Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:03]

THE WORK SESSION TO ORDER. I SHOW THAT IT'S 5:46 P.M.

TO PROVIDE COMMENTS FOR THE MEETING PLEASE SEND AN E-MAIL TO CITIZEN INPUT AT ROWLETT.COM BY 3:30 P.M.THE DATE OF THE MEETING, PLEASE STATE WHETHER YOUR COMMEN IS A GENERAL COMMISSION TO THE COMMISSION OR OTHERWISE.

YOUR COMMENT WILL BE READ INTO THE RECORD DURING THE MEETING. THERE IS A THREE MINUTE TIME LIMIT. THERE WILL BE NO COMMENTS TAKEN DURING THE MEETING. THE ITEM 2 A.WE'RE GOING TO

[2A. Receive a presentation from the City Attorney regarding roles and responsibilities of the Planning and Zoning Commission (45 minutes)]

RECEIVE A PRESENTATION FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY REGARDING ROYALS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. I'LL TURN IT OVER TO YOU, DAVID. WE CAN'T HEAR HIM AGAIN.

LAURA, CAN YOU -- >> NO SOUND, DAVID.

CAN YOU LOG OUT AND COME BACK IN?

>> CAN EVERYONE HEAR ME? >> WE CAN HEAR YOU NOW.

THANK YOU.

>> I CAN'T EXPLAIN WHY THAT'S HAPPENING BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO WORK FOR EVERY OTHER BOARD AND COMMISSION AND OF OTHER COUNCIL. JUST FOR THE P. AND Z. IT'S NOT WORKING. MY VIEW IS SOMEWHAT LIMITED BECAUSE I CANNOT SEE ANYONE ELSE.

I'M ASSUMING YOU CAN HEAR ME, YEAH, RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU CAN? OK. VERY GOOD.

I'M GOING TO WING IT AND GET STARTED BECAUSE WE'RE ALREADY A COUPLE OF MINUTES BLIND.

THIS IS KIND OF ANOTHER RECAP BUT AN EXTENSION OF THE LAST DISCUSSION WE HAD IN CONNECTION WITH PROCESS AND PROCEDURE. THERE ARE ONLY A FEW ITEMS I WANTED TO GO OVER TO MAKE SURE THAT Y'ALL WERE FAMILIAR. FIRST AND FOREMONTH, TALK ABOUT ROBERTS ROLES OF ORDER ONE LAST TIME.

BASICALLY IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE WILL BE AN AGENDA THAT YOU WILL HAVE THAT HAS BEEN POSTED 72 HOURS IN ADVANCE THAT HAS BEEN PROOFED, AND ASSEMBLED BY STAFF. THE AGENDA ITEM WILL IDENTIFY EVERYTHING THAT YOU ARE TO DISCUSS UNDER THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT. YOUR CONVERSATIONS HAVE TO BE LIMITED TO, HAVE TO BE RESTRICTED TO THAT WHICH IS ON THE AGENDA. YOU CANNOT VARY FROM THE AGENDA WITH A COUPLE OF EXCEPTIONS.

THE FIRST AND ONLY ONE THAT REALLY DOES APPLY WOULD BE THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH IT'S A LIMITED DISCUSSION TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT SOMETHING SHOULD BE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA. IF IT'S NOT CURRENTLY ON AN AGENDA. IT IS COMMON FOR THE CHAIR AT A MEETING TO READ THE AGENDA ITEM BEFORE YOU ACTUALLY BEGIN TALKING ABOUT IT OR AT LEAST PARAPHRASE WHAT THE SUBJECT IS. ONCE THAT IS DONE, THE STANDARD PROCESS IS REALLY STRAIGHT FORWARD.

THERE WILL BE A STAFF PRESENTATION, AN APPLICANT PRESENTATION, AND THEN THERE WILL BE -- I'M SORRY, FEEL FREE TO ASK QUESTIONS DURING THOSE PRESENTATIONS.

[00:05:02]

THERE IS NOTHING THAT PROHIBITS YOU FROM DOING THAT. THERE WILL THEN BE DISCUSSION BY THE P. AND Z. CHAIR THEN LOOKS FOR A MOTION. THE MOTION IS SECONDED.

IF THERE IS NO SECOND THE MOTION DIES FOR LACK OF A SECOND. IF THERE IS A SECOND, THEN THE CHAIR CALLS THE QUESTION.

TYPICALLY DISCUSSION, WE MENTIONED LASTS TIME ROBERTS RULES OF ORDER INDICATES DISCUSSION COMES AFTER A SECOND. THAT IS A BIT AWKWARD.

IT'S MOST COMMON TO HAVE DISCUSSION PRIOR TO THE ACTUAL MOTION. THAT WAY YOU CAN FORMULATE A CORRECT AND ACCURATE MOTION THAT YOU BELIEVE WILL ACHIEVE SOME CONSENSUS WHEN IT COMES.

THERE ARE, THERE IS A POSSIBILITY, THERE IS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR ANY MEMBER OF THE P.AND Z.IF THEY DON'T LIKE THE MOTION, THEN THEY CAN ASK FOR A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. FOR EXAMPLE, THE MOTION IS I MOVE TO APPROVE THIS ITEM, WHICH IS A FINE MOTION, NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. THE PERSON WHO SECONDS IT SAID I WOULD LIKE TO SECOND THAT BUT I WOULD LIKE FOR THERE TO BE AN AMENDMENT TO THE MAIN MOTION.

SO THAT WE WOULD APPROVE IT WITH ONE CONDITION.

THE SECOND, PERSON MAKING THE SECOND STATES THE CONDITION BUT THE PERSON WHO MADE THE MOTION IS AGREEABLE TO THAT IT BECOMES A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

ONCE THE SECOND HAS BEEN LOCKED IN, THEN THERE IS NO -- THEN IT'S TIME TO CALL THE QUESTION.

THE P.AND Z., I MENTIONED THIS LAST TIME, I BELIEVE I DID, MANY YEARS AGO, I USED TO END ATTEND ALL THE P.AND Z.ME, STAFF WOULD HAVE A LIST AFTER DOZEN DIFFERENT CONDITIONS IDENTIFIED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND THAT WERE TALKED ABOUT DURING STAFF'S PRESENTATION.

