►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
C
A
C
A
B
So
does
that
have
to
be
Richard?
If
you
did,
it
in
committee
was
that
the
amendments
from
today
that
we
received
from.
E
C
E
E
B
D
B
C
C
E
B
B
B
B
D
B
E
F
C
E
D
B
G
B
It's
not
on
the
you
get
that
should've
been
in
rut
under
resolute,
shoeses
introduced.
That's
where
that
to
me
all
right,
Dempsey
for
the
MC,
all
right
now,
I
want
to
resolution.
So
I
already
went
through
so
we're
down
to
five
council
member
for
shapes
resolution.
So
let's
we
received
that
memo
from
Spencer.
A
Chris
Spencer's
memo
come
only
addresses
one
part
of
the
restrictions
and
the
restrictive
covenants,
and
this
is
a
significant
problem.
I
attached,
the
restrictive
covenant
to
my
resolution
and
the
first
one
that
talks
about
the
building
height
is
limited
to
a
maximum
of
three
stories,
plus
subsurface
parking
or
basement.
With
the
exception
of
the
area,
fronting
I
mean
Scotland
Avenue
and
extending
120
210
feet
for
the
right
wave.
A
You
Scotland
Avenue
and
an
area
extending
198
feet
from
a
right
away
of
South
Island,
which
may
be
3.5
stories
plus
subsurface
parking,
so
the
entire
restrictive
covenant
limits
all
the
buildings.
Families
combined
blocks
that
are
seventies,
restrictive
covenant
to
either
three
stories
or
three
and
a
half
stories
depending
upon
where
they
are
located.
Chris
only
talks
about
the
third
item
in
the
restrictive
covenants
regarding
the
north
and
easterly
boundary
and
the
setbacks
setback
on
that.
A
So
I,
don't
know
why
that
is,
but
the
language
of
the
restrictive
covenant
is
is
very
clear
and
Christmas,
making
it
clear
that
he
thinks
that
this
is
an
enforceable
document
by
virtue
of
the
fact
that
he's
you
know
addressing
this
and
saying
that
he
believes
the
action
is
consistent
with
it.
Did
you.
H
I
When
two
parties
that
he
started
to
make
a
valid,
enforceable
contract
places
as
to
Christmas
memo,
I,
certainly
can't
speak
in
place,
but
it
it
was
my
understanding
that
he
was
saying
that
this
was
how
he
understood
the
intent
of
the
restrictive
covenant
was
supposed
to
apply.
So
he
wasn't
necessarily
ignoring
the
3-story
of
limitation,
but
it
was
his
because
someone
had
been
communicated
to
the
planning
department
that
the
three-story
limitation
was
not
supposed
to
apply
to
New,
Scotland
and
I.
Think
that
you
know
just
that
piece
to
the
deck.
G
B
H
G
I
F
Personally,
when
it
comes
to
something
like
this,
if
we
don't
have
the
opinion
of
a
Planning
chair
to
come
out
already
sent
out
this
memo,
maybe
we
should
table
over
it.
Maybe
we
should
get
more
information
about
from
our
legal
counsel
if
this
something
that
we're
opening
our
self
up
to
the
city
being
sued.
So
that's
just
my
position
on
this
I
think
that
it's
important
just
moving
forward
if
we
have
Chris
Benz
here
and
also
now
that
we
have
our
legal
counsel
to
actually
give
us
a
determination
of.
F
D
I
actually
I
feel
like
we've.
There
was
a
committee
meeting
that
planning
could
have
been
at
and
chose
not
to
be
at
there's
a
meeting
right
now.
That
planning
could
have
been
up
and
chose
not
to
be
it
and
I
honestly
believe
that
that's
why
we're
in
this
situation,
planning
isn't
talking
and
listening
to
the
people
that
there's
that
they
should
be
and
I
I
mean
if
we're
not
if
we're
not
hearing
from
a
memo
is
great
and
I
value
them
and
I've
Amy.
D
Your
memo
was
I
really
appreciated
the
thought
that
you
put
into
that-
and
there
are
some
big
things
to
think
with
this,
but
I.
Just
to
me
the
idea
that
planning
has
not
come
here
to
talk
to
us,
I
I'm,
not
they
had
their
opportunity
and
I'm,
not
willing,
I
personally
and
I'm
very
upset
that
they
didn't
take
that
opportunity.
I.
Think
that
it
absolutely
it
I
mean
offensive
is
a
strong
word,
but
it's
going
in
that
direction.
That
shows
that
they
do
not
value
the
council.
This.
F
We
have
a
foodie,
a
fiduciary
responsibility
to
to
the
taxpayers
of
the
city
and
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
not
open
ourselves
up
for
being
sued.
That
and
if
it
does
happen,
we
already
in
a
financial
constraint
where
we
going
to
get
this
money
from
so
us
waiting
a
week.
So
we
can
hear
you
know
from
what
Chris
pants
are
saying
about
this
type
of
situation
and
also
for
our
legal
counsel.
To
give
us
out
up
in
I
mean
a
week.
B
B
E
J
J
J
C
F
B
A
Another
thing
I
want
to
point
out
in
the
memo
is
that
it
completely
consistent
with
mr.
Spencer's
attitude
about
not
coming
here
after
being
asked
to
come
here
twice
come
to
the
planning
committee.
The
memo
completely
ignores
anything
he
ever
said
to
the
Common
Council
or
any
members
regarding
this,
and
he
acts
as
though
all
that
was
important
was
talking
to
just
one
particular
resident
when
there
were
also
other
residents
who
were
concerned
about
that,
and
we
collectively
were
representing
when
we're
looking
at
the
u.s..
