A COUPLE MEMBERS OF THE ZONING APPEALS BOARD NEEDS TO BE MORE CONSIDERATE

Last week we sat in a Board of Zoning Appeals meeting for well over 2 1/2  hours and listened to a lively discussion of the merits of approving an amended parking plan for a proposed upscale Restaurant-Bar on West Franklin Street. This project is being developed by highly regarded Evansville businessman Kerry Chesser.

We were perplexed when the board voted 4 to 3 to reject Mr. Chesser’s request to open a new Restaurant-Bar on West Franklin Street even after he made major concessions in his parking plans.

Speaking in favor of this project were Amy Rivers-Word President of the Franklin Street Events Association and Kenny Newcomb of F. C. Tucker Commercial President. We were astonished by the way board members Joy Payne and local attorney Jon Parkhurst talked down to Amy Rivers-Word.  We hope the next time she comes before this group the Board Chairman will demand that Parkhurst and Payne allow Amy Rivers-Word to make her point without interruptions. Bottom line, there is no reason for anyone serving on any public board be allowed to openly be disrespectful to any citizen that wants to speak on any item posted on the board agenda.

We would like to point out that Mr. Chessers attorney Chris Wischer did a masterful job in presenting his client petition for a Restaurant -Bar on West Franklin Street.  Mr. Wischer stayed on point and didn’t make any demeaning comments towards members of the Board or Pistons attorney Maria Bulkley.

We urge Mr. Chesser to continue the fight to convince the Zoning Board of Appeals to vote in favor of his most worthy Restaurant-Bar project on West Franklin Street.  It’s our strong opinion when the Board approves Mr. Chessers request for a Westside Restaurant-Bar it will prove to a major asset to that area!

COMMUNITY AND BUSINESS LEADER AMY RIVERS-WORD  SPEAKS OUT ABOUT DECISION OF ZONING APPEALS BOARD

I have seen a lot of political hackery in my day in Evansville, but I think tonight took the cake.

Fellow business owners Kerry KC Chesser and Chad Brady were denied their parking variance this evening, with a vote of 4-3 with the Area Zoning Appeals Board this evening. This post will be a bit wordy, as there is so much to discuss from tonight, but it is worth it to get to the end.

The first and most important piece of evidence that was brought before the board from their attorney, was the current businesses on Franklin Street that have been given parking variances over the past years, MOST within the past 5 years. The power point presentation showed the multiple places, including the ONLY business remonstrator on the street, that have parking variances, the number of spots they DO have, and the number of spots they asked for and were granted in their variance. Just this past year, several places were given 100% (yes, literally no parking spaces) variances. One is the newest pizza place to open on the street just within the past year. Required spots 21 = required ZERO by the board!! The new development from KC and Chad, was going to have 93 total spots, with a request of relaxing the ordinance by 25 spots. They would have had the largest, single parking lot on the street, even larger than the West Side Nut Club spots, that multiple businesses on the street are allowed to use to meet the parking requirements. The precedent that has been set it STAGGERING, and the city attorney would have to do a double take, as KC and Chad are discussing possible litigation due to the disgusting political based decisions that were made this evening. In fact, one board member literally asked the question of how much precedence matters, because it is so overwhelmingly an important piece to tonight’s issue.

Second, the blatant unprofessionalism shown to me by one of the board members, and witnessed by a room full of people, is appalling. Mr. Jonathan Parkhurst yelled at me, with pointed fingers, to go to the mic at one point. Even several members of the media asked me afterwards if I had any previous dealings with this member of the board. To my knowledge, I don’t know him, and only during my variance request, have I ever met the gentleman of the board. At least 10 people from the general public who were in attendance commented to me afterwards the open aggression that was shown to me by this board member.

Third, to speak before the board you are sworn in. This in and of itself, is to take at FACE value comments made by those in attendance are truthful, accurate, and to the best of their knowledge. Board member Ms. Becky Kasha had asked if Franklin Street was doing anything to help with a perceived parking issue (which the vast majority down there, and who were also in attendance tonight, and who are the actual owners down there, DON’T EVEN SAY THERE IS ONE!) and I am privy to some information of something the Franklin Street Events Association is working on to try to stymy all future parking problems. We are meeting in 11 days with a local high school booster that rents from INDOT a large parking lot, very close to Franklin Street. We’d love to continue the growth on our street, provide safe and reliable parking, and a certain we will be able to work an agreement out to make this work. INDOT has ZERO plans for an interchange here, as our own mayor has given his approval of a plan for a play ground, Stop Light City Playground, the large park we had to make sure that INDOT had no plans to ever make into a clover leaf. I was told that my testimony to any of this, should not be included, by member Ms. Joy Payne, as how did we not know it was all going to be a clover leaf. As the president and founder of one of the most active city organizations, and the person who has lead the charge to vast growth on Franklin Street, I would assume my sworn testament IS acceptable, and again, was blatant unprofessionalism on the part of said member. Ultimately, it did not meet the agenda for an outcome that some members had already decided. I also had to laugh, and this is an aside, this board member on her personal Facebook page has a picture of her on Franklin Street, for TODAY Halloween on Franklin, Fall Bazaar, and Zombie Pub Crawl ~ Franklin Street, where nearly 8,000 visitors were present, and somehow she found a parking space.

