Okay, Josh. >> But we don't hear Nancy. >> Yeah. >> Not very well. >> Nancy, I don't think you're supposed to have those birds as a pet, just so you know. >> That's right. It's illegal to have a pet eagle. >> Is that better now? >> Um, it's still very low. Josh, we're
just having a little trouble with Nancy. She's >> not moving at all. >> Check your Zoom settings. Nancy, your mic isn't moving at all. >> Everybody, we're just waiting. We've got Nancy, our attorney on Zoom.
>> Uh, you guys me my Zoom settings. Select the microphone. Same as system maybe. >> What did you say, Nancy? >> Microphone. Is that better? >> Close to your computer as you can. Is that better?
>> A little better. >> Little faint, but >> not as loud as we thought. >> We see Nancy. Nancy Josh says that your levels your microphone level is not moving at all on Zoom. That means something something on your end is
>> put your speaker on. >> Not triggering. >> Microphone. >> The mic >> audio. I apologize. >> Okay. Well, you know what? We're just going to deal with it for the time being. You're not going to need to talk much today probably.
>> Okay. >> Good morning, everyone. >> This is a regularly scheduled meeting of the Fort Myers Beach Local Planning Agency. It is Tuesday, January 13th. It's 900 a.m. the year 2026. It's unbelievable. Uh if you would please
stand for the invocation and the pledge of allegiance. 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. >> So our invocation is just happy new year to everybody. >> Happy new year. >> Happy new year. >> Short and sweet. >> Okay. Our uh first item on the agenda is an approval of the final agenda. Does
anyone have anything to add, subtract, or comments? May I have a motion to approve? >> So move. >> Second. >> Thank you, Jim. Thank you, Jim. Uh, any objection to the motion hearing? None. The motion carries unanimously. How about an approval of the minutes for our meeting of December 16th, this should be
2025. >> So move Sith. >> Thank you. Thank you, Don. Is there a second for that motion? >> John, >> second. >> Thank you. So motion from from uh Don and seconded by John. Any objection to the motion to approve? >> Hearing none, it carries unanimously.
Now we have public comment and we do have public hear today, but if you're here to speak about a case, you should speak during the public hearing of the case. Is there anybody else who has anything to say? >> Hearing none, we'll move on to the public hearings. And Nancy, can you hear me now?
>> Much better. >> Okay, great. Thank you, Madame Chair. Um, today on your agenda, you have three items. you have uh two variances and one special exception and these public hearings for these items are quasi
judicial in nature. This requires that your public hearing comply with procedural requirements that have been established in Florida law and in our land development code. Your qualified judicial proceedings, they will be less formal than proceedings before circuit
court, but they're going to be more formal than the remainder of your meeting. And we must follow the basic standards of due process requiring certain notice uh notices, the application of the correct standards and your decisions to be made on competent
substantial evidence presented to you either in written or in uh oral testimony. Your responsibility today is to evaluate the testimony and the information given to you for each of these items and then draw a conclusion
regarding whether the criteria in the land development code or in state law has been satisfied. So speculation or your just an opinion that is not based on competent facts cannot legally be considered by you in
evaluating an agenda item. Testimony by professionals who are qualified as experts in a particular area has been considered competent evidence by Florida courts as well as testimony by neighbors and residents who have fact-based
information or information that is based on their personal knowledge. So members in the audience, those of you who intend to speak, please keep these comments in mind and when you come forward, clearly state your name for the record and
whether or not you have been sworn in. As you are aware, a unanimous decision by eligible voting members of the LPA to approve a variance, and we have two on our agenda today, shall constitute final agency act action. And this will be
subject to a request by anyone for an additional hearing or review of the matter by the town council if that request is received by the town clerk within 10 days. So for purposes of efficiency, I would like to go ahead and
ask our town clerk, have the items been properly noticed today? >> Yes, they have been. >> Thank you. And also um is there any member of the LPA who has a conflict of interest under our ethics code that
would prevent them from voting on any of these items? >> You would that now so we can make sure that we do have a quorum present for the evaluation of these items. >> Jim, any conflicts? >> I don't think it's conflict. One of them deals with a neighbor on our street.
>> Okay. How about you, Don? >> None. >> Jane. Jim. >> None. John. >> Uh, similarly, uh, one of them is, uh, one over from me on my street, but no conflict. >> Okay. I have none as well, Nancy. >> Thank you. And a conflict is really
determined on whether or not there's going to be a special benefit provided to you um based on your decision. It doesn't sound like there are any um uh members who would be disqualified from voting due to conflicts today. Um, the
next item that for housekeeping purposes is we'd like to go ahead and have the town clerk swear in any of the witnesses, anyone present today who will be giving testimony regarding any of these three items. >> So, anyone in the audience that's going
to get up to speak today, stand up to be sworn in, please, even if you think you might. Okay, if you'll all raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear and affirm that the testimony that you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
>> Okay. All have been sworn. >> Thank you, everyone. >> Mad uh your opportunity now to go ahead and uh introduce the first item on your agenda. >> Thanks, Nancy. You know what I'm thinking? You should just record that. We could just hit a button and play it
every All right. Uh um I our first our first public hearing is a resolution of the town council of the town of Fort Myers Beach, Florida approving approving with conditions or denying a special exception SEZ20250271.
A request to increase the number of bedrooms in a two family residence while utilizing the post- disaster buildback code of the land development code section 34-32382E4A for the property located at 166 and 168
Coconut Drive generally referred to as strap number 294624 W2 0070A 0160 6 in Fort Myers Beach providing for scribers errors, severability, and an
effective date. Um, exparte. Anything from you, John? >> Uh, none. >> How about you, Jim? >> None. >> Jane, >> none. >> Uh, Don, >> none. >> Jim, >> none. >> Doug, >> none. >> Okay. And I have none as well. So, um, Jason, nice to see you. Happy New Year, Jason.
>> Happy New Year to you and the rest of the LPA and everybody watching at home. My name is Jason Smallley. I'm the senior planner with the town and uh today before you is a special exception request. Uh as Anita had mentioned, this is built into the special exception
request for um increasing the number of bedrooms within a home that is utilizing the post- disaster buildback policy. Uh the applicant today is requesting to uh in furtherance of the elevation of the
home for uh flood plane purposes is requesting to increase the number of bedrooms from the three that could be established prior to the storm to a maximum of six. Um before you is the request. Uh the staff has determined um
that the approval conditions would be prudent and we have put a additional condition of approval onto there uh to accommodate additional rooms and possible additional intensity that goes along with those rooms. The staff has recommended an additional parking space
be required which would bring the total up to three and they would be required to show that they can park all of those prior to co of the structure that they're going to be reconstructing. Staff is here for any questions that you may have. The applicant is here for any questions that you'd like to ask of
them. >> Thank you very much, Jason. Any questions for Jason? Jason, >> can you explain why you are using >> Hold on, Jane. Remember this. >> Sorry. Sorry. Can you uh explain why you're using the post- disaster buildback on this? >> So, the post- disaster buildback was
intended to allow structures that could be validated to have additional density to rebuild at that same amount of density. Remember, density is is very uh deeply held in the comp plan and and state statutes. And so the vesting or or
the allowance to retain that uh once we can validate it was there before the storm had to be done through this post- disaster policy. This is mentioned in the comp plan and right after the storm staff came uh to town council to request uh kind of guard rails on how we would
do this. And the outcome of the post- disaster buildback is what you see before you. It requires that they come before you to u keep the same thing they had before. Uh but if they want to increase that, that's the reason that they have to come before you and council.
