City Council rejects controversial bill – The Progress – mvprogress

By VERNON ROBISON

The Progress

The Mesquite City Council declined to adopt a new ordinance, last week, which would have amended certain permitted and conditional use categories within General Commercial and Light Industrial zones of the city. The Council split its vote 2-3 to reject the controversial bill during a meeting held Tuesday, Feb. 8.

The code amendments, as proposed by Mesquite Senior Planner Richard Secrist, would have done two things.

Firstly, it would have broadened the usage previously known as Automobile Sales, Rental, Service in a General Commercial zone to include Vehicle Sales, Rental, Service. This would bring moving truck rentals such as U-Haul, Ryder or Penske into this category. This usage would continue to require a Conditional Use Permit being issued by City Council approval for operation.

The second proposed code amendment would have deleted the Moving, Storage and Transportation Facilities usage from a permitted use, by right, under the Light Industrial zone to now requiring a Conditional Use Permit issued by approval of the Council.

In an initial report before the Council, Secrist said that he considered the bill a clean-up ordinance. He said that it was to clarify some ambiguity that existed in the code regarding truck and trailer rental businesses.

The ambiguity in whether this use should be a permitted use, by right, or a conditional use, where it requires discretionary approval through Council action, Secrist said.

Secrist explained that a recent disagreement had taken place between a local business-owner and city staff over this section of the code.

This disagreement involved a U-Haul rental center and moving supply store located on Hafen Lane and owned by Pat Galliher. Galliher had been seeking business licensing to move the business to a Light Industrial Zoned parcel in the Mesquite Industrial Park. In doing so, he had made the case that the business should fall under a Moving, Storage and Trucking usage which is a permitted use in the Industrial Zone.

But the City has had a long history of including truck rental businesses of this kind within the Automobile, Sales, Rentals and Services category, which always requires a Conditional Use Permit, Secrist said.

We feel like the Moving, Storage and Transportation usage is more for semi-truck van lines, long distance movers, where they may store a persons goods temporarily in a warehouse when there are timing issues on a move, Secrist said. We think those should be conditional uses in any case.

Secrist emphasized that Gallihers business had been grandfathered into a Moving, Storage and Transportation permitted use at the new Light Industrial location in order to be spared the process of a Conditional Use permit.

Secrist concluded that the proposed bill was meant to clarify the ambiguities and not to target this or any other specific business.

But in a public comment at the meeting, Galliher insisted that the ordinance, and the entire process leading up to it, had been meant to target him personally and his business.

Galliher listed a long series of instances, dating back to when he first moved to the community in 2013, where he felt he had been targeted by City staff, and specifically Secrist.

In the 2020 city elections, Galliher admitted that he had been outspoken against the candidacies of Mesquite Mayor Al Litman and City Councilman Wes Boger, both of whom won their elections. Galliher believed that a series of code violations he had received since the election have been connected to the vocal positions he took against those officials.

Specifically, Galliher said that he had been cited for cars that were legally parked on his business property, some of which were his own familys cars. In addition, he received notice that a number of golf carts he had parked on site were in violation of city ordinance. Other businesses in the same Hafen Lane building were doing similar violations and were not cited, he said.

One of those business has dozens of wrecks and burned out vehicles stored on site, and several other businesses in that complex also had similar vehicles stored in the open there, Galliher said. The interesting thing is that, of all of those businesses, only I received the notice of violation. Kind of strange!

Galliher said that he received another notice last fall, alleging several violations at the business. But there was no evidence to support any of them, he said.

Galliher said that his case had been put on the Council agenda to review his Conditional Use Permit for the location and possibly revoke it. He claimed that he did not received notice of the review in the time required by law.

Mr. Secrist had no intention of allowing the supposed violations to be corrected, Galliher said. He was determined to close my business down without even giving me the notice of the meeting as required by law.

In the end, Galliher said that he had to bring legal representation to meet privately with the City Attorney and Secrist about this matter. In that meeting, Mr. Secrist admitted that he had no proof of the allegations made against me, Galliher said.

By that time, Galliher had already found the new location in the Industrial Park for his business. In the end, he agreed to move by Feb. 1. In return, he was grandfathered in as a Permitted Use on the new property and received his business license, Galliher said.

Galliher claimed that the ordinance being presented before the council was not needed and that it was just a way for Secrist to save face after targetting his business.

I would just ask you: What is the purpose of this law? Galliher said. What problem does it solve? He didnt explain the problem in what this law corrects. He just said that staff wants it. Is that all that is required now for a law to pass: that staff wants it?

During Council comments, Councilman Brian Wursten, who was attending the meeting remotely over a phone line, commended Galliher for standing up and making this comment. Two weeks earlier, when the Council had voted to present this bill for a public hearing, Wursten had been the lone vote against it, stating that it did indeed appear to be singling out Galliher and his business.

I just feel like this is something that didnt need to take place, Wursten said in last weeks meeting. This is not something that needs to be adopted at this point and I just urge all of you to vote against it.

Councilman George Gault asked City Attorney Bryan Pack if he would respond to what Galliher had said. Pack responded that, from his perspective, the actions of the City in the matter had all been within the bounds of legality. So I think that this is a political decision for the council to make at this point.

Pack added that he would disagree with the characterization of the meeting between Galliher and City staff that Galliher had related in his comments.

But really, I dont think that is the issue here tonight, Pack said. That issue (with Galliher) has been resolved with his agreement to move, he is grandfathered in under this ordinance. So it doesnt even apply to him in his new location. It is a non-issue at this point, from my perspective.

In the end, Boger made a motion to approve the bill. The motion failed with a 2-3 vote with Wursten, Sandra Ramaker and Karen Dutkowski voting against it.

Originally posted here:

City Council rejects controversial bill - The Progress - mvprogress