![youtube image](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/OSVmOywALVk/mqdefault.jpg)
►
From YouTube: Board of Commissioners 6-28-22
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).
A
A
A
A
Here
tonight's
invocation
will
be
given
by
robert
janet
tunnell,
all
saints
episcopal
church.
We
can
all
rise
and
then,
after
the
invocation,
turn
and
pledge
allegiance
to
the
flag.
C
A
D
Marco
lizard
by
514
ashland
avenue,
and
my
public
comment
tonight,
is
about
integrity.
The
word
itself
means
the
quality
of
being
honest
and
having
strong
moral
principles.
Proverbs
28
6
says
it's
better
to
be
poor,
whose
walk
is
blameless
than
the
rich.
That
ways
are
perverse
integrity
is
the
one
thing
you
cannot
afford
to
lose.
D
Integrity
is
the
one
of
the
few
things
in
life
that
cannot
be
taken
from
you.
You
can
only
give
it
away
without
integrity.
You
become
nothing
after
losing
integrity.
Can
you
get
that
back?
The
answer
is
yes,
it
will
take
a
lot
of
work
seeking
forgiveness
from
those
you've
done
wrong,
working
to
correct
the
wrong.
Slowly,
rebuilding
trust,
and
perhaps
the
hardest
is
forgiving
yourself.
D
F
The
declaration
of
independence
starts
off
by
saying
when,
in
the
course
of
human
events,
to
dissolve
political
connections
and
assume
separate,
but
equal
stations,
the
preamble
to
the
constitution,
in
effect
references
we,
the
people
stating
our
posterity,
so
when,
in
the
course
of
human
events,
it
becomes
necessary
to
dissolve
this
political
connection
and
assume
as
powers
of
the
earth.
This
political
connection
in
its
posterity
as
assumed
a
second
constitution,
is
revealed
as
water
jurisdictions
as
its
power
of
the
earth.
F
F
If
I
was
to
elevate
the
structure
of
such
case
and
the
dismissal
of
one
of
your
commissions
on
an
ethics
violation,
is
not
the
declaration
of
independence,
as
revealed
in
this
context
as
counterfeiting
itself
as
preamble
to
hamilton's
second
constitution.
Is
this
not
also
an
ethics
violation
clearly
stating
to
burn
down
the
towns?
A
Mr
goddess,
you
still
have
two
minutes
left
that
I
don't
know
where
that
banging
is
coming
from.
Is
that
what
you
were
thinking
that
your
time
was
up.
F
Oh
mayor,
no
I
I
I
you.
A
C
C
You
know
at
first
I
had
some
issues
on
the
hotel
and
I
was
not
in
favor
of
favor
of
it
that
would
make
traffic
worse
and
that
it
may
detract
from
the
historic
charm
of
the
sponge
docs
having
thought
of
it
for
as
both
a
resident
of
tarpon
springs
as
well
as
a
student
of
st
petersburg
college.
C
I
seem
to
approve
of
it,
but
I
do
have
some
issues
to
share
with
the
board
of
commissioners.
Some
of
my
concerns
are
due
to
its
construction.
The
sponge
stocks
are
in
a
lower
elevation
area,
which
is
about
less
than
three
feet
which
is
prone
to
flooding,
or
that
this
aesthetic
may
not
be
in
line
with
the
rest
of
the
sponge
docks
area.
C
C
C
C
Unless,
however,
something
is
done
about
it
to
help
protect,
protect
the
pedestrians
and
our
local
businesses
to
help
reduce
traffic,
and
such
of
these
ideas
would
be
stop
signs
or
speed
bumps
in
the
entrances
to
sp
the
sponge,
docks
and
local
downtown
areas
like
speed.
Bumps
I'd
also
suggest
that
detour
signs
be
made
available
during
a
local
events
to
help
reduce
traffic,
perhaps
there'd
be
some
sort
of
citywide
pull
on
the
topic
through
an
email
or
mailed
to
our
houses,
or
something
such
as
that.
C
Like
a
survey,
I
believe
that
the
hotel
could
be
a
great
thing
if
done
correctly.
Thank
you
for
letting
me
speak
of
this
topic.
That
is
all
my
time.
G
A
G
We
got
away
with
the
ten:
did
we
chris
verboski
1602
gulf
beach?
Boulevard
tarpon
springs
three,
four,
six,
eight
nine,
so
I
want
to
make
it
clear
that
I'm
talking
about
the
same
74
acres
and
that
are
on
the
ankle
river,
that
the
other
item
is
on
this
agenda,
but
this
is
not
on
the
agenda.
This
is
the
letter
that
I
know
you've
received
it's
a
settlement
letter
from
mr
clay
coulson
in
his
lawsuit
against
the
city,
because
the
city
violated
its
own
comprehensive
plan.
G
Now
I
happen
to
know
that
you've
been
getting
some
really
bad
advice
from
the
city
attorney.
He
may
have
told
you
that
this
is
not
a
settlement
offer,
even
though
it
clearly
is
a
settlement
offer.
But
what
he
didn't
tell
you
is
you
know
he
might
have
said.
Oh
there's
this
process,
you
have
to
go
through
to
make
a
real
settlement.
G
G
None
of
that
is
in
here.
Clay
coulson
is
simply
asking
for
the
city
to
admit
that
it
was
at
fault
and
it
granted
that
development
order
illegally
walk
away.
He's
also
asking
for
his
first
amendment
rights
to
be
returned
interesting.
You
should
ask
your
attorney.
You
know
to
explain
why
he
said
that
that
wasn't
a
legitimate
settlement
when
the
city
could
settle
at
any
time
in
any
way
it
wants.
You
could
approach
tim.
You
could
approach
this
group,
you
don't
have
to
wait.
G
G
G
G
So
what
clay
wrote
here
in
spite
of
my
dislike
for
your
actions,
I
do
not
want
to
harm
the
city
or
burden
the
taxpayers
with
your
continued
legal
expenses.
So
I'm
proposing
to
settle
all
claims
and
actions
that
I
have
against
the
city
if
the
city
will
admit
that
the
development
order
at
issue
in
this
action
violated
city's
comprehensive
plan
was
improperly
approved.
It
will
vacate
such
development
order
without
prejudice
to
the
morgan
group
to
submit
proposed
development,
which
is
consistent
with
the
city's
comprehensive
plan,
which
means
they
can
come
back.
G
They
have
another
shot
at
it.
Just
do
it
right,
but
also
clay
asked
the
city
to
respond
to
this
motion
about
that.
The
city
actually
put
in
writing
saying
that
the
city
took
a
stand
against
clay's.
First
amendment
rights
to
record
his
own
hearing
now
the
city
attorney.
All
he
had
to
do
was
say
no
objection.
G
G
G
G
So
the
motion
for
rehearing
for
second
districts
court
improperly
entered
order
which
affect
that
the
city
withdraws
in
opposition
to
my
petition,
to
allow
me
to
exercise
my
first
amendment
right
to
record
legal
proceeding
and
agrees
that
all
people
have
the
first
amendment
right
to
gather
news,
including
by
recording
legal
proceedings.
This
offer
is
valid
for
30
days
and
will
automatically
be
revoked.
G
G
G
You
could
end
this
thing
by
settling
either
with
clay
or
the
other
group
and
walk
away
now,
they're
going
to
threaten
you
with
all
20
million
lawsuits.
Guess
what
that
man
right
there
and
his
partner
his
law
partner,
just
set
you
up
for
a
multi-million
dollar
lawsuit,
because
now
clay
can
sue
the
city
for
millions
of
dollars
violating
his
first
amendment
right
now,
he's
not
about
money
or
being
victim,
but
he
might
want
to
set
a
precedent
saying
hey.
G
Maybe
people
do
need
to
realize
that
the
state
of
florida
has
said
that
you
can
record
that
supersedes
any
rule
that
he
was
trying
to
spin
against
you
guys
trying
to
say.
Oh,
we
were
saying
you
know
clay
couldn't
record,
he
just
needed
to
follow
procedure.
If
that
was
true,
he
would
have
brought
that
up
at
the
hearing
which
he
did
not.
G
They
filed
this
with
the
court.
After
the
fact,
the
judge
didn't
even
bring
it
up.
The
judge
said
no
you're
not
allowed
to
record
end
of
story
that
violates
the
rules.
That's
bs,
she
didn't
bring
up
any
procedure
and
that
procedure,
which
is
a
local
rule,
is
superseded
by
the
florida
state
ruling
and
that
is
superseded
by
the
first
amendment
of
the
constitution
of
the
united
states.
G
B
C
C
B
C
Hello,
commissioners
and
mayor
mayor
cousins
and
commissioner
of
tarpon
springs
brad
pounds
our
with
saint
nick
nation's
church.
I
just
want
to
say
one
thing:
we'll
ask
you
to
have
strings
and
lights
on
alternate
19
from
maybe
the
pastor
bridge
all
the
way
to
the
holiday
thing,
so
people
at
night
can
walk
there
or
ride
their
bikes
and
back
behind
the
building.
We
wish
you
blessings
from
san
diego
and
is
mentioned
that
pastor
joe
messing,
your
gel
pellegra
50
years
of
service
negative
stuff.
If
you
could
string
lights
behind
alternate.
E
C
I
would
like
the
city
commission
to
consider.
A
H
A
A
H
Regarding
adoption
of
a
resolution
to
support
the
right
to
clean
water-
and
the
other
thing
I
wanted
to
quickly
mention-
is
that
I'm.
C
I
Good
evening,
honorable
mayor,
barbara
walker,
3019
bradford
circle
palm
harbor.
Thank
you.
So
much
for
hearing
me
tonight,
I'd
like
to
talk
to
you
about
some
situations
that
I've
recently
dealt
with
in
the
city
of
safety,
harbor
in
the
city
of
dunedin,
with
some
great
horned
owls
that
were
killed
due
to
secondary
rodenticide
poisoning.
I
I
would
like
to
tell
you
that
rhodenicide
is
this
century's
ddt
and
what
happens
when
the
rodents
go
through
a
bait
trap
that
have
poison
they're,
then
picked
up
by
owls,
bald
eagles
and
hawks,
and
every
bird
that
I
have
sent
in
that
had
any
questionable
cause
of
death
to
the
bronson
lab
at
kissimmee
came
back
positive
for
rodenticide
the
city
of
safety,
harbor
pulled
every
rodenticide
box
in
the
city.
I
If
tarpon
springs
uses
rodenticide,
I'm
asking
that
you
pull
every
rodenticide
box
in
the
city
as
safety
harbor
did,
and
they
also
passed
a
resolution
to
ask
that
people
not
use
road
genocide
within
the
city
limits
of
safety
harbor.
So
if
you
could
think
about
that,
I
would
greatly
appreciate
it,
and
so
would
the
birds
and
the
wildlife
it
is
unfortunate.
But
when
we
actually
kill
the
top
predators,
then
what
happens?
Is
the
rats
are
multiplying
faster,
so
every
bit
of
poison,
that's
out.
I
J
J
J
J
A
K
K
K
K
K
All
the
worship.
Images
are
put
to
shame,
and
my
aside
money
is
one
of
those
images
that
god
frowns
upon
those
who
boast
in
idols.
Worship
him
all
those
gods,
zion
hears
and
rejoices
in
the
village
of
judah
are
glad
because
of
your
judgments.
O
lord,
for
you,
o
lord,
are
the
most
high
over
all
the
earth.
K
K
A
L
C
You
sharon,
landrum,
45,
west
mlk,
tarpon,
springs
34689.
I
would
like
to
thank
the
mayor
and
the
board
of
commissioners
for
their
time
and
service
to
our
city.
I
would
also
like
to
make
a
couple
of
comments.
One
is
on
the
condition
of
the
the
sidewalk
around
spring
bayou
in
craig
park.
C
C
And,
of
course
you
know,
I've
been
there
for
epiphany
and
it's
it's
just
so
sad
that
it's
blocked
off
and
in
such
a
disrepair.
So
I
will
continue
to
follow
that.
I'd
also
like
to
bring
to
the
attention
of
of
the
commission
that
I
am
one
of
the
residents
that
totally
oppose
the
development
at
the
74
acres
on
the
enclore
river,
and
I
know
that
a
vast
majority
of
the
residents
here
in
tarpon
springs
oppose
that
I
know
you
have
a
heavy
weight
on
your
shoulders
tonight.
C
So
I
would
just
like
to
thank
you
for
your
your
knowledge
and
your
consideration,
and
I
just
appreciate
your
time
tonight.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
ms
landrum.
Just
for
information
for
everybody
regarding
the
sidewalks
around
spring
bayou.
I
was
notified
yesterday
by
mr
actually
congressman
velarakis
that
we
had
requested
four
million
dollars.
I
was
going
to
save
this
until
the
end
of
the
meeting.
A
We'd
requested
four
million
dollars
from
him
and
he
actually
did
an
earmark
for
us
in
the
congressional
budget.
We
survived
the
appropriations
committee
and-
and
we
now
have
two
million
dollars
in
the
house
budget
for
repairing
the
sidewalk.
So
it
looks
very
promising
if
we're
not
out
of
the
woods
yet
but
pretty
close
to
it.
So
we'll
get
started
on
those
sidewalks.
As
soon
as
we
can.
I
understand
everybody's
frustrated
with
it.
Thank
you
for
any
other
public
products.
L
Zoom
attendee,
who
has
the
hand
raised
you,
have
an
older
version
of
zoom.
That
is.
M
A
Okay,
thank
you,
mr
trump.
We
don't
have
any
emails
to
be
read
on
the
record.
We
have
three
for
item
number
nine
later,
but
none
for
this
part.
So,
let's
move
on
to
the
consent
agenda
and
we
have
seven
items
on
that
number:
one:
attorney's
fees,
johnson,
jackson,
invoice
9494,
number
two
award
file,
number
220138-c-a-s.
A
N
A
A
A
O
A
Well,
you're
talking
about
me
correct,
okay!
Well,
this
is
no
secret!
I'm
here
for
three
years.
I
don't
have
any
aspirations
of
moving
on
to
higher
office
or
getting
involved
in
the
county.
You
younger
individuals
here
are
doing
an
excellent
job.
I
think
you
need
to
get
educated
more
and
more
and
what
you
can
do
with
government
around
the
tampa
bay
area,
as
well
as
what
we
do
here
at
the
city
and
the
county.
A
So
I
would
defer
to
one
of
your
younger
individuals
to
take
this.
Who
may
be
a
commissioner
in
the
future
as
well
as
you
are
now
so
I'd
like
to
thank
you
for
that.
I
hope
commissioner
carr,
but
I'm
sure
my
wife's
got
other
plans
for
me
after
three
years,
so
I'd
like
to
have
a
motion
nominating
vice
mayor
lunt
for
the
position
on
the
tampa
bay,
regional
planning,
council,
a.
E
Motion
to
make
vice
mayor
lundt
for
the
commission
position.
N
E
A
One
or
two
years
is
better
than
what
I
where
I
am
so
okay,
let's
have
a
roll
call.
Please,
commissioner.
Yes,
commissioner,.
A
P
Thank
you
mayor.
As
you
know,
on
april
25th
of
this
year
concerned,
citizens
filed
its
amended
petition
for
rid
of
certiorari.
The
amended
petition
after
it
had
been
filed
had
been
responded
to
by
the
morgan
group,
and
that
matter
is
currently
pending
in
the
circuit
court.
The
appellate
division.
There
has
been
no
decision
by
the
court
as
of
yet
there
may
be
more
briefs
that
will
be
filed
shortly.
I'm
not
really
sure
where
morgan
group
is
at
on
filing
a
reply
brief
or
I'm
sorry
concerned
citizens
filing
her
library.
P
P
P
Until
the
disposition
of
the
petitions
and
those
are
the
that's
the
petition
for
rid
of
cert
concerned,
citizens
request
this
motion
to
be
cited
by
roll
call
vote
at
june,
14
a
2022
city
commission
meeting
at
a
time,
certain,
obviously
that
that
did
not
happen
because
of
the
fact
that
morgan
group
had
the
opportunity
to
respond
to
the
petition
and
under
the
appellate
rules.
They
had
15
days
to
do
that.
P
As
you
know
that,
in
addition
to
the
motion
to
stay,
there
was
an
objection
and
the
objection
and
response
was
filed
by
the
morgan
group
on
june
21st.
They
raise
the
number
of
defenses.
Those
defenses
are
in
the
documents
that
you
have
in
front
of.
You
are
in
the
packet
in
addition
to
that,
morgan
group
has
also
filed
a
motion
to
recuse,
and
I
know
that
you're
going
to
get
to
that
mayor
in
a
few
minutes.
The
motion
is
to
recuse
commissioners
from
voting
on
this
motion
for
to
stay.
C
A
Thank
you,
mr
trask.
There's
three
items,
as
I
mentioned,
we're
going
to
take
them
one
at
a
time.
Nine,
a
is
consideration
of
waiver
rules,
procedure.
A
I,
when
we
received
the
motion,
this
is
something
I
put
on
the
agenda.
When
we
received
the
motion,
there
was
some
communication
from
our
city
attorney
to
the
attorneys,
giving
them
basically
a
procedure
or
guideline
that
we
would
follow,
and
then
also
I
took
a
look
at
it
and
then
the
motion
to
recuse
some
of
the
commissioners
came
in
and
I
tweaked
it
to
try
and
create
some
kind
of
a
script
to
follow
for
this
evening.
To
make
sure
it's
fair.
A
Then
I
went
back
and
looked
at
the
verbatim
from
our
meeting
in
december,
which
was
the
first
motion
to
stay,
and
those
procedures
were
actually
passed
around
the
attorneys,
but
they
were
not
considered
publicly
by
the
commission
as
far
as
how
to
proceed
in
this
matter,
so
I
want
to
cross
our
t's
and
dot
our
eyes
in
this
matter.
So
I
created
this
agenda.
Item
essentially
put
the
guidance
that
mr
trask
and
I
had
discussed.
A
There
may
be
something
a
little
different
on
there,
but
I
don't
think
it's
substantially
different
for
the
commission's
consideration,
so
we
could
adopt
that
this
evening,
and
so
there
would
be
no
questions
as
far
as
what
what
procedure
we
followed.
A
P
A
A
Q
Thank
you,
mr
mayor,
just
with
respect
to
the
to
the
motion
to
waive
the
procedural
rules
to
the
extent
that
that
motion
is
made
that
would
allow
the
concerned
citizens
motion.
We
believe
that
motion
really
is
a
motion
for
reconsideration
and
not
a
motion
for
stay.
We
do
not
believe
that
they
have
can
or
or
have
met
the
standard
for
a
motion
for
reconsideration,
since
this
is
really
just
a
rehash
of
the
prior
motion
that
was
previously
denied.
Q
So
we
object
to
a
waiver
of
the
procedural
rules
to
the
extent
that
they
would
allow
consideration
of
the
motion
for
stay,
as
it's
stated
instead
of
the
motion
for
reconsideration
that
we
believe
it
is,
we
respectfully
object
on
those
grounds
what
did
send
a
letter
today
and
understand
it's
last
minute,
but
we
just
found
out
about
this
motion
to
wave
today.
So
I
would
appreciate
your
consideration
of
our
objection
and
our
letter.
Thank
you,
sir.
A
Thank
you,
ms
mclaren.
I
I
didn't
see
the
letter
that
you
mentioned
and
also
I
had
a
little
conversation
concerning
the
matter
you
discussed
as
well
with
mr
dagnall,
so
objection
noted.
H
Good
evening,
just
for
the
record,
my
name
is
jane.
Graham,
I
represent
concerned
citizens.
We
did
not
get
a
copy
of
the
letter
from
mr
mclaren
that
he
referenced
and
in
as
much
as
there
is
a
debate
of
whether
this
is
a
motion
for
reconsideration
or
a
second
motion
for
stay.
We
believe
that
that's
something
that
should
be
decided
in
the
heart
of
the
later
discussion.
We
don't
think
that
that
should
be
decided
right
now.
H
Oh
and
to
actually
and
to
clarify
a
statement
made
by
city
attorney
trask,
we
did
file
our
reply
in
the
court
on
june
13th
and
I
did
actually
submit
it
to
the
clerk
on
june
21st
for
inclusion
in
your
packets.
