She awake now. Good afternoon. Welcome to the September 8th, 2025 City of Apopka Planning and Zoning Commission. If everyone could please stand for a moment of silent player prayer and the pledge. Amen. I pledge allegiance to the flag of
the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. What did I say? Faith. Oops. The day behind.
All right. During tonight's meeting, any agenda item will have a time set aside for the public to speak on that matter. If there is anyone here that has something that's not on the agenda that's planning and zoning related, they would like to speak, now would be the time to be
recognized. Very well. Item number one has been removed. Going directly to item number two, legislative ordinance number 3121, smallcale future land use amendment 155 MA Board Street, owners Magic House LLC,
applicant Amir Gawad, Mr. Song, Mr. Chairman, you the approval of the minutes. Did we skip that? Yes, sir. What minutes? I don't work well when I get wet. Okay. Need to approve the meeting minutes from August 12th, 2025.
Anybody have any changes or additions, subtractions? Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to approve the minutes from August 12th, 2025. Well, thank you, sir. Motion by Commissioner
Washington. Do I have a second? I'll second it. Second by Commissioner Wood. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Okay. Back to item number two, ordinance number 3121. Mr. Song.
Good evening. This is Jen Zone planner with the community development department. The applicant has requested official land use amendment um for the properties property located at 155 MA board street. The size
is 1.27 acres in size and is currently vacant. The existing future land use designation is residential medium which allows up to 10 dwelling unit per acre. The request zoning is mixed use which allows up up
to 15 dwelling units per acre. Because the properties located within mixed use downtown zoning district, amending the future land use to mixed use will make this site consistent with its zoning. Staff and applicant are available to answer any questions.
Thank you, sir. Does anyone have questions of staff? No. Well, is the applicant here? Did they have a presentation? Excuse me. I'm sorry. I I I did have a question. As I read that, do am I understanding correctly that they're
looking to build three dwelling units on that 27 of an acre? Yes, you're correct. Um, density wise, if they change their future land use from richness or medium to u mixed use, they will they are allowed to build four
dwelling units per acre. And um they proposed they said they will develop three dwelling units per on this property. Okay. And that the the um the drawings have not been done for uh we had an informational meeting but
we have not received any um final site plan yet. Okay. Anyone else have questions? Very well. The applicant here, do they have a presentation? Very well. Does anyone from the public
here wish to speak on this matter? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to board for discussion and a motion. Mr. Chairman, I I realize that we're asked to vote on something here, but
having limited ability to see. I mean 27 is not large and they're proposing three dwellings, if I want to call it that, on there. Um,
you know, it's it's hard to make a decision without seeing something, you know, some type of draw. If I may, um, Mr. Chairman, in response to Mr. Mock's, uh, questions, the is the
property zone mixeduse downtown already. So, the underlying future land use is inconsistent with the zoning on the property. The comprehensive plan, this properties within the downtown, it states that properties within the downtown area are encouraged to get a
mixeduse future land use designation. And it's outlined in the report that the mixeduse future land use designation not only permits residential, but it can allow a whole bunch of multiple uses, mixed uses on the property. So yeah, they're representing that might do three units on the property, three housing
units, but it may not end up being that one day. And this is just a legislative item. This is just a future land use. So the future land use dictates the type of zoning. So there is an inconsistency. That's really in essence what they're doing. But they have indicated to us that they want to do three units on the
property. And one thing I would add to that is if you look do you have a overhead map of that that's not like a Google map or if you look
I guess that would be the northwest. There's I think that's the um I believe is that the maybe I'm I'm backwards from where Okay. Yeah. Okay. I see. But there's multiple places there. If you look directly to
the left on the map where it says M8 Board Street, there's six dwelling units on a lot that size. They're like small apartments. So, it's it's not uncharacteristic for the area. But and there I believe there's some
directly behind it. I believe one of those lots back there has multiple units on it also because I I drove by and looked at it. So and and I I realize that we've already has the zoning for it. So I was just a future land use. So I think that's the question.
I have a question. All right, Commissioner Washington. Mr. M. Good question. Uh I've been there. I passed there many times. I can see and know what's happening. Uh do you have any idea what the square footage is of uh one h one house?
I do not know. Um I have to defer that question to the applicant but um their intention is build three town houses like town houses with a three dwelling units. So it will be smaller than like regular um detached single family. Yeah,
that's that's what I that's what I thought. Just small town houses, very narrow side by side. Yes. To squeeze into that uh acreage. Yes. And then and then it is permitted use per the code. Yeah. Anyone else?
