COMMISSIONER SANTAMARIA'S ERROR

-

George Pitell sends the following:

-

Santamaria’s Error

I watched and recorded the entire Zoning Commission Hearing on the Golf Course. Well into the hearing Commissioner Santamaria stated that early in the hearing Commissioner Burdick had made a motion to allow the public to participate in the discussion and that he was going to second the motion but was interrupted before he could do so. Mayor Abrams said he did not recall such a motion. Commissioner Burdick said she had made the motion. Mayor Abrams asked if the record showed such a motion and it was reported there was no record of it.

-

A review of my recording of the hearing shows Commissioner Santamaria had it mostly wrong, but not entirely. The hearing from the first dealt with the question of whether or not to allow public participation. Several members including Commissioner Burdick as well as attorney Banks spoke on this question.
-
Commissioner Burdick made several comments but did not make a motion in this regard. Commissioner Berger spoke against public participation and then made a motion for approval of the development. The motion was seconded by Vice Mayor Taylor at which point Commissioner Burdick spoke on that motion concluding with her making a motion to “deny this petition before us until it is litigated in the courts“. It was seconded by Commissioner Santamaria and Mayor Abrams next called for discussion on this “substitute motion” The discussion dealt with questions of a law suit being filed, how long it might take and the possible cost to the county were it made a party to it.

-

Mr Banks next explained why he had called upon the Commissioners to make a decision to approve the application at this time. Commissioner Vanna then made a “substitute motion” to approve the application, with 3 provisions, this was seconded (not clear on the recording who did so) After a lengthy discussion the commission voted to approve Mr Waldmans application.

-

Now considering that Commissioner Santamaria almost certainly believed the fact of Commissioner Burdick having made a motion, it needed to be addressed. Had he correctly stated that motion and the fact he had indeed seconded it and it was noted by Mayor Abams as a duly received “substitute motion” we can only ask what should have happened? I do not know the rules governing Commission Hearing procedure, or what may yet happen after a viewing of the recording shows Commissioner Burdick’s motion and that it was seconded by Commissioner Santamaria.

-

George R. Pittell
-