Do I have to hold it? >> No. >> It is 9:00 a.m. uh for a regularly scheduled meeting of the LPA. Um, uh, November 11th, >> 12th. >> 12th. Okay. And, um, we're going to, uh,
do roll call first. Starting down there. Don, >> Don S, >> Jim D, >> Doug Ecman, >> Jane Plamer, >> Jim B, >> John McClan. >> Madame Vice Chair, um, Chair Anita Sarasita has asked for an excused
absence. So, would someone like to make a motion? >> So moved. Second. >> Second. >> Okay. Moved by Jim Dunlap and seconded by who seconded? >> Jim Bowen. >> All those in favor? >> I.
>> Any oppose? All uh passes unanimously. >> Okay. And so we'll start with the invocation if you all raise. >> Oh, we should start with the pledge of allegiance first. Pledge of Algiance
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. >> And stand for the invocation. Um Lord,
thank you for being here to watch over us and guide us to make clear, sound decisions for our town. And if you have any, if it is your will, if you could bring some warm weather back, we would appreciate it. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. Um, final approval of the minutes. >> So move support. >> Any changes or revisions? Okay. Uh, do we do we do roll call or do we just say all those in favor? All those in favor say I.
>> I. uh unanimously approved and then um appro let's see um approval of the minutes of October 14th. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I >> I
>> unanimously approved. And is there any public comment? If you're going to speak on a case, it would be better if you could speak on the case so it goes into the record. If you just have a general comment, you you're welcome to speak now. Okay. No public comment. So we will
close public comment. Um the next four items on the agenda are public hearing for review of various land use requests for the p uh for the benefit of the public. Please be aware that these items are uh quasi judicial in nature.
Our attorney will further explain. >> Thank you madame vice chair. Um actually the very last item is going to be uh legislative so the formalities that I'll be describing um will not be associated with that particular item. Um however
today um you do have uh two variance requests as well as a special exception. Oh yes special exception. I was thinking conditional use because sometimes they're used simultaneous. Anyway, let
me move on here. These are um all quasi judicial in nature and this requires that today's hearing comply with some procedural requirements that have been established in Florida law and are also in our land development code. So, our hearings on these three items will be
less formal than a proceeding before a circuit court, but they are going to be more formal than the remainder of our meeting, including the discussion on the last um proposed ordinance. Uh we will be following basic standards of due process that requires the the requiring
certain notices, the application of the correct standards and that your decisions are made on competent substantial evidence presented to you in written documents or through oral testimony. Your responsibility today and your duty is to evaluate this testimony and
information for each of these three items and draw a conclusion regarding whether or not the criteria in the land development code or in state law as may be applicable has been satisfied. So pure speculation or opinion that is not
based on competent facts cannot legally be considered by you in evaluating an agenda item. Testimony by professionals who have been 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 such as minutes, surveys, engineering reports, or testimony that's based on their personal information. If you intend to speak, please keep this in mind. When you come forward, please
state your name clearly for the record whether or not you have been sworn in. I also wanted to note that um a unanimous decision by eligible voting members of the LPA to approve a variance and certain exce special exceptions shall
constitute final agency action subject to a request by anyone for an additional hearing or review of the matter by the town council. if the request for an additional hearing is received by the town clerk within 10 days. Uh thank you.
And for purposes of efficiency before we begin these public hearings, I'd like to go ahead and dispose of a few housekeeping matters. First of all, I need to ask our town clerk whether or not the agenda items have been properly noticed pursuant to our land development
code. >> Yes, they have been. >> Thank you. Also, if any LPA member has a conflict of interest that would prohibit them from voting on a particular uh item, one of these three, um please disclose that
at this time so we can make sure that we have a quorum present for review of the item. >> Should we do roll call? >> Yes. >> Okay, Don. >> None. >> No, ma'am. >> None. >> None for me. >> None for me.
>> Great. So, at this time, um, if there is anyone present today that will be providing testimony, if you would please stand, raise your right hand, and be sworn in by our town clerk. >> Do you wish to speak? If you're going to speak on Are you here for a case or
>> No, no. No, not speak yet. But if you're going to speak during sworn in, >> 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, >> you're not going to speak yet. We'll call you.
>> Um, madame vice chair, if I if I could proceed on. Um, your first item today is um LPA resolution 25-9 variance 2025243. This is regarding beach access number uh 43.
