|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
|
NOVEMBER 18, 1997 7:00 PM Present were: Mayor Dave Hood, Commissioners Jeffrey J. Boyle, David Schecter, Ed Kelley, Carl G. Persis, City Manager Eugene Miller, City Attorney Fred S. Disselkoen, and Loretta Moisio, Support Services Coordinator. A G E N D A
Item #1 - Call to Order Mayor Hood called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. Item #2 - Invocation The invocation was given by Reverend Clarence Drake, Alliance Community Church. Item #3 - Pledge of Allegiance Mayor Hood led in the Pledge of Allegiance. Item #4 - Approval of Minutes Mayor Hood advised the minutes of the October 28, 1997, and November 4, 1997, meetings have been sent to the Commissioners for review and asked if there were any corrections, additions, or omissions. Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Persis, to approve the minutes as submitted.
Item #5 - Audience Remarks Accusations Against Commissioner Boyle Mr. Glenn R. Sweeney, AICP, Grants Coordinator, made accusations of harassment and political persecution by Commissioner Boyle. He referenced a memo presented to Mr. Eugene Miller, City Manager, and his reply to that memo. Mr. Sweeney stated his only reason for bringing this to the attention of the Commission was to resolve the problem and to work together to improve the community. Mr. Miller stated he chose to select an unbiased outside person to conduct the interviews and prepare the report rather than a member of staff. Commissioner Boyle stated that he has had no communication with Mr. Sweeney for the past eighteen (18) months. He stated he simply filed a report with the City Manager regarding Mr. Sweeney’s actions over the past eighteen (18) month period and that the report is now in the hands of the City Manager to take whatever appropriate action is necessary. He stated he fails to see his action as harassment. He stated it is simply a determination to be made by the City Manager as to whether Mr. Sweeney’s actions were within his rights or not. Mayor Hood suggested placing this item on a City Commission agenda when the reports are completed. Mr. Sweeney stated this was not necessary, and that he just wanted to make his complaints public. Mayor Hood suggested that when the report is completed, the City Manager, Mr. Sweeney and Commissioner Boyle attempt to resolve this issue, and if it cannot be resolved, then it may be requested to be placed on the agenda. Mr. Sweeney stated that what he did was relatively minor compared to the firefighters’ actions. Commissioner Kelley requested an investigation into the activities of certain employees, especially firefighters, during the last election. He stated if a written request was necessary, he would supply a written request to prompt an investigation. Commissioner Schecter stated that he certainly wishes to protect the rights of the employees and that the law has found on many occasions that they do have the right, when their shift is over, to participate in activities which they deem important as members of their community. He further stated that he believes what Commissioner Boyle has done is a perfect reaction from a Commissioner to simply ask the City Manager to deal with something that an employee has done. He felt that Commissioner Boyle’s actions were justified. He stated he is looking forward to hearing from the City Manager on this issue. Commissioner Boyle stated he perused the reply to his October 6th memo, which he just received and Mr. Sweeney has made an offer to sit down and try to mediate. He stated he has no intention of doing so because it is not a question of disagreement between two (2) parties, but the issue more correctly is whether or not Mr. Sweeney went beyond the bounds of his rights and infringed upon Commissioner Boyle’s. He stated, for the record, that his memo references the times as 9:30 A.M., 12:45 P.M. and 2:30 P.M., which are all during the work day. Mayor Hood suggested that when the report is received, if these matters cannot be resolved between the City Manager, Mr. Sweeney and Commissioner Boyle, the issue can be placed on a future agenda. VinYard Building Muriel Nicastro, 6 Mimosa Trail, asked the disposition on the shell of a building on Granada Boulevard which has the VinYard sign on it. Mr. Clay Ervin, Planning Director, stated the VinYard’s contractor will be upgrading the appearance of the building. Mr. Ervin explained that there have been some problems with their contractors and the City has taken proper Code Enforcement action. He stated the VinYard is under a mandate to get certain things done. He stated the Site Plan Review Committee will be reviewing the proposed changes to the exterior this Thursday, November 20th. Mr. Ervin stated the proposed changes will probably be approved and a permit issued allowing work to begin within thirty (30) days. Ames House Mr. Tony James, 143 Myra Boulevard, stated approximately one (1) year ago the Historic Trust approached the City Commission to rent the Ames House. He stated that the building has been vacant for a long time and he is concerned about its deterioration. Mayor Hood stated the Art Museum of Ormond Beach is speaking with the City regarding the use of the Ames House in various ways. He stated some conclusion should be reached within the next thirty (30) to sixty (60) days. Access to US#1 South From Hernandez North to Melrose Mr. Ed Brownlee, 620 Andrews Street, asked what is being done regarding the cut off of access to US#1 South from Hernandez North to Melrose. He stated there is a traffic light with no turn arrow at Wilmette Avenue and Kenilworth Avenue is right turn only leaving only one way to turn south onto US#1 which is off of North Yonge Street. Mayor Hood stated the Department of Transportation (DOT) has total jurisdiction. He stated the City has tried unsuccessfully to get DOT to change their opinion, but recommends Mr. Brownlee to contact Nancy Houston at DOT. Item #6 - Consent Agenda Mayor Hood advised that the action proposed to be taken for each item on the Consent Agenda is so stated on the agenda. He asked if any member of the Commission had questions or wished to discuss any one or more of the items separately. Commissioner Boyle asked Item 6(B) be discussed separately. Commissioner Persis asked Item 6(G) be discussed separately. Commissioner Kelley moved, seconded by Commissioner Schecter, for approval of the Consent Agenda minus Items 6(B) and 6 (G).
