WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=gCTphbe_VtE

Part: 1

1
00:01:02.000 --> 00:01:19.320
Okay, good morning everyone. We're going to call this meeting to order. Today is Monday, June 1st, 2026. It is 9:00 a.m. All council members are present, including the town manager, deputy town manager, town attorney, and town clerk. If you'll please rise for the invocation followed by the pledge of allegiance.

2
00:01:20.560 --> 00:01:37.280
As we gather today here on this first day of hurricane season, let us remember both the beauty and vulnerability of our island home and keep our residents, visitors, first responders, and all who care for this island safe. May we come together not just as neighbors, but as a family, supporting one another with

3
00:01:37.280 --> 00:01:53.600
kindness, strength, and unity through every challenge we may face. And may the discussions and decisions made here today be guided by wisdom, respect, and a shared commitment to the well-being of Fort Myers Beach and everyone who calls it home. Amen. >> Amen.

4
00:01:53.600 --> 00:02:13.120
>> I aliance 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. Amy, I think what you meant to say is

5
00:02:13.120 --> 00:02:29.040
just the first day of June. >> Just there you go. >> My anniversary. >> Next is the approval of the final agenda. Is there a motion to approve the agenda or any changes? >> Move is printed. >> A motion by councelor King. >> Second.

6
00:02:29.040 --> 00:02:44.560
>> Second by councelor Mlan. Any further discussion? All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed hearing? None. That motion carries unanimously. Next is public comment. Amy, >> I have nobody signed up. >> Is there anyone would like to speak in public comment?

7
00:02:44.560 --> 00:03:00.599
Seeing none, we will close public comment. First thing we have is a presentation. It's a 2025 consumer confidence report for the water. Mr. Town Manager, who's who's leading that? >> Vanessa is going to come up and give us that update.

8
00:03:08.400 --> 00:03:26.000
Good morning. My name is Vanessa. I'm the utilities compliance coordinator here at the town. Um, and today I'm going to briefly discuss the 2025 consumer confidence report. This report is an annual report that um, all community water systems have to send out to the residents every year. Um,

9
00:03:26.000 --> 00:03:40.879
and a community water system serves at least 15 service connections used by at least 25 yearround residents, which we have here. Um, next slide, please. So, we're going to talk about um where our water is sourced, some background

10
00:03:40.879 --> 00:04:01.360
information, test results, and some additional health information. Next slide. So, where we get our water, we get our water from Lee County Utilities. Next slide, please. Um, our water is purchased mostly from

11
00:04:01.360 --> 00:04:19.280
um the Green Meadows plant. Let's see here. Um, the Green Meadow plant treats groundwater obtained from the sandstone super uh superficial and lower Hawthorne aquifers. Um, it is taken from the wells treated with reverse osmosis and ionic exchange. The

12
00:04:19.280 --> 00:04:35.600
water is then blended with the corkcrew water plant. uh they get their water as well from the sandstone surficial and lower Hawthorne aquafers. This water is lime softened uh chlorinated and disinfected and then blended with the uh green meadows treatment.

13
00:04:35.600 --> 00:04:51.680
Um RO systems are pressure-driven filtration processes. Um ion exchange removes unwanted ions and replaces them with desirable ions. So it softens the water and lime softening removes hardness by dissolves calcium

14
00:04:51.680 --> 00:05:09.520
and magnesium ions. Next slide please. Um some background information. Next slide please. Um if you have any questions concerning um this report, you can always just give

15
00:05:09.520 --> 00:05:26.479
us a call or email us. Um we'll be happy to give you any information that we uh have. We routinely monitor for this. We routinely monitor for contaminants um in the drinking water according to federal and state laws, rules, and regulations.

16
00:05:26.479 --> 00:05:42.000
In this report, uh the data is from January 1st to December 31st of 2025. And um some of the data is a little old, but it is what is the uh closest testing we have. Um not everything is required

17
00:05:42.000 --> 00:06:00.240
to be tested every year. Lee County uh participates in the SWAT program which is source water assessment. Um it basically just testes all their wells. The link below, you can click on that and you can look at every well that they have and what they uh scale from low to

18
00:06:00.240 --> 00:06:18.720
moderate concern. U most of their wells are on the low concern side. And then if you have any questions, you can reach out to Andrea. She works for the county. Next slide, please. sources of drinking water. Um, rivers, lakes, streams, ponds, reservoirs,

19
00:06:18.720 --> 00:06:35.280
springs, and wells. As water travels down through the ground over the surface, it dissolves um naturally occurring occurring minerals and can pick up substances from animals and humans. These can be uh inorganic contaminants such as salts and metals. It could be pesticides and herbicides

20
00:06:35.280 --> 00:06:52.960
from agriculture and urban storm water. Organic chemicals and some radioactive contaminants can be naturally occurring. Next slide. And now we'll talk about some of the test results. Next slide, please.

