|
REGULAR MEETING May 14, 2018
<br /> Administration's intentions or opinion on zoning or proposed investments in our community,
<br /> where does that leave us as a Council? Where does that leave us as a City? Is it not better that we
<br /> have reasonable expectations about our built environment based on an aspirational plan crafted by
<br /> the community for its own revitalization? All are better served. The petitioner, our budgetary
<br /> decisions as a Council, the decisions of investors, businesses and developers are all better served
<br /> if we all know and operate with the same game plan and utilize the same criteria. Criteria that gives
<br /> the same due process rule book to any petitioner. That gives us, collectively, a land-use road map
<br /> that leads to reasonable assumptions about investment decisions large and small. It also aims
<br /> toward growth and development. If you don't trust me, there are letters we have received from
<br /> local developers who stated, I'll quote, `...land-use plans created and approved by a city in which
<br /> I plan to make significant private investments. The City must be consistent with those plans.'
<br /> Councilmember Jo M. Broden went on, Therefore, I cannot support a veto message that is
<br /> dismissive of our primary and first evaluative criteria, relative to land-use decisions, in this case
<br /> the comprehensive plan and the sub-plan. Nor do I wish to set precedent that the opinion of our
<br /> professional planning staff,relative to the plan which they are primarily tasked with implementing,
<br /> just doesn't matter. So a body of nine (9) fully engaged citizen representatives elected by our
<br /> neighbors consider rezoning month in and month out through the lens of very specific criteria.
<br /> They have been discussed exhaustively since January 81h, 2018. They have been framing our
<br /> discernment process. A body of nine (9) fully engaged citizen representatives are also aware of
<br /> past decisions and the precedent nature of current decisions. It is empowered and entrusted in
<br /> nearly every other City of our State to make these decisions without the threat of Mayoral veto but
<br /> that is not the case here and I get that.
<br /> Councilmember Jo M. Broden continued, So to the criteria. The criteria which we are asked to
<br /> make our decision upon matters. Adherence to the criteria matters. I would argue not just to the
<br /> Area Plan Commission and us the South Bend Common Council,but it should matter to the Chief
<br /> Executive. As soon as we begin to talk about occupants and make this about adjacent neighbors or
<br /> the most divisive issue of our time,we have moved far,far away from a land-use question. In fact,
<br /> the record is replete of legal advice to tie our decision to the zoning criteria. That was the advice
<br /> of attorneys in the Area Plan Commission process that I believe occurred in March and it was the
<br /> advice of our attorney, Mr. Palmer, throughout. This is not about abortion,pro-life or pro-choice,
<br /> or anything in between. It is a land-use decision and I'm going to break it down.
<br /> Councilmember Oliver Davis interjected, Break it down.
<br /> Councilmember Jo M. Broden went on, In its simplest and strictest form, by statute, a question of
<br /> whether this particular parcel of land, regardless of the petitioner or the occupants' beliefs, their
<br /> quality or quantity of service delivered,their marketing plan or their business model,their funding
<br /> source or the price they paid for the property or choosing this location versus another alternative
<br /> location, is basic. That basic question asks if it is ok to change to an office use, specifically and
<br /> Office-Buffer use, for the purpose of a counseling center. Is it ok to change this parcel? If you go
<br /> and look at the intent of the Office-Buffer Districts, one (1) of the specific things it says, `they are
<br /> typically less commercial in appearance and are architecturally more harmonious with residential
<br /> structures. This district can serve as a buffer between residential districts and more intense
<br /> commercial industrial districts. The OB district may also serve as a gradual and reasonable
<br /> transition between major thoroughfares and residential districts.' The Chief Executive's
<br /> consideration and his rationale strays from this most basic land-use question of whether a proposed
<br /> office is an appropriate land-use next to another office.
<br /> Councilmember Jo M. Broden continued, This Council has said thus in other past decisions and
<br /> we will in future ones. But for the larger issues beyond the scope of this land-use decision before
<br /> us, my expectation is that office next to office is a zoning approval we will give every single time.
<br /> To Councilmember Oliver Davis' point, I think it is important that I actually state this into the
<br /> record. If the land ownership was reversed and the petitioner to the east, the Whole Women's
<br /> Health Clinic, was before the Council asking to rezone this same parcel from residential to OB, I
<br /> would be supportive of that request as ardently as I am of this. The same.kind of hurdles that
<br /> Women's Whole Health Clinic are trying overcome downstate are the same kind of hurdles some
<br /> are encouraging members of the Council to put up here. By plan and by right, they, the Women's
<br /> 5
<br />
|