[1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL]
[00:00:03]
>> WE'RE NOW IN SESSION. >> WILL THERE BE A TEST AT THE
END, WE HAVE TO TAKE NOTES? >> THERE'S A TEST AT 5:00 BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO BE MAKING MOTIONS.
[2. QuasiJudicial Rules and Procedures]
SO I KNOW THAT ALL OF YOU KNOW A LOT OF THIS.BUT EVEN CITY COMMISSIONERS THAT ARE DOING IN A THIS ALL THE TIMR BOARD MEMBERS THAT HAVE BEEN HERE FOR 15 YEARS, IT'S GOOD TO BE REMINDED, IT'S GOOD THAT I'M REMIND HE WHEN TIME GOING THROUGH THIS TRAINING. EVEN THOUGH I DIDN'T LEAVE A LOT OF CASE LAW CITATIONS HERE, I GIVE THIS SAME LECTURE TO ATTORNEYS, CITY AND COUNTIES ATTORNEYS AROUND THE STATE SO IT'S PRETTY COMPREHENSIVE AND IT'S ALL WHAT WE DO HERE.
QUASIJUDICIAL HEARINGS. EVERY CASE YOU HEAR IS CONDUCTED AS A QUASIJUDICIAL HEARING. AND OF COURSE ALL WE DO HERE ARE VARIANCES. WE DO HAVE SOME ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS ONCE THAT WHILE FOR NEW BOARD MEMBERS AND ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL IS STILL CONDUCTED AS A QUASIJUDICIAL HEARING.
WHAT IT IS HERE IS AN APPEAL, RIGHT NOW THE CODE SAYS IT'S MOSTLY PLANNING DECISION HE BUT SOMETIMES IT'S A DECISION FROM THE CITY MANAGER, IT COULD BE THAT HE DOESN'T WANT TO GIVEN SOMEBODY A PERMIT TO H HAVE CHK. THEY WANT FIVE, HE SAYS YOU CAN HAVE TWO. THEY DID APPEAL IT WITHIN 30 DAYS TO THIS BOARD. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS? CITY STAFF DECISIONS AND BASICALLY ANY ADMINISTRATOR DECISION? OKAY WE DON'T SEE MANY OF THOSE BUT THEY'RE ALLOWED.
ALL RIGHT. YOU HAVE HEARD THE TERM QUASIJUDICIAL. HAVE YOU HEARD THE TERM QUASILEGISLATIVE? IS QUASILEGISLATIVE ARE ONES WE CALL JUST LEGISLATIVE DECISIONS AT THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT LEVEL.
YOU ALL DON'T MAKE QUASILEGISLATIVE DECISIONS HERE, THEY ARE ALL QUASIJUDICIAL. BUT QUASILEGISLATIVE SETS POLICY FOR THE CITY. SO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS AND LET'S SEE, ORDINANCES, THINGS LIKE THAT, THOSE ARE QUASILEGISLATIVE DECISIONS. ANY QUESTIONS, THAT WILL BE THE LAST TIME WE TALK ABOUT QUASILEGISLATIVE, OKAY.
THE CITY COMMISSION DOES THAT. MOST OF THE TIME.
THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD JUST AS AN EXAMPLE, THEY'RE REALLY NOT MAKING ANY QUASILEGISLATIVE DECISIONS, THEY'RE MAKE UGH RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COMMISSION SO THEIR DECISIONS ARE FINAL. QUASIJOOUCIAL DECISIONS APPLY POLICY TO A SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION.
SO DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION INCLUDES AN APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE, AN APPLICATION FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT, AN APPLICATION FOR A SITE PLAN APPROVAL, AT THE TRC, IT ALSO INCLUDES AND BY THE WAY, OUR TRC PROCEDURES WILL CHANGE SHORTLY AS SOON AS WE GET THEM WRITTEN UP TOO BECAUSE REALLY THEY SHOULD BE QUASIJUDICIAL. THEY'RE CONDUCTED WITH MORE FORMALITY AS YOU KNOW THAN A LEGISLATIVE HEARING.
WE SWEAR IN WITNESSES, PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO SPEAK BECAUSE THEY'RE GIVING THEIR TESTIMONY UNDER OATH.
IT IS THE AKIN TO AN INFORMAL TRIAL? WHY DO WE CALL IT A INFORMAL TRIAL? THAT'S BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A JUDGE THAT IS UNDER ALL THE RULES OF JUDICIAL BLRGSES AND T. WE TALK ABOUT HEARSAY EVIDENCE, WE'LL LEARN MORE ABOUT THAT LATER.
YOU ALL KNOW WHAT HEARSAY IS? TWO PARTIES ARE SPEAKING AND SOMEBODY SAYS WHAT THE OTHER PARTY SAID, THAT'S HEARSAY BASICALLY. WHAT THEY HEARD, THAT'S HEARSAY.
YOUR DECISIONS, ARE SUBJECT TO A CERTIORARI STANDARD OF APPEAL.
I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT THAT A LITTLE BIT LATER.
THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TWO TYPES OF DECISIONS, IS THE IS DISCRETION THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT HAS.
FOR QUASILEGISLATIVE DECISIONS IT'S CALLED A FAIRLY DEBATABLE STANDARD OF REVIEW. IT IS BASICALLY SO DIFFICULT TO OVERTURN NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE. BASICALLY CAN REASONABLE PEOPLE DISAGREE, AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THAT DECISION WAS A GOOD DECISION? AND MOST OF THE TIME REASONABLE PEOPLE CAN DISAGREE. SO THAT'S WHAT THE COURT WOULD USE IN EVALUATING THOSE LEGISLATIVE DECISIONS.
QUASIJUDICIAL APPEALS AND DECISIONS ARE A DIFFERENT STANDARD OF REVIEW AND A CERTIORARI STANDARD LIKE I SAID I'LL GO THROUGH LATER. WHAT IS A QUASIJUDICIAL HEARING? THE, OBVIOUSLY, THIS WAS NOT JUST MADE FOR THE BOARD OF
[00:05:05]
ADJUSTMENT. ABOUT BUT THE DECISION MAKING BODY APPLIES EXISTING POLICIES AND REGULATIONS TO A SPECIFIC PROPERTY AND DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS ARE COMPLIED WITH FOR THE HEARING. AND WHAT THAT MEANS IS FOR EXAMPLE, WE DO NOT LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT SOMEBODY IS ALLOWED TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY. IN FLORIDA YOU ACTUALLY CAN DO THAT. YOU CAN -- YOU CAN SET A REASONABLE TIME LIMIT, ON THE AMOUNT OF TESTIMONY.BUT THE RULE IS, YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE ADVANCE NOTICE OF THOSE TIME LIMITS SO THAT PEOPLE CAN PREPARE FOR WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO SAY. AND REASONABLE MEANS YOU CAN'T GIVE THEM TWO MINUTES BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO GIVE THEM SIX
HOURS, OKAY? >> HAVE WE EVER -- HAS THIS
SO FAR WE HAVE NOT HAD TO DO THAT IN THE WAY WE HANDLE THESE TYPES OF THINGS. IF WE HAD HEARINGS GOING OFTEN AND ON AND ON, WE MIGHT DECIDE FOR EVERYBODY, NOT ONE PARTICULAR CASE, EVERYBODY WITH HAVE LIMITS.
OR LET'S SAY YOU HAVE OR WE SO EVEN PROCESS 25 VARIANCE APPLICATIONS FOR ONE MEETING, AT THAT POINT YOU MIGHT WANT TO SET LIMITS ON THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT TESTIMONY IS GIVEN.
YOU ARE MAKING FINDINGS OF FACULTY AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON THE ISSUE. WE'LL ABOUT TALK ABOUT HOW YOU MAKE MOTIONS LATER, HOW THAT BECOMES EUROPE F YOUR FINDINGS Y AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. VARIANCE THOSE ARE THE TYPE OF QUASIJUDICIAL HEARING DECISIONS. WHY DO WE HAVE THEM? THERE WAS A CASE IN 1993 OUT OF THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT CALLED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF BREFERRED COUNTY VERSUS SCHNEIDER AND IN THAT CASE IT SET OUT BECAUSE IT WAS A FREE FOR ALL AT THAT POINT. WASN'T THAT LONG AGO BUT THESE HEARINGS WEREN'T NECESSARILY CONDUCTED PROPERLY, DUE PROCESS WASN'T AFFORDED PROPERLY AND LOCAL ABOUT L COUNTY GOVERNMENTS WERE CONFUSED BECAUSE THE LAW WASN'T CLEAR ON HOW DO YOU -- WHAT'S DIFFERENT FROM A REQUEST FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DECISION AND A VARIANCE. SO THE COURT SAID WE THINK THAT QUASIJUDICIAL IS APPROPRIATE WHEN YOU HAVE ONE PROPERTY APPLYING AND YOUR DECISION WILL AFFECT THAT ONE PROPERTY.
WHERE YOU'RE APPLYING THE CITY'S POLICIES AND REGULATIONS.
