►
Description
The agenda for the meeting can be found on the city's website at http://bit.iy/clearwaterCityCouncilMeetings
A
A
A
Remember
to
turn
off
your
cell
phones
and
beepers
living
up
to
become
a
distraction
during
the
meeting.
Also,
please
refrain
from
having
conversations
in
this
room
so
that
we
might
hear
all
the
testimony
given
today
to
ensure
a
complete
record
of
this
board's
actions.
We
ask
the
each
individual
wishing
to
speak,
including
the
applicant
speak
into
the
microphone
at
the
podium
in
front
of
us.
Clearly
state
your
name
and
spell
your
last
name
for
the
clerk
now
I'll.
A
Agendas
of
today's
meeting
on
the
podium
to
your
right
near
the
entry
door
at
this
also
has
plenty
of
our
roster.
The
commune
of
element
board
the
lists
of
city
staff
experts
in
their
resumes
the
board's
rules
procedure
in
the
annual
schedule
of
sport.
Our
first
order
of
business
today
is
to
review
the
improve.
The
image
from
last
month's
meeting
will
last
the
last
meeting
that
we
have.
C
A
Okay.
That
second
motion
made.
Second,
any
discussion,
you're
being
done
all
in
favor,
say
aye
aye
all
opposed
motion
carries
next
item
is
items
that
are
to
be
heard
about
from
the
public
that
are
not
on
today's
agenda.
Does
anybody
hear
today's
speech
items
not
on
the
agenda
today?
Please
approach
the
microphone
your
honor.
D
Hi
I'm
Georgia,
Chronicle
Samara,
the
city
of
Clearwater
I,
just
wanted
to
take
a
moment
to
thank
you
to
thank
the
board
members,
the
staff
on
your
last
meeting
when
you
signed
up
for
this
job,
you
didn't
sign
up
for
a
seven-hour
meeting,
but
y'all
did
a
very
concise
job.
Very
thorough
job
and
I
also
want
to
thank
the
neighborhood.
They
didn't
get
the
answer
that
they
wanted,
but
they
behave
with
quorum.
D
A
This
board
has
adopted
a
consent,
agenda
format
and
the
consent
items
are
identified
as
such
on
the
agenda
consent
agenda
items
were
those
items
for
which
the
Planning
Department
recommends
approval.
The
applicant
is
agreement
with
a
proposed
conditions
and
no
written
objections.
The
case
have
been
received
today.
Items
may
be
removed
from
the
consent
agenda
today
by
a
member
of
the
board,
a
member
of
the
staff
or
any
person
in
the
audience
for
questions
or
objections.
A
Are
we
to
each
item
the
consent
agenda
and
if
any
person
wishes
to
remove
the
item
from
the
consent
agenda,
please
so
state
or
raise
your
hand,
and
we
will
remove
it
from
the
consent
agenda.
Items
removed
from
the
consent
agenda
will
be
heard
in
the
regular
order
of
the
meeting
items
that
remain.
The
consent
agenda
will
be
approved
with
a
single
vote
item.
Let
me
so
I
am
another
contention
today.
A
The
first
is
case
number
FLD,
two
zero
one:
nine
dash
zero,
four
zero
one:
two
and
five
hundred
north,
the
Ola
Avenue,
the
owners,
harbour
Bluffs,
waterfront,
condominium
association,
Inc,
the
agent
Joe
Burdette
and
Curt
Mangan,
and
the
request
is
for
a
real
application,
a
termination
of
status
of
nonconformity.
Is
there
anybody
who
wish
to
have
this
matter
removed
from
the
consent
agenda?
A
E
A
Item
on
the
consent
agenda
is
FL
d,
two
zero
one:
nine
two:
zero:
four:
zero:
zero:
nine
at
1200
Roger
Street,
the
owners,
Patricia
P,
meek
trustee.
The
agent
is
Sandra
Lee,
Bradbury
Norton
engineering
and
the
request
is
reviewing
four
thousand
one.
Six
square
foot
office
Street
off
street
parking
lot
in
the
commercial
district.
Is
there
any?
We
shouldn't?
Have
this
item
removed
the
consent
agenda?
A
Seeing
none?
The
third
item
on
our
consent
agenda
today
is
case:
FL
d
2
0,
1,
9,
0,
4,
0,
1
1
at
801,
Chestnut
Street,
the
owner
is
ft
clearwater
LLC,
the
agent
is
Robert
Kirby,
lessee
kakaako's
consulting
and
the
request
is
reviewing
application
for
termination
of
status
of
nonconformity.
Is
anybody
wish
to
have
this
item
removed
from
the
consent
agenda?
There
being
not
all
three
items
were
level
2
applications,
but
we
believe
we
have
one.
It's
got
a
conflict
if
you
want-
or
if
this.
A
A
A
There
being
none
on
favor,
say
aye
all
opposed
motion
carries
today
our
regular
agenda.
We
have
one
matter:
the
bird
is
a
level
two
case
and
the
procedures
are
as
follows:
all
level
two
cases,
such
as
flexible
development
or
considered
quasi-judicial
hearings
in
a
quasi-judicial
hearing,
the
Community
Development
Board
reviewed
the
application,
the
staff
report,
correspondence
and
all
evidence
present
today
and
makes
the
final
decision
subject
to
appeal.
A
This
board
has
previously
qualified
all
the
city
staff
will
testify
as
experts
in
their
area
of
professional
training,
education
and
expert
experience,
alyssa
city
staff
experts
and
their
resumes
are
on
the
handbook
on
the
podium
near
the
entry
door
and
the
other
professionals
the
desire
to
be
qualified
as
an
expert
witness
also
request
the
beginning
of
the
case
and
present
a
resume
to
each
board
member.
The
board
shall
determine
whether
or
not
the
cloth
other
person
is
an
expert
in
what
field.
At
the
beginning
of
each
level.
A
The
board
will
then
determine
whether
or
not
the
grant
party
status
and
the
case
will
then
proceed
as
follows:
presentation
by
planning
staff,
10
minutes
presentation
by
applicant
10
minutes,
presentation
by
persons
of
party
status,
5
minutes
per
party
cross-examine
of
waitin
of
witnesses
by
planning
staff
cross-examination
of
witnesses
by
applicants
and
closes
emanation
of
witnesses
by
persons
with
party
status
comments
by
the
public's
by
the
public
3
minutes
per
person.
Closing
remarks
by
planning
staff,
three
minutes,
closing
remarks
by
persons
granted
party
status,
three
minutes
per
party
and
then
closing
remarks
by
the
applicant.
B
A
And
just
so,
it's
clear
from
you
in
the
discussion
right.
You
can
just
say
discussion.
You
cannot
vote,
that's
right!
Okay,
all
right!
So
the
commander
that
we
have
before
us
today
is
case:
FLD
2,
0,
1,
9,
0,
4,
0,
0,
7
and
TDR
0
1,
9,
2,
0,
4,
0,
0,
1,
the
property
location
and
the
receiving
property
is
2.
A
A
What
what
does
that
mean
party
status
question
from
out
from
one
person,
an
alias
party
status,
means
that
you
have
the
right
to
do
cross
examination
and
participate
participate
as
a
participant
in
hearing.
