On the agenda

1. 0.aRoll Call▶ 0:00
2. 0.b

   Pledge of Allegiance

   Pledge of Allegiance recited.

   ▶ Jump to 0:45 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:00:45] Now stand for the pledge of flag, please. [00:00:49] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America [00:00:53] and to the republic for which it stands, [00:00:56] one nation, under God, indivisible, [00:00:59] with liberty and justice for all.

   This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.

3. 0.cApproval of Minutes: December 15, 2016▶ 1:06
4. 1

   Election of Officers: Chairperson and Vice Chairperson

   approved

   The Land Development Review Board elected its officers for the year. John Gray was nominated and elected Chairperson, and Don Cadle was nominated and elected Vice Chairperson, both by unanimous voice vote.

   • motion:Elect John Gray as Chairperson of the LDRB. (passed)
   • motion:Elect Don Cadle as Vice Chairperson of the LDRB. (passed)

   👤Don Cadle👤John Gray

   ▶ Jump to 1:38 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:01:38] First order of business is the election of chairperson [00:01:43] and vice chairperson. [00:01:48] Is that right? [00:01:49] That's correct. [00:01:49] OK. [00:01:52] Do we have any nominations for these offices? [00:01:57] Nominate John Gray for chairperson. [00:01:59] Second. [00:02:01] Any other nominations? [00:02:08] All in favor? [00:02:09] Aye. [00:02:10] Any opposed? [00:02:13] No. [00:02:14] For vice chairperson? [00:02:17] Recommend Don Cadle for vice. [00:02:19] Is there a second? [00:02:22] Second. [00:02:23] Motion made and seconded. [00:02:24] Any other nominations? [00:02:27] Being none, all in favor? [00:02:29] Aye. [00:02:30] Approved. [00:02:31] Thank you.

   This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.

5. 2

   Code Amendment COD2017-01 – Residential Exterior Maintenance

   approved

   Staff presented proposed code amendment COD2017-01 to address residential exterior maintenance, adding language to allow code officers to cite poorly maintained roofs, gutters, driveways, walkways, and other exterior surfaces. After discussion about specificity of language versus general standards, related public nuisance provisions, and treatment of plywood and broken windows, the LDRB recommended approval.

   Ord. Ordinance #2017-2106

   • motion:Motion to recommend approval of code amendment COD2017-01 regarding residential exterior maintenance. (passed)6–1

   🏢Wells Fargo Bank👤Chris Mettler👤Derek DeBuss👤Dr. Cato👤Lisa👤Liz Nichols👤Mr. Gray👤Mr. Masellas👤Mr. Perrillo👤Mr. Smallwood👤Ms. Michael👤Ms. Moran#COD2017-01#Chapter 15 public nuisance ordinance#minimum housing code

