Eklund Garden is located off Oak Valley Road near Nells Rock Road. It is a City-owned parcel of Preserved Open Space that is within the Shelton Lakes Greenway corridor. A portion of the parcel has gardens that were intended to illustrate the value of native species plantings for landscaping. Too often, invasive or foreign plants take over our landscapes, when there are native plants that can provide aesthetic needs.
Not to long into the concept of the Eklund Garden of native species, it was decided that it might also be a good study habitat regarding the destruction of the overabundant deer population. The entire perimeter was barriered with deer fence and entry/exit gates to create a study area unharmed by the hungry deer.
In addition, the garden is being visited by an autistic woman as the gardening (weeding) activity is very therapeutic.
The Valley Independent Sentinel had an article on this use.
http://valley.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/shelton_garden_model_for_autism_farm/
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Animal Shelter Site - CtPost
The CtPost had an article today (actually it will appear in ThuOct1 deadwood version) that relates to site evaluation by the Conservation Commission for an Animal Control Facility. There isn't much to comment on within the article, but I present it hear for posterity as the CtPost occassionaly deletes links.
I encourage readers to go to the ConnPost article as they are the content creator of the article and have methods for readers to comment on their aritlces within their website. I cut/paste with my comments under right of fair-use for public education as Chairman of the Conservation Commission.
http://www.connpost.com/news/ci_13453974
Site chosen for Shelton animal shelter
By Kate RamunniSTAFF WRITER
Updated: 09/30/2009 05:05:52 PM EDT
SHELTON -- After years of wrangling, city officials appear to have settled on a spot for the city's new animal shelter - and it's only yards away from the existing one.
A building on Riverdale Avenue, known as the Pink Elephant, would be demolished to make way for the new shelter under the current proposal the Animal Shelter Building Committee is considering.
"We haven't decided upon it as much as the mayor has asked us to look at it," committee chairman, Tony Minopoli, said. "We are in the process of trying to verify if it will work."
For the past several years the committee has been designing the new shelter and looking for somewhere to put it. Originally they investigated the site next to the Pink Elephant building and had extensive environmental tests done there to make sure it is usable.
But then Mayor Mark A. Lauretti, who originally established the committee because he said the current shelter is woefully outdated, asked the committee to look into a city-owned site on Nells Rock Road where a proposed dog park is being considered.
But that suggestion drew criticism from both neighbors and members of the Conservation Commission, which maintains the open space there along the Shelton Greenway.
"No matter where around the city you suggest a site, there are people that will say I'm against it," said Board of Aldermen president John Anglace. The committee must get the board's approval on a site before going forward with construction of a new shelter. "It's the most difficult things to do -- to find a reasonable location for a new animal shelter," Anglace said. "[The Pink Elephant site] seems to make the most sense."
The committee is investigating constructing a 5,000 square-foot metal building on whatever site is chosen that will include 30 dog runs and an area for cat adoptions, Minopoli said. It also will have an adoption area where those interested in adopting can get to know their prospective pet.
"The basic tenants of the plan remain unchanged," he said. A metal building will be more economical, he said, and improvements in the building technology mean that it will be much more visually pleasing than such buildings have been in the past.
"The things you can do to the outside of these buildings are tremendous," he said. "We have designed it to make look like a New England-style barn with cupolas - it's going to be a very attractive building and the maintenance cost should be low."
More environmental testing will likely have to be done, Minopoli said, and the items in the building, which has been used for storage, will have to be relocated. "We likely would do more testing to be absolutely sure that there are no environmental problems," he said, and would have to investigate other utility issues before moving forward with the site.
"Nothing is firm yet but these are our thoughts and the direction we would like to see this project go," Anglace said. "I think it is a good direction to get this project moving."
I encourage readers to go to the ConnPost article as they are the content creator of the article and have methods for readers to comment on their aritlces within their website. I cut/paste with my comments under right of fair-use for public education as Chairman of the Conservation Commission.
http://www.connpost.com/news/ci_13453974
Site chosen for Shelton animal shelter
By Kate RamunniSTAFF WRITER
Updated: 09/30/2009 05:05:52 PM EDT
SHELTON -- After years of wrangling, city officials appear to have settled on a spot for the city's new animal shelter - and it's only yards away from the existing one.
