 |
| BY PAUL LIVIUS |
Change in Zoning Application Procedure Proposed
Ward 1
Alderman Greg Walters believes he has come up with a plan that will help to
maintain a level playing field between homeowners and developers.
When a
developer wants to make a change in the zoning for a development the city
requires those neighbors living within 185’ of the
property be notified of the property to be notified.
The city’s
ordinance referts to this as “courtesy notice”. It is to be sent to by the developer those neighbors living within 185' of the property under consideration for zoning change.
Alderman Walters’
proposal would require the courtesy notice to be sent by registered mail. This
gives the city verifiable proof all of those affected are aware of the application for a zoning change in their neighborhood.
In his
presentation to the Board of Aldermen, Walters said, “I am aware of zoning
applications in the past in which the notification process has been less than
perfect.”
Walters
continued, “Changing the requirement rules will give verifiable proof that all parties
involved are aware of plans that would affect their neighborhood with a change in
zoning.”
The Board
of Aldermen agreed to send the following changes to the Planning and Zoning
Commission for a public hearing and, eventually, the Commission’s
recommendation. The hearing is tentatively set to be held in early May.
Following
is the current language and the language change as proposed by Alderman
Walters.
CURRENT LANGUAGE:
Sec.
50.560.01 – Neighborhood Information Meeting
(c)
Applicant(s) shall send a courtesy notice to property owners 185’ of the applicant
property.
PROPOSED
LANGUAGE:
Sec.
50.560.01 – Neighborhood Information Meeting
(c) The
applicant shall send a registered letter to property owner within 185’ of the
applicant. Cost of the mailing shall be borne by the applicant. Proof of
mailing to be archived by the City.
 |
| BY GREG WALTERS |
Municipal
Committee to
Re-visit Tethering Ordinance
At its last meeting the Board
of Aldermen voted down a request to carry the Tethering Ordinance over to the the March 17th meeting. Two members of the Board of Aldermen were absent from the meeting.
Alderman Bill VanBuskirk made a motion to carry over the ordinance to the March 17th meeting so all members of the Board could vote on the issue. Opponents of the Tethering Ordinance took advantage of the absences by defeating the request to carry the item over to the next meeting.
The original vote to carry over came to a 4 (yes) to 4 (no) tie. Mayor McDonough gave a speech telling why he was opposed to the ordinance. He then cast a tie-breaking "no" vote. With the Mayor's voe the final tally read 4 (yes), 5 (no).
After the vote was taken it was pointed out the Mayor's vote did not matter because the motion to carry the item over required a six vote majority. The Mayor then changed his vote from "no" to yes. He did not offer an explanation as to why he changed his vote.
Alderman Bill VanBuskirk, who serves as Chairman of the Municipal Committee then called for the March 17th meeting of the Committee to consider changes to the Animal Control Ordinance. Undoubtedly, the tethering issue will come up again at the meeting.
OUR VIEW . . .
OUR VIEW . . .
The proposed ordinance, which was effectively blocked by not allowing it to be carried over to the March 17th meeting, is good legislation.
It allows pet owners to tether animals for up to 30 minutes at a time. The ordinance specifies the use of animal friendly collars when dogs are tethered. And, requires they be kept 10' back from city streets and property lines.
Raytown has one of the harshest tethering laws in the metropolitan area. This change has a broad base of support with the public and is pet friendly.
The history on this legislation is simple. The city's Prosecuting Attorney voiced legal concerns over the enforcement of the current ordinance. He suggested some simple language changes to improve the ordinance. The Committee tweaked the language slightly and then moved forward to pass an improved ordinance.
There are six members of the Board ready to vote in favor of this needed change. They should not be held hostage by the political machinations of the Mayor and a minority of the Board.
5 comments:
I question the following:
"(c) The applicant shall send a registered letter to property owner within 185’ of the applicant. Cost of the mailing shall be borne by the applicant. Proof of mailing to be archived by the City."
1) Why Registered Mail as opposed to Certified Mail? Registered Mail is very expensive and insures items of value. It is used for mailing items of intrinsic value such as cash, jewelry, negotiable securities, etc. Certified Mail is used for mailing important documents and NO insurance is provided. Both require a signature when delivered.
2) Why not require that it be sent Return Receipt Requested so that there is proof of delivery to archive by the city?
3) The question arises with either type of mailing is what if the resident is not home and a notice is left to pick it up at the Post Office? Some people will not bother to take the time to go to the Post Office and wait in line.
Andy Whiteman (Retired USPO)
Good point, Andy. Ward 3 Alderman Janet Emerson brought up the same thought when it was presented as well. Remember this proposal is a work in progress. It will go before the Planning and Zoning Commission for review before it makes its way back to the Board of Aldermen for final consideration. I am certain the change to registered mail will be considered and probably adopted. I left the original language in as presented to the Board of Aldermen.
Thanks for writing.
It was interesting that the mayor and a few aldermen were able to take over and hold the city at their whim. This is the first time in many years something was not held over as a courtesy.
9:06 AM, Have you voiced your concerns and opinions to the aldermen and to the mayor? That is the right and obligation of every citizen. You could use public comments time at every BOA meeting as well as email and telephone.
Andy Whiteman
Andy, My neighbor did that when they cut the police budget and codes showed up to wrote her tickets the next day, no thanks! Even our elected officials are openly bashed at meetings and on FB for giving factual information because it is viewed as unflattering to the city.
Post a Comment