Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Statutory Factors topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board flags 1992 offense date and petitioner's age in deliberations
Summary
Counsel suggested adding brief findings for each ordinance factor, including noting the date of the offense (December 1992) and that the petitioner was 35 at the time; members discussed how those facts should affect the board's decision.
Counsel reminded the board that the village ordinance lists 15 factors the panel must consider and proposed adding short findings for each. On the date-of-offense factor counsel suggested the statement might read that "the date of offense was 1992," and members debated whether the elapsed time since the offense altered the board's view.
The board also discussed the petitioner's age at the time of the offense. Counsel noted, "He was 35 years old," and members exchanged views about whether that age and the nature of the offense increase the risk of reoffending in a way relevant to the ordinance's child-safety focus.