Fourth, the major neighorhood remonstrators, the Lamasco neighborhood association, a big piece that need to be listened to in this entire process, spoke that their opposition went from violently opposed at the beginning of this process last June, to NO OPINION on the project at this point. This means nearly all businesses on the street were for, the neighborhood had no opinion, and nearly the entire room were there in support of the project.

Fifth, which is HUGE in my opinion, is the parking ordinance overlay (essentially waiting the ordinances) for Haynie’s Corner Arts District, Jacobsville Join In, and Evansville Downtown Alliance Main Street. These four areas, ALONG WITH FRANKLIN STREET, were brought to the city council approximately two years ago, to WAIVE the current parking ordinances in these districts, as our current ordinances are a detriment to continued development. To put this in very simple terms, my goergeous development, The Dapper Pig, literally required ZERO spots to open. Franklin Street, on the night of the vote, was pulled off, by a now gone city councilman. This is a big piece, as some of the arguments made by dissenting board members, is that NOW, all of sudden, Franklin Street has met some maximum capacity and no variances should be made going forward. YET, we have three large areas of our city that ZERO parking is required, but they haven’t met some magical capacity of parking? TENS OF THOUSANDS of people can find parking for the Fall Festival and FSEA events, but 25 spots that KC is asking for are not there?

I am disappointed for Evansville. I am disappointed a building owner, who has done everything to satisfy a board and asked to simply be treated as the rest of the street has, CAN’T SPEND $1.5M OF THEIR MONEY TO DEVELOP A VACANT EYE SORE, under the guise of a nonexistent parking problem, that is currently trying to be fixed with a long term solution, and a property that would have had the largest lot on the street.

All I can take away from this, is my adamant swearing up and down I would never run for public office is quickly becoming a thing of the past. STOP STIFFLING DEVELOPMENT. FIX OUR ANTIQUATED ORDINANCES. DEMAND MORE OF OUR PUBLIC OFFICIALS, ELECTED AND APPOINTMENT. GET INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS. SPEAK UP AND BE A PART OF THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE. You deserve better, I deserve better, and Evansville deserves better.

EDITORS FOOTNOTE: This e-mail was posted by AMY WORD-SMITH on area social media right after she attended the Zoning Appears Board hearing concerning Kerry Chessers request to locate  a new Restaurant-Bar on West Franklin Street.  We were asked to post this e-mail on the CCO.  We agreed to post it without editing.

COA: Officers Don’t Have To Relay Specifics Of Their ‘Reasonable Suspicions’

IL for www.theindianalawyer.com

Deciding that police officers do not have to relay the specific details of their reasons for being suspicious of a person before an officer stops and detains that person, the Indiana Court of Appeals has rejected a man’s argument that evidence of his possession of a handgun was improperly admitted.

In the case of Charles Dunson v. State of Indiana, 49A04-1603-CR-469, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department officers responded to a call about gunshots, shouting and violence in the 2400 block of Kenwood Avenue. The officers arrived and found Tamika Coleman bleeding from the face. During the officers’ conversation with Coleman, Charles Dunson drove past on a motorcycle and Coleman told officers he was involved in the altercation.

Officer Cathy Faulk indicated through police radio broadcast to Officer Matthew Addington and others that a man on a silver motorcycle “may be involved” in the situation, and Addington, upon seeing Dunson on his motorcycle, detained him. He then noticed a bulge in Dunson’s pants, patted him down and seized a handgun.

Dunson was charged with Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license, but the charge was enhanced to a Level 5 felony because Dunson had previously been convicted on the same offense. During his trial, Dunson challenged the admissibility of the seized handgun as evidence, but the Marion Superior Court overruled his objects and convicted him on the felony charge.

In his appeal, Dunson said Addington’s detainment and seizure of his gun violated his Fourth Amendment rights because the officer “lacked reasonable suspicion to believe (he) was engaged in criminal activity prior to stopping him and any knowledge known to the investigating officer cannot be imputed on the stopping officer,” as is required under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88, S. Ct. 1868 (1968).

Specifically, Dunson said Faulk’s indication officers on a radio broadcast that he may have been involved in the altercation was not specific enough to create reasonable suspicion.

But the Indiana Court of Appeals disagreed, writing in a Friday opinion that the Indiana Supreme Court had previously held in Griffith v. State,788 N.E. 2d 835, 840 (Ind. 2003) that, “Where there is a police-channel communication to the arresting officer, he acts in good faith thereon, and such knowledge and information exist within the department, the arrest is based on probable cause.”

Such a police-channel communication existed between Faulk and Addington, the appellate court said, so Addington’s detention of Dunson was based upon collective law enforcement information. Although Faulk did not relay the exact details of her suspicion of Dunson, requiring her to do so would be cumbersome, practical and potentially dangerous, the court wrote.

“Requiring the level of detail Dunson suggests is necessary could hamstring an officer’s ability to effectively carry out his or her duties,” Judge Michael Barnes wrote for the court. “Allowing officers to rely on the collective knowledge of the law enforcement organization is practical and leads to more efficient police work.”