Help & information    View the list of Transcripts


TAMPA CITY COUNCIL

Thursday, February 11, 2010
10:00 Special Call Meeting


DISCLAIMER:

The following represents an unedited version of
realtime captioning which should neither be relied upon
for complete accuracy nor used as a verbatim
transcript.
The original of this file was produced in all capital
letters and any variation thereto may be a result of
third party edits and software compatibility issues.
Any person who needs a verbatim transcript of the
proceedings may need to hire a court reporter.

10:02:41 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Tampa City Council will now come to

10:02:43 order.

10:02:43 We'll have roll call.

10:02:47 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.

10:02:48 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.

10:02:49 >>MARY MULHERN: Here.

10:02:50 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Here.

10:02:53 >>THOMAS SCOTT: The purpose of this special call

10:02:55 session today is actually just to take an official

10:02:58 vote.

10:02:58 Bayshore condominiums.

10:03:11 >> Here.

10:03:13 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So we have six and six of the

10:03:16 Councilmembers here.

10:03:17 Mr. Shelby, for the record, I think all of us received

10:03:21 this appeal to the city on the decision that was made

10:03:25 from the architect review commission, requesting that

10:03:28 the vote stand that we took the other day, 3-2.

10:03:31 You want to speak to that on the record so we can

10:03:34 address that issue, please, sir?

10:03:36 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes.

10:03:37 Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of City Council.

10:03:43 You are referring to a motion that was hand-delivered

10:03:47 to City Council yesterday from James De Furio, the

10:03:51 counsel for the appellant in this case.

10:03:54 Council, I had an opportunity to speak with the city

10:04:00 attorney on this.

10:04:01 And we both agree that section 2.07 of the city charter

10:04:10 ultimately controls.

10:04:12 And that says, the Council shall act only by ordinance

10:04:16 or resolution.

10:04:18 Four members have constitute a quorum.




10:04:21 No ordinance or resolution or motion shall be passed,

10:04:24 adopted, or made except upon the affirmative vote of

10:04:28 four members.

10:04:29 And that being the case, and Mr. Fletcher being the

10:04:34 chief legal officer for the City of Tampa, who is the

10:04:38 final word on opining on this subject, I believe would

10:04:43 be prepared to advise you that this motion is not right

10:04:47 to be discussed before Council.

10:04:48 Is that correct, Mr. Fletcher?

10:04:50 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: Well, procedurally, there's -- Chip

10:04:54 Fletcher, city attorney.

10:04:55 Clearly, in my view, the charter is clear, counsel

10:05:00 requires -- Council requires four votes to take action,

10:05:02 whether approval, denial or other action.

10:05:04 The charter is very clear.

10:05:07 In my view, what Mr. De Furio is requesting would

10:05:13 essentially be for Council to act in violation of the

10:05:16 charter, which would obviously be out of order.

10:05:19 So it would be my recommendation to reject his motion

10:05:25 and proceed forward as is our practice.

10:05:29 And was our expectation for you today to take a vote,

10:05:33 take a vote based on the underlying motion, which




10:05:38 Councilwoman Mulhern made and whatever action is

10:05:41 approved by four votes of Council would then be the

10:05:44 action of Council.

10:05:48 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Mulhern.

10:05:51 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you both for that clarification.

10:05:53 I think when Mr. Shelby read the section of the

10:05:57 charter, it does include a motion, which is what I made

10:06:00 and Councilwoman Saul-Sena seconded.

10:06:02 So, I think it is pretty clear that charter requires us

10:06:06 to have a four vote.

10:06:09 >> Thank you.

10:06:10 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.

10:06:11 >>Any Council -- to contemplate, I believe for you to

10:06:16 contemplate the motion, would be violative of the

10:06:20 charter and the fact it is asking you to do something

10:06:22 clearly under the charter is not permitted by the City

10:06:24 Council.

10:06:25 You do not have authority by majority vote to in effect

10:06:28 overrule your charter.

10:06:32 >>THOMAS SCOTT: But we just want you to state on the

10:06:34 record so those requesting would understand.

10:06:36 I think we are, at least I was aware that it takes four




10:06:39 votes.

