COM 0331.001 2020-2022 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

for it to be valid or can he sort of do an unfriendly amendment and if we all vote on it then it becomes friendly? Just a question. HALL: Yeah, I mean,both procedures are correct. Usually to simplify things we try to have one motion so, if, if you don't agree with his motion then you can withdraw your motion, somebody else can make that motion or we can do where we keep your first motion but the motion for the amendment must be voted on separately so, yeah, it can be done either way but usually like to make it simple with one motion with everything together. GALIMBA: Thank you and I like keeping things simple as well. But I do, you know I think now we're sort of in an unofficial discussion segment on this on these motions so, I'm just going to discuss. So, I get your point Commissioner Clarkson however, I think I mean you're wanting to create a precedent, I think from a practical point of view it doesn't really make a difference it sounds like on this, but you want to sort of start to create a precedent. I'm a little, I get that point on this particular project however, in general I think there might be a case, there might be cases where a previous land use decision may not be as valid you know 29 years later as Coinrnissioner Replogle pointed out. So, I'm a little bit leery about just saying lets you know completely do away with time limits on land use reclassifications. So, I don't know whose philosophical point should win right here today and as I said I don't really have a strong opinion on this so, I just wanted to discuss and then I will accept your amendment to my motion so that we can move ahead. CLARKSON: I'd just like to point out the previous rezone application did not have a time limit. So, it's not like this is completely out of left field. GALIMBA: Got it. So, I'll accept your amendment and let's, let's go. REPLOGLE: Okay, so,just for clarity's sake we have one motion with an amendment on the table and Mr. Clarkson if you would repeat it again before we do the roll call. CLARKSON: My amendment if that's what we're still talking about was to delete Condition C. KERN: Mr. Chair, I understand that Commissioner Galimba adopted that into her motion so it's to send the recommendation forward to the Commission with a favorable recommendation with the deletion of Condition C. As one clean move. REPLOGLE: Yes. Okay, for the third time would staff take the role— JACKSON: Excuse me Chair Replogle? REPLOGLE: Oh wait, wait. JACKSON: So if I may— REPLOGLE: Yes. 9 EXHIBIT C(DRAFT)