RENEER.ORG

Here is the letter I sent to one of the residents about this issue.  One of the other candidates says that I’m “in favor of retaining walls.”  I’d say that I’m in favor of obeying state law and Alpine’s ordinances.

Thanks for sharing your perspective.  I hope we can respectfully agree to disagree where our perspectives diverge.

> If commissioners simply ‘rubber stamp’ a staff approved subdivision then there really would be no need for judgment and thinking of a commission.

You are right.  We aren’t just a rubber stamp.  But we also work within a legal framework.  I am not a fan of judicial activism by the U.S. Supreme court and want to make sure I don’t overstep my bounds in my role as a planning commissioner and start legislating when I’m supposed to be applying.

In this case I’m supposed to be hearing my Administrative hat, not my Legislative hat.

Our city development code states:

4.6.3 FINAL PLAT
4.6.3.9 PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW

2. If the Final Plat and all supplementary data complies with the applicable requirements of these regulations and the requirements of the approved Preliminary Design Plan, the Planning Commission shall certify approval of the Plat on the space provided.

Notice the word “shall.”

However, as I understand the process there can be exceptions.  A “countervailing public interest” should result in a denial.  If an application meets all the requirements in the code but there is a countervailing public interest against the application then it can and should be denied.

“If a local government finds that a compelling, countervailing public interest would be jeopardized, it may deny the application, even though the application conforms to all land use maps and ordinances. The reasons for this denial must be expressed in writing.”  (http://propertyrights.utah.gov/landuseapps.html)

What is a  “compelling, countervailing public interest”?

“A compelling, countervailing public interest is a legitimate and substantive public problem that calls for immediate action. It is not merely a concern that calls for a reevaluation of past municipal judgment.”  (http://propertyrights.utah.gov/opinions/14_AO_Abstract.pdf)

I may need some more guidance on what that means but there is some interesting additional discussion at http://propertyrights.utah.gov/opinions/33_AO_Abstract.pdf.

See my post on leadership about how I feel that public officials are not above the law.  You may want someone to ignore a law for your benefit in a specific case.  There was a lot of talk at the meeting about Precedence.  A worse precedence than “building a retaining wall” is the precedence of circumventing the law.  It may benefit you in the first instance but it is respect for the law that protects all your rights.

We must not erode our nations tradition of the Rule of Law.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.