And a jolly good time was had by all, if you're a fan of clusterf#%&$!
The PRU Crew would like to point out that we strongly believe, on the issue of voting to appeal from the decision of the chair regarding his ruling on the motion to reconsider being out of order, the Council is in violation of the law.
In support of our belief, we offer --
Appeals that cannot be entertainedThe City's Zoning law, an established operative law, providing fact, truth and rule is unequivocally clear -
Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised states that "when the chair rules on a question about which there cannot possibly be two reasonable opinions, an appeal would be dilatory and is not allowed." Demeter's Manual recommends using the mnemonic devices F, T, R, L and J, O, D to remember that no appeals can be taken from the Chair's rulings which arise out of known Facts, evident Truths, established Rules or operative Laws, but can be taken only from rulings which are based on his personal Judgment, Opinion or Discretion.
H. Limitations on denials
"No application for a variance which has been denied by the City Council or Zoning Board of Appeals shall be reconsidered for a period of one (1) year from that date of denial."
And we note the City Attorney's opinion on the matter. We also note the City Council's lack of understanding the necessary fine point of the language denying an application versus preventing applicants from coming before the public body more than once in a given year. It is reasonable to deny repetition of specific applications while allowing applicants to submit as many different applications before the public body as he or she can possibly muster.
So gentlemen of the City Council, if you are going to cite and follow the rules provided for by Robert's Rules of Order and the City's laws, then it appears you've once again screwed the legal pooch.
17 comments:
...<<>>>... A monumental moment of completely getting it wrong!
"..........on the issue of voting to appeal from the decision of the chair regarding his ruling on the motion to reconsider being out of order, the Council is a violation of the law".
WHAT?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Anon@5:24 --
Read and digest the entire post. Then, if you are still "WHAT?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!"-ing your way through the issue, ask your questions. We will do our best to clarify the matter for you, as we understand it.
And we're amused by your having waited all day before asking.
Off topic a bit but, do we know who is running for new positions in the Spring? I didn't see anything online at the Advocate?
Anon@6:05 --
Yes, we do.
6:05,
In the video the clerk said who would be running.
Only the first and seventh wards will have choices for candidates.
The Park Ridge TribLocal has an article on it.
I finally watched the video and I agree with the PRU, the whole thing was a cluster****.
Maybe some new blood will do a better job. I don't think it could get much worse.
Is there a video for the budget talks?
Anon@11:53 --
We understand there should be, but it has not been uploaded to the City's YouTube account.
The question would not be whether or not it was a "different" application, but whether or not the new application was materially or substantively different from the previous application.
The purpose of the ordinance/law is to prevent repetitious requests that will clog the system, while allowing for reconsideration of the request in view of the fact that circumstances may change after a year. This would be analogous to someone filing repeated lawsuits that have been dismissed, without a substantive difference in the claim.
For instance, if a variance is denied and the property is then sold, the new owner could bring a "different" application for the same variance. The burden would be on the new owner to prove why his/her request should not be considered a duplicate application.
Likewise, the same owner might file a new application changing the variance request in a minuscule or insignificant manner (ex. moving a building 1/2 inch) so as to make the application substantially the same. The owner would have the burden of proof to show why that application should not be considered the same or it could be dismissed under the 1 year rule.
Filing a new application with all the facts and requests being the same does not make it "different."
Anon@12:52 --
We look forward to your addressing these issues with the City Council.
I would if it affected me; was just addressing the larger point.
Anon@1:17 --
Thank you for the chuckles.
Although I don't know what was so amusing, I'm glad I could brighten your day.
Merry Christmas!!
1:23,
My guess is that PRU found your comment chuckle worthy because .....
the thought that this doesn't affect you is such a fundamentally stupid comment, it demanded a chuckle and no doubt a sigh partnered with a head shake, wondering how it's possible that people "just don't get it".
Anon@1:23:
I meant that I was not a direct party of the variance, nor would my quality of life or daily activities be directly impacted; otherwise referred to as "not having a dog in the fight," or whatever phrase you (or PRU) might understand.
While every decision of the City "affects" every resident in some way, not every decision has such a direct impact that every person deems it either necessary or appropriate to appear before the City Council and provide comments or opinions. If that were the case, nothing would ever get done because thousands of people would appear to speak on each and every vote.
What I was trying to do was provide some broad insight into the discussion of what the words of the law meant, beyond the specific vote. Maybe it could have been worded better, but I was trying to keep it pithy.
Sorry if that counts as "stupid" in your world. Maybe, you're the one who can't "get it."
12/29/10 4:09
You are talking about how you are being broad in your insight but you don't get it because you are only talking about it applying to one property.
Your insight isn't broad because applicants could be working on more than one property.
That is why the law doesn't limit people it limits properties and variances for a project.
YOu don't get it and you are stupid.
Post a Comment