No. May I say something, Mr. Chairman? You know, think thinking about what you know, you're saying, Mr. Mock and and Mr. Washington. I I know there's a acute housing shortage in this area, especially something that's going to be kind of small isn't going to be that expensive
in that area. And I think this is a good use if we're just putting ch making this change to allow to have a little higher density considering that as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, the nearby densities are also even higher than the three units. So given that said, I'm
willing to make the motion unless there's any other points. Very well. Anyone else have any input? All right, I'll hear your motion. Can you uh switch it to the motion, please? I'm sorry. Can you uh read it? He didn't memorize it. No.
Slacking. Okay, Mr. Mr. Chairman, I'll create a motion to find the proposed change in the future land use designation from residential medium to mixed use consistent with the comprehensive plan and land development code and compatible with the character of the surrounding areas recommending approval of the
proposed change of the future land use based on the findings and facts presented presented in the staff report and exhibits. Thank you, sir. Motion by Commissioner Doomy. Do I have a second? I'll second it. Second by Commissioner Ryan. Thank you, sir. All in favor say I.
I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Item number three, ordinance 3128, planning and expedited permitted permit uh presented by Cliff Shepard, city attorney. Maybe not. Thank you, chairman. I'm Andrew Hand. As
you know, I'll be presenting uh this this evening. staff has asked me to present an overview of of what's going on as well as talk to a an item that I I suppose there'll be a a running theme on everything I'm going to talk to you about this evening. Um it uh deals with
preeemption and legislative mandates all coming from the legislature. Um both with what I'll talk to you about after this and this particular item. Um what you have before you tonight, this ordinance number 3128 is a uh I don't
want to say overhaul, but um there are some significant very significant revisions to the city's platting process. Uh and uh in crafting these, our office worked with a number of departments within the city to get to
what we all believe is probably the simplest solution um to uh what the legislature has told every municipality, every county with over 10,000 residents or 75,000 in the county that they have to do. um and that
they have told every city and county that they have to do as far as administrative approval of plat. So this particular ordinance here before you is uh simply um an ordinance to uh
allow a popka to comply with what the legislature has required. um the particular ordin or particular statutes that uh have really created this framework. We have uh doesn't have a um
we do have the section number now 177071. It just hasn't been codified yet on uh the state site, but it's bill 784. And and that one's very simple, not quite as complicated as the other. It simply shifts the plat approval process
and takes it out of a city council or a city commission or a uh county commission's hands and says you have to appoint somebody to do this administratively within the city. It no longer can come before you on an agenda
the final plat approval. Um what Apka has done in the interim uh believe you believe we probably voted a copy of the planning commission and I think I did as an update before was a resolution that was temporary uh essentially stating that
during process that Apopka is amending its code the city administrator is going to be the one who's going to uh do these administrative approvals and that remains consistent with this ordinance. Um so that is essentially where we're at with that. Uh
there's also a statute 177073 which uh requires cities of a certain size and a papkas that size more than 10,000 residents and more than 25 acres of continuous land contiguous land um
for land that could ultimately be changed from agricultural to residential use to create an expedited permitting system to allow permitting to happen before a final plat is approved. D. And so this ordinance also does that. Um, as
I said, really everything that you see in here is a mandate from the legislature except for uh one small section that updates some regulations pertaining to model sales home, but even model sales homes, but even that takes into account this expedited permitting process and and trying to make a pop
system work smoothly with that. So that said, just kind of walking you through the ordinance. Uh what you see here and and there were a few different ways to do this. Again, essentially in order to keep everybody in the loop, both the planning commission and the city
commission, um the idea was to integrate. Uh I guess one thing to point out is that Apk has only ever had a final plat uh process. Uh the statute uh 177073 requires cities to
to create a a preliminary and a final plat system. And so what this ordinance does is integrates that preliminary plat or at least while it won't be approved uh per se um you know by the planning commission or so forth, a preliminary
plat would be included within a development plan. And so you'd have the benefit of that information simply because really that's the way it works right now. Even though a popka has a only a final platting uh process really all the information most of the information that you'll see in a plat is
included within a development plan of how they plan to break up lots and and how they're most likely going to be platted in the future. Uh so as far as changes, we just have made some changes to some of the tables to make them consistent to point out, hey, this is the city administrator or designate uh