Item 6(B) 1998 Legislative Policy Statement RESOLUTION NO. 97-214
Commissioner Kelley moved, seconded by Commissioner Persis, for approval of Resolution 97-214, as read by title only. Commissioner Boyle stated his only concern is item number 21 which relates to legislation for an amendment to Florida Statutes on the Firefighters Presumption Bill. He stated this would deny Workers’ Compensation to firefighters who suffer heart attacks off-duty. He stated that the opinion of the Attorney General from 1973 was cited and he does not advocate recommending amendments to a law that has been in place for nearly three (3) decades. Commissioner Boyle stated that firefighters face special respiratory and cardiovascular risks as part of their job, which was the intent of the law when it was put in place. Commissioner Schecter stated he is agreement with Commissioner Boyle and stated that although each year this Commission has had differing opinions on this issue, and the amendment was included in the City’s recommendation last year, the legislature didn’t agree to change this provision. He stated his support in leaving this portion out of the policy statement. Mayor Hood stated his opposition to omitting this provision and explained that under the Workers’ Compensation Law, any employee who has a heart attack that can be causally related to their industrial accident or to their work will receive Workers’ Compensation benefits. He advised the difference is that the firefighters have a presumption which states if they have hypertension or a heart attack it is refutably presumed that it is related to their work even if they are at home and smoke cigarettes. He stated this law treats firefighters different from any other employee in the State of Florida. Mayor Hood stated the additional financial exposure that this creates for the City is substantial and if the Legislature treats one class of employee different from another, the Legislature should fund it. He stated that when this law was initially passed, the intent was to make sure that on-duty, not off-duty, heart attacks were paid. Commissioner Kelley expressed his agreement with Mayor Hood. Commissioner Persis stated that there are many causes for off-duty heart attacks, and he doesn’t agree they are all job related and this law treats firefighters different from any other employee.
Item 6(G) 1998 Legislative Policy Statement RESOLUTION NO. 97-219
Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Kelley, for approval of Resolution 97-219, as read by title only. Commissioner Persis asked how the sidewalk situation on Hammock Lane relates to this Resolution. Ms. Judy Grim, City Engineer, stated that included in the drainage project is a sidewalk to be constructed from Orchard Street to connect to Central Park on the south side.
Item #7(A) - Hunter’s Ridge Mr. Clay Ervin, Planning Director, stated staff recommends approval of the proposed changes. He advised that in a letter from the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) dated November 17, 1997, DCA requested two (2) comments read into the public record: 1) the final amended Development Order will be corrected per the comments of Shannon Collins, Staff Planner; 2) the development conditions associated with each phase of the project as specified in the Development Order will still apply to the subject parcels based on the amended development plans. Mr. Ervin stated staff and the developer have no objections to those comments. Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Kelley, to close the public hearing on Item #7(A). The motion carried unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 97-221
Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Kelley, for approval of Resolution No. 97-221, as read by title only.
Item 7(B) - Lost or Abandoned Property Commissioner Kelley moved, seconded by Commissioner Schecter, to close the public hearing on Item #7(B). The motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 97 - 68
Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Kelley, for approval of Ordinance No. 97-68, on second reading, as read by title only.