A MEMBER THE COMMISSION WOULD THEN MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, LIMITATIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES AND HE OR SHE WOULD READ THEM ALL OVER THEN IT WOULD BE SECTED THEN THE CHAIR WOULD CALL THE QUESTION. THE COMMISSION WOULD VOTE ON IT. AND IMPORTANT THING IS THAT YOU DON'T APPROVE SOMETHING IN THE NEGATIVE.

FOR EXAMPLE, IF AN APPLICATION IS BEFORE YOU AND THE MOTION IS TO DENY THE APPLICATION, AND THAT MOTION IS NOT SUCCESSFUL, IF THE MOTION TO DENY IS SECONDED, THE CHAIR CALLS THE QUESTION.

LESS THAN A MAJORITY OF THE P. AND Z. COMMISSIONERS IN VOTE IN FAVOR THEN THE MOTION TO DENY HAS NOT PASSED. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE APPLICATION HAS BEEN APPROVED.

YOU THEN HAVE TO THEN FORMALLY -- THE NEXT MOTION MUST BE MOVE TO APPROVE. IF YOU CANNOT MAKE A SUCCESSFUL MOTION, IF A MOTION IS MADE, SECONDED AND LESS THAN A MAJORITY VOTES ON IT THE CHAIR HAS THE OBLIGATION TO CALL FOR FURTHER DISCUSSIONS OR CALL FOR ANOTHER MOTION, IF A SECOND MOTION IS MADE AND THAT MOTION IS NOT SUCCESSFUL, THEN THE CHAIR HAS THE OPTION TO CONTINUE WITH FURTHER DISCUSSIONS OR SIMPLY MOVE ON TO THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM.

Y'ALL UNDERSTAND HOW THIS WORKS.

I'VE SEEN THIS BEFORE. IT DOESN'T HAPPEN OFTEN.

I MOVE TO APPROVE. I SECOND, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE, LESS THAN A MAJORITY VOTE IN FAVOR OF, IT DOES NOT PASS. THE CHAIR WILL CALL FOR ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION OR MOTION? IF ANOTHER MOTION IS MADE TO DENY IT, AND THAT MOTION DOESN'T PASS, THEN THE CHAIR HAS TO REALLY THINK ABOUT WHAT THE BEST THING TO DO IS. YOU CAN CONTINUE TO CALL FOR MORE DISCUSSION. YOU CAN LOOK FOR ANOTHER MOTION. OR YOU SIMPLY MOVE ON TO THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM. THAT BECOMES REALLY AWKWARD WHEN THAT HAPPENS, THAT IS A RARE CIRCUMSTANCE.

AND IT'S AN AWKWARD ONE BECAUSE STAFF DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO AT THAT POINT. THE APPLICATION HASN'T BEEN APPROVED BUT IT HASN'T BEEN DENIED.

EXPECTATION IS YOU ARE GOING TO SEE IT ON THE NEXT AGENDA WITH ANOTHER PRESENTATION. WHEN YOU VOTE, NOW, I HAVEN'T SAT IN MY CHAIR AT THE A YEAR. BUT IT USED TO BE WHERE YOU COULD SEE WHO WAS VOTING FOR IT.

VOTING WAS DONE BY PUSHING A BUTTON IN FRONT OF EACH OF THE COMMISSIONERS. IF YOU ARE NOT DOING THAT, IF YOU ARE NOT USING THE PUSH BUTTON VOTING SYSTEM, IF IT'S -- YOU CALL THE QUESTION.

MAJORITY VOTES IN FAVOR. IF IT'S UNION AS YOU THE CHAIR SHOULD DECLARE IT'S UNANIMOUS VOTE.

IF THE VOTE IS NOT UNANIMOUS, IF IT'S A SPLIT DECISION, THE VOTE HAS TO BE A RECORD VOTE AND THE RECORD HAS BEEN TO BE REFLECTED IN THE MINUTES SO EACH PERSON WHO VOTED IN FAVOR, THEIR NAMES MUST APPEAR IN THE MINUTES OF THE NEXT MEETING THAT YOU ARE GOING TO LOOK AT FOR APPROVAL. THOSE WHO VOTED AGAINST IT THEIR NAMES NEED TO APPEAR NEXT TO THE NEIGH VOTES THAT

[00:10:02]

YOU WILL APPROVE AT THE NEXT MEETING, IF YOU ABZANE THERE NEEDS TO BE AN AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF ABSTENTION, IF YOU HAVE SEVEN MEMBERS SITTIN THIS PRESIDING AT A P. AND Z. MEETING, YOU CALL THE QUESTION.

YOU HAVE FOUR VOTE IN FAVOR OF AND TWO THAT VOTE AGAINST. YOU ARE MISSING THE VOTES.

SO YOU NEED TO SAY, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE OR RAISE YOUR HAND. RECORD VOTE.

ALL THOSE SAY NEIGH OR RAISE YOUR HAND THAT WOULD BE A RECORD VOTE. THE CHAIR NEEDS TO SAY ALL THOSE WHO ABSTAIN RAISE YOUR HAND.

THE MOST ABSTENTIONS WILL COME WHEN YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT SIMPLY APPROVING THE MINUTES OF A PRIOR MEETING.

THIS HAPPENS EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE.

IT'S GENERALLY CONSIDERED BAD FORM TO VOLT TO APPROVE MINUTES IF YOU ARE NOT IN ATTENDANCE AT THE MEETING.

BUT NOT THAT'S A LEGAL REQUIREMENT.

YOU HAVE TO APPROVE YOUR MINUTES.

IF YOU DON'T HAVE A MAJORITY OF PEOPLE PRESIDING AT THE CURRENT MEETING TO APPROVE THE MINUTES, IF YOU HAVE A MAJORITY OF PEOPLE ABSTAINING YOU CAN'T GET A FOUR-PERSON VOTE TO APPROVE -- I'M SORRY, A MAJORITY VOTE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES, THEN DON'T ABSTAIN, GO AHEAD AND VOTE. OBVIOUSLY THE PREFERENCE IS ONLY THOSE WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE MINUTES -- WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE MEETING SHOULD BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF THE MINUTES BUT IN A PINCH, YOU CAN STILL DO IT.

