2003-10-06 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

7 Ms. Kelley said she will seek to reserve Council's ability t o make a decision on the appeal. Mr. Caravati said he is concerned when only a part of a dispute is before us when he feels the other part will be back to Council later. Ms. Richards expressed concern that if the judge should reject the City Attorney's arguments then Ms. Johnson would have to demolish the wall and there would be no guarantee that Council would have the opportunity to take action. Mr. Caravati said he thinks Council needs to be part of the dispute in order to get it resolved. Ms. Kel ley said the major issue is whether the applicant would incur penalties. She said she does not know what the parties involved will seek to have heard in court on th October 15 , noting that the plaintiff may seek to have penalties incurred. Ms. Kelley said Council's decision needs to be based on the public good and if Councilors feel they need additional information she thinks is okay to defer the appeal decision. Mr. Caravati said he agrees and that is the subject of his motion. Mr. Caravati called the question. Mr. Cox said he cannot support the motion as stated and feels Council has ample information. Ms. Richards said that in listening to the discussion tonight and considering what Ms. Kelley has said, she feels she has adequate information. She said she thinks Council needs to send a strong signal to the court that Council needs to intercede to uphold its laws. She said she will vote against the motion. Mr. Schilling said he does not want to see this issue dealt with in a piecemeal fashion, an d would like to see it approached in a holistic manner in order to most effectively preserve the building. Mr. Schilling said that acting on part of the matter could compromise a later decision. Mr. Cox said his concern is that the issue has been in cou rt for quite awhile and the day light issue has not been acted on. Mr. Cox asked that the court issue be clarified. Ms. Kelley said it is clear that the judge has ordered complete removal of the encroachment, including the daylight issue, but there may be room for discussion between the parties. Mr. Caravati said hence his motion. Mr. Caravati's motion failed by the following vote. Ayes: Mr. Caravati, Mr. Schilling. Noes: Mr. Cox, Ms. Richards. Absent: Mr. Lynch. Ms. Richards made a motion t o uphold the BAR's denial of the partial demolition of the wall based on demolition guidelines, and therefore denying permission to construct a replacement wall. Mr. Cox seconded the motion. Mr. Schilling said he will vote against the motion and noted t hat it will fail on a 2 to 2 vote. Ms. Richards asked if the motion fails will that in effect amount to approving the appeal, and Ms. Kelley said no. Mr. Caravati said he wants to vote for the motion but will not. He said he wants the issues resolved and feels it is best to do it all at once. He said he feels the public will be better served by doing it that way.