Item #7(C) - Priority of City Liens Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Kelley, to close the public hearing on Item #7(C). The motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 97 - 69
Commissioner Kelley moved, seconded by Commissioner Schecter, for approval of Ordinance No. 97-69, on second reading, as read by title only.
Item #7(D) - Calling for a Special Primary Election in Zone 2 Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, to close the public hearing on Item #7(D). The motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 97 - 70
Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Kelley, for approval of Ordinance No. 97-70, on second reading, as read by title only.
Item #8(A) - Forest Quest ORDINANCE NO. 97 - 71
Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Kelley, for approval of Ordinance No. 97-71 on first reading, as read by title only. Commissioner Persis asked Mr. Ervin if there is a plan to construct another access road off SR40 into Hunter’s Ridge. Mr. Ervin stated that Airport Road would continue on into Flagler County and hook up with the main entrance to Hunter’s Ridge which would be the primary access point.
Item #8(B) - Priority of City Liens ORDINANCE NO. 97 - 72
Ordinance No. 97-72 failed for lack of a motion. Item #9(A) - Consent Order for SW 1-95 Partnership Violations Commissioner Boyle expressed his appreciation to staff in preparing the reports as well as the work done by Mr. Bill Butler, Landscape Architect, in attempting to calculate the number of trees that were removed. He stated that the City has taken every action in its power in that the Consent Order has already been signed and approved by the Code Enforcement Board. Commissioner Boyle advised that the only reason he brought up this issue is to prevent future occurrences such as this. He stated enforcement is not timely when it takes ten (10) months from the time the violation occurs to the signing of the Consent Order, pointing out the entire process took almost an entire year. He stated the City has a very fine Code Enforcement Board who is able to achieve solutions without "hammering" the citizens or developers. Commissioner Boyle also pointed out that the current Land Development Code has no "teeth" in rules which will prevent future violations or business decisions by developers to accept the City’s minimum penalties for actions that they consider necessary to their development. He stated that in this case, mitigation calculates out to one tree for every 240 square feet of a very dense cypress forest. Commissioner Boyle recommended that in the Commission’s 1998 Goal Setting Workshop the Commission review this to recommend possible action to an appropriate group. Commissioner Kelley stated that had the City reacted as quickly as those who condemned the action, the real facts may not have been available. He stated it was necessary to take the time to conduct a thorough investigation of the violation. Commissioner Kelley advised the maximum fines allowed by the State, not the minimum penalties, were assessed. He stated that some people made a sensation out of an unfortunate incident. He explained the violators offered to replant in another area on the development, because the area that was violated is slated for future development. Therefore, he stated had they placed the trees back in the area where the road was cut, which was in the original Consent Order, they would have only had to take them down again. He stated this shows the good faith on the part of the developer. Commissioner Kelley stated the Commission has an accurate picture of what was done, a realistic assessment of the damage, and an adequate penalty. Commissioner Boyle stated that if the City had a code in place that provided for an immediate and automatic penalty, this matter would not have been sensationalized or drug out over a year. Instead, it would have been dealt with neatly and fairly without any negative publicity to anyone. Mayor Hood stated he agrees that violations should be handled in a quick, prompt and definitive manner, but in this particular case there were gross misstatements of fact by people at the City Commission meeting that were then propagated by the News-Journal printing an article which outlined these misstatements of fact. Item #9(B) - Incident at 172 Fairway Drive Commissioner Schecter requested the crime statistics by zone report be presented to the City Commission semi-annually. Mayor Hood asked Mr. Miller to have this report available as requested by Commissioner Schecter. Commissioner Boyle stated agreement with Commissioner Schecter on the need to see this report. He stated the real question was whether police protection in Ormond Beach was adequate at present. He pointed out that Ormond Beach has a very significant visitor population, which swells the total population of people that the law enforcement officers are responsible for and he would like to see this factored into the report. Commissioner Kelley stated Ormond Beach is very fortunate it does not have a tremendous crime problem. He stated there was a decrease in crime from 1996 to 1997 of 24.3%. Item #9(C) - Pier/Dock Maintenance at Fortunato Park Commissioner Boyle stated he favors extending water