SO WITH THAT IN MIND, COUPLE OF OTHER TOPICS THAT I THINK ARE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT FOR P. AND Z. MEMBERS TO BE AWARE OF. I WANT TO TALK BRIEFLY ABOUT -- LET'S TALK BRIEFLY ABOUT WHO GETS TO PRESIDE DURING YOUR MEETINGS. WE HAVE A SEVEN MEMBER P.AND Z.AND RECEIVE A SERIES OF ALTERNATES, ALTERNATES ONLY SIT IN THE PLACE OF A REGULAR MEMBER WHEN A REGULAR MEMBER IS ABEXTENT. IT'S TYPICAL FOR THE CHAIR TO -- IF YOU HAVE AN ABSENT REGULAR MEMBER TO DESIGNATES THE ALTERNATE WHO WILL SIT IN THE PLACE OF THE ABSENT REGULAR MEMBER.% AND THAT SELECTION OF ALL THE NEIGHS IS TYPICALLY DONE ON A ROTATING BASIS, WHOEVER RAISES THEIR HAND FIRST OR MORE COMMONLY, ON A ROTATING BASIS. SO YOU SHOULD ALWAYS EXPECT TO HAVE A 7 MEMBER PANEL COMPRISED OF ANY COMBINATION OF REGULAR MEMBERS OR ALTERNATES.

YOU CANNOT HAVE 8 PEOPLE PRESIDING AND VOTING ON AN ISSUE, HAS TO BE 7. IF YOU HAVE LESS THAN 7 PEOPLE PRESENT, IF YOU'VE GOT A COUPLE OF PEOPLE ABSENT. NONE OF THE ALTERNATES SHOWED UP. A QUORUM IS A MAJORITY YOU CAN PROCEED WITH CONSIDERATION AND ACTION ON AGENDA ITEMS WITH FOUR MEMBERS PRESENT.

THAT WOULD BE UNUSUAL. WE HAVE A LOT OF ALL THEMATES, MORE SO THAN ON OTHER BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS SO THAT THAT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN.

IF YOU ARE PRESIDING DURING A MEETING, AND YOU HAVE A BEYOR YUM PRESENT AND LET'S SAY YOU'VE GOT FIVE PEOPLE PRESENT, A COMPOSITION OF REGULAR AND ALTERNATES, A YOURUM IS FOUR. ONE PERSON SAYS EXCUSE ME FOR A MINUTE I LEFT CAN GO INTO MY CAR.

I HAVE TO RUN OUT TO THE CAR FOR A SECOND.

NOW YOU'VE GOT FOUR MEMBERS PRESIDING.

AND ONE OF THE FOUR SAYS, EXCUSE ME, I NEED TO GO TO THE MEN'S ROOM. AS SOON AS THAT PERSON WALKS OUT THRESHOLD OF THE DOOR OF COUNCIL CHAMBERS, THE MEETING MUST STOP. YOU CANNOT CONTINUE WITH LESS THAN A QUORUM AND THERE IS NO -- IT'S CALLED BUSTING A QUORUM WHEN YOU HAVE LESS THAN A QUORUM PRESENT IN THE ROOM YOU DO NOT CONTINUE WITH ANY DISCUSSION OR DELIBERATIONS. IF YOU KNOW ONE OF THE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO COME BACK IN, YOU SIMPLY SAY TIME OUT. LET'S WAIT FOR THEM TO RETURN. LET'S STOP DISCUSSION AND WAIT FOR THE PERSON TO COME BACK.

AS SOON AS THAT PERSON ENTERS THE ROOM AGAIN ONCE YOU HAVE A QUORUM YOU CAN CONTINUE WITH THE MEETING.

BUT IF A QUORUM IS NO LONGER PRESENT EITHER SHORT-TERM BASIS OR LONG-TERM, YOU CANNOT DISCUSS ITEM ANY MORE SO WITH THAT IN MIND, LET'S TALK ABOUT LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE AND HOW MUCH THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE DON'T LIKE CITIES IN GENERAL. YOU ALL KNOW THAT.

FOR PLOT REVIEWS AND PLOT APPROVALS I'M SURE YOU KNOW THIS BECAUSE THIS IS DRUMMED INTO EVERYBODY WHO SERVES ON A P. AND Z. WHEN YOU ARE PARTICULARRING

[00:15:01]

PLOT APPLICATIONS YOU HAVE NO DRESS.

YOUR REVIEW AT THE PLOT APPLICATION IS MININSTERIAL YAL IN NATURE. STAFF WILL TELL YOU UNLESS YOU WANT TO LOOK IT UP YOURSELF WHICH YOU ARE FREE TO DO WHETHER OR NOT AN APPLICATION MEETS ALL OF THE CRITERIA THAT WE'VE OUTLINED AND ESTABLISHED IN OUR CORD OF ORDINANCES, IF A PLOT APPLICATIONES MEETS ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS YOU MAY NOT LIKE THE PLATT APPLICATION, YOU MAY NOT LIKE THE APPLICANT BUT YOU HAVE NO CHOICE. YOU SHALL APPROVE THE PLATT.

IT DOESN'T MATTER IF THE VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE APPROVAL IS UNANIMOUS OR BY A SIMPLE BARE MAJORITY, THERE STILL MUST BE AN APPROVAL.

I HATE TO SAY THIS, YOU KNOW, AND IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT I'VE EVER BEEN VERY HAPPY ABOUT BUT THAT HAS BEEN THE LAW IN TEXAS FORM, MANY YEARS.

THE LAW WAS CHANGED FAIRLY RECENTLY TO BOOTH STRAP IN -- BOOT STRAP IN CITE PLANS AND OTHER SIMILAR TYPES OF PLANS. STAFF WILL TELL YOU IF THAT MANDATORY APPROVAL IS REQUIRED.

WE'RE REQUIRED TO APPROVE, DENY OR APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS PLATT APPLICATIONS.

HISTORICALLY I'VE ALWAYS SAID WHEN I DID THESE TRAINING THINGS, THAT YOU SHOULD NEVER APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS. THE PROBLEM WITH DOING THAT IS WHEN YOU DO APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS, IF THE APPLICANT THEN MEETS SOME OF THE CONDITIONS BUT NOT ALL OF THEM, OR COMPLETELY IGNORES THE CONDITIONS, STAFF IS THEN PLACED AND CITY PERSONNEL ARE PLACED IN A COMPROMISING POSITION. THE PLATT HAS BEEN APPROVED BUT THE CONDITIONS HAVEN'T BEEN MET SO CAN THEY APPLY FOR A BUILDING PERMIT? DOES A BUILDING PERMIT HAVE TO BE ISSUED? IF IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT WERE IMPOSED BY.