10:06:40 But we just want to make sure it is on the record and

10:06:42 those that requested understand we operate under the

10:06:46 charter and what the charter guidelines are.

10:06:49 >> The other thing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make

10:06:51 clear is due process -- irrespective of the fact and

10:06:57 even though it is controlling, that the charter

10:06:59 requires four votes.

10:07:01 You will notice also that even when a motion, either to

10:07:06 oppose or in support of a motion, doesn't get the

10:07:09 requisite four votes, it still requires Council to make

10:07:12 the other motion in order to effectuate action.

10:07:14 And in this case, due process would require finality

10:07:18 for all the parties.

10:07:19 That Council do take action on this.

10:07:22 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.

10:07:22 What's the pleasure of Council?

10:07:24 We had a vote -- I think our action today was a special

10:07:27 called meeting to allow for City Council, full City

10:07:30 Council to vote upon the motion that did not pass by

10:07:34 virtue of the 3-2 vote.

10:07:36 So, Miss Saul-Sena?




10:07:42 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Couldn't we call a question on the

10:07:44 vote before us and have us vote with all of us?

10:07:47 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We can vote.

10:07:48 Okay.

10:07:50 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That would be my motion.

10:07:52 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, we have a hand here.

10:07:54 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I was still speaking.

10:07:55 My motion would be to call the question on the action

10:07:59 and have us vote.

10:08:03 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Then the motion is a vote -- question.

10:08:05 That's the motion.

10:08:07 That's okay.

10:08:08 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I'm not debating the motion, but I

10:08:11 think specific, to what question?

10:08:12 The question of what was made?

10:08:14 The question of last week?

10:08:16 The question of last year?

10:08:17 I just want clarity on it.

10:08:20 So would you please clarify that?

10:08:22 >> Yes, sir, thank you.

10:08:23 First of all before I begin, I see the full Council is

10:08:25 present.




10:08:26 And again, the motion was after the appeal hearing

10:08:33 being closed.

10:08:44 >> That was no competent substantial evidence presented

10:08:47 showing that the parcel, at least one-third minimum of

10:08:51 the parcel did not fall in South Howard zoning district

10:08:55 (reading from motion) city code and trumped the zoning

10:09:01 requirements and request did not meet essential

10:09:03 requirements of the law and that the requirements for

10:09:05 the architectural review commission and for Council was

10:09:07 to apply the code and the district boundaries.

10:09:10 The motion was not adopted with Councilmembers Scott

10:09:14 and Miranda voting no.

10:09:18 And also with Councilmember Caetano and Miller absent.

10:09:25 I ask you both, are you prepared to vote?

10:09:29 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.

10:09:30 >> Councilmember Caetano?

10:09:36 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Yes.

10:09:37 >> So the decision is overturn the decision of the

10:09:40 A.R.C. and grant the appeal.

10:09:41 There's been a motion to call the question.

10:09:43 That requires no debate.

10:09:44 So if you wish to take a vote on that, you can do so.




10:09:50 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Still seeing hands.

10:09:51 The issue is, you can't debate now.

10:09:54 The issue, had you to vote on the question.

10:09:58 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Unless somebody withdraws their

10:09:59 question.

10:10:01 >>MARY MULHERN: I need to, either withdraw my second,

10:10:04 or I have a question, because it sounds --

10:10:09 >>THOMAS SCOTT: You have to withdraw your second.

10:10:11 >>MARY MULHERN: I withdraw my second and I have a

10:10:12 question for the attorney.

10:10:15 Based on we just read, because it sounded like you

10:10:20 quoted my motion as saying that one-third did not.

10:10:30 >> I am reading to you from the agenda.

10:10:32 Of today's special called final agenda, which was

10:10:35 prepared by the clerk's office, based on the transcript

10:10:42 of the hearing.

10:10:44 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I believe it is a mistake.

10:10:46 Said did not fall.

10:10:47 But should be did fall.

10:10:50 >>MARY MULHERN: One-third of the minimum parcel did

10:10:53 fall within South Howard.

10:10:55 So either I misspoke or this is, this is misrecorded.




10:11:09 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I did review the CD reading and

10:11:13 that's the wording.

