HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal-Outlook Media Pieter Bockweg Cross-Examination QuestionsOUTLOOK MEDIA
PIETER BOCKWEG
CROSS-EXAMINATION QUESTIONS
I. POSTION/ROLE
a. What is your title with the City?
b. Do your responsibilities include reviewing, administering and making
decisions on billboard and/or outdoor advertising sign issues?
II. PROCEDURES WHEN REVIEWING APPLICATIONS
a. Special procedure when in a Gateway, next to park or in an existing
multi -family residentially zoned property?
i. Seek District Commissioner approval first?
ii. Did that happen in the case of the Lummus approval?
1. Which commissioner?
III. SPECIFIC TO OUTLOOK
a. Are you familiar with the appeal filed by Outlook Media regarding the
Lummus site?
b. In preparation for this hearing or for the February 25, 2010 City
Commission meeting when this was originally scheduled, did you
participate in any briefings with any commissioners?
IV. BRIEFING
a. When you were at that briefing, was anyone else present?
b. Who?
i. CBS?
c. Did they discuss anything relative to this appeal?
Utloo� i'r� ;CL
i ate Oc ,we�q -�-
09 oo�i�zQ,_S�b� �tfa.l - : rocs-- Xar����►o�Ques�onS ,
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.6 on 04-08-10
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
d. What did they discuss?
e. Comm. Dunn?
f. CBS - good stewards?
g. Lummus appeal?
h. Do you know whether CBS or its representatives visited any other
commissioners prior to the 2/25 City Commission meeting?
i. Which ones? Ask City Attorney to inquire?
V. CBS Settlement Agreement
a. Familiar with the settlement agreement between City and CBS?
b. Does the Settlement Agreement guarantee CBS the right to put signs
in certain locations?
c. No specific right to allow a CBS sign at the Lummus site, is there?
d. Tab F (thinner packet): CBS bears the "sole risk of finding, securing
and maintaining the sites for its Amended Permits, and that its failure
to find and secure suitable sites or to take advantage of the Amended
Permit rights granted herein shall not give rise to any claim for
compensation or other relief from the City."
VI. CBS Indemnification
a. Tab G (thinner packet)
b. During course of Outlook's appeal of the Lummus approval — you
have spoken with CBS representatives?
c. When Lummus application was pending — didn't CBS proffer an
indemnification agreement regarding the Lummus site and the subject
approval?
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.6 on 04-08-10
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
i. Why was an indemnification agreement proffered?
d. Participate in any meetings regarding the indemnification agreement?
i. With CBS?
ii. CityManager's Office?
iii. City Attorney's Office?
VII. Zoning Board Meeting— 3/22/10
a. Testified under oath at a Zoning Board meeting on 3/22/10 on an
Outlook appeal regarding denials?
b. Include Contemporary Contractors and Tanaka?
c. Didn't you testify that the reason for denial was that there were
pending appeals on those sites at Department of Administrative
Hearings?
i. P. 54: Contemporary Contractors: Denied because "They
subsequently submitted the old expired FDOT forms to FDOT,
which is now under appeal with FDOT ... "
ii. P. 56: Tanaka: "it's my understanding, under the same terms as
A, which is now under appeal with FDOT."
d. Based on that logic, if an application came in for Lummus today,
wouldn't you deny it based on the pending appeal at the State level?
e. Didn't you also testify that generally, you hold off on approvals do
avoid future issues and potential conflicts, depending on the outcome
of pending appeals?
f. Isn't it true that when Lummus was approved, Outlook had a pending
appeal before the Zoning Board on the Can Partners site?
g. Wouldn't the Can Partners site be in conflict with Lummus?
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.6 on 04-08-10
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
VIII. CBS FAMILIARITY
a. Are you familiar with the CBS settlement agreement?
b. What payment provisions are in the agreement related to the City?
c. Is it $114,000, as per the City Attorney memo attached as Tab J?
IX. 2/25 DEFERRAL
a. Was this item deferred at the 2/25 City Commission meeting?
b. Why was it deferred?
c. Were those reasons conveyed to any other commissioners?
X. LUMMUS PERMIT
a. Older than 280 days old?
b. CBS Agreement: p. 8, paragraph C: City's approval becomes
null/void?
c. Zoning Board transcript — 6/8/09: Tab D (thicker packet), p. 14-15
i. City and CBS concede it would expire?
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.6 on 04-08-10
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk