Revocation request denied

Owners of a Three Arch Bay property agreed Tuesday to pay the price demanded by a council member for a “no” vote on the request to revoke their building permit and Design Review Board approval.

It was not a bribe; it was acceptance of revisions to the project proposed by Councilwoman Cheryl Kinsman.

“I think I am in the awful position of being the swing vote — so this is the price for my vote not to revoke,” Kinsman said, using a green marker pen on the exhibited plan to lop off a proposed peak, cross out a chimney and narrow an elevator shaft that protruded into the skyline.

Kinsman’s changes led to the unanimous council decision to deny the request for revocation.

The meeting was held hours before the newly elected council members were installed. Kinsman and then-Councilwoman Toni Iseman, who voted with Councilwoman Jane Egly to hold the revocation hearing, were named to a subcommittee to review the required revisions.

The vote against revocation restarts the permit for the project, which will be in force for two years from the Nov. 5 meeting. Denial of the request also probably makes moot a lawsuit filed by Charles and Valerie Griswold, owners of the subject property at 29 Bay Drive, their attorney Gene Gratz opined.

Council members scheduled the special 3 p.m. meeting Tuesday just to discuss the request submitted by Three Arch Bay property owners Sid and Lesley Danenhauer and Craig and Kathleen Miller, who were represented by attorney Randall S. Waier at the two-hour hearing.

The project has been in the works since 1997. The revocation requesters claimed construction plans approved by the commission differed from plans approved by the city, for which a building permit was issued.

A three-hour revocation hearing in October was continued to Nov. 5 on the advice of City Attorney Philip Kohn to allow time for the Griswold’s attorney to prepare a response to data he had not seen before the meeting.

Revocation requesters claimed that board approval was gained by misrepresentation, one of the legal bases for revocation.

Gratz said there was no evidence that any misrepresentation caused the Design Review Board to approve the project.

“I have been reading the minutes of the board meeting, and it is clear that the board’s decision was based on the staking [site plan data], so I am voting to deny the revocation,” Councilwoman Elizabeth Pearson-Schneider said.