If
you
don't
have
parties,
you
do
have
a
right
to
speak,
be
as
a
member
of
the
public
for
three
minutes
and
state
your
concerns
or
support,
or
otherwise
so
you're
looking
for
Sparty
session,
not
okay,
thank
you.
Anybody
looking
for
party
status
there
being
none,
then
we'll
proceed
with
the
staff.
H
Afternoon,
thank
you
good
afternoon,
mark
Perry,
Planning
and
Development.
This
is
a
level
2
flexible
development
application
for
a
point.
Eight
one
three
acre
site
located
on
US
Highway
19,
it's
located
in
the
u.s.
19
district
and
specifically
in
the
u.s.
19
regional
center
sub
district.
It
is
subject
to
the
u.s.
19
zoning
district
and
development
standards.
Currently
it's
occupied
by
an
approximately
6,000
square
foot
vacant
restaurant.
H
The
proposal
is
to
construct
the
new,
almost
ninety
six
thousand
square
foot,
five-story
self
storage,
use
that
includes
about
2,800
square
feet
of
ground
floor
retail
sales
and
service.
On
the
west
side.
On
the
ground
floor,
the
building
will
be
68
feet
in
height
and
14
off-street
parking
spaces
are
included
gently
on
the
north
side
of
the
site.
H
The
transfer
of
development
rights,
while
the
Volman
rights
can
be
freely
transferred
between
sites
to
use
them,
requires
Community,
Development
Board
approval,
so
that's
really
the
gist
of
it.
The
sending
and
receiving
sites
are
up
on
the
screen,
so
you
can
kind
of
get
the
proximity
they're,
both
in
the
same
sub
district
and,
of
course,
they're
both
within
the
u.s.
nineteen
planning
area.
H
The
project
includes
eight
hundred
self
storage
units
about
almost
three
thousand
square
feet
of
retail
space
staff
did
a
full
analysis
to
compare
the
proposal
against
the
the
specific
use
criteria
and
also
all
of
the
applicable
design,
standards
and
staff
has
found
that
the
application
is
consistent
with
all
applicable
portions
of
the
u.s.
nineteen
planning
document,
and
we
also
compared
it
to
the
requirements
in
Section,
C,
DC,
Section,
four
1402
and
1403
those
govern
the
specific
standards
by
which
the
transfer
of
development
rights
can
be
used.
H
H
One
of
the
main
criteria
is
that
the
donor
site,
who
meet
all
applicable
property
maintenance
standards,
in
other
words
the
donor
site,
has
to
be
a
property
and
good
maintenance.
No
peeling
paint
things
like
that.
We
did
have
an
inspection
done
about
a
month
ago
and
it
the
donor
site,
is
in
compliance
with
the
property
maintenance
standards.
H
The
development
review
committee
reviewed
the
application
and
supporting
materials
at
its
meeting
of
June
6
of
this
year
and
deemed
the
development
to
be
legally
sufficient
to
move
forward
to
the
Community
Development
Board
and
the
Planning
and
Development
Department
does
recommend
approval
of
the
proposal
subject
to
a
series
of
conditions.
Of
course,
most
of
the
conditions
are
standard.
I'll
just
hit.
Some
of
the
highlights.
H
A
minor
change
was
made.
It
turns
out
that
the
Northeast
driveway
there
isn't
a
cross
access
agreement
in
place
at
this
time.
Although
the
the
design
standards
in
the
u.s.
19
plan,
they
do
require
that
properties
when
they
come
in
for
development
or
redevelopment
that
they
provide
stub
outs,
if
not
providing
direct
access
at
this
time,
at
least
providing
for
the
possibility
of
access
to
adjacent
sites
so
because
there
isn't
a
cross
access
agreement
between
the
countryside
square
and
the
Dick's
Sporting
Goods
property
to
the
north
and
east
of
this
site.
H
H
H
I
C
H
C
H
H
H
Just
one
of
access
right
now
is
from
the
us,
19
frontage
road
and
it's
okay
with
the
fire
department.
Everybody
like
that.
Yes,
everybody
has
all
departments
the
fire
department,
solid
waste
engineering,
traffic,
stormwater
planning,
they
they're
all
part
of
the
development
review
committee,
they're
all
involved
in
the
initial
submit
all
and,
of
course,
whenever
we
get
any
kind
of
resubmit,
all
they're
all
involved
in
the
in
a
review.
J
K
L
Good
afternoon
mr.
chairman
Brian
ox
65
course
screed
on
behalf
of
us
happy
homes
before
I
start
my
time,
I'd
like
to
ask
the
board
to
certify
some
expert
witnesses.
Their
resumes
are
found
on
Tab
nine
of
the
packet
that
we
just
handed
out.
The
first
one
is
Chris
and
Sheva.
It's
in
the
area
of
Landscape
Architecture.
M
F
A
L
A
L
You
mr.
chairman
and
board
members,
this
is
the
third
time
that
you've
seen
this
site.
The
first
two
times
were
in
the
process
of
a
text,
amendment
application,
which
was
a
legislative
approval.
In
that
case
the
City
Council.
We
worked
very
diligently
as
you'll
recall,
with
the
staff
and
with
the
board.
We
appreciate
all
of
your
input
and
we
limited
the
applicability
of
the
self-storage
mixed
of
uses,
self
storage
and
active
office.
L
Retail
restaurant
uses
front
of
us
19
to
only
two
sites
in
this
activity
center,
which
was
one
being
this
site
and
the
other
being
the
country
Pizza
Inn
across
the
street,
which
has
no
intention
of
redeveloping.
At
this
time
we
actually
tried
to
get
the
TDRs
from
them
to
kind
of
limit
the
self
storage
potential
in
the
area,
but
they
didn't
want
to
saw
their
TDRs
to
us,
but
the
city
council
did
approve
the
amendment.
L
The
City
Council
passed,
ordinance,
9,
160
118
in
November
on
second
reading
of
2018,
and
so
now
the
mixed
of
use,
self
storage
and
retail
office.
Restaurant
is
in
the
code
and,
as
mr.
Perry
said,
is
a
level
1
approval.
This
project
is
not
requesting
any
flexibility
and
I
know.
That's
that's
odd
to
hear,
but
the
project
is
not
requesting
any
flexibility
from
the
design
guidelines
from
the
height
setbacks.
Anything
like
that,
the
proposed
height
is
68
feet
from
grade,
whereas
we're
allowed
as
a
right
to
go
to
150
feet
from
great.
L
So
no
issues
are
before
you
today
in
terms
of
height
setbacks
or
any
of
those
types
of
things.
As
mr.
Perry
also
said,
there
was
an
issue
that
was
raised
about
cross
access,
easements
or
agreements.
The
the
code
requires
cross
access
of
parcels
to
be
planned
for
in
the
future.
Of
course,
as
mr.
Perry
said,
the
code
cannot
require
private
parties
to
enter
into
cross
access
agreements
when
one
of
those
parties
is
not
currently
an
applicant
asking
for
any
approvals
from
the
city.
L
So
in
this
case,
what
we've
done
to
comply
with
the
design
guideline
is
provide
two
stub
outs
for
future
access,
and
those
issues
will
really
come
come
to
fruition
when
the
site,
when
the
neighboring
site
comes
in
for
redevelopment
whenever
that
might
be,
and
those
are
in
Tab
4.