A building on Riverdale Avenue, known as the Pink Elephant, would be demolished to make way for the new shelter under the current proposal the Animal Shelter Building Committee is considering.
"We haven't decided upon it as much as the mayor has asked us to look at it," committee chairman, Tony Minopoli, said. "We are in the process of trying to verify if it will work."
For the past several years the committee has been designing the new shelter and looking for somewhere to put it. Originally they investigated the site next to the Pink Elephant building and had extensive environmental tests done there to make sure it is usable.
But then Mayor Mark A. Lauretti, who originally established the committee because he said the current shelter is woefully outdated, asked the committee to look into a city-owned site on Nells Rock Road where a proposed dog park is being considered.
But that suggestion drew criticism from both neighbors and members of the Conservation Commission, which maintains the open space there along the Shelton Greenway.
"No matter where around the city you suggest a site, there are people that will say I'm against it," said Board of Aldermen president John Anglace. The committee must get the board's approval on a site before going forward with construction of a new shelter. "It's the most difficult things to do -- to find a reasonable location for a new animal shelter," Anglace said. "[The Pink Elephant site] seems to make the most sense."
The committee is investigating constructing a 5,000 square-foot metal building on whatever site is chosen that will include 30 dog runs and an area for cat adoptions, Minopoli said. It also will have an adoption area where those interested in adopting can get to know their prospective pet.
"The basic tenants of the plan remain unchanged," he said. A metal building will be more economical, he said, and improvements in the building technology mean that it will be much more visually pleasing than such buildings have been in the past.
"The things you can do to the outside of these buildings are tremendous," he said. "We have designed it to make look like a New England-style barn with cupolas - it's going to be a very attractive building and the maintenance cost should be low."
More environmental testing will likely have to be done, Minopoli said, and the items in the building, which has been used for storage, will have to be relocated. "We likely would do more testing to be absolutely sure that there are no environmental problems," he said, and would have to investigate other utility issues before moving forward with the site.
"Nothing is firm yet but these are our thoughts and the direction we would like to see this project go," Anglace said. "I think it is a good direction to get this project moving."
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Mayor asks PZC for 8-24: CtPost Sep10
I encourage readers to go to the CTPost article as they are the content creator of the article and have methods for readers to comment on their aritlces within their website. I cut/paste with my comments under right of fair-use for public education as Chairman of the Conservation Commission.
http://www.connpost.com/news/ci_13303786
Lauretti, Democrats at odds over zoning panel rules
By Kate Ramunni STAFF WRITER
Updated: 09/09/2009 11:38:16 PM EDT
SHELTON -- For the third time this year, the Planning and Zoning Commission has been asked to render an opinion on whether the city should sell several properties, and each time the answer has been different.
+++ Every request made for referral comments has it's own paramaters of what is being proposed that the requestor is seeking comment on. This is true of subdivision proposals/applications, and referrals under Ct Gen Statutes Sec 8-24.+++
The first time it debated the question of whether it would recommend selling a portion of the Soundview Avenue property the city bought last year for open space; the commission said yes.
The second time it came up, the commission reversed itself and said no.
+++The Mayor's office made a request for PZC comment regarding disposition of City property located at 279 Soundview Ave and this was addressed by PZC Mar10. The BOA followed City ordinance # 839 by preparing their packet describing the issue, and requested comment from the Park&Rec and ConsComm (both were unanimous to not sell the land in respect to the proposal defined in the BOA packet's request). The BOA then after receiving those responses moving further to request comment from the PZC on the same proposal CC and PRC had commented on (and the response to this request with its paramaters was unanimous to not sell the land) +++
On Tuesday, it once again looked favorably on the proposal. But some commissioners were angry that the issue even came up again.