AND Z.? DOES THE PLATT ITSELF WHEN IT'S ACTUALLY REPORTED HAVE TO OUTLINE AND STATE THOSE CONDITIONS? SO BUT NOW THE LAW SAYS THAT YOU MUST APPROVE OR DENY OR APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS. IF YOU DENY OR APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS, THE LAW ALSO SAYS THAT YOU HAVE TO CLEARLY STATE THE REASONS FOR DENIAL OR CLEARLY STATE WHAT THE CONDITIONS ARE AND STAFF HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO NOTIFY THE APPLICANT AS TO THE SPECIFIC REASONS FOR DENIAL WITH A REFERENCE TO THE STATUTE OR THE CODE PROVISION OR TO SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFY EACH OF THE CONDITIONS THAT YOU GUYS HAVE SET OUT.

SO IT WOULD BE A REALLY GOOD IDEA FOR, WHEN A MOTION IS MADE AND THEN THE MOTION HAS BEEN SECONDED, ESPECIALLY IF IT'S A COMPLICATED ONE FOR THE CHAIR THEN TO RECITE THIS IS THE MOTION THAT WE'RE VOTING ON.

THE MOTION IS TO APPROVE THIS APPLICATION WITH THESE THREE CONDITIONS. AND IF NOBODY OBJECTS TO IT ENTHIS YOU CALL THE QUESTION.

-- THEN CALL THE QUESTION. TO RECAP SOMETHING WE TALKEDD OH, BEFORE I FOR GET THERE IS A SHOT CLOCK, A 30 DAY DEADLINE IN WHICH YOU MUST APPROVE, DENY OR APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS PLATT APPLICATION.

THE 30-DAY DEADLINE IS SOMETHING STAFF WORRIES ABOUT ALL THE TIME. AN APPLICATION WILL BE PRESENTED TO YOU FOR A PLATT REVIEW AND APPROVAL OR DENIAL WENT THE 30-DAY TIMEFRAME.

BECAUSE THE 30 DAY TIMEFRAME IS REALLY STRICT, YOU CANNOTDISH SHOULDN'T SAY YOU CANNOT.

YOU SHOULD NEVER TABLE A PLATT APPLICATION.

Y'ALL UNDERSTAND THAT? IF YOU MOVE TO TABLE THE NEXT TIME IT'S GOING TO COME UP THE 30 DAY PERIOD HAS BEEN EXPIRE AND THE PLATT IS BY OPERATION OF LAW THEREFORE APPROVED INTO ITS ENTIRETY. THERE IS A PROVISION, WHAT WE USED TO DO IN THE PAST, A LOT OF CITIES ALL CITIES USED TO DO IT. IF THERE WERE BIG ISSUES WITH PLATT, WE USED TO ASK THE APPLICANT TO, IF THEY WOULD AGREE TO AN EXTENSION TO GET PAST THE 30-DAY DEADLINE. IN MOST CIRCUMSTANCES, MOST DEVELOPERS WOULD AGREE TO IT BECAUSE THEY WANTED THEIR MATTS APPROVE. WE CAN NO LONGER ASK THEM THEM IF THEY'LL AGREE TO AN EXTENSION.

THEY CAN OFFER IT. AND IT HAS TO BE IN WRITING.

AND THEN AND ONLY THEN IF THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED IN WRITING TO AN EXTENSION OF THE 30 DAY DEADLINE THEN AND ONLY THEN CAN YOU CONSIDR TABLING THE PLATT APPLICATION. SO, SO I CAN TALK TO YOU ABOUT A CASE THAT IS OUT THERE.

AN OLDER ONE. BARLET VERSUS SIME MARK BUT I'M GOING TO TELL YOU BECAUSE I'M REMOTE AND AT HOME AND I DON'T HAVE SHOES ON.

AND, SO I'M COMFORTABLE. YOU MAY NOT BE BUT I'M COMFORTABLE. IN PARLET VERSUS SIN MARC

[00:20:01]

STEVE BART ELLE WAS THE DALLAS MAYOR.

THE CITY HAD TIMED FINAL APPROVE, SIN MARC -- ACTUALLY SIN MARC'S PREDECESSOR APPLIED FOR A DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH THE CITY.

THE A-- IT WAS A COMPLICATED DEVELOPMENT PLAN INVOLVING PLAN DEVELOPMENT, ZONING ON RESTRICTIONS.

BUT THE DEVELOPMENT NEVER HAPPENED.

SEVEN YEARS LATER SIN MARC PURCHASES THE PROPERTIES AND WANTS TO BUILD A GIANT CINEMA COMPLEXES.

IT WA INCONSISTENT WITH THE BASE ZONING BUT NOT NECESSARILY INCONSISTENT WITH SOME OF THE CHANGES IN THE IN THE P.D.OR THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT HAD BEEN APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL SOME YEARS BEFORE.

WHEN THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR SIN MARC WAS PROPOSED, IT WAS IN THE NATURE OF A PLATT APPLICATION. SAME RULES APPLIED.

IT MET WITH SUBSTANTIAL PUBLIC OPPOSITION.

NOBODY WANTS A GIANT MOVIE THEATER, RESTAURANT COMPLEX IN THEIR BACK YARD AND LITERALLY IT WAS IN SOME PEOPLES' BACK YARDS SO THE, SOME OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS VOTED AGAINST THE APPLICATION.

A MAJORITY OF THOSE COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE SUCCESSFUL IN DEFEATING OR DENYING THE APPLICATION.

THOSE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS WERE SUED, NOT JUST THE CITY OF DALLAS BUT THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS WERE SUED.

UNDERSTAND THEY'RE IN THEIR -- SUED IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES BUT THAT'S WHY STEVE BARTLET NAMES APPEARS IN THE CAPTION OF THE LAWSUIT IS BECAUSE EACH OF THEM WERE SUED IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES.

YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THAT TOO MUCH.

UNLESS YOU HAVE A REALLY BIG CONCERN ABOUT YOUR NAME APPEARING AS A DEFENDANT IN A LAWSUIT.

WHICH YOU SHOULD. BUT THE CITY COVERS IT AND YOU HAVE IF YOU ARE LEGAL DEFENSE ABLE TO YOU BUT THE ONLY TIME YOU DON'T IS WHEN YOU ENGAGED IN CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. VOTE YOUR CONSCIOUS BUT UNDERSTAND WHEN YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT PLATT REVIEWS AND APPROVALS, IF STAFF TELLS YOU THAT IT MEETS ALL OF OUR REQUIREMENTS, AND YOU ARE CONFIDENT OR YOU'VE DONE YOUR OWN REVIEW AND YOU KNOW THAT IT DOES, THE LAW SAYS YOU SHALL VOTE TO APPROVE. YOU CAN'T DENY IT.