If
you
turn
to
tab.
4
of
your
of
your
packet,
you
can
see
the
revised
site
plan
that
includes
the
stub
outs
on
the
north
and
south
portions
of
the
property,
and
you
can
see
those
right
here.
L
This
is
the
rear
of
the
property,
so
we
know
that
we
do
have
one
objection,
which
is
why
we're
not
on
consent,
which
is
why
we're
moving
forward
with
the
full
hearing
and
the
issues
that
were
raised
by
Weingarten,
who
owns
the
Dick's
Sporting
Goods
complex
and
the
retail
Center
to
the
rear
initially
was
based
on
confusion
related
to
the
cross,
access
and
also
on
our
site
plan,
and
we
clarified
that
we
are
not
accessing
their
property.
In
fact
they
installed
bollards
here,
so
no
access
is
even
possible.
At
this
point.
L
There
was
a
little
access
here
for
the
current
site,
but
they
put
up
some
bollards.
So
it's
clear
that
they're
not
going
to
grant
us
the
access.
We
don't
need
it.
It's
not
required
by
the
city
staff
for
approval.
We
are
providing
the
future
step
out
for
future
redevelopment.
That's
all
we're
required
to
do,
and
that's
all
we're
doing.
We
are
not
at
all
asking
for
access
or
nor
are
you
granting
access
to
their
property
in
any
way.
The
other
issue
they
raised
was
traffic,
which
is
what
I'm
going
to
ask
mr.
L
Yates
to
come
up
in
one
second
to
testify
to
that
regard.
But,
as
you
all
know,
when
we
discussed
at
length,
the
self
storage
is
really
the
lowest
traffic
use,
probably
permitted
in
the
city,
and
it's
absolutely
probably
the
lowest
permitted
use
in
the
activity
center.
The
evidence
before
you
and
tab
5
with
the
traffic
impact
study
shows
that
this
reduces
daily
trips
compared
to
the
6,000
square-foot
Denny's,
the
93
thousand
square
foot
self
storage
facility
actually
has
314
less
trips
per
day,
so
I
don't
think,
there's
any
issues
really
at
all
about
traffic.
L
The
next
thing
they
argued
when
they
amended
their
opposition
was
visibility
to
their
site
and
the
height
again.
Neither
of
those
are
before
you.
Neither
of
those
are
properly
considered
because
the
height
is
less
than
half
of
the
legally
allowed
height.
Again
we're
not
asking
for
any
flexibility,
and
as
the
board
knows,
views
are
not
allowed
to
be
legally
considered.
How
ever?
Let
me
address
it:
this
is
the
footprint
of
the
site
compared
to
the
current
site,
we're
actually
moving
the
building
back
from
the
current
building.
L
The
current
building
is
about
35
feet
from
the
road.
Our
building
is
going
to
be
about
50
feet
from
the
road.
Dick's
has
a
very
visible
monument
sign,
so
this
is
the
Dick's.
This
monument
sign
is
way
out
front.
It's
not
gonna
be
blocked
by
our
building
at
all.
Obviously,
there's
no
way
we're
gonna
be
able
to
block
this
sign
which
fronts
on
the
front
road
of
us
19,
so
respectfully
I
wanted
to
address
that.
L
We
don't
think
that
that's
a
real
legitimate
concern
and
we
obviously
think
that
the
redevelopment
of
this
site-
it's
undisputed,
that
the
blighted
Denny's
needs
to
go
then
that
we
all
of
us
recognize
that
in
the
last
two
hearings
we
had
with
you
it's
undisputed
that
the
redevelopment
that's
being
proposed
is
much
better
for
property
values
and
for
the
area
than
leaving
the
blighted
Denny's
there
with
graffiti
on
it.
My
client
purchased
the
property
closed
on
it.
So
again,
this
isn't
speculative.
We
closed
on
the
property
after
the
council
approved
the
text.
L
L
Have
the
transcripts
I'm
not
going
to
read,
read
your
words
to
you,
but
I
believe
that
I
think
almost
every
single
member
of
the
community
develop
Ord
after
our
last
hearing
in
September
or
October
said
you
know,
if
you
only
had
this
one
site
and
it
was
a
level
2
flex
development.
We
totally
agree.
This
would
be
fine
on
this
site.
We're
worried
about
opening
the
Pandora's
box
of
self
storage
going
all
over
the
activity
center
and
again
we
addressed
that
with
the
council.
So
I'd
like
to
ask
mr.
L
L
N
Afternoon,
Michael
Yates
White,
House
Group.
What
you
see
in
tap
by
that
this
is
a
table
out
of
that
tab.
Five.
Basically,
it
is
a
trip
generation
comparison
of
the
existing
use,
which
is
the
high
turn
of
a
restaurant.
Compared
to
what
is
proposed
for
the
development.
As
you
can
see,
there
is
a
net
reduction
in
daily
trips.
I
am
peak
our
trips
and
PM
peak
our
trips.
What
we
also
looked
at
was
what
could
be
developed
on
the
site
as
a
comparison.
N
N
So
basically,
what
would
be
allowed
is
about
88,000
square
feet
of
office
and,
as
you
can
see
from
this
comparison,
this
is
the
same
type
of
comparison.
The
allows
on
top
it's
a
significant
reduction
again
in
daily
AM
and
PM
peak
hour
trips
over
what
could
be
built
on
this
site.
I'd
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions
you
may
have.
L
It
respect
I'd
like
to
ask
for
questions.
After
times
up,
that's
okay
and
I'd
like
to
ask
mr.
Castelo
mr.
Culberson
to
come
up
just
really
briefly,
so
I
can
get
their
testimony
into
the
record.
Mr.
Culberson,
from
an
architectural
perspective,
does
this
project
and
your
opinion
comply
with
all
the
us
19
plan
design
guidelines?
Yes,
does
it
comply
with
all
the
requirements
of
the
city,
clear
water,
comprehensive
plan
for
approval?
Yes,
does
it
comply
with
all
of
the
community
Belmont
code
requirements
for
approval?
L
Yes,
okay
and
in
terms
of
the
height,
is
it
true
that
the
height
is
less
than
half
of
the
legally
allowed
permitted
height?
Is
a
level
one
approval?
Yes,
thank
you,
sir
mr.
Costello
I'll
ask
you
the
same
series
of
questions
just
to
get
into
the
record.
Mr.
Costello,
from
an
engineering
perspective,
is
your
opinion
of
the
plant
that
the
proposal
complies
with
all
of
the
requirements
of
the
us
19
plan
and
the
design
guidelines?
Yes,
does
it
comply
with
all
of
the
requirements
for
approval
the
Community
Development
code?
L
So
there's
no
windows
here,
there's
nobody
sitting
here,
looking
out
over
the
Denny's
I
understand
the
visibility
concern,
but
respectfully
with
the
overpass
with
the
monument
sign.
Again,
it's
not
really
legally
available
to
be
considered
by
you,
but
even
if
it
were
I
just
respectfully
think
that
it's
not
a
prevailing
argument
or
a
persuasive
argument.
