Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procedural Integrity topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident questions petition filing and traffic study for rezoning; attorney says owner consent included
Summary
A resident told the council the rezoning petition for Ordinance 26‑27 was improperly filed and lacked a traffic study; the petitioner's attorney said the owner signed notarized consent and the application included commitments to require a traffic impact study and road improvements.
During the public comment period, resident John Gantevo argued the rezoning petition underlying Ordinance 26‑27 was procedurally flawed, saying the petitions “must be filed by the owner” under provisions he cited from the Greenwood Municipal Code and the Indiana Code and that the packet lacked a completed traffic study. Gantevo urged the council to send the application back to planning for additional review.
Counsel for the petitioner, Joe Calder, responded that owner consent had been signed and notarized and included in the packet sent to staff, saying the materials were reviewed. Calder told the council: “We did have the owner sign and notarized consent to file on behalf of the owner when we file the rezoning petition. It was included in our packet that we sent to, Gabe Nelson who reviewed it and accepted it.” The council heard both positions before adopting an amendment and ultimately voting to approve the ordinance.
