Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission chair urges board to rescind approval of a blank application; petitioners seek restoration of Evan Street name
Summary
Planning Commission Chair Develin Brown told the Clarksdale board that a conditional-use application the commission rejected as incomplete was later approved by the previous administration; petitioners also pressed the board to undo a recent street-renaming and instead mark the street in memory, while the city attorney said legal limits may apply.
Develin Brown, chairperson of the planning commission, told the board that a conditional-use application the planning commission rejected at its May meeting was later approved under the previous administration despite lacking applicant information and a property description. "This particular application was incomplete," Brown said, and she asked the board to rescind that decision so it does not set a precedent that would make the planning commission "obsolete."
The request grew out of a single conditional-use filing the commission said contained no address, no applicant name and no contact information; Brown said the commission had rejected it on its face and instructed the applicant to resubmit. According to Brown, the planning commission’s vote was unanimous to reject the blank application, and she warned that allowing a blank filing to succeed would create a problematic precedent for future land-use reviews.
Legal counsel told the board the clerk's office showed a filing fee had been paid before the application appeared on the planning agenda, and that the board must be careful about rescinding prior motions. "You can only rescind motions that were passed by this board," the city attorney said, adding that in some cases a subsequent ordinance can override an earlier action rather than simply rescinding it. The attorney advised the board to weigh the legal consequences and advised additional research before reversing prior approvals.
The exchange became part of a wider discussion about process and transparency. Commissioners and planning-commission members in the room urged that the planning commission’s review rights be respected, noting that the commission evaluates completed applications to ensure required information is present. Several board members said they wanted the attorney to research whether rescission or a new ordinance was the appropriate remedy.
In the same discussion period, petitioners who oppose the renaming of Evan Street asked the board to restore the old name or place a commemorative marker, saying many residents who signed the petitions expect the street-name change to be reversed. The petitioner argued a marker would honor the person without requiring residents and businesses to change addresses. The city attorney said placing a sign or marker is one option and explained there are different legal steps for rescinding an ordinance versus passing a new one to override it.
What happens next: the board agreed to take time to research the legal options identified by counsel and to follow up with the planning commission. No final rescission vote was taken at the meeting.