+++ The Mayor's office asked the Chairman of the PZC for a referral/comment regarding disposition of City property located at 279 Soundview Ave, and this was addressed by PZC on Sep8 where the outcome was along party lines rendering a favorable opinion to sell. +++
"I'm fit to be tied," said commission member Chris Jones, who is running for mayor on the Democratic ticket. "This was totally done illegally in my eyes -- the whole vote was illegal."
+++ Though I understand his frustration, he is not correct in stating the vote was illegal. The Mayor can ask any commission at any time for advice on any subject. He is the Chief Elected Official and that is his right. +++
That's because the third request for the 8-24 referral, named for the state statute that requires it in the process to sell city-owned property, came not from the Board of Aldermen, but from Mayor Mark A. Lauretti.
"The chairman was instructed by the mayor to put it back on the agenda, and that is illegal," Jones said. "They didn't follow the ordinance, they are following the mayor."
+++ The Mayor has the right to request a referral and it is not illegal, but it is a different and separate request. I don't know what information was provided with the Mayor's request to the PZC, but from the P&Z Commissioner comments, there seemed to be maps that they didn't have before, so something different was provided them. Yes the Mayor contacted the PZC Chair to request/demand that his request be put on their agenda, and from the comments made by several commissioners, it seems to indicate that the Mayor had talked to them regarding this subject, or that he instructed the Chairman to talk to them regarding this subject. All those actions are not illegal, not inappropriate, and are moot because the Mayor's request and package of documents related to his request is a different subject and paramaters than the package of documents related to the BOA request that was the same as those sent previously to the ParkRec, ConsComm and PZC when they all three rendered unanimous decisions to not sell the City property. +++
Lauretti wants the city to carve out an acre of the 14-acre site to sell. He said that he has the authority to request 8-24 referrals, as well as the aldermen.
+++ The Mayor is correct. Unfortunately, his request is a different one than the process of commenting on the request made from the BOA where the information provided by them to the PRC, CC and PZC was from an identical package with no hint of apples vs oranges. +++
"This is a piece of property that we should sell," Lauretti said. "It has no economic impact on anyone or anything but the bottom line -- this is a business decision."
+++ That is not true, and is an offensive comment to me given the efforts made to follow a process that is defined for a purpose. There is more to the equation and "business decision" that the BOA will have to make than purely economics. The Park & Recreation Commission has commented from a perspective regarding the parcel's sale impacting any recreational value of the community. The Conservation Commission has commented from a perspective regarding the parcel's sale impacting any environmental value of the community. The Planning & Zoning Commission has given a referral as outlined by State Statute 8-24 from a overall planning perspective regarding the parcels value to the community's needs. +++
Jones is wrong about the whole issue, Lauretti said. "He doesn't know what he is talking about once again," he said. "He is uninformed and very deceptive."
+++ When it comes toward election time, there is a lot of mis-information to go around on all sides. +++
Jones and commission alternate Joseph Sedlock were the only commissioners who voted against recommending the sale. Sedlock was sitting in for Commissioner Leon J. Sylvester, who had to attend a wake Tuesday night. The three are the commission's only Democrats.
+++ Issues regarding property acquisition or disposition should not be politicized, but rather be based on the facts. That is why there is a process in place to ensure these subjects are dealt with transparently, rigorously, and promptly. The process is being corrupted. +++
http://www.connpost.com/news/ci_13303786
Lauretti, Democrats at odds over zoning panel rules
By Kate Ramunni STAFF WRITER
Updated: 09/09/2009 11:38:16 PM EDT
SHELTON -- For the third time this year, the Planning and Zoning Commission has been asked to render an opinion on whether the city should sell several properties, and each time the answer has been different.
+++ Every request made for referral comments has it's own paramaters of what is being proposed that the requestor is seeking comment on. This is true of subdivision proposals/applications, and referrals under Ct Gen Statutes Sec 8-24.+++
The first time it debated the question of whether it would recommend selling a portion of the Soundview Avenue property the city bought last year for open space; the commission said yes.
The second time it came up, the commission reversed itself and said no.