In
my
humble
opinion
and
we'll
answer
any
questions
you
have
at
this
time
any
questions.
C
C
I
am
wondering
how
somebody
like
me,
and
it's
just
a
understanding
of
it,
how
you
get
in
with
one
of
these
things
and
how
you
get
it
to
those
say
the
fourth
floor,
because
I've
never
been
in
one
of
those
and
and
maybe
you
could
explain
the
process
of
unloading
and
how
a
trailer
on
a
house
would
take
a
trailer
and
a
car
would
be
parked
in
the
facility
like
this.
Yes,
sir,.
P
O
Oh
one
other
thing
to
note
is
that,
because
of
the
design
of
this
building,
that
there
is
no
gate
or
anything,
that's
required
to
gain
access
to
the
property.
So
you
can
make
a
maneuver
directly
into
the
property
and
you
don't
have
to
stop
in
order
to
punch
in
a
passcode
or
swipe
the
key
or
anything
like
that.
O
Q
Set
your
name
and
spell
your
last
name
for
the
record:
Alex
evidence
evey
ans
I'm,
with
Weingarten
real
teeth
of
the
adjacent
property
owner
representative.
As
he
stated,
we
had
some
objections
to
the
height
of
the
building.
It
was
not
in
mind
with
we
want
to
protect
our
shopping
center
and
the
visibility
coming
towards
the
center.
Q
He
did
mention
going
above
the
flyover,
but
at
that
point
you've
already
passed
the
shopping
center,
so
the
visibility
to
be
able
to
see
where
our
tenants
are
coming
towards
the
center
of
where
you
would
get
off
head
will
be
affected.
The
height
of
the
building
is
not
in
line
with
the
height
of
the
of
our
development
or
the
development,
but
we
just
want
to
protect
our
tenants
and
their
visibility.
I
I
Haggerty
on
with
Weingarten
native
gge
rty
final
comment
was
the
photo
of
is
shown
as
far
as
visibility
is
a
little
bit
misleading
because
it's
taken
from
the
far
side
closest
to
us
19.
So
it's
not
really
giving
you
the
vantage
point
as
if
you're
traveling
on
the
inner
lane
towards
the
shopping
center
with
the
attention
returning
into
the
center
our
contention,
is
you
probably
miss
the
view
corridor
or
pass
it
as
you.
A
K
L
Briefly,
to
address
again
the
issues
that
we've
discussed
and
one
of
the
other
things
I
want
to
point
out
and
again
I
think
we
all
know
what
you're
allowed
to
consider
and
what
you're
not
allowed
to
consider
at
this
point:
the
shopping
center
for
fronts,
countryside,
Boulevard
and
the
entrance
is
on
countryside
Boulevard.
There's
no
entrance
back
here
on
this
side
of
the
site.
This
is
the
rear
of
the
shopping
center,
so
the
shopping
center
here
is
really
all
based
on
countryside
Boulevard.
L
So
respectfully
you
know,
I
don't
find
that
argument,
persuasive,
even
if
it
was
legally
available
for
you
to
consider
what
I
do
think
is
pretty
undisputed.
Is
that
this
isn't
good
for
anybody.
It's
certainly
not
good
for
Weingarten,
certainly
not
good
for
the
city
of
Clearwater,
certainly
not
good
for
the
us
19
plan
and
the
implementation
of
the
us
19
plan
in
terms
of
the
height
as
we
discussed
it's
legally
less
than
half
of
what's
allowed
as
a
right
without
any
consideration
by
the
board
and
I
understand
that
the
us
19
plan
is
relatively
new.
L
But
this
is
the
type
of
development,
the
us
19
plan
and
the
City
Council
specifically
envisioned
and
want-
and
of
course,
there's
going
to
be
a
transition
period
between
older
properties
like
the
Weingarten
property
and
other
properties
that
are
in
the
redevelopment
phase.
So
that's
my
response
to
respectfully
to
the
objections
and
I
do
want
to
say.
We
do
appreciate
one
garden
setting
in
their
letters
because
they
let
us
reach
out
to
them.
I
had
several
teleconferences
with
their
attorney.
Mr.
L
A
M
F
Move
to
approve
case
number
FLD,
two
zero
one:
nine,
zero,
four:
zero,
zero,
seven
in
conjunction
with
TDR
to
zero
one,
nine,
zero,
four,
zero,
zero
one
based
on
the
evidence
and
testimony
presented
in
the
application.
The
staff
report
at
today's
hearing
in
hereby
adopt
financial
back
to
conclusions
of
law.
State
of
the
staff
report
with
conditions
of
approval
is
listed.
A
A
second
I'm
missing
a
motion
motion
made
in
second:
is
there
any
discussion
on
the
motion
all
in
favor,
say
aye
aye,
all
opposed
abstentions.
One.
Thank
you
very
much.
Motion
passes
good
stand
item
on
the
hearing.
Continuing
on
with
our
agenda
there.
There
are
meeting
procedures,
directors,
items
discussed,
meeting
procedures
well.
K
I
did
first
of
all,
I
won't
apologize
for
the
confusion
that
we
had
at
the
meeting
our
last
meeting,
because
we
have
an
hour
copy
of
the
procedures
that
there's
a
three
minute
time
limit,
but
yet
I
think
in
yours
copy
or
at
least
in
the
procedures
that
you
used
to
tell
you
kind
of
what
to
say
during
the
hearing.
Had
a
different
Totten
has
no
time
limit,
so
we
just
wanted
to
make
sure
everyone
was
on
the
same
page
and
I.
A
I'll,
try
not
that
first
with
my
legal
head
on
one
of
the
things
that
you
know
do
I
want
to
say
that
I
liked
about
having
a
timeline
after
the
last
hearing.
I
know
that
I
could
say
that,
but
by
the
same
token,
I
understand
with
Daniel's
concerns
and
from
a
due
process
standpoint.
You
know
when
you're
trying
to
cross-examine
there
usually
isn't
any
kind
of
time
period
that
simply
because
you
don't
know
what
the
response
to
that
question
is
gonna,
be
in
part
of
it.
You
could
ask
a
question
on
cross-examination.
A
The
person
answering
can
take
up
to
three
minutes
right
and
or
whatever
time
limit
you
put
on
it
and
that
that
ends
up
putting
those
people
at
a
disadvantage,
if
they're
not
represented
by
counsel,
and
you
have
an
expert
or
legal
counsel
up
there,
answering
questions
and
they're
taking
up
all
that
time
that,
because
they
wouldn't
know
how
to
stop
or
interrupt
or
do
anything
otherwise.
So
that
part
concerns
me
I've
gone
through
my
head.
A
A
So
if
the
staff
is
going
first
and
says,
hey,
we
want
to
do
cross-examination
of
person.
X.
Then
everybody
gets
to
then
also
do
the
acrosses
animation.
We
finish
with
person
X
and
we
don't
come
back
when
we
make
that
ground
rule
clear
I,
don't
think
you
put
a
time
that
that
way,
but
I
think
you
also
avoid
jeopardizing
people's
rights
from
due
process
standpoint,
I
just
kind
of
lost
mana
through
my
head
multiple
times
since
the
last
hearing
saying
you
know
our
hands
were
kind
of
tired,
but
how
it
had
cui
that
different
way.
