Loading...
05-13-11 - Handout- C. Woods 131! I a K.f - Gtt -oi 7:02:30 Stated he wanted to address the point raised by counsel about the arbitrary and capricious aspect of this proceeding, (couldn't understand) but for your consideration. Back in 1973, I was on the City Commission at that time when the Townsend Hawkes application came before the Commission and during the course of that we find ourselves,just is ???really coincidence or ironic situation that the facts at that time and the facts now are absolutely identical except the address and the names of the parties. Townsend Hawkes was trying to get the same relief that Mr. and Mrs. Wolfson were asking for and during the course of that meeting it was at issue that our dear friend Dezmond and myself were both opposed to this action because we were more involved with density issues and other issues in this City. But during the course of the proceedings,the ultimate question which always happens at one time or another in these proceedings, was asked the advice of counsel of what he thought we should do and if you refer to, I'm not going to read them, but if you refer to the minutes of February 3, 1993, Mr. Jensen advised that it would be improper, it would not be, it would not hold up in court to not pass that Ordinance,but then now you flip it this many years earlier and you get an exactly opposite opinion from just this coincidence of it, from the same lawyer. And I think that the underlying factual basic needs to be considered. That inconsistency is very important to consider. Some arbitrariness and capriciousness of the action, to me, is that kind of action the proceeding or the facts that Mr.,the counsel, referred to that raises a question that it's arbitrary and capricious. That would mean that there are no underlying grounds or logic to support that and in regard to the last point is the aspect of this of where you have the differing of opinions, which I don't see they can be, how they can be reconciled one to the other and it questions the value that one gives to counsel in going forward on this. And that alone would establish, I would think, the arbitrariness and capriciousness of the action of the Community Development Board and, if you will affirm that, by this Commission. 7:05:41 Mr. Fletcher stated he wanted to address the arbitrary and capricious aspect of this proceeding. That back in 1973 he was on the City Commission at the time Townsend Hawkes was trying to get the same relief that Mr. and Mrs. Wolfson are asking for. During the course of the proceedings council was asked if a decision would hold up in court. The city council, then as now, Mr. Jensen advised it would not hold up in court to not pass the variance.Now many years later you get the exact opposite opinion from the same city attorney. This inconsistency is very important to consider. That raises a question that it's arbitrary and capricious.