21
00:06:52.960 --> 00:07:09.680
First, we'll talk about radioactive contaminants or rads. These are in the water from erosion of natural deposits. Um Corkscrew and Green Meadows tested for these. So Lee County uh tested for these. We have alpha emitters in radium

22
00:07:09.680 --> 00:07:25.680
226 and 228. Both uh plants were under the NCL which is the maximum containment level which is very good. Uh next slide please. We have our interview >> before you move on. Just quick question about that. It says that the testing

23
00:07:25.680 --> 00:07:42.400
date was from six years ago. Is there any newer data than that? when they test um for rads you can certain utilities um and community systems can do waivers so where if their testing is low enough they can skip usually it's a threeear

24
00:07:42.400 --> 00:07:59.280
cycle so they're on a six-year cycle so they're probably testing for it this year the 2025 report is we can only test from last year since we're still in 2026 so they probably have a waiver for rads >> okay

25
00:07:59.280 --> 00:08:19.919
>> any Any other questions? Okay. Um, we have inorganic contaminants. Um, this is split into two. So, this one shows arsenic, berium, and cyanide. Uh, again, these are from 2023. This is the most recent testing we have. They'll test uh in 2026. So, this year they'll

26
00:08:19.919 --> 00:08:35.440
test again. Um, all three of these are below the uh NCL. Um and two of them had no results which is great. Uh next slide please. Uh we have fluoride, nitrate, nitrite,

27
00:08:35.440 --> 00:08:52.000
selenium and sodium. Nitrate and nitrite are tested annually. So these are the most recent um data we have for 2025. And these um are also under the MCL. nitrate we had

28
00:08:52.000 --> 00:09:10.160
um 014 and nitrate we had 013 and the MCL was uh 10 and one so very very low results. Next slide please. Uh stage one disinfectant byproducts this is chlorine so we do the chlorine

29
00:09:10.160 --> 00:09:26.880
testing here on the beach. Um our minimum is 6 and our max is 04 to D ruling. Um our range of results was 0.9 to 4.2. So we are right in that uh spot which is uh what we need to be.

30
00:09:26.880 --> 00:09:42.959
Next slide please. Our stage two disinfectant byproducts. Uh these are TTHMs and HA5s. We test for these quarterly ourselves. Um we uh HA HA5s are group of five disinfectant

31
00:09:42.959 --> 00:10:00.000
byproducts. These occur um when chlorine is used to disinfect drinking water. It re reacts naturally with organic matter. They are colorless and evaporate out of the water into the air. Um same for TTHMs.

32
00:10:00.000 --> 00:10:16.079
These are just one group um and they're the same. They occur naturally um with organic matter. Um like I said, we test quarterly. So our range of results here for HA5s was uh 10 to 20.2 the max is 60

33
00:10:16.079 --> 00:10:32.160
and then for TTHMs our range was uh 16 to 23.7 and the max is 80. Next slide please. Lead and copper. We sample for lead and copper every 3 years. Uh the last time

34
00:10:32.160 --> 00:10:47.680
we tested was in 2024. We sampled 44 sites here on the island. Uh we had two um hits of lead that were just in the 90th percentile. None of them were above the action level. Uh both houses were older than 1969

35
00:10:47.680 --> 00:11:05.519
and um lead solder was banned in 1986. So it's probably just internal plumbing in their uh houses. >> So you're doing a good job. Thank you. Um so we're actually these two set test sites were actual people's homes. >> One of them was the mound house which we

36
00:11:05.519 --> 00:11:21.920
have. So there's three levels. When we do land in copper, we have to find the oldest houses or property on the um in our system. So that'll be tier three. So moundhouse, every time we test leading copper, is a site that we have to test

37
00:11:21.920 --> 00:11:36.399
because it's one of the oldest we have here on the island. Um and then the other house, like I said, that was um built before or built in 1969. So it was before the lead solder was banned. So that's probably why it

38
00:11:36.399 --> 00:11:52.720
>> but it doesn't impact the uh facility as a whole, the the water supply as a whole. It's just because in those >> Yes. So we drop the um the jugs off with instructions. Every time we do L & Copper, they take it into their house. There's instructions on how to sample.

39
00:11:52.720 --> 00:12:09.120
So all the sampling we do for L & Copper is internal inside that resident's house. And then we pick up those samples the next day and take them to the lab. So it has nothing to do with our distribution system. It's always inside. >> Art quality is fine there. Thank you.

40
00:12:09.120 --> 00:12:26.000
>> Any other questions? Next slide, please. Uh UCMR4 Lee County um did this. Um it's a regulation by EPA that requires monitoring for 30 chemical contaminants. These contaminants include metals, pesticides, and other substances that do

41
00:12:26.000 --> 00:12:41.440
not have existing regulatory standards. Uh they just told us we have to put this on a report. before they tested for it. Um, and we have to let our residents know as well. Um, next slide, please. And then I'll quickly talk about some

42
00:12:41.440 --> 00:12:57.040
additional health information. Uh, next slide, please. Um, okay. So, the lead in the drinking water is primarily from minerals and components associated with service lines and home plumbing. Uh we are responsible for providing the highest quality

43
00:12:57.040 --> 00:13:14.399
drinking water and removing lead pipes but cannot control the variety of materials used um in your home. If you have any concerns about lead in your house, you can always just give us a call. We'll be happy to um do some more testing um to minimize your exposure.

44
00:13:14.399 --> 00:13:31.360
Drinking water, including bottled water, may reasonably be expected to contain at least some amounts of small contaminants. these pres these presence of contaminants does not necessarily indicate that the water poses a health risk. Um more information could be calling um the EPA has a drinking water

45
00:13:31.360 --> 00:13:47.360
hotline that you can call. I have the number there on the report that you can call them if you have any questions. Um and then if you uh please do not flush your unused or unwanted medications down the toilet. That is a big no no. Um there is a link that we are required to

46
00:13:47.360 --> 00:14:03.680
give out to residents and that's also included on the uh report as well. Next slide please. Uh thank you. And do you have any questions? >> Councelor McClean. Any questions for Vanessa? >> Uh no. Thank you very much. Your

47
00:14:03.680 --> 00:14:20.800
explanation of why lead was found in strictly a couple of the oldest homes >> was really really helpful and I think it alleviated a concern I had which was where is the testing done and the fact that it's being done in the house and it's not the source of the water but

48
00:14:20.800 --> 00:14:35.920
it's actually picking up the contamination as it travels in through the >> residents plumbing uh was very helpful and I appreciate it. Thank you. >> Thank you. Council Lincoln. >> Yes. No. Um the only thing I was looking

49
00:14:35.920 --> 00:14:52.639
out for was fluoride had changed um this past year or two. >> So it looks like it's it's not an issue though. So that should be comforting. >> Yes. I think they took it out um in 2025, I believe. So that would be reflected uh >> in these latest results.