AGAIN, LEGISLATIVE PROCESSES CREATE POLICY.
QUASIJUDICIAL APPLIES TO POLICY. AND I CAN SEND OR DAPHNE CAN SEND YOU ALL THIS POWERPOINT TO REFER TO IN THE FUTURE IF YOU NEED TO. DEFINITIONS, I WON'T READ IT TO YOU. COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE WE'LL TALK ABOUT LATER. YOU'RE THE DECISION MAKING BODY.
EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS, TO REVEAL ON THE RECORD, PARTIES TO THE CASE ARE PARTIES, MEANING THE CITY IS A PARTY AND THE APPLICANT IS A PARTY. WHICH INCLUDES THEIR ATTORNEY OR ENGINEER IF THEY'RE ACTING AS THEIR AGENT, THEY'RE THE PARTIES. AND AFFECTED PARTY IS IN THIS CITY ANY PROPERTY OWNER, RESIDENTS OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT, MEANS THAT THEY HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY AND EXAMINATION. CROSS-EXAMINATION.
THEY DON'T HAVE IF L SAME RIGHTS OF APPEAL, THE CIRCUIT COURT ISN'T NECESSARILY -- FOR EXAMPLE I LIVE ACROSS TOWN NEAR SADLER.
IF I SAY I'M AN AFFECTED PARTY, I WILL GIVE TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING BUT I WOULDN'T NECESSARILY HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE YOUR DECISION, I'M ALL ACROSS TOWN AND YOUR APPLICATION MAY BE FROM OLD TOWN, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR FROM OLD FOWN WHO APPLIES WOULD DEFINITELY BE A AFFECTED PARTY. THE AFFECTED PARTIES DO TAKE AN OATH BEFORE THEY TESTIFY, THEY CAN CROM EXAM CROSS EXPEL.
BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO DISCLOSE THAT AS AN EX PARTE COMMUNICATION, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?
>> LETS ME -- SO AFFECTED PARTIES ARE ANYBODY WITHIN THE
>> BUT EX PARTE DOESN'T -- ABOUT SOMEBODY NOT ONE OF THE MAIN PARTIES IF YOU WILL, COMES UP AND SAYS HEY I SEE THIS ON THE AGENDA, I THINK THAT THAT'S A BAD IDEA OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT AND YOU ACTUALLY ENGAGE THEM IN CONVERSATION, I WOULDN'T -- IS
IT IS NOT. IT DOESN'T HURT TO DISCLOSE IT.
BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO. YOU COULD HAVE TALKED TO 25 RESIDENTS, AND WE'D BE HERE ALL NIGHT DISCLOSING.
>> SO WHAT IS IT AGAIN TAMMI, JUST EXPLAIN IT WHEN A SENTENCE
IS EX PARTE? >> WHAT IS IT? COMMUNICATION ORAL OR WRITTEN BETWEEN MEMBERS SERVING ON THE BOARD, BETWEEN EACH OF YOU OF AND THE PUBLIC.
[00:10:02]
YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO TALK TO EACH OTHER.OTHER THAN THOSE MADE ON THE RECORD AT THE HEARING.
SO JUST COMMENTS MADE ON THE RECORD, IF THEY'RE OUTSIDE OF THIS HEARING, WHICH MEANS USUALLY BEFORE THE HEARING, BECAUSE YOU USUALLY VOTE THAT NIGHT, IF YOU TALK TO THE CITY, A PARTY OR YOU TALK TO THE APPLICANT A PARTY, YOU HAVE TO DISCLOSE THOSE. BUT IT'S BETWEEN ONE BOARD MEMBER AND THE CITY. SO IF YOU SPEAK TO DAPHNE ABOUT IT, YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, YOU SEND AN E-MAIL, YOU CALL, THAT'S AN
EX PARTE COMMUNICATION. >> SO WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? SO IF THERE IS EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? YOU JUST HAVE TO DISCLOSE IT?
>> YES, IT JUST MEANS YOU HAVE TO DISCLOSE IT.
THERE IS A LONG LINE OF ISSUES RELATED TO EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS IN FLORIDA BUT BASICALLY THE LEGISLATURE AND THE COURTS, THE LEGISLATURE FOLLOWED IN FLORIDA HELPED US OUT BY SAYING IF IN OUR CASE THE CITY HAS AN ORDINANCE THAT DESCRIBES HOW EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS HAVE TO BE DISCLOSED AT THE HEARINGS AND THEY ARE, THEN THERE IS A PRESUMPTION OF PREJ PREJUDICE TT YOU HAD THOSE IS REMOVED.
SO FOR DUE PROCESS PURPOSES AND BIAS AND ALL OF THAT, IF WE HAVE AN ORDINANCE IN PLACE WHICH WE DO IN THIS CITY, THEN YOU DISCLOSE THOSE EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS AND THERE IS NOT A PRESUMPTION OF PREJUDICE, THAT SOMEBODY COULD THEN ARGUE TO THE
COURT. >> SO LET ME TRY TO MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE SPECIFIC TO MY UNDERSTANDING.
>> YEP. >> IF -- LET'S SAY THERE IS AN APPLICATION THAT'S BEING CONSIDERED.
AND I WANT TO DO MORE RESEARCH ON IT BEFORE I SHOW UP ON
WEDNESDAY NIGHT, RIGHT? >> UH-HUH.
>> AND I DO A DRIVE-BY, I TAKE A LOOK AND THEN I WANT TO TALK TO DAPHNE AND SAY WHY ARE YOU RECOMMENDING AGAINST IT.
>> WHAT STEPS DO I -- WHAT STEPS DO WE NEED TO GO THROUGH TO MAKE
SURE THAT THAT'S BEFORE BOARD? >> YOU HAVE THE CONVERSATIONS AS IF YOU NORMALLY WOULD. THERE IS NOTHING DIFFERENT ABOUT THE CONVERSATION BEFORE THE HEARING.
IN YOUR EXAMPLE, WHEN YOU GET TO THIS HEARING THE CHAIR YOU'LL SEE AT 5 TODAY, WE'RE GOING TO AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF THE MEETING, HE'S GOING TO ASK IF YOU'VE HAD ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS PEP WE DO THAT PRETTY MUCH FOR EVERY CASE OR
ARE YOU DOING IT FOR EACH CASE? >> I THINK WE DO IT AT THE
MEETING LEVEL. >> WE DO IT AT THE BEGINNING.
IT DOESN'T DEPEND ON ONE OR TWO OR THREE APPLICANTS.
WE JUST DO IT ONE TIME. >> THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT.
SO AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF THE MEETING WE APPROVE THE MINUTES AND ALL THAT. I WILL EXPLAIN THE PROCEDURES WHEN PROMPTED BY CHAIR MILLER. AND THEN CHAIR MILLER WILL ASK FOR EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS AND EITHER BEFORE OR AFTER THAT THE OATH TO BE GIVEN TO EACH OF THE SPEAKERS.
IF YOU HAD EX PARTE COMMUNICOMMUNICATIONS RELATED TF THE CASES, YOU ARE GOING TO STATE THAT YOU HAD THEM, WHO YOU HAD THE EX PARTE COMMUNICATION WITH AND WHAT WAS GENERALLY THE SUBSTANCE OF YOUR COMMUNICATION. YOU WOULD SAY FOR EXAMPLE, I ASKED DAPHNE WHY SHE MADE THAT DECISION.
AND THAT'S THE EXTENT. >> WELL, AND THE PUBLIC STILL GETS ME THOUGH. SO IN THAT SCENARIO A NEIGHBOR
IS -- >> AND THAT MAY NOT BE -- IT SAYS ORAL BETWEEN MEMBERS SERVING AND THE PUBLIC OTHER THAN THOSE MADE ON THE RECORD AT THE HEARING.
OKAY YEAH, AFFECTED PARTIES. IT DOESN'T HURT TO DO IT.
>> THAT'S A GOOD GENERALIZATION, RIGHT? THEY PUT A SIGN UP IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE, SAYING, WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS. YOU ASK A COUPLE OF NEIGHBORS,
WHAT DO YOU THINK? >> THAT WOULD BE EX PARTE.
>> YES, RIGHT. A COUPLE NEIGHBORS, SURE, IT'S FOR SURE THEY'LL BE CONSIDERED PRETTY MUCH THE, THERE'S A COURT, SO AS A GENERAL RULE, YOU DON'T HAVE TO PICK AND CHOOSE, JUST MAKE YOUR DISCLOSURES AND I THINK THAT'S --
>> I CAN PICTURE CALLING DAPHNE WITH A QUESTION BECAUSE I'M NEW AND I HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS. I CAN PICTURE GOING TO SEE THE AFFECTED PARTY. IS THAT AT ALL ENCOURAGED, DO PEOPLE DO THAT? THAT SOUNDS LIKE A LOT OF
RESEARCH TO GET INTO. >> NO, NO.
