Plains Town Council overrides mayor's veto

PLAINS – Mayor Michael Brinson called a special meeting on Thursday at 8 p.m. to discuss a variance he vetoed after the town council approved the resolution earlier this month.

The situation revolved around a lot inside of town where a prospective property owner was hoping to build her home. According to the town ordinance, certain setbacks must be followed to build property, however, the term ‘generally’ left room for negotiation.

The council decided that the taxpayer’s reason to set her property within five feet of her property line instead of the proposed 20, as stated in the ordinance, was a viable request and granted her the variance.

However, the mayor later vetoed that variance because he felt the town needed to follow the ordinance in place. Mayor Brinson felt it was important to uphold the law.

“The only item on the agenda tonight is the veto that I put in place on a motion that was made by the council earlier this month,” said Mayor Brinson. “My reason for the veto was that we have an ordinance in place that gives us our setbacks.”

As the meeting continued Sandy Chenoweth made a motion to override the veto.

As the town council began discussing the issue, the debate became heated. As accusations flew, Chenoweth announced her opinion on the issue.

“When we continue to step over dollars to find dimes, who wants to build in this community?,” asked Chenoweth.

Dan Rowan was next to speak up on the issue, explaining that he did not agree with the setback based on principle.

“Our vote in the council meeting last time, in my opinion, was well within the variance aspect of our ordinance,” explained Rowan.

The vote was called and the veto was overturned 4 to 2, with Shanon Hedhal and Carl Reeb voting against the motion.

After the meeting, Mayor Brinson explained the property owner is free to build her home on that lot.

“These guys in the next six months will probably change (the ordinance) and if they do I will be able to build a garage because I asked for a variance seven years ago,” said Mayor Brinson.

Mayor Brinson explained that he was okay with the council overturning his veto because it was in their right to do so. However, he was still not happy with the decision they made.

“I’m unhappy that it went that way. I wish they would have stayed with the law the way it’s written and of course, they feel they did because of good cause,” explained Mayor Brinson.

The ordinance explains that if good cause is presented, a variance can be granted, although it does not define what a good cause might be.

In this case, the prospective landowner wanted to keep as much of a yard as possible to provide her kids room to play.

Chenoweth explained the council had already taken steps to change the ordinance before the special meeting took place. The process may not be a quick one, but the ordinance is being closely evaluated.

“What would have happened had we not given her the variance, she would have not bought the property,” said Chenoweth. “If someone buys property and builds, it brings more tax money into the town.”

Chenoweth did explain that granting this variance opened up “a kettle of fish.” She explained that if more people approach council for a variance, they will have to first see if it’s reasonable.

Rowan explained that the slippery slope argument began a long time ago when a variance was granted for a town residence to build their garage up to their property line in an alley back in 1999, an incident that reoccurred yet again when a garage addition was added in town.

“That’s just two examples. If that’s a line that’s crossed, it’s already been crossed,” explained Rowan. “I just don’t think that holds water.”

Rowan explained he felt strongly about his vote and believes the city or governing body should have to give the landowner a good cause as to why they are unable to build on their property, instead of the making it the property owner’s responsibility to come up with a good cause as to why they should be able to build on their own property within reason.

“In reality if…the city or the ruling authority says you have 20 feet on each street side of your property and different amounts on the side and back that you can’t use – in my mind that amounts to a government taking of your property,” explained Rowan.

Rowan agreed with Mayor Brinson about the ordinance being revisited and worked on.

However, he did not agree with the mayor’s opinion of the council breaking the law and not following city ordinances.

“No one likes to be accused of breaking the law or doing something unethical and that charge has been made and I don’t think it’s correct. I think council operated within its discretion and that’s the way I voted,” explained Rowan.