Was the City Council right? Part 2

Last Wednesday, July 22, I wrote about the Landmark nomination of Grace Hall and asked whether the Woodstock City Council was right to vote and, if it did, would a super-majority be required to defeat the nomination forwarded by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC).

You may find that article of interest and especially the comments that have been made to and about it. The advice to the City Manager and City Council last week was that only a simple majority was needed to approve Woodstock Christian Life Services' plan to demolish Grace Hall and erect a duplex in its place.

Now it seems that I am not the only one to believe that a super-majority was required. On October 1, 2008, in a letter to the City Manager (and therefore to the City Council), the same Deputy City Manager, Derik Morefield, wrote about the petition to grant landmark designation to Grace Hall. In that letter, Derik wrote, "If the HPC ultimately recommends approval of landmark status for Grace Hall, such a recommendation can only be overturned by a "super" majority" (sic) or 6 votes of the City Council. This could potentially create conflicting actions consisting of a decision to approve the special use permit and the demolition of Grace Hall and approval of landmark status and the preservation of Grace Hall."

This is exactly the argument that I made to the City Council on July 21, before I became aware of Derik's October 1, 2008 Memo. And the October 1, 2008, Memo is marked as Received and Approved by Tim Clifton, City Manager.

Now, what changed between October 1, 2008 and July 13, 2009, when the more recent Memo from Derik said that only a simple majority was needed? A careful reading of the City Code supports the exact position stated in the October 1st Memo.

The City Council's action on July 21, 2009, was not supported by the City Code. The City Council approved the WCLS request by ignoring the pending landmark nomination.

The City Manager should immediately direct the Community Development Department to withhold any permit to build the first duplex in the South Phase, which will then trigger issuance of the demolition permit.

There are some pretty strong words I could use to describe the City Council's decision to proceed with a vote on July 21, especially after hearing the applicable section of the City Code read to them.

Should this cause the City Council (the City) to become financially liable for its action? Should the Council members become personally liable for proceeding to a vote? Or the City Attorney, should it ultimately be decided that his advice was erroneous?

Will legal action against the City be necessary to force it to comply with its own City Code?

Too many public bodies operate on the assumption that the public doesn't know or understand what they are doing or that the public will not have the resources to do battle with them.

No demolition can be allowed to take place without every step being taken correctly.

The City Council's 5-1 vote on July 21 did not meet the super-majority requirement of 6-0. The City's historic preservation ordinance is simple, easy to read, easy to understand. It's not convoluted, like so many of the "modern" ordinances.

Grace Hall is still protected by the historic preservation ordinance. It's that simple!