I
I
hope
that
you
received
a
copy
of
that.
Okay.
A
D
A
G
Chris
roboski
1602
gulf
beach
boulevard
tarvin
springs
three,
four,
six,
eight
nine.
So
yes,
in
light
of
your
comments
that
this
is
consideration
of
waiver
of
rules
and
procedure,
I
would
wholeheartedly
advise
you
to
take
on
whatever
rules
you
see
fit
now,
whatever
was
put
in
front
of
you
well
now,
whatever
was
spoon
fed
to
you,
you
guys
need
to
do
what
you
feel
is
best.
G
A
O
Yeah,
I
just
would
like
some
clarification.
I
mean
procedurally.
Obviously,
this
is
something
that
I
would
like
to
make
sure
we're
doing
this
correctly.
So
if
I
understand
correctly
mayor
you're
saying
we
do
not
want
to
apply
any
rules
or
procedure
that
are
in
our
resolution
and
would
like
to
use
the
motion
to
stay
hearing
guidance
provided
by
the
attorney
is
that
right.
A
We're
going
to
use
the
procedures
as
you
should,
as
you
see
them
here,
outlined
right
after
the
second
page
of
the
backup.
Does
that
help
yeah
that
helps
these?
These
are
guidelines.
I
mean
there's
gonna,
maybe
a
little
bit
of
a
change
a
little
bit
mr
trash.
Do
you
have
anything
that
you'd
like
to
add.
O
I've
got
another
question,
then,
just
from
waving
all
first,
like
all
the
rules,
one
of
the
attorneys
brought
up
the
reconsideration
rule,
that's
in
our
rules
and
rules
or
procedure.
Is
that
the
reason
to
waive
all
the
rules
instead
of
just
waiving
portion
of
the
rules.
A
A
O
A
If
I
start
cherry-picking,
which
is
an
exception,
then
we're
going
to
get
into
a
discussion
of
what's
fair
and
what's
not
fair,
so
I
do
know
that
there's
some
issues
with
regard
to
not
only
from
between
the
between
the
concerned
citizens,
group
and
also
the
morgan
group,
but
I
know
our
attorney
has
a
difference
of
opinion
concerning
that
reconsideration.
I
guess,
if
you
want
to
call
it
that.
O
Okay,
I
I
do
have
some
caution
about
waiving
all
the
rules
of
procedure
in
this
from
our
rules
that
have
been
placed
adopted
by
the
board
in
this
process,
I'll
just
I'll,
just
state
that
thank
you.
A
Okay,
are
there
any
other
commission
comments,
commissioner?
Kulias.
N
A
It's
it's!
It's
a
unique
agenda
item.
Let
me
put
it
that
way.
I
understand
that
commissioner
eisner.
E
Well,
I
believe
that
this
is
not
something
that
you
just
brought
up:
you're
looking
for
a
motion
and
a
vote
on
it.
So
it's
not
something
that
you've
singled
out.
It's
it's
a
board
vote,
so
it's
not
any
one
person.
The
other
thing
that
I
find
interesting
is.
Mr
mclaren
brings
up
the
fact
that
he
didn't
get
notice
of
this,
but
from
all
the
hearings
I've
ever
seen,
we
always
could
get
paperwork
right
up
to
the
moment
that
we
have
the
meeting.
E
A
N
B
B
A
For
the
residents
that
are
here,
the
people
that
are
here,
I
don't
know
what
these
emails
there's
a
special
system
that
we
have
in
place
that
residents
or
anyone
else
can
fill
out
a
form
and
submit
it
by
5
pm.
I
believe,
on
the
day
of
the
meeting
it
doesn't
get
sent
to
the
commission.
A
B
The
first
one
is
from
sharon
mccauley
226
short
street
safety
harbor,
commissioner
and
mayor
I'm
objecting
to
this
texas
development
group's
attempt
to
subvert
the
will
of
tarpon
springs
residents
by
trying
to
silence
the
officials
duly
elected
by
the
people
to
represent
them.
This
corporation
has
no
standing
to
make
this
request,
as
these
elected
officials
are
only
carrying
out
their
duties
as
directed
by
the
oath
they
took
every
member
of
this
board
has
the
obligation
to
participate
in
this
meeting
and
come
to
a
decision.
This
is
a
democracy,
not
a
dictatorship,
run
by
minaj
corporations.
B
The
morgan
group
does
not
own
this
town.
The
people
do
sharon
mccauley.
The
next
one
is
from
robert
rocklin
755,
north
lake
boulevard
greetings
mayor
and
commissioners.
My
thanks
again
for
the
ability
to
comment
remotely
on
matters
of
great
importance
to
our
city
and
its
residents,
and
a
special
thanks
to
ms
jacobs
for
reading
it
into
the
record.
Regarding
the
special
consent
agenda
item
nine,
I
respectfully
request
that
the
board
grant
the
proposed
a
pending
appeal
as
submitted
by
the
concerned
citizens.
B
This
would
allow
both
the
court
and
the
city
to
use
all
of
their
powers
and
resources
to
assess
the
procedural
components
and
true
property
status
at
various
crucial
points
in
the
pathway
of
this
developmental
application
by
the
morgan
group.
This
due
process
must
be
afforded
to
both
the
city
and
its
citizens
to
assure
complete
integrity
and
transparency
in
the
prescribed
process
for
both
this
proposal
and
future
ones
to
follow.
Additionally,
the
morgan
group
request
for
recruit
recusal
of
the
majority
of
current
sitting.
B
Commissioners
is
both
disrespectful
and
contrary
to
the
will
of
the
people
who
elected
them
as
their
representatives.
If
the
morgan
group
desires
a
true
and
unbiased
opinion
of
the
residents
of
tarpon
springs,
let
them
facilitate
a
proper
voter
referendum
for
this
land
use
change.
This
would
allow
the
will
of
the
people
to
afford
and
exercise
in
the
manner
of
true
democracy.
Sincerely
robert
rocklin
and
my
last
one,
there
is
from
beth
hovid
1996,
whispering
way,
not
a
resident,
not
a
tarpon
resident,
but
a
resident
of
the
county
at
large.
B
For
a
while,
it
appeared
that
there
was
not
a
development
project
that
tarpon
would
not
consider.
In
my
work
with
wk
preserve,
though,
the
land
is
currently
zoned
for
one
house
per
two
acres,
meaning
a
maximum
of
six
houses
on
a
13
plus
acres.
If
the
celta
developer
occurred,
they
could
immediately
ask
the
commission
to
annex
the
parcel
to
tarpon
springs
and
be
able
to
create
their
60-91
piece
townhome
project
stripping
the
land
of
all
trees.
B
I
watched
the
commission
approve
a
project
on
the
north
side
of
keystone
tarpon
avenue
that,
because
of
its
number
of
home
sites,
would
strip
a
lovely
treat
area
to
create
a
tree
desert
to
accommodate
the
30
plus
houses
that
will
be
built
there.
I
watched
as
property
on
clostromer
road
across
from
the
college
was
stripped
and
ponds
re,
recreated
sort
of
to
build
high
in
housing.
Now
I'm
requesting
that
the
tarpon
commissioners
put
an
end
to
the
deforestation
of
tarpon
include
harbor
is
a
beautiful
site.
B
Many
of
you,
many
of
your
residents
and
those
who
surround
tarpon,
do
not
want
to
see
the
elimination
of
the
trees
that
will
be
destroyed
by
this
project,
nor
the
beautiful
access
to
the
river.
Please
delay
any
destruction
of
this
property
until
the
court
suit
is
settled.
Please
let
the
process
work
itself
out
before
you
allow
any
changes
to
the
environment
once
it
has
been
destroyed.
We
will
never
be
able
to
reclaim
the
nature
it
has
done.
Thank
you,
beth,
hogan
and
mayor.
That
is
all
the
emails
we've
received.
Thank.
A
N
A
Q
Thank
you,
mayor
vaticatis,
again,
scott
mclaren
bank
of
america,
plaza
600
cleveland
street
in
clearwater,
so.
Q
Given
the
time
constraints,
we
are
going
to
rely
primarily
on
our
written
motion
previously
filed
to
recuse
the
m,
we're
moving
to
recuse
mayor
of
vaticatus
commissioners,
lund,
eisner
and
coolias
on
the
basis
of
procedural
due
process.
Q
Procedural
due
process
requires
in
this
or
any
similar
hearing
that
the
parties,
both
of
them,
are
entitled
to
a
fair
and
impartial
decision
maker,
the
cases
of
gunning
versus
equest
leader
253,
southern
second
646
and
h.
L,
land
v,
warner
258
southern
second
293..
Both
of
these
cases
widely
cited
for
the
proposition
that
a
contract
buyer
such
as
morgan
in
this
case
is
the
equitable
title
holder
of
the
property,
and
they
have
the
right
to
sue
to
protect
the
property.
Q
They
have
the
right
to
seek
and
execute
on
entitlements
relating
to
the
property
they
have
the
right
to
pursue
and
receive
permits
for
the
property.
That
law
is
crystal
clear.
It's
never
been
questioned
concerned.
Citizens
and
ms
graham,
have
conceded
this
fact
by
filing
their
motion
to
stay
to
prevent
us
from
from
pursuing
these
permits.
If
my
clients
did
not
have
the
right
to
pursue
the
permits,
there
would
have
been
no
need
to
file
the
motion
for
stay.
The
circuit
court
in
this
case
the
three-judge
panel,
has
recognized
our
rights
and
entitlements.
Q
The
three-judge
panel
adopted
our
arguments
on
the
three
petitions
for
rid
of
cert,
initially
filed
by
concerned
citizens.
We
argued
that
the
case
should
be
dismissed
with
prejudice
all
of
them,
and
the
court
agreed
with
our
position.
Obviously,
if
we
didn't
have
the
right
to
the
entitlements
and
to
pursue
them,
the
court
would
have
thrown
our
arguments
out.
Q
Neither
concerned
citizens
nor
the
court
has
ever
suggested
that
morgan
doesn't
have
the
right
to
pursue
permits
or
development
they're
under
so
because
morgan
has
these
property
rights
and
is
indeed
the
equitable
title
holder
under
florida
law
morgan
has
the
right
to
a
fair
and
impartial
board.
Making
the
decision
on
concerned
citizens
motion
tonight
now.
Q
Q
But
in
this
instance
we're
now
here
in
this
proceeding
where
our
rights
as
the
equitable
title
holder,
are
being
weighed
by
you
this
board.
So
now
we
are
entitled
to
a
fair
and
impartial
decision
maker,
this
sport,
the
four
folks
that
we've
asked
to
be
recused
very
respectfully,
mr
mayor
and
commissioners,
lunt
eisner
and
coolios
during
the
campaign
did
make
comments
establishing
that
they
were
against
and
objected
to
our
project.
Q
H
Thank
you
mayor
good
evening.
My
name
is
jane.
Graham,
representing
concerned
citizens
737
main
street
suite
100
safety
harbor
concerned.
Citizens
opposes
morgan
group's
motion
to
recuse.
The
motion
is
actually
frivolous,
misstates
the
law-
and
if
you
do
recuse
yourself,
you
may
likely
be
breaking
the
law.
The
rule
is
mere
political
bias
or
an
adverse
political
philosophy
is
not
sufficient
to
disqualify
members
of
a
city
commission
in
this
type
of
vote.
This
is
united
states
supreme
court
law.
That's
hortonville,
joint
school
district
number,
one
versus
hortonville
education
association.
H
H
The
fifth
district
in
casselberry
cited
the
hortonville
case
for
the
general
rule
on
saying
that
mere
political
bias
is
not
enough,
but
then
distinguish
the
facts
which
went
beyond
mere
political
bias
in
that
specific
case.
In
that
case,
an
adult
entertainment
club
was
in
a
licensed,
revocation
hearing
and
was
denied
the
right
to
cross-examine
the
main
witness
against
them
and
evidentiary
rulings
throughout
the
hearing
showed
a
pervasive
bias
here.
It
appears
morgan
group
is
being
afforded
more
than
enough
of
a
fair
hearing
and
the
facts
are
not
comparable.
H
On
the
contrary,
local
officials
are
required
to
vote
on
all
matters
before
him
or
her
and
cannot
abstain
unless
there
appears
to
be
a
possible
conflict
of
interest.
Pursuant
to
florida
statute,
286
o12
there's
a
conflict
of
interest
where
there's
a
special
private
gain
or
loss
which
courts
have
really
interpreted
to
mean
financial
interests,
morgan
and
their
motion
have
identified
no
special
private
gain
or
loss
of
mayor
vada,
kiotis
and
commissioners,
lund,
coolios
and
eisner.
In
their
motion,
the
mayor
and
commissioners
are
required
to
vote
in
the
motion
to
stay
preceding
and
cannot
be
recused.
H
H
A
A
Item
instead
of
the
four
plus
two,
if
you
find
somebody
we're
just
going
to
stick
with
four,
that's
what
we
approve.
Thank
you,
mr
legend.
D
D
You
pick
up
all
these
people
who
have
integrity
and
have
walked
in
the
light,
and
you
pick
the
one
that
has
cast
shade
on
this
board.
So
I
don't
get
it
you,
I
believe
in
you,
the
people
of
tarpon
believed
in
you.
We
voted
for
you.
We
support
you
and
not
one
of
you
have
jeopardized
your
integrity
because
you
hold
it
sacred,
except
for
one
and
that's
the
one
that
they
want.
D
R
G
Chris
warboski
1602
gulf
beach
boulevard
tarpon
springs
three,
four,
six,
eight
nine.
So,
as
all
of
you
know,
the
only
commissioner
who
had
to
recuse
himself
was
townsend
tarapani
and
that's
because
his
mother
was
working
with
the
morgan
group,
so
his
family
was
making
money
off
of
it
and
that's
the
only
reason
why
anyone
should
have
to
recuse
themselves.
In
fact,
the
law
states.
You
must
vote
on
issues
in
front
of
you
if
you
aren't
going
to
profit
financially
from
a
case.
G
So
it's
interesting
that
the
morgan
group's
attorney
brought
up
castleberry
and
completely
mischaracterized
the
law.
G
They
cherry-picked
one
sentence
out
of
there
about
people
having
an
opinion
on
that
board,
but
in
fact
it
was
because
the
mayor
of
that
town
disallowed
one
of
their
their
people
to
testify,
and
that's
why
the
case
was
decided.
The
way
it
was
had
nothing
to
do
with
what
was
in
the
minds
of
the
commissioners
or
what
they
had
said
publicly
or
privately.
G
H
Marion
lindsey
232
lotus
drive
safety,
harbor
florida.
I.
C
D
I'm
julia
bartonek,
2645
meadowwood
drive
newporichi
florida
34655
and
yes,
I
also
am
speaking
against
the
recusal
of
the
city
council
members.
I
really
feel
that
even
a
five-year-old
child,
if
this
was
explained
to
them,
would
see
that
is
not
fair
play.
It
is
manipulative.
It
goes
against
our
justice
system,
it
goes
against
many
set
procedures
and
protocols
and,
yes,
we
want
to
hear
the
conscience
of
each
and
every
member
of
this
body
representing
the
citizens
of
tarpon
springs
and
the
encloat
river
itself.
Thank
you.
I
Good
evening
susan
kikta
214
earl
street
tarpon
springs
okay.
I
don't
even
know
where
to
begin
with
this,
we
have
been
talking
about
this
property,
as
we
all
know,
is
the
walmart
property
since
2005.-
and
I
know
that
because
myself,
as
well
as
some
others
here
and
here
tonight,
we
formed
a
group
called
friends
of
the
anclote
river.
I
So
we
formed
this
group
to
educate
our
community
about
that
property
and
why
it
wasn't
a
good
site
for
walmart
to
build
at
that
time.
I
Then
in
2008
I
was
elected
as
your
city,
commissioner,
and
the
vote
came
up
for
walmart
to
allow
walmart
to
build,
and
of
course
I
was
asked
to
recuse
my
vote
because
of
my
involvement
with
friends
of
the
anclote
and
guess
what?
If?
Oh,
if
you
don't
recuse
your
vote,
the
city
is
going
to
get
sued
and
I
have
all
the
stuff
coming
at
me.
Well,
I
did
not
recuse
my
vote
and
we
did
not
get
sued.
Walmart
did
not
sue
the
city.
I
That
would
be
just
bad
practice
for
them.
I'm
not
sure
that
the
morgan
group
owns
the
property
yet
have
they
signed
on
the
dotted
line,
they're
saying
they're
entitled
to
it,
but
I
I
cannot
find
it.
They
have
actually
closed
on
this
piece
of
property
and
they've
signed
on
the
dotted
line.
So
if
that
hasn't
happened,
walmart
still
owns
this
property,
so
where's
walmart
asking
all
of
you
to
recuse.
Again,
I
don't
see
them
here,
but
I
just
ask
you
vote
with
your
conscience.
I
F
David
ballard
yetis
jr,
georgia
avenue
palm
harbor.
I
question
as
to
the
fact
that
90
of
pinellas
county
has
been
over
developed,
improperly
developed
and
in
desecration
of
the
ecology
and
the
environment,
this
particular
piece
of
property
having
not
been
developed
and
still
in
its
indigenous
state.
I
question
as
to
as
to
why
it
hasn't
been
developed
until
now.
F
I
wonder
if
there
has
any
been
some
nefarious
political
intent
behind
this
strategically
located
keystone,
pro
keystone
location
property.
Why
this
this
development,
the
way
it's
being
developed
developed?
I
don't
believe
that
they
are
fully
disclosing
their
their
ultimate
end
and
there
could
possibly
be
ulterior
motives
with
within,
what's
being
developed
here.
Thank
you.
Thank.
C
Tim
kapales,
205
leafwood
road
good
evening.
You
have
an
obligation
to
the
people
of
tarpon
to
vote.
None
of
you
have
any
financial
holding
in
this,
and
it's
already
been
stated
that
I
think
also
the
morgan
group
is
assuming
that,
because
you
can't
pay
for
against
the
property
being
developed
that
you're
going
to
vote
that
way,
it's
kind
of
kind
of
putting
the
horse.
C
You
know
behind
the
cart
because
you
haven't,
you
haven't
voted
yet
they
may
well
have
a
right
to
come
after
you
afterwards,
but
they're,
assuming
something
that
they
have
no
way
of
knowing
how
you're
going
to
vote.
If
you
vote
tonight
by
asking
you
to
recuse
yourself,
you're
violating
the
trust
that
we
give
you
as
the
the
commission
and
the
obligation
you
have
to
to
vote-
and
I
think
that
you
need
to
just
to
vote
tonight
and
otherwise
you're
going
to
set
an
unnecessary
precedent
in
the
future.
C
People
will
just
get
you
to
recuse,
because
this
this
is
a
town
of
25,
some
thousand
people,
it's
a
small
town,
and
we
all
know
somebody.
We
all
have
neighbors
that
are
going
to
build
a
house
and-
and
you
may
have
to
vote
on
something
to
them.
You're
going
to
recuse
yourself
on
everything
that
that
comes
up.
C
The
whole
whole
idea
is
that
you
have
no
financial
gain
from
this
and,
if
anything
is
probably
costing
you
money
taking
you
away
from
your
businesses
in
your
careers
to
be
here
and
to
be
talking
to
people
meeting
after
meeting
and
being
harmed
by
it.
But
I
really
think
you
need
to
vote
tonight
and
not
recuse
yourself.
D
C
G
C
Excuse
me:
sharon
landon,
45,
west
mlk
turbine
springs,
3,
4,
6,
8
9..
This
motion,
of
course,
is
ridiculous.
I
only
wish
that
there
had
been
a
fair
and
impartial
board
when
this
issue
first
came
before
the
city
when
they
asked
for
variances
and
changes
and
they're
building
in
in
the
flood
zone.
So
I
only
wish
this
just
issue
had
come
up.
I've
been
watching
this
unfold
since
almost
the
beginning.
C
So
thank
you
again
for
your
time
tonight
and
I
know
I
know
the
righteous
will
prevail.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
ms
landrum.