A
M
Like
the
idea
of
a
handout
I'm
assuming
this
is
something
that
you
make
available
before
the
meeting
gets
started
as
people
arriving.
I
would
like
to
see
the
even
just
the
information
that
we
had
in
our
script
on
what
party
status
means,
because
I
think
it's
important
for
folks
to
know,
for
example,
that
party
status
carries
the
time
to
appeal
and
that's
something
I,
don't
think.
E
C
C
It
sounds
like
a
tough
one
to
do,
because
you
can't
you
know
I'm,
but
I
might
be
in
Tennessee
here
next
month
and
I
can't
schedule
everything
around
any
day
of
than
they
ended
Tuesday.
So
anyway,
I
thought
that
was
I
wish.
We
had
had
to
do
it
together.
I
Puerta
said
something
but
I
think
it
worked
out.
Okay,
I'm,
not
complaining,
I'm,
just
saying
next
time,
I
would
say
something,
and
then,
when
we
have
a
chance,
I'd
like
to
talk
about
that.
K
Mean
we
we
knew
that
the
neighborhood
was
coming
out
in
force
and
so
our
we
provided
them
information.
We,
you
know
they
had
the
code
section
that
talks
about
party
status,
so
they
have
that
information,
but
I
think
it's
the
new,
the
real
nuances
of
what
it
really
means.
And
what
are
your
obligations
once
you
have
party
status?
How
are
you
to
conduct
yourself
and
that's
really
hard
for
citizens
and.
A
I
think
I
was
focusing
my
response
on
the
cross-examination
itself,
I
think
explaining
party
status
and
here's
how
you
crossed
another
story
here
today
across
exam.
But
here's
what's
permissible
and
cross
examination
would
be
title
into
under
that
one
type
of
summary,
I
think
would
be
most
helpful.
Hey.
B
A
Of
the
group
they
did
relatively
well
and
they
listened
whenever
I
think
three
or
four
times
during
the
seven
hour
meeting
I
said
okay
folks
and
they
they
hushed
up
really
really
quickly.
I
was
I
was
really
appreciate.
The
fact
that
they
were
very
responsive
in
that
regard
and
realized.
Oh
maybe
I,
should
have
said
something
there
and
and
I
wasn't
gonna
really
count
against
anybody,
but
yeah
I've
seen
other
situations
and
I
did
this
book
club
enforcement
as
well
I
actually
have
somebody
removed
one
time.
A
F
Party
status,
you
know
slightly
different
angle.
I
do
think
everybody
should
have
the
right
to
be
heard,
but
is
it?
Is
it
a
bad
idea
to
have
a
time
frame?
That's
said
that
we
could
easily
extend,
but
if,
for
some
reason
it's
going
to
sideways
or
there
somebody
is
really
trying
to
you
know,
create
a
situation
that
could
be
it's
not
going
in
a
positive
manner
that
we
could
at
least
have
a
breaking
point.
Advise
point
them
in
the
right
direction.
Try
to
keep
things
on
point.
A
J
Because
people
that
we
had
in
here
before
or
one
persons
that
up
there
for
over
an
hour
and
is
in
the
legal
field,
filibustering
and
just
wearing
everything
down
and
going
over
and
rehashing
and
rehashing
even
with
us
pushing
it
I
mean
they
can
get
to
the
point
in
20
minutes
time,
I
mean
I
would
err
even
to
the
high
side
of
15
or
20
minutes.
Unless
you
want
to
do
so
that,
but.
A
We
already
state
that
the
rules
are
serve
up,
relaxed
and
I
think
that
it
tweaking
that
verbage
a
little
bit
putting
a
time
that
that
were
we
having
as
a
board
or
as
and
it
may
be,
the
discretion
of
the
board.
That's
compared
to
the
discretion
of
the
chair,
because
I
would
want
many
of
you
all
to
say,
hey
this
is
it's
going
too
far
and
I
could
then
rate
bring
it
in
or.
G
You
have
you
had
a
long
hearing
last
time.
I
understand
that
decision
to
have
been
appealed
already
and
I
feel
relatively
confident
saying
that
whatever
issues
are
raised
on
appeal.
There's
a
review
in
court
is
not
going
to
find
a
due
process
problem,
which
it's
a
good
thing.
Did
it
cost
you
some
time
sure
did
I've
represented
the
board
for
five
or
six
years,
and
the
cross-examination
process
has
been
ugly
two
times
so
I
do
wonder
if
perhaps
we
have
a
solution
in
search
of
a
problem?
G
How
often
does
it
happen,
so
we
can
write
the
rules
with
whatever
level
of
specificity
I
work
for
you
guys.
You
guys
tell
me
what
you
want
to
do
for
many
of
the
reasons
that
were
illustrated
in
the
last
hearing.
I
think
the
time
limits
on
cross-examination
are
a
bad
idea
to
begin
with.
15
20
minutes,
okay,
but
15
20
minutes
would
have
shortened
your
last
hearing
by
about
a
half
an
hour
right.
G
It's
a
six
and
a
half
hours
versus
seven
with
that.
Would
that
have
made
Jenny
happier
all
right
and
mr.
chairman,
you
can't
hit
the
nail
on
the
head
when
you
have
lay
people
unrepresented,
attempting
cross-examination
who's
experienced
in
such
things
consists
of
watching
law
and
order
Perry
Mason
depending
on
the
generation.
You
know
it
can
get
a
little
ugly,
but
that's
how
the
sausage
is
made
so
to
speak,
and
that's
part
of
the
process
in
mind.
G
Mean
yeah,
there's
always
a
balance
to
be
struck,
I
mean
look,
it's
always
it's
always
going
to
satisfy
due
process
if
everybody
gets
the
same
amount
of
time
to
do
what
they're
doing
right.
Usually
this
long
is
that
they
have
a
full
and
fair
opportunity
to
be
heard,
which
is
what
the
due
process
analysis
focus
is
all
right.
G
Cross-Examination
is
a
little
bit
of
different
creature.
As
you
know,
it's
first
of
all,
it's
hard
to
do
for
even
the
best
lawyers,
and
it's
it's
really
hard
to
do
for
folks
with
no
training
at
all.
So
for
that
reason
it
can,
as
you
saw
it,
can
take
away
person,
3
minutes,
10
minutes,
sometimes
12
minutes
to
construct
a
single
question.
If
that
same
timeframe
is
allotted
to
a
representative
party,
the
lawyer
can
fire
off
50
questions
in
the
same
amount
of
time.
So
is
it
a
full
and
fair
opportunity
to
be
heard?
B
G
Value
the
other
thing,
though
yeah
I
I,
think
there
may
be
the
other
thing
I'd
note
is
we
have
to
benefit
on
this
board
at
present
of
having
you
know,
a
seasoned
attorney
as
your
chairperson,
which
is
always
helpful.
That's
not
always
going
to
be
the
case
as
I
think
that
mr.
Petrak
gave
raised
so
from
my
seat
and
I
think
whoever
represents
you
looking
for
it
is
gonna,
be
you
know,
I
take
as
active
a
role
as
I
think
is
compelled
by
the
circumstances
and
in
that
circumstance,
I
was
fortunate
enough
to
have
mr.
G
boots
that
kisses
the
chokers.
Those
things
I
think
can
be
green
reined
in
or
or
addressed
on
a
case-by-case
basis
again,
if
it
was
causing
frequent
problems.
I
would
certainly
be
all
for.
Let's
clamp
down
on
the
time.
Frames
are
really
getting
abused
here,
but
you
had
an
application
with
significant.
A
If
it,
if
it's
and
it's
probably
gonna
release
the
same
due
process
issue
as
otherwise
but
I
wonder
if
it's
feasible,
oh
set
up
the
board
may
just
having
our
rules
and
had
that
part
of
the
script
ever
read
may
impose
time
limits
on
cross-examination
as
the
circumstances
so
deemed
appropriate.
So
that
way
it's
when
we
read
the
rules
and
whatever
they
might
see
handout
wise
a
reference
to
the
fact
that
I
can
go
that.
A
So
if
somebody
like
the
one
person
who
was
asking
multiple
questions
to
get
to
one
point,
what
I
did
in
terms
of
condensing
their
questions
would
be
exercising
the
discretion
to
do
so,
but
it's
now
been
to
emphasize
and
tell
them
in
advance
that
that
I
was
like.
You
know
con.
Basically,
your
question
is
this.
He
said
yes,
I,
want
you
ask
that
question.
He
asked
that
question
and
we
moved
on
and
and
I
think
that
that
yeah,
it
didn't
work.
A
Cuz
I've
done
that
before
and
I've
been
in
the
role
that
I
sit
in
a
daily
basis
event
and
my
regular
career.
But
that's
that
having
that
written
authority
say
that
I
think
would
be
helpful
for
anything
chairs
in
the
future,
who
are
attorneys?
Who
would
think
of
that
neck
text,
because
I
I
don't
want
people
to
be
caught
off
guard
and
say
why
they
change
the
rules
midstream.
A
So
if
the
rules
say
that
the
board
can
say,
hey
we're
gonna
limit
cross-examination
to
X
under
this
case
and
we'll
extend
if
we
need
to
is
go
along,
we
have
a
throw
in
the
beginning,
especially
where
we
know
a
lot
might
be
going
on.
It'll
be
used
once
the
blue
moon,
but
it'll
be
there.
Should
we
need
it
without
necessary,
jeopardizing
due
process
and.
M
That
would
be
really
helpful
where
there
was
some
examples
of
because
we
had
such
a
large
crowd
where,
when
people
got
to
their
chance
to
cross-examine,
everyone
was
making
the
same
point.
Everyone
was
asking
questions
that
have
been
asked
and
answered
multiple
times
and
at
some
point
it
might
be
good
to
be
able
to
that
situation.
I
know
that's
a
problem,
because
everybody's
got
their
rights.
The.
A
G
G
Yeah
yeah
I
mean
doing
on
a
quasi-judicial
hearings
with
with
folks
who
are
not
well
suited
to
it
or
not
familiar
with
the
process.
Almost
always
the
folks
upon
me,
I
don't
want
to
call
the
losing
side,
but
the
folks
who
didn't
achieve
the
decision
that
they
desire
to
gave
you
you're
always
going
to
hear
that
they
got
gained
or
that
the
process
was
unfair.
A
A
Arc
was
fairly
balanced
in
that
regard
and
the
points
of
people
really
to
be
aware
of
its
gonna.
Come
to
these
meetings.
You
know
passion
and
energy
is
great,
but
if
you
don't
have
some
facts
to
support
what
you're
saying
we're
really
gonna
go
for,
it
is
a
board
and
I
think
that
that
was
kind
of
emphasized
a
or
hopefully
some
of
the
communities
that
have
issues
with
developments
that
are
going
on
nearby
them
will
take
heed
of
that.
Hopefully,
that'll
be
the
case.
Definite
was
that
was
balanced
in
every
birth
yeah.
G
J
G
G
A
So
I
mean
it
at
the
other
day.
I
think
the
consensus
is
let's
get
some
materials
together
are
crossing
a
line
to
giving
legal
advice,
I
kind
of
explained
the
process.
You
know,
party
status
means
you
get
these
rights.
If
you
don't
understand
what
that
means,
get
an
attorney
cross
examination
means
you
know,
you're
a
best
fight
to
get
clarification
if
you're
narsing.
What
that
means
forget
an
attorney,
but
at
least
lay
some
of
that
out
there.
A
So
people
are
thinking
about
that,
and
maybe
even
if
you
want
to
include
a
rule
saying
that
if
you
are
granted
party
status
before
you
start
speaking
of
things,
you
have
to
say
that
you
read
those
procedures
and
those
des
materials
that
way
they
know
that
they.
We
know
that
at
least
we're
given
the
opportunity
to
take
a
look
at
it,
then,
even
if
it's
just
before
the
hearing
begins,
because
that
will
be
okay,
they'll
have
in
their
hands
hope
you
look
at
her
guideline.
I
think
that
would
be
helpful.
You
know.
B
K
A
They
can
ask
for
any
status,
I
think
say
the
student
material,
you
know
she's
like
can
you
go
give
blood
and
they
give
you
that
book
and
they
said
you
read
all
the
different
things
that
you
have
to
say
yes
or
no
to,
and
you
say
yes,
then
you
thought
the
rest
of
the
questionnaire.
Then
you
give
blood,
you
know
you
read
it
once
I
at
least
I
read
every
once
the
rest
of
times.
A
I
say
you,
don't
things
changed
so,
but
at
least
we
given
the
opportunity
we
tell
them
by
telling
them
they
have
to
have
read
it.
It'll
emphasize
the
fact
that
there's
something
significant
in
there.
They
should
be
paying
attention
to
not
just
having
a
piece
of
paper
that
I
got
lost
in
the
shuffle,
but
saying
make
that
a
requirement
along
with
the
anti
materials
I
think
that
makes
it
I
mean,
and
they
could've
simply
say
they
read.
It
I
mean
they're,
the
ones
who
are
under
oath,
not
us
they're,.
E
C
Well,
if
we
celebrate
this
was
leading
right
to
where
I
would
like
to
be
with
this,
as
we
can,
if
I
could
slightly
without
anyone
to
and
I
think,
we've.
Okay,
all
right,
I,
never
change.
But
somebody
spoke
to
my
mind
here.
I
was
presented
providing
this
today,
because
I
have
been
on
the
board
for
three
years
now
and
I
have
yet
to
have
any
training
on
what
it
is.
C
You
know,
level-1
level-2
have
to
look
those
up
on
yourself
and
figure
them
out
level
three
and
how
they
go
back
and
forth,
but-
and
this
is
I'm
encouraging
this
100%
I'd
like
to
see
a
tree
of
CVB
training,
101
and
102,
because
what
I
seem
to
when
I
was
on
the
family
advisory
board.
We
had
a
purpose
taper.
Why
we
were
here
and
I
may
have
read
everything:
I
mean
that's
a
book.
C
C
Have
not
it
fells
like
we're
just
here
to
be
an
appeals
board
for
city
staff
and
if
we
don't,
and
if
we
don't
like
what
you
did,
we
find
a
coach
someplace,
but
that's
it.
But
I
was
hoping
that
there
was
more
of
a
thing.
I
felt
really
badly
for
the
people
that
did
present
on
on
this
particular
thing,
because
they
were
against
Goliath.
C
There
is
a
hundred
and
fifty
million
dollars
on
the
lines
with
his
project
that
we
looked
at
last
time
right.
One
point:
eight
million
dollars,
probably
per
unit
looking
at
that
view.
80
units
run
run
the
math
and
they
can
produce
anything
that
you
want
to
have
traffic
and
studies
anything,
but
when
they
asked
a
person
that
showed
a
picture
of
a
building
from
the
view
they
said
was
it
to
scale.
C
What
they
have
they've
lived
there
for
years
and
they're
trying
to
productive,
so
they're
supposed
to
come
up
with
$10,000
for
a
survey
and
at
a
picture
and
an
attorney
and
everything
else
and
I
go
through
the
things,
and
it
says:
there's
a
meeting
with
the
developer.
I,
don't
see
any
meetings
with
the
residents
homeless
solution
they
may
be,
and
you
please
show
them
to
me
what
they're
there
but
I've
never
seen
it
we're
loaded
for
development,
but
not
really
to
protect
us
as
a
city.
C
I
have
been
through
the
arguments
and
how
would
anybody
without
a
lot
of
training
we
have
been
here
on
a
couple
of
years?
We
might
know
things
about
scenic
corridors
and
county
plans
and
master
plans
and
stuff,
because
we've
learned
them,
but
a
normal
person
that
fifty
67
years
old
lived
there
for
30
years.
How
would
they
get
into
all
this
stuff
unless
they're
ready
to
drop
everything
to
make
that
argument,
but
so
it
seems
on
one
side:
there
should
be
somebody
helping
them
get
together.
Where
is
their
general?
C
We're
asking
unites
us
or
somebody
like
that,
to
walk
out
from
the
from
the
Roman
legions
and
say
I'm
in
charge,
but
that
really
doesn't
happen
and
I
just
felt
it
was
not
I.
If
I
made
a
decision
based
on
both
sides,
being
equal
I
would
have
felt
a
lot
better,
but
I
felt
like
we
had
the
citizens
trying
to
do
what
they
best
could
with
their
stones
in
their
pitchforks
against
a
well-armed,
ak-47s
and
I'm.
You
know
I'm
not
putting
the
other
side.
C
This
would
happen
over
and
over
again,
it's
not
this
group,
but
whenever
it
occurs,
how
do
we
help
the
citizens
present
their
perspectives?
I
mean
they've
lived
there
there's
a
scenic
view
down
there.
There's
a
scenic
corridor.
People
have
looked
at
they're,
gonna
know
what
they're
gonna
look
like
for
years.
They're
gonna
call
this
the
big
finger
for
years
and
we're
gonna
remember
the
ones
that
were
gave
than
the
big
finger,
and
but
if
that
should
have
come
out
in
the
discussion
and
if
we
all
agreed
this
foot
the
same
way,
we
did
that's.
C
Okay,
but
I.
Don't
it's
like
a
debating
society?
Well,
you
won
the
debate
because
you
had
better,
you
talk
better,
but
you
didn't
have
it,
but
the
arguments
didn't
really
count
in
a
way
they
weren't
able
to
show
go
through
the
six
points.
The
city
staff
said
these
were
mixed
nut,
but
I
didn't
personally
feel
that
those
words
that-
and
it
was
I-
won't
take
a
little
much
longer,
but
it
talks
about
200
feet.
Well.
This
is
supposedly
why
we
have
all
the
way
up
to
edge.
C
Edgewater
Drive
up
to
Union
is
still
City
at
Clearwater
and
those
people
are
City
residents.
So
you
know
the
two
hundred
feet
includes
another
commercial
place.
Another
place
that
wants
to
sell
is
land
everybody's
happy
as
a
clam,
but
the
people
that
are
farther
away
I.
Just
don't
see
that
how
a
bunch
of
amateurs
can
make
a
good
presentation
and
if
it's
not
them
to
get
it
together
and
not
the
city
staff,
then
I
only
saw
that
we
are
the
ones.
C
Could
that
could
help
them,
and
maybe
I
am
wrong
so
and
that's
why
I
would
like
the
training
to
see
if
it
says
Mike
you're
out
of
your
you're
wrong
here,
you
they're
on
their
own
and
if
they
can't
get
it
together,
tough
cookies,
but
I
just
think
if
I'm,
a
citizen
here
and
I
should
be
looking
at
the
citizens
more
than
the
people
that
are
making
150
million
dollars.
So
thank
you.
Let.
A
A
A
A
There
are
multiple
times
and
I
could
say
exactly
which
seat
Brian
was
sitting
in
from
Ocean
to
here
and
just
I
kept
looking
over
at
him,
and
he
wanted
to
get
up
and
I
was
kind
of
making
eye
contact
with
him
saying
don't
because
I
want.
You
know
when
you
know
these
people
aren't
represented
by
counsel
and
they're
up
there.
Trying
to
make
a
point.
I
was
looking
to
see.
A
Is
there
something
else
they're
gonna
bring
that
we
can
grab
onto
to
get
some
evidence
in
a
door
that
we
can
then
work
with
and
I
think
Mary
that
you
pointed
out
that
they,
you
know
a
lot
of
times
to
come
to
the
comments
and
the
questions
were
simply
repetitive
as
compared
to
bring
out
something
new,
but
I
was
I
was
being
as
flexible
as
I
thought.
I
could
be
within
the
rules
to.
A
Hopefully
something
would
come
out
to
get
to
that
point,
so
they
have
the
opportunity
for
and
if
I
were,
to
go
down
to
strict
rules
of
procedure.
I
could
have
shut
that
down
it.
Could've
been
whatever
hearing
I
mean,
there's
a
whole
lot.
I
could
have
done,
but
I
didn't
think.
There's
appropriate
support
to
do
that,
because
you're
dealing
with
giving
people
who
are
part
of
the
Sinister
rate
opportunity,
which
is
trying
it
back
into
the
whole
thing.
A
If
you
put
a
time
limit
than
those
folks
are
the
ones
who
were
hurt,
not
the
skilled
attorneys
they
be
up
there.
Who
can
make
you
know
you've
seen
Brian
Brian
could
do
a
40
minute
presentation
in
10
minutes
and
be
effective
about
it.
There
wasn't
a
single
person
who
spoke
from
the
public
or
web
party
status.
Who
could
do
that
and
even
come
close?
They
couldn't
do
a
10
minute
presentation
in
20
minutes.
Okay,
so
I
was
that's.
A
That's
where
the
time
limit
thing
comes
back
to
I,
agree
with
you
that
the
training
is
helpful
to
understand
our
role.
But
if
you
think
about
the
first
part
of
the
discussion,
I
think
you
just
made
the
point
for
time.
Limits
could
be
really
problematically
you're
trying
to
give
the
public-
that's
uneducated
in
that
in
that
board
not
experienced
in
that
particular
arena.
