BaldwinCity.com

Torch (Anonymous) says…

Actually we have a bullying problem in all the Baldwin schools because the leadership is unwilling to take decisive action to remove the antagonists permanently.

But I get your point.

b8es (Anonymous) says…

I couldn’t disagree with Nozpe more. Jardon was the only one in the room who seemed to have a desire to read, understand and FOLLOW the City’s own zoning regulations. And that includes City staff, who is paid our tax money to know the Zoning Code and see that it is followed. Jardon was absolutely correct when he asserted that the Council had no authority to even consider a site plan. Don’t take my word for this, the Zoning Regulations are posted on the City’s web site at:
http://www.baldwincity.org/pdf/citycode/… .
See Section 16-2, 180A for the particulars. Unless it is part of a re-zoning request (which this was not), the authority to approve a site plan lies only with the Planning Commission. The fact that the Council even considered the site plan and directed the Planning Commission to hold a special meeting to “reconsider” a site plan that was already approved in July was illegal. Jardon and Wagner were absolutely correct to question staff about that. The only one wanting to bypass procedures was the building inspector/zoning administrator.

And as for Wagner “baiting” the city employee into an argument, it was clear to me that all the “baiting” came from the employee. I was frankly shocked with the disrespect she showed toward the City Council. All Wagner asked her to do was respect the fact that there were council members who had a different opinion than hers. Instead, she got extremely defensive and argumentative.
The fact here remains that the Planning Commission approved the site plan in July of 2007. Once the site plan is approved, you cannot take that back. All the talk about the look of the building is ok, but it should have occurred BEFORE the approval of the site plan. The minutes from that meeting are clear that the Planning Commission approved the site plan. If City Staff really felt like the minutes did not reflect the discussion at the July Planning Commission, they should have corrected the minutes before they were approved. For Staff to now say, eight months later, that she remembers something different occurring at that Planning Commission meeting holds no weight at all. For her to argue with a council member about that in front of a room full of people is simply not acceptable.

This plan has been approved since July. Jardon and Wagner are correct here, the City has no authority to take back that approval. I am glad everything has seemed to work out, but the entire episode leaves me wondering about the competence of our city building and zoning staff (Dingman not included, I think he does a good job).

n0zpe (Anonymous) says…

You are correct. The Planning Commission did approve the site plan in June with conditions. One of which was that the 2 lots be combined into 1, among others.

They CHOSE not to meet this condition due to financial issues, which is 100% understandable.

That being said, the approval from June is thus null and void. Therefore, yes they did have to go back to the planning commission.

BTW, the planning commission asked what the building looked like, and was told the picture on the site plan was a place holder, and was NOT the actual building. YES, this is true, there is an AUDIO recording of this very thing.

The planning commission had NOT seen a single picture of what the building was supposed to look like until 4-22-08.

Oh, and what was submitted to the council for approval had changed from what the planning commission had seen just a week before.

So please, get your FACTS straight before you start quoting chapter and verse.

greyghost (Anonymous) says…

Prediction: The new hardware store building will look exactly like the old hardware store, except it will be bigger. Maybe the owners and architects will slap on some bricks along the front, but it will basically be a Morton building barn. In other words, the building will possess no craftsmanship at all.

So, in building a new metal barn and vacating the old metal barn the owners are really adding to Baldwin City's new architectural ugliness.

Bishop Quayle is rolling in his grave!

I hope I'm wrong.

NanCrisp (Anonymous) says…

I wonder what will become of the old Morton metal barn? Another antique “mall”? A pawn shop? How about “Dollar Tree”?

b8es (Anonymous) says…

nOzpe:
Your assertion that the applicant refusing to meet an approval condition nullifies the entirety of the approval is completely off-base. No, they would not be entitled to a building permit until they met the condition. But the approval (with the condition) still stands and can’t be taken back. The application before the Planning Commission at the April 08 meeting was not to consider a revised site plan, or to consider removing the approval condition. It was a re-plat of the property. Had the Planning Commission really intended the approval condition to require the combination of the two lots, then why in the world would they approve that plat (which they did)?

So, the planning commission had not seen a single picture of what the building was supposed to look like until 4-22-08, yet there was a picture on the site plan in July of 07? How does that work? And if there was no picture of the building presented to the Planning Commission in 07, why on earth would Staff allow them to approve the site plan? Isn’t that the job of staff to make sure all the information is present before it even goes to the planning commission?

I do not doubt that there is an audio recording of the 07 meeting somewhere. Unfortunately, the written minutes are the legal record of the proceedings, and are legally binding. If they did not accurately reflect the motion for approval, then they should have been changed before they were approved.

n0zpe (Anonymous) says…

As was stated on Tuesday night.

There was lots of miscommunication by ALL parties in the process.

I am confident that the Planning commission, City staff and Council will work together to fix everything that went wrong with this case.

Rant all you want, as far as I am concerned this subject is closed.

b8es (Anonymous) says…

This is your blog, nOzpe, not mine. You were the one calling out a council member by name and calling him a bully for trying to do the right and legal thing.

Don’t blame us for ranting when your bluff is called.

n0zpe (Anonymous) says…

no bluff was called.

there was not bluff to be called.

Obviously, we just have to agree to disagree, and hope that maybe, just maybe, our elected officials, appointed officials, and hired city officials can get all their procedures and codes straightened out.

ibelieveinmapleleaf (Anonymous) says…

There is absolutely no defense of ineptitude, laziness, and dishonesty by public employees who are in a position to make the kinds of decisions that can totally destroy a businessowner financially. It would appear that this n0zpe entity is a city employee that not only thinks we should tolerate this type of behavior, but that somehow it should be rewarded and anyone who speaks out against it should be censured or publicly humiliated.

I will gladly call for the resignation of the Codes Inspector, the Utilities Director, and the City Administrator for their role in a hit job on legitimate businessowners who are actually willing to put their money into the future of Baldwin City. Thank you, Gary and Robbie!!! Thank you so much.

n0zpe (Anonymous) says…

ibelieveinmapleleaf,

I am NOT a city employee.

NEVER have been. Don't plan on EVER being one.

Have you?? Have you ever had more than one boss that expects to have their directions followed?

I doubt it. As you have said, until you have been there, don't criticize them.

LibertarianJim (Anonymous) says…

On a different thread, the discussion of businesses moving out of town is discussed.

Government regulation of all aspects of our lives has resulted in the eroding of freedom and liberty which we should be able to enjoy in this country. The more regulation the less freedom. I would suggest that we repeal a few bad laws before we gum up the works any more with new laws. Owning a business, providing employment, and making a profit are not easy in a good economy, let alone a poor one. Business owners do a great service to our community every day just by opening their doors and taking a risk to provide us services. The less government interference the better!