so the city administrator can designate Bobby or another planning official to to do these in in theirstead if uh that's desired by the commission and and by the city administrator. Um takes uh the plat decisions out of the city council and planning commission hands. That's just
strike through. We have some sections in here that denotes exactly what I was saying. How to handle uh submissions uh that uh have that plaid information as part of a development plan whether it's major or
minor. Uh those have all been addressed. And one thing I'll point out too before I forget, um I think that we will probably be looking at some changes in the future coming before you to this ordinance simply
because chapter 177 is currently written isn't consistent with itself. Um we saw in the last legislative session a push to really make some significant changes to various parts of uh sections in
Florida statutes. And those changes may not be consistent with the rest of the chapter that they're in. And that is the case with Platin. Uh while they made it very clear that it's no longer the governing body who's going to be making these decisions, they didn't change it in the rest of the chapter. When I say
they, of course, I mean the legislature. So, I believe I would anticipate I haven't heard any talk about it, but I think they have to come back and finish the job and we'll probably see that in the next leg legislative session or at least one in the near future. So, I want
to point that out as well. This is definitely a moving target. Um, we have just removed some of the graphics that uh are no longer consistent with what the processes have to be per the statute. So, there's some changes in there and uh just setting up the
framework for the city administrator to make their decision and what they can do versus what they can't do is included in here to be consistent with chapter 177. When we get down to the expedited residential subdivision building permit section, that's on page eight of the ordinance. Again, this is a rather large
ordinance because it is a very significant change. Uh what you see in here is fire far as requirements when it comes to submittals when it comes to uh notifying um you know fire officials when it comes
to bonds that 130% bond requirement when it comes to addressing when it comes to um providing proof that the applicant or requiring that the applicant has provided proof that they have uh submitted the development plans to util
the applicable utilities. When it comes to this whole list here, that is directly out of the statute. Um, so that's what APOPKA has to have in there. That's why it's in there. Uh, staff did not pick those numbers. Staff did not pick those requirements. Um, they have
to execute an indemnification or hold harmless agreement in favor of the city to to get that expedited permitting. So, that's included in there as well. Um, that is good because there are definitely some concerns with uh permitting
without a final approved plaque and without having the land subdivided. Um, something that that typically doesn't happen and so the legislature did account for that. Now it's in the code once this is adopted will be in the code.
As far as anything else that you may see, there is just that small provision that changes uh the uh allows now up to four model sales home units per builder in development because they're going through that expedited permitting process. They're
going to have a number of uh if if to give you an idea, if an applicant were to apply per the statute, they have to be able to build up to 50% of their development. In other words, the units, the living units, um, without having that final plat approved. So, it only makes sense that,
yes, I mean, since they're going to have that many units on site, uh, in in talking to the building official, they were comfortable with having four model home units and consistent with good practice. And so, that is the only change that really isn't, uh, you know, directly stemming from the statute, but
is related to the statute. And, uh, that's it. I'm happy to answer any questions, but but that's what you all are looking at tonight. Thank you, sir. Anyone have questions? Yes, sir. Commissioner Washington. Thank you, sir. When I look at this document and I read
through it and um I I thought it was a great document, you know, I I just all I saw was how you can how we can streamline the process to get from point A to point B. That's that's what I saw. So, you might be moving something from one position to another position.
figatively speaking, but uh all the necessary um uh checkpoints have been made before it can be platted. So it seems like to me that once they go through all these different checkpoints, in effect it's been platted. It's meeting the requirements of the plat. Is that
correct or wrong? essentially uh because you know ultimately the lines could change a bit uh at the very very end but the idea and and there were a number of ways to attack this and ultimately with with staff's feedback why we settled on this and and thank you that's that's a nice compliment because that's exactly
what the goal was to really allow or or really to try to to make such a big change and really not affect the process in Apopka at all and and I think that's essentially what it is you still get that information you won't be left out in the hold. Um, so
really that that's accurate. It's it's just a matter of uh trying to do as efficiently as possible as in line with uh you know what what we've seen mandated by the legislature. Okay. Sure. Last thing. May I sir?
You still have the floor? Yeah, you still have the floor. Thank you. Um, we like to have fun up here. But, uh, what would, uh, dictate when a minor replat would have to be initiated?