10:11:14 >>MARY MULHERN: Well, I misspoke.

10:11:16 So that's why I'm withdrawing my second.

10:11:18 And I need your advice on how to -- how to go forward

10:11:22 with it.

10:11:25 >> Make a new motion.

10:11:27 >>MARY MULHERN: I can make a new motion.

10:11:36 >> Rather than get into the concept of rules of whole

10:11:38 new motion, this would just be a motion to correct the

10:11:42 motion -- change, to delete the word "not."

10:11:51 >> I think it is actually accurate, because, the A.R.C.

10:11:56 found that it did not -- that it did not fall within

10:11:59 the South Howard district.

10:12:01 So we are reversing that.

10:12:04 So I think it is actually accurate.

10:12:06 I don't like the one-third minimum part.

10:12:08 But I think they did not fall is actually accurate

10:12:11 because that's what the A.R.C. found.

10:12:13 And that's what we're reversing.

10:12:16 >>MARY MULHERN: That's not what I meant to say though.

10:12:17 Since I made the motion.




10:12:18 I'd be more comfortable --

10:12:21 >>THOMAS SCOTT: The issue this point.

10:12:24 >>MARY MULHERN: Amending the wording.

10:12:26 >>THOMAS SCOTT: At this point, you can make a new

10:12:28 motion.

10:12:28 That motion did not pass.

10:12:30 Is that right?

10:12:30 That motion did not pass.

10:12:31 So at this point, the rule call for us coming back

10:12:35 together, have a full Council.

10:12:37 But you can change that motion.

10:12:42 >>GWEN MILLER: She can amend her motion.

10:12:44 Go ahead, Mr. Fletcher, I defer to you.

10:12:52 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: Just a point of clarification and

10:12:54 why I think it would be potentially appropriate to make

10:12:56 a new motion, procedurally if we can get there.

10:12:59 The A.R.C. didn't find that the property wasn't within

10:13:04 the district.

10:13:05 It just found that it was not to be applied as

10:13:09 requested by the applicant.

10:13:11 So it is a minor difference.

10:13:13 I don't think there's a question that the property is




10:13:15 located within the district.

10:13:18 So just for clarification.

10:13:23 >>MARY MULHERN: I disagree.

10:13:24 And that's why I attempted to state clearly within the

10:13:29 motion that at least one-third of the property, of the

10:13:35 parcel was within the South Tampa overlay district and

10:13:42 there was no competent substantial evidence to deny

10:13:48 that.

10:13:48 And there was competent substantial evidence to show

10:13:53 that at least one-third of that property was within the

10:13:57 South Howard overlay district, and I would like to

10:14:01 amend my motion to say that.

10:14:03 And I think --

10:14:07 >> Second.

10:14:08 >>MARY MULHERN: It would be my amendment to my motion,

10:14:12 all it would do --

10:14:14 >>THOMAS SCOTT: You just stated it.

10:14:16 >>MARY MULHERN: Right.

10:14:16 But all you have to do is take the "not" out.

10:14:20 >>THOMAS SCOTT: You just restated it.

10:14:22 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay, that's my motion.

10:14:24 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Caetano?




10:14:27 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: I'd like to read something so that

10:14:30 there's no -- excuse me.

10:14:33 So it is not interpreted improperly.

10:14:39 >> Mr. Caetano, is this on the motion?

10:14:46 >> You got to be careful what we're being handed to

10:14:49 read.

10:14:49 >> Are you being handed to read something?

10:14:51 >> Yes.

10:14:53 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Take it back until we can clarify

10:14:55 what we are being handed to read.

10:14:57 We don't want to taint the record.

10:14:59 Nobody's read it yet.

10:15:00 Mr. Caetano is trying to do something.

10:15:03 I don't know what.

10:15:16 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: What I have and I'm going to give

10:15:18 a copy to the clerk, so that's no ambiguity as to what

10:15:22 there is.

10:15:23 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Give one to the city attorney.

10:15:26 >>We can make other copies as well.

10:15:28 Give one to Council as well.

10:15:29 I'll make additional copies.