   ▶ Jump to 2:38 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:02:38] Our first case, code amendment COD 2017-01, [00:02:43] residential exterior maintenance. [00:02:48] Chris Mettler is going to present this today, [00:02:49] and I wanted to introduce you briefly to two code officers [00:02:54] we have available in case you have questions. [00:02:56] Liz Nichols is here. [00:02:58] She serves in the capacity of code enforcement officer. [00:03:00] Maybe you know her, maybe you don't. [00:03:04] We're very familiar with Liz. [00:03:06] And Derek DeBuss is the residential rental inspector, [00:03:09] and both of them can speak to any issues [00:03:12] you may have regarding maintenance. [00:03:14] Thank you. [00:03:15] Thanks. [00:03:17] They do a great job, by the way. [00:03:19] Yes, they do. [00:03:22] This is a proposed code amendment [00:03:23] addressing residential exterior maintenance. [00:03:27] The code enforcement officers and our residential rental [00:03:29] inspector have observed poorly maintained roofs, gutters, [00:03:33] driveways, walkways, and other exterior surfaces. [00:03:36] However, they find that the code doesn't provide language [00:03:39] that they need in order to cite residential property owners. [00:03:42] Of course, the city is interested in having [00:03:44] these properties maintained in order [00:03:45] to maintain property values, protect neighborhoods, [00:03:48] and prevent slum and blight conditions. [00:03:52] These are some examples of the problems [00:03:53] that they're encountering, such as excessive debris on roofs. [00:03:57] It could be the pine needles that [00:03:59] have been neglected for months, or it [00:04:00] could be branches or other debris, [00:04:03] gutters that are poorly maintained and no longer [00:04:05] functioning properly, driveways that [00:04:09] are filled with debris or stained, [00:04:12] walkways that are filled with debris or stained, [00:04:16] and exterior surfaces that may have mold and mildew [00:04:19] or other stains on them. [00:04:22] The staff has recommended some changes to the city's code, [00:04:27] specifically the housing code, to address [00:04:29] these issues of residential roofs, gutters, driveways, [00:04:32] walkways, and other exterior surfaces. [00:04:35] And we recommend that you recommend approval [00:04:37] of these changes to the code. [00:04:46] Any questions of staff about this? [00:04:49] I have one question. [00:04:53] This will address the things that we've [00:04:55] seen in those pictures. [00:04:58] What about a lot of things piled up in front yards [00:05:04] or in driveways, or things that are very unseemly sitting out [00:05:10] in people's front yards? [00:05:11] That should already be addressed in the code. [00:05:14] And I believe the code enforcement officer [00:05:16] would indicate that she has the language that she needs thus [00:05:19] far in order to pursue those issues. [00:05:21] Yes, that's in the public nuisance ordinance. [00:05:25] That's in about site storage. [00:05:31] Would you please speak into the microphone and repeat that? [00:05:34] Sorry. [00:05:35] Yeah, that would be in the public nuisance ordinance [00:05:38] chapter 15. [00:05:39] It covers the collection of, and that properties [00:05:43] can't have a collection and storage of discarded furniture, [00:05:47] trash, debris, manufactured unused product, wood, [00:05:54] building materials, unless, of course, [00:05:56] the property has an active permit [00:05:59] and there's something going on. [00:06:00] But yeah, that was changed about a year ago [00:06:02] to include a lot of articles. [00:06:06] OK. [00:06:08] We don't have that where we could actually see the language, [00:06:10] do we? [00:06:11] Do you have that? [00:06:13] I don't have it with me. [00:06:14] So maybe at our next meeting, we could revisit that [00:06:17] so that we can just make sure that we [00:06:19] don't have any additional language that [00:06:21] needs to be added, because I definitely [00:06:23] think these are things that we need to address. [00:06:25] And far too long have we put off this kind of action. [00:06:31] So yes, I think that would be a great idea. [00:06:36] Ms. Nichols, maybe you can answer this, Liz. [00:06:40] How do we, as you know, there are certain areas [00:06:44] where we all of a sudden see couches, chairs, furniture, [00:06:49] recliners, everything you can think of, [00:06:51] beds piled up on the side of the road, [00:06:53] expecting the garbage collection people to pick it up, [00:06:56] which they don't do. [00:06:58] How do we, I know you, somehow or another, [00:07:02] get it taken care of, but do we have a provision [00:07:06] to charge the property owner for the time and everything [00:07:11] that it takes to do