Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Aldermen deadlock over a request to resume BeltLine public hearing, citing mixed legal advice
Summary
Pacific aldermen pressed to resume a planning-and-zoning public hearing on the BeltLine data-center application but two motions to ask the commission to resume failed; the planning commission had previously replied noncommittally and sent only an invoice payment.
Citizens and several aldermen urged Pacific's Board of Aldermen to ask the Planning and Zoning Commission to resume a public hearing on the BeltLine rezoning and PUD application; after debate the board twice failed to pass motions requesting resumption.
At the meeting a resident, Gene Elkins, told the board he had attended the first BeltLine pitch and accused the applicant of providing inconsistent water-use estimates — saying he recalled a statement that the applicant would need 1,400,000 gallons per day while the applicant later told Franklin County it needed 20,000 gallons per day. "They're being disingenuous with somebody," Elkins said.
Planning and zoning staff told the Board that the city had sent BeltLine a letter asking whether the applicant intended to withdraw or to reschedule the hearing and that BeltLine had replied in a noncommittal way, returning only payment for an invoice. Several aldermen argued the Board should make a formal request that the planning commission set the matter back on its calendar; others cautioned that the Board should not appear to direct the commission or to pressure volunteer commission members. Legal counsel gave two related views in separate meetings: one attorney warned against pressuring the commission; the city attorney present said it would be lawful for the Board to ask the commission to consider resuming the hearing, though not to direct it.
Two separate attempts to record the board's request failed (a voice vote and a later roll call produced votes recorded as 2-4 in opposition on related motions). A later modified motion to have the city administrator send a written request and to attend the next planning-and-zoning meeting also failed on a 2 yes/4 no tally as recorded by the clerk.
Why it matters: BeltLine's application has been a recurring, high-interest item for residents. Resuming or withdrawing the application would determine whether the city proceeds with the local review of a major land-use proposal; the item is also linked to overlapping county-level review.
What's next: Planning and Zoning has scheduled meetings in July, and planning staff said they will continue to watch county decisions. Residents were urged to attend the upcoming planning-and-zoning meeting scheduled for July 14 to follow developments.