A
Do
we
collectively
were
representing
all
of
the
interests
of
all
the
residents
in
the
city
looking
to
do
what's
in
their
best
interest
and
and
part
of
the
issue
you
know
that
was
raised.
Was
you
know?
How
are
we
going
to
deal
with
the
fact
that
this
would
allow
for
stories?
I
also
want
to
note.
He
notes
that
there's
a
setback
right,
you
know
provision
15
feet,
that's
depending
upon
what
you
considered
to
be
beside
a
side
or
a
rear
setback.
A
A
Also
what
he
talks
about.
There
was
not
part
of
what
we
were
delivered
as
provisions
in
the
USDA
in
February
of
2017.
They
made
it
into
the
final
copy
of
the
u.s.
do,
but
you
know
significantly
he's
not
he's
not
he's
omitting
significant
material
facts.
The
first
covenant
that
appears
in
the
restrictive
covenant
with
regards
to
building
heights
he's
omitting
any
discussions
with
council
members
or
what
he
said
in
council
meetings,
etc.
A
B
B
H
Know,
however,
I,
don't
think
that
that's
a
reason
to
move
ahead.
You
know
we
gave
them
two
chances
and-
and
that's
it
I
mean
you
just
can't
look
at
it
like
that.
We
have,
like
you,
said
responsibility
to
the
rest
of
the
city
here
and
I
think
we
should
get
answers
to
some
of
these
questions
and
because,
if
we
vote,
if
we
vote
in
favor
of
this
resolution,
you
are
you
are
remember.
This
has
gone
through
a
long
process.
Our
planning
board,
our
Board
of
Zoning
Appeals
and
countless
other
meetings
on
the
issue.
H
H
You
know
the
attorney
miss
Levine
here
and
she
said-
and
she
I
think
that
to
me
that
makes
sense
when
she
says
that
the
the
parts
of
the
Covenant
that
Judy
is
talking
about.
He
doesn't
address
that
in
his
memo
and
that
is
could
very
well
be
indicative
of
the
fact
that
they
that
the
city
was
not
that
involved
in.
In
writing.
The
Covenant
so
I
agree
that
we
should
hold
off
I
think
we
should
ask
for
the
Commissioner
to
come
here
and
that's
that's
where
I
stand
on.
Okay,.
H
A
It
clear
that
it's
not
what
this
resolution
is
doing
is
it's
asking
the
city
to
enforce.
Has
the
rest
as
the
restrictive
covenant
says,
so
then
it's
up
to
a
court
of
law
to
make
a
determination.
The
court
of
law,
then
rules,
there's
no
liability.
If
the
court
rules
with
us,
because
then
there's
been
a
fair
hearing
on
it
and
that's
what
that's
what
I'm
looking
to
be
done,
it's
not
for
us
to
sit
here
and
decide.
A
The
enforceability
of
this
I
do
want
to
note
that
I've
taken
a
look
at
some
of
the
case
law
in
memos
and
and
it's
very
clear
that
arguments
in
equity
are
important.
There's
also
a
case
law
that
basically
says
that
they
need
to
prove
that
the
restrictive
covenant
has
no
purpose
any
longer
in
order
to
be
relieved
of
the
obligations
of
this
restrictive
covenant.
So
the
fact
that
this
particular
individual
executed
this
willingly
did
so
in
order
to
induce
a
vote
on
the
you
in
which
this
would
be
zoned.
A
A
B
B
E
Ultimately,
if
the
resolution
does
pass,
what
role
does
the
corporation
council
have?
Is
it
it's
actually
belief
that
information
we
may
like
or
counsel
that
it's
not
enforceable,
or
it's
not,
you
know
the
best
interest
to
pursue
or
when
you
feel
and
I
probably
can't
speak
that
what
would
we
be
making
a
decision
making
process
as
far
as
moving
to
I
do.
I
I
C
D
K
Asking
is
basically
and
asking
for
counsel
to
file
a
lawsuit,
had
a
quarter
turn.
That's
essentially
what
I'm
reading
from
that
that
says
what
she
was
mentioned
about.
What
core
council
is
that's
a
separate
issue:
I
can't
speak
dr.
Ratton
portion,
but
in
terms
of
what
she's
saying
with
their
memo,
I
actually
do
agree
with
her
on
the
memo
that
attackers,
for
the
reasons
that
it's,
when
you
look
at
its
basic
contract
law,
if
you
look
at
the
four
corners
of
the
people,
it.
K
Enforce
it,
however,
it's
almost
like
a
will.
It's
a
self-serving
document
which
he
says.
Nobody
else
is
another
party
to
this.
In
order
to
enforce
the
contract,
there
has
to
be
a
party
to
the
contract
who
has
been
suffering
damages
to
it,
for
the
city
did
not
sign
this
just
based
off
of
this.
That's
where
I
happen,
issues
saying
it's
not
enforceable
and
then.
C
C
K
C
K
A
B
C
A
Think
you're
to
be
made
with
regard
to
the
enforceability
of
this
I
would
find
it
hard
to
believe
that
a
judge
is
going
to
sit
there
and
just
say:
oh
no,
you
know
this
is
there's
no
obligation
on
the
part
of
these
parties
to
do
what
they
said
that
they
were
going
to
do.
The
terms
of
the
restrictive
covenant
make
it
clear
that
it
doesn't
take
effect
until
we
act,
and
we
pass
a
particular
ordinance.