Are
there
any
other
public
comments,
remote
access
comments.
H
A
Okay,
thank
you.
The
way
the
rules
are
set
up.
I
know
commissioner
carr's
got
his
light
on.
Everyone
will
have
an
opportunity
to
respond
to
the
the
motion
and
commissioner
carr.
If
you
don't
mind
I'd
like
to
let
you
go
last
in
this
since
you're,
not
a
name
party
and
that's
okay,
I'll
start
first,
and
we
can
just
go
down
the
order
of
seniority.
Vice
mayor
lon,
commissioner
eisner
and
then
commissioner
cullias
mr
mclaren,
I
respectfully
decline.
A
L
Okay,
so
I'm
I'm
going
to
be
a
little
wordy,
because
I
was
a
trifle
upset
with
this,
and
I
have
a
somewhat
structured
statement
to
make.
I
really
can't
comment
on
the
other
commissioner's
alleged
political
stances.
L
The
morgan
groups
came
or
claims
that
against
the
project
and
therefore,
subsequently
has
labeled
them
so
pervasive
that
morgan
reason
believes
it
will
be
effectively
denied
its
due
process
rights.
I
can
only
speak
to
my
stated
position
on
the
subjects
the
number
of
times
that
I've
personally
opined
in
this
subject
can
hardly
be
considered
pervasive
and
certainly
can't
be
constituted
as
a
campaign
against
project
approval,
especially
taking
into
consideration
the
cases
stated
in
their
motion
directly
pertaining
to
me
personally.
L
L
Two
regarding
exhibit
e
a
march
14
2022
facebook
post,
where
I
had
posted
that
the
project
had
not
received
any
approvals
from
swift
mud.
Again,
this
was,
and
is
fact
I
specifically
did
not
state
as
morgan
alluded.
We
can
only
hope
that
a
denial
is
in
the
work.
That
statement
is
again
entirely
out
of
context.
I
stated
a
question:
can
a
denial
be
in
the
works
and-
and
the
we
can
only
hope,
was
a
pathetical
statement
in
support
of
the
express
public
sentiment
at
the
time.
L
L
We
were
all
running
for
separate
seats
against
separate
opponents
and
morgan's
attempt
to
enjoin
us
into
some
sort
of
organized
opposition
is
just
another
ploy
in
their
effort
to
discredit
this
duly
elected
commission.
In
conclusion,
I
firmly
reject
morgan's
obvious
attempts
of
subverting
the
ability
of
concerned.
Citizens
of
tarpon
springs
to
present
their
motion
to
stay
and.
E
I'll
be
a
whole
lot
softer.
I've
spent
seven
years
on
a
quasi-judicial
board
of
adjustments,
and
even
when
I've
come
in
and
I
thought
I
was
going
to
make
a
decision
one
way,
I
make
a
decision
in
other
ways,
so
my
decisions
are
on
competent,
substantial
evidence.
It's
not
on
what
you
think.
I
have
to
say.
I've
never
been
against
this
whole
project,
I'm
never
against
any
project,
I'm
against
parts
of
the
project.
E
I
got
up
to
speak
about
dropping
kids
off
on
19
that
it
was
dangerous
and
I
actually
came
before
the
board
then-
and
I
said,
would
any
of
you
like
to
have
your
kids
dropped
off
or
picked
up
on
19?
Do
you
think
that
would
be
something
that
you
would
like
to
see
and
nobody
answered
me
and
those
were
the
things
that
I
kind
of
spoke
out
against.
E
E
E
If
you
have
nothing
to
worry
about,
you
really
shouldn't
worry
about,
you
know
having
a
stay.
If
you
prevail,
you
prevail.
If
you
don't
prevail,
you
don't
prevail,
we're
not
making
that
call
we're
making
a
call
whether
a
stay
is
appropriate
because
once
the
damage
is
done,
I
mean
that's
obvious.
We
all
realize
once
things
are
going
ahead,
we
can't
stop
that.
You
can't
put
gophers
back,
you
can't
replant
trees.
E
So
that's
what
we're
here
to
listen
to
is
a
stay,
nothing
more!
Nothing
less!
I'm
not
going
to
make
a
decision
on
whether
I
like
the
program,
your
your
development
or
not.
I'm
here
to
listen
to
you
as
an
objective
person,
and
I
will
make
my
decision
on
competent,
substantial
evidence.
And,
yes,
I
will
not
recuse
myself.
N
N
I
have
remained
silent
in
any
decision
or
thought
about
the
project
since
being
elected,
and
I
have
no
doubt
I
can
give
you
a
fair
and
impartial
decision.
So
thank
you.
O
Thanks
mayor,
I
just
have
a
couple
questions
for
the
attorney
and
a
couple
comments
to
make
as
well
too
city
attorney.
Do
you
see
any
reason
for
any
of
the
commission
to
recuse
themselves.
P
So
at
this
point,
what
I've
heard
from
each
and
every
one
of
them
that
each
one
everyone
says
that
he
can
believe
he
believes
that
he
can
listen
to
the
testimony.
He
can
review
the
documentary
evidence
and
he
can
objectively
act
fairly
and
partially.
So
that's
what
I'm
kind
of
reading
between
the
lines
and
so
based
upon
that
they
do
not
have
to
accuse
themselves.
Okay,.
O
Thank
you
for
clarification
as
well.
If
any
of
the
now
commissioners
receive
contributions
from
the
concerned,
citizens
group
members
during
their
campaigning
that'd
be
considered
a
conflict
of
interest.
If
there
was
a
commitment
to
figure
out
how
to
squash
the
project
in
any
way.
P
O
O
As
a
commissioner,
I've
had
to
vote
for
things
that
I
didn't
personally
like,
but
based
on
the
rules
and
based
on
the
information
provided
before
us,
I
had
to
vote
in
favor
or
deny
it
so
I'd.
Ask
that
you
all
take
that
in
consideration
tonight.
It's
a
difficult
thing
to
to
do
sometimes,
but
I
do
think
you
all
can
make
that
decision
tonight.
O
A
I'm
going
to
proceed
with
a
motion
to
stay,
but
first
I
want
to
read
something
that
I
think
is
very
important
with
something
that
was
offered
by
the
city
attorney
at
the
very
first
cut,
and
I
think
it's
important
to
read
here.
The
board
has
significant
discretion
with
regard
to
the
motion,
whether
it's
made
or
not,
and
has
no
affirmative
duty
to
hear
the
motion.
A
Such
emotion
should
be
made
in
the
affirmative,
as
required
by
the
board's
rules.
For
example,
I
move
that
the
board
hear
the
motion
and
make
a
decision
on
its
merits
and
vote
it
up
or
down.
If
the
motion
is
voted
down,
then
the
board's
efforts
are
concluded
and
the
board
will
move
on
to
the
next
agenda
item
of
the
public
meeting.
If
the
motion
is
voted
up,
then
the
board
will
proceed
to
hear
the
comments
from
counsel
from
both
parties.
A
Okay,
I'm
going
to
ask
for
that
motion
in
a
second
now.
If
there
is
any
and
then
we
can
have
no
discussion,
we
go
directly
into
the
arguments.
Is
that
correct.
P
So
you're
gonna,
no
you're
gonna
act
upon
this.
So
it's
I
move
the
board
to
hear
the
motion
and
make
the
decision
on
the
merits
and
you're
gonna
vote
it
up
or
down.
So
that's
just
on
the
motion.
Are
you
going
to
hear
the
motion
or
not
and
so
you're
going
to
hear
a
discussion
from
the
commission
and
then
you're
going
to
hear
public
comment
too
and
then
you're
going
to
decide
whether
or
not
that
you're
going
to
allow
the
motion
to
proceed?
That's
that's
how
I
read
that
breakout.
Okay,.
A
A
A
A
A
A
At
the
end
of
that
process,
then
the
commission
will
make
a
motion-
and
it's
always
done
in
the
affirmative-
to
approve
the
motion
to
stay,
and
then
the
commission
either
votes
it
approves
it
or
denies
it
if
it
denies
it,
that's
the
end
of
the
matter.
If
it
approves
it,
then
there's
a
another
phase
for
the
establishing
a
bond,
for
I
want
to
call
it.
A
Expenses
cost
damages
that
the
morgan
group
feels
that
they
would
be
entitled
to
during
the
duration
of
the
stay
they'll
make
their
arguments
the
concerned
citizens
will
make
arguments
as
far
as
what
their
amount
would
be.
Then
there
will
be
a
discussion
on
that
as
well,
and
then
the
commission
will
decide
and
there
may
be
some
other
conditions
as
well.
So
that's
it
the
snapshot.
A
Second,
okay:
we
don't
need
a
discussion
at
this
point.
A
A
Q
You,
sir,
on
behalf
of
the
morgan
group,
it's
our
position
that
this
this
motion
for
stay
is
really
a
motion
for
reconsideration.
Q
A
motion
for
it
is,
as
stated
in
our
paper.
It
is
precisely
the
same
motion
based
on
precisely
the
same
facts
and
issues
as
previously
motion
can
for
reconsideration
under
the
rules
may
only
be
approved
upon
a
finding
that
new
evidence
or
a
mistake
of
fact
exists.
There
is
no
new
evidence.
The
evidence
in
this
case
has
long
since
been
closed.
Since
2001.,
there
is
no
mistake
of
fact
concerned.
Citizens
has
shown
no
evidence
of
either.
Q
Therefore,
it's
our
position
respectfully
that
the
the
motion
is
a
motion
for
reconsideration
and
it
has
not
met
the
necessary
criteria
and
should
not
be
heard.
Thank
you.
Q
A
Q
H
Thank
you
mayor
in
response.
We
would,
we
would
say
that
circumstances
have
changed
since
the
first
motion
for
stay
last
december.
As
is
clearly
in
our
motion
for
stay
in
april,
you
as
a
board
were
presented
a
detailed
update
on
the
status
of
the
conditions
and
requirements
for
the
anclote
harbor
permits,
which
I've
included
in
the
materials
the
future
land
use
map
amendment
for
preservation
was
actually
scheduled
for
june.
It
looks
like
it's
been
put
off
until
july,
but
it
shows
that
it
is
moving
forward.
H
Another
change
condition
is
the
status
of
the
current
appeal
right
now
all
the
briefs
have
been
filed
and
we're
waiting
for
the
court's
decision.
We
filed
an
amended
petition,
morgan
filed
a
response,
and
we
filed
a
reply
and
we're
we're
waiting
now
and
if,
if
you
like,
I
can
get
into
why
the
collateral
estoppel
argument
it
doesn't
apply,
or
I
can
wait
to
do
that
during
my
other
time,
if
needed,.
R
Graeme
jones
2056
north
point,
alexis
tarpon
springs
three,
four,
six,
eight
nine.
In
my
opinion,
you
must
hear
the
motion
to
stay.
Anything
else
would
be
to
grant
the
morgan
group
a
gag
order.
That's
all.
Thank
you.
Thank.
D
Julia
bartonic,
2645,
meadowwood,
drive
and
also
I
am
speaking
for
hearing
the
motion
to
stay
because
it
is
just
and
fair
and
the
process
that
we
have
before
us.
It's
very
important
and
very
worthy
to
hear
it,
because
once
once
once
a
decision
is
made,
the
the
destruction
may
be
irreparable.
So
we
need
to
hear
the
motion
to
stay
for
all
considerations
to
be
taken.
Thank
you.
G
For
the
record
chris
swarovski
1602
gulf
beach
boulevard
tarpon
springs
34689,
my
apologies.
I
had
another
thing
I
had
to
deal
with
so
I'm
on
zoom,
but
I
will
be
back
in
person.
First
of
all,
yeah.
You
don't
have
to
hear
the
state
at
night
settle
the
case.
You
guys
can
discuss
that
right
now
settle
the
case.
G
Q
M
A
Thank
you.
Let's
go
to
commission
comments
vice
mayor
lund,
before
we
get
started,
let
me
ask
mr
trask
a
question.
A
P
So
my
suggestion
is
to
to
focus
specifically
on
whether
or
not
you're
going
to
hear
the
motion
or
not.
D
P
A
Okay,
I
I
do
know
that
this
is
an
appellate
matter
and
it
would
be
items
that
were
discussed
during
the
the
hearing
and
and
we
shouldn't
be
bringing
in
anything
that
would
appear
like
we're
relitigating.
The
the
matter
is
that
I
don't.
P
A
O
Yeah
thanks
city
attorney.
Can
you
again
just
clarify
for
me
the
items
that
we
should
be
considering
during
this
consideration.
P
So
right
now
it's
whether
or
not
that
you
want
to
hear
the
motion
to
stay,
and
you
can
make
your
determination
as
to
you
know.
Whatever
reason
you
don't
want
to
hear
the
motion
to
stay,
maybe
one
of
them
is
because
the
fact
that
the
commission
has
already
considered
a
motion
to
stay
and
denied
it
in
december.
O
P
So
it
doesn't
really
matter
whether
they
were
on
the
board
at
the
time
or
not
you're,
on
the
board.
Now
you
need
to
act
upon
whatever
issues
that
are
presented
to
you
on
this
particular
agenda.
So
you
know
you
need
to
move
forward
with
this
as
it's
presented,
even
if
you
weren't
on
the
board
before.
O
O
The
motion
to
stay
was
not
allowed
back
in
december,
and
so
I'm
still
not
going
to
support
moving
forward
tonight
to
hear
the
motion
to
stay,
because
we've
already
heard
this
it's
more
of
a
reconsideration.
I
believe-
and
although
I
didn't
agree
with
the
morgan
group
asking
my
fellow
commissioners
and
mayor
to
recuse
themselves,
I
do
agree
with
them
in
this
situation
that
this
has
already
been
asked.
So
I
don't
agree
with
moving
forward
to
hear
the
motion
this
day.
A
A
A
H
Good
evening
concerned,
citizens
moves
to
stay,
the
enforcement
of
the
anclote
harbor
approvals
and
the
issuance
of
any
city
permit
contract
land
use
approval
or
any
other
approval
relating
to
the
anclote
harbor
project.
Until
the
appeal
is
resolved,
the
test
for
stay,
which
is
what
you're
considering
tonight,
is
the
likelihood
of
success
of
on
the
merits
of
the
appeal
and
the
likelihood
of
harm
absent
the
entry
of
a
stay
for
likelihood
of
success
on
the
merits.
H
We
have
two
clear
examples
of
arguments
likely
to
win
in
the
appeal
first
resolution
2152
is
void
because
the
city
applied
the
wrong
procedure
by
approving
a
conditional
use
of
a
primary
residential
use
in
a
commercial
general
district,
where
only
a
secondary
residential
use
could
be
approved.
Instead,
morgan
should
have
applied
for
a
future
land
use
map
amendment
under
section
20703.03,
morgan
misstates,
the
record,
and
they
say
that
this
argument
was
never
raised.
H
But
the
record
clearly
shows
concerned
citizens
expert
planner,
richard
gehring
raised
it
during
the
hearing,
there's
a
case
exactly
on
point
baker,
v
metropolitan
dade
county
in
in
the
third
district
of
florida
in
baker,
a
property
owner
applied
for
a
special
exception,
which
is
like
a
conditional
use
for
a
self-storage
facility.
County
staff
recommended
approval
for
commercial
use,
even
though
the
property
was
designated
residential
in
the
comp
plan,
the
court
said
the
commission
did
not
have
the
authority
to
reject
the
plan.
Designation
and
the
future
land
use
comprehensive
plan.
Amendment
was
needed.
H
Importantly,
the
third
district
said
that
the
city
applied
the
wrong
law
in
authorizing
the
approval
and
quashed
it.
This
was
brought
as
a
petition
for
writ
of
certiorari
as
a
departure
of
the
essential
requirements
of
law,
not
a
consistency
challenge
under
163
3215
as
morgan
says
that
we
should
have
brought
it.
Morgan
argues
that
the
statute
challenging
comp
plans
was
changed
in
2002
and
since
baker
was
before
that
it
doesn't
apply.
However,
again
this
is
wrong
before
2002.
H
H
Another
example
of
an
argument
likely
to
win
is
that
the
city
applied
an
erroneous
on-balance
standard
in
evaluating
comprehensive
plan,
consistency
departing
from
essential
requirements
of
law,
because
land
use
plans
must
be
strictly
not
flexibly
applied.
Again,
baker
is
directly
on
point
voiding,
an
approval
where
the
county
decided
to
ignore
comp
plan
based
on
fundamental
fairness,
morgan
misstates,
the
record
by
saying,
we've
showed
no
evidence
of
on
balance
when
we've
included
the
city
planning
director's
report
on
comp
plan
consistency,
starting
on
page
68
of
your
materials.
H
On
the
due
process
issue
you
are
all
there
due
process
is
analyzed
through
particular
factual
context
of
the
procedure.
We
argue
that
hearings
last,
that
that
hearings
lasting
until
sunrise
is
not
a
meaningful
time
or
manner
to
be
heard.
For
the
second
factor
of
this
day
concerned,
citizens
will
be
irreparably
harmed
if
a
stay
is
not
granted.
H
They
are
committed
to
preserving
and
protecting
the
anklet
river
and
allowing
this
project
to
break
ground
will
result
in
the
immediate
destruction
and
degradation
of
the
habitat
and,
as
I
previously
mentioned,
circumstances
have
changed,
which
makes
this
motion
much
more
urgent
and
you
were
updated
in
april
of
all
the
steps
that
are
taken,
that
it's,
it's
even
closer
to
approval
morgan's
collateral.
Stop
argument
is
ridiculous
for
collateral
stoppal
to
apply
the
issue
had
to
be
fully
litigated
with
a
final
order.
H
Also,
your
city
attorney
had
previously
advised,
during
the
december
hearing
in
response
to
mayor
vaticatus's
question
that
if
a
stay
is
not
approved
can
so
concerned,
citizens
request
this
stay
again
in
the
future,
and
you
had
said
yes
depending
on
whether
there's
a
substantive
change
in
the
motion,
and
you
know
unless
you
enter
an
order
that
says
no.
The
prior
order
would
not
allow
that.
So
the
I'm
going
to
end
it
there.
I
reserve
any
time
for
rebuttal
and
we
urge
you
to
grant
this
stay.
Thank
you.
Q
Thank
you,
mr
mayor
again,
our
time
is
limited,
so
I
adopt,
through
reference
all
of
the
arguments
advanced
earlier
tonight,
as
well
as
those
in
our
papers.
As
stated
earlier,
we
are
the
equitable
title
holder.
We
have
rights
to
pursue
the
approvals
and
permits
to
move
forward
on
the
property
concerned.
Citizens
in
december
moved
this
board
for
a
stay,
and
it
was
carefully
considered
and
denied.
Q
Now
concerned.
Citizens
asked
this
board
to
reconsider
its
ruling,
to
change
its
mind,
basically
to
reverse
itself
so
concerned
citizens,
an
entity
that
has
been
ruled
by
the
circuit
court.
Three
judge
panel
to
have
no
interest
in
anything
on
this
property.
They
have
no
interest
in
the
property.
This
is
an
entity,
that's
what
the
court
said
when
they
ruled
on
the
three
petitions
that
were
dismissed
without
prejudice
gave
them
another
chance,
but
that's
what
the
court
ruled
in
that
ruling.
Q
So
this
entity
that
owns
no
interest
in
the
property,
no
interest
in
the
birds,
the
bees,
the
trees,
the
turtles,
all
the
things
they
complain
about.
That's
what
the
court
said.
They
have
no
interest
in
it.
What
they
do
in
this
motion
is
they
urge
this
board
to
to
have
the
city
infringe
on
morgan's
constitutional
right
to
pursue
its
permits
and
pursue
its
development.
Q
So
what
they're
asking
this
board
to
do?
They've
got
no
interest
in
the
property,
so
they're
free
and
clear
they're
asking
this
board
to
assume
the
risk
to
assume
the
risk
that
this
motion
would
be
improperly
granted.
If
the
motion
is
improperly
granted,
then
my
client
has
been
damaged.
We
don't
want
to
be
damaged.
Q
We
don't
want
to
engage
in
lawsuits.