THEN IF YOU EVER DO DENY A PLATT MAKE SURE THE REASON FOR DENIAL IS CLEAR AND EXPRESSED.

YES, MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE I MOVE TO DENY THIS APPLICATION BECAUSE IT FAILS TO LYE WITH THESE REQUIREMENTS. -- COMPLY WITH THESE REQUIREMENTS. THAT MAKES IT REALLY CLEAR.

IN DISTINCTION, ZONING CHANGES ARE QUITE DIFFERENT.

AN APPLICATION TO ZONE A PROPERTY IS PURELY DISCRETIONARY, IT'S NOT MINIMUMS MINISTERIAL AND YOU CAN CONSIDER THINGS LIKE WHAT YOU BELIEVE TO BE IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, MORALS AND GENERAL WELFARE. I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THAT MEANS ON A PRACTICAL BASIS, BUT THE LAW SAYS THAT YOUR DECISION HAS TO BE BASED ON WHAT YOU BELIEVE TO BE IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, MORALS AND GENERAL WELFARE. IT SHOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ALTHOUGH IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY NEED TO BE. IT SHOULD BE, YOU SHOULD CONCERN YOURSELVES WITH COME FATTIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING USES, YOU CAN CONCERN YOURSELF WITH WHAT PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE ARE SAYING. BUT YOU DO NEED TO BE AWARE THAT A VOCAL MINORITY DOES NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT WHAT IS BEST FOR THE CITY OVERALL.

I SEE THIS ALL THE TIME. YOU KNOW, NOT NECESSARILY IN ROWLETT BUT IN SMALLER TOWNS IT'S MUCH MORE ACUTE.

YOU WILL HAVE HALF A DOZEN, A DOZEN OR SO PEOPLE SHOWING UP AT A MEETING AND THEY'RE ARGUING AGAINST A ZONING CHANGE. THOSE PEOPLE MAY NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE RULE OF THE MAJORITY.

THEIR OPINIONS MAY NOT NECESSARILY ACCURATELY REFLECT WHAT'S BEST FOR THE CITY OVERALL OR EVEN FOR THAT SECTION OF THE CITY, BUT IT IS VERY COMMON FOR A VERY SMALL GROUP OF PEOPLE TO BECAUSE OF THEIR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION DURING OPEN MEETINGS, IT'S VERY COMMON FOR THEM TO SWAY DECISIONS. YOU HAVE TO LOOK PAST THAT AND YOUR JOB IS TO DO WHAT IS BEST FOR THE CITY OVERALL WHILE STILL BEING SENSITIVE TO THE NEEDS OF THE PEOPLES THAT LIVE NEARBY AND THE PEOPLE THAT ARE IN THE ROOM TALKING TO YOU ABOUT THE DECISION.

SO BY NO MEANS SHOULD YOU IGNORE THEM, BUT YOU NEED TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT WHAT YOU HONESTLY BELIEVE TO BE RIGHT FOR THE CITY OVERALL. I WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE OCCASION, I'M SURE YOU'VE SEEN THIS BEFORE WHERE THERE WILL BE VERY VOCAL NOT OPPONENT BUT

[00:25:03]

PEOPLE WHO ARE VOCAL. I REMEMBER ONE MEETING WE HAD 30 PEOPLE ALL WEARING THE SHAME SHIRTS.

THEY HAD GOTTEN RED SHIRTS THAT SAID VOTE NO, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT ON T. VERY VOCAL VERY MUCH IN OPPOSITION. I KNOW OF SOME MEETINGS WHERE PEOPLES' CARS WERE DAMAGED IN THE PARKING LOT BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T VOTE IN FAVOR OF PEOPLE VERY OUTSPOKEN DURING THE MEETING.

I'VE SEEN COMMISSIONERS AND EVEN COUNCIL MEMBERS PIGEON HOLED AFTER A MEETING BUT A COUPLE OF PEOPLE ANGRY AND UPSET AND MAYBE AN HOUR LATER THEY WERE' FINALLY ABLE TO GO HOME BECAUSE THOSE PEOPLE WERE JUST, YOU KNOW POINTING A FINGER YELLING AT THEM OR TALKING VERY STRONGLY WITH THEM AFTER THE MEETING IS OVER.

UNDERSTAND THAT YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO OBLIGATION WHATSOEVER TO EXPLAIN THE RATIONALLY OF YOUR DECISIONS. YOU YOU CAN VOLT IN WHATEVER WAY YOU WANT BUT YOU HAVE NO DUTY TO TELL THE GENERAL PUBLIC OR ANYONE ELSE WHY YOU ARE VOTING IN A SPECIFIC WAY. IN ALL FAIRNESS TO THE PUBLIC IT'S A GOOD IDEA FOR A COMMISSIONER TO SAY, I'M VOTING NO BECAUSE I FEEL IN MY HEART THIS JUST ISN'T THE RIGHT THING. THAT'S FINE TO DO.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO IF YOU DON'T WANT TO S. YOU DON'T HAVE TO EXPLAIN THE BASES OF YOUR DECISION AFTERWARDS OR WHILE YOU ARE MAKING THE CHOICE.

BUT UNDERSTAND THAT ESPECIALLY IN CONTROVERSIAL MEETINGS, WHERE A HIGHLY VISIBLE ISSUES ARE BEING DISCUSSED AND DELIBERATED AN PEOPLE ARE STRONGLY OPPOSED TO IT, SOMETIMES THE MORE YOU SAY THE WORSE OFF YOU ARE. IT'S LIKE WHEN A POLICE OFFICER FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE POLICE OFFICER WHO PULLS OVER SOMEBODY FOR SPEEDING AND THE PERSON DON'T THINK THEY WERE' SPEEDING.

AND BECOMES VERB ALLEY AGGRESSIVE WITH THE OFFICER.