A
The
opportunity
to
be
heard,
and
maybe
happen
upon
the
point
that
really
need
to
be
making,
because
they
were
doing
it
in
artfully
and
that's
what
I
was
looking
for
were
during
the
hearing
last
week
or
two
weeks
ago,
and
hopefully
we
got
some
information
that
was
helpful
about.
It
is
didn't
again
when,
after
to
rehash
to
hearing
itself.
P
F
It
becomes
a
challenge,
I
think
it's.
These
types
of
cases
come
up
in
areas
that
are
programmed
for
progress
and
redeveloped.
It's
not
happening,
and
typically
in
a
residential
neighborhood,
where
all
the
codes
are
already
well
known
and
established.
This
is
an
area
that
has
legacy
properties
that
are
smaller
and
scale,
but
it's
zoned
for
something
much
larger
right.
F
Staff
does
not
have
a
staff
architect,
they
are
not
necessarily
assessing
based
on
aesthetics
and
the
code
is
somewhat
loosely
defined,
oftentimes
as
to
what
those
aesthetics
are,
but
we
have
an
opportunity
to
fill
in
the
gaps
of
where
staff
we
feel
has
either
not
properly
interpreted
the
code
or
or
may
not
have
an
opinion
on
that
piece
of
the
building
and
we
and
we
can
make
adjustments
on
that.
But
this
type
of
cases
it
happened
in
Clearwater
Beach.
F
You
know
when
Beach
by
design
first
happened
and
they
increased
new
height
limits
and
then
later
revised
it
to
have
step
downs
to
residential
neighborhoods
I
mean
it's.
It's
gonna
happen
in
places
where
things
are
out
of
scale,
with
the
future
vision
of
the
city
versus
the
legacy
properties,
and
that's
exactly
what
happened
here.
F
The
chance
for
the
public
to
protect
themselves
is
during
zoning
changes
to
understand
where
they're
at
what
is
the
zoning
that
they
live
in
and
what
can
be
built
next
to
me,
it's
not
our
job
for
an
emotional
plea,
in
my
understanding
when
they're
here
to
contest
something
that
is
within
the
rights
of
the
vision
of
zoning
within
the
rights
of
the
development
standards,
and
so
our
job
is,
is
somewhat
narrow
in
that
regard.
From
my
understanding
to
be
able
to
make
an
educated
decision
of
whether
it
should
proceed
or
not,
pursue
and.
M
M
That's
not
substantial
evidence
and
we're
not
entitled
to
consider
those
kinds
of
things
and
yes,
I
think
you
can
always
be
concerned
about
what
do
uncivil,
but
civilized,
but
untrained
members
of
the
public.
It
is
it's
yes,
it's
it's
difficult
for
them
to
compete
with
real
certified
experts.
Who've
been
qualified
as
such
by
this
board,
but
in
the
end,
a
lesson
until
they
rewrite
the
Community
Development
Code
sections
that
talk
about
this
board
and
what
we're
supposed
to
do
and
how
we're
supposed
to
do
it
or
J
I've
been
dizzy
or
many
times
about.
M
What
exactly
are
we
allowed
to
do
here?
You
know
I,
think
that
is
our
reality.
We
have
to
accept
competent,
substantial
evidence,
including
the
experts,
the
plantings.
R
E
R
Know
when
we're
in
a
quasi
judicial
proceeding
like
we
were
last
time
adversarial,
the
board,
in
my
mind,
sits
like
a
judge
but
I'm
most
familiar
with,
because
I'm
Lord
before
I
did
this
I
was
a
litigator
and
what
a
judge
does
is
simply
apply
the
facts
which
are
whatever
evidence
that's
presented
to
whatever
the
law
is.
So
we
talk
about
the
code.
That
code
is
law,
it's
the
city's
law
and
the
facts
or
whatever
evidence
that's
presented
at
the
hearing.
R
My
concern
is
is
if
the
board
starts
viewing
itself
as
an
advocate
for
anyone,
you
know,
there's
a
load
of
case
law
that
says
that
judges
sports
are
not
supposed
to
have
outside
their
neutral
positions
and
that's
gonna
be
grounds
for
reversal
of
any
decision.
So
that's
really
just
my
articulation.
You
look.
Council
may
have
a
different
view
of
the
law
with
me,
but
but
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that.
K
K
We
encourage
them
to
participate
when
we
met
with
the
developers
initially
I
told
them,
you
need
to
go
talk
to
the
neighborhood.
You
need
to
get
your.
You
know
it's
in
your
best
interest
to
work
with
the
neighborhood
to
get
a
project,
that's
supportable,
so
we
do
and
the
role
that
we
have.
We
try
to
do
that,
but
it's
not
our
job
to
go
out
and
represent
the
neighborhoods.
K
Our
job
is
to
represent
the
code
and
to
give
you
a
recommendation
based
on
what's
in
the
code
based
on
our
professional
opinion,
it
is
a
recommendation
to
you.
It
is
not
an
appeal
unless
it's
the
specific
appeal
filed
against
a
decision
that
we're
entitled
to
make.
But
the
decisions
here
are
yours:
they're,
not
ours,
and
if
you
don't
agree
with
us,
that's
the
way
the
process
should
work.
That's
what
you
guys
are
here
for,
but
I
do
want
to
assure
you
that
our
staff
works
with
residents
Ella,
provided
you
know,
information
to
them.
K
A
A
The
fact
that
was
a
week
later
gave
them
a
forum
that
wasn't
gonna,
be
distracted
by
anything
else,
but
also
allowed
us,
the
city
staff
to
inform
them
what
they
need
to
do
is
they
come
in
and
properly
seek
party
status,
I,
think
least
the
impression
I
got
was
the
week
before
we
were
thinking
about
maybe
20
or
more
people
looking
for
party
status
and
it
came
down
at
10
or
12.
You
know,
and-
and
it
would
have
been
it
could
have
been
less
some
folks
didn't
go.
A
They
asked
and
the
board
voted
in
their
favor
and
so
I
think
that
that
worked
out
well.
In
that
context,
we
it's
a
challenging,
sometimes
challenging.
Sometimes
there's
that
to
be.
Thankfully,
those
are
unusual.
I'm
excited
saying
what
maybe
65
70
percent
of
the
things
that
we
hear
are
in
consent
and.
C
C
To
sort
of
throw
it
out
at
this
point
out
in
the
open
and
find
out
it
doesn't
bounce
back
or
what
are
a
lot
of
the
other
things
that
happened
and
it
may
sound
as
though
we're
picking
on
somebody
when
it's
really
just
the
only
way.
I
know
how
to
ask
the
question
and
and
get
the
information.
So
it's
not
laying
or
not
a
criticism.
It's
just
that.
How
can
I
do
it,
but
I
do
wish.
C
People
debate
did
not
need
a
public
defender
for
these,
but
there
are
cases
where,
where
a
public
defender
for
that
groups,
like
that
and
a
couple
of
others
I've
seen
over
the
years,
would
be
awful
nice
to
have
somebody
I'm
appointing
you
to
be
on
their
side
and
you're
gonna
be
the
one
that
helped
them
in
any
way
they
can.
They
can
make
this
argument
and
go
for
it
and
supposed
to
just
say
here's
the
book
like
that,
read
it
and
weep.
Thank
you.
So
that's
I'm
not
complaining.