to the pier, but there still remains the question of whether the pier is a fishing pier or pedestrian pier. He stated it now is functioning as both which creates problems. Commissioner Boyle expressed his desire that the water will be used to keep the area clean so the pedestrians can also enjoy the pier. He stated dogs are an increasing problem at Fortunato Park as well. Commissioner Kelley stated he also recognizes this problem at the pier and was told there is nothing that can be done to prevent fishing since it is under State jurisdiction. He stated all citizens should be good neighbors which would solve this problem. Item #9(D) - Unruly Children on Bikepath at Domicilio Avenue and Northbrook Drive Commissioner Boyle asked who was contacted at the Ormond Beach Middle School. Commander Longfellow stated one of the Ormond Beach Sector Officers contacted both an assistant principal and the school resource officer assigned by the Volusia County Sheriff’s office. Commissioner Boyle stated he has talked to a few residents recently and explained the recommendations outlined in the memo. He stated the residents are very grateful and praiseworthy of the Ormond Beach police who have been consistent and prompt in answering their calls on this problem. He offered no 100% solution is possible, but hopefully the City is on the right track. Commissioner Boyle recommended revisiting this issue and asked Commander Longfellow to report back in sixty (60) days. Commissioner Persis stated over 1,600 children attend Ormond Beach Middle School and only a few are causing the problems. Item #9(E-1) - Removal of Historic Tree Rehearing Request Mayor Hood asked Dr. David Yoon to make his request and the basis for it. Dr. David Yoon, 414 Main Trail, requested a rehearing. Mr. Fred S. Disselkoen, Jr., City Attorney, stated that since this is a quasi-judicial function, any member of the Commission could make the motion to grant the rehearing. Commissioner Kelley moved, seconded by Commissioner Persis, to grant a rehearing of denial of removal of a historic tree on property owned by Drs. Yoon.
Item #9(E-2) - Application to Remove a Historic Tree Dr. David Yoon expressed his appreciation for being able to speak to the Commission. He stated that at the prior meeting both sides were heard from regarding the tree at 497 Beach Street. He stated that the tree is 37 inches in diameter and the City Ordinance specifies anything over 36 inches is designated a historic tree. Dr. Yoon stated that this would not have been a big issue when he purchased the property one and one-half (1½) years ago since it would have been a borderline case. He stated the tree is only designated historical by virtue of its size and age, but has no historical significance. Dr. Yoon advised that the fact has been established that the tree is large and this is why this tree cannot exist in its original place due to safety concerns of his family and neighbors and the fact that it leans toward the house. He stated the most important issue was not raised at the previous meeting and that is the safety of the occupants of the house. Dr. Yoon stated that as things get older, they do not get stronger; therefore, if there were a storm, it could push the old tree into the house. He stated that according to the International Society of Arborists, the standard root pruning process, as suggested in the previous meeting, would severely stress the strength of this tree giving the tree less than a 50/50 chance of survivability. He stated a pool is proposed for within 15 feet of the tree which would mandate pruning two (2) sides of the tree and would also diminish the probable survivability to less than 35%. He stated educated guesses and conjecture must be relied on about the strength of this tree. Dr. Yoon stated to allow this tree to stay is placing the life of the tree against the lives of human beings since no one can insure the tree will not fall onto the house. He stated no one has any enjoyment out of this tree, and it is only a liability. He stated there are at least a dozen other hardwood trees on the lot including a significantly larger and older oak tree in the front of the lot. Dr. Yoon stated that the minimal mitigation requirement is to place eight (8) trees four and one-half (4½ ) inches in diameter, but he offered to plant sixteen (16) trees instead. He stated most will not fit on the property because of the number of existing trees; however, he is willing to place these trees anywhere the City Commission deems fit. He stated that it has taken one and one-half years (1½ ) years to plan this house and the plans cannot be changed based on one tree. Commissioner Schecter stated he sympathizes with Dr. Yoon, but he wants to explain why he voted to not rehear this issue as well as to remind the Commission of its noble vote two (2) meetings ago to insure the house was built, but the tree stay. He stated the Yoons’ chose not to speak at the last meeting, they had hired an extremely competent attorney and architect who both did an excellent job in stating their case. Commissioner Schecter stated that Bill Butler always interprets the code fairly, objectively and with room for compromise. He stated by the vote two (2) weeks ago, the Commission was