03-08-95 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MARCH 8, 1995 The City Attorney replied that that would be correct. Scalze pointed out that the Subdivision Ordinance does not say a super-majority vote is required. The City Attorney replied that it does by reference. Fahey asked if it made sense to have a different standard for the Subdivision Ordinance than the Zoning Ordinance. Fahey felt it made sense to have the same standards apply for both ordinances. Scalze felt that typically the super majority vote has not been a problem. The problem arises when a City Council member must take himself out of the decision. Then a super majority becomes a totality. Fahey felt that if the Council feels comfortable with the standards under the two ordinances, then variances to those standards should require a simple majority. Fahey stated that in his 12 years on the Council, his recollection is that a super majority vote was required of variances to both the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances. If a change is to be made to a simple majority for the Subdivision ordinance, Fahey felt that change should apply to the Zoning Ordinance as well. Scalze felt that to make a change would require a lot more thought. Fahey pointed out that the City Attorney has reported that there is a conflict in the Subdivision Ordinance. Morelan felt that with either Code it would seem that there is good reason for requiring 4 votes to approve a variance. Morelan asked if this requirement was dictated by State law. The City Attorney reported that State Law requires a 2/3rd's vote of the Council to amend the text of the Zoninq Code. The super majority vote is a Zoning Code requirement for approval of variances. Fahey pointed out that a simple majority vote would result in looser application of Code requirements such as street widths, cul-de-sac lengths, etc. Scalze felt the issue should be discussed after the 6