YOU ARE REALLY SUPPOSED TO -- YOU'RE REALLY NOT TO SEEK OUT EX
PARTE COMMUNICATIONS. >> IT'S BEST TO BE AVOIDED
WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE GETTING ALL OF YOUR EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY HERE. YOU'RE ESSENTIALLY NOT SUPPOSED TO KNOW ANYTHING. NOW WE LIVE IN A SMALL TIME.
[00:15:04]
DRIVING BY IS PERFECTLY FINE IF YOU WANT TO DO THAT.BUT -- AND SOMETIMES THAT'S ACTUALLY REALLY HELPFUL WHEN SOMEBODY IS ASKING FOR LIKE A REDUCTION OF SET BACK IN THE FRONT YARD, YOU KIND OF WANT TO LOOK AT THE STREET AND SEE WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE, THAT'S FINE. BUT YOU DON'T GO KNOCKING ON NEIGHBORS' DOORS, THAT'S DISCOURAGED.
REMEMBER EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS IN A COURT OF LAW ARE ABSOLUTELY NOT ALLOWED. SO WE ARE INFORMAL HERE, SO THEY'RE MAKING SOME, YOU KNOW, CONCESSIONS, THE LEGISLATURE'S MAKING AND THE COURT'S MAKING SOME CONCESSIONS FOR US HERE BUT GENERALLY LIKE MR. OLIVA SAID, IT'S REALLY DISCOURAGED.
BUT IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR DAPHNE, UNDERSTAND.
YOU MAY ALSO HAVE APPLICANTS CALL YOU OR --
>> SO IF YOU ARE OUT THERE LOOKING AT THE PROPERTY AND A NEIGHBOR COMES UP AND MAKES A COMMENT ABOUT, I DON'T THINK THIS SHOULD BE WHATEVER, YOU SAY I CAN'T TALK ABOUT THIS.
AND WALK AWAY, YOU SHOULD DISCLOSE THAT EVEN IF YOU DON'T
HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH THEM? >> GENERALLY, YES.
>> YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO GETS THEIR INPURT?
>> NOT SEEK IT OUT. >> NOT SEEK IT OUT BUT IF THEY
OFFER IT? >> AGAIN, WE ARE ALL NEIGHBORS IN THIS SMALL TOWN, YOU CAN'T BE, I CAN'T TALK TO YOU, THEY GET THEIR OWN IDEA. IS THAT CLEAR AS MUD?
>> UH-HUH. >> TAMMI, BEFORE WE MOVE ON LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT A LITTLE BIT FURTHER JUST A SECOND.
BECAUSE I KNOW YOUR INTENT AND EVERYONE'S INTENT HERE IS TO KEEP THIS BOARD OPERATING AT THE HIGHEST MORAL AND ETHICAL STANDARDS AND FAIR FOR ALL CITIZENS.
ABO.SO TYPICALLY I'LL GET SOME FEEDBACK.
IF IT'S A HOT ISSUE, HIGHLY CONTESTED ON THERE, BUT THE -- YOU CAN'T -- IF I GO AND I TALK TO YOU, AND YOU'RE THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR, HOW DOES THAT REGISTER ON MY OPINION? BECAUSE TECHNICALLY, THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE HERE IN THE MEETING, TO BE CROSS EXAMINED BY SOMEONE ELSE.
SO GOING AND HAVING THAT INTERACTION IS KIND OF A GRAY AREA WHEN WE CAN'T -- WHEN IT'S NOT FAIR ON THE PLAYING FIELD.
GO THROUGH THAT A LITTLE BIT. >> WELL, THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I SAID. YOU SHOULDN'T BE SEEK IT OUT BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE RUDE TO GET AWAY FROM IT?
>> YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE WELCOMING EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS ESPECIALLY FROM NEIGHBORS.
BECAUSE YOU'RE RIGHT. EVERYBODY, THE APPLICANT, THE CITY WHEN IT COMES TO AN AFFECTED PARTY, WHATEVER THEIR POSITION IS, HAS A RIGHT THE CROSS EXAMINE THAT PERCENTAGE IF WHAT THEY SAY IS GOING TO BE USED IN YOUR MIND YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE THAT AS EVIDENCE SOMEHOW THAT HAPPENS BEFORE THE HEARING, BECAUSE WE'RE HUMAN AND IT WEIGHS ON THE DECISION.
THAT'S REALLY NOT PROPER IF THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE HERE.
>> IN A CASE LIKE THAT IF SOMEBODY WAS ENERGIZED, AND YOU DRIVE BY AND THEY GRAB YOU, THEY SAY I THINK IT'S THE WORST IDEA IN THE WORLD, BUT YOU SAY, I CAN'T REALLY TALK ABOUT IT BUT I ENCOURAGE YOU TO COME TO THE MEETING.
>> THAT'S THE BEST ANSWER, REALLY.
>> AND TYPICALLY THEY WON'T SHOW UP.
TYPICALLY IT WILL BE VERY ABRASIVE.
AND THEN WELL, WOULD YOU PLEASE COME TO THE MEETING SO WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT? AND THEN --
>> OH NO, I JUST WANT TO YOU KNOW.
>> YES, EXACTLY. >> THAT WILL BE THE END OF IT.
>> THIS IS ALL THE SAME REASON WHY UNDER OUR CITY CODE WE ARE NOT ALLOWED AS BOARD MEMBERS OR STAFF TO PRESENT TO YOU E-MAILS THAT YOU TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION.
IF THE PERSON WHO WROTE THE E-MAIL OR LETTER IS NOT HERE AND AVAILABLE FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION. WE DON'T ALLOW THAT.
WE TELL PEOPLE NO, WE CANNOT READ YOUR E-MAIL INTO THE RECORD. YOU HAVE TO BE HERE.
SO IT'S -- >> SOMETIMES WHEN THE APPLICANT WILL COME UP, SOMETIMES THEY'LL HAVE SOMETHING ELSE THAT'S WRITTEN THAT THEY PRINT OUT FOR US AND THEN WE'LL ALWAYS RUN THAT BUY MS. BOB, AND THEN SHE'LL SAY EVERYBODY GHETS IT AND IT'S WRITTEN INTO THE RECORD.
>> THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY ALSO YOU'LL SEE THAT IF AN APPLICANT FOR EXAMPLE PROVIDES THAT KIND OF TESTIMONY, CREDIT DOCUMENT, PHOTOGRAPH, SOMETHING LIKE THAT WE LIKE TO SHOW IT TO CITY, THE OTHER PARTY, TO MAKE SURE THEY DON'T HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS BEFORE WE INTRODUCE IT. ALL RIGHT.
MAKE YOUR DECISION BASED UPON THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY THAT IS IN FRONT OF YOU. YOU MAY NOT CONSIDER ANYTHING
[00:20:02]
OUTSIDE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING. THESE ARE INTENDED NOT TO BE POLITICAL, AND I DON'T MEAN DEMOCRATIC, REPUBLICAN, INDEPENDENT, POLITICAL, BUT POLITICAL THAT YOUR DECISIONS ARE NOT TO BE BASED UPON YOUR OWN OPINIONS, YOUR OWN LIFE EXPERIENCES, YES, YOU'RE HUMAN BEINGS BUT YOU'RE REALLY SUPPOSED TO BE JUDGE-LIKE AND MAKING DECISIONS BASED ON THE TESTIMONY IN FRONT OF YOU. THE RECORD IS VERY IMPORTANT.I SAY IT'S EVERYTHING. THE RECORD ESTABLISHED WILL DETERMINE THE OUTCOME OF THE CASE, AND THERE MUST BE COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO THE BOARD TO SUPPORT YOUR DECISION. THE TESTIMONY THAT MUST BE RELEVANT, CREDIBLE AND ORIENTED TO THE STANDARDS SET FORTH IN THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, FOR EXAMPLE WE HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE FROM OTHER PLACES NOW, THEY MAY SAY AND WE'VE HEARD THEM SAY WELL BACK IN CONNECTICUT. THAT'S NOT RELEVANT.
AND YOU WILL FIND IF WE HAVE SOME -- CHAIR MILLER YOU'RE VERY GOOD ABOUT MAKING SURE YOU KEEP PEOPLE ON TRACK.
BUT OCCASIONALLY I MY INTERJECT AND SAY, THIS IS IRRELEVANT
MR. CHAIR. >> I'M ALWAYS HAPPY FOR THAT.
I FEEL LIKE IF THEALT KEEP IT SHORT AND SWEET, THEY CAME DOWN HERE TO SPEAK, LET THEM HAVE A MINUTE.
BUT SOMETIMES IF THEY DO RAMBLE, YES.
>> AND I ASSURE YOU I DON'T HAVE COVID, I'VE BEEN TESTED.
I'M GETTING OVER BRONCHITIS. >> I WAS CONSIDERING
QUARANTINING FOR TWO WEEKS. >> FOR SIX WEEKS.
IT IS A CRAZY BRONCHITIS. ALL RIGHT.
WHEN AND WHERE ARE QUASIJUDICIAL ABOUT MEETINGS NEEDED? THESE ARE SOME OF THE OTHERS I BROUGHT UP.