50
00:14:52.639 --> 00:15:07.760
>> Yeah. So that was good to see. >> Yes. >> That's it, Vanessa. Thank you. >> Thank you, Vice Mayor Sanford. >> Yeah, that was my question. So, they've now taken fluoride out of the water. >> Yes, Lee County has taken fluoride completely out of their drinking water. >> Okay. Thank you. That's all I had. Thank you, >> Councelor King.

51
00:15:07.760 --> 00:15:23.440
>> No further questions. You did a great job. Thank you so much. >> Yes. Thank you, Vanessa. >> Thank you. >> And this will be posted for residents to see. >> Yes, Mr. Mayor. Will. >> Okay, perfect. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. Next, we have local achievements and rec recognitions. Um,

52
00:15:23.440 --> 00:15:38.720
the first thing we have is a PL proclamation for court enforcement officers week. Town of Fort Myers Beach Proclamation. Whereas code enforcement officers provide for the safety, health, and welfare of citizens of their communities through the enforcement of building,

53
00:15:38.720 --> 00:15:54.639
zoning, housing, fire safety, environmental, and other codes and ordinances. And whereas code enforcement officers play a vital role in protecting lives, involving neighborhoods, improving neighborhoods, and enhancing the quality of life within the community. And whereas assisted by support and program staff, code

54
00:15:54.639 --> 00:16:11.440
enforcement officers strive each day to provide quality customer service and achieve compliance for a betterment of the community. And whereas code enforcement officers are dedicated, highly trained public servants who take pride in serving their department and local government. And whereas the town of Fort Myers Beach emergency service

55
00:16:11.440 --> 00:16:26.639
services divisions, code enforcement officers are committed to elevating the quality of life for our neighborhoods by enforcing noncriminal town ordinances, codes, and regulations. And whereas the Florida Association of Code Enforcement, FACE, annually designates the first week

56
00:16:26.639 --> 00:16:42.800
of June as court enforcement officer week to recognize the valuable contributions of court enforcement officers throughout the state of Florida Florida. Now therefore, be it be proclaimed by the town council of the town of Fort Maria Beach, Florida, that the week of June 1st through June 7th,

57
00:16:42.800 --> 00:17:00.199
2026 is hereby recognized as code enforcement officers week given under my hand in the seal of the office of mayor this 1st of June 20206. Come on up. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We got >> Yes.

58
00:17:02.240 --> 00:17:19.520
Mayor, while they're coming up, can I just um make a comment or two? I get the pleasure of working with these um staff members, and I will tell you that they are dedicated. They um they do get some grief from, you know, residents who are

59
00:17:19.520 --> 00:17:35.440
not in compliance, but they also get a little bit of grief from me. But over the course of time that I've worked with them, there has just been phenomenal improvements. and I did want to take this opportunity to recognize them and appreciate the work that they do and um

60
00:17:35.440 --> 00:17:52.480
working with me. >> Very good. >> Thank you, uh Nancy. I also want to say just it's a pleasure to work with these great, you know, code officers and Michael Howerman, our code manager every day. I agree with Nancy. They've done a tremendous job and really come a long way uh over the the last months uh to

61
00:17:52.480 --> 00:18:09.200
improve operations. And really, it's it's they're they're here for public safety. They're they're they're really to help our property owners and our residents um come into compliance. And the reason is for public safety. I I've seen them on numerous occasions help our property owners and residents come into

62
00:18:09.200 --> 00:18:25.760
compliance. They do that much more than they enforce code. They're really a benefit to the town. So, um Michael, did you have anything you wanted to say? If so, please step to the mic. >> Michael to the mic. >> Just don't drop the mic.

63
00:18:25.760 --> 00:18:41.520
Um, I first want to thank the council for recognizing my staff and code enforcement as well as management team. My staff goes above and beyond every day to um protect the town and its residents and visitors and um overall the safety of the community. So, thank you for your

64
00:18:41.520 --> 00:19:06.799
appreciation and thank you for this proclamation. >> Come on up. Let's take a photo with council. Everybody up on the das. Not you smiling faces. Look at you guys. >> Perfect. Thank you so much. >> Thank you.

65
00:19:06.799 --> 00:19:27.679
>> Thank you guys. Thank you. >> All right, Councelor King, we'll start with you. Well, they probably don't want to hear about it, but I want to uh recognize Dawn and Mike Miller. Just uh two amazing people uh for all they do for this island. And

66
00:19:27.679 --> 00:19:44.640
then uh with their recent acquisition of the church across from the uh beach school, their um investment in this island is is just uh overwhelming at times to me, but uh very much sincere and heartfelt thank you to them.

67
00:19:44.640 --> 00:20:00.559
Oh, he's stealing my thunder. Uh, yes. Kudos to to um the Millers that Joe Booth Fest was fantastic and knock on wood. Uh, it's going to work this year again. So, I want to thank them for all they do for the community. It's really I

68
00:20:00.559 --> 00:20:17.919
it's it's amazing what they do. >> Councelor Link. >> Yes. So, um, I wrote a little something. I want to make sure I say this properly. So, I want to recognize the town staff. the turtle time volunteers, the contractors, and the residents who

69
00:20:17.919 --> 00:20:33.360
continue working together as we balance our restoration and our environmental protection. The timing isn't always perfect, but there are some concerns to address, but what I appreciate is everybody's working together for the

70
00:20:33.360 --> 00:20:51.200
things that we all love. So, everyone's advocating, but they're also working together, and I want to thank everyone for that. That's it. Council >> Mlan. >> Uh, I just want to jump on what everybody was saying about the Millers and their contribution to this island.