that? [00:07:12] If it's in the right of way, and there's [00:07:14] no way that I can assign that furniture or that debris [00:07:19] to an address, I call Public Works, [00:07:22] and Public Works comes over and removes it [00:07:25] if it's in the right of way. [00:07:26] If it's on the property, and it's not a vacant property, [00:07:31] then the property owner is responsible [00:07:33] if they don't respond to a notice of violation letter. [00:07:38] Chief and I had a deal with the property [00:07:41] the day before Thanksgiving, where it was an eviction, [00:07:45] and there was debris everywhere, including bullets, oil, [00:07:51] and we had the city remove it. [00:07:54] We fined Wells Fargo Bank, and the city [00:07:58] billed Wells Fargo, or that current property owner, [00:08:04] which was Wells Fargo, for the two and a half hours [00:08:07] it took for them to clean the property. [00:08:12] Does anyone else have any questions? [00:08:15] I have one of staff, I guess. [00:08:19] When I look at the section two of the actual ordinance, [00:08:27] and I look at some of the sections in there, to me, [00:08:31] it looks like we're going from very specific language [00:08:33] to more general language about the general maintenance. [00:08:38] For example, in section two, paragraph B, number one, [00:08:44] general maintenance. [00:08:47] In there, it says, it shall be maintained [00:08:51] in a good state of repair, and all surfaces [00:08:53] other than the roofs shall be maintained, [00:08:56] crossed out some specifics, and for the purposes [00:09:00] of preservation and good appearance. [00:09:03] Well, what is good appearance? [00:09:06] I remember sitting as a spectator in a council meeting [00:09:10] when the police department was asking for more specific rules [00:09:17] for enforcing the noise ordinances, [00:09:20] to have decibel measurements, and so forth. [00:09:23] And don't we need this talk about, [00:09:25] I had a neighbor who had a house, [00:09:28] he painted half of his gable end, [00:09:30] and it sat there for a year. [00:09:32] We have people who put window air conditionings [00:09:37] in their homes, and half the window is untreated plywood, [00:09:42] and it sits there for 10 years. [00:09:46] I think we need to have very specific language, [00:09:49] item by item, exactly what code enforcement is [00:09:54] going to check on and report upon. [00:09:57] Because if I'm a homeowner and I say, [00:10:01] I'm up against good appearance, what does that mean? [00:10:06] So I think it needs to be very specific. [00:10:08] We actually think that in that case, [00:10:10] we are more restrictive with striking through the language [00:10:13] that we're proposing. [00:10:14] In this case, we're saying that all roofs have [00:10:16] to be maintained, as opposed to saying all roofs have [00:10:19] to be kept painted or whitewashed. [00:10:22] That's kind of old fashioned language [00:10:23] that doesn't help the code enforcement officers. [00:10:25] But by saying all roofs have to be maintained, [00:10:28] then we feel like we have the tools we need in order [00:10:30] to address the problems. [00:10:31] What about the walls? [00:10:32] The walls are covered under the portion [00:10:34] that Mr. Mettler mentioned in terms of other maintenance. [00:10:38] And that's under all surfaces number two, B2, [00:10:43] maintenance of all surfaces. [00:10:45] So we think that the mold and mildew [00:10:47] that we saw in the photographs will [00:10:48] be covered under that section. [00:10:51] And we have gone through this with both the code officers [00:10:54] to make sure they're happy with the language. [00:10:56] It wasn't just planning staff that created the language. [00:10:59] You made sure they're satisfied with it. [00:11:01] And we actually went out and looked [00:11:02] at the sites that are problematic [00:11:04] and thought, what is the language [00:11:06] we need to put in place in order to deal with the problems [00:11:08] that we have? [00:11:10] Can I make a comment? [00:11:13] Not yet. [00:11:15] Mr. Chair, can I make a comment? [00:11:18] Yes, ma'am. [00:11:19] Well, having spent many years writing codes and things [00:11:25] like that, I understand what you're talking about, sir. [00:11:29] But then I saw it the way that Lisa just framed it. [00:11:34] It's like those words are old fashioned. [00:11:38] And yet I think the new language is broader [00:11:44] to allow the inspectors to identify things [00:11:48] that, you know, you mentioned one thing about the plywood. [00:11:54] But it would take so much to itemize every little cotton [00:11:59] picking thing, you know? [00:12:01] And so I'm kind of happy with the general language. [00:12:06] What do we do if somebody sticks a piece of