There have been months of controversy over the possibility of residential first floor housing in our downtown.
Setting aside how this issue has been debated, considered, and decided, here’s my take in support of first floor housing subject to conditional use approval.
Traditionally, first floor housing in the downtown was subject to approval only as a conditional use. More recently, at the urging of members of Downtown Whitewater, Inc., and many others, there was a request to impose a moratorium on approval of conditional use permits until the Planning Commission had the opportunity to offer a recommendation.
The choices that have been before us: Ban, reject a ban, or amend with a two year sunset clause (leaving a future Council to decide whether to renew the ban before its expiration)? Many have spoken in favor of a moratorium or ban over these last months. There is no dispute that those who favor this approach favor it strongly.
You may know, too, that I have been willing to offer a dissenting view; that willingness is present in this case, too. Someone who speaks in dissent, by definition, does not favor decision by plebiscite. One should be willing to advocate in spite of a majority on the other side.
Readers know that I was only lukewarm toward a temporary moratorium against the Planning Commission’s ability to grant conditional uses for first floor housing in the Downtown. Without a moratorium, the Planning Commission could vote in favor, or against, a given conditional use request.
If I would not prefer a lengthy moratorium, then I would not favor a ban, either. Opposition to a ban does not mean support of first floor housing in any given case; I would favor keeping the option available.
A conditional use request need not be approved, and by its nature could impose requirements on the request for a first floor downtown residence (size, floor plan, etc.). I have contended that these imposed requirements may prove onerous. Still, they offer an applicant an opportunity where a ban offers none.
I have opposed a ban. That would not settle the issue — but leave possibilities: conditional use approval, or conditional use rejection. Fair enough to me, and consistent with the idea that applicants could offer proposals as a bargain with a municipality or municipal board to win approval.
If the price of approval seemed to high, then no deal (with either side possibly deciding against the proposal). As I noted before, if the conditions seem too burdensome, it will be evident though open, public bargaining and debate.
I would not foreclose the possibility of bargaining and a deal.