10:15:30 It appears to me a writing of Mr. Caetano's argument in




10:15:38 support of the position that he prepares to take in

10:15:42 advance of the vote.

10:15:42 And that's what you have before you.

10:15:45 Excuse me, withdrawn.

10:15:48 What you have -- what you have had taken and given to

10:15:51 me is that you have not had the opportunity to see.

10:15:54 Mr. Caetano, I would advise you to wait upon this.

10:15:58 You can read this.

10:16:00 But it would be more appropriate for you to read that,

10:16:03 and have it placed into the record, if you wish to do

10:16:05 so.

10:16:05 But with regard to the motion on the floor to amend, I

10:16:09 would believe Mr. Chairman, that motion is out of order

10:16:12 at this time.

10:16:13 Mr. Caetano's request at this time.

10:16:15 So if you could just take a vote on the motion to amend

10:16:20 first.

10:16:20 >> Need a second.

10:16:22 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So the motion then made by Councilwoman

10:16:27 Mulhern, seconded by councilwoman Saul-Sena.

10:16:32 All in favor.

10:16:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm confused on what we're voting




10:16:36 on.

10:16:36 >> I'm sorry.

10:16:38 >> Why don't we have the clerk read the motion.

10:16:40 Clerk, can you read that motion back so he would

10:16:43 understand?

10:16:46 >> The motion on the agenda being amended by

10:16:48 Councilwoman Mulhern, seconded by Councilwoman

10:16:52 Saul-Sena that at least one-third of the property of

10:16:55 the parcel was within the SoHo overlay district and no

10:16:58 competent substantial evidence, competent substantial

10:17:03 evidence was presented to the A.R.C -- so I don't know

10:17:10 if you're meaning to take out the word "not" out of

10:17:13 that?

10:17:14 >>MARY MULHERN: I was.

10:17:15 But then, I got other advice.

10:17:19 Was it Chip or someone who said?

10:17:24 >> If your motion is to remove the word "not" that

10:17:27 would be the motion on the floor.

10:17:29 >>MARY MULHERN: Just remove the word "not."

10:17:33 >>THOMAS SCOTT: It is clear, Council?

10:17:36 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: You have no legal problem with this

10:17:38 at all?




10:17:39 >> With changing the motion?

10:17:40 >> Right.

10:17:45 >> A motion to amend -- I'll wait to hear from

10:17:50 Mr. Fletcher but let me state out front.

10:17:53 My position is that Council's rules and Council's

10:17:56 custom is always to have the motion that was on the

10:17:58 floor be brought back in its state that it was.

10:18:00 Rather than entertain new motions, because that would

10:18:03 open up a door that you don't want to have opened.

10:18:06 To allow any motion to be made to come back on a four

10:18:10 seat.

10:18:11 >> Why are we doing it?

10:18:13 >>THOMAS SCOTT: But here's the question.

10:18:14 We have a special call meeting to vote for the motion

10:18:17 that was put on the floor.

10:18:19 The person who made the motion said that motion is not

10:18:21 what I intended to make.

10:18:23 Now, if you want to go back to the original motion,

10:18:25 that's all we're here to vote on.

10:18:27 That's it.

10:18:28 According to those rules that you just read.

10:18:33 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If after seeing it in writing, there's




10:18:35 something in the writing that the maker of the motion

10:18:37 feels is incorrect, I believe it would be appropriate

10:18:39 to make a motion to amend rather than a new motion.

10:18:41 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I agree with that.

10:18:44 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I remove my second because on

10:18:46 careful reading the not and the no cancel each other

10:18:49 out and I think, what is on our agenda reflects the

10:18:53 original intent of miss Mulhern who made the original

10:18:55 motion.

10:18:56 >>MARY MULHERN: Let me take my time and read this.

10:18:58 Because you and John both said -- that's correct.

10:19:01 We can go back to just voting.

10:19:03 (pause).

10:19:17 >> Can I get an opinion from one of you lawyers,

10:19:21 whether we got a double negative, so that...

10:19:40 >>THOMAS SCOTT: See, I'm not comfortable with that

10:19:46 because I think the issue is is intent.

10:19:49 You can talk about double negatives all day.