ANNEXATION BOARD ORDINANCES, ZONING BOARD ORDINANCES, CODE ENFORCEMENT, HDC, THAT WILL BE TOMORROW NIGHT, THEIR CASES ARE QUASIJUDICIAL HEARINGS AS WELL. THIS IS GENERALLY THE PROCESS.
THE CHAIR LEADS THE PROCESS. THE BOARD MEMBERS WILL MAKE -- WILL BE ASKED TO DISCLOSE EX PARTE, THE CITY ATTORNEY PRESENTS QUASIJUDICIAL PROCEDURES AND THE RECORDING SECRETARY ISSUES AN OATH TO ALL PARTIES WHO WISH TO SPEAK.
THE GENERAL HEARING ORDER IS STAFF PRESENTS THE CASE, APPLICANT PRESENTS THEIR CASE NEXT, CROSS EXAMINE IS PERMITTED BETWEEN THE PARTIES, OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING TO AFFECTED PARTIES AND OBSERVERS. I CALL OUT OBSERVERS SEPARATELY BECAUSE THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT RESIDENTS OF THE CITY THAT WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT. THEY LIVER ON THE SOUTH END OF THE ISLAND, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT'S TOTALLY FINE.
THEY DON'T HAVE TO TAKE AN OATH AND CAN YOU LISTEN TO THEIR TESTIMONY BUT THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY AFFECTED PARTIES OR THEY ARE NOT AFFECTED PARTIES. THEN THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. THE APPLICANT ALWAYS GETS AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THAT TESTIMONY FROM AFFECTED PARTIES, AND OBSERVERS. THEN, THE COMMISSION OR BOARD WOULD SKULLS. A MWOULD DISCUSS.
A MOTION AND SECOND AND THEN THE BOARD SECOND WOULD CALL A BOARD.
ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT? >> THIS MAY SOUND STUPID, WHAT
IS CROSS-EXAMINATION? >> YOU KNOW WHAT IT IS FROM COURT, TELEVISION EXPERIENCE. IT'S ONE PARTY OR AFFECTED PARTIES ASKING SOMEBODY ELSE THAT'S PROVIDING TESTIMONY,
QUESTIONS. >> IF THE NEIGHBOR IS SHOWING
UP, THE NEIGHBOR CAN QUESTION? >> INDEED, YES.
IS AND IN THAT CASE THEY DON'T HAVE TO BUT THEY DO AT CITY COMMISSION AND OTHER LEGISLATIVE THINGS WHERE THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE GIVING THEIR COMMENTS THROUGH THE CHAIR.
THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE ADDRESSING THE CHAIR AND NOT LOOKING TO THE AUDIENCE OR IN THIS CASE THEY'LL BE LOOKING AT THE OTHER PERSON THEY'RE QUESTIONING.
>> YOU SAY CROSS-EXAMINATION BACK THERE.
THAT APPLIES LIKE QUESTIONS. THAT MRS. APPLIES TO WHEN THE STAFF FRIENDS CASE AS WELL, RIGHT?
>> YES. >> IT'S NOT JUST FOR THE
APPLICANT? >> NO, ALL THE PARTIES INCLUDING STAFF. IF STAFF HAD QUESTIONS THEY COULD ASK QUESTIONS OF AFFECTED PARTIES, THE APPLICANT AND VICE VERSA. OKAY? THESE ARE THE BURDENS OF PROOF. HERE IS THE CASE, THIS IS THE SCHNEIDER CASE I TALKED ABOUT EARLIER.
SO BURDEN OF PROOF MEANS WHO HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOFING THEIR CASE. AND THERE'S ALWAYS ONE THAT IS THE LEAD, IN THIS CASE THE APPLICANT IS APPLYING TO THE CITY, TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, TO RECEIVE A VARIANCE. THEY HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROOF
[00:25:01]
THAT THEIR APPLICATION COMPLIES WITH THE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS AND THE APPLICABLE ORDINANCE AND THE CITY CODE.AND IN OUR CASE, THE CRITERIA, THEY HAVE TO PROVE THAT ALL THE SIX CRITERIA HAVE BEEN MET. THE STAFF HAS ALREADY GIVEN A REPORT SAYING WHAT THEY THINK OF THE CRITERIA.
THE APPLICANT THEN HAS THE BURDEN TO -- THE STAFF WILL REITERATE, RIGHT? SO IT'S NOT THE BURDEN ON THE CITY. THE CITY'S ESSENTIALLY DEFENDING THE CODE AND THE CODE AS IT'S APPLIED IN THIS CASE A VARIANCE FROM THE CODE HAS TO BE PROVEN. ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT?
>> YEAH, I HAVE ONE. SO I DON'T THINK IT'S THE BURDEN OF PROOF NECESSARILY BUT WHEN THE BOARD APPROVES SOMETHING OVER THE MO OPINION OF, THE RECOMMENDATION OF STAFF, I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THEY HAD TO REFUTE THE PARTICULAR, THE SPECIFIC CRITERIA THAT WERE NOT IN COMPLIANCE.
BUT I WAS ONLY AT ONE MEETING AND I HAVEN'T SEEN THAT HAPPEN.
HOW EXACTLY DO THESE CRITERIA WORK AS FAR AS THE BURDEN OF PROOF, IF YOU ARE GOING TO PROOE SOMETHING OVER STAFF DENYING,
WHAT COMES INTO PLAY TO DO THAT? >> ALL THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY HEAR HERE IN THE APPLICANT'S CASE THEY'RE TRYING TO BECAUSE MOST OF THE -- MOST OF THE STAFF REPORTS AND MOST OF THE STAFF POSITIONS ARE TO DENY THE VARIANCE.
IT'S REALLY DIFFICULT FOR STAFF TO FIND THAT ALL SIX CRITERIA ARE MET. SO YOU GET THAT AHEAD OF TIME.
AND REALLY, IN A COURT, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU'D ALSO HAVE THE OTHER SIDE'S ARGUMENTS. YOU HAVE TO DO THAT ON THE FLY HERE, RIGHT? SO YOU HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROVING THAT ALL SIX CRITERIA HAVE BEEN MET IS ON THE LAND OWNER. THE BURDEN OF PROOF, I WOULDN'T GET SO CAUGHT UP IN THIS TERMINOLOGY, BUT WHEN YOU ARE DECIDING WHAT YOU WANT TO DO, IN THE STAFF REPORT WE GIVE YOU WHAT WE CALL GIVE WRAPPED MOTION AND SECONDS, OPTIONS, AND IN THERE RIGHT BEFORE IT, YOU'LL SEE WHERE THE STAFF HAS SAID THAT CERTAIN CRITERIA HAVEN'T BEEN MET.
SO IN ORDER TO FIND FOR AN APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE YOU NEED TO REALLY AS A BOARD MESH ESPECIALLY IF YOU WANT TO MAKE THE MOTION, DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THE MOTION MAKER, GOES TO THOSE CRITERIA THAT HAVEN'T BEEN MET AND EXPLAINS WHY YOU THINK THE EVIDENCE SAYS DIFFERENT, AND THAT YOU DON'T AGREE WITH STAFF.
FOR EXAMPLE, SPECIAL CONDITIONS. IT IS ONE OF THE CRITERIA.
IF YOU THINK THAT STAFF IS WRONG, THAT THERE ARE NOT SPECIAL CONDITIONS, THEN IT'S NICE FOR YOU TO, AND MAKES THE RECORD REALLY TIGHT, IF YOU SAY, WHY YOU DON'T AGREE WITH STAFF, AND WHY THE APPLICANT DOES HAVE SOME SPECIAL CONDITION THAT ENTITLES THEM TO THIS. IT DOES NOT, AGAIN, YOU'RE NOT JUDGES, YOU'RE NOT LAWYERS, NO COURT EXPECTS YOU TO GO ON AND ON INTO SOME -- YOU KNOW, YOU CAN JUST SAY I DISAGREE WITH STAFF BECAUSE AND BARRY DOES THIS VERY WELL AND HE MAKES LOTS OF MOTIONS. HE DOES.
BUT WE DO HAVE TO STATE WHY. DOES THAT HELP?
>> WELL, IT DOES BUT IN THE CASE OF SPECIAL PRIVILEGE THOUGH, SOME OF THIS SEEMS LIKE MATH AND IT'S NOT SPECIAL OPINION.
IF YOU HAVE A 25 FOOT SET BACK AND IT'S REDUCED TO 22, THAT'S JUST MATH. HOW DO YOU GET AROUND THE STAFF OPINION ABOUT THE FACT THAT THERE IS A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE
THERE? >> YOU DO THE BEST YOU CAN.
YOU ABSOLUTELY DO THE BEST YOU CAN.