Um the first uh housekeeping item is to find out whether or not there has been any exparte disclosures that need to be made into the record. >> Um >> no experte. >> No exparte.
>> Should we say who's speaking or will they know who's speaking? >> She should know. >> Okay. Okay. I just wanted to make sure. Go ahead, Doug. >> Oh, no exparte. >> No exparte. Done. >> No exparte. Thank you. >> Okay. And so the next question is who
will be testifying and providing uh information regarding this item? We see Jason Smallley and >> Hi, good morning. I'm Jordan Barb with Johnson Engineering. I'm here on behalf of the Lee County. >> Okay, so hold on. Um, so Jason Smallley has been qualified as an expert before
the LPA um, based on his experience uh, in the field of land use and specifically in the town of Fort Myers Beach. Um, if you could state your name again for the record and your qualifications in your
area of expertise and then um, madame vice chair, it would be a vote to accept him as an expert. >> Okay. Sure. Again, I'm Jordan Barlo with Johnson Engineering. I'm a licensed engineer uh in Florida and um yeah, I'm here representing as a design consultant
for Lee County. >> Okay. Um so >> I move um to accept as a as an expert. >> I'll second. >> Okay. All those in favor? >> I I >> that unanimous vote. >> Thank you. You are now a an expert. >> You are now an expert before the local
planning agency for the town of Fort Meyer Beach. Have you received a copy of the agenda materials? Have those been provided to you? >> Jordan, can you spell your last name for the record, please? >> Sure. V is in Victor. A R V as in Bravo L E. >> Thank you.
>> Yes. >> So, Madame Vice Chair, at this point, I believe it would be appropriate to have staff do a brief introduction and then allow the applicant to uh present their case. >> Okay. So, if you want to sit down while he presents, then you can get back up. Thank you. Go ahead.
>> You probably should go ahead and read the title, too. Yes, that's a good idea. >> U, this is a request again. It was for the variance. Um, this is a resolution of the Fort Meyer Beach Local Planning Agency approving approving with
conditions denying variance 2025243 requesting a variance of 20 in or 1.7 foot from LDC section 34-652D to allow a 60in wide or 5 foot wide ongrade pathway where a maximum 40in
inch wide or 3.3 foot wide ongrade pathway is permitted through a dune in the environmentally critical zoning district for the public access easement beach access number 43 recorded for the real property located at 102 Eststerero
Boulevard and providing for other clarifications as necessary providing for conflicts of law scrivener's error severability and providing for an effective Eight. >> Jason. >> Good morning. My name is Jason Smallley.
I'm with the planning and zoning department. Good morning, members, staff. So, before you today are going to be three separate cases uh generally dealing with uh the beach area and reconstruction of minor um of minor uh
foot paths and elevated uh walkways. Excuse me. Sorry. before you as uh before you today on the first one is going to be a request uh related to 102 Asterero uh that is for beach access number 43.
Uh the request before you today is a variance to allow for the reconstruction and widening of a foot path. So this is an atgrade footpath um with ground cover with you know usually a shell uh ground cover and this
allows for access to the beach without actual physical construction of an elevated uh walkway previous to the storm. Uh we have confirmed that there was an elevated uh walkway that was there. It was damaged. The county has determined that they are going to be re
uh rebuilding an ongrade path rather than attempting to rebuild an elevated walkway. Uh the ask today is uh the code limits the width of those walkways to uh 40 in and they are requesting to widen
it to a 5-ft ongrade path. Uh so it will be 60 in. Um those those are the major differences here before you. Uh the applicant's representative is here if you'd like any uh more detail about their process, but I'm here to answer
any questions you may have for staff. >> I've got a question. >> Okay. >> Um so just to make sure I understand when you say an ongrade path, you're talking about those mats like a just lay lying a mat over the dune. Well, the the
Moby Mat may be a portion of this, but this would this would allow them to construct um a a foot path if necessary. I I'll defer to the county as far as whether they're going to be use Moby Mat or if they will be using alternative ground cover to create an actual walking
path. Uh the allowance would allow for either option though, but again, I'll let the county clarify. >> I'd like to Yeah. When we get to it, understand exactly what we're talking about when we say a path. >> Understandable. Jason, we received a uh
a followup from uh the Pink Shell condo people. >> Yes. >> And the additional width because the easement is split between two ownerships. Are they each contributing or is it all on one side? The additional