71
00:20:51.200 --> 00:21:07.600
It's really um quite amazing to see. Um, I'm looking forward to the fireworks. I had a great time at uh at Jo Fest and here's to uh the sacrifice of rum working once more. Thanks again.

72
00:21:07.600 --> 00:21:24.320
Yeah, I I piggyback on everybody's comments about the Millers and Joe Boo Fest. Unfortunately, last minute my life changed and I had to go do what I have to do. So, I wasn't able to make it, but it sounds like it was a great event. Also want to thank uh Representative Bana, uh Tom and Mary Torerson, Brian

73
00:21:24.320 --> 00:21:41.600
and Don Thomas and TPI Group for hosting a legislative information uh this last week with very busy representative Botana who's obviously back up at Tallahassee with the property tax reform. Um it was enlightening. There was a lot of good questions, a lot of hard questions, but uh he's always been

74
00:21:41.600 --> 00:21:58.480
an advocate for ours. He's brought a lot of money to our community, specifically the town of Fort Myers Beach over the last four years. So, thank him for taking the time to do that. Other than that, I have nothing else. Next, we have advisory committee items, reports, and appointments. Jim, are you here on

75
00:21:58.480 --> 00:22:15.120
behalf of anyone to >> No, just charter. I want to make sure. >> Got it. There's no one else. Next is the approval of the minutes. Is there a motion to approve the minutes? I don't think we have any minutes, so there's nothing to approve. >> Next is the consent agenda. We have one, two,

76
00:22:15.120 --> 00:22:30.400
>> three, >> three state of emergencies. First is resolution 26-107 through 26-11 for the extension of local emergency tropical storm Deb Debbie. Next is resolutions 26-112- 26-116

77
00:22:30.400 --> 00:22:46.000
for the extension of local emergency for hurricane Helen. And last is resolutions 26-117 through 26-121 for the extension of local emergency for hurricane Milton. Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Got a motion by councelor King, seconded

78
00:22:46.000 --> 00:23:01.919
by councelor Link. Any further discussion. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. >> Opposed? Hearing? None. That motion carries unanimously. Next, there's nothing been removed from the consent agenda, which brings us to our public hearings. The first is a

79
00:23:01.919 --> 00:23:22.799
resolution is resolution 26-094 for variance V2026011 for 1 161 and 1165 Eststerero Boulevard. This is a resolution of the town council of the town of Fort Myers Beach approving approving with conditions denying variance 202600011

80
00:23:22.799 --> 00:23:38.080
requesting for a variance from LDC section 34-676A to multiply the parking requirements by 0% and allow 100% reduction in parking requirements where a maximum percentage of 67% is multiplied with parking

81
00:23:38.080 --> 00:23:54.520
requirements to allow a 33% parking reduction by right from properties in the downtown zoning. for the property located at 1161 and 1165 Astero Boulevard, generally referred to as strap numbers 1 19-46-24-W4-0150E.0010

82
00:23:58.000 --> 00:24:13.279
in Fort Myers Beach, and providing for other clarifications as necessary, providing for conflicts of loss, scrier's errors, severability, and providing for an effective date. As council members are aware, um the variance is quasi judicial in nature and

83
00:24:13.279 --> 00:24:28.400
this requires that this part of our public hearing today comply with procedural requirements that have been established in Florida law and in our land development code. So our quasi judicial proceeding will be less formal than a proceeding before circuit court,

84
00:24:28.400 --> 00:24:44.799
but it will be a little more formal than the remainder of our meeting. And we're going to follow basic standards of due process that requires uh certain notices, the application of the correct standards, and that your decision be made on competent substantial evidence presented to you

85
00:24:44.799 --> 00:25:00.880
today either in written documents or through oral testimony. Your responsibility today is to evaluate the testimony and the information for this item and draw a conclusion regarding whether the criteria in your land development code or state law has been

86
00:25:00.880 --> 00:25:16.640
satisfied. So speculation or mere opinion that is not based on competent facts cannot legally be considered by you in evaluating this agenda item. Testimony by professionals who have been qualified as experts in a

87
00:25:16.640 --> 00:25:33.919
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 is based on their personal information.

88
00:25:33.919 --> 00:25:50.960
Your decision is final. If a decision of approval is not obtained or the tie vote, uh there is the opportunity for an alternative motion to be made. Um with that said, if you intend to speak, anyone who is in the audience, please

89
00:25:50.960 --> 00:26:06.240
keep my comments in mind and when you come forward, please state your name clearly for the record, whether or not you have been sworn in and your qualifications or interest in this matter. So, for purposes of efficiency, we'd like to go ahead I'd like to go

90
00:26:06.240 --> 00:26:22.240
ahead and ask the town clerk, has this agenda item been properly noticed? >> Yes, it yes, it has been. >> And is there any council member who has a conflict of interest that would prohibit them from voting on this agenda item? >> Mr. Mlan, >> no conflict. M

91
00:26:22.240 --> 00:26:36.960
>> Mrs. Link, >> no conflict. >> May Safford, >> I do have a conflict and I've filled out the uh form 8B. >> Okay. For the record, um I manage the rental properties at 1165, so this decision may affect my business in one

92
00:26:36.960 --> 00:26:53.279
way or other. So, and I'm just going to recuse myself from this vote. >> Thank you for that disclosure. So, at this time, if there's anyone present, >> Hold on, Councelor King. Any any conflict? >> The chapel at the end has no conflicts.