>> So my understanding is that the um comp plan allows you to add one more bedroom or >> it allows you to request additional bedrooms. Uh the LDC language that was given to us uh has no upper limit. It's limited by the public u meetings and
terminations from you and the town council. >> Okay. Um Okay. Okay. And this is going to remain a one building. It's not going to be two buildings. >> Correct. What we've been told, and we do not have a full permitting package in
front of us, but once that comes in and from the uh from the uh proposed layouts in the package, yes, it's going to be a single structure, a duplex if you will. Um, and then the the uh bedrooms and the bathrooms, if they increase those are
all going to be increased within the existing square footage that existed pre-torrm that we can validate. They're not asking to increase the internal uh area to split it up, >> but they are adding another floor. >> Uh so the the actual uh area that
existed pre-torrm included that lower area. If you've seen the previous pictures, it looked like it was uh an enclosed area, what the LPA or excuse me, the LEPA would call a finished lower level and a carport. Uh the changes to the comp plan that were done prior to
Sarah leaving, uh we changed the language to allow for any space that was within the roof line. So, under the the new framework, it allows them to count everything under both floors and rebuild that. So they are going to be rebuilding that entire area that existed within the
roof line pre-torrm. >> So just a clarification on that. It doesn't matter whether or not it was under air or it's strictly the roof line that >> that is absolutely correct on the a on the amendment to the LDC at that time.
It was determined just for multiple reasons, including just figuring out what existed there prior, right, >> that we would allow them to use everything within the roof line, air conditioned or not. >> And there's some um some of the uh text in the staff report
talks about a fivebedroom approval. Um and yet when you just mentioned it would be three to six. Um, I'm trying to understand what >> I I apologize. That was that was my mistake. I was reading the bathrooms. It it was five bedrooms, three bathrooms.
So, they would be asking for an increase of one >> one bedroom from what existed prior. So, they had five and three uh bathrooms. The code says that you can increase the number of full bathrooms to the full number of allowed rooms. So, under
today's codes, they could do a 55. What they're asking for is an equal split to allow for six uh six bedrooms and I assume six bathrooms as well. >> Well, if actually if you look at the >> LEPA >> site under property details of the 2025
tax rule, it says three bedrooms, two baths. >> Okay. So, we would go back to 2021. If that is a change, if that has been changed in there, then we'll go back and take a look at it. So they are either way they're asking to increase the number of bedrooms. The intensity would
change going up obviously. Uh so I think your question is what's the difference between intensity of three bedrooms additional versus one bedroom additional? >> Absolutely. Is doubling the number of bedrooms versus an additional bedroom. >> And I would I would defer to the applicant to sort of give a little bit
more history on the on the structure. But the uh the staff took both of those ideas into mind as and that's why we recommended the additional parking space to sort of mitigate a little bit of the the increased intensity. >> Got it. Thank you.
>> I'd also like to make a comment. Um in I'm familiar with this property and it was on the MLS and sold in November of 2025 and it was listed as a 21 up and a one down.
>> Okay. So that was just two months ago. So >> all right, I will I will personally go back and check the LEPA from the 2021 records, which is generally where we would establish what existed pre-storm. >> Uh if that's if that's a problem or deficiency in the staff report. I'll
make sure and note that. >> But it doesn't matter because they can ask for whatever they want, right? >> They if they had three and wanted six or they had five and want six, the same process would follow. Okay. Okay. Any other questions?
>> Just um a minor clarification on bathrooms. The the plans here are showing four bathrooms and they're >> if they choose not to increase that number, they they are allowed uh ostensibly if they are uh afforded the additional rooms. They can have any
number of bathrooms up to that without asking for additional um approval. >> Understood. Thank you. >> It's not how I offer. This is never how I ever um remembered the >> uh post- disaster build. Oh,
>> pre- disaster build act. I sorry, I withdraw that. >> Okay. Um we'll have the applicant come up and tell us whatever you'd like to say. >> Good morning to you. >> Good morning. Mike,
>> can you please turn your mic on? Just Yeah, just hit the little button. Can you hear me now? >> Yeah. >> Perfect. >> So, basically um we had a um non-compliant flood structure. The first floor was basically in a flood zone. So,
our application would like to take that um the area that is not compliant and put a floor right on top. In reference to LEPA, LEPA's um computers, when I went down to LEPA for clarification, for tax reasons for the people paying their
taxes, the computers were closed down. So I provided Jason a certified copy from the um director of LEPA and I provided that with my application to show that uh the existing is a 53. Um and you have that documentation Jason
we can pull that up probably in my application. Um basically um we would want to take the third floor I want to use it for my family and myself and the second floor I'm going to use to rent out to a family or professionals or someone quiet. I really don't want to have a lot of noise
and some of the neighbors they ask you going to rent the college kids. Absolutely not. I want to be able to rent a yearly rental and have it nice and quiet in the neighborhood and keep it quiet like it is. So that was a main concern of the neighbors when I went to
talk to them. And um basically we've been out there cleaning some trash up and so forth and the neighbors have been responsive in a positive way and they just want the place cleaned up and looking nice so their properties don't go down in value. So basically that's, you know, what we'd
like to do and um keep it nice and toned down and quiet and have six bedrooms and four baths. >> Mike, do you foresee any issue with the additional condition of the parking? >> I know you could probably there's plenty of space in the front. The building sits
back enough so there's um we'll use the parking right on the side there. The driveway is plenty big in the front. >> Okay. Any questions for the gentlemen? From anyone? All right. Thank you very much for your presentation. Appreciate it. >> Thank you.
>> Any follow-up questions for Jason or the applicant? Well, let's open the public hearing and see if we have it. Did anybody else like to speak on this case? >> Okay. What were you going to tell us, Jason? >> Uh, I just wanted to come back. Um, so
Mr. Martell did remind me. Yes. Uh we had received some information from uh directly from LEPA uh and they stating that essentially the 32 that was on there was uh had been overcome by some documentation that he provided uh prior
to the town and Leapa had sent back documentation to say that they accepted that and that his taxes would be based on that number. Um ostensibly that'll be a new number for taxing if he is allowed to have additional rooms. Okay, >> I I apologize for that, but yes, you are
absolutely correct. On LEA, it does show the 32, >> but Jason, what we're voting on is like square footage, like roof line, single structure, completely allowed by post buildback. >> Post post disaster only deals with the number of dwelling units and the square
footage. So, that will be the same. Everything else will go through normal permitting. So, their heights and setbacks will all be um under code. >> Thank you. Anything else from anyone? Any discussion on this? If not, may I have a motion, please, for this case?