Uh, minor replplat is, uh, depends on the number of units. Um, I believe it says 44 here, right? As far as the minor part. But essentially that would just be associated with a a minor development
plan or a dimminimous uh um I guess I can put it this way. Previously there was an administrative process uh for plats that I think it was 20 units Bobby something
along those lines. less than less than 25 units uh that would go to the planning director uh for for their review and so there already was an administrative process. So it's something along those lines. Any a plat anytime a plat's required is three or
more um three or more lots and so in a popka something less than 25 didn't go to council previously. Uh so that remains the standard here. 25 or less is is considered minor. And so there are some really kind of makes the processes
a little bit uh more congruent for both the major and the minor since everything now is of course administrative. Okay. So basically when something uh was uh planned went through the development review, the construction site plan, police, fire
review, etc., etc., utilities review, all said and done, ready to go. But now something's changed that causes a replat and that's what it give me a scenario what that might be. If the developer I guess if if something
has changed I mean there won't be really any any developments that are caught up in this process. So everything is going to go through this process soup to nuts that that's coming in and with that process has already started since we have the resolution in place. But to answer your
question, if a development came in and started to go through the process and made a mistake in where they placed maybe some footings on a wall or made a mistake in where they played placed a house, you know, they they're taking that risk with the expedited um if they
and and that's their election. They don't have to go that route with the expedited uh permit request. But if they go that route and they were to make a mistake in placement or so forth and you know that wasn't identified and that the structure was actually constructed, they
may choose to redraw some of those lines and and make a change to the plat. You may have a difference in the final plat uh the preliminary plat. And we've seen that actually uh a number of times um in the past didn't have a a preliminary
plat process but did have that development plan process where you know something was built maybe where it shouldn't be built and uh they've had to shift over some of the the lot lines even though um and and that just is a matter of infrastructure.
Uh not not talking about a structure like a like a house since they couldn't really build those before. Now they can for legislature. Does that make sense? I understand. Okay. Anyone else?
I got something. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner D. Uh, pardon me. Uh, to second what Commissioner Washington said. I think you guys did a good job of making lemonade out of lemons. As far as I'm concerned, you made it made the process clear. I'll state my opposition again to
this as well as Senate Bill 180 because I think it's taking local control away from us and it's, you know, I I get on the one hand they're trying to standardize and make it easier for the builders to have less unpredictability, but on the other hand, we live here and we know what's going on in our community
and it's taken away our u checks and balances in a way. So I disagree with that but I think you guys have done a good job at uh trying to codify this to meet the intent that we are required legislatively to meet. So that's all.
Thank you. Anyone else? I have a question. So if I hear you correctly, there is one person now that's going to be responsible to review the plaque.
No, ultimately they're responsible to have the final say on approval or denial, but the plat will still go through the same process where it will have the DRC review. Uh what's required is that there per statute be a two-step preliminary plat process prior to expedited uh approval for permitting and
uh that will still go through essentially work the same way that it works now except that staff will have to it's not in the ordinance but it is in the statute. staff will have to be wary of some timelines and communicate with the applicant of when things are going to happen and make certain guarantees of
when the reviews will be complete. That's really the only thing that changes. So, uh, other than, of course, going to planning commission and council, but on the other side, it still goes through fire review, still goes through police review and and everyone in DRC, and they still look at
everything and essentially will advise uh, whoever ends up, you know, doing the administrative approval, whether it's the city administrator or their designate, this works or it doesn't work, we'll still end up doing a legal review to see if it complies with chapter 177. uh surveyor will still be
doing review to make sure it complies with the technical aspects of chapter 177. My experience is the state legislature never does something without
multiple people coming forward and presenting something. our past process. Essentially, my question is, what were we doing wrong that it led to the state legislature
saying, "You guys are holding up development, and the way you're holding up development is detrimental to someone." I have to speculate at that given that I
didn't attend the hearings, but platting and land use are are sort of my thing. So, I do have insight into what I I think a developer would find frustrating and from what I've seen developers express in other uh jurisdictions. And I think it's essentially two things. I
think sometimes a plat approval, you know, we we've talked a number of times about quasi judicial legislative and and those type of decisions. uh a plat is is really almost uh neither. It's almost an administrative approval in and of itself
because it is just straight compliance. Do you match and meet up with these check marks? And so you might hear from a developer, why do I have to go to a city council when they've approved all my plans where they've approved everything that uh gets us to this point?