93
00:26:53.279 --> 00:27:09.360
>> Well, I'm right on the same plate. I do not either. Okay. So, we do have four people voting on this, just so you know. >> Yes. >> Um >> uh Okay. So, at this time, if there's anyone present, including the uh applicant who intends to provide

94
00:27:09.360 --> 00:27:27.039
testimony uh regarding this matter, if you would please stand at this time, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the town clerk. >> Oh. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

95
00:27:27.039 --> 00:27:44.320
>> Okay. >> Exparte. >> All right. If any town council member has had any exparte communication to disclose, please let us know the subject discussed and the identity of the person, group, or entity with whom this communication took place, any correspondence that you received or

96
00:27:44.320 --> 00:28:00.240
observations made of the site. Councelor K. >> Nothing. Councelor Link, >> I have one question about observations of the site. And just for clarification, it says 1161 and 1165. It could be Google, but when you Google 1161,

97
00:28:00.240 --> 00:28:16.559
it is across the street. Um, is there an error there? Or maybe Google's made a mistake. >> So, I don't know that I can answer that fully as to whether or not Google is wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. Um, >> come on, you're qualified.

98
00:28:16.559 --> 00:28:32.880
my uh the the data that we have and the data that that we hue to uh largely comes from Lee Property Appraiser and we use that as our sort of load stone for for what data is available out there. Um 1161 and 1165 on LEPA are associated

99
00:28:32.880 --> 00:28:49.679
just with this corner lot. >> Okay. >> Thank you for that clarification. >> Very wel uh I had a brief conversation with Mr. Rashard. Um I don't remember what day it was a couple days ago but it was basically just informing me that it was

100
00:28:49.679 --> 00:29:05.760
due to public safety as to why he's re requesting this u variance. So it was very brief but I don't remember the exact date but that was the extent of the conversation. Uh Jason Smallley has been qualified as an expert already by this town council

101
00:29:05.760 --> 00:29:21.600
and based on his education and experience has been accepted as an expert in the field of land use planning and development in the town of Fort Myers Beach. Are there any other individuals who would like to be qualified as an expert witness on behalf of the applicant at this time? But Cara, you've already been qualified. So,

102
00:29:21.600 --> 00:29:36.960
correct. >> Unless you want to be qualified again. >> Okay. Has the property owner applicant seen a copy of the agenda backup materials from the staff? >> Yes. >> Yes, they have. Okay. Go ahead, Jason.

103
00:29:36.960 --> 00:29:52.080
>> Good morning. My name is Jason Smallley. I'm the senior planner here with community development for the town. Uh before you today is a variance request for 1161 1165 Eststerero Boulevard. Uh the request uh they are asking to reduce

104
00:29:52.080 --> 00:30:09.039
the minimum uh parking. Currently they are um eligible for a 67% uh parking and they look to they're looking to reduce that down to zero requirement. So that's the thrust of what their variance request is today. Uh

105
00:30:09.039 --> 00:30:24.240
before you is is the request for the building which is an existing building. Uh it did exist pre-torrm. Uh the building itself is approximately 5,400 square ft. Uh it's mixed use so you've got uh rental units on the upper floors

106
00:30:24.240 --> 00:30:40.480
and you've got uh retail and office use down on the lower floor. I believe currently it's being used by a um uh contract as a contractor's office. Um the the discussion before LPA I think from staff's perspective also largely

107
00:30:40.480 --> 00:30:55.919
had to do with our concerns about backing up into Eterero which is the current way that uh you would leave those parking spaces that are on the site. It's the way that the design has has been uh for as long as I've been here and going back um seemingly since

108
00:30:55.919 --> 00:31:11.919
the the construction of the building itself. uh they do currently have parking elsewhere to satisfy their minimum parking requirements which I believe uh was mentioned previously to be eight parking spaces. So they do provide the parking spaces on site

109
00:31:11.919 --> 00:31:28.399
including one ADA space and the rest of the spaces I believe are um are being provided out of a secondary lot. Um and so they're they're split up, but that is allowed to happen because those parking spaces are within 750 ft of each other.

110
00:31:28.399 --> 00:31:44.080
Uh under today's code, that would be one of the the minimum requirements. So as far as staff is concerned, the building is working seemingly as intended. Uh our recommendation for the request for variance was for denial simply based on the recommend or based on the fact that

111
00:31:44.080 --> 00:31:58.880
uh we cannot really determine whether this is the minimum necessary to accomplish what they're trying to do. Again, staff's perspective on this is that the while we don't uh necessarily like the backout of the spaces onto a stereo as people are forced to do right

112
00:31:58.880 --> 00:32:15.679
now, that the building seems to work with what exists. Um the recommendation from LPA, uh they recommended denial. That was on a 50-0 vote. If there's any questions for staff, I'm here to answer those. And the applicant and their

113
00:32:15.679 --> 00:32:31.760
representative are here for any questions as well. Council McCoy, any questions currently for Mr. Smallley? >> Uh, has anything materially changed between the LPA and it being presented here? >> Um,

114
00:32:31.760 --> 00:32:47.279
I can say that I have not seen any additional applications for the use of that building since. So, at this point, I don't think any anything materially has changed, but I'll defer to the applicant if they've done something I'm not aware of. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Lincoln.

