Take a look at the Rewritten Minutes from the August 8, 2018 BZA Meeting. Compare them to the Original Minutes that the City initially posted and then took down from its web site (that weren’t written by an attorney).
Note that the rewritten minutes has documents attached provided by the property owners and their attorneys to the BZA at the meeting, but no other documents, including the original of the letter from a resident and a packet submitted by another resident (which details why aesthetic review approval is contrary to City Code) are not attached.
Why did the City Attorney rewrite the minutes?
Was it to influence the vote on Issue 31?
Was it to try to affect an appeal of the BZA’s aesthetic review approval?
Did the City Attorney improperly alter a city record?
Why would the City pay its attorney to rewrite the minutes from this particular meeting, something inconsistent with past practice?
Why refuse to post all of the documents submitted by residents from this particular meeting for the public to see as the City has done in the past?
What do these things tell you about the City and the owners of 1000/980 Elmwood?
An in-depth analysis (along with the documents the City refused to post on its web site) is coming soon.