width. >> Well, it's they're proposing a 5- foot wide MOI mat here and the easement is six foot. So out of necessity, a portion of it is going to be on the Pink Shell side of the easement. So the agreement with with Pink Shell, from what I
understand, they're they're supportive of this that they just wanted to make sure to understand that portion of this easement is under is their property and under their control through the easement. So uh from what I understand from the email, they they don't dispute
that this needs to go in and that it's going to uh stretch across both of them. I believe their problem was that the legal description didn't fully encompass their portion of the easement. Uh during the development order phase, we will be getting surveys and we will have the
full legal description and that'll be expressed in the development order. So it's uh it's registered in the deed that it is still part of their property. >> Okay. So anyone else have a question? >> All right. So, we'll call you back if we
have any other questions. >> Of course. >> Uh, is it George? I'm sorry. >> Jordan. >> Jordan. >> Okay. Jordan, if you'd like to say your name for the record and go ahead and give your presentation. >> I can. Sure. I'm again I'm Jordan Varble with Johnson Engineering. And I believe
Jason said it. Um, the the county would like to propose to install a a beach access path through an existing easement um to allow the public to access the beach. Have you gone over the um conditions and
agreed to the conditions that have been provided? >> Yes. The one uh condition I would like to ask um about would be during uh would be to allow construction during sea turtle nesting season. Actually, that may may not be on this one. It may have
been on 41. >> That was on 41. I apologize. Um Jason would you like to respond to that? >> So uh much like the the Bowitch uh issue
staff from what I understand does not have an issue with them working uh under the the opices of the permit during turtle season. Uh as always if there are any if there's any monitoring that is required necessitated that's going to be the responsibility of the applicant uh
done in conjunction with Chad and the um the turtle program. So if they wish to work during that point then they'll do it under uh the normal process allowed for in their uh state license and in conjunction with the town's environmental program.
>> Jordan, do you have any idea what the time frame is for construction? As far as the >> beginning to end, >> beginning to end, it should take 90 days. >> And how quickly can they start? >> Um, so yeah, logistically once the
permits are in hand, let's say 3 months for procurement, 3 months for construction. So, >> all right. Thank you. >> So, can you um go through the details of this pathway that you're talking about? >> How is it constructed? What does it consist of?
>> Sure. So the there is a little dune at that part of the beach and so the county would like to install a moi mat, one of those blue mats with poster rope on both sides to get up and over that dune and then between the sidewalk and the dune it would be a a shell path or any sort
of improvement as needed um to get you know wheelchair access to that moy man. So, a shell path in the flat areas, a MOI map over the >> rise of the dune, and then Yes, sir. >> on the seawward side of the dune, a shell path, too, or is that it?
>> No, once you're on the seawward side of the dune, it's just the the beach. >> Okay. So the 110 ft starts there's going to be a sanded path from Astero Boulevard to approximately where the fence stops on
the property to the left and then the 110 ft will go from there. >> Correct. Yep. Yes. >> Okay. >> Probably the CCL. >> Yeah. >> CCL, can I ask you a question for a sec? >> Of course.
So, for all practical purposes, they're putting back what was there before? Uh, >> changes that you should. >> Yeah, I I believe and and correct me if I'm wrong. There it was permitted as an elevated path previously. Uh, that's what the the staff report seems to
indicate that was destroyed. And then they're not continuing with an elevated path here anymore. It'll just be the MOI mat and then the crush shell uh at the beginning of the pathway. And just for clarity, we talk about a lot of expediencies and efficiencies.
They're in front of us due to what restriction they have to get from us and they're just putting back in fact less invasive. >> Uh so what they're asking for here is an increase in the width of the path. Under normal circumstances, it would be 40 in. They're requesting um I'm assuming
because of the Moby Mats dimensions to increase it to 5T. >> Is that the new standard, Jordan? Would those come in? So, so the path that was there before was 5T. So, we're we're holding to what was there. You're correct. It's less intense than what was there before. >> Okay. Thanks.