unplanted plywood [00:12:11] up over a wall unit air conditioner? [00:12:13] And is that something that you can correct? [00:12:17] Yeah, the plywood is addressed in the minimum housing code [00:12:22] on structural elements. [00:12:25] And it talks about, well, windows and doors. [00:12:28] Plywood can only be up for three months. [00:12:31] But also the plywood has to be painted [00:12:34] the color of the primary, what the building is. [00:12:38] So you just can't have, you know, just wood up there. [00:12:40] If the building's white, it's got to be painted white [00:12:43] or gray or brown. [00:12:45] That was addressed. [00:12:46] But that's in the minimum housing code, which we also use. [00:12:50] This was under really, you know, the residential maintenance. [00:12:54] But we also use the minimum housing code on windows. [00:12:59] And that also covers broken windows, broken glass, [00:13:03] all that kind of stuff that we know we've [00:13:05] seen in certain neighborhoods. [00:13:08] Can I add as well that under structure, [00:13:13] plywood would not be allowed anyhow. [00:13:15] So that would simply be covered just under structure. [00:13:23] If someone has a broken window, and it's [00:13:25] vacant or in a foreclosure process, [00:13:28] we had put in the code for three months [00:13:31] that they can cover it till they make their arrangements. [00:13:34] But they have to make it somewhat aesthetically, [00:13:37] you know, blend into the building. [00:13:41] So another question. [00:13:43] Yes, sir. [00:13:43] Go ahead. [00:13:44] So would this use of the good condition, good appearance. [00:13:50] So let's say we have somebody who [00:13:53] paints part of their house red and part of it blue. [00:13:58] Would this cover that then? [00:13:59] Would this be? [00:14:00] I don't believe so. [00:14:01] Yeah. [00:14:03] Your deed restrictions might, and there [00:14:05] aren't many neighborhoods that have them, [00:14:06] but this would not cover the choice of color. [00:14:09] Only how, if it was painted properly. [00:14:12] Yeah. [00:14:12] I drove up and down my streets, which [00:14:14] is the side between Grand Boulevard and the river. [00:14:19] And I could see in four streets, 10 houses that [00:14:23] had either exposed plywood. [00:14:25] The wall was at least partially unpainted. [00:14:30] The paint job was not finished, or it [00:14:33] was multiple unseemly colors. [00:14:37] So how is this going to help us to address that? [00:14:42] I think you can probably deal with the plywood issue today. [00:14:45] The unseemly color issue would not be addressed by this. [00:14:49] This is not a design code, or an appearance code. [00:14:53] And again, if you have deed restrictions. [00:14:55] It's not a case of appearance. [00:14:56] The guy didn't finish his paint job. [00:14:58] I understand, right. [00:14:59] But you said. [00:15:00] That's the unseemly color. [00:15:01] So this is not an appearance code, so it wouldn't cover that. [00:15:03] But we would be able to cover the other things you mentioned. [00:15:06] And if the wood is, if it's bare wood, again, there's something else in the minimum housing code [00:15:12] that would cover that has to be treated. [00:15:14] So it would have to be painted with something or covered somehow. [00:15:20] Liz, is it typically three months to fix something? [00:15:25] Is that the typical time frame? [00:15:27] Not for owner-occupied, normally with some of our foreclosures and it's in that foreclosure limbo. [00:15:34] That's what's in there, three months. [00:15:38] Maybe Lisa, you can answer my question. [00:15:40] What is, or what will be the typical time frame to clear up any of these infractions? [00:15:49] Well, I guess it depends on a lot of things. [00:15:53] One of it is, is there voluntary compliance by the property owner? [00:16:00] If there's not, then code enforcement is going to be taking them through the code enforcement process. [00:16:03] But for most of these things, it's just a month or so to get some things submitted and permitted and approved. [00:16:11] Again, if there's not the willingness on behalf of the property owner to do so, it could take a lot longer. [00:16:17] Okay. [00:16:18] Thank you. [00:16:18] Anybody else have any questions? [00:16:26] What's your pleasure? [00:16:28] Move approval. [00:16:34] Being none, roll call vote. [00:16:40] Mr. Masellas? [00:16:41] Yes, to the motion. [00:16:42] Mr. Gray? [00:16:43] Yes, to the motion. [00:16:44] Mr. Smallwood? [00:16:45] Yes, to the motion. [00:16:46] Mr. Perrillo? [00:16:47] No, to the motion. [00:16:49] Ms. Michael? [00:16:50] Yes, to the motion. [00:16:51] Ms. Moran? [00:16:52] Yes, to the motion. [00:16:53] Dr. Cato? [00:16:54] Yes, to the motion. [00:16:56] Okay, motion's approved.