letting senior staff know that it trusted them to do their job and support of that professional opinion should be maintained. He stated that the house was purchased eighteen (18) months ago with the intention of demolishing the existing house and building a new one. And for the owner to now claim ignorance of the law regarding the tree he believes is unfair, that it is the responsibility of the party purchasing property to know the rules. He further stated that he is willing to rehear cases where there may have been misjudgment or where people have not had an opportunity to speak, but in this case, the Yoons’ chose not to speak. Commissioner Schecter urged the Commission to support the staff position. Commissioner Boyle stated that because the meetings have been fair and open and have always given its citizens an opportunity to speak, he had no problem in rehearing this issue. He stated that the memo of October 23rd indicates that the plans for the house need to be shifted only twenty-five (25) feet west to save the tree and it already has to be shifted fifteen (15) feet to comply with the setback code from the river. He stated this may mitigate some of the safety concerns Dr. Yoon has expressed. Commissioner Boyle stated Mr. Morris, Dr. Yoon’s counsel, asserted the following which are incorrect: the tree might be a water oak, the tree had oxidized roots, the tree is in poor health, the tree is nearing the end of its life span, the tree has no ecological value, and the tree has no aesthetic value since it cannot be seen from Beach Street. He stated this is a very healthy live oak tree that is more than a century old and can be saved if the house is move eight (8) paces to the left. He continued that the live oak has a life expectancy spanning centuries and does have priceless ecological value and that the tree is part of the tree line of the river. Commissioner Boyle agrees with Commissioner Schecter that the rules were in place for a long time and the feedback from the community has been overwhelming in support of the tree and the ordinance that protects it. He stated that if this application is granted to Dr. Yoon, the Commission opens the door to the removal of every historic tree in the City, rendering this point in the Land Development Code inconsequential. He stated the safety concerns can be addressed rather easily and he will vote to deny this application. Commissioner Kelley stated the ordinance stated historic trees shall not be removed without the approval of the City Commission, knowing there will be circumstances that might necessitate the removal of a historic tree and leaves it to the City Commission to have the power to determine if it can be removed. He stated he believes the safety issue is valid. He stated that the removal of one (1) tree with the replanting of the additional trees throughout the City will cause much more enjoyment and just as much benefit to the community in the future, and maybe longer than this tree could live. Commissioner Kelley supports Dr. Yoon’s request and does not feel the door would be open for future loss of historic trees. Commissioner Persis agrees with Commissioner Boyle regarding the City Commission’s willingness to rehear items. He stated the irony is that if Dr. Yoon had not done things the right way and took the tree down blaming it on the contractor, he would just have a small fine, but the tree would be gone and he could build the house the way he wanted. Commissioner Persis asked the City Attorney if the City would be liable if the tree is ordered to stay and it damages the house in a storm. Mr. Disselkoen stated that the person building the home would be liable because he is building within an unsafe distance of the tree; therefore, the City would not be liable. He also stated that there has been no expert testimony stating there is a safety hazard. Mayor Hood stated he walked the site and due to the angle of the tree, he believes it could be a safety hazard. He asked if Dr. Yoon has inquired if he can get insurance with the tree in place. Dr. Yoon stated that the insurance company is concerned that if the tree is pruned in any way, that damage liability could be waived and a wind damage storm could cost several thousands of dollars. Mayor Hood stated he has spoken to different people who have a different opinion than Mr. Butler’s. He stated that there could clearly be an argument for liability on behalf of the City, but there has never been a similar case in Ormond Beach. Dr. Yoon stated that the message the City Commission is sending to the rest of the community is that it is better to go ahead and tear trees down and get slapped on the wrist and pay your fines, because when good outstanding citizens do the right thing they get turned down. He stated that when the founding fathers and former Commissioners elected to rezone that area to residential, they did not expect there would be no flexibility to remove one (1) tree as opposed to human beings’ safety. He also stated that large corporations and City Hall itself has removed many trees, and it is unfair that one (1) individual is punished. RESOLUTION NO. 97-222
Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, for approval of Resolution No. 97-222, as read by title only.
