Document text
Ethics Commission won't pursue complaint against Talent developer Monday Apr 3, 2017 at 12:01 AM Tony Boom for the Mail Tribune Allegations that developer Charlies Hamilton benefited from his role on a citizen’s advisory committee don’t meet criteria for action because of a lack of information, the Oregon Government Ethics Commission has determined. Town residents Derek Volkart and Michelle Glass filed a complaint with the commission March 22 alleging that Hamilton may have violated state government ethics rules on conflict of interest because of his presence on a citizen’s advisory committee that was considering comprehensive plan changes that affected a subdivision project for which he later gained approval. “You did not provide any indication that Mr. Hamilton’s interest in the property predate any potential decision he may have made as a member of the CAC,” commission Executive Director Ron Bersin wrote to Glass and Volkart in a March 23 letter. Hamilton said he was pleased to hear of the outcome when informed by the Mail Tribune of the commission’s decision Friday, but added he had received nothing about either the complaint or the commission action. “I certainly expected to have something in my mailbox,” said Hamilton. “I support the Ethics Commission letter of decision. I agree with them 100 percent. It sounds like a nonissue.” Hamilton said he had requested documents from the commission earlier in the day but had yet to receive them. Volkart said he has been in contact with the commission to gain clarification. He said it may be difficult to gain the type of information needed because the CAC did not maintain records of the meetings. “I really think that information is there. I’ll talk to the person who reviewed it Monday,” said Volkart. He reiterated it appeared that Hamilton “may” have had a conflict of interest but was also critical of city staff conduct for not maintaining records and procedural matters. “The city should be the firewall against developers using the city for graft,” said Volkart. “The city’s complicity here is more egregious. They represent us.” A CAC recommendation in which Hamilton participated resulted in adoption by the City Council in August 2016 of a new economic element to the comprehensive plan to allow conversion of light industrial land to residential use. Hamilton subsequently won approval March 15 for such a change for a new subdivision on Williamson Way. A go-ahead for the subdivision by the City Council took three meetings before the last of four approvals was given March 15. The council did not follow the lead of the Planning Commission, which recommended denial on a 5-1 vote. About 10 citizens spoke out against the approval at a March 1 public hearing. Hamilton started the application for the project in December. The project would provide 34 single-family residences, including standalone houses, townhouses and zero-lot-line structures on a 4.37-acre site next to the Oregon Shakespeare Festival shop on Talent Avenue. Hamilton has also set aside an area where eight to 12 apartments would be built at a later date. Glass and Volkart also were critical of handling by city staff Feb. 9 of the arrangement of Hamilton’s development application and consideration of draft comprehensive plan amendments that might affect zoning of land and perhaps spell out criteria for including affordable housing. Staff placed the subdivision application before the comprehensive plan considerations. “The subdivision request could have been subjected to affordable housing rules, or the request could have been denied by criteria within the incoming housing element,” the pair wrote in their complaint. “Changing the order of business; elevating Hamilton’s subdivision request into first position, effectively eliminated the limiting impact of the approval as submitted, arguably making the project more lucrative.” The Planning Commission on Feb. 23 recommended adopting the amendments, and the City Council will hold a public hearing on it Wednesday, April 5. Should the council approve the amendments, a second reading would be required April 17, and it would be effective May 19. Adopting the element doesn’t establish any land-use regulations, Development Services Director Zac Moody said. Regulations developed from the comprehensive plan, including proposed affordable housing regulations, would need to go through a similar public process. Criteria for a possible investigation were spelled out in the letter from Bersin. “A public official is met with a conflict of interest when he has taken an action or made a decision or recommended in official capacity if that … could or would affect his own personal financial interest,” Bersin wrote in the letter. The information submitted did not identify anything done by Hamilton in his CAC capacity that could or would have affected his own financial interest, Bersin continued. — Tony Boom is an Ashland freelance writer. Reach him at [email protected].