We
didn't
bring
the
lawsuit
we're
here,
to
pursue
our
constitutional
right
to
pursue
other
permits
and
and
pursue
the
development
in
order
for
the
stay
to
be.
Let
me
back
up
you'll
hear
if
the
stay
is
granted
that
you
know
the
projected
profits
on
this
are.
Are
you
know
in
the
neighborhood
of
45
to
50
million
dollars?
If,
if,
for
some
reason,
during
the
tendency
of
a
stay,
the
stay
prevents
us
from
eventually
developing
the
property?
Q
That
is,
you
know,
those
are
the
damages
that
morgan
will
suffer
in
order
for
a
stay
to
be
entered.
The
concerned.
Citizens
must
prove
first
that
they
have
a
substantial
likelihood
of
success
in
the
pending
lawsuit
and
second,
I
have
to
prove
both
of
these.
That
concerned.
Citizens
will
be
substantially
harmed
if
this
day
is
not
granted,
not
that
the
property
be
harmed,
not
that
the
trees,
the
birds,
the
bees
but
concerned
citizens
has
to
prove
that
they
will
be
harmed.
Q
If
the
stay
is
not
granted,
they
cannot
prove
that
tonight,
as
stated
earlier,
there's
no
mistake
of
fact
and
there's
no
new
evidence.
The
only
thing
that's
changed
since
december
when
this
court
refused
to
grant
the
stay.
Is
the
circuit
court?
The
three
judge
panel?
There
are
three
judges
on
the
panel
three
circuit
court
judges.
They
considered
all
of
these
arguments
being
advanced
by
ms
graham,
and
they
dismissed
the
case.
Q
Every
single
issue
that
was
raised,
that
was
between
concerned
citizens
and
morgan,
the
court
ruled
in
morgan's
favor.
So
really
the
question
boils
down
to
this,
whose
judgment
should
this
board
trust?
Should
it
just
trust
concerned
citizens
of
ms
graham's
judgment
on
whether
or
not
they're
going
to
win
this
case,
or
should
you
trust
the
three
judges
that
have
jurisdiction
over
the
case?
That's
the
question
before
you
tonight:
let's
see
what
the
court
ruled
on
march
25th
2022
I've
got
to
move
through
this
quickly.
Q
Last
time
we
were
before
this
board
concerned,
citizens
represented
to
the
commission
that
it
will
be
substantially
harmed
and
injured
if
the
stay
is
not
granted.
Here's
what
the
the
court
ruled
repeatedly
court
ruled
petitioner
has
no
legal
interest
which
will
be
affected
or
any
special
injury
that
the
tarpon
springs
community
as
a
whole
will
suffer
with
morgan's
development
of
property
courts.
Already
rule
court
stated
that
not
not
once
but
four
times
in
the
order
court
ruled
that
that
concerned
citizens
did
not
have
standing
on
these
claims
that
there's
inconsistency
with
a
comprehensive
plan.
Q
Court
ruled
petitioner
did
not
bring
the
action
pursuant
to
the
statutory
provision
governing
these
challenges.
It
brought
the
wrong
claim
and
that's
it
ruled
that
and
and
that
ms
graham
argued
baker
the
baker
case
she's
relying
on
she
argued
that
before
the
circuit
court,
the
circuit
court
rejected
her
arguments.
Q
Every
time,
there's
been
a
situation
where
the
court
could
adopt
our
position
or
concerned
citizen's
position.
It
adopted
our
position
very
respectfully.
We
we
believe
that
this
board
should
rely
on
the
court
and
not
concerned
citizens
to
tell
this
court
whether
or
not
they
have
a
likelihood
of
success
and
whether
or
not
concerned
citizens
will
be
harmed.
Thank
you
very
much.
Thank.
P
P
P
You
can
reserve
anything
that
you
want,
there's
nothing
in
the
process
that
we
provided
for
rebuttal
if
we're
going
to
provide
rebuttal
here,
we're
going
to
have
to
provide
it
all
the
way
through
the
process
and
mayor.
I
don't
think
that
you
want
to
change
this
process
after
both
sides
know
what
the
process
is
going
to
be.
A
I
understand
mrs
trusk,
ms
graham,
I
think
we
want
to
stick
to
the
process.
It's
the
issue
as
being
fair
to
everybody.
I
understand
there's
going
to
be
some
questions
that
the
commission
is
going
to
be
asking
after
the
public
comments
and
there'll
be
questions
to
you,
questions
to
mr
mclaren
and
questions
to
mr
dagnall
who's,
our
litigator,
and
then
you
could
use
that
opportunity
to
say
how
to
answer
your
questions,
however,
you'd
like
and
maybe
get
your
points
in
that
way,
we're
going
to
go
to
public
comments.
A
D
D
I
don't
know
that
for
sure,
but
I
don't
think
that's
happening
and
why
haven't
they
bought
the
property?
What's
their
stake
in
that
that
that
if
they
own
the
property,
okay
yeah
they
own
it?
Let's
they
they
have
that
access,
but
they
don't
have
a
right
if
they
don't
own
the
property
and
the
other
thing
was
it
there.
D
Yeah,
that's
going
on
so
that
big
property
that
you're
going
to
do
roads,
infrastructure,
schools,
firemen,
police,
it's
going
to
put
a
strain
on
the
community
and,
in
the
meantime,
this
that
who's
going
to
put
that
bill.
It's
going
to
be
the
taxpayers.
Then
your
property
tax
is
going
to
go
up
so
yeah.
Does
the
city
of
tarpon
is
the
tarponites?
D
Are
they
going
to
suffer?
Yes
because
their
property
is
going
up
and
the
little
bit
that
the
morgan
group's
going
to
give
to
the
city
for
their
impact
fees
for
their
infrastructure?
Is
that
going
to
make
any
difference?
No,
because
then
this
taxpayers
of
tarpon
is
going
to
pick
up
the
bill
and
pay
the
taxes.
Why
they'll
go
back
to
texas
and
reap
their
benefits
right
so
does
the
tarpon
do
the
citizens
of
tarpon?
Do
they
have?
D
I
say
yes
and
it's
going
to
affect
them
and
until
they
buy
the
property
and
they
have
that
property
right
in
their
little
hands,
I
they
don't
have
a
right
to
that
property
either
and,
like
that
lady
said
before,
where's
walmart,
why?
Why
are
they
not
here
fighting
for
the
morgan
group
and
why
haven't
they
exchanged
the
property?
B
Good
evening
michelle
birnbaum
330
promenade
dunedin,
it
kind
of
is
deja
vu
being
back
here
again
discussing
the
same
parcel,
but
I
am
a
novice,
I'm
not
an
attorney,
I'm
an
archaeologist,
and
I'm
also
someone
who
cares
greatly
about
the
few
pieces
of
property
that
remain
undeveloped
in
pinellas
county,
and
I
know
you
all
know
the
same
trope
that
we're
one
of
the
fastest
developing
counties
in
the
entire
state
of
florida.
B
So
each
and
every
little
piece
of
property
that
remains
in
its
native
state
is
precious
and
because
it
is
so
precious
it's
something
that
we
really
really
really
need
to
think
hard
when
we
make
decisions
regarding
it
all
these
kind.
Folks
here
are
asking
you
to
think
really
really
hard.
The
decisions
you
make
today
should
not
necessarily
be
about
how
much
money
a
developer
can
make,
because,
to
be
honest
with
you,
the
value
of
that
property
is
a
lot
more
than
whatever
morgan
group
will
make
developing
it.
B
So
I'm
just
asking
you
that
when
you
make
your
decision
this
evening,
the
thing
you
have
to
consider
is
I'm
not
a
lawyer,
but
if
there's
a
lawsuit
that
is
still
being
contested,
that
impacts
the
ability
of
a
developer
to
develop
this
property.
I
think
it
behooves
you
to
preserve
that
property
in
the
pristine
state
that
it
is
in.
Currently
I
don't
know
if
you've
ever
heard
the
story.
B
B
Well,
it's
also
impossible
to
bring
back
a
property.
That's
been
damaged,
bulldozed
made
appropriate
for
development
and
part
of
that
stage
is
granting
permits
and
such
once
you
grant
a
permit
you've
permitted
something.
So
I'm
asking
you
while
there
is
still
a
legal
challenge
to
development
of
this
property
granted,
I'm
not
a
lawyer.
B
I
don't
get
paid
a
gazillion
dollars
up
here
and
give
you
my
legal
opinion,
but
I
think
it's
only
fair
to
the
trees,
the
bees
and
the
tortoises,
who
can't
be
here
tonight
and
don't
have
legal
representation
that
you
take
their
lives
into
account,
and
I
would
just
like
to
leave
with
that.
Thank
you
very
much.
Thank.
R
R
R
That's
done
in
line
with
the
comprehensive
plan,
because
I
believe
that
the
process
for
developing
a
comprehensive
plan
is
inclusive.
The
citizens
are
encouraged
and
in
fact,
do
provide
input
into
that
plan
and
it
it's
reviewed
every
year.
Changes
are
made
to
it
in
light
with
in
light
of
whatever's
happening
in
tarpon
springs,
and
it's
a
living
document.
R
So
development
in
line
with
that
is,
is,
in
my
mind,
perfectly
reasonable
and
should
be
done,
but
this
particular
development,
I
think,
slid
through
without
without
real
regard
for
the
the
the
plan
itself,
I
think
there
were.
There
was
some
things
going
on
there,
where
it
doesn't
really
comply,
and,
as
a
result
of
that,
I
think
that
the
stay
must
be
approved
so
that
the
courts
can
decide
whether
or
not
all
of
the
proper
processes
have
been
taken.
R
Care
of
have
been
dealt
with
legally
and
fairly,
and
it's
not
something
that
we're
going
to
decide
here
tonight.
The
courts
are
going
to
decide
whether
these
things
that
that
are
in
front
of
them
now
are
valid
or
not.
Not
us.
So
you
have
really
no
choice
in
my
opinion,
but
to
grant
the
stay,
let
the
courts
have
their
say,
then
revisit
it.
If
the
court
says
everything's
fine,
nobody
did
anything
weird
that
it
can
go
ahead.
R
D
Julia
bartonic,
2645
meadowwood
drive,
I'm
also
a
member
of
the
sierra
club
chapter
of
pasco
conservation
committee,
and
I
wanted
to
say
that
the
stay
needs
to
be
approved,
because
this
project
is
not
going
to
be
in
compliance
with
state
and
federal
guidelines
to
develop
in
the
least
environmentally
damaging
and
sensitive
areas.
In
fact,
this
project
development
is
in
the
most
most
environmentally
damaging
and
sensitive
area,
which
is
the
anglo
river
basin
system,
and
that
river
is
much
much
more
valuable
than
any
fossil
fuels.
D
This
is
the
most
precious
commodity
that
there
is.
It
is
priceless
and
extremely
valuable.
The
risks
involved
to
this
body
and
the
community
are
building
in
a
coastal
high
hazard
area
and
non-compliance
with
the
comprehensive
plan
will
incur
insurmountable
damages.
So
I
speak
in
favor
and
approval
of
this
day.
Thank
you.
C
Tim
kefalis
205
leafwood
road
tarpon.
I
thought
the
morgan
group
had
actually
outright
purchased
the
property
and
I
think
I
heard
tonight
they
have
equitable
title.
So
I
looked
up
under
reuters,
practical
law
in
the
glossary,
the
definition
of
practical
title
or
I'm
sorry,
equitable
title
a
beneficial
interest
in
real
property
that
gives
the
title
holder
the
right
to
acquire
the
legal
title
to
the
property.
C
Equitable
title
holders
cannot
transfer
legal
title
to
legal
to
to
real
property,
but
they
can
derive
benefits
from
the
property,
appreciation
and
value.
So
that
tells
me
they
don't
own
the
property
which
we
kind
of
found.
I
found
out
first
time
tonight
basically,
but
they
can't
sell
the
property
because
they
don't
own
it.
C
How
can
they
change
and
the
city
even
acknowledge
that
their
applications
for
any
any
permits
or
anything
as
a
equitable
title
holder
when
the
legal
they
have
to
get
legal
title
to
be
able
to
even
sell
it,
be
like
me
having
a
first
writer
refusal
or
something
like
that?
I
can't
sell
it,
but
I
can
act.
I
can
buy
it.
I
don't
understand
how
they
can
even
get
changes
on
the
you
know
to
to
get
any
kind
of
a
building
permit
or
anything
without
owning
it.
A
F
We
also
are
aware
that
we
have
water
shortages,
hence
the
reclaimed
water
initiative
and
push
that's
going
through
tallahassee,
currently
adding
reclaimed
water
to
our
potable
water
supply,
calling
it
a
direct
potable
reuse
in
senate
bill
64.,
this
development
and
other
development
throughout
the
state.
That's
taking
place
over
development
subjects
us
to
a
derogated
water
supply.
F
G
G
There's
absolutely
no
rush,
only
the
rush
that
they
try
to
continue
bullying
and
threatening
and
doing
what
they
do
and
all
these
permits
they're
going
to
try
to
get.
You
know,
I'm
pretty
sure
mr
armstrong
promised
them
a
swift
mud.
Permit
he's
on
the
board
of
swift
mud.
You
know
joke
is
actually
on
the
morgan
group,
because
swift
mud
was
gonna
rubber
stamp,
whatever
they
put
in
front
of
them
anyway.
So,
mr
armstrong's,
getting
you
nothing.
G
Each
of
these
state
agencies
will
most
likely
give
you
whatever
you
ask
and
then
we'll
challenge
each
of
them
in
court
because
they're,
each
of
them
lying
to
rush
it
through
real
fast
before
anybody
can
get
an
eye
on
what's
really
going
on,
including
fdot,
but
now
they're
on
guard.
You
know
because
we
pointed
out
what
provenzano
said
the
man
from
fdot.
G
You
don't
have
to
rush
this
project
through,
as
that,
commissioner
said,
there's
people
regular
citizens
still
waiting
for
the
most
common
permit,
so
make
them
wait
if
they're
so
sure
they
got
it
right.
Let
them
prove
that
in
court
and
if
you
don't
want
to
vote
on
this
tonight,
just
you
know
settle
the
case.
G
G
You've
got
choices
here,
don't
be
bullied
with
some
threats,
my
god,
you
know,
we've
seen
enough
of
that,
and
the
reason
why
I
haven't
gotten
hundreds
of
emails
or
this
packed
auditorium
tonight,
because
I
didn't
push
people
to
come
here.
I
made
it
clear
to
each
person
that
I
spoke
to
that
we
have
a
representative
form
of
government
and
we
elected
four
individuals
that
will
do
the
right
thing.
G
As
I've
said
many
times
before,
we
only
bring
people
down
here
when
you
guys
aren't
doing
your
job.
So
just
do
your
job
man,
that's
all
I'm
asking
grant
to
stay.
Let
the
courts
do
what
they're
gonna
do
these
people
can't
win
a
lawsuit?
Have
you
seen
the
way
they've
misrepresented
the
law
throughout.
G
G
The
case
with
recusal
is
the
opposite
of
what
they're
saying
they
just
thought:
they'd
bamboozle
you
and
they'd
get
the
city
attorney
to
help
twist
your
arms
scare,
you
ooh,
20
million
bucks
gonna,
be
on
top
of
your
head.
You're
all
bonded.
The
city's
bonded
come
on
like
saying
they're,
going
to
sue
the
district
court
or
the
supreme
court.
What
who
wonder?
What
kind
of
law
they're
going
to
misrepresent
there.
B
B
C
C
C
Intimidating
each
one
of
us
wanting
each
one
of
us
to
come
in
for
a
deposition,
wanting
us
to
settle
and
sign
these
papers,
finding
out
that
the
settlement
was
just
that
they
were
planning
on
suing
each
one
of
us
and
the
few
of
us
that
were
left
on
the
suit,
maybe
10
of
us.
We
were
all
intimidated
to
try
to
sign
off,
but
there
was
one
one
person.
C
C
D
C
C
C
So
my
name
is
austin:
wood
dress
is
3471,
pinehurst
drive
holiday,
I'm
really
new
to
the
area.
New.
To
this
conversation
I
recently
opened
an
ecotourism
kayaking
company
on
the
river
was
actually
here
a
couple
weeks
ago
for
the
conditional
approval.
C
Are
looking
for
ecotourism
they're
looking
to
be
around
wildlife
in
doing
the
research
of
where.
C
Wildlife,
kayaking
boat
trips.
You
really
only
have
to
look
at
tripadvisor,
there's,
there's
so
much
going
on
in
different
parts
of
florida.
G
C
That
style
of
tourism,
but
if
development
like
this
goes
ahead,
that
will
be
lost
so
yeah,
so
for
right
now
my
business
will
be
impacted.
We've
literally.
C
Be
too
if
this
development
goes
ahead
or
others
on
or
around
the
river,
so
yes
I'll
in
favor
of
the
stay
yeah.
Thank
you.
I
Barbara
walker,
3019
bradford
circle
palm
harbor.
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
I
support
the
stay.
I
am
a
member
of
the
concerned.
Citizens
group
and
I've
spent
a
lot
of
time
on
the
property
enjoying
the
beauty
of
the
bald
eagles
and
the
various
birds
and
other
inhabitants
of
that
property.
If
we
were
to
actually
you
know
and
I-
and
I
would
like
to
say
that
everything
that
everyone
else
just
said
like
I
agree
with,
I
agree
with
that.
I
And
if
we
were
to
go
back
in
time
and
said
well,
let's
create
a
sustainable
plan
for
florida.
One
of
the
first
things
I
would
have
said-
and
I
would
hope
everybody
else
would
have
said-
is,
for
goodness
sakes
protect
the
coast
and
protect
all
the
buffers
for
the
rivers
and
the
and
the
water,
and
it
is
the
responsibility
of
us
today.
All
of
us
people
all
of
you
commissioners
to
do
that,
because
everybody
has
a
stake
in
this.
I
K
K
K
That
was
the
one
that
was
postponed
at
midnight
and
then
on
october,
27th
you
go
about
to
around
11
30.
In
the
meeting
I
read
a
number
of
emails
between
mr
armstrong
and
county
administration
trying
to
get
the
county
administrations
to
get
their
emergency
management
people
and
their
public
works
people
to
back
off
their
comments
when
they
said
this
was
a
coastal
high
hazard
area
and
would
put
this
project
in
danger.
K
Michelle
bierbaum
mentioned
as
she's
an
archaeologist.
I
mentioned
in
my
presentation
in
october,
phyllis
coleanus,
one
of
our
respected
residents
in
the
tarpon
springs.
Historical
society
did
a
report
on
the
archaeological
importance
of
the
native
americans
and
they
found
native
american
artifacts
on
this
site
and
I'm
not
going
to
rehash
it,
but
they
were
the
first
concerned.
Citizens
of
tarpon
springs
we're
only
carrying
that
mission
on
we've
been
behind
the
curve.
Since
this
appeared
to
us
just
after
thanksgiving
of
2020..
K
A
Mr
dilakis,
let's
well.
C
K
K
K
K
C
K
K
K
A
Okay,
thank
you,
okay.
What
I'm
going
to
do
now
is,
I
should
ask
mr
dagnall:
do
you
have
anything
to
say
in
this
part
of
it?
Okay,
I'm
going
to
go
to
the
commission
and
we're
going
to
be
able
to
ask
questions
of
ms
graham
mr
mclaren
and
mr
dagnall,
if
you,
if,
if
we
could
start
with
ms
graham
ask
questions
of
her
we'll
go
around
with
her
and
then
we'll
go
to
mr
mclaren
next
and
then
we'll
finish
up
with
mr
dagnol.
A
Vice
mayor
lunt
hi
miss
grant.
How
are
you.
L
You
recently
amended
your
motion
for
cert.
During
that
amendment
you
stated
a
different
standing
than
your
original
motion.
Is
that
correct.
H
Well,
I
can
give
you
let
me,
let
me
give
you
a
little
bit
of
background
on
that.
The
the
court
had
talked
about
the
standing
in
their
order,
which
is
the
third
test
in
reynard,
and
I
amended
the
petition
to
just
look
at
the
I'm
sorry,
the
court.
Let
me
back
up.