Item #10- Reports, Suggestions, Requests The Battleship Property Commissioner Boyle asked staff to investigate the illegal removal of twenty-four (24) to twenty-eight (28) trees on the Battleship property on Ocean Shore Boulevard. He asked for a report in December as to what is being done on this property which has become an eyesore. Accolades for Commissioner Kelley Commissioner Boyle expressed his appreciation to Commissioner Kelley for his excellent service. He stated he has earned the respect and gratitude of this community. He stated it has been a privilege to work with Commissioner Kelley and to learn from him. Commissioner Schecter echoed Commissioner Boyle’s comments regarding Commissioner Kelley. He stated Commissioner Kelley always voted with conscience, did the homework on every issue, visited the constituents, and served with distinction on the Commission. Commissioner Kelley stated he has learned a lot while on the Commission and is looking forward to spending more time with his family. Commissioner Persis expressed his appreciation to Commissioner Kelley for his help in the past years and stated he respects Commissioner Kelley not only as a Commissioner, but as a supporter of public schools. Mr. Eugene Miller, City Manager, stated on behalf of staff and himself, wishes to extend his accolades to Commissioner Kelley. He stated he has always been clear in his communications and handled staff relations in a professional manner. Mr. Disselkoen stated he totally agrees with all that has previously been stated regarding Commissioner Kelley. Mayor Hood also echoed the accolades previously mentioned. He stated that Commissioner Kelley was always "straight up," told you exactly what he thought and was never afraid to tell you his opinion regardless of the political consequences. Mayor Hood stated Commissioner Kelley served with integrity, dignity and this community is better off because of his service. Board Appointments Commissioner Persis stated that depending on the Board the term of the office differs. He stated on some Boards, two (2) Commissioners can appoint someone on a rotating basis. Commissioner Persis stated that when he was elected two (2) years ago he appointed Nick Fedorovich to the Planning Board under the assumption he would serve the entire time Commissioner Persis held office, and then the Zone 3 Commissioner would appoint someone. Mr. Disselkoen stated that historically when the Commission held two (2) year terms, the appointment would alter every two (2) years when an appointment is shared by two (2) zones. He stated that although there is reason to believe Mr. Fedorovich would have a four (4) year term, historically appointments are for two (2) years. Mr. Disselkoen suggested allowing Mr. Fedorovich another year and then Commissioner Gillooly could appoint someone in 1999 for three (3) years, at which time it can go back to the original two (2) year term and he recommended putting these stipulations in the ordinance. Commissioner Boyle stated that he also has rotating appointments and it was explained very clearly by Ms. Maxwell, City Clerk, when he took office. This issue didn’t arise in his case since he intends to keep Commissioner Schecter’s appointment. Commissioner Persis asked the Commission to agree to Mr. Disselkoen’s suggestion. Commissioner Boyle and Commissioner Schecter stated they would discuss the matter, but not make any decisions at this meeting due to the Thompson Rule. Mr. Disselkoen asked for direction from the Commission for the organizational meeting to be held in two (2) weeks. Mr. Ervin stated a December 11th Planning Board meeting is scheduled where the new Planning Board members start their term and a Chairman and Vice-Chairman need be elected. Mr. Disselkoen stated the code states members of the Planning Board shall serve at the pleasure of the Commission, it provides for seven (7) members, one (1) appointed from each zone, one (1) at large, one (1) from Zones 1 and 2, and one (1) from Zones 3 and 4. He stated the code does not specify any further and when the terms were changed to four (4) years, the code was not amended. Commissioner Schecter stated he doesn’t see the rush to decide on this issue and this particular change over is appropriate and fair. He pointed out that it has been the normal routine, and has been understood by the majority of the Commission. He doesn’t think it would be fair to the new Commissioner to not have his appointment even for the December 11th Planning Board meeting. He stated the code should be clarified in the future, but in this case it would be inappropriate for this Commission to take any action tonight, but agreed to discuss it at a December or January meeting. Mr. Disselkoen stated that at the December 2nd meeting Commissioners Persis and Gillooly could nominate someone for Zone 3-4 and have a vote on those nominations. Mayor Hood asked if it could be voted on tonight based on a deemed emergency. Mr. Disselkoen concurred and stated it would take a four (4) to one (1) vote to declare it an emergency. Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Kelley, for an emergency vote to discuss shared zone Board appointments.
Mayor Hood stated the vote indicates that this is not deemed an emergency, so he asked it be placed on the next agenda. Mr. Disselkoen stated appointments to the Planning Board will be on the organizational meeting agenda. Election Date Change Mr. Disselkoen stated the Commission has the information on the proposed change in the election dates and if anyone has any questions to let him know. Item #11 - Close The Meeting The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 PM. |
|
|