10:19:52 But the idea is intent.

10:19:54 >> Mr. Chairman, we're here to vote --

10:19:58 >>MARY MULHERN: I'm waiting for legal.

10:20:00 >> Sorry.




10:20:00 >> If I may, Chip Fletcher, city attorney.

10:20:03 I'm comfortable with the motion as written, as I

10:20:08 clarified earlier, the A.R.C. did not find that there

10:20:11 was, that the property was not within the overlay.

10:20:14 And I think that the motion is consistent with that.

10:20:18 So, I think we're fine going forward.

10:20:21 It is Council's essential belief that, based within

10:20:25 that motion, that there is a portion within, of the

10:20:29 property within the overlay district and therefore, the

10:20:32 rest of the items in that motion follow.

10:20:34 So I think that that, that is appropriate and that

10:20:38 works.

10:20:38 And the clear intent of the motion to uphold the

10:20:41 appeal.

10:20:43 >>THOMAS SCOTT: No Mr. Fletcher, she wants to overturn

10:20:46 it --

10:20:47 >>MARY MULHERN: No, uphold the appeal.

10:20:49 >> She wants to overturn the decision of the A.R.C. and

10:20:52 grant the appeal.

10:20:53 Grant the appeal.

10:20:59 >>MARY MULHERN: I still have a problem, because I feel

10:21:02 like this is factually not correct.




10:21:06 No competent substantial evidence presented showing

10:21:17 that the parcel, at least one-third minimum of the

10:21:20 parcel did not fall within the south overlay district.

10:21:26 That is not what I meant to say.

10:21:28 I don't think -- I mean, come on, Chip.

10:21:34 The point is, if there was no substantial evidence that

10:21:38 at least part of the parcel was within the overlay

10:21:46 district, then that is going to matter whether the

10:21:52 application of the overlay district standards are

10:21:54 applied when this moves on.

10:21:57 Right?

10:21:58 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: The standard that you're looking at

10:22:00 was whether there was competent substantial evidence in

10:22:03 the record that was made below in the proceeding before

10:22:05 the A.R.C.

10:22:06 What your motion says is there was not competent

10:22:10 substantial evidence that the property was not within

10:22:13 the overlay district.

10:22:14 And that is correct.

10:22:16 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay.

10:22:16 That's fine.

10:22:21 If we would like to proceed as, seems like you're




10:22:27 suggesting that we vote I make the motion, or we vote

10:22:31 on the motion exactly as it was made, second.

10:22:38 >> And if I can, Council, just a reminder for the

10:22:41 record, that if you have had any ex parte

10:22:43 communications, that you please disclose that prior to

10:22:46 the vote.

10:22:46 That being said --

10:22:48 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Wait, somebody is raising their

10:22:50 hand.

10:22:50 >> So we are going to vote on the motion that went 3-1

10:22:53 at the last meeting.

10:22:55 >> Yes, sir,.

10:22:57 >>THOMAS SCOTT: There's a motion made again by

10:22:59 Councilwoman Mulhern, seconded by Councilwoman

10:23:02 Saul-Sena.

10:23:03 Okay.

10:23:03 >> And motion I'd like to read something into the

10:23:06 record.

10:23:08 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We had to take up the motion first, is

10:23:10 that right?

10:23:14 >> He's not making a motion.

10:23:15 The motion's already made.




10:23:18 >> What he wants to speak to the motion.

10:23:19 >> What he wants to do, he was not present during the

10:23:22 time of the deliberation on the motion.

10:23:24 He wishes to speak to the motion before he votes.

10:23:26 You have done that.

10:23:30 >> Okay.

10:23:32 >> Let me pass these down.

10:23:34 >> No, said we can't do that.

10:23:38 >>GWEN MILLER: Just read it. >>JOSEPH CAETANO: With

10:23:40 respect to the pending matter of appeal hearing

10:23:43 challenge to the zoning administrator's determination

10:23:45 and letter of interpretation, as well as the decision

10:23:48 of the architectural review commission, I would like to

10:23:50 state the following for the record.

10:23:52 I have reviewed the tapes and related material

10:23:55 regarding this matter.

