Courtesy bhalliance.org.
February 2, 2009
The BHA Board of Directors would like to make you aware of a request to rehear a zoning case that could set negative legal precedent for the City of Milton.
(Agenda Item No. 09-785)
1. Public Hearing for Rescission of Previous Council Approval of Zoning Application, RZ08-10, and for Possible Additional Zoning Action. (Presented by Joe Lockwood, Mayor)
Today, Monday, Feb. 2nd at 6 P.M. the City Council will rehear a zoning case that was legally voted on during the December 15th meeting. As the AJC reported, "Milton Mayor Joe Lockwood wants a do-over on a recent zoning decision made while two City Council members and the city attorney were absent." Nurse, Doug. "Mayor wants 2nd vote on Ga. 9 rezoning." Atlanta-Journal Constitution 05 Jan. 2009. Mayor Lockwood is requesting the revote of case # RZ08-10, where the density being requested is too dense for the 2.26 acres - as evidenced by clear cutting of the entire property if approved for the full 28,260 and no ability to recompense any trees on the site. Noting has changed in the site plan from the 12/15/08 hearing.
It is important that the community let the council know their opinions on this item. Should this case be reheard and voted upon simply since the applicant was not fully prepared & all Council members and City Attorney were not present on 12/15/08? A rescission would set a negative legal precedent.
More information on the rescission available:
From The AJC=>
http://www.ajc.com/services/content/metro/northfulton/stories/2009/01/02/milton_zoning_vote.html%3Fcxtype%3Drss%26cxsvc%3D7%26cxcat%3D13
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/printedition/2009/01/05/re.html?cxntlid=inform_sr
From Appen Newspapers=>
http://www.northfulton.com/Articles-i-2009-01-08-176278.114126_Home_fashion_center_approved_in_Milton.html%20
http://www.northfulton.com/Articles-i-2009-01-15-176370.114126_Lockwood_wants_Milton_zoning_case_revisited.html
Please share this information with your neighbors, families and friends.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
looks like the same thing you posted on the 21st Tim, who is badgering you?
Hello, reader.
No one is "badgering" me. Suffice to say, any time we receive an email regarding Milton, we make sure that it is posted on that same day.
Earlier, we had received the notice of the meeting this evening and posted as is our protocol.
Feel free to call me if need be.
Keep safe -
Tim Enloe
Magnolia Media, LLC
770 653 0552
I read both posts. It appears this BHA release is a follow-up reminder for people to attend last night's meeting. Reader, stop trying to create drama where it doesn't exist. You've already caused one poster to react inappropriately and his comment was removed. Nice going!
Thanks, Tim for posting the release. Otherwise I would have forgotten about the meeting. Also thanks for monitoring the blog and censoring comments where bloggers are bereft of better sense and common decency.
Well, who turned out Monday night? Care to fill us in?
Let me guess: 4-3 vote in favor of the applicant. :)
Milton city council/board members continue to amaze me! This "re-do" on the vote was wrong wrong wrong! What's done is done, what's legally decided is legally decided. Every time one of our elected officials gets a vote not in their favor will we be fighting over it and asking for "do-overs"? Wasting time on everyone's part as well.
When good decisions are made, "re-dos" wont have to be done in the future.
When you have an activist that is so far to one side take advantage of a situation, a citizen, a business, and the entire city, then it may be necessary to have a "re-do".
For the poster wondering what the vote was, it was 5-2 with Bailey and Tart dead set on denying something just to be denying it.
Bailey and Tart were perfectly right to oppose this motion.
If you are not ready to vote then defer. It's very simple!
Now a further negative legal precedent has been set for the City of Milton by our Council.
No negative legal precedent was set, but only a message was sent that if you make iresponsible decisions, then they can be changed.
Your comment about Tart and Bailey did the right thing by opposing is incorrect, they have the right, but that dosent make it right.
Also you obviously didnt attend or listen to the minutes of the meeting, as Bailey never gave the applicant a chance to defer, just took a hatchet to the application and move on!
If she had been any where near reasonable and suggest they defer, then a "do over" would not have been needed.
We'll see how this works out for the "recissionistas" at the polls.
If the applicant wanted to defer, why didn't he request it?
What were the qualified and legal reasons for this recission? That's what we need to know, not all the conjecture and personal opinions.
Unfortunately some are not up for election this year?
Post a Comment