DONALD A. CRICHLOW OPPOSED HP-1 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT IN 2010 -- EX VICE MAYOR NOW LOBBYING ILLEGALLY FOR DAVID BARTON CORNEAL?

Ex-Vice Mayor DONALD A. CRICHLOW (R-Proctorville) strongly opposed a Bed and Breakfast with five (5) rooms located in Old City South HP-1, saying it would create a dangerous precedent. PZB minutes for December 7, 2010 state that under oath as a hearing witness: "Don Crichlow said the board would set a precedence (sic) by approving the item. He said the City had been consistent with denying this type of application in the HP-1 district. He strongly recommended that the board deny this type of use within the HP-1."  


Efforts to reach Mr. CRICHLOW for comment are ongoing: he is at the Boca Raton Resort & Club this weekend for the Florida American Institute of Architects convention.


PZB, on motion of Deltra Long, seconded by JOHN VALDES, voted unanimously 6-0 against the project: VALDES said purchasers of historic properties should feel "somewhat protected" by existing law. Ironically, JOHN VALDES is one of the other vocal supporters in CORNEAL's support of the DOW PUD.  The minutes reflect that VALDES said, "when a person purchased a piece of property within a particular zoning category that they should feel somewhat protected.  Voting in the unanimous majority were then and current PZB members, Messrs. CARL BLOW and JERRY DIXON, both of whom voted for CORNEAL's project on May 5, 2015, even though it would have six (6) times as many hotel rooms.  DIXON was mean to the DOW opponents, saying they could not rely on zoning; he also testified illegally about his prior efforts to bring the Casa Monica Hotel project about, repeating the errors found by Judge Traynor in 2005, with City board members habitually testifying before themselves, a reflexive bit of due process violation prohibited by administrative law precedents (in that case, HARB members testified before themselves about the historical appearance of a window in a HARB hearing about a business on Marine Street, then proposed to be a sandwich shop).

Also supporting preservation of HP-1 under oath at the December 7, 2010 PZB hearing was none other than MARLENE CORDERO PIRIZ, now one of CORNEAL's most ardent supporters in support of the DOW PUD. Ms. PIRIZ, the minutes say, "explained that noise factors, social events, lighting, traffic, and deliveries were all concerns. She said she was not in favor of the application."  Again, that was opposing a five-room B&B.

Most eloquently, the December 7, 2010 PZB minutes reflect, HP-1 leader Ms. Hildegarde Pacetti spoke against the application, and "said she had provided a two page letter, which was in accordance with the property owners in HP-1. She requested that houses, apartments, and garage apartments must be rented for a minimum of 30 days, which had been approved by the Commission. She concluded that she was opposed of the application and explained that the approval would be a betrayal to the 100 homeowners."  Ms. Pacetti died a few months ago, but her spirit guides us. 

I have requested audio and video tapes and the entire file on the 268 St. George Street PUD denial.

Can't wait to see legendary local environmental and land use planning attorney Jane West cross-examine CRICHLOW, VALDES, PIRIZ et al. about their prior inconsistent statements and impeach their credibility at the August 24, 2015 quasi-judicial hearing on the DOW PUD.

While CORNEAL-coddling VALDES was a PZB member, and CORNEAL-supporting Messrs. DIXON and BLOW were and are PZB board members, both CRICHLOW and PIRIZ were public hearing witnesses, under oath.  CRICHLOW was then Commissioner and had served as Vice Mayor, testifying before a subordinate City Board.

CRICHLOW's and PIRIZ's DOW PUD testimony is impeached by their wildly inconsistent prior statements against the 268 St. George Street PUD, involving only five nightly rentals, or 1/6 as many nightly rental units as the proposed 30-room DOW PUD.  Is their change in position colored by money?

Florida Statute F.S. 90.614 states:

90.614 Prior statements of witnesses.—

(1) When a witness is examined concerning the witness’s prior written statement or concerning an oral statement that has been reduced to writing, the court, on motion of the adverse party, shall order the statement to be shown to the witness or its contents disclosed to him or her.

(2) Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness is inadmissible unless the witness is first afforded an opportunity to explain or deny the prior statement and the opposing party is afforded an opportunity to interrogate the witness on it, or the interests of justice otherwise require. If a witness denies making or does not distinctly admit making the prior inconsistent statement, extrinsic evidence of such statement is admissible. This subsection is not applicable to admissions of a party-opponent as defined in s. 90.803(18).

History.—s. 1, ch. 76-237; s. 1, ch. 77-77; ss. 17, 22, ch. 78-361; ss. 1, 2, ch. 78-379; s. 492, ch. 95-147.