H
The
court
just
spoke
about
the
first
test
in
reynard
of
a
substantially
affected
party,
and
that
applies
when
you're
challenging
an
actual
decision
and
the
you
know
the
wisdom
of
a
decision
of
a
zoning
board,
whereas
the
third
standing,
the
third
test
in
reynard,
is
challenging.
Avoid
action.
H
Now,
in
the
original
petition,
we
had
alleged
both
the
highest
form
of
standing,
because
we
had
included
a
prong
about
competent,
substantial
evidence
not
being
met,
and
this
time
we
decided
to
kind
of
shorten
it
to
just
talk
about
the
reasons
why
the
case
the
the
decision
is
void
and
when
a
decision
is
void.
H
The
third
the
third
test
in
reynard
applies.
Now.
I
should
mention
as
well
that
the
order
on
march
25th
is
a
non-final
order
concerned.
Citizens
did
not
have
a
chance
to
address
the
issue
of
standing
prior
to
this
order
being
filed,
and
we
did
file
an
amended
after
we
filed
our
amended
petition.
We
included
a
memorandum
of
standing.
I
do
hope
that
you
have
all
been
provided
a
copy
of
that.
That
asserts
that
we
meet
both
of
the
tests
for
standing.
L
And
it's
also
you're
standing,
not
understanding
your
position
rather
that
if.
L
This
stay
was
not
granted
and
that
morgan
was
allowed
if
it
got
the
proper
permits
in
order
to
start
doing
preliminary
development
of
the
property,
grubbing
and
and
changing
some
of
the
landscape.
Instead
of
preparing
to
to
build
that,
that
would
be
irreparable.
Is
that
not
true.
L
And
so
from
your
position,
your
standing
and
your
petition
for
cert
are
still
unsettled,
they're,
both
just
recently
filed.
You
have
no
idea
when
the
court
or
how
the
court
is
going
to
rule
on
that.
Is
that
correct.
O
Yeah
mayor,
I'm
just
trying
to
understand,
so
we
have
waived
our
rules
and
procedures
for
this
hearing
and
we're
on
number
five.
The
board
will
consider
a
motion,
the
grant
to
stay.
The
motion
will
be
made
and
the
affirmative,
as
required
by
the
board's
normal
rules,
voted
up
or
down.
O
A
A
O
Ms,
graham,
there
were
some
items
that
were
discussed
about
the
two
items.
I
believe
the
morgan
group
said
that
need
to
be
proven.
One
was
substantial
evidence
that
the
court
would
overturn
and
then
secondly,.
P
O
H
I
I
had
actually
sent
some
requested
instructions,
I'm
not
sure
if
you
have
been
provided
or
not
to
prevail
on
a
motion
for
stay
on
appeal,
a
party
must
establish
number
one.
The
likelihood
of
success
on
the
merits
and
mind
you
when
you
say
merits
standing,
is
actually
a
jurisdictional
issue.
So
it's
not
even
an
issue
on
the
merits.
We're
only
talking
about
our
legal
arguments
and
number
two,
the
likelihood
of
harm
absent
the
entry
of
a
stay
and
something
I
want
to
make
sure
that's
very
clear.
H
O
H
E
Mine's,
a
very
simple
question
that
I
want
to
ask
you:
do
you
feel
that
you
had
time
and
you
were
treated
fairly
in
getting
your
information
out,
were
with
things
presented
to
you?
Let
me
ask:
let
me
stop
with
that.
First
question:
do
you
feel
it
was
fair
that
things
you
were
given
enough
time
to
respond
to
things.
E
Well,
in,
in
regard
to
the
back
and
forth
between
the
morgan
group
and
yourself,.
H
Sure,
well
I
I
would
love
the
opportunity
to
respond
to
the
morgan's
discussion
on
the
the
march
25th
court
order,
because
I
believe
that
there's
a
gross
misrepresentation.
E
H
Well,
I
I
think
that
that
was
a
different
hearing.
I
I'd
have
to
refresh
my
recollection
on
that
I
mean
I
I
think
you
know.
If
I
had
my
way,
I
think
that
I
would
have
15
minutes
to
do
it.
I
think
five
is
somewhat
limited
to
be
able
to
establish
that,
and
I
did
make
objections
on
the
record
about
about
the
procedure.
N
H
Well,
we
filed
an
amended
petition
and
then
two
days
later,
the
court
actually
did
an
order
to
show
cause
saying
you
know:
we've
found
that
there
should
be
a
response
from
the
morgan
group
and
then
morgan
group
instead
of
filing
a
motion
said
dismiss
saying:
oh,
this
is
ridiculous.
You
know
they
have
no
standing.
They
actually
filed
quite
a
detailed
response,
misrepresenting
number
a
number
facts,
but,
interestingly
on
the
standing,
they
dedicated
about
a
page
and
a
half
at
the
very
ending.
N
H
C
N
H
This
baker
case
that
I've
noted,
which
again
was
decided
by
writ
of
sir
sharari
as
a
departure
of
the
essential
requirements
of
law,
said
that
it
was
wrong
when
miami-dade
county
agreed
to
a
development
order.
That
said,
fundamental
fairness,
instead
of
actually
and
acknowledging
that
things
might
not
be
strictly
construed
in
the
comprehensive
plan,
and
so
the
term
fundamental
fairness
since
that
was
described
since
that
was
quashed
and
said.
No,
that's
wrong
law,
the
on
balance,
which
was
throughout
the
city
planners
report
that
had
been
presented.
We
believe
that
that
is
really
the
same.
N
Okay
on
I'm
gonna
go
to
one
item
right
here.
N
H
And
so
that's
exactly
what
we
refer
to,
where
I
have
the
little
red
arrows
that
show
that
it
shouldn't
have
been
on
balance.
That's
where
the
departure
of
essential
requirements
of
law
happened.
It
should
be,
we
strictly
construed
it
and
it's
not
enough
to
say,
oh
well,
you
know
we
on
balance,
think
it's
okay,
and
that
was
an
issue
that
our
city
planner
richard
gehring,
had
raised
during
the
hearing
as
well.
Q
H
The
other
thing
I
would
say
is
that
there's
a
whole
body
of
case
law
that
says
that
you
do
not
have
rights,
they
call
it
vested
rights
for
an
unlawful
approval,
and
so
since
we
contend
that
this
was
an
unlawful
approval,
you
do
not
have
those
rights
and
that's
exactly
what
we're
waiting
for
the
court
to
decide.
N
H
Yes,
well,
I
had
included
the
update
that
you
had
received
back
in
april
as
far
as
the
the
various
agencies
that
are
looking
at
it.
I
also
had
understood
from
a
public
records
request
that
there
will
be
discussion
of
the
future
land
use
map
amendment
limited
to
the
preservation
area,
which
had
been,
I
think
previously
scheduled
for
june
and
from
the
last
public
records
request.
I
see
that
it's
now
scheduled
for
july.
I
don't
know,
I'm
not
privy
to
those
conversations,
but
so
I
do
understand
it
is
moving
forward.
H
Correct
yeah,
swift
mud
hasn't
been
issued
yet
and
that's.
N
Okay,
I'll
have
to
defer
to
ask
the
the
applicant
about
that
afterwards.
H
And
I
mean
I
would
just
say
that
you
know
I'm
I
I
understand,
what's
going
on
with
the
swift
mud
permit
as
far
as
the
world
of
other
permits
and
applications,
I
don't
want
to
you
know
to
be
totally
upfront
with
you,
I'm
not
100,
privy
as
to
all
the
discussions
or
where
things
are
so
I
don't
want
to,
of
course
represent
that
I
know
more
than
I
do
on
that.
Of
course,.
A
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Curiosity.
Ms
graham
it's
my
turn.
I
don't
believe
you.
I
don't
have
that
many.
I
appreciate
the
thoroughness
of
all
the
commissioners
this
evening,
page
11.,
you
mentioned
procedural
due
process
was
denied
yes
later
in
the
exhibit.
You
mentioned
that
the
traffic
engineer
was
one
of
those.
Is
that
correct.
H
Where,
where
is
that?
Did
I
mention
that.
H
A
Your
motion,
great
okay,
do
the
courts
allow
remote
evidentiary
hearings.
H
They
actually
do
it's
some
there's
a
specific
process
for
it.
A
A
Yeah,
I
heard
his
statement
actually
listen
to
it
a
couple
of
times
and
yeah.
That's
the
way
I
would
read
it
yeah,
but
the
court
at
least
at
this
point,
challenged
his
his
granting
of
an
affected
party
status.
So
basically,
the
court
saying
that
the
mayor
got
it
wrong.
Is
that
correct.
H
What
I
would
say
is
that's
what
is
in
the
non-final
order,
which
concerned
citizens
hasn't
actually
had
a
chance
to
prior
to
that
order.
We
didn't
have
a
chance
to
respond
to
to
that.
A
Right,
but
up
to
this
point,
the
courts
have
said
that
maybe
the
mayor
got
it
wrong.
Is
that
correct?
Okay,
let
me
ask
you
something
in
all
of
this
discussion.
You
know
we're
dealing
with
money,
we're
doing
dealing
with
property
rights,
equitable
ownership,
a
variety
of
different
legal
terms,
where's
the
public
interest.
In
all
of
this
I
mean,
where
does
that
fit
in
to
all
of
this.
H
H
Who
who
do
represent
the
public
interest
and
their
interest
in
the
property?
There
is
a
line
of
cases
that
recognizes,
for
example,
standing
to
challenge
void
actions
of
groups
that
represent
the
public
interest,
and
so
you
know
I
I
feel
privileged
to
be
able
to
say
that
by
representing
concerned,
citizens
of
tarpon
springs.
I
am
in
effect
representing
the
public
interest.
A
Okay,
that's
all
I
have
thank
you,
ms
graham,
let's,
unless
there's
any
others
we're
going
to
go
to
mr
mclaren
now.
L
I
only
actually
have
one
question
and
I
want
to
read
you
chapter
and
verse,
but
on
on
page
14
of
your
objection
in
response
to
the
motion
to
stay
page.
14.
Excuse
me.
L
Oh
excuse
me,
I
it's
actually
page
15,
I'm
concerned
with
so
I'll.
Read
some
of
this
just
to
get
the
context
context
of
it.
You
state
here
that
that
ctts's
departures,
contingents
are
fatally
flawed
because
they
brought
these
challenges
through
a
certiorari
petition
and
that
the
exclusive
message
of
challenging
the
development
orders.
Consistency
with
the
comprehensive
plan
is
through
a
claim
brought
pursuant
to
florida
statute,
section
163,
3215
and
I'm
sure
you're
familiar
with
that
section,
because
I
certainly
am
as
a
matter
of
fact.
L
It
goes
on
to
say
that
the
sole
method
by
which
an
aggrieved
and
adversely
effective
party
may
challenge
any
decision
of
local
government
granting
or
denying
an
application
for
development
order,
as
defined
in
163.3164.
L
Q
There
is
no
difference
of
opinion
they're
precisely
the
same.
They
sold
an
exclusive
method
through
which
a
party
such
as
concerned
citizens
can
challenge
what
they're
challenging,
and
that
is
consistency
with
the
comprehensive
plan
is
through
section,
163
3215..
That's
precisely,
what's
stated
in
the
statute,
that's
what's
stated
in
all
the
case
law
that
has
been
developed
since
the
the
2002
amendment
of
the
statute.
That's
what
stated
in
the
seminole
tribe
case
that
cited
in
our
brief,
all
of
which
have
these
cases
dismiss
and
reject.
Q
To
the
extent
petitioner
argues
that
morgan's
land
development
approvals
are
inconsistent
with
the
city's
comprehensive
plans
plan.
Such
claims
must
be
brought
in
an
action
for
declaratory,
injunctive
or
other
relief,
see
statute,
see
florida
statutes,
163
32-15
sections
three
and
four
petitioner
did
not
bring
this
action
pursuant
to
the
statutory
provision
governing
challenges
by
an
aggriever
adversely
affected
party
to
inconsistency
with
a
comprehensive
plan.
Q
Rather
a
petitioner
brought
this
action
pursuant
to
its
common
law
right
of
certurai.
So
that's
even
what
the
three-judge
panel
has
pointed
out
here,
there's
a
real
problem
with
those
claims.
There
is
no
substantial
likelihood
of
success
on
the
merits
whatsoever.
There
is
zero
chance.
The
claim
is
barred.
They
brought
the
wrong
cause
of
action.
Thank
you.
O
O
O
Q
That's
that
the
issue
is
exactly
as
you
point
out,
commissioner
carr,
it
is.
Is
there
a
likelihood
of
success?
It's
not
have
they
filed
an
amended
complaint
and
very
respectfully
there
is
no
likelihood
of
success.
Q
The
two
claims
on
the
merits
that
they've
brought
are
both
claims
that
it
there's
an
inconsistency
with
the
comprehensive
plan,
a
claim
that
the
resident
the
primary
residential
use
is
inconsistent
with
the
cg
classification
and
ms
graham
and
her
papers
are
very
careful.
She
keeps
calling
it
a
cg
classification
because
she
doesn't
want
to
talk
about
the
fact
that
that's
a
cg
comprehensive
plan
designation.
Q
So
that
claim
is
clearly
a
claim
that
the
rezoning
is
inconsistent
with
the
comprehensive
plan
got
to
be
brought
pursuant
to
163
15..
The
second
claim
they
brought
is
that
the
the
standard
applied
was
this
on
balance
standard,
which
is
disproven
by
the
very
resolutions
and
ordinances
at
issue
which
which
all
of
the
commissioners
or
four
of
the
five
approved
saying
that
it
was
con.
Q
The
reasoning
was
consistent
with
all
provisions
of
the
comprehensive
plan,
so
those
are
the
the
two
merits
claims
on
the
merits
that
they've
brought
both
of
them
brought
the
wrong
cause
of
action,
even
independent
of
that
they're
consistent
with
the
comprehensive
plan.
The
second
claim
they
brought
was
for
procedural,
due
process
type
claims.
Q
You
know
the
court
did
not
rule
on
all
of
those
or
suggest
a
ruling
on
all
of
those.
In
its
prior
statement,
the
court
did
comment
about
the
23
hours,
provided
you
know
the
law
requires
notice
and
reasonable
opportunity
to
be
heard.
That's
all
23
hours
is
way
more
than
that,
and
then
there
were
other
claims
brought
such
as
there
was
a
claim
brought
previously
that
there
was
improper
notice
provided
because
the
the
legal
description
was
wrong.
The
court
did
take
the
opportunity
to
throw
that
out,
and
so
what
happened
was
the
court
said?
Q
You
don't
have
standing,
try
again,
and
you
know
again,
it's
it's,
it's
typical
for
a
court
and
and
it,
and
it
usually
results
in
reversal
to
a
court
to
just
throw
out
a
case
altogether
and
not
give
the
the
applicant
at
least
one
opportunity
to
to
reapply
to
the
court,
or
in
other
words,
in
this
case
the
petitioner
another
opportunity.
So
the
court
has
given
them
that
the
case
has
been
briefed.
O
Okay,
can
you
touch
base
on
the
permitting
side
of
things
where
those
land,
if
there's
a
if
permits,
go
through
as
planned
with
the
timeline,
one
would
shovel
be
breaking
ground
and
then,
if
this
were
a
stay
were
to
happen?
Would
this
prevent
you-
and
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I
understand
this
this
day-
will
just
prevent
you
from
going
through
that
process
for
at
least
getting
the
background
information
for
the
permitting
process.
Q
Right
so
we
expect
our
permit
applications.
You
know
we
have
an
approval
from
fdot
on
one
permit.
The
other
permit
I
understand
is
in
process
could
be
approved
any
day.
The
application's
complete
same
is
true
with
swift
mud.
You
know
that
everything's
been
filed.
We're
just
waiting
on
approval
could
happen.
You
know
any
day,
so
the
the
city
permits
you
know
we're
proceeding
on,
and
you
know
those
are
available
to
us.
If,
if
we
can't
get
the
permits,
then
every
day
that
goes
by,
we
can't
get
a
permit.
Q
Then
that
slows
us
down
right,
because
then
we
can't
start
construction.
Then
we
can't
clear
the
land
start
development
do
the
things
we
are
entitled
to
do,
and
so
every
day
that
goes
by
where
we
don't
have
a
permit.
If
it's
delayed
by
the
stay
you
know
our
return
on
our
investment
is
therefore
being
delayed.
Yeah.
O
Q
O
Q
O
Okay
and
then
the
applicant
did
allow
the
concerned.
Citizens
of
tarpon
springs
at
the
time
of
the
hearing
to
present
as
an
affected
party,
but
did
not
view
them
as
an
affected
party.
Q
Right,
the
court,
actually,
the
three
judges
actually
took
an
opportunity
to
to
explain
the
affected
party
issue
and
the
court
stated.
Q
The
city's
position
was
consistent
throughout
the
proceedings.
Petitioner
is
not
in
all
caps.
An
affected
party,
despite
the
city's
decision,
quote
in
an
abundance
of
caution,
end
quote
to
allow
petitioner
to
participate
as
such,
even
if
the
city
deemed
petitioner
to
be
an
affected
party
in
the
context
of
quasi-judicial
hearings,
it
does
not
confer
standing
and
then
the
court
went
on
to
say
that
the
petitioner's
argument
that
it
has
standing
because
it
was
recognized
as
an
affected
party-
is
without
merit.
Q
So
on
that
on
that
issue
that
ccts
or
concerned
citizens
still
has
to
prove
no
matter
what
the
standing
test
is
that
they've
been
harmed
in
a
manner
different
in
kind
from
the
community
at
large
concerned.
Citizens
cannot
prove
that,
ultimately,
their
position
will
fail.
Q
You
know
the
the
courts
stated
four
times
that
they
they
didn't
prove
previously,
that
they
here's
what
the
court
said.
Q
Court
said
petitioner
has
no
legal
interest
which
will
be
affected,
nor
any
special
injury
different
than
the
tarpon
springs
community
as
a
whole,
and
so
courts
already
said
that
now
the
court
did
allow
them
an
opportunity
to
replead,
but
their
new
pleading
says
nothing.
There's
just
no
information
in
the
record
that
they
can
point
to.
That
suggests
that
they
have
an
interest
different
in
kind
from
the
community
at
large,
and
that
is
the
standard.
Q
That's
part
of
the
second
point:
yes,
will
they
be
harmed?
The
issue
is
not,
will
the
property
be
harmed,
ccts
keeps
standing
up
and
saying
it's.
You
know,
there's
going
to
be
harm
to
the
property
going
to
be
harmed
to
the
property.
That's
not
the
standard.
The
standard
is
will
concerned.
Citizens
be
harmed,
okay,
not
whether
the
property.
Thank
you.
E
E
So
you're
trying
to
tell
me,
oh
let
me
handle
myself
so
you're,
trying
to
tell
me
that
we,
if
we
initialize
a
stay
which
would
be
fair
to
all
concerned
and
something
outside
you're
coming
up
with
a
hurricane,
a
tornado,
russia
attacks,
us
that's
going
to
be
our
fault
and
you're
losing
40
million
dollars,
and
we
should
be
reliable
for
that.
Q
If
the,
if
the
stay
causes
us
to
lose
the
opportunity
to
develop
this
property,
the
answer
is
yes,
sir,
and
if
it
you
needn't,
look
no
further
than
one
of
the
cases
I
handled
years
ago
in
the
city
of
tampa.
In
that
case,
what
happened
was
the
the
city
actually
denied
a
permit
to
develop
the
property?
Q
A
Let's,
let's
preserve
decorum,
I
think
it's
been
relatively
good
so
far.
Let's
just
keep
that
that
way,
if
you
don't
mind,
so
we
can
finish
this
up
this
evening.
Thank
you
so.
Q
Sir
anything
could
happen.
Absolutely
I
mean
the
fact
is:
we're
under
contract
to
buy
the
property
so
that
the
the
you
know
the
those
details
are
set
out
in
the
contract
already.
So
anything
could
happen,
you're
absolutely
right
and
I'm
not
telling
you
that
a
tornado
is
going
to
happen.
I'm
not
telling
you
a
market
downturn
is
going
to
happen.