AGAIN, IT IS NOT PRECISE IN THIS TYPE OF FORM, IT IS NOT THAT WE'RE BEING MORE LOOSEY GOOSY. IT IS MORE LIKE ART THAN IT IS REALLY LAW, AS LONG AS YOU ARE PROVIDINGS FOR THE APPLICANT PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS THAT THEY HAD AFFECTED PARTIES, THEY HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK, THEY WEREN'T CUT OFF, THEY HAD ACCESS TO THE HEARING. IF THE APPLICANT, IF YOU THE ARE GOING THAT WAY AND YOU'RE GOING TO APPROVE A VARIANCE, I GUARANTEE YOU, THAT THE CITY IS NOT GOING TO APPEAL YOUR DECISION. SO WHEN WE DO THINGS THAT ARE IMPERSPECTIVE HERE, IF THEY ARE IMPERSPECTIVE ON THE SIDE OF THE APPLICANT YOU'RE MUCH BETTER OOFF THAN IF YOU DENY, AND GUESS WHAT, IF YOU DENY A VARIANCE, STAFF HAS DONE ALL THE WORK FOR YOU. YOU LITERALLY CAN SAY, I AGREE
WITH STAFF. >> I WAS GOING TO ASK THAT BECAUSE THE BURDEN SHIFTS TO THE GOVERNMENT.
[00:30:04]
BUT IF THEY DON'T MEET ONE OF THE CRITERIA, WHAT'S THE BURDEN, I MEAN, IT'S -- YOU JUST AGREE SAYING THEY DIDN'T MEET THAT
CRITERIA. >> THEY DIDN'T -- WHAT THAT ULTIMATELY MEANS IS THE APPLICANT DID NOT MEET THEIR BURDEN OF PROOF. THEY HAVE A BURDEN TO PROVE THAT ALL SIX CRITERIA HAVE BEEN MET. STAFF HAS ALREADY TOLD YOU FOR MOST CASES THEY HAVEN'T MELT THEM.
>> I HAVE TO ASK A PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION, IN THE DISCUSSION.
IF THE L DFORTC WAS DEVELOPED AND PUT INTO PLACE AS AN ORDINANCE AND THEM'S THE RULES, AND YOU CAN SAY WELL ANYTHING THAT VARIES FROM THAT, DOESN'T MEET IT, THE ANSWER IS NO.
BUT HONESTLY, PUT INTO PLACE A PROCESS FOR PEOPLE TO COME TO THE BOARD, SO EVEN THOUGH ALL THOSE QUESTIONS LIKE YOU SAID, IF THEY ARE SEEKING THE VARIANCE, THEN SOMETHING IS GOING TO BE NIL IN THERE. BUT THERE IS A PROCESS THAT ALLOWS US TO LOOK AT THAT SITUATION, AND I KIND OF FIND IT HARD SOMETIMES SAYING OH NO THEY'VE MET THAT WHEN YOU
KNOW -- >> IT IS SOMEWHAT BLACK AND
WHITE, RIGHT? >> YOU SAID IT'S BASED ON EVIDENCE AND NOT YOUR OWN OPINION.
I FEEL LIKE ESPECIALLY IN THE CASE OF SPECIAL PRIVILEGE I KIND OF FEEL LIKE IF IT'S 22 FEET INSTEAD OF 25 FEET HE MY FEELING IS LIKE IT'S NO BIG DEAL THAT'S MY OPINION.
OTHERWISE IT'S MATH. IT'S THREE FEET SHORT.
>> I KNOW, AND THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT WE DON'T ALWAYS AND IT'S NOT JUST THIS BOARD, IT'S HGC, IT'S QUASIJUDICIAL HEARINGS IN MIAMI. AT THE END OF THE DAY WE'RE NEIGHBORS, RIGHT? AND WHAT WE'RE DOING BY ALLOWINT ALLOW FOR A VARIANCE PROCESS AT ALL.
IF THE APPLICANT DOESN'T LIKE THE CODE THE WAY IT IS AND THE WAY STAFF'S APPLYING IT THEY GO TO COURT.
THE PURPOSE OF HAVING THESE HEARINGS HERE IS TO AVOID COURT AND WE HAVE FOUND THAT IF PEOPLE JUST GET A CHANCE TO TELL THEIR FELLOW CITIZENS LOOK, I HAVE A SPECIAL ISSUE AND CONDITION HERE. THAT ENTITLES ME TO THIS OR I THINK YOU SHOULD APPROVE IT. IT'S ALL OF US AS CITIZENS THAT DEVELOP THE CODE, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND THEN ALLOW VARIANCES THROUGH THIS PROCESS, THAT PLOWS SOMEBODY TOO VARY FROM THE CODE. IT'S HARD TO THINK OF SOMETHING BLACK AND WHITE. YOU HAVE TO DO YOUR BEST AND IF YOU HAVE TO INJECT YOUR OPINION DO IT ON BEHALF OF AN APPLICANT STRS AGAINST THE APPLICANT, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? BECAUSE THE CITY IS NOT GOING TO FEAL AND AN APPLICANT IS GOING APPEAL AND THE APPLICANT ARE MORE LIKELY.
IN THAT CASE STAFF'S DONE ALL THE WORK FOR YOU IF YOU NEED TO DENY IT, UNLESS YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL CRITERIA, NOT CRITERIA, YOU DON'T HAVE BUT ADDITIONAL REASONS OTHER THAN STAFF TO DENY IT, PLEASE STATE THOSE AND THEY CAN'T BE OPINION.
>> SO THEN IT WOULD BE FAIR TO SAY THEN A SLIGHTLY LARGER THAN NORMAL GARAGE IS LIKELY TO BE APPROVED, RATHER THAN A 45 FOOT
HOTEL ON THE SAND DUNE? >> YES.
>> IF I TAKE FIVE MINUTES AM I TAKING INTO YOUR TIME?
>> THIS IS YOUR TIME. I WORK FOR YOU.
>> NO YOU DO NOT, ABSOLUTELY NOT.
SO WHEN I FIRST CAME TO THE BOARD I WAS VERY FORTUNATE THAT I HAD SIX OR EIGHT MONTHS THAT I SAT THERE AND NEVER SPOKE THAT YOU GUYS NEVER HAVE. YOU KIND OF JUMPED INTO THE PILOT'SPILOT'S SEAT AS WE ARE TG DOWN THE RUNWAY.
DAPHNE IS BALANCING TWO THINGS, THE LAW THAT THE CITY COMMISSION HAS GIVEN US BUT THIS IS STILL AMERICA AND WE'VE GOT INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER RIGHTS. SO SHE'S TRYING TO BRING THOSE TWO PEOPLE TOGETHER IN A WORKABLE WAY.
NOW 99% OF THE TIME IT'S GOING TO BE NO FROM HER BECAUSE IT'S NOT GOING TO FIT INTO THOSE CRITERIA.
BUT THERE WAS AN OLDER GENTLEMAN THAT WAS MORE OF A MENTOR TO ME, WHEN I WAS COMING ALONG, AND HE WOULD ASK ME, DOES THAT SEEM REASONABLE? IS IT REASONABLE THAT WE NEED THAT 22 FEET? YEAH, WELL YOU KNOW I NEED TO GET MY STEPS IN THERE, I CAN'T DO THIS, IT SEEMS RELIGION, IT'S A REASONABLE REQUEST. BUT WHAT IF I'M GOING TO BUILD A FIVE STORY HOTEL, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S QUITE REASONABLE ON THAT. AND THEN BACK TO WHAT YOU WERE SAYING EARLIER, ABOUT A CROSS-EXAMINATION.
SO THE WHOLE POINT OF THESE HEARINGS IS TO BRING PEOPLE TOGETHER FROM A SMALL TOWN AND TO HAVE A FREE AND OPEN EXCHANGE OF IDEAS. AND WHILE MS. BACH AND TAYLOR
[00:35:05]
AND DAPHNE WANT THESE MEETINGS TO BE HELD IN A SPECIFIC MANNER, I'M HERE JUST AS THE CITIZEN TO KIND OF KEEP EVERYBODY TALKING.BECAUSE ULTIMATELY, SOMEBODY IS GOING TO GO OUT OF HERE WITH A NO VOTE OR SOMEBODY IS GOING TO GO OUT OF HERE WITH A YES VOTE.
AND WE JUST WANT TO KEEP IT SO THAT WE DON'T DRAW BATTLE LINES ON THAT. AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT BARRY DOES VERY WELL. SO IF WE HAVE SOMEBODY THAT IS ASKING FOR 22 FEET, AND MAYBE SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS WOULD SAY THAT THEY HAVE NOT AN ISSUE, BUT A CONCERN ON THAT, AND THEN IT COMES UP, WELL, HOW ABOUT 20 FEET? HOW ABOUT 18 FEET? AND SO YOU'LL SEE WHERE WE TRY TO GET EVERYBODY COMING AROUND. SO THAT EVERYBODY IS STILL PAT PADDLING THE BOAT IN THE SAME DIRECTION.
DOES THAT MAKE MORE SENSE? AND YOU GUYS JUST DIDN'T GET THE BENEFIT OF SEEING THE TWO OR THREE TIMES WHERE PEOPLE WERE TOLD NO AND PEOPLE WERE TOLD YES.