>> I move that we approve resolution 26-015 SCZ20250271 1668 Coconut Drive along with three conditions uh recommended by staff. >> Support. >> Thank you very much, Jim and Jim. Uh any
discussion on the motion? Uh, hearing none. Your vote. Jim >> I. >> Dunlet. >> Hi. >> Uh, Doug. >> I. >> Don. >> I. >> Jane. >> I. >> John. >> Hi. >> I. Motion carries unanimously. Congratulations. Thank you.
>> Thanks for being here this morning. >> Okay. The next item uh the next case we have is a variance. Uh, this is a resolution of the Fort Myers Beach Local Planning Agency approving approving with conditions or denying variance 20250220
requesting a variance from the land development code section 34-638D uh 6B3 to reduce the required 20ft side setback street setback by 11.9 ft to allow a 232
square ft deck act for the existing single family residence in the single family residential RS zoning district for the property located at 173 Gulf Island Drive, generally referred to as strap number 294624
W20050C 0120 in Fort Myers Beach and providing for other clarifications as necessary, providing for conflicts of law, scribers errors, several ability and an effective date. Doug, do you have any exparte?
>> No, ma'am. >> How about you, Jim? >> Yes, I've had communication for some of the neighbors. >> Okay. Uh, >> none. >> Don Jane, >> I've also had communication with some of the neighbors. >> Jim, >> none. >> Uh, John, >> none for me. >> And I have none. Okay. Jason,
>> good morning again. Jason Smalling, senior planner. So, uh, before you today again is a variance for 173 Gulf Island Drive. Uh, they are asking for the 20 foot side street setback to be reduced
to allow for an 8.1 foot um, minimum setback, which is a difference of 11.9 ft. So they are they are asking for relief of 11.9 ft to rebuild or excuse me to newly construct uh additional 252
square ft uh entrance deck into the home. Uh usually these uh structures that have additional protrusion would be covered under the uh the town's additional 10t of protrusion for uh entryways and service of the first
level. Uh this one in particular is an existing non-conforming. They're they're attempt they already have a a minorly um non-compliant setback of just under 25 ft. What they're requesting today is is to uh pull the uh decking area to the
side with the widest setback currently and they're asking to allow for additional 252 ft and that's going to obviously protrude into the 20ft setback. Um, originally, just to give you a piece of background, I've personally been dealing with this one for since the storm. Originally, the
design was on the other side of the house where they've got about 3 ft. If you notice, this lot is very, in my mind, unique. Uh, they sit adjacent to a very, very wide swath of right of way. Usually those rightaway swabs are, you
know, five feet maybe maybe a little bit more, but their uh their home sits very close to to one side. Uh in the intervening years, they changed their plan and they've decided to go out to the side uh which has the the larger setback rather than the one that's
closer to um Bayside. And so the the request is really just to is fairly small, but it is going to be protruding into that setback quite a bit. uh much more than would be allowed for under today's codes uh if they were
building it under today's codes. Uh the structure is from 1996. Uh don't really have a good view on whether some of that uh area on Bayside was taken for uh for rightway purposes for expanding the road or not. It just struck me as fairly odd
as I looked over the site. Uh just the way the layout of that home. Um, so staff has recommended denial on this simply based on the fact that this is a choice. uh the the home is usable and could be in theory built uh to to
keep the non-compliance and allow for access, but I think staff also recognizes is a fairly small ask in the grand scheme of things of 252 ft, which is much smaller than what would be allowed for on similarly similarly
placed homes uh corner lot home uh of that size of a lot of that size. So, we we do recognize that and and we mitigate our denial uh based on that. Uh if it is determined that uh you wanted to vote for approval of this, the conditions
contained in uh therein, there's four of them. Uh they're pretty straightforward, boilerplate for the most part. Um and the applicant is here for any questions you may have and staff is here for any questions or clarifications you may have as well. >> Thank you, Jason. Questions for Jason. Uh clarification, you mentioned the
rightway and it being much larger that I'm sorry, I was trying to picture where is that where the deck would be protruding or is the other side? >> Um the one that I pointed out when I first saw this right after the storm was the one that's uh directly adjacent to
the north northwest beayore road. Um that that one right there, if you if you've seen the house, the driveway exists largely in the right of way. >> Gotcha. And it's very different than what you might see in a more interior lot or even other corner lots at that.
>> So the de the deck would be on the nature or on the um Gulf Island side. >> Well, it would be on the Gulf Island side which already has the larger setback. So So staff agrees that that's probably the better place to put it rather than trying to do a few um
hairpin turns on the shorter side and still needing to have a variance to do it. Do >> you get any comments from any of the neighbors? >> I have not seen any comments from the neighbors directly and they were not added into the uh the record.
>> Any other questions for Jason? >> Thank you very much, Jason. Um does the applicant wish to say anything this morning? >> Yes, sir. >> Good morning. >> Good morning. Uh, my name is John Prince and uh um I just um I guess my intention
is to just create a a deck to spend be able to spend a little bit more outside time. Um the um existing one there is kind of beaten up and uh um kind of limiting and
so I was just looking if I could make it so I could get a couple uh seats out there. I think it would That was my intention. >> Thank you, Mr. Prince. Anybody have questions for the gentleman? >> I do. Jim, >> um, is is this your primary residence?
>> No. No. >> How is the property used? >> Um, I I use it as um a personal uh I I've got six kids. Um, we come down here and then when we're not using it, we use it as a a rental, short-term rental or
monthly rental. >> So, it's registered as a monthly rental. Yeah. >> Register with the town. >> Yeah. >> The feedback I'm getting from some of the neighbors are that there's um weekly turnover with the rentals
versus monthly. Um they also seem to believe whether it's verified or not that it isn't properly registered as a rental. So you're indicating it is. >> Um I thought it was. I have an agency that takes care of all this for me. So I
assume they have that all properly registered. >> Concern was um activity, noise, turnover of people. And I think the additional concern that was communicated at least to me was with a larger deck since there isn't a
backyard. That's where everybody's going to be during rental times. And obviously what goes with all that would be different than the environment the community is experiencing today. So I have concerns over that. um getting that feedback and the way the house is used
relative to more frequent rental than it's being proposed or being representative of you. That's all. I had the same conversations with a neighbor that said that it was weekly rent being used as a wrink weekly rental and they weren't sure whether it was registered, but their concern was having that deck
out on the front would just carry down the street and it and there's no other properties that on that street the whole way down that protrude out into that area. and um you know uh their concern was the noise that would be coming from
the weekly from the rentals that should be monthly. Uh this kind of reminds me of the nature view situation when they wanted to put a front porch on and they were using the week, you know, rentals and they were concerned about the noise.