THE MORE THE OFFICER ENGAGES WITH THE PERSON THE WORSE OFF HE OR SHE IS AND IT GETS TO A POINT WHERE HE OR SHE -- AND YOU MAY NET SUCKED INTO A VORTEX FROM WHICH YOU CANNOT EXTRICATE YOURSELF. BY ALL MEANS, IF YOU ARE VOTING IN A CERTAIN WAY AND YOU FEEL COMPELLED TO EXPLAIN THE REASON WHY YOU ARE VOTING IN A CERTAIN WAY BY ALL MEANS DO THAT. MY RECOMMENDATION IS IF YOU DO YOU DON'T HAVE TO IF YOU DON'T WANT TO BUT IF YOU DO KEEP IT SHORT AND SWEET. I WANT TO TALK BRIEFLY ABOUT SITE VISITS. THIS IS A COMPLICATED ISSUE AND A VENTRIC WEIGHT RUN, IF I WERE A MEMBER OF A PLANNING AND ZONING SUBMISSION AND I WERE BEING ASKED TO VOTE ON A SPECIFIC ISSUE I WOULD WANT TO GET A FEEL FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I WOULD WANT TO DRIVE PAST THE LOS LOT AND LOOK AT WHAT IS OUT.

THERE NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.

IF THERE ARE FOUR OF YOU TOGETHER, THAT IS A PROBLEM BECAUSE THAT IS A FORUM. IF THERE BE TWO OR THREE OF YOU NOT A PROBLEM. QUORUM).

BUT UNDERSTAND HOW THAT LOOKS FROM THE PUBLIC PERCEPTION PERSPECTIVE. IF YOU GOT 3 P. AND Z.

COMMISSIONERS STANDING OS OF A PIECE OF PROPERTY SUBJECT TO A ZONING CHANGE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO WONDER WHAT IS GOING ON. I DON'T WANT TO SEE THE -- I WOULD WANT TO SEE THE PROPERTY.

I WOULD GET IN MY CAR ON MY OWN TIME.

GO THERE BY MYSELF AND LOOK AT IT FROM MY CAR.

I MGHT GET OUT. ONCE YOU CROSS A FENCE LINE YOU ARE COMMITTING A CRIMINAL TRESPASS, IF YOU ARE, IF YOU KNOCK ON THE DOOR, THAT IS UNDERSTAND HOW THAT LOOKS. YOU KNOW.

SOMEONE IS GOING TO SAY THEY SAW YOU GOING INTO THIS PERSON'S BUSINESS OR THEIR HOME AND WALKING OUT WITH AN ENVELOPE WITH HUNDRED DOLLARS BILLS IN T. THEY'RE GOING TO SAY WHAT TYPE OF INCLUSION HAVE BEEN BEEN ENGAGED WITH THEM BECAUSE YOU ARE SPEAKING WITH THEM INDIVIDUALLY WITHOUT A QUORUM BEING PRESENT.

THE WORST CASE SITUATION THEY'LL SAY, HYPOTHETICALLY IT'S A VACANT LOT AND YOU WANT TO WALK THE LOT.

AND YOU ARE OUT THERE WALKING AROUND AND SOMEBODY ELSE' PROPERTY. YOU ARE GOING TO STEP IN A HOLE AND BREAK YOUR LEG, WHO IS GOING TO BE IN TROUBLE FOR THAT? THE INTENSITY OF YOUR SLIGHT VISITS CAN CREATE HUGE ISSUES. NOTHING WRONG WITH YOU DRIVING BY IN YOUR CAR, NOTHING WRONG WITH YOU STANDING THIS ON THE CURBS OR ON THE SIDEWALK AND LOOKING AT IT. BUT ONCE YOU START SPEAKING WITH THE APPLICANT OR THE PROPERTY OWNER OR AN OCCUPY APT, ONCE YOU GO INSIDE, ONCE YOU WALK AROUND, YOU'VE GOT NO MORE AUTHORITY TO DO THAT THAN ANYBODY ELSE IN THE WORLD. YOU TAKE A BIG RISK.

SOME WILL TELL YOU YOU ARE COMPLETELY ON YOUR OWN.

IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES A SITE VISIT BY THE ENTIRE BOARD IS APPROPRIATE. UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE WILL POST A AGENDA, IT WILL BE REGARDED AS A

[00:30:04]

MEETING. WE'VE DONE IT WITH THE CITY COUNCIL A FEW TIMES, HOME STEAD RIB EARTH GROVE YEARS AGO, WE ALL WENT AND LOOKED AT ANOTHER PIECE.

ANOTHER DEVELOPMENT AT THE SAME DEVELOPER HAD PROPOSE AND HAD DONE IN A DIFFERENT CITY.

IT WAS ON A POSTED AGENDA, WE WERE ON A BUS TOGETHER.

I DON'T KNOW IF THE PUBLIC REALLY HAD THE ABILITY TO PARTICIPATE, BUT THE BIGGEST PROBLEM WAS THAT ON THE BUS WE DIDN'T HAVE A KEG OF BEER.

I WAS UPSET ABOUT THAT. AFTER THAT, GOING BACK TO ZONING DECISIONS, IT'S DECISIONARY.

YOU DO WHAT YOU THINK IS BET.

YOU UNDERSTAND YOUR DECISIONS ARE RESPECTED BY THE CITY COUP. COUNCIL MAY ON OCCASION DISAGREE WITH YOU BUT FROM WHAT I'VE SEEN THEY TAKE VERY SERIOUSLY WHAT YOU GUYS DISCUSS AND WHAT YOU RECOMMEND. IN FACT, I KNOW OF ANOTHER COUNCIL MEMBER THAT REGULARLY WATCH YOUR MEETINGS. YOU MAY NOT KNOW THEY'RE WATCHING IN BUT THEY ARE. Y'ALL KNOW IF YOU MAKE A DECISION TO DENY A ZONING CHANGE, IF YOUR VOTE IS UNANIMOUS, THEN THE COUNCIL CANNOT OVERTURN THAT UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL UNLESS IT'S BY A SUPERMAJORITY VOTE. THAT MEANS THAT 6 OUT OF 7 OR I THINK IT'S 6 OUT OF 7 NEED TO BE VOTING TO OVERRIDE YOUR DENIAL, YOUR RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL.

IF A MAJORITY OF YOU -- I'M SORRY.

IF A UNANIMOUS VOTE BY YOU IS MADE TO DENY A ZONING CHANGE, FOR ALL PRACTICAL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, THAT IS PRACTICALLY NOT TECHNICALLY BUT PRACTICALLY THE FINAL SAY OVER THE MATTER.

