Super-majority: is it 5 or is it 6?

Under the Woodstock City Code, when the City Council wants to do what it wants to do, in spite of a recommendation from a department, board or commission of the City, then it needs a "super-majority" of votes to over-ride that recommendation.

That issue was a big deal with the City Council when it was turning a blind eye to the Historic Preservation Commission over Grace Hall.

And it came up at the September 15th City Council meeting, when the City Council over-rode the recommendation of the Woodstock Zoning Board of Appeals. The ZBA's recommendation was to deny Cunat's request for variance for under-sized apartments at Autumnwood.

Okay, so what is a "super-majority"? According to the City Code, if the City Council wants to over-ride a recommendation of a department, board or commission, a simple majority is not enough. A "super-majority" is required, and a super-majority is three-quarters (75%) of the City Council, who must vote in favor of the motion.

It's three-quarters (75%) of the seven members of the City Council; i.e., of the entire Council. Whether they are present or not. The Code does not say "of the members of the City Council who are present at the time of the vote."

Grab your 5th Grader and ask what the answer is to "How much is 3/4 of 7?" OK, let's see... Hmmmm.... 0.75 x 7 = Where are the fresh batteries for the calculator?

Got it! 5.25. 3/4 of 7 is 5.25 Oh-oh. Which Councilperson is going to get cut into fourths? No one?

This means that, rounded off, a super-majority of seven must be six (not five). You can't cut up one councilperson into fourths, and not one of them is going to allow you to ignore his (or her) one-fourth (1/4) vote. So a super-majority is six (6). Not five. Six.

And that's exactly what Deputy City Manager Derik Morefield told the City Manager (and City Council) last October about the number of votes by the City Council that would be needed to over-ride a recommendation of the Historic Preservation Commission for Landmark Designation for Grace Hall, should the HPC so recommend.

Unfortunately, by April Derik had a change of heart (or was there some other type of influence?), and then he opined that only five votes would be needed to over-ride the HPC. Derik, you were right the first time.

However, last week five heads on the City Council nodded to John Cunat and out he walked with his variance. A super-majority was needed, but the vote was 5-2. Two council members voted "Nay." So there was no super-majority, and the motion should have failed.

Why didn't it fail?

Autumnwood gets variance

Be sure to read the Page 7 article in The Woodstock Independent (TWI) this week (September 23, 2009) about the variance handed out by the Woodstock City Council for Cunat's Autumnwood Apartments.

TWI reports that, when Cunat bought the property, the seller's prior illegal conversion of six tiny spaces (were they utility closets or ???) into "efficiency" apartments escaped their attention. Now, just how does something like that happen?

Cunat ought to have known of the legal size requirements of living units; it's not like they are inexperienced in the apartment-rental game. They must have done measurements and unit counts as part of their due diligence. According to the article, Councilman Dick Ahrens said, "There's certainly a difference between a 351-square-foot apartment and a 500-square-foot apartment."

Councilwoman Julie Dillon said something about 19'x19' room and a $650 rental rate in the same sentence. Is Cunat renting the 361 sq. ft. "efficiency" apartments for $650??? No wonder they wanted the variance!

According, again, to the paper Councilman Mike Turner asked Police Chief Lowen about the "experience of the Woodstock Police Department" with the apartment complex. The answer, according to the paper, was that the apartment complex "management has a strong working relationship with the department" and "they work hand-in-hand with the permanent beat officers to address any issues that come up."

Mike, that's not an answer! Did you ask a follow-up question to get the answer to your first question? The answer should have been, "In the past 90-180-365 days we have had "x" number of calls to that apartment complex, and the calls have included (the types of calls)."

I have my own opinion about whether a $650 monthly rent ($7,800/year!) for a 361 sq. ft. efficiency apartment is an "affordable option" during times of economic hardship.

Is there an occupancy limit for an efficiency apartment? Is it ever checked?