SO YOU'RE JUST -- YOU KIND OF JOINED IN THE FOURTH QUARTER ON
THAT. >> BUT THE THING THAT IS CONTRADICTORY IS THAT YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO IMPOSE YOUR OPINION ON ANY DECISIONS THAT YOU MAKE. SO THE DECISIONS YOU MAKE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE FACT-BASED. AND THE FACT IS, RIGHT, THAT THE SET IMPACTION OR THE FACT IS THAT THERE'S A HEIGHT VARIANCE.
AND OR THE FACT IS THAT IT'S A FIVE STORY HOTEL, AND YOU KNOW, AND THE OPINION SIDE OF THAT IS, WELL, I DON'T WANT A FIVE STORY HOTEL, RIGHT? YOU KNOW, AGAIN, I'M JUST USING THAT PURELY AS AN EXAMPLE. SO HOW DO YOU BALANCE -- AND I'M ALL FOR DISCRETION. BUT SO HOW DO YOU -- IF IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE BLACK AND WHITE, THEN STAFF'S DONE THEIR JOB AND
THE DECISION'S ALREADY MADE. >> WELL, THE IMPRESSION I GOT WAS TAMMI SAID IT WAS AN IMPERFECT SYSTEM IN THAT IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE BLACK AND WHITE AND NONE OF THE CRITERIA ACTUALLY, NONE THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING ACTUALLY HAS TO DO WITH THE SPECIFICS OF SETBACKS AND HEIGHT AND THIS AND THAT.
SO IN THE CASE OF SPECIAL PRIVILEGE ONE CAN USUALLY SAY THIS IS NOT OUTLANDISH SO IT IS SOMETHING POTENTIALLY COULD BE GOING ON. IT COULD BE GRANTED TO ANOTHER, DOESN'T CONINNER A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE TO AN APPLICANT.
IS THAT KIND OF IT QUPS. >> IT ?
>> THAT'S EXACTLY IT . >> MS. BACH COULD GET TO THIS AS WELL, WE DON'T SET PRECEDENTS, WE COULD LET APPLICANT A TO BUILD A HOTEL, THAT WOULD BE FINE OR WE COULD TELL APPLICANTB NO. WE DON'T SET PRECEDENTS, EVE
CASE KIND OF STANDS ON ITS OWN. >> YOU COULD ALSO SAY THAT THE FACT DOESN'T REALLY MERIT . AN IRREGULAR SHAPED LOT FOR INSTANCE, THE FACT THAT YOU NEED A CERTAIN SET BACK MAY NOT MATTER IN THAT CASE. THE FACT MIGHT BE IT DOESN'T
MATTER. >> THAT'S WHY THEY'RE SEEKING AN EXCEPTION TO THE VARIANCE. THAT'S WHOLE POINT OF THE VARIANCE. IT IS AN COMPENSATION TO THE RULE. WHETHER IT'S REASONABLE, WHETHER IT'S FACT OR OPINION IT REALLY COMES DOWN TO WHAT HE SAID.
IT'S AN EXCEPTION AND THEN WE HAVE TO CONSIDER IS IT REASONABLE. BASED ON FACTS.
>> AND THAT'S WHAT I WAS GETTING AT, IF THE VARIANCE WAS WRITTEN IN STONE WE DON'T NEED TO BE HERE.
>> RIGHT, THAT'S RIGHT. >> SO WE'RE HERE TO ENGAGE, COMING TO REASONABLENESS, UNDERSTANDING, I DON'T KNOW IF
WE CAN USE THE WORD NEGOTIATING. >> KIND OF.
>> IN SOME CASES WE'RE TRYING TO REACH A MUTUALLY AGREEABLE
>> THAT IS HOW I'VE RECONCILED IT.
WE ARE HERE BECAUSE THE ORDINANCE, LDC, THE CODES, ARE NOT THE ABSOLUTE BECAUSE THE CITY COMMISSION HAS PUT THIS
BOARD INTO BEING. >> THAT'S RIGHT.
AND THAT'S WHY THERE'S A NUMBER OF YOU.
FIVE OF YOU AS VOTING MEMBERS, RIGHT? IF YOU JUST HAD ONE, DECISIONS MOST CERTAINLY WOULD NOT BE AS FAIR AND AS ACCEPTABLE TO THE COMMUNITY AS IF YOU HAD FIVE VOTING MEMBERS UP THERE. SO YES, IT IS IMPERFECT AND GENTLEMEN, EVEN THOUGH THIS IS THE LAW THAT I'M TEACHING YOU RIGHT? BUT THE FACTS ARE AND THE EXPERIENCE THAT WE ALL HAVE AS WE'RE HUMAN BEINGS, NO MATTER
[00:40:02]
WHAT I TELL YOU, YOUR OWN OPINIONS AND EXPERIENCES, ALTHOUGH THEY SHOULDN'T WEIGH ON YOU MORE THAN THE FACTS, THEY ARE GOING TO BE PART OF YOUR DECISIONS AND OPINIONS.IF THEY ARE NOT, THEN YOU NEED TO RUN FOR JUDGE OR GO TO LAW SCHOOL. JUDGES AREN'T SUPPOSED TO DO THAT, BUT WE CAN'T HELP IT. WE DO IT.
SO HERE WE GO. COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
WHAT IS IT? IT IS EVIDENCE THAT A REASONABLE MIND WOULD ACCEPT AS ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT A CONCLUSION.
SUBSTANTIAL COMPETENT EVIDENCE OR COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THEY'RE USED INTERCHANGEABLY IN LAY WITNESSES OR RESIDENTS MUST BE FACT BASED. SO IF RADIO RESIDENT OR AFFECTED PARTY OR EVEN THE APPLICANT SAYS I LOVE IT, I HATE IT, TOO MUCH
TRAFFIC, I DON'T -- YOU KNOW -- >> THERE IS A FAVORITE ONE, WHAT
IS THE FAVORITE ONE? >> THESE DAYS, TOO MUCH TRACT,
TOO MANY DEVELOPMENT. >> IT'S GOING TO LESSEN THE
VAVALUE OF MY PROPERTY. >> LESSEN THE VALUE OF MY PROPERTY. THAT ONE HAS BEEN LIGAMENTED, IF LITIGATED.IF YOU HEAR THAT ONE,U THINK IT'S POSSIBLE, YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO ASK A LITTLE BIT MORE.
I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE THEY HAVE SOME KIND OF PROPERTY APPRAISER CERTIFICATION. THEY NEED TO STATE THAT AND QUALIFY THEMSELVES AS AN EXPERT AND THEN YOU CAN TAKE THAT AS -- EVEN IF YOU AGREE WITH THEM AND YOU DON'T HAVE YOUR OWN EXPERTISE IN PROPERTY VALUES, TRY NOT TO HAVE THAT BE THE REASON YOU MAKE YOUR DECISION. I KNOW IT'S HARD RIGHT NOW.
WE'VE ALL SEEN THE INCREASE IN TRAFFIC AND DEVELOPMENT.
BUT IT'S GENERALLY SPEAKING YOUD NOT MAKE THAT AS THEIR DECISION.
>> THE BOARD WOULD NOT OCCUR ANY ECONOMIC IMPACT IF SOMEONE COMES IN THERE AND SAYS WELL, THIS PROPERTY VALUE THIS OR THAT, THE MONEY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT, WE'RE COMPLETELY FREE OF THAT.
>> ANOTHER THING I WANT TO BRING UP IS THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE IN TOWN, IT'S JUST KINDS OF OVER THE LAST YEAR OR SO, COME TO OUR ATTENTION, REALLY BOLDLY. BHOOUS BECAUSE IT TAKES A WHILEE PATTERNS TO BE ESTABLISHED. WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO NOTICE HERE IN JUST ABOUT EVERY CASE WITH A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IS, AND I WILL BE HONEST WITH YOU. I DON'T EVEN KNOW THE CASES YOU HAVE TONIGHT. LIKE I CAN'T OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD SAY WHAT THE VARIANCE REQUESTS ARE.
WE ARE FINDING, THIS IS A TREND NATIONWIDE NOT JUST HERE.
PEOPLE WANT TO BUILD THE BIGGEST HOME THAT THEY CAN POSSIBLY GET ON THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY. WHICH IS THE REASON WHY THEY HAVE TO COME TO YOU FOR, I NEED A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE SETBACKS, BECAUSE THEY WANT 3,000 SQUARE FEET, 2,000 ISN'T ENOUGH. I WANT YOU TO TAKE THAT JUST FOR THE GOOD OF OUR CITY, TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION, WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THESE APPLICATIONS BECAUSE WE ARE DEFINITELY SEEING A PATTERN OF THAT. AND WE ARE WITH PROPERTY RIGHTS, ALL OF THAT SAID, WE DO BALANCE THAT.
BUT WE DON'T HAVE IN THE CITY ANY TYPE OF MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE. SOME CITIES HAVE MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGES. THEY HAVE MINIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGES. WE DON'T HAVE THAT.