10:23:56 One, our code says the authority to interpret and make

10:24:01 determinations regarding chapter 27 is given to the

10:24:04 zoning administrator.

10:24:05 Number two, the South Howard overlay district, which is

10:24:10 chapter 27-461 according to all provisions establishing

10:24:14 the district, clearly identify -- identified as the




10:24:18 businesses that front on Howard, South Howard.

10:24:21 Number three, all of the regulations cited in the

10:24:24 district relate to South Howard avenue.

10:24:26 Number four.

10:24:27 The rear properties that are part of South Howard

10:24:31 district are just that.

10:24:33 Rear properties.

10:24:34 According to the zoning -- that's number five.

10:24:37 According to the zoning administrator's, the properties

10:24:40 that front on South Howard are the focus and subject of

10:24:43 the overlay provisions.

10:24:45 Number 6.

10:24:46 The zoning administrator specifically reviewed and

10:24:50 approved the proposed development and found it

10:24:53 inconsistent with the applicable city code.

10:24:57 Tampa codes.

10:24:58 In the finding, the zoning administrator cited the

10:25:02 intent of the South Howard overlay district as follows.

10:25:05 The South Howard commercial overlay district is

10:25:09 primarily composed of relatively small buildings with

10:25:13 an electric -- eclectic, which are located in close

10:25:18 proximity to one another, orientated towards the street




10:25:22 and constructed on individual developed properties.

10:25:25 In general, parking which serves the commercial uses

10:25:30 for the area is located to the side or rear of the

10:25:32 buildings.

10:25:33 Number 8.

10:25:34 The development regulations are all, are also included,

10:25:43 cite, South Howard as controlling purpose.

10:25:45 Number 9, zoning administrator found although the

10:25:48 property is in the district, is not governed by the

10:25:53 principal development guidelines. It is out side the

10:25:56 general idea and purpose of the district.

10:25:58 Number ten, in conclusion I have found that based upon

10:26:00 zoning administrator's findings, and the architectural

10:26:03 review commission's upholding of that finding as well

10:26:07 as all of the evidences submitted and reviewed and I

10:26:11 agree with the zoning administrator, and the

10:26:14 architectural review committee -- commission.

10:26:19 Excuse me.

10:26:20 In consideration of all, I will be supporting the

10:26:22 zoning administrator and the A.R.C. and not supporting

10:26:25 the challenge.

10:26:26 The city has applied fair and reasonable consideration




10:26:29 to this matter.

10:26:31 We have debated the issue over and over in one form or

10:26:35 another.

10:26:35 It is time to put this to rest and move on.

10:26:38 I will be opposing the appeal.

10:26:43 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.

10:26:43 With all due respect, Mr. Caetano, that was a very

10:26:47 thorough and professional statement.

10:26:51 Did you -- did the zoning staff help you write it?

10:26:55 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: No.

10:26:57 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: You wrote that all by yourself?

10:26:59 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: I don't think --

10:27:01 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I was just asking.

10:27:02 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: I don't think I need to be quizzed

10:27:04 on how I read this or who wrote it.

10:27:06 I wrote it.

10:27:09 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay, there's a motion on the floor.

10:27:11 All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.

10:27:13 Opposes?

10:27:16 Nay.

10:27:17 >> Caetano, Miller, Scott and Miranda voting no.

10:27:23 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any other?




10:27:24 Yes?

10:27:27 >> Council, according to the charter, a vote and

10:27:35 finality requires a vote of 4 to take action.

10:27:39 So another motion would be appropriate at this time.

10:27:42 >> He wrote it.

10:27:45 Let him read it.

10:27:47 [ Laughter ]

10:27:49 >> May I inquire, Mr. Caetano?

10:27:52 Mr. Caetano, do you wish to make a motion to deny the

10:27:56 appeal and uphold the A.R.C.'s decision and that of the

10:28:00 zoning administrator, based on what you have submitted

10:28:02 into the record?

10:28:04 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Yes.

10:28:05 >>THOMAS SCOTT: A second to that?

10:28:07 >> Second.