I
don't
know,
what's
going
to
happen,
nobody
knows
right.
I'm
just
saying
that
it
can
happen.
E
Okay,
because
the
way
you
presented
it-
and
I'm
just
I
listened
to
everything
you
said,
you
said
that
you
have
the
risk
of
losing
40
million
dollars
and
to
me
losing
a
risk
of
40
million
dollars
means
that's
a
large
sum
of
money.
I
mean
in
in
development.
How
much
is
this
entire
development
estimated
to
come
out
at.
Q
E
E
E
You
know
you're
going
to
win,
so
I
don't
understand
why
you
have
this
want
to
not
not
follow
through
on
this
day.
Why
I
mean
I
do
know
why
you
don't
want
that
because
it
doesn't,
it
doesn't
go
to
what
you're
trying
to
accomplish.
I
I
realize
that,
but
when
I
look
back
at
the
decisions
made
before
the
decisions
made
here,
none
of
us
here,
except
for
the
city
attorney,
are
attorneys
and
the
three
people
in
the
in
the
court
that
gave
you
the
right
and
also
any
other
court.
E
But
I
don't
think
that
I
want
to
make
that
decision,
especially
with
the
fact
that
you
think
I'm
biased
as
well.
So
I
don't
want
to
make
the
decision,
but
I
do
think
it's
fair
to
have
somebody
with
a
legal
mind,
decide
whether
they're
right
you're,
right
who's,
right
and
move
forward.
Don't
you
agree.
Q
The
court
will
certainly
decide
the
issues
it
is
concerned.
Citizens
burdened
tonight
to
prove
to
you
that
they
have
a
substantial
likelihood
of
success
on
the
merits.
You
can't
grant
the
stay
unless
they
prove
that
they
haven't
proved
that
that's
my
position
right.
They
also
have
to
prove
that
they're
going
to
be
harmed
if
a
stay
is
not
granted.
I've
seen
no
evidence
of
that
tonight,
so
they
don't
meet
the
standard.
Q
What
what
no
matter?
What
happens
if
we
do
win
our
return
on
our
investment,
a
substantial
investment
over
a
number
of
years
we
get
to
the
threshold
we
get.
You
know
we
can
get
our
permits,
we
can
move
forward.
We
can
develop
the
property,
we
can
lease
up
the
apartments,
etc.
We
can
get
the
revenues
that
will
justify
our
our
investment
in
this
in
this
project.
Q
No
matter
what
happens,
if
you
grant
the
stay
that
return
on
our
investment
is
going
to
be
delayed.
It's
been
delayed
three
years
right,
so
we're
ready
to
go.
If
we
can
get
our
permits,
we're
ready
to
move
forward,
the
problem
is,
is,
if
there's
a
stay,
this
tribunal
will
will
delay
the
return
of
those
revenues,
and
so
there's
a
time
value
of
money
involved
on
that
on
that
return,
how
much.
E
E
I
just
have
to
you
know,
share
with
you
that
we're
stewards
of
the
town-
and
you
know
I'm
very
stressed-
to
try
to
make
that
not
not
instill
a
stay,
I'm
just
being
fair
with
you,
the
other
thing
in
ending.
I
would
like
you
to
know
that
you've
addressed
the
mayor
as
the
mayor
you've
addressed
commissioner
carr
as
commissioner
carr
and
the
rest
of
us
you've
just
addressed
us
by
name
just
so.
You
know,
and.
Q
E
Q
You
I'd
certainly
apologize
if
you
believe
I
showed
any
lack
of
respect.
It.
N
Q
N
Q
Yes,
he
has
no
involvement
in
the
analysis
or
issuance
of
of
permits.
N
N
Q
My
understanding,
commissioner
coulius,
is
that
the
I
believe
that
the
army
corps
of
engineer
permit
is
dependent
upon
the
swift
mud
permit,
so
the
swift
mud
permit
would
come
first,
as
I
understand
it,
but
you
know
the
swift
mud
permit
is
the
application
is
complete.
You
know,
so
we
don't
know
when
it's
going
to
be
issued,
it's
a
government
permit
right.
So
in
truth
we
don't
know
it
could
be
any
day
it
could
be
a
month.
You
know
based
on
experience
with
with
getting
swift
mud
permits.
Q
N
N
Q
Would
we
have
yes,
we
would
have
to
consider
our
options
on
challenging
the
the
emotion.
N
N
There's
in
the
middle
of
paragraph
that
says,
there
is
not
one
legal
authority
or
reported
case
decision
that
has
ever
found
that
a
stay
was
proper
under
this
rule
to
prevent
a
permittee
or
successful
applicant
owner
from
executing
an
online
development
permit
or
approval.
N
Q
Found
one
this
truly
is
unprecedented.
Under
that
rule
and
a
land
development
permit,
the
only
case
we
were
able
to
find
that
even
referenced.
A
motion
to
stay
based
on
a
local
government
permit
issued
by
a
local
government
was
this
taxi
usa
of
palm
beach
case.
We
attached
those
rulings
the
order
denying
the
motion
from
judge
halfway
down
in
in
west
palm
beach,
okay,.
N
13,
you
also
brought
up
exhibit
f.
That
was
the
the
three
judge
panel
of
the
circuit
court,
who
issued
a
ruling
in
the
case-
yes,
sir,
and
they
did
grant
the
case
without
prejudice.
That's
right,
would
you
argue
that
that
the
estoppel
phrase
mentions
not
being
able
to
bring
in
the
same
information
again?
Q
Well,
the
estoppel
argument
was
in
regard
to
this
tribunal
and
the
fact
that
this
tribunal
already
ruled
on
this
issue
in
december.
Okay,
so
the
issues
haven't
changed.
We
think
that
concerned
citizens
arguments
are
collaterally
a
stop,
which
is
a
complex
legal
word,
which
means
you
don't
get
a
do-over,
basically,
okay,
so.
N
N
N
Q
As
of
right
now
we
have
a
right
to
pursue
permits
and
you
know
development
to
the
extent
we
can
under
our
contractual
relationship
with
walmart
the
the
stay
we
have.
We
have
a
constitutionally
protected
right,
because
this
stay
is
truly
unprecedented.
Q
That
means
we're
being
singled
out
and
treated
differently
when
you're
being
singled
out
and
treated
differently.
That's
and
there's
no
legitimate
basis,
in
other
words,
there's
no
reason
for
treating
us
differently
than
the
other
applicants.
Q
Then
that
constitutes
an
equal
protection
violation
which
would
lead
give
rise
to
an
action
under
42
usc,
section
1983,
which
is
the
civil
rights
act,
the
federal
civil
rights
act.
So
that's
that
and
then
also
the
procedural
due
process
issues
the
unusual
process
here,
the
fact
that
we're
being
singled
out
there,
so
you
can
see
where
I
cite
the
city
national
case.
That's
the
case
that
I
talked
about
earlier,
where
the
city
of
tampa
had
to
pay
damages,
etc.
Q
So,
again
that
that's
what
concerned
citizens
is
doing
concerned,
citizens
has
no
stake
in
the
property.
They've
got
really
got.
No
they've
got
no
legitimate
fight.
Here,
they've
got
no
standing
to
to
raise
the
issue.
Q
Q
Q
No
matter
what
happens,
though,
if
the
state
is
granted,
we
are
going
to
be
delayed
in
our
ability
to
earn
the
income
and
monetize.
You
know
this
investment
that
we're
making
in
your
city,
and
so
there
will
be
some
delay
damages
if
this
stays
granted.
No
matter
what?
So,
that's
that's
what
we're
we're
saying.
Q
Well,
we
we
feel
like
that,
what
what's
happening
here
is
concerned.
Citizens
is
just
continuing
to
try
to
delay
our
right
to
develop
the
property
in
hopes
that
something
will
happen.
A
market
collapse,
something
that
results
in
our
inability
to
develop
the
project.
I
mean
you've
heard
from
their
representatives.
N
Q
No,
that
the
the
time
frame
would
be
the
normal
time
frame
that
we
would
be
able
to
get
the
permits
and
move
forward
with
our
development,
and
we
know
you
know.
I
stayed
in
my
place
after
22
years
of
practice
in
florida
that
if
this
you
know
the
the
delay
is.
If,
when
concerned,
citizens
appeals
assuming
we
win
at
the
trial
court
level,
which
I
believe
we
will
at
circuit
court.
If
concerned,
citizens
then
appeals
to
the
second
district
court
of
appeal,
that's
going
to
take
at
least
18
to
24
months.
Q
Q
Right,
we
believe
that
you
know
what
what
concerned
citizens
is
asking
is
for
a
stay
for
the
entirety
of
the
adjudication
of
of
these
issues,
and
so,
if
there
is
a
ruling
in
our
favor,
which
we
hope
and
believe
there
will
be,
then,
if,
if
concerned,
citizens
appeals
that
to
the
second
dca,
which
we
believe
they
will
given
their
strategy
of
of
delay,
that
at
a
minimum,
it's
going
to
take
18
months
for
us
to
get
a
ruling
out
of
the
second
dca
and
that's
just
based
upon
you
know.
Q
N
Have
you
ever
represented
any
firms
in
the
state
of
florida
for
lawsuits
regarding
land
use,
deals
towards
municipalities
and
one?
Yes,.
Q
I
won,
I've
won
several
one
of
which
is
the
the
city
national
case,
which
is
in
your
your
papers.
There.
N
Q
Yeah
in
florida,
several
I've
won
probably
one
of
I'd
like
to
say
I
won
them,
but
they
were
settlements
and
I've
obtained,
probably
four
in
the
last
couple
of
years,
hillsborough
county
and
settling
a
rezoning
case
against
my
client
paid
38
million
dollars
to
acquire
the
property
instead
of
rezoning
it
for
single
family
there's
been
three
or
four
in
the
last
18.
Well,
probably
four
in
the
last
18
months
for
sure
that
I've
settled
against
the
city
of
tampa
where
there
was
no
monetary
amount
exchanged.
F
Q
N
I'm
gonna
go
to
the
last
two
pages
of
your
reply.
Yes,
sir.
N
Q
Well,
I
apologize
that
this
was
blurry.
It
was
an
important
page,
obviously,.
A
H
You
I
would
just
like
to
object
to
the
conversation
getting
into
the
details
of
the
bond
right
now,
because
in
the
procedure
that
was
set
for
a
discussion
after
there's
a
vote
on
this
day,
okay.
Q
Right
and
so
those
those
properties
were
identified
as
as
market
comparable,
as
kind
of
a
comparable
sales
type
analysis,
and
so
you
know,
if
you
look
at
our
page,
that
we
were
talking
about
where
we
have
a
93.9
million
dollar
development
cost,
and
then
we
had
a
forecasted
profit
based
on
a
margin
calculation.
The
forecasted
profit
was
44.8
million
dollars.
Q
So
when
you
add
those
together,
let's
see
about
it,
came
to
about
140
million
dollars,
and
then
you
divide
that
by
404
units
and
you
get
a
per
unit
valuation
right
and
that's
how
apartment
complexes
are
typically
traded,
and
so
what
the
analysis
was
there.
Q
There
was
and
we'll
get
into
this
with
with
with
the
client
here
in
if
we
get
to
the
bond,
but
basically
it
was
just
to
do
a
check
to
make
sure
that
was
within
reason
that
that
number
on
a
on
a
per
door
or
per
unit
basis
was
compar
comparable
to
other
values
in
the
area
and
and
it
was
okay.
I
apologize.
H
A
Oh,
I
know
ms
graham,
the
only
the
only
thing
I
see
is
that
it
isn't
the
backup
of
the
the
response
and
we
haven't
gotten
into
the
other
phase.
That's
the
only
thing
I
think
a
commissioner's
asking
for
clarification
right
now,
and
I
don't
have
an
issue
with
that
and
I
don't
think
anything's
going
to
change
between
now
and
if
the
commission
ruled
to
on
the
motion
to
stay
and
the
affirmative
that
we
would
move
into
the
bond
discussion
would
be
anything
different
there.
I
understand
and
the
hour
is
getting
late.
Thank
you.
E
E
E
You
had
here
on
page
32
that
concerned
citizens
purpose
in
seeking
to
stay
as
a
backdoor
attempt
to
overturn
the
commission
approval
the
development
orders
of
the
development
orders
and
commissioner
paniotis
asked
the
question
I
did
want
to
share
with
you.
He
wasn't
called
commissioner.
He
was
called
sir.
That's
all
I
want
to
share,
and
you
quoted
me
as
mr
eisner
after
we
spoke
again,
but
my
question
to
you
is
not
that
that
was
just
my
observation.
E
My
question
to
you
is:
how
many
cases
have
you
seen
where
a
planning
and
zoning
board
votes
six
to
one
to
deny
something
and
a
board
votes
three
to
one
to
approve
it,
even
though
I
know
I
heard
you
earlier
state,
I
believe
that
it
was
four
to
one
that
you
quoted,
but
it
was
really
a
three
to
one
vote.
So
my
question
to
you
is:
don't
you
find
that
a
little
bit
odd,
even
though
I'm
not
trying
to
talk
about
it,
but
you
made
the
statement
that
this
was
a
rare
case.
Q
Was
what
a
rare
case,
commissioner
eisner.
Q
I
I
think
that,
in
my
experience,
all
kinds
of
things
happen
all
kinds
of
votes
occur.
So
do
I
see
that
every
day
you
know,
I
I
don't
honestly
remember
the
numbers
of
votes
before
for
and
against
at
that
junior
level
boards
as
compared
to
the
actual
governing
body.
So
is
it?
Is
there
a
substantial
difference
in
the
number
of
votes
in
favor
and
against
between
the
planning
and
zoning
board
and
the
and
the
city
commission?
The
answer
is
certainly,
yes
is
that
commonplace?
Q
I
see
it
happen
and
I
see
it
happen.
You
know
in
front
of
on
both
sides,
approvals
and
denials.
You
know
in
in
jurisdictions
that
have
zoning
hearing
masters,
for
example.
I
see
you
know
sometimes
a
a
a
five
or
six
person
planning
commission
will
recommend
approval
unanimously
and
a
and
a
county,
commission
or
city
council
will
deny
unanimously.
So
it's
really
hard
to
say
I
I
I
just
you
know
it
all
kinds
of
stuff
happens.
Q
I
mean
a
lot
of
times,
there's
politics
involved
and
that
that
can
end
up
with
some
crazy
results.
So
I
couldn't
tell
you
one
way
or
another,
whether
it's
commonplace
or
unusual.
It
seems
to
me
that
it
was,
you
know,
certainly
a
substantial
change.
I
do
believe
that
planning
and
zoning-
and
you
know
maybe
previously
reviewed
this
same
thing
and
and
they
voted
much
more
in
line
with
the
city
commission.
So
it's
hard
to
tell
long
story.
Sorry,
commission,.
E
That's
okay,
but
they
voted
six
to
one
in
favor
when
there
was
different
evidence
and
the
evidence
changed.
So
that's
why
they
went
the
other
way,
but
it
didn't
seem
that
the
commission
did.
So
all
I'm
trying
to
explain
to
you
is
that
you've
written
something
here
that
they're
looking
for
a
backdoor
attempt
to
overturn
this.
E
E
Q
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Eisner.
O
So
I
just
want
to
clarify
something
real
quick.
You
mentioned
the
appeal
process,
I'm
not
too
familiar
with
the
whole
process
of
how
long
appeals
take.
You
said
it
could
take
up
to
18
months
and
if
I
memory
serves
correctly,
my
understanding
is
that
the
applicant
who's
your
client
applied
for
an
extension
of
the
site
plan.
I
think
it
is.
I
don't
know
if
this
is
our
city,
attorney's
question
or
staff
question.
I
know
we
don't
have
anyone
from
the
planning
department
here.
O
P
There
was
a
state
of
emergency
declared
by
the
governor,
the
governor
issued
an
executive
order
that
executive
order
told
all
development
orders
for,
in
this
particular
case,
60
days
in
reliance
upon
the
statute
relative
to
tolling
an
emergency
or
executive
orders
issued
by
the
governor
you're,
not
only
allowed
to
collect
or
use
the
emergency
time
frame
or
the
tolling
of
60
days,
but
you're
allowed
to
or
the
developer
is
allowed
to
add
180
days
to
it.
So
in
this
particular
case
they
didn't
ask
for
an
extension.
P
They
took
their
right
under
the
statute
to
acquire
an
additional
240
days,
and
I
would
likely
say
that
if
there
was
another
state
of
emergency
in
pinellas
county
for
hurricane,
you
know
or
something
else
that
could
possibly
happen.
They
would
have
that
right
under
state
statute
to
request
that
extension
as
well,
and
I
would
assume
that
they
would
do
that,
but
they're
not
requesting
it
they're
legally
entitled
to
it.
O
P
So
I
don't
know
the
answer
to
that
question
other
than
I
would
say
to
you
that
there
would
be
a
request
more
than
likely
to
extend
it.
The
building
official
has
certain
rights
under
the
florida
building
code
to
extend
certain
permits.
P
I
would
think
that
he
would
have
the
ability
to
do
that
based
upon
an
understanding
that
basically
that
the
in
this
particular
case,
the
developer
was
in
a
position
where
he
could
not
or
they
could
not
move
forward,
and
so
I
would
think
that
the
building
official
do
the
right
thing
and
allow
for
a
tolling
during
that
period
of
time.
I
have
not
talked
to
the
building
official
about
that.
O
Okay,
thank
you.
Thank
you,
mr
attorney.
Mr
mclaren
again,
so
this
the
appeal
process,
it
was
heard.
Then
it
went
back.
You
think
it
could
be
taking
up
to
18
months
to
get
an
answer
back
now.
Is
that
right.
Q
Well,
here's
the
situation,
we're
in
the
the
the
case
has
been
fully
briefed
before
the
circuit
court
right.
There's
a
three-judge
panel,
so
they've
got
to
issue
their
decision.
Then
it's
my
understanding
that
concerned
citizens
will
appeal
that
ruling.
That
appeal
alone
will
take
at
least
18
to
24
months.
Is
my
experience
18
to
24,
so
it
depends
on
how
long
it
takes
the
circuit
court
to
rule
and
assuming
they
rule
in
our
favor,
which
we
believe
they
will
then
concerned.
Q
Citizens
can
take
that
to
the
second
district
court
of
appeal,
which
we
believe
that
appeal
alone
will
take
18
to
24
months.
So
we
think
18
months
is
a
is
a
conservative
measure
of
how
long
the
stay
would
last
if
it
were
granted
for
the
full
extent
of
of
the
the
the
time
necessary
to
to
fully
adjudicate
and
get
a
final
non-appealable
order.
Okay,.
O
Q
Q
It's
a
little
bit
different
on
the
supreme
court.
The
supreme
court
would
have
to
accept
jurisdiction,
in
other
words,
it's
they're
not
automatically
entitled
to
to
go
to
the
supreme
court,
but
they
could
apply
for
cersei
jurisdiction
to
the
supreme
court,
and
then
we
would
be
stuck
waiting
on
that
ruling
as
well.
Okay,
all
right.
A
You
said
several
things
that
are
somewhat
intriguing
and-
and
I
and
I've
got
some
questions,
but
let
me
ask
you,
mr
mc,
mr
mclaren,
we
so
hypothetically
the
commission
moves
ahead
with
a
stay
and
then
it's
appealed
and
the
circuit
court
confirms
and
and
keeps
the
motion
to
stay
in
place,
which
means
that
the
city
was
correct
and
that
and
I
understand
what
you're
saying
that
the
what
the
criteria
are
at
least
what
you're
saying
the
criteria
are
and
I'm
going
to
get
into
that
in
a
little
while,
but
but
so
basically,
you're
saying,
if
the.
A
If
the
circuit
court
of
the
appellate
approves
it,
then
basically
the
city
is
still
liable
for
whatever
the
city
did.
As
far
as
putting
the
stay
in
place.
Is
that
correct?
Even
though
the
circuit
court
acted
on
it
as
well.
A
A
A
A
There's
we
there's
10
about
10
conditions
of
the
development
order
that
have
to
be
satisfied:
they're
they're
related
to
a
variety
of
things
which
are
related
to
the
state
permits.