>> I would agree that um a path narrower than 5T is >> not too practical, >> right? >> Especially with handicap. >> Just putting Gotcha. >> Yes. >> Any other questions? Yes, John. >> Yeah, I just have the one question. um from the email that we got that they're asking that the county ensures
that the reconstructed pathway is centered on the property line as originally platted as opposed to strictly on one of the properties or more advantageous to one of the properties. >> Yes, sir. It will be centered on the >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Any other questions? All right. Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on this case? We'll close the public hearing. uh close public speaking and bring it back to the table. Would anybody like to make a motion?
>> I'll make a motion to approve uh variance 20250243 as recommended by staff and with conditions therein. >> May I ask a question? Um on page 15 of your agenda materials, there are certain
findings that need to be made. >> Yes. Findings and conditions. >> Okay. In connection with the findings, yes, >> that the findings have been satisfied. >> They have. Thank you. Thank you. >> And the four conditions will be applied. >> Yeah, button. There's three conditions. >> Second. >> There's four on mine. >> Oh, maybe I'm looking at the wrong one.
>> Okay. >> Um, >> four. Um, okay. So, uh, we'll do a roll call. Who? Who did the second? I'm sorry. Jim. >> Okay. >> Jim did. >> Jim. >> This Jim and not Jim. Okay. Um,
so, uh, roll call. Doug. I mean, Don, I'm sorry. Oh, wait. Who? You do it to the person who made the motion. I'm sorry. I I'm not in order here. Uh Jim Dunlap. >> Hi, >> Jim Bowen. >> Hi, >> Don Sutter. >> Hi, >> Doug.
>> I >> John uh Mlan and Jane Plumber. I unanimous vote. So this will make it pass and not have to go through the town if there is no uh
conflict presented to the town within the next 10 days. Is that correct? >> Correct. Objection um filed with the town clerk. >> Okay. So we will move to the uh next hearing.
The next item on the LPA agenda is LPA resolution 25-21 uh VR202506 261 and this is for beach access number 41 uh a resolution of the town of Fort Myers Beach Local Planning Agency
approving approving with conditions denying variance 2025261 requesting a variance from LDC section 34 4-652F2C to allow an 8 foot wide dune walkover where a maximum 6 foot wide dune
walkover is permitted for uses other than single family residential in the environmentally critical zoning district for the public access easement beach access number 41 recorded for the real
property located at 252 Astera Boulevard and providing for other clarifications as necessary, providing for conflicts of law, scrivener's errors, severability, and providing for an effective date.
>> Okay, we we covered all of the properties with the uh disclosure um or do we do it individually here? >> It technically should be individually. >> Okay. So, but the conflicts were covered, correct? Um, yes, you can go ahead and just say
generically. >> Any any disclosures needed for exparte? Don, >> none. >> None. >> Doug, >> no, ma'am. >> Jim, >> none. >> John, Jane, none. Okay. No disclosures. Um, the I do need to make a correction
before we move forward. There were only three conditions on the last hearing. So we need to correct the motion um because we said four and it is only three. >> Okay. Is there a motion to >> So would you correct your motion?
>> Correct it accordingly. >> And Jim >> second the amendment. >> And do we need to vote again? >> Yes. >> On this correction? Yes. >> Okay. Very good. Jim, please. >> I. >> Jim. >> I. >> Don. >> I. >> Doug. >> I. >> John. >> Hi.
