The Observation Deck

There are several major reasons to vote NO on Issue 24. The third Amended Charter has several major flaws. Today, The Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) and Transparency.


Problems with the Proposed Charter's Amendments to the current charter's Article XIII:

Our current charter states: "No variance in the strict application of the zoning ordinances of the City shall be granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals unless" the BZA makes specific findings regarding "circumstances or conditions" enumerated in the charter that would warrant relaxing code requirements. Before the BZA is authorized to grant a variance, it must "fully describe" the charter factors that allow for a deviation from code requirements. The current charter also requires the Board to "fully set forth" its "reasons" when it decides to grant a variance.

All of the foregoing provisions are important because: (1) residents know that they can rely upon the BZA to strictly apply our zoning code requirements to all property owners; (2) variances cannot be granted by the BZA unless it makes specific factual "findings" mandated by the charter; and (3) the BZA must also "fully set forth" its "reasons" when it allows a property owner to deviate from code requirements that apply to other properties; and (4) requiring the BZA to make findings and explain its rationale guards against favoritism, and promotes an open, reviewable, and fair decision-making process.

These important ant protections, found in Article XIII of our current charter, have been stripped from the City's Proposed Third Amended Charter. The Proposed Charter deletes the following phrases from our current charter: "strict application of the ordinances of the City"; "fully described in the findings of the Board"; and "That, for reasons fully set forth in the findings of the Board."

Why has the City removed the standard that tells residents we can expect "strict application" of our zoning code requirements? Why does the City want the BZA to be relieved of its charter-mandated obligation to make specific findings, and explain it reasoning, when the Board exercises its authority to grant a variance?

What about transparency?

Eliminating the current charter's requirement that the BZA make findings, and explain its reasoning, when it grants a variance opens the door for mischief. Allowing the BZA to shield from public review its factual findings, and the rationale for its decisions, is the exact opposite of transparency.

The City's proposal to relieve the BZA from its obligation to make factual findings, and explain its rationale, is also blatantly inconsistent with the City's claim that it is "obligat[ed] to share information with its citizens."

Regarding the City's Purported Commitment to Transparency:
See onelakewood .com at "Transparency in Government" page. According to the City:

Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their government is doing. Information maintained by the Lakewood City Government is a local asset in our community. Transparency is also a part of Lakewood’s obligation to share information with its citizens.

Lets hold the City's feet to the fire by rejecting the Proposed Charter and voting NO on Issue 24. We want the City to live up to it's asserted commitment to transparency by keeping the BZA "accountable" for its decisions and by requiring the BZA to "provide information for citizens about what their government is doing."


Please read the attachment and consider the consequences of approving this version of the City Charter before corrections can be made.

Pam Wetula

I would like to Steve Davis' explanation of this section of the new charter.
Prior to seeing this question raised, I was inclined to vote for the charter because of its many improvements and the very significant addition of the ethics section.
Now I need a reason not to send the committee back to revise the BZA section, and then let's vote on the charter again in March.
But I'd like to stress I am open to hearing that reason.

Please remember some of the reasons to vote NO on issue 24. The proposed Third Amended Charter has more modern language but less transparency to the citizens via less notifications to the citizens about what the City is planning and less opportunity for rebuttal from the citizens. Your RIGHTS are at stake.

1. Citizens/ Property Owners' rights are weakened and the City will have more control in Board of Zoning Appeals. The proposed Charter does not require the City to provide you the reasons and facts behind their actions. All citizens are the losers. See initial posting and attachment for more information.

2.Property Owners' right are weakened and the City's power will be enhanced in the area of Appropriations of Property/Eminent Domain. Remember the huge battle a number of years ago where the City wanted to take residents' homes on the West End? This could happen again but with the proposed changes, the city has the upper hand. Notification to the property owned will be minimal before the city can proceed to take your property.



3. Your property taxes will be able to be increased without you being notified and at the whim of the city. ( They have to make up lost revenue from losing New York Life 330 jobs and giving away Lakewood Hospital 1100 jobs someway).

4. The new Ethics Provision is weak and has no effective framework that prevents misuse of power by City officials.

Please make them FIX these issues BEFORE a Third Amended Charter is passed.

Pam

Here are both attachments that compare current, Second Amended Charter and proposed Third Amended City Charter.

One depicts changes specific to the BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS (BZA)

The other highlights the changes in notification to citizens under the APPROPRIATION OF PROPERTY.

VOTE NO on issue 24 to maintain transparency and notifications.

Make them FIX these areas before we say yes. It is easier to maintain your rights than to regain them!!

NO on Issue 24!!!