So
what
you're
saying
and
I'm
not
sure-
and
I'm
going
to
ask
you
this-
I'm
going
to
ask
mr
degnan
all
this
as
well.
A
You're
saying
that
there's
two
two
points
that
I
I
want
to
make
out
of
this.
This
florida
statute
says
that
the
city
can't
hold
up
any
permits
from
the
city,
even
though
you
don't
hold
some
of
the
permits
in
that
the
state
requires.
Is
that
correct.
Q
A
A
A
A
Would
you
consider
a
process,
I
think
you're,
referring
to
the
first
motion
to
stay,
that's
correct!
All
right,
would
you
say,
commissioners
not
being
able
to
ask
questions
is
part
of
that
full
and
fair
process.
Q
Q
Of
either
party,
so
both
parties
had
the
same
burdens
and
the
commission,
apparently
in
in
deciding
the
procedures
for
that
hearing,
decided
that
they
weren't
going
to
ask
questions.
And
so
both
parties
were
treated
the
same
and
they
were.
A
Treated
fairly
well,
if
I
was
to
tell
you
that
the
commission
didn't
approve
the
procedures,
would
that
make
a
difference.
Q
Both
parties
were
treated
fairly.
Okay.
Both
parties
were
subject
to
the
same
rules
of
procedure,
which
is
really
that
the
test
of
fairness.
As
long
as
you
stick
to
your
rules
of
procedure
and
don't
you
know,
don't
vary
from
them
just
to
favor
one
party,
then
you.
F
A
I
think
he
answered
the
one
concerning
the
the
motion
to
stay
was
proper
for
executing
the
land
development
agreement.
Let
me
move
on
to
number
three
page
25.
Q
So
at
that
time
the
city
commission
was,
it
was
made
known
to
the
parties
months
and
months
before
the
we're
talking
about
the
rezoning
hearing
at
this
point
right
is
that
correct
mayor
of
education.
Q
Q
This
argument
is
in
opposition
to
concerned
citizens,
argument
that
they're
going
to
win
the
case
on
a
due
process
challenge
and
that
due
process
challenge
in
this
section
was
based
on
the
fact
that
their
experts
were
not
allowed
to
testify
remotely
do
you,
and
I
believe
you
probably
recall
that,
but
so
again
what
happened?
There
was
five
weeks
before
the
hearing.
Q
We
were
notified
by
the
city
that
hey
get
your
witnesses
to
the
commission
chambers
because
we're
not
allowing
live
testimony
that
had
been
the
way
it
was
before.
Covid
there
had
been
an
interim
period
where
I
understand
that
remote
testimony
was
allowed,
but
the
information
we
both
parties
received
was
hey.
We're
in
you
know
at
that
time
I
think
people
thought
kovit,
you
know
might
go
away,
and
so
the
idea
was
hey.
We're
gonna,
go
back
to
the
old
procedure,
get
your
witnesses
to
the
city
commission.
Q
Both
parties
were
allowed
at
least
five
weeks
notice
and
so
concerned.
Citizens
wants
to
complain
that
well,
we
knew
we
had
to
to
bring
our
witnesses,
but
we
asked
for
a
remote
for
them
to
be
able
to
appear
remotely,
and
the
commission
said
no
and
my
response
to
that
is
really.
You
know:
they're
asking
for
special
treatment.
All
due
process
requires
is
notice
and
a
fair
opportunity
to
be
heard.
We
were
bound.
We
had
our
witnesses
present.
They
were
here
to
answer
questions.
They
were
here
for
cross-examination.
Q
A
A
A
You
cite
that
the
appellate
ruling
petitioner
has
no
legal
interest
which
will
be
affected
or
special
injury
different
than
the
tarpon
springs
community.
That's
you've
said
that
a
couple
of
times
tonight
right.
A
Q
Excuse
me,
you
have
to
have
a
special
interest,
that's
different
in
type
or
or
or
severity
than
the
general
community
as
a
whole,
and
so
what
the
court
is
saying
here
is
concerned.
Citizens,
you
don't
have
any
interest
in
the
property
you're
not
going
to
be
harmed
any
more
than
anyone
else
in
the
community.
So
you
can't
sue.
Q
Someone
on
the
edge
of
town
does
not
have
to
sit
standing
to
sue
on
a
on
a
rezoning
in
the
middle
of
town.
Only
someone
in
the
middle
of
town,
that's
with
that
meets
the
standards,
has
a
right
to
sue
for
rezoning
generally,
and
so
that's
what
the
court
is
saying
here.
Is
that
there's
no
difference.
A
It's
not
related
to
the
whether
the
applicant
has
made
a
strong
showing
that
he's
likely
to
prevail,
or
is
that
exactly
it?
Well.
Q
A
Okay,
on
that
note,
the
the
courts.
You
said
that
the
court
says
that
the
concerned
citizens
don't
have
standing,
but
the
mayor
did
say
they
did
have
standing,
and
so
the
mayor
was
wrong
in
this.
Q
Q
Said
was
that
the
mayor
said
and
what
the
court
recognized
is
that
the
city
initially
said
that
concerned.
Citizens
did
not
what
was
not
an
affected
party,
the
city.
The
city
said
that
the
city
said
that,
but
allowed
out
of
an
abundance
of
caution
concerned
citizens
to
participate
as
if
they
were
a
party.
Q
A
A
Q
Q
It
says
that
you
know
it
goes
through
what
the
mayor
said.
What
attorney
trask
said
goes
through
the
whole
thing
and,
and
it
says
on
page
nine-
the
record
reflects
that
the
city,
determined
petitioner,
was
not
in
all
caps
an
affected
party
and
repeatedly
said
so.
Q
A
A
If
the
motion
for
stay
a
pending
appeal
is
not
granted
or
that
a
stay
would
be
in
the
public
interest,
I
haven't
heard
any
discussion
tonight
about
public
interest.
You
haven't
brought
it
up.
I
know
that
the
concerned
citizens
is
that
incumbent,
something
that,
in
your
opinion,
would
be
incumbent
on
the
commission
to
consider
it's
it's.
Basically,
those
were
the
first
two,
then
the
second
one,
whether
issuance
of
the
state,
will
be
substantially
in
substantially
injured.
A
The
other
parties
are
number
four
where
the
public
interest
lies
and
then
there's
a
whole
slew
of
you
know
ways
of
looking
at
sliding
scales
and
all
this
other
stuff,
but
I'm
just
trying
to
get
an
idea
of
of
why
who,
whose
responsibility
is
it
to
look
at
the
public
interest?
I
mean
I
haven't,
heard
it
from
either
you
or
concerned
citizens.
Q
In
ms
graham's
letter
to
the
commission
accompanying
the
june
6
motion,
and
also
in
the
motion,
sunbeam
television,
corp
versus
clear
channel,
metroplex
117,
southern
third
772,
I'm
quoting
her
her
paper
to
prevail
on
a
motion
for
stay
on
appeal.
A
party
must
establish
number
one,
a
likelihood
of
success
on
the
merits
and
number
two,
a
likelihood
of
harm
absent
the
entry
of
the
stay
and
the
harm
has
to
be
to
the
applicant.
Q
P
A
A
C
A
I
had
completed
myself
and,
let's
see
where
we
are,
can
you
help
me
out
mr
travis
yeah.
P
A
A
So
and
then,
after,
if
there
is
a
motion
after
the
motion,
the
second
we'll
have
additional
discussion
at
that
time,
so
is:
do
we
have
a
motion
to
grant
the
steps.
A
Let
me
ask
you
first
before
we
do
anything,
does
anyone
have
any
questions
for
mr
daniel,
our
city
attorney.
A
In
control,
yes,
so
commissioner
carr
mr
dagnole.
O
A
That's
a
good
idea.
Our
meetings
normally
adjourn
at
11
o'clock
and
as
we
approach
that
everybody
gets
a
little
nervous.
So
let's
extend
the.
If
I
may
have
a
motion
to
extend
the
meeting
to
11
30.
most.
A
A
O
Yeah,
thank
you
city
attorney,
daniel.
I
I
believe
you've
made
an
opinion
or
opined.
I
don't
know
what
the
correct
word
verbiages,
on
which
route
the
city
can
go
in
this
situation.
After
you
heard
the
you
call
this
testimony,
do
you
feel
comfortable
making
a
recommendation
which
way
the
board
should
go
or
not.
M
Commissioner,
I
actually
explicitly
determined
and
did
not
make
a
recommendation
in
the
memo
that
I
wrote
you.
You
have
wide
discretion
in
this
matter
according
to
all
of
the
law,
and
I
think
that
both
attorneys
on
either
on
the
sides
would
tell
you
that
you
have
wide
discretion
to
do
that.
M
It's
really
just
a
matter
of
what
your
what
your
findings
are.
Okay,
thank
you.
I
I
have
opinions
I'm
happy
to
share
if
you
have
questions
about
them
specifically,
but
I
don't
have
a
specific
recommendation
as
to
how
you
should
proceed
here.
O
M
O
M
Understand
your
question
to
go
to
the
issue
of
standing
at
the
appellate
court.
Yes,
the
appellate
court
made
a
determination
that
they
had
failed
to
establish
standing
at
one
time
they
granted
leave
to
amend,
that's
common.
We
see
that
a
lot
both
attorneys
again,
I
think,
would
tell
you
that
it
is
not
pro.
It
is
not
dispositive,
of
course,
as
to
another
petition
as
to
whether
they're
going
to
find
standing
or
not,
but
to
say
that
it's
not
persuasive,
I
think
is,
is
incorrect.
M
O
M
I
appreciate
that
question:
that's
that
requires
clarification
under
the
rule
of
appellate
procedure
that
this
is
traveling
under
this
9.190
subsection
4
requires
and
it
uses
commanding
language
of,
shall
the
stay
needs
to
remain
in
place
until
all
appellate
proceedings
are
concluded
and
a
mandate
issues
and
a
mandate
is
a
document
from
an
appellate
court.
Saying
this
case
is
over.
M
It
is
amongst
the
lawyers
unlicensed
and
licensed
both
that
says,
you're
done
now,
okay,
so
yeah,
I
I
don't
think
you
have
the
ability
to
put
in
a
a
temporary
stay,
a
six-month
stay
or
a
year
stay.
If
you
issue
a
stay,
that
stay
is
going
to
remain
in
place
until
all
appellate
proceedings
have
concluded
via
the
issuance
of
a
mandate.
That's
under
subsection,
four
of
the
rule.
O
Okay,
so
I
just
want
to
clarify
it
a
little
bit
cleaner.
So
if
the
circuit
court
says
they
don't
agree
with
the
concerned
citizens
and
they
side
with
the
the
morgan
group,
then
they
could
appeal
to
the
second
district
court.
At
that
point,
correct
within
a
certain
amount
of
days
by
the
statute,
correct
30
days.
O
M
A
I
have
a
question
for
you.
None
of
the
other
commissioners
do.
I
was
going
to
ask
commissioner
chris.
N
N
M
M
I
think
the
chances
of
experiencing
that
loss
will
be
low
in
this
posture
and
the
reason
for
it.
One
of
one
of
the
commissioners
or
the
mayor
may
have
mentioned.
It
is
because
in
this
posture
you
all
as
a
board
of
commissioner
are
essentially
acting
as
a
court,
and
so
we
don't
see
courts
being
sued
for
having
you
know
for
delay,
damages
for
having
issued
orders
speculating
here,
but
I'm
speculating
based
on
experience,
no
attorney
in
this
room.
M
N
Okay
and
regarding
the
bond,
whatever
amount,
if
granted,
to
stay
in
whatever
amount,
that's
decided
by
this
board,
the
the
premium
should
be
paid
by
concerned.
Citizens
of
tarpon
springs
yeah,
that's
absolutely
absolutely
yes,
and
that
and
that
limits
the
city's
exposure.
M
If
it's
necessarily
a
matter
of
limiting
the
city's
exposure,
though,
though
it
would,
I
think
it's
really
a
balancing
of
the
equities
right,
you're,
essentially
commanding
that
the
developer
not
developed
the
property,
but
at
the
same
time
recognizing
that
there
is
potential
damages
to
them
for
having
been
delayed.
In
that.
N
M
N
M
A
Mr
dagnole,
if
you
could
I
just
I
just
need
to
get
some
clarification.
I
I
know
which
way
I'm
kind
of
leaning
in
this
matter
and
and
there's
a
good
reason
for
it,
but
you're
going
to
be
the
third
third.
Fourth
attorney,
I'm
going
to
ask
about
the
public
interest
in
this
matter,
and
I
you
know,
there's
I
don't
care
what
anybody
says.
There's
these
four
criteria.
A
M
I
think
that
there
are
courts
in
this
state,
including
at
least
a
fifth
dca
into
my
knowledge,
a
third
that
have
applied
a
public
interest
test
to
a
motion
of
this
nature
in
an
appellate
capacity,
and
I
also
wish
to
add
here
that
we're
talking
about
criteria
so
to
me,
when
I
hear
criteria
the
criteria
might
be
a
b
and
c
and
in
order
to
gain
whatever
it
is
you're
seeking,
you
would
need
to
achieve
all
of
them,
but
that
is
not,
in
my
view,
the
law
of
the
stay
of
this.
M
In
this
case,
it's
you
can
obtain
this
stay
by
meeting
one
of
those
tests,
meaning
substantial
likelihood
of
success
on
the
merits
or
substantial
harm
to
the
movement
or
the
public
interest
right.
So
I
don't
think
you
need
to.
I
don't
think
the
movement
needs
to
meet
all
three.
I
think
that
if
the
movement
meets
one,
I
think
those
tests
are
and
remain.
Disjunctive
wow.
A
Yeah
I've
noticed
in
most
of
the
discussion
unless
there's
a
substantial
chance
that
the
concerned
citizens
would
win
that
pretty
much
would
solve
granting
a
stay.
If
it
doesn't,
then
again
it
gets
into
a
balancing
act.
This
is
where
they
do
use.
This
word
balance
very
frequently
about
balancing
the
rest
of
these
to
see
how
they
fit
together.
A
In
fairness
to
this
commission,
none
of
us
are
injured.
None
of
us
are
attorneys,
I'm
an
engineer.
None
of
us
are
attorneys
and
we're
expected
to
act
as
an
appellate
in
this
matter.
The
lower
tribunal
there's
nothing,
there's
no
commission
or
training
on
this,
and
yet
we're
needed
we're
and
we're
relying
on
our
own
knowledge
and
certainly
whatever
we
have
questions
to
the
city
attorney.
A
And
I
appreciate
what
you're
saying
with
regard
to
as
far
as
exposure
goes
and-
and
we
are
in
in
a
sense,
acting
as
an
appellate
capacity.
Is
that
correct
or
yeah.
A
Okay,
all
right
and
then
who
picks
who,
in
our
quasi,
you
were
city
manager.
Here
before
I
know
that
city
attorney
yeah,
you
want
to
be
city
manager,
it's
getting
late,
city
attorney.
You
were
here
city
attorney
here
before
during
quasi-judicial
proceedings,
who
selects
who
decides
whether
a
person
is
an
affected
party.
M
A
Of
how
they
were
constructed,
then
you're
actually
confirming
everything
that
that
I'm
suspecting
about
this
process
and-
and
I
don't
know
who
it
was-
maybe
ms
carter
or
somebody
suggested-
maybe
leave
it
up
to
a
judge
to
make
that
decision,
because
I'm
I'm
hearing
all
kinds
of
different
opinions,
even
from
attorneys
on
all
sides,
even
attorneys
on
the
same
side
coming
up
with
different
opinions
in
this
matter.
So
I
I
think
you
guys
earn
your
pay
in
this
appellate
process.
So
that's
all
the
questions
I
have.
E
M
M
My
guess
is,
they
are
less
than
the
damages
that
are
likely
to
be
claimed
by
the
developer
in
this
case,
so
whether
a
bond
is
appropriate
for
you,
folks
or
some
kind
of
excess
coverage,
I
think,
is
really
an
administrative
determination,
and
I
can
I
can't
this
is
this
is
one
of
those
situations
here,
and
I
think
that
both
mr
mclaren
and
ms
graham
agree
with
me
that
we
are
very
much
in
a
unique
situation,
so
I
I
can't.
M
M
O
Yeah,
I
just
want
some
clarification
because
you
I've
been
going
off
of
like
the
two
items
and
the
two
items
being
and
highly
likely
likelihood
of
a
decision
being
overturned
and
but
then
you
said
or
earlier
as
three
separate,
and
then
you
brought
in
the
interests
of
the
community
as
a
whole.
So
as
that
third
one.
M
O
M
Memo
that
I
that
I
wrote
you
recently
as
well
as
the
one
that
I
wrote
you
back
in
december,
I
indicated
that
those
factors
rather
than
I
I
don't
necessarily
call
them
criteria.
I
call
them
factors
that
they
are
disjunctive.
In
my
opinion,
I
don't
think
that
you
need
to
meet
all
three
as
a
movement
can.
O
M
I
don't
know
you
all
have
wide
discretion.
You
have
wide
latitude
here
to
evaluate
public
interest.
If
that
is,
if
that
is
the
desired
foundation
for
your
ruling.
Here,
you
have
wide
latitude
to
determine
what
public
interest
means
to
you.
It
may
mean
an
economic
interest
either
good
or
bad
for
the
city.
It
may
mean
an
environmental
interest
either
good
or
bad
for
the
city.
M
The
public
interest
is
obviously
what
you
all
are
elected
to
to
foster
and
steward,
but
I
don't
have
a
lot
of
case
law
guidance
for
what
that
test
means
in
the
in
the
context
of
emotion,
for
stay.
O
M
O
M
O
Understood
so
one
other
question:
what's
hypothetically
speaking,
let's
say
the
the
stay
was
not
granted.
The
permits
were
received,
grubbing
started
and
the
court
through
appeals,
decided
that
they
favored
and
on
the
concerned
citizen
side.
M
It
really
depends
on
the
on
the
the
court's
ruling
and
its
scope.
It
could
mean,
depending
upon
what
their
ruling
holds,
that
they
would
need
to
tear
everything
down
and
go
away.
It
might
mean
they
need
to
stop
where
they
are
get
additional
approvals,
get
additional
review
from
this
board
or
from
other
agencies
and
move
forward
from
that
point,
but
the
but
the
universe
of
things
that
could
happen
based
upon
how
a
court
rules
is
very
broad.
M
A
A
Let's
go
to
discussions
back
to
discussions
vice
mayor
card.
Yes,.
L
Have
you
had
a
chance
to
read
the
petitioner's
memorandum
of
law
and
standing?
Yes,
you
have
not
yes,
sir
or
you
have
read
it.
Yes.
Is
it
your
opinion
that
that's
valid
arguments
that
are
within
this
document.
M
I
don't
think
I
I
don't
think
that
the
petitioner
will
be
able
to
establish
standing
in
this
case.
The
court,
the
court's
ruling
back
in
march,
was
very
specific
and
very
clear
that
there
would
there
was
going
to
be
a
high
standard
established
for
standing
and,
as
you've
heard
from
all
the
attorneys
standing
is
much
different
from
an
affected
party.
It
opens
the
door
if
I,
if
I
were
to
guess
and
that's
part
of
my
job
to
do,
I
don't
think
that
the
petitioner
will
establish
standing
in
the
case
all
right.
A
Are
we
done
with
questions
yeah?
Okay,
thank
you,
mr
daniel.
Let's
go
back
to
discussing,
we
have
a
motion
and
we
have
a
second.
So,
let's
go
back
to
commissioner
discussion
vice
mayor
lund,
anything
vice
mayor
carl,
I'm
I'm
sorry
go
ahead.
L
I'm
a
little
dismayed
of
the
fact
that
that
nobody
really
seems
to
think,
besides
the
the
petitioner
that
their
standing
is
going
to
be
approved
in
this
particular
case.
So
obviously
that
means
that
it's
not
going
to
be
approved
or
their
their
motion
is
going
to
be
rejected.
So
I'm
still
I'm
I'm
inclined
to
make
a
statement
on
on
on
the
public's
behalf,
because
that's
what
I'm
here
for
and
that's
where
I
think.
