Laserfiche WebLink
were deployed to New York and Washington D.C. after September 11. She <br /> further stated that Police Sergeant Keith Harper is still serving in Washington, <br /> D.C. in a military and intelligence capacity and wanted to send regards to him. <br /> <br /> 9. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS- None <br /> <br /> 10. PUBLIC HEARING- <br /> <br /> A. Appeal of a permit approval for a for large family day care home at 1232 <br /> Maxwell Lane; <br /> <br /> Council Member Hartnett stated that in reviewing and discussing this matter with <br /> the City Attorney, it appears that the Council is at a point of both a procedural and <br /> substantive legal problem. He stated that there has been substantial information <br /> from both the applicant and the appellant regarding the conditions of the approval. <br /> Underlying the decision is the legal ability of the Council to make a decision. He <br /> further stated that although not legally problematic, the acknowledgement must be <br /> made that the ordinance properly adopted and published is different from the <br /> ordinance that was published for general public consumption in the Zoning <br /> Ordinance which is accessed on the City's website. This caused confusion to those <br /> people seeking to comply with-the ordinance in terms of the application process <br /> and those exercising their dghts in contesting the permit. <br /> <br /> Council Member Hartnett stated that more importantly, from the legal point of view, <br /> in reviewing the ordinance it appears that when the ordinance was enacted the <br /> provisions that were added in the non-discretionary permit selection from State <br /> Law went beyond Council authority. Specifically, when Council added items not <br /> required by State Law such as notice to the neighborhood and creating a hearing <br /> process, upon legal review, appear to be beyond Council authority. If so, the <br /> conclusion would be that Council does not actually have the legal right to make a <br /> decision on the merits of the appeal because of not having jurisdiction to do so. <br /> <br /> Council Member Hartnett further stated that while people are entitled to speak to <br /> the issue, based on the state of the law, Council would have to make a decision <br /> that in effect acknowledges receipt of the appeal, but then denies the appeal <br /> based on the fact that the Council has no jurisdiction. He stated the importance of <br /> making the points early in the discussion of the item. <br /> <br /> City Attomey Yamamoto stated he spent considerable time studying the issue and <br /> that it is clear that in the year 2000, Council did introduce, adopt and publish an <br /> ordinance. The ordinance provided for the applicant to make notice to neighbors <br /> within the area and specifically provided for an appeal process to the City Council. <br /> The problem with the ordinance is that under State Law, the State Legislature <br /> determined that child care is a matter of statewide concern. To Municipal <br /> attorneys, that language is a statement that the State is taking jurisdiction over how <br /> <br />REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 22, 2002 <br />MINUTES PAGE 5 <br /> <br /> <br />