be part of any recall reconsideration and that commissioners had the option to rehear the item de novo.
Several board members raised procedural and substantive questions. One member said he was ‘‘shocked’’ that attorneys and staff did not clearly state why the variance was denied at the prior hearing and argued denials should be grounded in statutory code provisions; that member said simply disliking a project is not a legitimate legal reason to deny a variance. The City Attorney responded that, during the prior hearing, the board’s reasoning had been made clear in the record and that the board had relied on code and criteria in reaching its decision.
Staff also advised that, under Robert’s Rules, a motion to reconsider must be made at the meeting immediately following the one where the action occurred; the board was given the opportunity to make a motion to reconsider at the present meeting but two members who would need to make such a motion (members on the prevailing side of the prior vote) indicated they would not do so. As a result, the item will move to the City Commission for the de novo hearing called by the commissioners.
The board did not rehear the item at the March 10 meeting; the City Commission will set the schedule for the de novo hearing.