10:28:08 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Motion by Councilman Caetano and

10:28:13 evidence that's been read or the motion that's been

10:28:15 read I guess that would be the motion, second by

10:28:17 Councilman Miranda.

10:28:20 All in favor signify by saying aye.

10:28:22 Opposes?

10:28:23 Nay.




10:28:24 >> Saul-Sena, Mulhern and Dingfelder voting no.

10:28:29 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Council, anything else?

10:28:32 >> If there's anything to receive and file other than

10:28:35 this.

10:28:38 >> If I may, just so we're clear on the record.

10:28:41 The no votes were read.

10:28:43 But there were four votes affirmative votes, is that

10:28:45 correct?

10:28:46 >> Yes.

10:28:49 >> There were four votes supporting the motion made by

10:28:53 Councilman Caetano.

10:28:54 And there were three no votes.

10:28:56 As outlined by the clerk.

10:28:58 >> Thank you.

10:29:00 >> For the record, since this is going to -- can we ask

10:29:02 for a roll call vote by hand or something?

10:29:05 This is going to continue and the taxpayers are the

10:29:08 ones that are the losers.

10:29:09 We have let this thing get too far,.

10:29:12 It's been going on since 2003.

10:29:14 It is now a long time ago.

10:29:16 Seven years later, and this thing is still going on.




10:29:20 And you know, this is not about zoning.

10:29:22 I'm going to tell you all right to your face.

10:29:24 This is about view.

10:29:25 Zoning has secondary measures to this.

10:29:28 And if you all would have won, the building would have

10:29:31 been ten feet from Bayshore and 40-foot higher.

10:29:34 You would have had less of a view.

10:29:36 That's just me.

10:29:37 I like to ask for roll call vote.

10:29:40 >> Roll call.

10:29:43 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Yes.

10:29:45 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No.

10:29:46 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.

10:29:48 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Yes.

10:29:49 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Yes.

10:29:50 >>MARY MULHERN: No.

10:29:52 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: No.

10:29:54 >> Motion carried with Caetano, Mulhern and Dingfelder

10:29:57 voting no --

10:29:59 >> No, let's get the record clear.

10:30:00 Was not Caetano voting No.

10:30:04 >> Excuse me.




10:30:04 Saul-Sena, Mulhern and Dingfelder voting No.

10:30:08 >> Mr. Chairman, finally this is a special called

10:30:11 meeting.

10:30:11 There is no opportunity to take up new business.

10:30:13 So nothing else would be in order at this time.

10:30:17 >> May I be heard please, briefly?

10:30:19 >> No, carried motion.

10:30:21 >> Motion to receive and file.

10:30:22 >> Second.

10:30:23 >> All in favor signify by saying aye.

10:30:27 Mr. Fletcher, you want to speak?

10:30:29 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: No, sir.

10:30:29 I have nothing more to add.

10:30:34 >> We have to hear from Council.

10:30:37 What is your recommendation, counsel?

10:30:39 >> If he just wants to proffer something, I think

10:30:43 that's right.

10:30:44 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We need to hear from legal -- from the

10:30:47 city attorney and City Council attorney.

10:30:50 >> He can -- if there's something that -- you could

10:30:54 counsel with him or confer with him, if there's

10:30:56 something he wishes to proffer, I certainly don't




10:30:59 believe at this point in time, the record being closed,

10:31:01 the matter being decided and Council losing

10:31:04 jurisdiction, there's anything appropriate at this

10:31:06 point in time that would do anything else other than

10:31:08 taint the record.

10:31:10 >> My view as well.

10:31:12 >> Adjourn the meeting then.

10:31:15 >> Mr. Fletcher, that is your opinion as well?

10:31:17 >> Yes.

10:31:18 It is the pleasure of Council.

10:31:20 Council can do as it wishes.

10:31:21 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Then we stand adjourned.

10:31:23 Thank you.



10:31:23



DISCLAIMER:

The preceding represents an unedited version of
realtime captioning which should neither be relied upon
for complete accuracy nor used as a verbatim
transcript.
The original of this file was produced in all capital
letters and any variation thereto may be a result of
third party edits and software compatibility issues.
Any person who needs a verbatim transcript of the
proceedings may need to hire a court reporter.