115
00:32:47.279 --> 00:33:04.320
>> Not at this time. here. >> Councelor King, >> you did not really then address the safety concerns other than it seems to be working. >> Um there so there are a few buildings on the island that we've been trying to get compliance of when the opportunity presents itself. U I think in the future

116
00:33:04.320 --> 00:33:18.880
if this site is redeveloped absolutely staff is going to push very hard to make sure that those spaces are are redesigned in such a way that they don't take direct access onto a stero backing out. So the the building itself, we have

117
00:33:18.880 --> 00:33:35.279
not been notified that anybody has has found it to be extremely difficult, cannot enter it, that it is a danger, but we can visibly see that during the season when people need to exit that site, they're waiting for somebody to

118
00:33:35.279 --> 00:33:50.320
open up the lane onto a stereo. So, you've got uh vehicles that are halfway out of the parking lot coming over the sidewalk in many instances waiting to be able to back out. Um I'm not a a parking expert. I'm not a I'm not an expert on

119
00:33:50.320 --> 00:34:06.399
on how vehicles interact with with human beings, but I can visually see >> usually not well >> usually not well at that intersection. There's a lot of business going on there. A lot of people trying to come in and out of of uh businesses there. So, I

120
00:34:06.399 --> 00:34:23.119
would say personally I do have a fear that there are problems with the safety of that, but I've not been told anything in particular where it has become a specific issue. Nobody has been hit as far as I know. Bicycles haven't been run off of the sidewalk as far as I know.

121
00:34:23.119 --> 00:34:40.399
Uh, but that was the perspective of staff was one of what does the code ask us for a variance? and the variance, we cannot determine whether that's the the minimum necessary to accomplish what they're trying to do. And our point from staff is that the lower area businesses

122
00:34:40.399 --> 00:34:56.800
seem to be working. I see truck uh a business truck down there quite a bit. So, I know that the lower area is open and available for customers and seemingly the upper uh units are being rented. So, those seemingly are working as intended right now. I will defer to

123
00:34:56.800 --> 00:35:12.160
the applicant if they've got some more context about uh problems that they're running into in their business, but just from staff's perspective, our recommendation was largely based on the fact that we just can't tell whether this is the minimum necessary to accomplish the job.

124
00:35:12.160 --> 00:35:26.960
>> Okay. Thank you. >> So Jason, staff has obviously got concern as well as the applicant. It sounds like at least in my conversation with him about the public safety. We've all seen cars trying to back out of that location over the years and you know with the sidewalk being there it

125
00:35:26.960 --> 00:35:44.440
obviously is but that doesn't outweigh what your requirements are to make recommendation through the LDC. >> That is absolutely correct. >> Okay, I'll save my other questions till after the applicant. Thanks Jason. >> Okay, >> Cara.

126
00:35:49.839 --> 00:36:03.680
Good morning, mayor, vice mayor, council, and staff. My name is Carara Stewart, and I'm here on behalf of John Rashard of 1161 1165 Eststerero Boulevard. The request is

127
00:36:03.680 --> 00:36:21.440
um requesting a multiplier of zero. We currently have a multiplier of 67. The location is located within a tenth of a mile to your downtown Times Square district which has that 0% that zero

128
00:36:21.440 --> 00:36:37.680
multiplier. The location has historically been retail restaurant and the dwelling units that exist today. The building has been there since 1967. Mr. Rashard purchased the property in

129
00:36:37.680 --> 00:36:52.640
2015. subsequently renovated it, upgraded it, changed the roof line, left the existing envelope of the building in the same configuration. During that permit process, parking came

130
00:36:52.640 --> 00:37:09.520
up and the ch there was no change of use. The use has always been there, but just as as staff is saying and we all know when we run when we do a renovation, we try to get as much compliance as we can. Because of the lack of parking, they required Mr. Rashard to get a joint parking use

131
00:37:09.520 --> 00:37:26.400
agreement at one of his other parking lots. And basically what that's doing is encumbering both properties. It encumbers the property with the use and it encumbers the property that you're providing the parking at. That's what the joint use parking

132
00:37:26.400 --> 00:37:41.760
agreement does. This property and one other property on the island that I know of are the only ones that have this agreement. What has been happening subsequent to that is just like in agreement with what your comp plan is saying, we want to

133
00:37:41.760 --> 00:37:59.680
have in that area shared use parking. I apologize for not being at the LPA. It may have been able to answer some of the questions that came up. Um, one of the issues was, well, what is our alternate parking plan? Our alternate parking plan is just what your comp plan says. It

134
00:37:59.680 --> 00:38:15.920
tells me to do shared parking in this district. This property is now going to be in the Times Square uh district in your comp plan. It encompasses that whole area. It doesn't change what you have in your LDC, but it

135
00:38:15.920 --> 00:38:31.920
is including this property in this Times Square district kind of overlay. In there specifically, you have got policy T1 F1 encourage shared parking lots. You have policy T1F2 and this is in your new

136
00:38:31.920 --> 00:38:47.200
comp plan, the 2025 comp plan. >> Let me stop you right there. Then if what you're saying is accurate, and I know that it is, what is the need for the variance then? If if there if in the Times Square zoning district currently, you can have 0% parking. What is the need to request a variance now?