WE SAY THE LOT SIZE, YOU HAVE TO HAVE, IN ORDER TO GET A HOME TO BEGIN WITH AND THEN WHAT YOUR SETBACKS ARE.
THAT'S HOW WE CONTROL HOW FAR APART YOU ARE.
AND HEIGHT, HOW HIGH YOU CAN GO. BUT THAT'S BASICALLY WHY A LOT OF THE PROPERTY APPLICATIONS ARE COMING HERE BECAUSE THEY WANT THE HOUSE THAT THEY WANT. THEY WANT THEIR DREAM HOME AND I GET THAT. SO JUST TAKE IT INTO CONSIDERATION. THE DEFINITION OF A VARIANCE IN FLORIDA LAW IS THEY HAVE A HARDSHIP.
THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE PROVING TO THE BOARD THAT THEY HAVE SORT OF A HARDSHIP. AN ECONOMIC HARDSHIP IS NOT TO BE CONSIDERED. WHAT IS THE HARDSHIP YOU SHOULD BE ASKING IS YOURSELF THROUGH THIS.
WE HAVE ONE CASE, WE'VE ALREADY DECIDED ON THIS, I DON'T RECALL WHERE IT WAS, MIGHT HAVE BEEN SIXTH STREET.
REMEMBER THEY HAD TO BUILD UP, IT WAS A VERY STRANGE CONFIGURED LOT BECAUSE OF WETLANDS. WE WANTED TO KEEP THEM OFF THE WETLANDS BUT THEY STILL WANTED TO BUILD A HOUSE.
WHEN YOU ARE WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE YOU SHOULD BE THINKING ABOUT PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THE SENSE THAT THE CITY WILL GET SUED OR HAVE TO BUY THE PROPERTY OR BUY THE PROPERTY BEFORE GETTING SUED IF WE TELL THEM YOU CAN'T PUT ANYTHING THERE.
AND THAT'S FINE, WE ARE LOOKING AT A PIECE OF PROPERTY ON CATCH
[00:45:05]
COURT THERE. THE CITY'S GOING TO BUY IT, THEY CAN'T PUT ANYTHING THERE. IS THAT WHAT WE WANT, YOU KNOW, GENERALLY BUT IS THAT WHAT WE WANT FOR THIS PROPERTY AND YOU ALL AS CITIZENS CAN BE THINKING ABOUT THAT TOO.WE WANTS THE CITY TO BUY THIS PROPERTY BECAUSE IF SO, WE'LL TELL THEM NO, YOU CAN'T HAVE YOUR VARIANCE AND NO YOU CAN'T GET YOUR TINY HOUSE IN THERE. WHAT HAPPENED? OH MY GOODNESS. THERE WE GO.
ALL RIGHT ANY QUESTIONS? >> A QUICK SIDE QUES QUESTION BE I FORGET, I THINK I READ SOMEWHERE YOU CAN'T BE A MEMBER
OF OTHER BOARDS. >> OF OTHER STANDING COMMITTEES.
>> OF STANDING COMMITTEES, THOSE ARE ONLY CITY LIKE YOUR HOA --
>> THAT'S FINE. >> IF YOU ARE AN HOA TRE TREASUR OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT AND SOMEBODY COMES BEFORE THE BOARD
DO YOU RECUSE YOURSELF -- >> IT DEPENDS.
YOU ASK MEE IF YOU HAVE A VOTING CONFLICT.
WE'RE GOING TO GET INTO THAT SHORTLY.
COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. I KIND OF THINK YOU ALL KNOW, WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THAT A BIT AND AGAIN, YOU'LL HAVE THESE SLIDES IF YOU WANT TO READ THEM. EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS WITH WE TALKED A BUNCH ABOUT THIS. I FOLD YOU ABOUT THE FERNANDINA BEACH ORDINANCE, REMOVING PREJUDICE SO YOU CAN HAVE THOSE COMMUNICATIONS AND DISCLOSE THEM.
BIAS, THIS IS WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT BEFORE, OUR OWN OPINIONS, LIFE EXPERIENCES. I WANT TO SPEND JUST A COUPLE OF MINUTES ON THIS. BIAS IS A PREDETERMINED OPINION THAT IS NOT SUSCEPTIBLE TO CHANGE.
TOO MUCH DEVELOPMENT HERE. THERE IS MANY OF US THAT BELIEVE THAT, IT'S IN OUR HEARTS, WE KNOW IT, NOT CHANGING OUR MINDS AND WE DON'T WANT ANYMORE. BUT THAT PREDETERMINED OPINION ALTHOUGH HUMAN AND WE KNOW THAT WILL BE PART OF YOUR DECISION, SOMEHOW YOU HAVE TO DO YOUR ABSOLUTE BEST TO KEEP THAT OUT OF YOUR DECISION MAKING OR YOU HAVE TO PUSH IT BACK AND YOU HAVE TO HAVE ALL KINDS OF EVIDENCE THAT THE STAFF HAS GIVEN YOU TO DENY THAT VARIANCE. NOT JUST YOUR BRIEF THAT THERE'E IS TOO MUCH DEVELOPMENT OR PROPERTY VALUES WILL BE DEPRESSED BECAUSE OF IT OR THERE'S TOO MUCH TRAFFIC.
ON THIS CASE, I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU ON THE NEXT PAGE OF QUASITHE JUDICIAL DECISIONS THAT WERE APPEALED, YOU HAVE TO DECIDE AS BOARD MEMBERS, IF YOUR OPINIONS, GENERAL OPINIONS ABOUT WHATEVER, I'M USING THAT DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE THAT'S POPULAR ONE THESE DAYS, IF LET'S SAY, SOMEBODY IN THE TOWN OR SOMEBODY YOU KNOW GETS CALLED AS A WITNESS, AND SAYS I'M GOING TO PICK ON CHAIR MILLER, CHAIR MILLER, THAT'S ALL THAT COMES OUT OF HIS MOUTH, THE HOUSES ARE TOO BIG, THERE IS TOO MUCH DEVELOPMENT.
AND WHERE THE COURT SAID YOU KNOW MR. MILLER SHOULD NOT HAVE VOTED HE HAD A BIAS AND WE ARE REPANNEDDING THIS, USUALLY WHAT THEY DO, THEY DON'T MAKE THE DECISION FOR THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT, THEY'LL SEND IT BACK HERE FOR ANOTHER HEARING THAT'S MORE FAIR WITHOUT MR. MILLER. SO YOUR GENERAL BIASES YOU HAVE TO BE CAREFUL AND I WILL TELL NEW A COUPLE MORE SLIDES, IN FLORIDA YOU ARE REQUIRED TO VOTE BUT THERE IS ONE LITTLE TINY EXEMPTION, IF YOU DON'T THINK YOU WOULD BE FAIR AND UNBIASED.
YOU WOULD JUST SIT OUT THAT VOTE AND ABSTAIN FROM VOTING AND YOU'RE ALLOWED TO DO THAT EVEN THOUGH YOU DON'T HAVE A TRUE VOTING CONFLICT UNDER FLORIDA LAW, MEANS YOU HAVE SOME FINANCIAL INTEREST OR DETRIMENT IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE THAT YOU'RE HEARING AND THERE YOU STATE RIGHT AWAY THAT YOU HAVE A VOTING CONFLICT, YOU WON'T BE VOTING.
BUT IF YOU FEEL YOU WOULD BE TOO BIASED IN THAT CASE IT IS YOUR DUTY TO ABSTAIN. THOSE THAT PARTICIPATE IN THESE HEARINGS HAVE A RIGHT TO IMPARTIAL DECISION MAKING.
AND WHEN IT SAYS COMMISSIONERS THAT'S REPLACED WITH BOARD MEMBERS. YOU SHOULD NOT ACTIVELY INVOLVE YOURSELF IN SUPPORTING OR OPPOSING A QUASIJUDICIAL LAND DEVELOPMENT ACTION. THAT MEANS A CASE, AN APPLICATION. HERE IS THE LITIGATION I WAS TALKING ABOUT. SO LOOK AT THE BOTTOM ONE.
L CRFORT VERSUS CITY OF MICHAEL BROWN.
[00:50:04]
MIAMI BEACH.1995. THERE WAS SUPPORT OF A DOWN ZONING IN ADVANCE OF THE HEARING.
THIS WAS -- I DIDN'T READ THE CASE BEFORE WE CAME HERE TONIGHT BUT I SUSPECT THE FACTS WERE THAT THESE WERE GENERAL STATEMENTS. IT COULD HAVE BEEN STATEMENTS ABOUT -- A LOT OF TIMES THERE ARE LARGER DEVELOPMENTS YOU KNOW OH I'LL NEVER APPROVE, WELL WHEN SOMETHING ABOUT THAT PROPERTY CAME UP, THAT COMMISSIONER OR COUNCILPERSON VOTED, THIS WAS APPEALED, AND IT WAS REMANDED BACK FOR BIAS.
ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT BIAS? VOTING CONFLICTS.
