Minutes 06/14/2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

June 14. 2005 However, the meetings did not materialize in the matter and I think in some instances maybe by virtue of the fact that I made that recommendation and my colleagues voted along with me on that, the meetings were set up and I wanted the records to be straight. The meetings were set up not by Councilwoman Marlene Randall but it was set up by the staff and the parties were invited into the meetings. I did not call the meetings; I did not call either of you for the meeting. It was called from the staff and when I found that the information that we were given, it showed that the churches, the City lost out in religious cases of prosecution. I want to do the right thing. I don't know the law, that's why we have a lawyer and as such I voted that we would approve it. I'm not one for breaking the law but when it gets to the point that it becomes personal to involve other issues that have nothing to do with the law, I think it is out of place. But from the cases that we have had put before us tonight it states that we did, in fact, vote to deny some applications. So with the information that we had maybe we were premature in voting on that because there's an area here that refers to neighborhood quality. It's very hard to change a neighborhood's point of view when minds are made up. And so the only thing I can say to you is that I encouraged you all based on the information that was given to me and I wish you God Speed in what happens. But right now, at this point, we are tied between 2 sets of laws of what happened in the last few years, and I was only here for 2 or 3 of those cases, and what happened in the past according to the attorney. That's unfortunate. But somewhere we are going to get the guidance to do the correct thing and I wish you well. 3. Ed Forlines, 617 London Street, spoke in opposition to this item. Motion by Mr. Whitehurst, and seconded by Mr. Smith, to deny the following resolution, approved on first reading at the May 24, 2005 meeting, and was denied by the following vote: "Y The following is a statement from Vice Mayor Moody: As I mentioned earlier tonight, we've had over 38 speakers counting the couple of speakers that we had tonight. During the Public Hearing and the weeks that followed, the following reasons have been given to deny this use permit: 1. Asbestos, which proved to be false. 2. Lead contamination, that didn't pan out either. 3. Parking, that's probably still questionable although the applicant did address the issue with auxiliary parking at I. C. Norcom High School. 4. Legionnaires Disease came into the picture. I don't know where that went. Never heard anymore from Mr. Legionnaire. 5. Then it was said that the taxes were unpaid but according to the City Attorney the taxes are current on the building. 6. Then we hear tonight the 2-acre rule. Apparently if there is a 2-acre rule, 15 or 17 churches downtown, only one church sits on a 2 acre plaza. So that one falls by the wayside. So there have been a lot of things thrown up over this use permit and a lot of things said. I think all of us have been lobbied to a certain extent and that's as the system should be. There's nothing wrong with that. But in voting on this use permit I think there is only one valid reason to deny it, can't deny it on those 6 or 7 items, and that's what the citizens feel about it. Early when I came onto Council, there were ywo similar issues. We tend to forget the turn outs. I don't think the speakers were close to 38 but they were just as passionate. One involved the Olive Branch Little League Baseball Field, believe it or not, they wanted to put a cell phone tower right outside the outfield fence. The other issue was another cell phone tower and this one was proposed to be erected at the Churchland Elementary School yard or at least adjacent to it. In both cases citizens came to this Chamber, they spoke very passionately against it. I think they probably did a better job getting the factual stuff down in presenting a case but the bottom line was the Council voted to deny that based the citizens' opposition. I might say the cell phone carrier came prepared with some pretty high paid attorneys, I think they came from Washington. There was a no contest because the citizens came better prepared than the attorneys were.