Y'ALL UNDERSTAND THAT? IF THE COUNCIL DENIES THE ZONING CHANGE, AN APPLICANT CANNOT COME BACK WITH ANOTHER ZONING CHANGE ON THE SAME PIECE OF PROPERTY FOR AT LEAST A YEAR UNLESS THEY SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGE THEIR APPLICATION. SO IF YOU DENY A ZONING CHANGE AND COUNCIL SUPPORTS YOUR DENIAL YOU WILL NOT IN THEORY WILL NOT SEE THE APPLICANT AGAIN FOR ANOTHER YEAR. THAT MAKES SEN? OF COURSE THE APPLICANT CAN MAKE CHANGES TO THEIR APPLICATION IN WHICH CASE IT COMES RIGHT BACK.

SO I THINK WE'RE GETTING ON TO 25 MINUTES.

WHAT I'M GOING TO RECOMMEND THAT YOU DO AS PUBLIC OFFICIALS NUMBER ONE, YOU HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO ATTEND ALL OF THE MEETINGS WHETHER YOU ARE A REGULAR MEMBER OR ALTERNATE. YOU DO HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO VOTE A. LEGAL AND ETHICAL ONE TO VOTE WHETHER YOU WANT TO VOTE OR NOT. YOU ABEDIN WHETHER IT'S REALLY -- WHEN YOU WEREN'T AT THE MEETING AT WHICH THE MINUTES WERE APPROVED OR IF YOU HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. I THINK WE SHOULD DISCUSS CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND TEMPORARY CUSTODIANS, THINGS THAT MIGHT WIND YOU UP IN JAIL IN AN EXECUTIVE SESSION AT SOME POINT DURING THE ROAD BUT THE BEST ADVICE I CAN GIVE YOU IS THAT TREAT EVERYONE WITH RESPECT.

Y'ALL CAN ARGUE WITH EACH OTHER AT THE DIAS ALL YOU WANT AT THE END OF THE MEETING, THE CORRECT THING YOU DO YOUR ARGUMENTS AND YOUR DEBATES SHOULD BE HEALTHY AND SHOULD BE PROFESSIONAL.

YOU SHOULD NOT FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE SHAKING THE HAND OF ANOTHER P.AND Z.COMMISSIONER THAT YOU ARGUED WITH THE ENTIRE MEETING ONCE THE MEETING IS OVER. TREAT THE PUBLIC IN THE SAME WEAR. ENGAGE IN HEALTHY DEBATE BUT YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND NOT EVERYONE IS GOING TO SEE THINGS THE SAME WAY THAT YOU ARE.

BE RESPECTFUL. BE KIND AND COURTEOUS, ABOVE ALL BE PROFESSIONAL. SO WITH THAT, DO YOWL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS -- Y'ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS YOU WANT TO ASK OF ME? I CAN'T SEE MYSELF ON THE SCREEN.

I THINK WHAT I'M SEEING YOU CAN ONLY SEE FROM HERE UP.

AND -- WHAT QUESTIONS -- HAVE I BEEN BROADCASTING IN HAS MY AUDIO BEEN WORKING THE ENTIRE TIME?

>> I DO WANT TO CONCLUDE THE WORST TIME TO CALL A SLUR WHEN YOU REALLY REALLY NEED -- CALL A LAWYER IS WHEN YOU REALLY, REALLY NEED ONE,ALL KEEP THAT IN MIND.

>> CAN I ASK YOU SOMETHING QUICKLY? CAN YOU HEAR ME? IT'S ON. WE WERE ASKED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AT SOME POINT TO, THE MAYOR SAID, YOU KNOW THE CITY COUNCIL IS INTERESTED IN YOUR OPINION AND WHY YOU ARE VOTING THE WAY YOU ARE. AND MY PREDECESSOR USED TO KIND OF GIVE ALL THE COMMISSIONERS A MOMENT TO COMMENT ON IT IF THEY WANTED TO.

THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO. AFTER THE MOTION WAS MADE

[00:35:03]

BUT BEFORE THE VOTE WAS TAKEN.

WHAT IS YOUR BEST RECOMMENDATION ON TIMING IF WE WERE TO DO THAT OR DO YOU THINK WE SHOULD GO BACK BECAUSE YOU DID DISCUSSION OPINIONS AND OUR OPINIONS.

HOW WOULD YOU GUIDE US ON THAT?

>> WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND IS AFTER THE PRESENTATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE BY STAFF AND BY THE APPLICANT, IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT REQUIRES THE PUBLIC HEARING, OBVIOUSLY CLEARLY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, TAKE TESTIMONY THEN FORMALLY CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

MY SUGGESTION IS THAT YOU HAVE DISCUSSION AT THAT POINT IN TIME. YOU CAN DO IT ORDERLY OR YOU CAN DO IT FREE FORM. THE ORDERLY PROCESS IS YOU GO TO EACH COMMISSIONER WHO IS PARTICIPATING AS A MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION THAT EVEN. EACH OF THEM, LET THEM SPEAK FOR A FEW MINUTES IF THEY HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY.

ONCE THEY'VE CONCLUDED SPEAKING ONCE YOU'VE GONE ALONG THE DIAS, YOU THEN SAY, DO I HEAR A MOTION? TAKE THE MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND? IF THERE IS CALL THE QUESTION. THERE SHOULD NOT BE A NEED FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION. IF A MOTION IS MADE AND IT HAS BEEN SECONDED, IF A MOTION HASN'T BEEN SECONDED YOU SHOULDN'T BE HAVING ANY MORE DISCUSSION AT ALL.

IT'S NOT REALLY -- IT'S NOS UP FOR CONSIDERATION UNTIL IT HAS BEEN SECONDED. ONCE IT HAS BEEN SECONDED YOU CAN ENTERTAIN MORE DISCUSSION IF YOU WANT.

UNDERSTAND THAT THAT MAY TAKE A LOT LONGER TO GET THROUGH AN ITEM IF PEOPLES' MINDS MAY CHANGE AND YOU MAY LOSE A CONSENSUS BUT THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH DOING IT THAT WAY. IT'S NOT UNCOMMON BUT I THINK AFTER A MOTION HAS BEEN SECONDED, IF YOU'VE HAD A PRE-MOTION DISCUSSION AND DELIBERATION, YOU KNOW, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSIONS AFTER A SECOND SHOULD BE SHORT AND SWEET. IT SHOULDN'T BE A FULL BLOWN OPEN ENDED OPEN FLOOR DISCUSSION.