Um, you know, I'm I'm just wondering if there isn't a way if he wanted to have the deck to have it come off of that front porch stoop and go back over your pool area to make the deck go as a covered area of your pool area as as
opposed to fronting the you know coming out further to so that there's no sound barriers. this way. It would be sound barrier between your garage and your house giving a covered deck. >> Um
yeah, I um I think the the the deck um well my intention is that I I've got uh two kids still in high school and so I'm obviously got to spend time uh can't spend as much time down here because
they're still in school. But it's my intention is like for my family to spend you know, all the all the winter down here in about a year and a half. Um, and so I'm just trying to kind of get it set up. So, it's kind of like a good good
spot. Um, where the there's that easement that goes you can you can you can go see the u I guess the inner waterway and so the deck's sort of set up where you get a little bit of a sunrise and a view of the water. Um and uh I
guess that's the intention um to be able to capture that great part of the lot >> that the deck is just discussed in square footage. What what is the actual size of the deck? >> The the current one >> no that you're planning
>> um I I think it's the 200 uh >> I understand that I'm asking is it a 10 by five? Is it a what is it? >> Um, it's got an angle on it.
>> It's It's uh It's not exceedingly laid out uh well laid out that way because there's a bunch of different krenellations to it. My understanding is there was already 81 square ft. Um that was the entryway, correct? >> And so this would be 232 ft on top of
the 81 that's already there >> because it's got the stairway. um which I don't know how to compute that square footage, but it's doubles the size of it basically. >> Um yeah, I would I would say it probably more than doubles the size of it. But keep in mind the 81 square ft that's an
enclosed entryway area. That's >> I mean it's probably this big right now. >> Right. Right. Um this uh probably four feet by four feet currently. Currently. >> Yeah. She she's asking just general layout. >> What is the layout?
>> 100 uh len length and depth of of it. >> Dimensions of what you're planning on building. >> I don't have the exact I don't have that small part. >> It's probably uh uh 12 by 7. Uh so I apologize for interrupting.
Um A1.1 has a dimension plan for the proposed deck on there. >> I didn't say that. And so, and this is where it gets a little hinky because the full the full depth from the proposed edge of the deck to his full house is 19
ft. But you've got to understand that there's a there's a bump out in there that is part of his entryway. That is not part of the discussion today. It just that's the entryway that the deck would then lead into. So the deck is
proposed to go around that 81 ft uh bumpout that you're seeing and uh so the the depth the depth from the new portion to the bumpout is approximately 9 1/2 ft. So they want
they want to have basically a 9 and 1/2 ft open area before you get to that uh entrance vestibule. And then the the uh width of the deck is 2110. So let's call it 22 feet wide. Um
again a good chunk of that is taken up by the existing vestibule that is um >> existing non-compliant for a few inches but that already exists. Um so it's it's hard to say that the give you a number of what that actual full depth is.
That's why it's expressed in the 232 square feet. I think >> 21 by 18. Is that what it says? >> It's Jane. It's like 21 by 9 foot five as being sort of the usable square portion of the deck. Yep. >> And then there's a little bit of walkway
along the side to >> Okay. >> So, it's about 200. >> It's about 200 square feet >> of usable deck. >> Any other questions for Mr. Prince? only would since you suggested um that
you've got an agency taking care of this and this seems you know how hot this topic is in the town right now about unregistered rentals um I assume you get reports that could you can testify to the fact that you're following the monthly rentals the neighbors are observing something that isn't there I
bring that in because we care a lot about this feedback and the impressions and these are your neighbors but we hear from them and I wouldn't want to be uh in a situation where we're enhancing the attractiveness of a rental unit um that would create additional concerns for the neighbors if it's not being complied
with that as set up today. So, I just want to go on record that that's a concern that I've heard and one I want to recognize and what I'm going to consider when I make my decision. >> Okay. Did you want to say anything to that, Mr. Prince? Um yeah, I you know um we
spoke to the property manager about the the the monthly rental thing and they told me that they've got that. Now I I do know that some months because somebody doesn't want it for a whole month, they make him in for two
weeks, but there's only 12 rentals in a year and that's I think what the property manager's been told specifically to do. Well, actually, it's one per per month, 30 day period. Right. Yeah. Yeah.
>> So, even if it's two weeks, they can't come back in the third week with a new renter. >> Right. Right. >> You can't have all 12 in the f in the season of four months in >> season. Yeah. Um, I I I I see a way to to
get his deck and not um have it be brought out further by going the walkway could just be continued down to over the pool enclosure. >> That's not what's in front of us, Jane. >> So, I I feel like it's an excessive um ask. >> Okay. >> Based on
>> um So, do you have any Does anybody have any further questions for Mr. Prince? All right. Thank you, sir. >> Uh there was just just one um note was and I think um the um the staff report was the expansion
would maintain the same side street setback as the existing single family residents and granting the variance will not um will not be injurous to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. And that's just the comment from the staff report. That's all I say. >> But do you agree that it would have the
same setback? Because it would not. It's the front. >> Uh, so what that references is actually the shorter side on Beayshore Road. What they're saying is they're going to bring um that relatively thin walkway area to the edge of the existing house and that portion would have now an 8.1 setback
like the house has. >> But that's a side street. I mean, that's actually the it's the front of the house that we're putting this deck on. >> Correct. Oh, since it's a corner, they can determine uh which one they want to call the front and which one they want
to call the uh street side. >> Generally, we defer to where you take access to your home. And we looked at this and said, "Okay, there's the driveway right there." So, we initially determined that to be >> They have two driveways, though, right? It looks like on Google Earth, they have two >> They've got a walkway from the right
ofway on the larger side. look uh to me >> uh the >> Yeah, it looks like there's one on Golf Island and one on Bay. If if Google Earth is correct, >> well, I'm not I'm not going to say Google Earth is incorrect. Can Do you want to speak to that on there? Is there
an additional driveway on >> Are there are there two driveways? >> Yeah. So there's a detached garage that has it's a driveway and then on this on the the baseboard side there's >> I see a garage microphone. >> Uh either way it doesn't change the the
way that the code is written unless you are on a stereo that's prescriptive and says you shall use this as your front and everything else is aside. On non-sterero properties there's a little bit of leeway for them to determine what's most beneficial to them for their
build. Okay. Uh, one one thing or actually two things if I may. Uh, real quick, just a um, a clarification. I noticed in the staff report there was mention of Beayshore Road. Any mentions of Beayshore Road should be Bayside Road. Just minor housekeeping in the
staff report. Um, lastly, if it were prudent uh for for the LPA, uh you could in theory add a additional condition to require that it be uh properly registered as a monthly rental with the
town prior to either issuance of permits or issuance of a CEO. We could write that as an addition. >> Well, let me re let me react to that. I think we're in the compliance business. Um I'd be much more interested. And I was going to say this to the end because I don't want to take the applicant's time. Be much more interested to know
before you come in here whether or not the people are following the rules that the town has set up. >> They shouldn't get benefit of this process, exceptions or other things we do if the basic things are not being followed. And I know we've talked about this before with this body. I'm not sure we ever codified any protocols or
process to enforce that yet. But it's important to me and I'm sure it's important to everybody else up here that the people come in and ask something from us ought to be doing what they're already being asked to do by the town. >> Completely understandable. Yeah, I think it it would be valuable to have to understand as each of these come up if
they're registered rentals, >> if they're compliant, you know, etc. So, >> I don't see a problem with adding that to our standard operating procedure for our checklist when when they come in is that great. >> And then lastly, compliance is wonderful, but u N's got some
>> Yeah. Can you guys hear me now? >> We can. >> Awesome. Awesome. Okay. So, we did move this issue has come up before as far as having violations um during the process where you're trying to get some type of
land use approval. So, we drafted an ordinance and I believe the ordinance went through as far as first reading. We then were introduced to SB 180 that said that you could not change your code to make it more restrictive and more
burdensome. So requiring compliance before any type of review or approval would uh arguably be more restrictive and more burdensome on the property owner.