137
00:38:47.200 --> 00:39:02.800
>> Okay, the difference here is you've in your comp plan, you have just changed your comp plan. in that comp plan. We're now in this what's called the times square district overlay which those those um policies are in effect. The the

138
00:39:02.800 --> 00:39:19.119
LDC when you go to your LDC your LDC has the section that says right depending on where you are you get a different multiplier >> and you know I'm sure Jason would agree with me that's that's the difference. So

139
00:39:19.119 --> 00:39:36.000
it's a little confusing because in one in one breath we have our vision right which is our comp plan and we're saying hey we want all this walkability. >> So essentially the comp the LDC hasn't caught up to the comp plan changes yet is what I'm hearing >> possibly. Yeah >> possibly. I would encourage you to take

140
00:39:36.000 --> 00:39:52.880
a look at that. Let me put it that way. >> Well there's many things in the queue. Yes. Sure. >> Now, the property, like I mentioned, has been here since 1967 in the same location. Looking back at aerials doing a bunch of research, the uses have historically

141
00:39:52.880 --> 00:40:08.640
been retail, like I said, restaurant and the dwelling units. As we mentioned, or someone mentioned just recently, there's a contractor's vehicle there. Post Ian, that tenant thought it would be a great idea to have a contractor's office,

142
00:40:08.640 --> 00:40:26.560
showroom, display center. Didn't really work out. I don't know why, but I can tell you the parking is very difficult. You It's not that particular location um doesn't necessarily support a business as well as it would support the

143
00:40:26.560 --> 00:40:43.280
restaurant or the retail. the other section in your code that encourages where things are constructed to. We know in this district we're supposed to be constructed to the sidewalk. Obviously, we can't do that. But if we can remove the parking requirement on the front,

144
00:40:43.280 --> 00:40:57.440
that would enable us to have outdoor seating or outdoor display. That brings us to the comments at LPA in relationship to the ADA parking spaces that are on site.

145
00:40:57.440 --> 00:41:15.119
I reconfirmed um in there in the Americans with Disability Act in the building code, we only need to provide a handicap parking space if we are providing parking. So that when you do not provide parking, just like many of

146
00:41:15.119 --> 00:41:31.520
the other uh projects you have approved, we don't need to put in a handicap parking space. We can eliminate it alto together. which is trying to treat the Americans with disability equal with the rest of the folks. Um there's one space right now, but that would go away.

147
00:41:31.520 --> 00:41:47.200
>> Does that count under the joint use parking that you spoke of earlier? >> So if you have if you have a joint use agreement with another parking location that is owned by the same applicant, does that include the same ADA requirements that you were just talking about? >> The parking lot itself does, if that's what you're asking me. The parking lot

148
00:41:47.200 --> 00:42:02.240
on Crescent Street has its own ADA compliance requirement because it is a parking lot >> and I believe the the the ratio is 1 to 25 parking spaces. You have to have one handicap and then so on and so forth it goes up. So the Crescent Street has a

149
00:42:02.240 --> 00:42:18.480
handicap parking space. Now bringing up Crescent Street, one of the other driving factors for our request is in your comp plan again you are talking about improvements along Crescent Street for the walkability for the pedestrian thoroughfare. So again we're going to be

150
00:42:18.480 --> 00:42:35.359
encouraging the pedestrian walkway a ch there have been multiple changes at this intersection. So when we talk about safety and we look back at the aerials and the history, the be to the best of what I could see on the aerials, we went

151
00:42:35.359 --> 00:42:50.880
from having one defined cross-hatch walkway to two crosshatch cross-hatched walkways for the public. We now have three. We have three clearly defined walkways in this intersection. In addition to that,

152
00:42:50.880 --> 00:43:06.240
a traffic light. So the configuration of this property has drastically changed since the inception of the property. Um the uses we would forecast them being restaurant or retail. Quite frankly we don't have a tenant

153
00:43:06.240 --> 00:43:21.520
right now. It keeps coming up that the parking is an issue and what is someone going to do? We feel with the close proximity to the multiple joint use parking lots that we have, shared permanent parking lots that we have more

154
00:43:21.520 --> 00:43:39.119
than adequate parking. I went and I looked up multiple resolutions on those parking lots to confirm that I have the ability to stand here and say there is overnight parking in a legal parking lot. There are multiple parking lots that you have in the downtown area that

155
00:43:39.119 --> 00:43:54.960
allow overnight parking. Some do not. I believe a member of the LPA had asked if the one on Crescent Street allows overnight parking. The answer is no. That one is limited to the hours of operation and so are some other parking lots that we have. There are a number of

156
00:43:54.960 --> 00:44:11.119
them on Old San Carlos that allow overnight parking. So, I feel like as an alternate plan, if someone wanted to come into this location and wanted to rent it as as Mr. Stafford is is handling, there are multiple avenues for them to find overnight parking if they

157
00:44:11.119 --> 00:44:26.160
so chose. Now, it's interesting because I in my research too, >> Hold on, Karen. I I just want to keep coming jumping in because So, is there a reason why the parking lot that's closest to this right behind there is not overnight parking? Is that by choice

158
00:44:26.160 --> 00:44:42.000
or is that by code? that was during that the the public in that area during those hearings for that special exception had a concern about the headlights going across the canal. there was specific

159
00:44:42.000 --> 00:44:57.599
um entities across the canal that had an issue and concern >> henceforth that that was partly the one of the compromises to limit the the hours and they were just concerned that it was um too much in the neighborhood

160
00:44:57.599 --> 00:45:13.760
but it's okay you know it's been there fine um did that answer your question >> well created another but yes >> okay okay the another like just just a food for

161
00:45:13.760 --> 00:45:30.720
thought and just from a total random comment that I just wanted to share with everyone in relationship to the shared parking and how this location is working and and working effectively. There is a um what do you call it when you you make a uh you you post something

162
00:45:30.720 --> 00:45:47.760
about a piece of property that you've been to. There's a tenant that rented a property, the property, one of the units, and I'm going to quote, "This property was definitely centrally located with many restaurants and beach access points within walking distance. It was about 40 minutes from RSW,

