The vote taken will be certified and entered as part of the court record in a civil appeal to the rejection of the permit Judge Alma Hinton is currently deliberating, City Attorney Gilbert Chichester said.

Councilman Wayne Smith made the motion to affirm the findings with a second from Carol Cowen.

The action was required after Hinton remanded the permit back to the city in June, requesting it to provide evidence to support its findings which led to the denial of the proposed apartment complex.

The document which the city will certify and provide to the court, as well as Franklin Jones, an attorney representing MaSuki Incorporated, the developers of the proposed 192-unit apartment complex, spells out the finding of facts.

Council first found the permit application was complete and the requested permit within its jurisdiction. It found proper notice of the application and the accompanying public hearing was given to affected property owners.

The document to be submitted to the court explains the first public hearing on the matter was held January 6 and was continued until February 3 for council to continue receiving evidence and testimony in a quasi-judicial setting.

“During the aforesaid hearing,” the document says, “evidence was introduced on behalf of the applicant and evidence was introduced by individuals that opposed issuance of the permit.”

From a review of all the evidence, the document says, “City council finds that allowing the permit to be issued and the resulting (three-story) apartments that consist of two-hundred rental units to be built will substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property that consists of single family residences that are privately owned.”

The document also says council, after reviewing all the evidence presented, finds allowing the permit to be issued would not be in harmony with the original planned unit development and that the current property owners of single family dwellings relied on the original PUD when buying their property and building their homes.

Ultimately, council voted the development would substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property and the development would not be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located.

Jones had no immediate comment following the meeting.