>> Jane. I want unanimous. I'm sorry about that air. Okay. There are there are four on this one just so we're clear. Okay. J Jason, would you please give your Did we do >> Of course. >> Good morning again. My name is Jason Smallley, Planning and Zoning
Department. I don't >> I'm sorry. I didn't do export. No worries. >> Yeah. Oh, you did? >> Okay. All right. She's got it. >> Okay. >> I wasn't sure. Um and then the identification of the participants, we have the same individuals. They are both
have been qualified as experts. Um and we are ready to proceed. >> So before you today are a variance and a special exception that are intertwined um with beach access number 41. Uh this
is associated with 252 EO Boulevard. This is another uh building within the Pink Shell uh PUD. Uh this is for the I believe it's called the Villas uh the beach villas building. Uh again, the request before you is a
variance to start out with. We'll be doing a special exception on this same property here after this one. Uh so the request before you today is to vary the width of a proposed dune walkover. Uh again, I'll I'll mention that this is separate than the dune path, which we
just talked about previously. This is for an elevated dune walkover. Uh dune walker walkovers uh in within our code are limited to six feet in width. Uh the applicant is proposing to do an 8 foot wide dune walkover uh elevated I believe
three feet. So the requ the initial request before you is to vary the width and allow for a wider dune walkover. Uh I will defer to the county and their representative for any specifics on the plans and on the uh engineering of it,
but staff is here for any questions you may have about our process. Any questions for Jason at this time? >> Okay, go ahead. Uh Jordan, >> great. Sure. Good morning. Uh again, I'm Jordan Barb. So, the county's proposing to reinstall a boardwalk that was there
before the hurricane. Uh the same footprint um that was there. So, it's really a like forlike minor deviation in elevation, but um other than that, it's similar structure to what was there before the storm. So the MOI map that's there now looks to be about four feet or
so. I didn't Okay. >> Walk it. So you want to go Are you going to do the MOI mat for 8 ft? >> No, the MOI mat will be removed and and um redeployed elsewhere, I guess. But it will be a boardwalk with with pilings and timber frames and and
>> they're proposing a a >> okay >> wood and composite deck boardwalk >> and the whole thing or just the walkover will be 8 foot wide. >> The entire boardwalk will be 8 foot wide. Um, doesn't the town say that the
walkovers or the uh uh are typically to be six foot or less? >> Yeah. So, again, variance. >> That's why they're asking >> that. That is correct. Yes. And so they're requesting additional two feet in width.
>> Okay. All right. Um, any other questions? >> Why um is the 8T just to put it back like it was? Yes, sir. Yes. >> Is there um Jason, is the reason for the six-foot limit in the town ordinance, is
there any particular reason for that or is it just a judgment? >> I I can only guess. I I'm sure there's an arbitrary nature to it, but sixoot would accommodate a single uh wheelchair and then uh somebody helping them behind. I would have to assume that it
was intended originally to minimize any of the impact of EC. I have to say I'm I'm hesitant to approve an increase in width just because that's the way it used to be. >> Frankly,
>> Jason, has there been any concern by the property owners? Has there been any comment by them at all? >> We haven't received any concern from any adjacent neighbors about the width in particular? No. My question would be, do you think if we
approve an 8 foot here that we will be seeing multiple 8oot requests to do over dunes because we are putting in a lot of dunes. >> Correct. >> And if there's going to uh be a walkover that's going to be built, are we going
to see all 8 foot walkovers? So, what I can tell you is that um there's no this isn't presidential as I'm sure you're aware, but any requests to make uh to have additional larger um
boardwalks out there would need to come before you or town council at that time. I couldn't say whether anybody else would want to replicate that at other beach accesses, but at the very least, you would have a chance to read through that request uh before it were given
approval. >> And I I would like to add that the first finding that you make in approval of any variances is that there are extraordinary circumstances inherent to the property that is before you. um
that would uh basically um make the request reasonable and dimminimous under the circumstances. So it is a case-bycase basis. >> Correct. >> Although they may ask >> correct. >> So what could you Jordan could you tell us what the extraordinary or um
uh condition is that is making this approval meet the findings and conditions that are required? um >> findings and conclusions that are required. I >> was just reading through that. >> I believe it says here that that this
request will will not introduce uh exceptional or extraordinary conditions that it's a dimminimous in increase in width from what what's there. But >> I also think I that there was testimony that this was there before
>> this size. So it's a like for like >> Yeah. >> There was there was a actual wooden thing that went over before. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Is that actually if you look at the picture >> the picture? >> Okay. >> Yeah. I'd like to point out that the
easement underneath the condo building on the drawing appears to be 8 ft. So it would be consistent with that portion of the walk. >> Okay. Thank you. And I would also say even regardless of what was there before this, my opinion, these type of walkovers are less damaging than the
flat ones where people can walk anywhere they want. They get to 8 feet anyway when two people are walking side by side and pull in their strollers and do what they do. I think this causes less damage, more permanency. >> Good. Okay. Uh, any other questions for
either Jason or Jordan? >> Thank you. Um, anybody from the public wish to speak at this time? We'll open the public hearing or public comment. No public comment. We'll close public comment and come back to the
table. Any discussion here? I um I'm going to um vote against it, but I agree with what Jim said about the the raised walkways are less damaging and I like that there's railings on it so it contains people walking on are
restricted to the actual raised walkway. I like that. But I don't see a reason to change our or our ordinance >> just because it used to be a >> Okay. Anybody else want to make a comment? I I would just restate that it
appears that the walkway through the building is 8 feet and if it was therefore a pinch point, it would be inconsistent and actually inconvenient. >> Correct. >> Okay. Anybody want to make a motion?