and um now I you know I'm I'm I'm rehashing something that really should be do I comply with code or do I not that would be one frustration another frustration might be a plat review is very very intensive it takes a number of eyes
number of departments to look at and some jurisdictions especially smaller jurisdictions much smaller than aka that process can take a long time and aka happens very fairly quickly so I don't think that's an issue But timeliness certainly can be an issue
in some jurisdictions. Uh is that enough for the legislature to act and say we're going to do a total 180 and change the way this works? I don't know. But what I do know as far as the expedited permitting, uh that simply allows
developers to build where they weren't allowed to build before. Not where, but when they couldn't build previously, they had to get, you know, in just about every jurisdiction, get the final plaque. And until that final plan is approved, they could build infrastructure, but they couldn't build
structures. They couldn't flush toilets. Uh now, you know, they can start building if they comply with the statutory requirements that have to be integrated into code and start building well in advance of actually getting to that that that stage of final plat
approval. So for a developer, I don't know that it was something that was wrong, but they're able to mobilize and start construction, start flushing toilets, making use of utilities much quicker than they would be able to without the
legislation in place. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, I can't tell you. It certainly erodess home rule power. We certainly advocate for home rule. Um, that's where we're at until the legislature changes their mind.
But, uh, some speculation in there, but but those are those are the facts and that's definitely the way that that I see it and what I've heard from from developers as well as observed over years of doing this. I can almost hear the conflict news story now.
Anyone else? The only I I do have one well I mean one statement I I I think it needs to be clear that it's not 100% clear. Every permit still has to have the engineering and the plans turned in and approved
prior to anybody turning uh turning dirt. So it it's not like the flat plan is the overall, but the individual what they're doing on site has all been through engineering and it's been through the before the permit's issued. The engineering for the plan is there.
The engineering for the water retention area for the streets, all that's already done and approved or they wouldn't get the permit. Am I correct in that? Yes, sir. Okay. So basically the nuts and bolts and the hard work have been done. This is more
the big picture. So I I And I I understand your question and it does seem, you know, if it's if it's that ownorous today to get that done, we sure got a lot of houses coming out of the ground if it's that hard of a process. So, it it's curious to me what was the
actual impetus for for this bill. And going along with the the apartment complex bill they just shoved down our throat a while back, it it begs the question. That was it. All right. Thank you, sir. There are no
other questions. We have it. All right. That's the only item for discussion unless anybody else has something else. This is an item that you need to vote on and it's a public hearing. So, you need to So, it's an item you need to vote on
and it's a public hearing. You need to vote on that. I thought that was information only. No, this is an action item. Yeah. It's coming forward for you just for review and and recommendation to city council and for a finding of comprehensive plan consistency. Um and and Bobby, do you want to speak to the comprehensive plan
consistency and regards to Senate Bill 180 or or regarding this ordinance? Oh yes. So this ordinance is consistent with all aspects of the comprehensive plan and with the adoption of what the state legislature has implemented not only on Apakka but statewide as well.
So, it is consistent with all elements of the comprehensive plan. Okay. All right. Do we need to uh have public comment? Yes, it's a public hearing. Okay. All right. Does anyone here from the public wish to speak on this matter?
Very well. We'll bring it back to the board for a motion. Mr. Chairman, I can make the motion. Okay. Uh I would like to make a motion to approve uh ordinance number 3128 and find it uh congruent with the
comprehensive plan of the city and also with the intent of the state legislature in this matter. Very well. Thank you sir. Motion by Commissioner Dumi. Do I have a second? Second. Second by Commissioner Washington. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed?
Motion carries. Right. items for discussion. We have legal department overview of new state planning laws is the only thing we have left. Yes, sir. And I'll be very brief on this. This is not new. I've spoken on
this before. Um and uh I know that uh my partner Cliff Shepard has spoken on this uh multiple times at the uh city commission meetings. Um but uh I know we'll be going over a few different legal topics and in meetings when there's some time. This is one of them.
Um there are a number of statutes this year that uh were adopted or bills that were adopted that have become statutes that do affect planning. Um but just focusing on Senate Bill 180 for now. This is the bill of course that uh does
really two things when it comes to planning. the one section, the very last section, and again, this bill was adopted on the very last day of uh legislative session, um with with minimal review. Uh there are a number of
local governments that are taking issue with it. I understand there's a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality uh that's going to be forthcoming. Um, and uh, there's a number of counties and cities that have created delegations that are providing feedback on Senate
Bill 180 and and how to amend it, uh, amend the statute to accomplish what the legislature was trying or attempting to accomplish without going um,
without going overboard uh, and really affecting development as a whole as opposed to rebuilding. Um what this bill does and again it's a long bill, 48 pages. Um as far as planning in the last section,
uh calls out counties and cities that were listed in the federal disaster declaration for hurricanes Debbie, Helen, and Milton last year. And each one of those local jurisdictions may not propose or adopt any moratoriums on construction, reconstruction, or redevelopment of property. that's
damaged by those hurricanes. Uh they may not propose or adopt more restrictive or burdensome amendments to their comprehensive plan or land development regulations. Um as we've seen got some feedback on the uh comprehensive plan amendments that came back um finding some of those to be more restrictive and
and kicking it back to the city of Papka after all the the work that went into creating those amendments. um and uh may not adopt more restrictive or burdensome procedures concerning review, approval or issuance of a site plan, development permit or development order. That's very
broad and that runs uh um up to October 1st, 2027 and runs back to October 1st, 2024. that puts a lot of jurisdictions and um I don't know that it had a a real effect on Apopka, but a
number of jurisdictions passed ordinances before this bill was filed that now apparently are invalid. And so that's that's a large problem that um that isn't going away until it's addressed.