+++The Mayor's office made a request for PZC comment regarding disposition of City property located at 279 Soundview Ave and this was addressed by PZC Mar10. The BOA followed City ordinance # 839 by preparing their packet describing the issue, and requested comment from the Park&Rec and ConsComm (both were unanimous to not sell the land in respect to the proposal defined in the BOA packet's request). The BOA then after receiving those responses moving further to request comment from the PZC on the same proposal CC and PRC had commented on (and the response to this request with its paramaters was unanimous to not sell the land) +++
On Tuesday, it once again looked favorably on the proposal. But some commissioners were angry that the issue even came up again.
+++ The Mayor's office asked the Chairman of the PZC for a referral/comment regarding disposition of City property located at 279 Soundview Ave, and this was addressed by PZC on Sep8 where the outcome was along party lines rendering a favorable opinion to sell. +++
"I'm fit to be tied," said commission member Chris Jones, who is running for mayor on the Democratic ticket. "This was totally done illegally in my eyes -- the whole vote was illegal."
+++ Though I understand his frustration, he is not correct in stating the vote was illegal. The Mayor can ask any commission at any time for advice on any subject. He is the Chief Elected Official and that is his right. +++
That's because the third request for the 8-24 referral, named for the state statute that requires it in the process to sell city-owned property, came not from the Board of Aldermen, but from Mayor Mark A. Lauretti.
"The chairman was instructed by the mayor to put it back on the agenda, and that is illegal," Jones said. "They didn't follow the ordinance, they are following the mayor."
+++ The Mayor has the right to request a referral and it is not illegal, but it is a different and separate request. I don't know what information was provided with the Mayor's request to the PZC, but from the P&Z Commissioner comments, there seemed to be maps that they didn't have before, so something different was provided them. Yes the Mayor contacted the PZC Chair to request/demand that his request be put on their agenda, and from the comments made by several commissioners, it seems to indicate that the Mayor had talked to them regarding this subject, or that he instructed the Chairman to talk to them regarding this subject. All those actions are not illegal, not inappropriate, and are moot because the Mayor's request and package of documents related to his request is a different subject and paramaters than the package of documents related to the BOA request that was the same as those sent previously to the ParkRec, ConsComm and PZC when they all three rendered unanimous decisions to not sell the City property. +++
Lauretti wants the city to carve out an acre of the 14-acre site to sell. He said that he has the authority to request 8-24 referrals, as well as the aldermen.
+++ The Mayor is correct. Unfortunately, his request is a different one than the process of commenting on the request made from the BOA where the information provided by them to the PRC, CC and PZC was from an identical package with no hint of apples vs oranges. +++
"This is a piece of property that we should sell," Lauretti said. "It has no economic impact on anyone or anything but the bottom line -- this is a business decision."
+++ That is not true, and is an offensive comment to me given the efforts made to follow a process that is defined for a purpose. There is more to the equation and "business decision" that the BOA will have to make than purely economics. The Park & Recreation Commission has commented from a perspective regarding the parcel's sale impacting any recreational value of the community. The Conservation Commission has commented from a perspective regarding the parcel's sale impacting any environmental value of the community. The Planning & Zoning Commission has given a referral as outlined by State Statute 8-24 from a overall planning perspective regarding the parcels value to the community's needs. +++
Jones is wrong about the whole issue, Lauretti said. "He doesn't know what he is talking about once again," he said. "He is uninformed and very deceptive."
+++ When it comes toward election time, there is a lot of mis-information to go around on all sides. +++
Jones and commission alternate Joseph Sedlock were the only commissioners who voted against recommending the sale. Sedlock was sitting in for Commissioner Leon J. Sylvester, who had to attend a wake Tuesday night. The three are the commission's only Democrats.
+++ Issues regarding property acquisition or disposition should not be politicized, but rather be based on the facts. That is why there is a process in place to ensure these subjects are dealt with transparently, rigorously, and promptly. The process is being corrupted. +++
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
PZC on 279 Soundview Sep8
Last night (Sep8) the PZC had on their agenda some 8-24 referral items regarding disposition of various City parcels, and I'll stick to the item 279 Soundview Ave item VI-C for purposes of my comment. I was curious why this was on the agenda, since I knew the issue had already been dealt with, so I attended the PZC mtg.