>> So that ordinance did not make it to second reading if I'm recalling correctly. It is not currently a criteria in your code. um if you were to amend your code to add that, we're going to again be faced with SB 180. Now,
there are some things in the legislature right now, some proposed bills that hopefully will um make SP 180 a little bit more manageable for local government. But at this time, um it's really not a criteria that you should
consider in your decision making regarding this. There is a code enforcement process in place in the town of Fort Myers Beach and if there are um alleged violations that process can be followed. Um there's we actually have
two special magistrates who hear code enforcement violations. Um so I just want to caution you in your deliberation. Um I mean your your task your responsibility is to apply the criteria that is currently in your land
development code. Thank you. >> All right. Well, okay, Nancy, talk more about that. >> Uh, are there any other questions for the applicant? >> I would like to just ask the affluent applicant if they would
confirm and affirm to us that you will ensure working with your rental management company that they will follow the rules and that there will not be multiple rentals in a month in season. Absolutely. I will do that immediately
after this meeting. I just wasn't aware of it. >> Thank you, Mr. Prince. >> Okay. Um, is there Mr. Prince, you can sit down now. Thank you very much. Is there anybody in the public who'd like to speak on this case? Yes, ma'am. >> Hi, Lisa Si and I have 163 Golf Island
Drive. I have a question on the letter that we all received about this. It's there's a change in the classification on the property from residential single family to low density residential and we just want to make sure um the homeowners of G
Island Manor were a small little association of 59 homes. We are all only single family homes and we just want to make sure that in the future this cannot be turned into a duplex because it does have a non-conforming downstairs. Lisa, I'm going to have Jason address
that afterwards. Thank you. Is there anybody else who has a question or any issues? Thank you. Jason, could you just answer Lisa's question? >> Yes, absolutely. And it's it's a great question actually. Um, so the the uh low
density language that you're seeing, that is a future land use designation for the area. the the actual zoning lang uh the zoning um uh area that it sits in is residential single family, but you've got to remember that uh every zone has a
future land use zone associated with it as well. Uh they work together. So, that's how you would determine what uh portions of the comp plan would be relevant to this type of area, but it's still residential, single family, still has all of the same requirements, uh
whether that be short-term rental or setbacks. >> So, it Lisa, you can't you can't ask a question, but I'm just going to say for the record, it could not turn into a multif family unit. >> Absolutely. Residential single family is one of the few zones that specifically
disallows multifamily including two family. >> Yes. >> So other than a reszone, which nobody's asking for and is not in the cards, >> uh that can't change. >> You're safe and sound. >> But is that true with the post- disaster build back? >> If there was already a duplex there or
non-compliant um amount of density, they would be able to vest that if they used the post disaster. >> Okay. Any other questions for Jason? Thank you very much. Jason, >> you have another comment. >> I have We Oh, yes, ma'am. >> She didn't swear. >> Miss Yeah, that's right. Um, ma'am, when
you come up here, we're going to we're going to swear you in. So, hold on one second. Hold on one second. Amy, raise your right hand. Ma'am, raise your right hand. >> Raise your right. Go ahead and pull that mic down to you just a little bit, too. >> Just Just one moment. Just one moment.
You have to be sworn in. Jason, will you pull the microphone down for her? Excuse me for one moment. Okay. We're gonna we're going to swear you in for your testimony. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
>> Yes. >> Okay. >> Now, tell us who you are. >> Hi, I'm Susan Crawford. I am the immediate abutter on Bayside Road. >> Thank you. Um much of the summer,
the property that we're talking about was rented to many times a lot of people. There's a pool there, you know, a lot of splashing and noise and um
a large deck on that where it's rented much more than more than 50% of the time. I mean the owner from my point of view has not been seen
that much. It is mostly um renters and a larger deck would certainly make the place more rentable. It's going to be kind of an isore stretching beyond the limits that we have already determined.
The 20 feet is something that everybody agreed upon and to have one person be able to get a variance and build like 9 ft back from the road is is just incomprehensible.
Um, so I just thought I would um offer that point of view from somebody who is right there and right next to everything that goes on. >> Well, we appreciate you coming in this morning. Thank you very much.
>> Is there anyone else? >> Okay, the public section is closed. Um, any discussion from the LPA? Um there is a uh there is a recommendation of denial on this request. Um and there are conditions for
approval if that's what you wish to do. May I have a motion, please? >> I'm going to I'm going to make a motion for denial. >> Second. >> Okay, there's a motion to deny. Uh there is a second. Any discussion? Uh Nancy
wants to say something. >> Yes. Can we state on the record the basis for the denial, >> Doug? >> Based on one of the criteria? >> Yes, ma'am. Um well um a the staff is recommending denial based on the
criteria and um I don't see uh based on criteria any approval path. There's no justification. >> No hardship. Okay. And uh you agree, Don?
>> I do. >> Okay. So, the motion is to deny based on a um not meeting the criteria for approval as uh based in our land development code. Any discussion on that motion? Hearing none. Your vote, Doug. >> Um a vote for denial.
>> For denial. Yes. >> Denial. >> Yes. Jim. >> Denial. >> Jane. >> Yes. >> Don. I mean it's not Don. You're not Dawn. Jim, you want to be Dawn? You could, Jim. >> I'd have to change chairs. You would >> You have to change.