   This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.

6. 3

   ↳You arrived here from a search for “Mr. Gray” — transcript expanded below

   Cannabis Moratorium

   approved

   The Land Development Review Board considered a proposed one-year citywide moratorium on cannabis uses, intended to give the city time to study forthcoming state regulations following the November passage of Amendment 2 (medical marijuana). Staff explained the moratorium would run from the February 21, 2017 effective date through February 21, 2018, and could be repealed or extended at any time. The board recommended approval.

   Ord. Ordinance #2017-2104

   • motion:Recommend approval of a 12-month moratorium on cannabis uses citywide, effective February 21, 2017 through February 21, 2018. (passed)

   👤Dr. Cato👤Mr. Gray👤Mr. Masellas👤Mr. Perrillo👤Mr. Smallwood👤Ms. Michael👤Ms. Moran#2014 and 2016 medical marijuana acts#Amendment 2#Medical marijuana moratorium#Pasco County

   ▶ Jump to 17:00 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:17:00] Next item is cannabis moratorium. [00:17:07] The city is proposing a one-year moratorium on cannabis uses. [00:17:11] In November, the citizens of the state approved Amendment 2, which allowed for medical marijuana in the state. [00:17:18] And the state legislature and the Department of Health have six months to develop the regulations in order to allow for the medical marijuana. [00:17:28] The city is proposing this moratorium for a year in order to study the regulations that the state comes up with and to amend our regulations as necessary. [00:17:38] Previously, in 2014 and 2016, the state legislature has already approved medical marijuana in a much more limited fashion. [00:17:47] They've established that there are to be seven licenses issued across the state, and so far, six of the seven have been issued. [00:17:56] In regards to that, the city approved some regulations in March of 2016, which allows for cannabis uses in certain zoning districts following certain development standards. [00:18:11] Anyway, we feel that with the new Amendment 2 having been passed, it's prudent to wait and see what the state ultimately decides in terms of regulations and to revisit our local regulations once those state regulations have been established. [00:18:28] So we recommend that you recommend approval of this moratorium on cannabis uses. [00:18:36] Any questions? [00:18:38] I have a question. [00:18:38] So the current exists only in certain districts, so this proposal is for citywide, correct? [00:18:45] For city limit wide? [00:18:47] With this moratorium, we're asking for a moratorium on cannabis uses throughout the city. [00:18:54] The state could conceivably have approved a license for a cannabis use per the 2014 and 2016 acts, which it has not. [00:19:06] Had that been the case, then those uses would have been subject to certain development standards that we have in our code now. [00:19:12] And with this moratorium, no such uses would be allowed for a year while we study and understand what it is that the state has established in terms of regulations for medical marijuana. [00:19:23] I was going to say, so an existing pharmacy or something like that that's already in the city limits could not add this, you know, medical marijuana as part of their products that they could offer? [00:19:37] If the state had issued a license within the city per the 2014 and 2016 acts, then they would have had to follow the current regulations that we have regarding cannabis uses, which we classified as restrictive personal service uses. [00:19:55] However, that has not happened, and there is no such existing license issued in the city. [00:19:58] This would preclude any existing pharmacy or office from adding cannabis to their use list. [00:20:10] That was my question, yeah. [00:20:14] I guess I'm trying to understand, we've already got something on the books that allowed it if it was licensed appropriately, and we approved that. [00:20:23] And now we're saying that because the state has, you know, passed this law that we're going to restrict it in certain situations for a year. [00:20:34] And I don't understand, you know, the difference between those two situations, because we were going to allow it, and now you're asking us not to allow it. [00:20:44] We were going to allow it for the 2014 and 2016 acts, which was legalizing a much lighter strain of marijuana for specific medical marijuana uses, and now the state has passed a much broader law allowing for a much broader use of medical marijuana. [00:21:05] However, we don't know what those state regulations are going to be yet, and for that reason, we're recommending this moratorium. [00:21:12] Is it our thinking that it's not going to be as controlled as it was from a licensure standpoint? [00:21:19] In other words, that a non-medical person could open a shop? [00:21:24] Is that what your concern is? [00:21:26] I'm just trying to understand