>> I'll make a motion. I'd make a motion to pass uh resolution or variance 2025 0261 for beach access 41 given that it meets the condition uh with the conditions four conditions um
that were applied and meeting that it meets uh all of the requirements >> and the requirements are on page 89 if anyone's asking this is the um exceptional or extraordinary circumstances um the uh the the rest of them are all
are all there. >> Okay, we have a motion on the table uh brought by John Mlan and seconded by Don Sudith. All those in um we have to roll call. I'm sorry. Um motion by John, please >> approve. I
>> I Okay, >> I >> done >> Don. Yeah, I'm >> Doug. >> Nay. >> Yes. >> I >> And I I So that's six. Uh there's only six of us here. 5 to one. >> I'm sorry, who was the second on the on that one?
>> The second was Don Sus. >> Thank you very much. >> And it was the vote was 5 to one. >> So that one is not unanimous. So therefore, that one will require a second hearing before the town council. >> Okay. Moving to
um your next item is LPA resolution 25-20 sees 20250241 for beach access number 41. This is a resolution of the local planning agency of the town of Fort Myers Beach,
Florida. Approving approving with conditions denying special exception SEZ20250241 to allow like forlike replacement of an 8 ft wide and 10 110 ft long elevated dune walkover in environmentally
critical zoning district seawword of the 1978 CCCL um coastal construction control line for the public Access easement beach access number 41 recorded
for the real property located at 252 Eststerero Boulevard providing for scriveners errors severability and an effective date. >> Okay. Um does anybody have any disclosures of um >> exparte?
>> Exparte brain dead. >> No exparte done. None. >> None. >> None. None. >> No. No. Exparte. So, uh, Jason, would you like to move forward? >> Of course. Again, for the record, my name is Jason Smallley with the planning
and zoning department. Uh, before you today is the um concurrent special exception that goes along with the uh variance that you just heard. The special exception before you today would be for the actual placement of the
structure Cword of the 1978 CCCL line. So whereas before you were uh taking a look at the proposed width, what you have before you today is the is the allowance of the structure in to uh with the 8 foot wide width. If the variance
is not approved at town council, you would be approving the replacement of um of the six foot wide allowed do uh elevated uh boardwalk but not at 8 ft. So just just so we have a little separation and we know what follows what
here. Um so before you is is a request for like forlike replacement. They are proposing ultimately 8 ft wide, 110 ft long uh boardwalk again at uh the uh beach access 41. So again that is on the
pink shell PUB property. Um the staff has looked through the records. We do understand that the uh the elevated boardwalk did exist before and that it was affected uh largely by the storm and has been taken down. This request here
is to replace it. Uh I would note that this resolution does include the sea turtle language. So uh if there is a um an inclination to approve this, I would request that you go ahead and remove that. Again, we will be working with the
county uh through the the environmental program. Um they will oversee that and do any monitoring that's necessary. uh if there's any required monitoring that cost uh will be borne by the applicant, the county rather than the town. The
applicant is here for any questions you may have and I'm here for any questions you may have about staff's process. >> Jason, the special exception standard is on page >> it's uh 222 and 223 the findings that
would be required. I know, but I'm just asking about the st the special exception um that is written on page 197. So, this is not about the width or anything else. It is just about going over the CCL, >> right? I wanted to clarify that uh in
this resolution, it talks about an 8 foot wide 110t long structure. Um that is assuming that the variance gets approved, which was the point of the variance to extend it to 8 ft. And so if it get if it goes to six foot it will be corrected to that.
>> Yes. If if council decides not to approve that variance they would still if and this went through then they would be allowed to construct the largest um boardwalk that they are capable under of under our normal code which would be 6 ft wide.