A
Okay,
before
we
go
to
the
next
speaker,
let
me
let
me
kind
of
just
add
a
little
more
information.
So
if
again,
we've
made
the
motion
and
it's
been
seconded.
If
the
motion
is
denied,
we
go
home
if
their
motion
is
approved,
then
there
was
a
second
phase
to
the
bond
and
then
also
there's
also
a
final
order
that
has
to
be
written.
Based
on
on
the
discussion
that
we're
having
what
we've
heard.
A
This
is
a
final
order
that,
obviously
we're
not
going
to
do
it.
The
city
attorneys
are
going
to
do
it
and
and
then,
unlike
last
time,
that
will
be
brought
back
to
the
commission
for
approval,
which
would
include
the
bond
amount
as
well
and-
and
so
I
I
know,
there's
a
little
bit
of
of
just
an
explanation
in
that
regard
and
what
you're
describing
also
has
to
be
articulated
articulated
in
the
final
order
as
well
to
make
sure
it's
captured
if
you
vote
in
the
affirmative.
A
G
A
That
time,
so
let
me
go
to
commissioner
carr:
did
you
have
it.
O
O
So
I
mean
I'll
just
be
completely
blunt.
During
the
process
of
the
whole
hearings.
As
a
citizen,
I
was
not
for
apartment
complexes,
more
density
in
our
city.
As
a
commissioner,
I
understand
the
rights
and
the
due
process
and
the
things
along
those
lines.
So
if
you
ask
me,
as
a
citizen
I
may
say
one
thing,
but
then,
as
a
as
a
commissioner,
I
voted
one
way
because
I
felt
that
they
had
the
right
to
do
that
at
that
point
tonight.
O
If
you
would
ask
me
the
same
thing:
citizen
verse,
commissioner,
and
the
commissioner's
seat,
I'm
going
with,
I
don't
feel
that
the
concerned
citizens
have
proven
the
highly
likelihood
of
a
decision
being
overturned
and
also
that
the
damage
isn't
different
from
the
public
at
large.
So
tonight
I'm
not
going
to
support
the
stay
for
those
reasons,
and
those
are
the
reasons
the
factors
that
were
to
be
determined
if
the
state
should
be
given
or
not
with
that.
I
do
understand
the
public's
concern
and
the
citizens
concern
about
this
as
a
whole.
Thank
you.
E
E
I've
not
had
any
one
person
come
up
here
other
than
the
morgan
group
attorneys
to
say
that
there's
nobody
been
up
here
to
say
that
it
they're
they're
for
it
and
I
do
represent
the
city,
and
I
just
I
I
will
go
along
with
this
day.
A
Okay,
commissioner
cuis.
N
N
P
So,
if
the,
if
the
motion
is
granted-
and
there
is
a
requirement
for
the
bond
and
they
haven't-
made
it
and
they
can't
pay
it-
then
the
order
the
order
on
the
motion
to
stay
would
fail.
So
normally
there's
a
specific
period
of
time.
They
will
get
a
bond
it'll
be
in
this
dollar
amount,
it'll
be
done
by
this
date.
If
they
don't
do
it
by
that
date
or
in
that
dollar
amount,
then
they
haven't
met
the
contingencies
of
the
order
to
stay,
and
therefore
the
motion
of
state
would
fail.
N
Okay,
okay
and
my
one
concern
is
that
three
judge
panel
that's
gone
up
to
the
circuit
court.
If
you
know
if
they
feel
like
we're
being
usurpers
they're
gonna
come
and
override
us,
so
that
that
is
another
safety
check
and
balance
for
morgan
group
and
the
three-judge
panel
of
the
you
know
the
circuit
court.
So
but
I'm
willing
to
listen
to
a
stay
grant
one
and
but
curious
to
see
what
funds
are
gonna
be
provided
for
this
bond
to
limit
the
exposure
for
the
city.
So
thank
you,
mayor.
A
Thank
you
just
to
follow
up
on.
A
P
So
it's
partially
mayor,
so
the
way
these
bonds
work
is
is
the
bonds
are
normally
based
upon
a
percentage.
So
usually
it's
a
one
percent
of
the
dollar
amount
of
the
actual
exposure.
So
in
this
case,
if
it
was
a
28
or
2.8
million
dollar
bond,
my
experience
is
they've
been
one
percent,
so
it'd
be
twenty
eight
thousand
dollars
for
the
premium
for
that
bond
concerned.
Citizens
would
pay
that
and
that
bond
would
stay
in
place
until
the
litigation
has
been
completed.
P
And
then,
if
there
is
a
claim
made,
it
would
be
against
concerned
citizen
or
the
bond.
Whoever
has
the
ability
to
pay
it,
but
but
usually
it's
a
one
percent
of
the
dollar
amount
of
the
value
of
the
bond
for.
A
The
for
the
premium
right
and
then
the
whoever,
as
far
as
the
claim
goes,
the
the
bond
company
assumes
they
paid
would
they
be
able
to
go
after
the
concerned
citizens
for
that
as
well.
So.
P
Normally,
what
happens
is
if
they
have
to
pay
out
whatever
dollar
amount?
Let's
just
say,
a
court
gives
a
million
dollar
judgment
to
the
morgan
group.
Then
yes,
the
insurance
company,
bonding
company
would
pay
that
million
dollars
and
they'd
immediately
turn
around
and
and
sue
concerned
citizens
to
recover
that
million
dollars.
Okay,
that's
the
way
they
would
do
it.
A
All
right
did
you
have
anything
else.
Commission
could
ask
from
my
perspective
and-
and
I
try
and
look
at
this
in
a
very
sober
way.
I
agree
with
what
all
the
comments
have
been
set
up
here
tonight
and
the
one
thing
that's
fundamental
to
me
is
the
public
interest
and
I
recognize
that's
not
the
whole
game.
A
If
it's
some
fraction
greater
than
that,
then
you
you
tie
that
to
the
other
factors
which
would
be
the
public
interest
as
well,
and
the
public
interest
for
me
is
is
twofold:
really
one
is
the
traffic
safety
and
I
I
tried
a
lot.
You
know
the
the
you
know.
From
my
perspective,
the
argument
was
well.
The
faster
the
morgan
group
breaks
get
down,
I'm
sorry
breaks
ground.
A
The
faster
people
begin
to
get
hurt
and
what
I
mean
by
that
is
that
the
bulldozers
begin
rolling
and
and
and
there's
80
000
vehicles
down
us-19
today
and
there's
rubber
neckers
there's,
there's
construction
people
coming
on
and
off
some
makeshift
access
based
on
some
mot.
A
Basically,
traffic
control
plan
and
the,
but
there's
going
to
be
injuries
to
that,
and
I'm
not
convinced
that
that
this
is
a
safe
thing.
I've
expressed
that
to
a
number
of
people,
that's
been
my
issue
all
along,
so
that's
where
I
think
the
public
interest.
It's
not
just
the
concerned
citizens,
but
it's
also
the
80
000
people
a
day
that
travel
on
that
highway.
A
Us-19.
Now
that's
one
aspect
and
then
the
other
part
is
the
fact
that
there's
a
great
deal
of
mistrust
within
the
community
as
far
as
the
residents
go
and
and
who
they
feel.
That
has
acted
in
their
best
interest,
and
I
read
an
interesting
article
that
just
because
there's
a
consensus
or
an
ascension
on
a
particular
item
doesn't
mean
that
it
was
right,
in
other
words,
the
the
the
three
commissioners.
A
The
designation
of
the
affected
party
was
wrong.
It
was
stated
it
identified
who
the
affected
party
is
now
the
court
said
that's
wrong:
well,
is
there
some
chance
that
that
you
know
one
of
the
commissioners
could
have
been
wrong
on
the
the
three
to
one
vote
as
well?
I
mean
that's
where
I'm
coming
from,
and
it's
not
three
to
one:
it's,
not
three
commissioners.
It's
one
vote
that
would
have
turned
this
2-2
vote
would
have
denied
this.
So
there's
a
great
deal
of
mistrust
right
now.
A
There
was
a
huge
outpouring
and,
quite
frankly,
when
you've
got
300
people
coming
to
an
auditorium
or
at
least
in
various
ways
or
another
and
you've
got
this
many
emails
coming
in
the
very
next
day.
You
better
have
an
ordinance
whatever
it
is.
It
may
not
be
anchloed
harbor,
maybe
some
other
issue
that
they,
the
residents,
show
up
and
say,
something's,
not
right
and,
and
you
fix
it
with
an
ordinance-
that's
called
the
public
interest.
A
You
know
you
live
here,
we
work
for
you,
we
listen
to
you
and
it's
I
I
you
know
it's
truly
unfortunate.
How
this
whole
project
came
about.
I've
known
mr
armstrong,
for
a
long
time.
I
guess
that's,
mr
salome!
There
I've
never
had
a
chance
to
meet
him.
I
know
that
at
the
very
first
hearing
that
this
took
place,
there
was
an
overture
between
the
current
concerned,
citizens
and
and
mr
salome
to
have
a
meeting
to
see
if
there
was
some
room
for
negotiating
and
settling
this
thing.
A
A
And
but
we
never
got
that
opportunity
because
we're
in
a
hurry
we're
in
a
hurry
to
get
this
project
done.
It
first
meeting
was
in
july
of
2017
here
at
the
city.
You
heard
the
morgan
group
this
evening
say
that
the
decision
was
made
to
build
this
project
november
2018.
Here
we
are
june
of
2022,
but
we're
in
a
hurry.
You
know
we
need
to
get
this
thing
down.
We
need
to
get
the
permits
down
the
whole
thing
and
I
can
assure
you,
the
the
the
the
the
army
corps.
A
A
So
there's
a
there's
a-
and
I
see
this
in
the
residency
there,
so
they
at
this
point
residents
don't
know
who
to
believe-
and
I
say
this
with
all
respect
for
attorneys-
then
I
would
hope
that
the
the
respect
would
be
reciprocal
from
an
engineer
attorneys
there's
just
the
myriad
of
attorneys.
You
know
the
myriad
of
opinions
coming
from
the
attorneys
on
what's
right
and
by,
and
that
is
the
way
the
law
is
it's
not
black
and
white.
A
That's
why
you've
got
a
court
system
and-
and
it
was
said
tonight
by
one
of
the
residents
here
that
you
know
let
the
courts
decide
that
and
they
will
decide
that.
A
But
in
the
meantime-
and
you
have
hear
these
overtures
saying
that
you
know
we're
going
to
get
our
permits
and
we're
going
to
break
ground
and
we're
going
to
start
moving
things.
And-
and
if
you
don't,
you
know,
if
you
don't,
if
you,
if
you
grant
this
stay,
you're
not
going
to
allow
us
to
do
that
and
therefore
you
know
we're
you
know
somehow
we're
going
to
be
damaged
and
also
there's
a
state
law
that
we
didn't
even
get
into
that.
I
think
it's
with
this
process
going
on.
A
P
A
A
So,
as
you
can
see,
I'm
not
sure
where
we're
heading
all
of
this
thing,
but
the
one
thing
I
do
know
that's
a
that
is
a
a
constant
in
all
of
this
is,
I
know
what
the
residents
want
and
they
want
two
things
if
they
would
prefer
not
to
have
this
project
done
and
number
two,
and
that
would
be
clearly
in
the
public
interest.
I've
got
the
safety
thing
and
then
the
third
thing,
of
course,
is
if
the
judge
decides
that
it
was
done
properly
by
the
city.
A
Then
that's
the
end
of
the
issue
and
everybody
needs
to
go
home
and
enjoy
tarpon
springs
for
what
it
is.
So
I
don't
know
what
the
lawsuit's
going
to
take.
We've
got
insurance
and
all
this
other
stuff,
but
for
me
I'm
not
100
percent
supportive
of
the
motion
to
stay,
but
I
feel
strong
enough
about
it
to
support
the
stay
just
because
I
I
have
to
live
here.
I
know
what
the
residents
want
and
I
just
need
to
act
on
what
the
residents
want.
So
anyway,
we're
clear
getting
close
to
11
30.
N
A
Yes,
let's
extend
it
for
because
we've
got
some
business
to
tend
to
right.
Mr
trask,
okay,
let's
extend
it
for
15
minutes
to
11
45..
We
have
a
motion
to
that.
O
Can't
make
a
point,
our
rules,
that
you
have
we'll
extend
that
well
past
11,
45.
A
A
Yes,
there's
a
couple
of
ways
we
can
go,
we
can
there
there's
another
phase
to
this
was
would
be
to
determine
the
bond
amount
that,
in
my
opinion,
is
going
to
be
a
longer
process,
even
though
it
took
us
this
long
to
get
here,
there
won't
be
the
you
know.
A
The
the
a
and
b
part
of
this
will
just
be
one
item,
but
I
think
it's
going
to
be
fairly
extensive
and
then,
on
top
of
that,
I
can
assure
you,
I'm
not
ready
to
make
a
decision
on
a
bond
amount
tonight,
not
without
me
studying
the
numbers
and
and
and
just
studying
the
numbers.
So
we
can
either
continue
with
this
second
phase.
A
As
far
as
the
bond,
which
would
begin
with
this
time,
would
be
mr,
the
morgan
group
getting
up
first,
followed
by
ms
graham
and
then
there
would
be
cross-examination
by
both
parties
or
we
can
defer
this
item
to
another
commission
meeting
and
I'd
have
to
work
with
the
well.
I
A
G
Just
a
reminder
when
we
were
trying
to
find
that
that
early
budget
meeting
I
set
and
we're
kind
of
stuck
with
the
july
5th
date,
it
was
because
of
the
performance
of
beauty
and
beast
here
in
rehearsals
the
other
nights
for
the
auditorium
to
try
to
get
that
date
for
there.
So
that's
why
it'd
be
difficult
now,
because
that
was
the
only
date
that
we
could
set
for.
The
budget
meeting
was
with
july
6
and
I
know
there's
some
issues
with
some
people
on
that
date,
but
there's
just
no
other.
G
No,
because
obviously
we
have
to
be
in
this
room.
We
can't
go
upstairs
or
can't
do
that,
because
we
have
to
be
here
for
the
crowds
and
everything
and
because
of
that
performance
in
here
and
everything
that
that
was
a
problem
on
the
dates,
the
first
two
and
a
half
three
weeks
of
july,
that
that
that's
an
issue
that
we
I
couldn't
say
now
I
mean
we
could
look
to
see
if
we
could
bump
sun.
But
if
we
have
today,
I
couldn't
give
you
a
date
certain
to
bump
something
right
now.
G
L
G
Q
A
Q
Thank
you
just
need
to
understand
the
impact
of
tonight's
ruling.
Q
You
know
legally,
we
don't
think
it's
appropriate
for
there
to
be
a
state,
that's
actually
in
effect,
until
the
commission
also
hears
whether
or
not
there
should
be
a
bond
posted
and
if
so,
what
amount,
because
you
know
to
have
a
stay
issued
with
with
no
bond
so
is,
is
it
I
just
want
to
understand
and
clarify?
Is?
Is
the
stay
now
in
effect?
So
if
we
apply
for
permits,
we
can't
get
permits.
I.
P
That
would
be
my
recommendation
to
you
that
when
you
deal
with
the
bond
issue,
whether
it's
on
july
26
or
whatever,
then
you
would
enter
an
order.
One
way
or
the
other.
The
concern
here,
obviously
is
is
that
this
motion
was
approved
tonight
and
city
staff
feels
hesitant
to
do
anything
on
any
of
these
permits
because
of
the
fact
that
you
have
granted
the
motion
to
stay.
So
that's
the
gap
that
they're
they're
worried
about.
What's
going
to
happen
in
the
next
30
days.
P
A
Is
that
the
day
that
the
order
goes
into
effect,
or
does
it
go
into
effect
once
the
bond
is
secured.
P
A
K
You're
wanting
to
postpone
consideration
of
the
potential
of
a
bond-
and
I
just
have
to
point
out
that
in
morgan
group's
response
on
page
10,
where
they
quote,
rule
9-1-9
e3,
it
says
a
stay
pending
review
may
be
conditioned
on
the
posting
of
a
good
and
sufficient
bond
other
conditions
or
both
so
to
have
you
discussing
a
potential
cost
of
a
bond
and
us
having
to
come
back
and
relitigate
and
rehear.
It
costs
us
stuff,
but
you're
not
required,
there's
nothing
in
the
ordinance
or
the
rules
that
you
have
to
post
the
bond.
K
So
what
I
would
like
to
hear
the
board
decide
in
the
next
10
minutes.
Do
you
are
you
going
to
require
bond
or
not?
And
if
you
are,
then
we
would
come
back
and
debate
the
merits
of
stuff,
but
according
to
even
mr
mclaren
and
mr
armstrong
and
they're
pleading,
a
stay
pending
review
may
be
conditioned,
doesn't
say,
must
in
there
they're
in
their.
K
A
There's
there's
arguments
two
sides
to
this
as
far
as
the
may
and-
and
I
think
we
need
to
hear
all
of
that
at
a
later
date
and
appropriate
format
in
a
calmer
manner
and
also
in
a
little
more,
I
don't
want
to
say
a
more
relaxed
environment-
we're
not
pressed
for
time
at
11
36
at
night.
I
don't
like
doing
this
like
we
did.
The
5
a.m
drill
back
in
october,
whenever
it
was
so
thank.
E
P
My
suggestion
is
the
motion
to
continuance
on
the
matter
until
july.
26,
regular
commission
meeting
is.
P
A
We're
deferring
this
item
until
unless
you
don't
want
to
hear
it
tonight,
I
mean
commissioner
you're.
I
think
we
should.
I.
N
G
So
the
other
thing
we
could
do
is
on
just
setting
the
date.
I
don't
know.
Obviously
we
have
a
work.
We
have
the
work
session
on
the
on
the
budget
that
we
had
set
up
for
for
seven
o'clock
on
the
on
the
fifth.
If
I
could
find
another
date
in
that
time,
I'm
not
sure
there's
another
date
during
the
week
on
that
time.
To
do
so,
we
could.
G
A
Here,
why
don't
we
do
this?
Well,
let's
go
ahead
and
set
it
for
july
5th
and
then,
as
we
approach
july
5th,
if
there's
another
date,
we
can.
We
can
actually
convene
the
meeting
that
night
and
with
everybody's
notifying
them
ahead
of
time
that
we'll
we'll
be
deferring
this
item
to
a
later
date.
I'm.
I
A
I
think
that
there's
a
sense
of
urgency
here,
do
you,
how
do
you
feel
about
it.
E
A
We
need
to
notice
the
the
meeting
there's
a
notice
requirement
for
the
meetings,
let's
go
ahead
and
set
it
for
july
5th,
except
that
you
can't
be
there
until
what
time.
G
Give
you
a
fast
second
to
look
at
those
dates.
I'll
just
tell
you,
which
date
I'm
gonna
bump
the
bump,
the
rehearsals
I
mean.
That's,
that's
just
gonna
solve
if
you're
looking
at
a
time
frame
like
maybe
the
11th
or
the
13th,
is
that
a
problem
for
july
11th
to
monday
the
11th
wednesday,
the
13th
I'm.
C
G
I'm
trying
I'm
trying
to
think
of
the
other
board
means,
and
I
may
be
moving
upstairs
on
looking
at
the.
G
Yeah,
I'm
looking,
maybe
this,
the
sixth,
what
and
yours
the
sixth
or
the
seventh
I'm
just
worried
about.
If
there's
a
rehearsal
I
can
I
bump
the
rehearsal,
I'm
just
worried,
I'm
gonna!
If
there's
a
board
that
I
can
move
upstairs,
I
can
move
aboard
upstairs
if
those
two
dates
or
if
those
two
dates
are
I'm.
G
A
G
B
A
A
A
Oh,
I
forgot
we're
still
in
a
meeting
all
right.
Let's
see,
mr,
was
that
the
last
agenda
either.
P
A
M
A
M
A
We've
got
two
minutes
for
one
minute
left
unless
someone's
got
something
important
to
say
we're
going
to
adjourn.
Did
we
vote
on
that
or
is
that
meeting
adjourned.