As a refresher:
The BOA should be familiar with the process of disposing of City property since they passed the ordinance at their recent mtg of 2009Feb11.
The Mayor asked PZC to render an 8-24 referral on the parcel and the PZC had it on their agenda for Mar10. The PZC had a majority vote say that it was appropriate to be sold. Although the Mayor stated that his office has the prerogative to ask for referrals at any time and for any reason, at the BOA mtg of 2009Mar12, the BOA stated that the Mayor hadn't followed the disposition of land process that is in place and they would correct that going forward. This is referencing the City of Shelton Ordinance #839 process.
Once they sorted this out at the BOA mtg of 2009Apr9, the BOA began following the defined process. At that time they asked the CC and PRC to give their opinions. At the CC mtg of 2009May6, the CC both visited the site and looked at the maps provided us by Asst Corporation Counsel Ray Sous, collectively as part of the request, and had a split vote over a recommendation. We decided to investigate the UConn Farmlink program further as it may apply to this parcel, and informed the BOA of such action. At the CC mtg of 2009Jun3 the CC had further data regarding the program and to summarize: under the conditions presented, recommended not selling with the resulting letter that was sent to the BOA on Jun10.
At the Jul9 BOA mtg, (pg15) the BOA recognized the CC and PRC response (both unanimous not to sell) and voted to take the next step of requesting PZC comment under CGS Sec 8-24 regarding the City disposing of the parcel. At the Aug11 PZC mtg (pg26) the PZC evaluated and responded unanimously not to dispose of the parcel. A letter was written and communicated to the BOA promptly for their consideration at the upcoming Aug13 BOA mtg. The BOA on Aug13 was flummoxed by the unanimous PZC negative response and wanted to take time to read the minutes (which weren't available being that the PZC mtg was held 2 days previous) to understand more fully how the PZC decision was arrived at.
The BOA could have proceeded immediately on Aug13 under the process toward sale by attempting a 2/3 majority vote in order to over-ride the PZC referral opinion on the planning perspective, and gone on further by obtaining an appraisal. They chose to wait and read the minutes when they became available, which brings us to last night.
The PZC Chairman stated during the meeting that the Mayor contacted him to have the issue put back on the agenda, and it seemed obvious that the Mayor had communicated to several members that they should reconsider their previously rendered opinion. It was stated by P&Z Commissioners that they didn't have maps and all the data available to them at their Aug meeting. If that was the case then they should have tabled the issue, but I would be surprised if that statement was correct as the PZC minutes indicate a packet was distributed and the CC had all data including maps available to it back in May when it visited the site. Outside of my passion of this being a CC subject, I was curious and did some research on whether last nights PZC action was even appropriate.
The PZC operates under Roberts Rules of Order. A motion was made at the Aug11 PZC mtg and the action (sending the opinion letter to the BOA) was accomplished.
If there is ever a question about an action during a meeting, a body may take up a "motion to reconsider". That doesn't apply as the decision was made in a previous session that is closed.
Article VI, Sec. 36. Reconsider.1 This motion is peculiar in that the making of the motion has a higher rank than its consideration, and for a certain time prevents anything being done as the result of the vote it is proposed to reconsider. It can be made only on the day the vote to be reconsidered was taken, or on the next succeeding day, a legal holiday or a recess not being counted as a day. It must be made by one who voted with the prevailing side. Any member may second it. It can be made while any other question is pending, even if another member has the floor, or after it has been voted to adjourn, provided the chair has not declared the assembly adjourned. It may be made after the previous question has been ordered, in which case it and the motion to be reconsidered are undebatable.
If the session in which a motion is made has closed, and the body wanted to change it's mind, the appropriate direction would be to have a "motion to rescind". Rick had already taken action by delivering a letter to the BOA stating the PZC decision on the 8-24 referral. Such action could be "undone" since the BOA took no action after receiving the PZC letter, and thus there was left open a possibility that a "motion to rescind" would be capable - but that wasn't the way the PZC handled it - they simply voted on an 8-24 referral issue and put themselves in the position of again flip-flopping in what is the 3rd time of stating an opinion on the same issue.
