January 1979 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Here is a letter that was sent to Mayor Commission last October. It was received too but really deserves your attention: Gentlemen: Cre eau a , p and to the Planning late for the last Town Crier, L. . z 1 would like to tender my resignation on the Planning Commission. I have en- , joyed the service on the Commission, but feel that it is no longer possible for the Commission to serve its stated purpose. Primarily, the Commission does not have the time to consider the tremendous ' detail that goes into major applications for building permits. The developers have put an inordinate amount of pressure on the staff, which generally re- sults in many instances of no advance memorandums from the city planner upon which the Commission can predicate their deliberations. Secondly, even when time is not of utmost .consideration, the developers, in many instances, piecemeal their approach to the city planner, which further inhibits him from giving us the kind of analysis that he would like to. An example of this is the approval at the last meeting of signs for Mutual Ser- vice and Flaherty's, when only the applicant for Mutual Service appeared, and then without benefit of memorandums discussing compliance with a none -existing ordinance. , Thirdly, there are many instances of non-compliance with existing ordinances, which are not being enforced in the city, ranging form signage to mn-permitted uses which makes,the restrictions placed by the Planning Commission on any one' applicant seemingly hypocritical to new developers who comply to existing ordinances. Fourthly, while it was absolutely necessary to have expertise on the Planning Commission that parallels the subject matter of rational development, many times potentials for conflict of interest arise.- Abstention from voting has eliminated this, but the problem is ever present. 1 Fifthly, the size of the agenda not only causes inadequate consideration of all matters, but it forces the Commission to deliberate on matters of utmost importance as late as 1:00, 2:00, and 3:00 a.m. This not only abuses the quality of recommendations but obviously affects the public aspect of the hear- ings, so that they are, indeed, not really public at all. I 1 Lastly, the ordinances themselves need substantial revision. While fine efforts are being made by members to the Planning Commission to do this, (i.e., the sign ordinance), it would seem to me advisable to have the whole ordinance re- viewed by the City Attorney in conjunction with various members of the Commit- tee, on a section -by -section basis. Wb only have to witness the recent debate over what was a drive-in bank and what was not a drive-in bank to make those concerns more poignant. It is for these kinds of reasons that I feel constrained to resign as I have viewed these limitations as contraindicating an ability to do a good job. However, I truly admire those who will remain in the trenches to do the best ' they can, given the logistical and legal limitations imposed on them. i Very truly yours, ' Terence J. McCloskey i