CC MIN 1970 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

208 Councilman Keckley noted that the Committee was requesting guidance relative to their recommendation for procedure for handling applications for extensions of time for nonconforming signs, and that a number of protests have been received. The Chief Building Official was requesting guidelines as to the number of appeals to be taken up with the Council at a time, and it was felt that requesting review by the Ordinance Review Committee for recommendations prior to formal hearing by Council might be considered invalid if appellant is not given the opportunity to make an appearance. Council discussed this problem and it was learned that a number of applications are pending, some of which failed to file appeal within required ten days. Chief Building Official noted that hearing the volume of appeals could very well take up the better part of a Council meeting. Councilman Keckley indicated there were some situations of extenuating circumstances, hardship, etc., and felt it might be advisable to set up a special review committee as a buffer group to hear these cases and thus save time at Council meetings. However, it was pointed out the appeals would still need to be brought before Council. Two alternatives were suggested by City Attorney. One method would be to retain Code in its present form, with applicant invited to meet with the Committee and informed the purpose was for screening purposes only, and that the Committee had no power other than function to recommend, Another would be to amend the Code, setting up actual review requirements for a Council Committee, and making this a specific procedural part of the Code. Responding to request by Council as to which he recommended, City Attorney indicated the informational procedure might be workable, but would be inclined to suggest setting up a review function, which the Code does not provide for at present. There was further discussion as to the delay entailed by this method. Chief Building Official discussed scheduling of appeals, recommending no fewer than 8 to 10 per meeting, since reducing this number any further would result in carry-over well into next year. City Attorney suggested a third alternative, to set up a separate Appeals Board as such, which would, in effect, take the place of Council as far as review is concerned, similar to Building Review Board, which would be set up at a different level. Councilman Keckley expressed disapproval of that method, feeling that Council should control Ordinance, and that the responsibility should remain with Council, An Appeal Board composed of Council members was discussed, and it was indicated by City Attorney that it was his recollection the law would permit an Appeals Board and yet allow from that Board to the full Council, although this procedure has been criticized since a portion of the vote is already preordained, It was noted by Council the volume of appeals