>> Yes. I I vote for the denial. Uh but this is not an enforcement issue. This is denial funding issue. Yes, it is. >> And it's based on the fact that uh you know the heart there is no hardship here. So >> John, your vote >> uh it's denial and I would say even the
one criteria that says it will not be injurous to the neighborhood, it appears that it might actually be so. So, >> I also vote to approve the motion. So, unfortunately, sir, your your request is denied. Um, and your next stop will be the town council. Uh, the next item on
our agenda is another variance for 225 Egret Street. This is a resolution of the Fort Myers Beach Local Planning Agency approving approving with conditions or denying variance request 20250279. This is requesting a variance from the
land development code section 26-743A to allow a 597 square ft boat house where a maximum 500 ft boat house is permitted for the existing single family resident in the RS zoning district for the property located at 225 Egret
Street, generally referred to as strap number 344624 W4005. 550010 in Fort Myers Beach and providing for other clarifications as necessary, providing for conflicts of law, scrier's
errors, severability, and providing for an effective date. Um, Jason, >> good morning. Jason Smallley, planning, >> may I pause you for a moment? >> Yeah, of course. >> Exparte. >> Oh, thank you. See, I got all flustered. Um, John, anything? Uh, I have no
exparte, but I'm obviously intimate with the property as it's one vacant lot away from mine. >> How about you, Don? >> No exparte. >> Thank you, Jim. >> I changed my name to Jim. >> How about you, Jane? Anything? >> I I went to the property outside.
>> Don. >> No exparte. >> Jim? >> No. >> Doug? >> No, ma'am. >> I don't have any either. Okay, Jason. >> Jason Smallley, Planning and Zoning Department. Uh so before you today is a request on 200 225 Egret Street to uh
create a 597 square foot boat house. Uh so this boat house is a fabric covering. Uh the code says that when we look at single family homes uh and this is separate from condominiums and and
residential do or uh commercial docks uh there is an allowance for these fabric coverings. Uh they the code uh tells us that we need to treat it like a boat house. So the boat house section holds and the maximum allowed uh area of a
boat house roof is 500 square ft. So to get the size of the boat house that they are requesting, they have to come in today and get a variance to account for that additional approximately 100 square ft. Uh the proposed area uh you can see
in the plans which are in your packet. Uh they're proposing a 14 foot uh uh protrusion into the waterway that includes the marginal area directly adjacent to the wall and the proposed boat house and lift extending out into
the waterway. This is a 56t wide canal. uh you were allowed to take up to 25% of that and so that maxes them out at the 14 uh square feet or excuse me 14 ft of protrusion into that waterway. Effectively what they've done is they've maximized the area that could
theoretically be used for either docks, lifts or the boat house cover with this plan. Um before you today though is um or excuse me if if you look at the request for this this is going to be uh
less intense than the standard boat house. Just to give you an idea we're talking about a stretched canvas or other fabric type material. Um most of the ones I've seen do sort of a a barrel roll. Although there are alternative
designs that would also work that have more drip edge like a like a regular roof. Um the the applicant is here for any questions that you may have and staff is open for any questions or concerns that you have for us. >> Thank you Jason. Questions for Jason?
Anyone? >> There's no additional pylons uh or this is all just going to be overhanging on the existing uh infrastructure. Uh so there yes there is already pilings uh for the existing boat lift. I would
assume that they are going to uh tack into that but I would defer to the applicant themselves for the for the layout and design and whether there's additional posts. Uh the plan itself doesn't seem to indicate new posts but I don't think they call them out as new or existing on the page that I have in
front of me. >> Jason J. >> Yes. the setback for the sides >> of a property to have a dock or whatever is that based on the square footage of the um back the seaw wall or whatever is
there. >> Uh no. So the 5- foot minimum setback in canals or other man-made canals is entirely based on the type of waterway it were it it is. Um, in in the same circumstance, if this were a bay home, then they would have more restrictive
25- ft setbacks on both sides, but that's determined on whether natural it's a natural water body versus a man-made water body. >> Okay. What what I saw when I went there is that I can see the I I didn't walk the property. I came on the empty lot
was that the other covered boat dock, it seems to be right there. And my concern is in in extending it, it might impede that boat from getting in if it had a you know how you have those fishing
things and stuff like that that if you were trying to get in or out that by having a structure that was even in the air would impede or um encroach on the
navigation of the boat ahead of it. Mhm. >> U because they are at the same width and same, you know, he has to come in at and turn into like this and they're right behind each other. That that to me would be a tough turn, >> but but it's there's only a five foot
requirement. >> Yes. There's a minimal requirement on um on man-made canals. Jane, to your point, uh coming from Marco Island, I dealt with this every single day. um both canals and natural waterways. Unfortunately, the code
doesn't give us a lot of uh a lot of way to say no, we don't believe that the vessel that you're proposing, and technically we can't even ask about what vessel they're proposing because it's it's not relevant, >> right? >> Um are you sure that you've got the area that you need and the angles that you
need? The reality is anytime you have five foot setbacks, whether it's this or just a a naked uncovered dock, there's always got to be some amount of neighborly sort of understanding that somebody's going to have to kind of creep across your area to enter their
dock, whether it's a 40 foot 45 foot long boat or something more manageable like 25. >> So would this new design impede on the five foot setback? No. So, they would be kept they would be kept to the same setbacks as if
it were a wooden or or solid structure. The edge or the drip edge, whatever they use, uh still is going to have to be set back at the 5t minimum just as if they were building a dock or a lift or anything like that. >> Okay. And so your denial was based on
the amount of square footage of the canopy. >> Yes, it was a choice. Uh that was the determination in the code. You could build a 500 square foot and not request this, but the vessel that they've chosen to have on the site seemingly
necessitates the the larger area. >> And um so he could have come in without going through a variance for a 500 ft cover. >> That is correct. If you had a boat that would fit under there, 500 square feet is allowed by right on single family homes.
>> Okay. Any other questions for Jason? Jason, were there any uh comments uh negative or positive from neighbors? >> I had not seen it. I don't believe that anything was added to uh my record here, but I have not seen it personally either. >> I'd like to make a comment on that. Um
we received the notification as a neighbor on Sunday. >> Well, >> and I haven't gotten mine yet. >> Just as a comment. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um we'll go back and check. The the new policy is that the applicant is sending out those notifications and they
should have sent us photographs before they went out. So, we can go back and take a look and ensure that that was done to code. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Um Cara, >> did you send out your notices, Cara? >> I certainly did. Carara Stewart, for the
record, and I will address that right off the bat. the notices were sent out. I personally stuffed the envelopes, went to the post office, provided photographs to town hall um to verify that. I gave them a list of the the mailing, a list of the envelopes. So, and I personally
went and posted the property. So, in that regard, unfortunately, if you didn't read them, I apologize for that. >> No, I will agree that the property has been posted. >> It has. Yeah. >> Thank you. in reference to this request. Um,
>> oh, Cara, say your name for the record. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Carara Stewart >> for the record. And I'm representing the Dante family and Mr. Danchuk is here currently. >> This is quite a unique request in one
regard and I believe it is meets the criteria of Deminimus. Keeping in mind that we have a, as you all just discussed, excuse me, discussed briefly, the code
allows for the dock to be set 5 foot back. The code, the way you read the code with the boat house, it requires me to have my support columns 10 foot set back. Our support columns for this type of structure are set back anywhere
between 17 feet and 23 feet. So we have gone beyond what was required even in this design. We will meet every area of the boat house design criteria including 20 ft from the mean high water line.