uh there are strict repercussions and if if it's not followed providing a cause of action for affected property owners and developers to uh essentially challenge and unless a change is made to those regulations uh
basically a large recovery could be a possibility and so really it ties the hands of local governments from really take undertaking any significant planning efforts uh to make significant ificant changes to their comprehensive plan unless it's
clearly less restrictive. Um, and that bleeds over into other areas, too. There's been some legislation filed when it comes to impact fees and so forth, and we'll see how that pans out. Um, I don't know that the legislature intended that, but there's been enough uh
feedback directed to the legislature that I do hope that they'll clarify and we may see some action in the next legislative session. Certainly if I hear anything I will be sure to keep you updated um you know when the time comes and and when I do have information on that. The other part that is a bit
significant uh is forwardlooking that's more backward looking because it's dealing with last year's hurricanes that came through. The other part of the bill uh essentially states that uh if the county is listed in those federal
disaster de uh disaster declarations 100 miles on each side of the hurricane track and the areas that were listed cannot make more restrictive uh changes to their comprehensive plan or land development regulations for a period of a year after the declaration was made.
So looking forward in the future, if there's another significant hurricane season, um that could tie the hands of the Popka for yet another year when this the last part of the section is no longer applicable. Um also all the same stuff is in there when it comes to
moratoriums and all of the other uh restrictions. So uh that's where we are currently and and and we'll see where the legislature wants to go with it. Um but uh at least for the time being there won't be any changes uh until the next session. So
any questions on that? I'm happy to answer it. All right. I I I have a quick question. Um did since the our rewrite of comprehensive plan, did they change it or did they just simply interpret it because of the the the broad nature of
it? They just interpreted that we weren't in compliance and and that would lead the followup question. How will we know when we are in compliance? So the state have to continue to to submit it to the teacher and see if she gives us a good grade or pretty much it seems without specifics. How do you comply?
So the state identified the policies that I emailed all of you and then they identified three others. uh they focused on open space um and infrastructure uh specifically denying a development order if there is no capacity in the system.
It was one that they flagged. Um and then one that's almost verbatim that's in the existing comp plan they flagged because the words where possible was removed in regards to buffering from springs and sink holes as well. Um they did give us the courtesy of letting us
know which policies it was. The person I spoke with at the state said his advice is to take that out and then come back in and try again. It's pretty much what he said. And uh to answer another portion of your question,
chairman, as to how would you know beyond that uh essentially even if the state said, "Hey, everything looks good here and it were to be adopted." if uh it were challenged and found to be more restrictive and let's say we have a scenario where we have a property owner who says well it's more restrictive city
says I don't think so and there was to be a lawsuit there then ultimately a court would decide make that decision um so uh that would be the the final arbiter and there's really no way to know until it's tested in court if it's something that's not clear you know
clearly more restrictive and then and that and the hurricane trigers There's the one-year moratorum, correct? Uh going forward, yes. In the meantime, well, not not a one-year moratorium, but the ban on moratoriums, right? So, how close does the hurricane have to
be? You said it's within 100 miles 100 miles of that path. Federal disaster declaration, which is easy. So, depending on the track of a hurricane to again cover the entire state, right? Unless it's Pensacola or Miami, we're in trouble. All right. Okay. I'm
sorry. I'm not supposed to go first. Anybody else have any questions? No, I Mr. Chairman, I sure do. As you saw in my email yesterday, I was uh thank you guys for providing that information. It's disappointing again to see uh some of our protections be whittleled away, especially around the
Springs and you know, our open spaces. I wish the uh localities much success in suing uh their legislation, their uh judicial remedies for these kind of overreaches from the state legislature. Anyone
else have questions? Very well. All right. Somebody probably needs to see how much money the builders are donating to Congress in Florida. All right. There's no other matters. Meeting a journ.