Meeting Held by the Historic Preservation Hearing Officer - Assignment Example

Meeting held by the Historic Preservation Hearing Officer On Tuesday, the 26th of February 2013, the Historic Preservation Hearing Officer held a meeting, which was open to all members of the public. The meeting was scheduled to start at 10:00 at the conference room, number 3B, which is at the 3rd floor of the Phoenix City Hall. During the meeting, the hall was full of attendees, some corporate and others public. The different groups represented included lawyers, the representatives of the area, concerned members of public, business operators and other stakeholders interested in the preservation role played in the city. The meeting started after the deputy of the preservation hearing officer lead in prayers, followed by the formal opening of the meeting. Before the start of meeting, the flag was presented, which effectively paved way for the progress of the meeting. A number of formalities set the flow and the outlook of the meeting in general, which was considerably different from previous meetings. The tone of the meeting also implied that the meeting would be different from the previous meetings I had attended. The events to be featured in the meeting were set effectively and in a speedy manner, particularly due to the enabling facilitation of the applicant’s representative Kevin Fulkerson and Kevin Weight. The representative hearing officer, Mr. Joe Viola, was also among the attendees that enhanced the flow of events and the coordination of the different discussions held during the meeting. The representative officer guided the different audience, throughout the debates on the different agendas set for the meeting. At the beginning of the meeting, the agenda items were introduced by the representative hearing officer, Mr. Joe Viola. Next, the Applicants’ representative staff, Mr. Kevin Fulkerson, led the agenda through the oversight committee, which entailed the approval of the items in the agenda, from the representative hearing officer. The formal procession of the agenda served as the overall guiding model for the meeting as discussion and the proceeding of the meeting often shifted from the stated order, in a relative manner. Different from other meetings, where a strict order is observed, the items of discussion for the meeting appeared to be taken through processing first, with reference to the rate of approving them. Instead of a strict order, the items seemed to be processed first in terms of how easily they might be approved. The proposals related to the agenda of discussion were approved, one after another, in the case the committee’s representation did not get any requests from attendees that wanted to talk about the different parts of the agenda. After the different attendees interested in speaking had deliberated over the issue, the council representatives would approve the agenda items collectively. Obviously, many of the items of the meeting were those that had been presented in other meetings, and the committee deliberations, where agendas were required to go through before they are allowed to pass to the city council oversight committee. After the approval of non-debatable agenda items, the hearing officer moved back to the items that had been omitted during the previous mass approval stages. For instance, a case on the removal of the outbuilding at the site of development was not concluded as it would be passed on to the next meeting to be held by the preservation officer with the next meeting was set for five weeks after the present meeting. The proposal to allow the item to be reviewed during the next meeting was intended to offer the applicant more time so that they could explore the issue in an in-depth manner. The time offered would also allow the applicant to resolve the problems that appeared in the way of the project, especially those that were presented during the different meetings and hearing sessions. Next, the meeting entailed discussions over the remaining items in the agendas of the meeting. The discussions were held prior to the voting stage, where the different participating members offered their points, insights and highlights, regarding the agenda items. The discussions included distinctive debate between the questioning of the representatives of the preservation committee, the registered speakers in attendance as well as the defendants in support of the agenda item proposals. During the discussion stage of the meeting, the representative hearing officer invited the defendants of the different items. The defendants sat the table opposite to that of the preservation hearing officer, the deputy preservation hearing officer, the City assigned Manager, Attorney and Clerk; and the committee representatives in attendance. The two defendants of the agenda items were the applicant’s representatives Kevin Weight and Kevin Fulkerson. The two defendants discussed their case before the city officers, employees and the members of public. They explained the plans and the proposal plans done during previous meetings and hearings. Next, the representative hearing officer started calling the attendees that had tendered formal cards, whether opposing or in support of the items of the agenda. These different participants discussed their issues at the podium, supporting their thoughts, to both the applicant’s representatives and the council’s representatives. Most of them would end by giving the questions to be addressed in upcoming meetings. So as to maintain orderly participation, members of public would tender comment cards, before or at the start of the meeting, detailing whether they were for or against the items of discussion. Each contributor was given two minutes to offer their contribution, but more time would be allowed where a dialogue was necessary, or where they were making a crucial point. After the participation cards were over, public participation was allowed. At the end of the discussions, the representative hearing officer closed the comment time, proposing the voting on the agenda. He collected lead votes, before the full voting roll-call was collected by the clerk. The meeting went smoothly, as its transition from the earlier meeting of 13th February was 2013 was cohesively made. The oversight of the meeting was also effective and smooth as the representative hearing officer was in charge of moderating the meeting, and calling onto the participation of special groups and the public. One area of improvement that would improve the meeting would be leaving the moderation of the meeting to the deputy preservation hearing officer, which will allow the hearing officer more time to collect the necessary information and details. From the meeting, there were no people that particularly surprised me, as only city administrators, committee representatives, applicants, hearing officers and members of public were in attendance. However, one man who spoke during the time of closure comments surprised me as he did not seem concerned about the issues being discussed throughout the meeting. However, at the end, he stood and ranted about more than four agenda items although he failed to draw any conclusions from his discussion until the security personnel at the meeting stopped him. There was a limit for public participation since it was a requirement that they had to submit comment cards that allowed them to participate in the discussions. Moreover, the time they were allowed was limited to 2 minutes, unless where necessary, which shows that public participation, was highly controlled. So as to capture the ideas of those that did not submit cards, five chances were offered for discussion of the issues. All the control shows that public participation was controlled and limited. The meeting, in general was a success, as the different agenda items were discussed in full. These items included the construction of a new frontage porch, which would be linked to a car garage big enough for one car. Other items included the expansion of the kitchen, the covered patio, and the rear bedroom. The last was the removal of the outbuilding at the area of development. Throughout the meeting, issues were raised with regard to the removal of existing outbuilding, which was questioned by the preservation hearing officer. Questioning the proposals of change were the members of public, who argued that the proposals raised concerns over the welfare of the community to be served. Through the discussions held by the different members, city representatives, employees and public members, the context of discussion favored the property proposal. At the end of the meeting, all the proposal clauses were approved, and the oversight committee allowed them the opportunity to continue with the proposed change. Read More