Article VI, 37. Rescind, Repeal, or Annul. Any vote taken by an assembly, except those mentioned further on, may be rescinded by a majority vote, provided notice of the motion has been given at the previous meeting or in the call for this meeting; or it may be rescinded without notice by a two-thirds vote, or by a vote of a majority of the entire membership. The notice may be given when another question is pending, but cannot interrupt a member while speaking. To rescind is identical with the motion to amend something previously adopted, by striking out the entire by-law, rule, resolution, section, or paragraph, and is subject to all the limitations as to notice and vote that may be placed by the rules on similar amendments. It is a main motion without any privilege, and therefore can be introduced only when there is nothing else before the assembly. It cannot be made if the question can be reached by calling up the motion to reconsider which has been previously made. It may be made by any member; it is debatable, and yields to all privileged and incidental motions; and all of the subsidiary motions may be applied to it. The motion to rescind can be applied to votes on all main motions, including questions of privilege and orders of the day that have been acted upon, and to votes on an appeal, with the following exceptions: votes cannot be rescinded after something has been done as a result of that vote that the assembly cannot undo; or where it is in the nature of a contract and the other party is informed of the fact; or, where a resignation has been acted upon, or one has been elected to, or expelled from, membership or office, and was present or has been officially notified. In the case of expulsion, the only way to reverse the action afterwards is to restore the person to membership or office, which requires the same preliminary steps and vote as is required for an election.
===========SUMMARY ============
The #1 Public Official told the Chair of the PZC to have items placed on the agenda, and contacted P&Z commissioners to convince them to vote a certain way. The Chair did what the Mayor told him to do (the PZC took an item on it's agenda that had already been decided upon) and the commissioners contacted voted the way they were told (rendering an opposite decision on the same question upon which it had already issued a letter just one month previous). They should have instead "rescinded" their previous opinion and amended it to state a new opinion. End result is the same outcome, and some will say it's semantics, but rules of process are there for a reason.
As a refresher:
The BOA should be familiar with the process of disposing of City property since they passed the ordinance at their recent mtg of 2009Feb11.
The Mayor asked PZC to render an 8-24 referral on the parcel and the PZC had it on their agenda for Mar10. The PZC had a majority vote say that it was appropriate to be sold. Although the Mayor stated that his office has the prerogative to ask for referrals at any time and for any reason, at the BOA mtg of 2009Mar12, the BOA stated that the Mayor hadn't followed the disposition of land process that is in place and they would correct that going forward. This is referencing the City of Shelton Ordinance #839 process.
Once they sorted this out at the BOA mtg of 2009Apr9, the BOA began following the defined process. At that time they asked the CC and PRC to give their opinions. At the CC mtg of 2009May6, the CC both visited the site and looked at the maps provided us by Asst Corporation Counsel Ray Sous, collectively as part of the request, and had a split vote over a recommendation. We decided to investigate the UConn Farmlink program further as it may apply to this parcel, and informed the BOA of such action. At the CC mtg of 2009Jun3 the CC had further data regarding the program and to summarize: under the conditions presented, recommended not selling with the resulting letter that was sent to the BOA on Jun10.
At the Jul9 BOA mtg, (pg15) the BOA recognized the CC and PRC response (both unanimous not to sell) and voted to take the next step of requesting PZC comment under CGS Sec 8-24 regarding the City disposing of the parcel. At the Aug11 PZC mtg (pg26) the PZC evaluated and responded unanimously not to dispose of the parcel. A letter was written and communicated to the BOA promptly for their consideration at the upcoming Aug13 BOA mtg. The BOA on Aug13 was flummoxed by the unanimous PZC negative response and wanted to take time to read the minutes (which weren't available being that the PZC mtg was held 2 days previous) to understand more fully how the PZC decision was arrived at.
The BOA could have proceeded immediately on Aug13 under the process toward sale by attempting a 2/3 majority vote in order to over-ride the PZC referral opinion on the planning perspective, and gone on further by obtaining an appraisal. They chose to wait and read the minutes when they became available, which brings us to last night.