THIS IS WHAT I WAS SAYING. THIS IS THAT LITTLE EXEMPTION THAT ALLOWS YOU TO ABSTAIN IF YOU THINK YOU WOULD HAVE BIAS IN THE QUASIJUDICIAL HEARING. A TRUE CONFLICT OF INTEREST AGAIN UNDER FLORIDA LAW IS A FINANCIAL ONE.
BEST PRACTICE, WE'VE BEEN STUCKINGDISCUSSING THIS FOR ABON HOUR. THE COMP PLAN, LOCAL ZONING CODES,.LAND DEVELOPMENT CODES, OBVIOUSLY A VARIANCE IS A VARIANCE FROM THOSE CODES. BUT ULTIMATELY, IT HAS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
OOFN IEVEN IF IT'S A VARIATION E CODE.
BASE YOUR DECISION ON THE HEARING, SITE REPORT, THERE MIGHT BE A SITE VISIT YOU TAKE. RELEVANT TESTIMONY PRESENTED AT THE MEETING AND PUBLIC COMMENT. MAKE SOUND DECISIONS AND DEFENSIBLE MOTIONS. WE WERE TALKING ABOUT EARLIER HOW TO STATE YOUR MOTIONS IF YOU WANT TO APPROVE A VARIANCE AND STAFF HAS SAID NONE OF THE CRITERIA HAVE BEEN MET, PLEASE ARTICULATE AT THE VERY LEAST THE CRITERIA THAT HAVE BEEN MET YOU THINK AND WHY. I TALKED ABOUT THE GIFT WRAPPED MOTIONS, THOSE ARE THE ONES WE PUT IN THE STAFF REPORT AS YOUR OPTIONS. AND WE'RE HERE TO CREATE A RECORD THAT IS DEFENSIBLE. YOU CANNOT BE ARBITRARY.
AND IT SAYS THEIR DENIALS MUST PRESENT A REASON IN WRITING TO THE APPLICANT. WHICH WE DO.
CHAIR MILLER SIGNS THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, WHETHER IT IS ANG APPROVAL OR DENIAL, BUT IT'S REQUIRED TO HAVE FINDINGS OF FABT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
>> YOU GOT SOME? >> DID YOU HAVE ALL QUESTIONS?
>> THAT'S A VERY GOOD POINT. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. >> WE DO NOT CREATE PRECEDENT HERE. WE HAVE ALL THE TIME WE HAVE LEFT TO LET THEM SAY MAYOR BY THE QUESTIONS BEING ASKED, THEY SAY YOU JUST APPROVED THE SAME THING DOWN THE STREET.
SO YOU HAVE TO APPROVE MY APPLICATION.
THAT'S NOT -- WE DON'T SET PRECEDENT HERE, IT WOULDN'T BE UPHELD IN COURT THAT WAY BECAUSE THERE'S REALLY NO TWO CASES THAT ARE EXACTLY ALIKE. OKAY.
>> I'LL SAY ONE OR TWO LAST THINGS TO THE NEW GUYS.
SO I DON'T MIND TURNING DOWN VARIANCES.
WE'LL TURN DOWN 30 IN A ROW IF THAT'S WHAT THE BOARD VOTES ON, I DON'T MIND THAT BUT WHAT I WANT EVERYONE TO UNDERSTAND IS THAT EVERY ONE OF THESE CASES IS SOMEBODY'S LIFE, SOMEBODY'S HOME, TYPICALLY KIM, IT COULD BE A DEVELOPMENT FRACT BUT TYPICALLY IT'S A HOMEOWNER'S. SO I JUST EVERYBODY TO BE SURE ARE THAT WE'RE GIVING THEM THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT THAT WE ARE LISTENING TO WHAT THEY SAY BECAUSE THEY HAVE PAID $1,000 TO BE HERE AND THEY PUT TOGETHER ALL OF THEIR INFORMATION.
AND I WANT TO BE SURE THAT WE ALWAYS LIVE LISTEN TO THEM EVEN IF WE TELL THEM NO. THEY WALK OUT THE DOOR AND THEY THINK IT'S NOT THE WAY I THOUGHT BUT I THINK THEY REFLECTED ON WHAT I HAD TO ARE SAY SO WE ALWAYS WANT TO BE SURE THAT WE'RE ON IF MORAL THE MORAL HID ON THAT.
AND I THINK MAYBE THE LAST THING TO SAY IS SOME OF THE OLDER BOARD MEMBERS HAVE HEARD ME SAY THIS BEFORE.
FOUR GENERATIONS OF MY FAMILY HAVE WALKED DOWN CENTER STREET SO FERNANDINA BEACH MEANS A LOT TOO ME AND I THINK BILL YOU WERE KIND OF JUGGLING MAKING SOME HARD DECISIONS IN AN IMPERFECT,
[00:55:03]
ADMITTEDLY AN IMPERFECT PROCESS AND THAT IS WHAT THIS IS.BUT THE WORLD THAT'S OUTSIDE WAS MADE, 20, 30, 40 YEARS AGO.
WE DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT.
WE GOT IT WITH GOOD F FORTUNE, E ARE NOT DAYTONA BEACH OR FORT MEYERS BEACH. THOSE PEOPLE WERE NOT PERFECT BUT THEY DID A PRETTY GOOD JOB AND EVERYTHING WE DO IS NOT GOING TO BE PERFECT EITHER. BUT WE JUST WANT TO BE SURE THAT ONCE ALL OF US ARE GONE THAT WE'VE TURNED IT OVER IN BETTER SHAPE THAN PERHAPS IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IF IT WAS IN SOMEONE ELSE'S HANDS. SO.
THANK YOU FOR GOING OVER THAT. >> YOU'RE WELCOME.
YOU'RE WELCOME. I'M ALWAYS AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. I WILL E-MAIL THIS POWERPOINT TO YOU, AND YOU CAN REFER TO IT. BUT I'M AVAILABLE ANY TIME.
THE CITY ATTORNEY REPRESENTS THF IF IT NEEDS TON, I WORK DIRECTLY WITH THE CITY COMMISSION, I HAVE A CONTRACT WITH THEM.
I REPRESENT THEM FIRST. IF WE GOT CROSSWISE WITH BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NUMBERS THAT'S TRUE.
BUT GENERALLY WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME TEAM AND SO I REPRESENT EACH OF YOU INDIVIDUALLY IN YOUR SCOPE OF WORK HERE ON THE BOARD.
SO IF YOU HAVE A VOTING CONFLICT QUESTION, MR. GRANT, ANY OF YOU, CALL ME UP, E-MAIL ME, I'M HAPPY TO MANY ANSWER.
PULL ME ASCIED BEFORE THE MEETING HAPPENS, THAT HAPPENS OFTEN AND ASK ME YOUR QUESTION AND I SHOULD BE ABLE TO GIVE YOU AN ANSWER. I WILL TELL YOU IF I DON'T KNOW AND I HAVE TO LOOK IT UP. BUT YES I'M AVAILABLE IF YOU EVER NEED. I KNOW WE HAVE A GOOD AGENDA SO
THAT'S ALL I HAVE, CHAIR. >> THANK YOU FOR DOING THAT.
AND IF WE CAN, I KNOW THAT YOU'RE SO BUSY BUT LET'S N TRY O NOT LET IT BE SO LONG, LET IT HAPPEN EVERY SIX OR EIGHT MONTHS
OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. >> I'M HAPPY TO.
>> IT'S GOOD TO KEEP EVERYBODY FRESH ON THAT.
>> AND TOO, WE HAVE NEW BOARD MEMBERS.
>> IT WOULD BE GOOD TO GO OVER THE SUNSHINE LAWS TOO.
>> IF YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO DO THAT I CAN DO THAT AT -- YOU KNOW AND I'M SENSITIVE TO I KNOW MANY OF YOU WORK, AND 4:00 IS HARD TO GET HERE AT 4:00 SO I APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE.
BUT YOU JUST LET ME KNOW, AND I'M HERE ANYWAY AT 4:00.
IF YOU WANT ME TO -- I THINK IT'S A GOOD TIME CONSIDERING WE HAVE VERY ROBUST AGENDAS. WE'VE GOT LOTS OF CASES COMING BEFORE US. IT'S NICE TO START AT 4 SO WE CAN GET RIGHT ON TO OUR BUSINESS AT 5.
JUST LET ME KNOW WHEN YOU WANTS ME TO CME TO COME WITH THE SUNSE LAW. ETHICS AND SUNSHINE LAW TRAINING FOR CITY COMMISSIONERS, IT'S REQUIRED FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS BUT WE ALWAYS INVITE BOARD MEMBERS AND YOU'RE WELCOME TO ATTEND. WE'LL HAVE TWO SESSIONS, FOUR HOURS ON ONE DAY AND YOU ONLY -- IT'S ONLY ONE SESSION.
WE COVER SUNSHINE AND ETHICS. >> OKAY.
THANK YOU, MS. BACH. I ALWAYS LEARN SOMETHING.
>> WE NEED TO CLOSE THE OPENING. >> YES, YOU HAVE TO ADJOURN THIS BEFORE WE START
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.