>> Okay. Um any other questions for Jason? >> Okay. >> Yeah. Uh uh yeah, just so we're clear, this so this is special exception is for the length of the boardwalk. >> No, >> no, sir. >> This is only to go over the CCO,
>> correct? Oh, over the >> That in of itself requires this process. The initial >> length, right? >> Yeah. Got it. >> Okay. Any other questions for Jason? Um Jordan, >> the additional length into or beyond the
CCL line, is that being motivated by ADA requirements? >> Um, you know, the goal here is to get it as close to the to the water as possible. Sure. It's for wheelchair access primarily, but you know, all sorts of ADA access. Um, and again, it's
going back in the same footprint that it was before. >> Yeah. And the county is receiving uh FEMA reimbursement funding for for this structure which helps predicate that it really you know to help with the funding it needs to go back as it was uh so that
we the county doesn't put their funding in jeopardy with the FEMA. >> Okay. >> Y >> So is anybody have questions for uh Jordan? Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on this item?
Seeing no one, I'll close public appear uh comments and come back to the desk. Is there any com um discussion? Okay. Um anybody ready to make a motion? I'll make a motion to approve special exception
20250241 for beach access 41 consistent with the replacement of what was there before and um with the findings and conditions therein by staff >> second. Would you also I'm pardon me. Would you also like to make a rem uh
removal of the language about turtle season or uh have them work under the normal turtle season >> which means a monitoring will be by the applicant at their expense? >> Absolutely. >> Okay. >> Second set. >> Okay. Um can I just add on the record
that the uh findings that are required are in LDC section 34-84 and 34-88. And my understanding is the motion is that the criteria has been satisfied. >> That's correct. >> Um I don't have the conditions in front of me. How many conditions were there?
>> Four. >> Four. >> Four. >> Four conditions. Okay. >> The motion to approve uh to approve or deny was made by uh Jim Dunlap and seconded by Dun Sith with four conditions. Um we'll do a roll call. Uh Jim.
>> Hi. >> Doug or Don. >> Hi. >> I do that. Doug. I >> Jim >> I >> John >> Hi >> Jane >> I Okay. So that passes unanimously. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you.
>> Your next item is uh legislative in nature. So we will not have as much formality as we've had for the last three. Um this is proposed ordinance 25-27 for certified recovery residences. The
title's a little long so bear with me. An ordinance of the town council of the town of Fort Myers Beach, Florida, establishing procedures for the review and approval of applications for reasonable accommodations needed to operate certified recovery residences
from existing land use regulations in new section 34-204 in division 4, applications and procedures of article 2, zoning district standards and nonconformities of chapter
Chapter 34 as mandated by section 397.48715A 48715A Florida statutes and amending section 34-32 required hearings of division 5 public
hearings and review of article 2 zoning procedures of chapter 34 zoning districts design standards and nonconformities to require only one public hearing before the local planning agency LPA for
approval of applications for reasonable accommodation ations to operate a certified recovery residence as provided in section 34-204 if the decision by eligible members of the LPA is unanimous and the town clerk
does not receive a request for an additional public hearing before the town council from anyone including town staff within 10 days after the LPA decision providing for codification severability scriveners errors conflict of law and an
effective date. So Jason is not here. I can take this one. Um so the um the approvals for um certified recovery residences has been preempted from local
governments to the state. Um and what is now required is for the local governments including counties to come up with a procedure in the event a request is needed to provide a
reasonable accommodation. Um the reasonable accommodations would be somewhat similar to a variance. So if they do want to locate one of these type of facilities and they need a variance, the process by statute um is an
expedited one to move them very quickly uh through the process. That's the first part of this proposed ordinance. The second part is because of the need to expedite it um we would be requesting that there only be one public hearing
before the LPA. Again, similar to the process that we have in place now for variances, which these reasonable accommodation requests again would be very similar to um a variance. Um there is a deadline to have uh a procedure in
place by January 1st. So, this has come to you in November. We have it scheduled for first reading before the town council on December the 1st and second reading on December 15th. So, we'll meet
that um statutory deadline of having a process in place. Um my conversations with Jason Green uh has been that we really don't have any of these type of facilities on uh in the town. Um,
however, because of Florida statutes, we do need to have a procedure in place uh should it be needed. And Jason, I'll defer to you if you want to add anything. So, if we don't have any um we're not talking about temporary
structures on properties. We're talking about a facility. A facility for um recovery residences um for individuals who are undergoing treatment for certain types of conditions. >> Exactly. >> Yeah. So, yeah, just so I'm clear, what
we're talking about is like a halfway house or something like that. It's like a >> something like that. An existing law basically doesn't give the local governments a lot of discretion >> uh as far as the approvals for those type of facilities, but they are giving
you a little bit of discretion as far as the reasonable accommodations that might be needed like you might need to have a driveway larger than whatever. But there is parking requirements or something. >> It would it would still come through the local government, but it has to be
expedited. So again, that's why we thought one public hearing before the LPA would be sufficient. Um, and you all have done great with the other variances. I think I've heard feedback from from others that um, it really has
expedited approval process and uh, for the benefit of the res. >> So yeah, just so I understand. So if u an entity was proposing uh recovery facility and they needed uh amendments or or you know variances
>> they we would expedite >> the review of those variances. >> Correct. At the staff level um they pretty much will have to move it to the top of the stack and then give it to you. I believe there's a 30-day period >> um going back and forth and then it
should be resolved within a 60-day period. >> And they these are certifi when you say certified it's like >> um some certification by someredited >> by the state >> by the state. Yeah. >> Okay. I see.