The PZC Chairman stated during the meeting that the Mayor contacted him to have the issue put back on the agenda, and it seemed obvious that the Mayor had communicated to several members that they should reconsider their previously rendered opinion. It was stated by P&Z Commissioners that they didn't have maps and all the data available to them at their Aug meeting. If that was the case then they should have tabled the issue, but I would be surprised if that statement was correct as the PZC minutes indicate a packet was distributed and the CC had all data including maps available to it back in May when it visited the site. Outside of my passion of this being a CC subject, I was curious and did some research on whether last nights PZC action was even appropriate.
The PZC operates under Roberts Rules of Order. A motion was made at the Aug11 PZC mtg and the action (sending the opinion letter to the BOA) was accomplished.
If there is ever a question about an action during a meeting, a body may take up a "motion to reconsider". That doesn't apply as the decision was made in a previous session that is closed.
Article VI, Sec. 36. Reconsider.1 This motion is peculiar in that the making of the motion has a higher rank than its consideration, and for a certain time prevents anything being done as the result of the vote it is proposed to reconsider. It can be made only on the day the vote to be reconsidered was taken, or on the next succeeding day, a legal holiday or a recess not being counted as a day. It must be made by one who voted with the prevailing side. Any member may second it. It can be made while any other question is pending, even if another member has the floor, or after it has been voted to adjourn, provided the chair has not declared the assembly adjourned. It may be made after the previous question has been ordered, in which case it and the motion to be reconsidered are undebatable.
If the session in which a motion is made has closed, and the body wanted to change it's mind, the appropriate direction would be to have a "motion to rescind". Rick had already taken action by delivering a letter to the BOA stating the PZC decision on the 8-24 referral. Such action could be "undone" since the BOA took no action after receiving the PZC letter, and thus there was left open a possibility that a "motion to rescind" would be capable - but that wasn't the way the PZC handled it - they simply voted on an 8-24 referral issue and put themselves in the position of again flip-flopping in what is the 3rd time of stating an opinion on the same issue.
Article VI, 37. Rescind, Repeal, or Annul. Any vote taken by an assembly, except those mentioned further on, may be rescinded by a majority vote, provided notice of the motion has been given at the previous meeting or in the call for this meeting; or it may be rescinded without notice by a two-thirds vote, or by a vote of a majority of the entire membership. The notice may be given when another question is pending, but cannot interrupt a member while speaking. To rescind is identical with the motion to amend something previously adopted, by striking out the entire by-law, rule, resolution, section, or paragraph, and is subject to all the limitations as to notice and vote that may be placed by the rules on similar amendments. It is a main motion without any privilege, and therefore can be introduced only when there is nothing else before the assembly. It cannot be made if the question can be reached by calling up the motion to reconsider which has been previously made. It may be made by any member; it is debatable, and yields to all privileged and incidental motions; and all of the subsidiary motions may be applied to it. The motion to rescind can be applied to votes on all main motions, including questions of privilege and orders of the day that have been acted upon, and to votes on an appeal, with the following exceptions: votes cannot be rescinded after something has been done as a result of that vote that the assembly cannot undo; or where it is in the nature of a contract and the other party is informed of the fact; or, where a resignation has been acted upon, or one has been elected to, or expelled from, membership or office, and was present or has been officially notified. In the case of expulsion, the only way to reverse the action afterwards is to restore the person to membership or office, which requires the same preliminary steps and vote as is required for an election.
===========SUMMARY ============
The #1 Public Official told the Chair of the PZC to have items placed on the agenda, and contacted P&Z commissioners to convince them to vote a certain way. The Chair did what the Mayor told him to do (the PZC took an item on it's agenda that had already been decided upon) and the commissioners contacted voted the way they were told (rendering an opposite decision on the same question upon which it had already issued a letter just one month previous). They should have instead "rescinded" their previous opinion and amended it to state a new opinion. End result is the same outcome, and some will say it's semantics, but rules of process are there for a reason.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