what the concerns are. [00:21:28] I don't think that's a concern. [00:21:29] I think the concern is that we simply don't know what those regulations are going to be from the state. [00:21:35] And so we don't have any idea what areas they wouldn't be allowed yet? [00:21:41] Correct. [00:21:43] And we want our regulations to be consistent with whatever the state puts together. [00:21:48] So we want to have this kind of waiting out period to see what they're going to do, and then we would react in kind. [00:21:54] If I could make a comment, is that okay? [00:21:56] Yes, ma'am. [00:21:58] I agree with the proposal, because why go to all the trouble of three hearings and this and that, and then we waste all that time, and then we have to go back and rescind something? [00:22:10] Makes more sense to just cleanly wait until they make up their minds in Tallahassee, and then we go whichever way we want to. [00:22:21] I guess my concern would be if they go ahead and pass the regulations in March, then for nine months, people who need medical marijuana would not be able to procure it in the city of New Port Richey. [00:22:32] That doesn't mean they can't go somewhere else. [00:22:34] Would you explain what you mean by March? [00:22:38] Well, if Tallahassee moves quickly on these regulations, and we're asking for a year's moratorium, then for nine months, we would not be able to act. [00:22:47] I think we can't. [00:22:48] I think I read something in here. [00:22:50] Correct me if I'm wrong, that we could. [00:22:54] Yeah, you can regulate the subject any time during the moratorium. [00:22:58] The moratorium is an outside date. [00:23:00] There you go. [00:23:01] Nothing prevents the city council from repealing or extending the moratorium if they so choose. [00:23:08] Yeah, thanks for bringing it up, because I know I read that. [00:23:13] The state has until, I think it's July 1st, to act on the regulations. [00:23:19] Is the city required, then, to allow this? [00:23:24] What if the city said, no, we don't want to have any in the city of New Port Richey? [00:23:27] Well, if we vote for a moratorium, then that's what they're going to say for six months. [00:23:31] No, I'm just saying period, permanently. [00:23:33] We don't want... [00:23:34] Again, that's not really the discussion for today, but that is a possibility. [00:23:38] And that's an issue that we're going to have to address. [00:23:42] And I think communities all over the state are addressing as to whether to allow it at all, [00:23:46] or allow it in limited fashion. [00:23:48] I am not currently aware of any legal reason you couldn't prohibit it entirely. [00:23:53] But that's not to say that it needs a little bit more study as well. [00:23:57] So I know, for instance, I've had conversations with the attorneys for PASCO. [00:24:02] And they are of the opinion, probably, that their board will not make a total ban [00:24:08] because they don't want to deal with the backlash that's related to that. [00:24:11] So there'll be political issues. [00:24:13] There will be legal issues. [00:24:14] There could be challenges. [00:24:15] So I think that's a little bit bigger discussion than you need to have today. [00:24:20] All we're really talking about today is approving the moratorium for 12 months from when? [00:24:25] Just putting a freeze in. [00:24:27] From the effective date of this ordinance, which would be February 21st. [00:24:31] So the moratorium, if passed, would extend through February 21st of 2018. [00:24:36] I have a question. [00:24:39] Yes. [00:24:40] Can you elaborate on why 12 months is needed? [00:24:44] I mean, what is a reasonable amount of time? [00:24:47] Does it have to be 12 months? [00:24:49] Or how much work is needed to do this? [00:24:53] We were thinking that if the state took until July 1st to determine their regulations, [00:24:58] we would need some time to review them. [00:25:00] And so we thought that six months beyond that was a reasonable time frame to get a handle [00:25:04] on as to how the regulations might affect us. [00:25:07] I would suggest to you that six months may not be enough time if they take all their time [00:25:13] because this is an entirely new subject matter [00:25:15] that local communities have never had to deal with before. [00:25:19] Or maybe never. [00:25:22] OK. All we're discussing today is we want to pass a recommend a 12-month moratorium on this, so. [00:25:38] Move to approve it. [00:25:40] Second. [00:25:41] Motion. [00:25:42] Made and seconded. [00:25:43] Any further discussion? [00:25:45] Hearing none, we have a roll call vote, please. [00:25:48] Dr. Cato? [00:25:49] Yes, to the motion. [00:25:50] Mr. Perrillo? [00:25:50] Yes, to the motion. [00:25:51] Ms. Moran? [00:25:52] Yes, to the motion. [00:25:54] Mr. Masellas? [00:25:55] Mr. Gray? [00:25:56] Yes, to the motion. [00:25:57] Ms. Michael? [00:25:58] Yes, to the motion. [00:25:58] Mr. Smallwood? [00:25:59] Yes, to the motion. [00:26:03] OK.

