NATCHEZ — In light of concerns raised during the recent Roth Hill casino design approval process, city officials are split on their support of a city ordinance that some say compromises the power of the preservation commission to enforce the city’s historical ordinances.

The ordinance, which was passed unanimously in 2005 by the Natchez Board of Aldermen, directs appeals of preservation commission decisions on economic development projects to the Natchez Board of Aldermen. The appellant has 15 days to appeal and also has the option of appealing the aldermen’s decision to circuit court.

Prior to 2005, appeals of the commission’s decisions went directly to circuit court.

Preservation Chairwoman Marty Seibert served on the commission in 2005 when the code of ordinances was amended during talks of a condominium development on the bluff.

The original ordinance, Seibert said, was intended to take the politics out of the approval process of proposed developments, such as the bluff condos or the Roth Hill casino.

“(The decision) would not go back to officials that could benefit from the decision, it would go to a court where it’s objectively decided,” she said. “That’s always why it was written.”

Seibert said New Orleans, Charleston, S.C., and other historical cities have similar ordinances, and she believes the ordinance is a matter for discussion between the aldermen and commission for future developments.

The preservation commission voted to continue its hearing of the casino design plans from Dec. 14 to Jan. 11, giving developers time to work with the Historic Natchez Foundation on favorable changes to the casino building. Seibert said had the commission just denied the plans, the developers could have appealed to the aldermen who had the opportunity to reverse the decision.

“It’s not a matter of being concerned of whether or not they could overturn the decision, they could have overturned it,” she said. “Whether or not they would have, we obviously can’t know.”

According to the city’s development code, appeals to Natchez Planning Commission decisions also go before the aldermen.

The ordinance states that the aldermen would, on appeal, determine whether or not the preservation commission acted beyond its power or abused its discretion.

Natchez City Attorney Everett Sanders said the mayor and board could reverse the commission’s decision, but it would be subject to legal review by the court, just as city commissions’ decisions are subject to review by the mayor and aldermen.

Ward 6 Alderman Dan Dillard said he believes, after reviewing the ordinance, the aldermen would be deciding if the commission misused its power.

Dillard said the idea that the casino developers could have appealed the hypothetical denial of the application for the casino’s design to the aldermen presents an interesting question of whether or not the city should make a decision regarding a development.

“I would think that at that point the city would have to (disqualify) itself from being part of any decision because of a conflict of interest. Even though (the developers) are applying as a casino, they’re also applying on behalf of the property owner, which would be the city.”

Current board members Mayor Jake Middleton, Ward 2 Alderman James “Ricky” Gray and Ward 1 Alderwoman Joyce Arceneaux-Mathis and Ward 3 Alderman Bob Pollard served as alderman when the ordinance was passed in 2005.

Middleton said the economic development is a serious local issue that the city is charged with handling.

“We told the developers to get with preservation and work out the problems,” he said. “They did. As long as everything is legal and binding, let’s move on with the project.”