>> Um and there's no conditions or anything else put on these but they have to meet certain criterias. The criteria is in the or the draft ordinance. They um they must uh comply with requirements in the ADA as well as
the Fair Housing Act. >> Those are all federal compliance. They're boilerplane automatic. >> Yeah. >> Nancy is um local rule have any um power around the zoning of these facilities or is that preempted by the state as well?
that's been preempted and unfortunately it's been preempted for many many years. >> Okay. >> Um in single family districts I believe that now there's a preeemption that's been expanded into multif family. Um but it is a preeemption. So there's really
not a lot of um decision making or or discretion that a local government can exercise um on this matter. >> Okay. Jason, do we have any applications for any such kind of >> Nothing. Okay. I'm just wondering if
there's some discussion out there that is bringing this or is this just statemandated that you have it? >> I think it's just statemandated. Um, you know, working with our other clients, our other local governments. Um, everybody is is really running very quickly right now to try to get
something in place. >> Um, and as you'll see that the ordinance itself is not super intense. No, >> we just want to comply with state law. >> Maybe just for the interest in doing the work with the um charter review group.
John, back to your question on zoning. It's been interesting to watch the evolution of this um state mandate uh occasions coming down since 1983 when they started to propose overruling
some local rule with governments. It's been a,50 unfunded state mandates, >> oh man. >> Come to local communities during that period of time that have removed independence line item by light item. I'll add this to the list. >> Wow, that's amazing.
>> Any other conversation? Okay. Anybody want to make a motion? >> So, the motion would be that we adopt >> this ordinance or recommend adoption? recommend adoption as consistent recommend council.
>> Yeah, >> I guess I would make a motion that we recommend to council that we adopt the ordinance consistent with the state mandate. >> There has been a motion by Doug Ecman and that second by Jim Bowen to approve.
Now, this can be a group vote. No call, Revel call. Okay. Doug >> I, >> Jim, >> I. Don >> Hi, >> Jim. >> Hi. >> Hi. >> J uh John and Jane I. So this passes unanimously.
Okay. >> Um then we will move to administrative agenda. Do you have anything for us on things that are coming for us next month? >> Jason. >> Jason.
Um, so we don't have any very large projects that I'm aware of that have been scheduled. I believe that the December meeting may have uh one of the larger projects you've heard about out there, but I don't want to get ahead of the agenda makers right now. Uh for the
most part, we've got uh just a normal normal set of requests that you've seen over and over again. Variances and special exceptions through the end of the year. >> Okay. LP my uh LPA item members members items
and reports. >> Anybody for me? >> For me? >> Nothing. No, I'm good. >> I would just like to congratulate Don and Mike Miller for the opening of the whale. We are excited to have three new restaurants on the island in one
building and it is an absolutely beautiful property. They've done a it's a it's a work of art. So happy for them. Um LPA attorney items. >> Um no legal items, but I just wanted to get um some clarification. Um,
if we do have a large project coming that might take up a lot of time, um, would the LPA be interested in perhaps a separate meeting on that or just give us the discretion and we can reach out for scheduling purposes? Um, I don't know,
Jason, how many other items? Just one so far. Okay. Well, it should be fine then. Okay. I'll be quiet. You can always ask, right? Okay. >> You can always ask for an extra meeting. >> Yeah.
>> Community development item. Items. >> Nothing. Okay. Items for next month's agenda. We've already gone over. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Motion to adjurnn. Second. Second >> by Jim and Jim. Thank you.
>> That was a quick meeting.