City Council Minutes 1993 03 02 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Howard: Variances in the City Code should be a rarity, not something that we grant, just because someone asked for it. I'm asking Council to add language to this Ordinance, which would bring the number of members needed to get a variance from four (4) to five (5). Paul Wood, Planning Director, stated that the provisions to the by- laws addressed the attendance issue. There is a provision for dismissing Board members who do not notify in advance of their absence. He didn't think there would be an attendance problem in the future. Sisk: By raising the number to five (5), what we've done is we've increase the percentage to 83%, so we're placing a more stringent requirement on this. Given the fact that there are provisions in the new by laws for absences, maybe what we could say is that 80% of those be present to give a vote. That would take care of the absences. I'm in favor of going to six (6), but if we have one (1) absent, then, at least, we would be in a position where it would not have to be unanimous. I would suggest that we do an 80% of those that are present and the quorum to be five (5). Mayer: I can't think of anything else that requires and 83% voting level to achieve a positive effect. I wonder if that isn't a little overly stringent. I would stick with it as written here. Davidson: I agree with you, Tom. I think 2/3 is what it takes to override a Presidential veto or a veto of the Governor. I don't see it as making variances easier to get. I don't see any problem with four (4), which is a 2/3 vote. Mayer: If there is a feeling that we should amend this, then I think we should lay it over for next time and, specifically, ask the Board of 3