CC MIN 1970 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

275 distinction was that on rezoning matters, the Ordinance required public hearing; on the parking restrictions, no public hearing is required as such, since it is strictly a legislative matter, structurally under cognizance of the Council. City Attorney further advised that in the event any person present tonight wished to give testimony on the matter, it was his impression the type of evidence would be such that it would be more appropriate at a public hearing, where the proponent would be able to respond. He recommended that, if the public hearing is to be reopened, with the attendant necessary republishing and renoticing, two motions be made: First, to rescind the motion to introduce the ordinance, and second, to reopen the public hearing. There was additional discussion by Council, during which City Attorney advised of the effect of tabling a motion, which would be to suspend action indefinitely. Councilman Rhodes moved to table the motion, seconded by Councilman Henderson. Council discussed this procedure further, and City Attorney commented that justification for ordinance of this type should be predicated on evidence at a public hearing, that Council may feel there is new evidence, or that evidence was not covered, and that there might not have been a full hearing. Motion to table carried on roll call vote, Councilmen Henderson, Rhodes, and Mayor Bury voting yes; and Councilmen Petersen and Weymouth voting no. Councilmen Arnett and Keckley noted absent. Councilman Petersen questioned legality of opening a new public hearing, considering the fact there had already been a public hearing, and ordinance had been introduced. City Attorney commented on this, and added that his recommendation earlier had been to rescind the ordinance and reopen the public hearing, however, tabling had put it in a state of suspension, and motion would have to be revived from the table. It would then permit a fresh approach, as to whether to go forward with adoption of the ordinance or reverse introduction and have another public hearing. Councilman Petersen offered the motion to remove the item from the table for the purpose of discussing dispensation, seconded by Councilman Weymouth, City Attorney noted one preclusion, as far as participation, was that those not present for the first public hearing may not vote on adoption. He indicated also that it might be useful to be apprised of whether, in fact, there was new evidence to indicate justification for reopening the public hearing. Mayor Bury responded that he had received indications from some persons who had felt their opinion was not accurately based on real facts of the issue. Councilman Petersen