KEEP IT SHORT AND SWEET BECAUSE YOU'VE ALREADY HAD THE DISCUSSION. IF SOMEONE FEELS LIKE YOU WANT TO MAKE A POINT, YOU CAN LET THEM MAKE A POINT.

OR THEY CAN VOTE AGAINST THE MOTION AND IF IT HAS BEEN DENIED THEN YOU ARE GOING TO CALL FOR ANOTHER MOTION ANY WAY. THE PERSON CAN THEN MAKE THE MOTION. MAKE SENSE? 1 AS THE CHAIR, YOU ARE THE ONE THAT DICTATES HOW THESE THINGS ARE DONE. OTHER COMMISSIONERS MAY DISAGREE AND THEY CAN CALL A POINT OF ORDER IF THEY WANT AND THEY CAN CALL A VOTE ON THEIR POINT IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THEM BUT YOU ARE THE CHAIR.

YOU ARE THE CAPTAIN OF THIS SHIP.

>> ANOTHER THING. BASED ON WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT PLATS, WE REALLY SHOULDN'T BE SEEING A PLATT THAT HASN'T MET ALL OF THE CITY STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL, IS THAT CORRECT? NO. THAT'S NOT CORRECT.

>> --

>> STATE LAW, AND I GUESS IT WOULD BE COMMON SENSE, IT'S THE APPLICANT'S NICKEL. THEY'RE THE ONES WHO SPEND THE TIME AND EFFORT IN PREPARING THE PLATT APPLICATION, BEFORE IT'S FORMALLY SUBMITTED THEY'VE WORKED WITH STAFF. STAFF WORKS -- STAFF EVALETS PLATT APPLICATIONS ON A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT LEVELS WITH A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT PERSONNEL SPECIALIZED EXPERTISE, BY THE TIME THE FORMAL PLATT APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED, YOU HAVE TO VOTE ON IT.

THAT WE CAN'T ACCEPT THE PLATT APPLICATION UNLESS THEY FAILED TO MEET CERTAIN BASIC THINGS LIKE THEY FAILED TO ACCOMPANY THE APPLICATION WITH THE APPROPRIATE FEE. UNDER MOST CIRCUMSTANCES THE ACTUAL FILING AND ACCEPTANCE OF A PLATT APPLICATION IT'S LIKE HOW DISTRICT CLERKS OFFICES ACCEPT PLEADINGS.

THE DISTRICT CLERK DOESN'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REJECT A MOTION OR PETITION IF THE FEE HAS BEEN PAID.

THAT IS UP TO THE JUDGE TO DO THAT.

IN OUR CIRCUMSTANCE, THE STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE AND IN THEIR POSITION IS JUST THE SAME.

THEY HAVE TO ACCEPT AN APPLICATION IF CERTAIN BASIC CRITERIA ARE MET. BUT THEY WILL TELL YOU THAT THIS APPLICATION FAILS TO MEET THESE REQUIREMENTS OF THESE ORDER -- ORDINANCE, THEY TEE IT UP TO YOU FOR A VOTE F. STAFF TELLS YOU THAT ANY OF THE REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT MET, THEN YOU CAN FEEL APPROVAL.

MOVE TO DENY IT IF YOU WANT. IF YOU APPROVE A PLAQUE IT DOESN'T MEET OUR CRITERIA BY FORMAL MOTION, SECOND AND VOTE OR BY OPERATION OF LAW, BY NOT DENYING IT WITHIN THE 30-DAY PERIOD OF TIME, THINGS GET REALLY WEIRD.

THINGS GET REALLY WEIRD. THE NEXT STEP IS AN APPLICATION FOR SOME PERMIT AT THE STAFF LEVEL AND HERE

[00:40:01]

YOU'VE GOT A PLATT THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED AND WE DON'T KNOW IF WE SHOULD A-- IF WE SHOULD RELEASE IT OR RECORDATION OR AD BUILDING PERMIT SHOULD BE ISSUED? Y'ALL UNDERSTAND? OKAY. I SEE PEOPLE NODDING SO OKAY

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I THINK WE DON'T HAVE ANY

MORE QUESTIONS. >> VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR LETTING ME TALK TO YOU GUYS.

>> OKAY. WHO ALL IS ON THE MEETING? CAN YOU TELL? ARE ANY OF OUR ALTERNATES ON ANY SEE

STEPHEN. >> ALL OF OUR ALTERNATES ARE HERE, WE'RE ONLY MISSING MIRANDA FROM REGULAR

MEMBERS. >> PERFECT.

SO JEFF, YOU WERE NEXT IN LINE TO SIT THE MEETING IF YOU WOULD HIKE -- LIKE TO. DID I GET AN AFFIRMATIVE FROM JEFF? I CAN'T SEE ANYONE BUT ME AND STEPHEN.

GEOFF, IF YOU ARE GOING TO SIT THE MEETING LESION YOUR VIDEO ON AND AUSTIN, WESLEY, MAKE SURE YOUR VIDEO IS OFF.

AND CELL PHONES, ETC. >> JEFF SCHMUCKER, CAN YOU

HEAR? >> IT WOULD BE GREAT IF I CAN SEE HIM AS WELL. CAN YOU SEE HIM, LAURA? JEFF, IF YOU ARE GOING TO JOIN THE MEETING, CAN YOU PLEASE TURN ON YOUR VIDEO AND YOUR SOUND PLEASE, SIR? OKAY. LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO AUSTIN. WOULD YOU LIKE TO SIT THE MEETING? AND IF SO, PLEASE TURN ON YOUR VIDEO AND AUDIO

PLEASE, SIR. >> IS THERE ANY CHANCE, CAN WE USE THE OTHER ALTERNATE. I HAVE A BIT OF A COUGH TODAY. I THINK IT WOULD BE BETTER

-- >> OKAY.

WESLEY DAVIS, ARE YOU AVAILABLE TO TURN ON YOUR VIDEO AND AUDIO AND JOIN THE MEETING, SIR?

>> I AM. >> OKAY.

LAURA, ARE YOU READY? OKAY. WE HAVE A QUORUM ESTABLISHED. AND MR. WESLEY DAVIS IS GOING TO SIT IN AS AN ALTERNATE.

I WANT TO TELL EVERYONE THAT MIRANDA HAS RESIGNED DUE TO JUST, SHE IS A LITTLE TOO BUSY.

WE HATE TO SEE HER GO. MIRAND

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.