That is a requirement as Jason mentioned. We have to limit ourselves to a 25% um intrusion into the canal. We will meet that as well. It's kind of unique if you think about it for a minute because the reason I'm
here is that it's a a soft cover. I'm going to give you a little bit of maybe confusion, but I don't mean to. So, the structure is permitted, per se. It's the cover that is creating the problem. In my crazy mind, I was even imagining,
well, what difference does it make if I had this large structure and maybe in the middle of it, I removed some of my cover? I still have the same effect. So what I'm going for is it's a dimminimous it's a dimminimous request. In addition
to that, not that the beach has to do what other jurisdictions are doing. I have done some preliminary let me go take a look because of that dimminimous effect. There are other jurisdictions that that are adjacent to you that have a 1,000 square foot limit on these
canopy covers. Um, so again, it's it's not uncommon for us to have a larger canopy cover. The canopy covers are a result of the larger boats that we're seeing as well. Keep that in mind. You know, we don't we all go out on the water. That's why we're here, you know, but the number of
boats and the size of the boats have have tremendously increased. There is a little bit of a design choice here, but it's a design choice in favor of your code. It was to eliminate all areas of intrusion other than that soft
cover. The boat as it stands today is permitted is on the lift has a soft cover on it. The new lift, the new cover, the canopy cover that I'm going keep referring to that we're considering it a boat lift. When that gets constructed, the owner explained to me
they put the boat on the lift and they create the cover as close as they can to that boat for obvious reasons of sun protection and whatnot. So I I believe, excuse me, once again that it really falls into the dimminimous category and short of the needing the 97 square feet,
it's it's almost oblivious. I've done many looks at the aerials. I had one in the packet. You for some reason it didn't make it. I'll be happy to provide it to you showing all the boat houses with those types of covers in the neighborhood. We have not received anything from anybody in the
neighborhood having any objection. And for those reasons, we're hoping that we can answer any questions or concerns you might have in favor of a positive response for a request. >> Thank you, Cara. Questions for Miss Stewart? Jim? >> No, just a comment at the end. >> Please go ahead.
>> Okay. So, um, Jane, back to your point, both living and navigating that canal, the bigger issue is how shallow it is versus getting in and out of anything else. Um, and as it relates to obtrusion into the navigation thing, and clearly
we're all beholding to the five foot, I'd much rather have a canopy than a dock sitting there for all the reasons that you go in and out. And really, notwithstanding your fly bridge issues, >> um, it's a lot easier to get in with an extended canopy than it is with a hard structure sitting there.
>> So, I find it diminous, it's important, in my mind, aesthetic and protection, and it's not inconsistent with the look and the feel of the canal. Um, we do have to drive by that beautiful boat, and that causes conversations about upgrading, but you don't want to go into
that another issue. I'll leave it with that. Um I I have uh a question actually. Would you object to uh perhaps it is done here in the in the uh the conditions but a further condition that
restricts the boat house to uh the canopy as it's described? I I'm just trying to tie that down a little tighter because it really is the structure that matters. >> Exactly. That is probably a very good good point. Um, I don't believe the owner would have any objection to that
because we are just looking for this cover. And along those lines, I will clarify for those of you that may or may the boat house code allows me to have some storage and storage partly structure under there that we're not looking to do any of that. This is
strictly we don't have the room. We don't have a walkound. It's this boat comes in on the lift, goes up in the air. End of story. So, yes, I don't believe he will. >> Correct. No objection to doing that. >> Um, and will
you allow me to go out on that beautiful boat? >> There we are again. >> Now you're disqualified. >> It's not a condition. >> I'm just very envious. >> Ny's going to have a heart attack. >> Nancy, she can't push her button hard enough.
>> You didn't say that. Nancy, you >> withdraw that statement there. >> Withdraw the statement. >> Now I want to go see the boat. Okay. One more thing on the dimminimus and you'll notice some and this includes the square footage thing. >> Some of us like to have a little bit of a side of that cloth coming down to keep
it out of there. That also counts is that square footage even though it does nothing to impede on anything. That's right. >> So I agree of the approach you're taking fairly minimous in expectations. >> Any other questions for Cara? >> Um may I just uh add one comment? Um,
members of the LPA, in the past you have uh recognized Miss Stewart as an expert in >> uh planning and zoning in Fort Myers Beach. Is that also continued to be true? Just for recordeping? >> Yes, ma'am. Any objection to recognizing
or continuing to recognize Miss Stewart as an expert in her field? >> No problem. >> No problem. Okay. Thank you, Nancy. Thank you. >> All right. Uh, no further questions for Miss Stewart? I um I just have one question because go ahead >> just to make sure I understand. So the
this structure is like supported by the existing pilings that support the boat lift, right? >> There's no additional pilings in the water. >> Correct. There are no additional the the stansions. I actually >> there's like beams that company that's building them also. Yes, I did a lot of
research on this one. The stansions are a part of the lift. So the stansions for the cover, the canopy cover are coming >> and then it sort of extends past the extend from the existing pylons is how they do it.