   This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.

7. 4

   Discussion of Ex Parte Communication

   discussed

   City Attorney Driscoll provided guidance to the LDRB on handling ex parte communications, advising members to decline to discuss pending cases if approached, direct interested parties to attend the meeting, and disclose any contacts on the record. He framed the board's proceedings as quasi-judicial and emphasized avoiding any presumption of prejudice.

   • direction:Board members should decline ex parte discussions, refer contacts to the meeting, and disclose any such communications to the clerk and on the record. (none)

   👤Driscoll#ex parte communication#quasi-judicial ordinance

   ▶ Jump to 26:15 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:26:15] OK. Discussion of ex parte communication. [00:26:20] Who's handling that? [00:26:22] Mr. Driscoll will be discussing this with you. [00:26:26] You're up. [00:26:27] You're up. [00:26:27] I'm up. Master. [00:26:30] Yes. [00:26:31] I guess the first question I would have for all of you probably is do you get very many of these requests? [00:26:37] Do you have property owners that are applicants before you or do you have neighbors [00:26:42] of applicants calling you at all hours of the night asking you what's going on [00:26:47] and telling you what you need to do? [00:26:49] Do you guys get much of that? [00:26:50] OK. [00:26:51] No, I've served on the board for many, many years. [00:26:54] If I've gotten any calls, I've gotten one in a 20-year period. [00:26:59] OK. Well, then that ends the discussion. [00:27:01] Thank you very much. [00:27:01] But I'm not the friendliest board member, maybe. [00:27:06] I don't know. [00:27:08] And they come up in casual conversations. [00:27:09] It should be that others get a lot more than I do. [00:27:11] I have a question. [00:27:14] OK. [00:27:14] So, a couple of times when we've had a case, I've gone out to look at the property and I try [00:27:21] to be as low profile as I can, but one time I had a guy come out to my car [00:27:26] and he asked me a few questions about it and it was the property owner. [00:27:29] So, am I getting into an area that I shouldn't be? [00:27:33] Yes, that's one of those communications I was just asking about. [00:27:36] So, you are the exception in 21 years. [00:27:39] That is the one time that I think it will come up a lot is potentially [00:27:46] as if you go out and visit sites. [00:27:48] Do you all do that very often at all? [00:27:50] Not often. [00:27:51] OK. [00:27:52] If I visit them, I don't get out of the car and I just drive by. [00:27:55] Yeah, that's what I did. [00:27:57] If he was coming after me. [00:27:59] I say, I'm not allowed to discuss it. [00:28:02] And that is really, that's my recommendation always on these things is [00:28:07] if you get approached, you get called, you tell them politely to come to the meeting. [00:28:12] Tell them when the meeting is. [00:28:14] I would love to hear more. [00:28:15] Come to the meeting. [00:28:16] You don't have to be rude to them, but just encourage them to come [00:28:19] to the meeting and present it to you here. [00:28:21] And I always tell elected officials and appointed officials like yourself [00:28:25] that make these decisions that you have to think of it in terms of if you're going [00:28:30] to court before a judge, these are quasi-judicial, almost judicial proceedings. [00:28:35] Would you be happy to find out that your judge had been talking [00:28:38] to your opponent the night before the hearing? [00:28:41] So, if you think of it in that perspective, you see how you have to be overly fair. [00:28:48] And so, I highly recommend you don't have those conversations. [00:28:52] If you get approached, you should tell the person that you can't discuss it. [00:28:58] If you, you probably also, I think in one of our ordinances, [00:29:03] our quasi-judicial ordinance, it's directed more to the city council [00:29:07] than it is to this board, but there's also a disclosure requirement [00:29:11] for even being contacted. [00:29:13] So, probably to be safe, you might want to notify the clerk [00:29:18] that you've got this contact, here's this person contacting, if you can identify them. [00:29:22] Maybe you can't even identify them. [00:29:23] Maybe it's just a neighbor and they never really formally introduced themselves. [00:29:27] But if you do get contacted, it's probably best that you at least alert us [00:29:31] to that fact so we can make it part of the record. [00:29:33] And at the meeting, you could, I would recommend, like in the case where you went [00:29:36] out there, the owner approached me, I politely told him I can't discuss it [00:29:41] and we ended up not discussing and I advised him to come to the meeting. [00:29:44] Put that all on the record so that we have a record of that and you, [00:29:47] it'll be clear that the proceedings weren't tainted in any way by that discussion. [00:29:53] And that's really what it's about. [00:29:54] All of this came out of a case that was decided by the courts years ago. [00:30:00] They said there was a presumption that there was prejudice whenever there's a communication outside the proceeding. [00:30:07] So you want to overcome that presumption of prejudice. [00:30:10] You want to make sure that it doesn't prejudice the proceedings. [00:30:13] So the best way to do that is to avoid it completely. [00:30:15] And it sounds like you're all doing a tremendous job of that. [00:30:18] I don't have to police you at all. [00:30:20] You're doing great. [00:30:21] So just keep up what you're doing. [00:30:23] Maybe just keep your phones off the hook or whatever it is. [00:30:26] If you do get caught, just make sure you disclose it. [00:30:28] Correct. [00:30:29] Yes, if you do end up being cornered, then just disclose it. [00:30:37] Any questions? [00:30:38] Any other questions? [00:30:39] Anything staff wants to add to that? [00:30:41] Pretty clear. [00:30:42] Thank you very much. [00:30:43] Thank you.

   This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.

8. 5

   Adjourn

   Meeting adjourned with next meeting scheduled for February 16th.

   • motion:Motion to adjourn the meeting. (passed)

   ▶ Jump to 30:45 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:30:46] We'll see you back here on February 16th. [00:30:50] February 16th. [00:30:51] Thank you. [00:30:52] Okay. [00:30:53] Motion to adjourn? [00:30:55] Moved. [00:30:56] So moved. [00:30:57] Moved. [00:30:58] Second? [00:30:59] Second. [00:31:00] Second.

   This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.