>> Yeah. Okay. Just want to understand. >> Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Any further questions for staff? >> I do. Um, do do you feel that by approving this it will create a path for
all the large boat owners to come in and say, "Well, you did it for them." No. >> No. >> Yeah. I mean, there there's no real precedential value to the variance that you're giving today. And and quite honestly, I think the the Boers of the island are progressing into larger
vessels with or without any language. >> Yeah. Yes. >> And and every one of these cases are individual in nature. >> I just wanted that on the record. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Anything else? Um if not, um >> public comment. >> Uh yeah, maybe some public comment, but
there isn't any other than sir, would you like to say anything about your and maybe an invitation? >> Oh my gosh. Here we go. >> Good morning. Yeah. Um I'll touch off on that one neighbor though. So he he's basically family to me cuz unfortunately my
mother's been sick for a little bit. So whenever I get her down there, he keeps an eye on her and we look out for each other. When I went to purchase the boat, everything I did with this boat, he helped me pick it out. >> Okay. >> And we made sure that we measured it so he'd have access to get in and out. When you talk about any type of fishing
equipment on top of the boat, >> I had a boat on that lift previously. If you guys remember, it was a yellow boat. I can't tell you how many times I forgot to take down my stuff and I hit the cover. So you any type of lift, you have to reduce those and bring them down
before you enter. As far as him getting in and out, we've already tested out it works out fine. The boat's there. It's not going to overextend the boat. And being that it's going to sit as high as it is, it's not going to cause any issues. So >> Oh, that's great that you're a good neighbor. >> And do me a favor, say your name for the
>> Oh, Steven Dansic. >> Thank you very much. Very nice to meet you. >> Beautiful vote, Stephen. >> Okay. No public comment. No more public comment. All the questions have been asked. Would somebody like to make a motion, please? >> I'll make a motion to approve variance
20250279 to allow a 597 ft boat house where a maximum 500T foot boat house is permitted with the conditions as attached. And I would like to add an additional condition that there not be
any additional structure other uh >> the drawing as it's proposed is the drawing that will be or the >> structure that will be built. >> Very good. Okay. >> Is there a second? >> Second. Second. >> Thank you, Don. Um any discussion on the
motion hearing? None. Your vote. John >> I. >> Don >> I. >> Jim >> I. Jane >> I >> uh Jim >> Hi >> Doug >> I >> and I an I also ear carries unanimously. You are approved sir. Thank you very
much. Next item is the administrative agenda. Um Amy Jason anything. >> Um >> nothing nothing major. I believe next month we expect to have a a full LPA
meeting dedicated to uh only two things. Uh the one the one larger one will be multiple pieces and I'm sure you understand who's going to be coming down there and there's going to be I believe one additional U variance just fairly straightforward. So next meeting will be
dedicated to uh one larger project and that's what we expect you all to to see. It's going to >> confirm that date please. Yep. >> February 10th Amy. >> It is February 10th. >> February 10th. Okay. >> February 10th. Yes. >> Okay. Thank you, Jason. >> Nothing else though. Thank you. >> Jason, could I just touch base? You
know, at our December meeting, I think it was Jim that brought up um updates on existing >> uh existing cases. Um anything on that? because we really would I not only we would but we I think the public would
also like to know uh where all of these cases that some have been very controversial that have come before us where they stand in the development process. >> Okay. So uh we are are we are we talking about one project in particular now all
of them >> all approved since 24 >> all of them and I'm not putting you on the spot. You weren't here. It was Jason Green. Um, but we would like to hear a regular report of what's going on and that kind of alerts the um alerts the
community as well as to what's going on. But if you have anything to share, you're welcome to. >> Uh, not at not at this time. We're we're still trying to get our feet under us after the the long break here. >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Well, maybe maybe in our February meeting, we'll have a little >> rec. I will bring it up to Jason and say
and make him realize that this was a request. Thank you. It's definitely a real request. Okay. Thank you very much. Um, LPA items and reports. Um, Doug, anything? >> No, ma'am. >> How about you, Jim?
>> Don, >> nothing for me. >> Jane, um, just want to request a absence for the March meeting at this time so that we can just have that on record. >> Denied. >> Just want to see what happens.
>> Thank you, J. >> Thanks, Doug. Okay. All right, Jane. Um Jim, anything? >> Nothing. >> Uh John, anything? >> Um yeah, I'd like to announce that I will be applying for the open position at town council. Um
>> so I will be submitting my paperwork to you, Amy, this week. And uh I hope that I'm able to continue to serve the community as we rebuild and and move forward. Um, I absolutely love being on the LPA.
>> Of course you do. >> And the LPA member >> and uh but I hope that I can have an impact on town council. >> Well, great. >> Good for you, John. For you. >> Very good. Um, okay. I I just have I
have two things other than bringing up what we asked for in December. Uh, one was another thing we asked for and that was to uh review again uh the development agreement process and the development agreement ordinance and
could we even put a date to that? So obviously it won't be February, but could we say we'll do that in March at our March meeting? Not to put you on the spot. Nancy, you have any issue with that? >> No, no issues. It's a scheduling item.
>> Okay. >> Yeah. I don't I don't think staff would be opposed to that. >> Okay, great. So, well, let's let's put it on for March. Jane won't be here, so if she's got anything to add or whatever, she could submit it in writing to you guys and then we can look at it. Right. >> Thank you. >> Um, and the other the other thing that
it came up actually at the charter review meeting the other day. Um, and why did it come up at charter review? I don't remember. But what >> the exparte? >> Oh, it was um Hank wanting to expand full disclosure and he had that whole dissertation about Yeah.
>> Yes, he did. Okay. So, um I think we should review the exparte ordinance. You know, back in the day when we made that decision, um you know, nothing exciting was really happening here. I mean, the excitement was diamond head and it had already been approved. Um but now we
have major cases, major major discussions in the community with the development that is going on and I just I personally don't feel that simply saying I met with um this group whatever
group that may be um without giving some context to what that meeting was. it doesn't disclose enough to the applicant or to the public. >> And you know, Nancy brought up at Charter Review that we have the
applicant has the uh has the ability to ask qu ask ask questions of the LPA or the council should we disclose something that they'd like more information on. And that's great, but the public doesn't have that opportunity. and and right now
as we all know uh the public is it's important that they are informed and that they are kind of included in this process. And so I just I'm just wondering if you all would agree to I haven't looked at that ordinance since
we did it back in probably 1996. um if we could review the expartees, see if there's anything that we're uh any gaps we need to fill or if we need to expand the disclosures that LPA and
council members are making for cases at that particular time. What do you all think? I told J when we discussed it briefly at the charter review, I said, well, interestingly enough, I'm going to bring this up at the uh LPA meeting. So, thoughts? Anybody? Any anybody
discussion. >> No, no objection. >> No, I think I believe that some of the meetings are actually very uh helpful. Um but I am 100% in agreement that transparency of
what occurs during those meetings. Uh for example, I tend to um use them as information sessions as opposed to uh >> conversations. Let me put it that way. Um yes, me too. And so I I think it's
very important that the community as a whole has confidence in any discussions that we're having are on the up and up and further transparency is always great. >> Okay. All right. So, hey Jason, did you put that on the March schedule, too?
>> Well, I mean it it it'll that way it'll be two ordinances that come back to us just for review. Hopefully the March um won't be too heavy. Okay. Um, that was it for me. Um, attorney items, Nancy, anything?
>> No, but thank you for allowing me to participate remotely today. I appreciate it. >> It's kind of nice. We've got four of you in here. >> Yeah, you're on four screens. >> The background's very >> It was four four to three, so you had full support. >> That's darn it. Um, you have problems, too.
Okay. Um, uh, we know we've got a heavy schedule for February's meeting. Uh, so that's probably going to be an all day thing. All right. Um, maybe we'll have a lunch break or something in there. Okay. Very good. Anything from anybody else?
>> Motion to journ. >> Thank you very much, Jim. >> Second. >> Thank you very much. And we are adjourned at 10:17 a.m. Okay.