163
00:45:47.760 --> 00:46:04.640
but the roundtrip Uber for from the airport was less than renting a vehicle. You cheaper than renting a car for the length of your stay. And you truly do not need a car rental if you plan to stay local." I think that reiterates what we're trying to accomplish with our

164
00:46:04.640 --> 00:46:21.520
comp plan. I think that helps support that this location will work. This is unsolicited. I just found it online. Um that it will help this area tremendously. The security or the uh the safety concern is real. It's real. I

165
00:46:21.520 --> 00:46:37.920
mean, if you go there during season, it's very difficult. the use of the property is better used for. I mean, if we just envision an outdoor seating area, an outdoor retail, which you were allowed to by, right? Um, we would have to somebody we or the tenant would have

166
00:46:37.920 --> 00:46:54.720
to come forward to you if they were to do outdoor alcohol with a special exception for the patio. Um, so that would be something you would have a right to to have a comment or whatever condition if you so chose if we were successful here today to remove the parking requirement totally. Um,

167
00:46:54.720 --> 00:47:10.800
>> Cara, where do you direct your guests now that are staying there through the Airbnbs? Where do you where do you tell them to park if they ask? >> I truly don't know that answer. So, I'd have I looked on I I went on the rental site to see what was put there and all it says was that one parking space. I

168
00:47:10.800 --> 00:47:27.440
don't know how that's I don't I personally don't know. I just went and looked up everything. So >> I'm assuming it's not I'm assum Well I I don't want to put Scott because he recused himself. >> Mr. Rashard might know something. I don't know. I don't know. >> I'm sure John I'm sure Mr. Rashard would know. >> I'm just curious as to where where they

169
00:47:27.440 --> 00:47:42.640
park now. Do they use these front parking spaces when for the record? >> I believe Scott could answer that the best if he can speak. >> No, >> you can speak. You can't vote >> and you can't. So we we have not allowed

170
00:47:42.640 --> 00:47:58.079
parking on that premise for the last five six years just because of the safety concern. They park u at a at another Airbnb rental that I have. Um we give them parking pass and we encourage them not you know we encourage them to

171
00:47:58.079 --> 00:48:14.640
take Ubers, not bring cars, but I have another Airbnb with that they can park at. >> Okay. That's that's all I was curious about. They had >> and I I can add that I I don't even let my cleaners park there. It is just way too crazy. It's right at that intersection as Cara said has changed

172
00:48:14.640 --> 00:48:33.200
tremendously. So now there's three crosswalks. There's people not paying attention. >> I don't want you to go too far. I don't want you to >> Yeah. But >> yeah, I don't want you advocating one way or another. Just >> I have one another just little section I wanted to bring to your attention in your your new comp plan. It's policy

173
00:48:33.200 --> 00:48:49.280
CD1E1, adaptive reuse. What that says is encourage the adaptive reuse of existing structures located within mixed use and commercial land use designations. That is what we're in a mixeduse, particularly those that were originally

174
00:48:49.280 --> 00:49:06.480
established as motel or vacation rentals or are over 50 years old. This building is 1967, so we're over 50 years old. by providing incentives. So, we're telling the public, you're going to provide some incentives,

175
00:49:06.480 --> 00:49:21.119
such as relief in the land development code. This is our request for that incentive to reuse the existing building. I'm here to answer any questions that you may or may not have. >> Council Mlean, you have any questions? I have a couple more, but I'm gonna wait

176
00:49:21.119 --> 00:49:38.240
till then. >> Um, I'm just interested to understand why you wouldn't add the additional lots and shift them to the Crescent Street location. >> Again, it creates an encumbrance on a property.

177
00:49:38.240 --> 00:49:54.640
Both properties now are encumbered. So, because those are public record documents that get recorded that says these this property has four parking spaces designated, there are no other parking lots that have that encumbrance on them. So, that's part of the driving

178
00:49:54.640 --> 00:50:10.000
factor and the fact that the building has been here, the uses have been in existence. To our knowledge, we don't know of any code complaints coming into the town that we have a parking problem. Um, we don't we have not heard from the sheriff that there's been an issue for parking

179
00:50:10.000 --> 00:50:25.440
at that location. So, it's really a matter of cleaning it up. Um, I I will say that I I went through um Salty Krabs request as well to see if there was any parallel anything and there really isn't. They

180
00:50:25.440 --> 00:50:42.720
they their new building um they brought up the 800 available parking spaces within a quarter mile. I went I looked at the aerials. I didn't count them, but I went and just to reconfirm that we have multiple parking available. So, really, it's it's a matter of removing it from the front, being able to allow

181
00:50:42.720 --> 00:50:59.119
us to use that property to become more compliant with your comp plan to move some maybe area out there. We are not looking to expand the building. >> I think that was maybe a concern. We're not looking to do an addition on the building. We're not looking to go higher in the building. The building is what the building is.

182
00:50:59.119 --> 00:51:16.880
>> Yeah. I I I guess my other question is it would be clearer to me if there were also some plans of the use of it going forward. For example, if there were some improvements that were going to occur at

183
00:51:16.880 --> 00:51:35.200
the front of the building and change those parking spots to a patio or whatever it may be. Um, but I don't see any evidence of that in the material that were provided to just the removal of the lots. Um, so I I is there any

184
00:51:35.200 --> 00:51:50.640
thing that you can tell us about the future plans of the property that may help us understand if it's a better use? >> Sure. Um, I will probably have to ask the owner to address that a little bit. However, um when we talk about your

185
00:51:50.640 --> 00:52:07.680
regulations and your comp plan, the vision and the buildings in the downtown district or the new time square, this is the new time square district. We are encouraging expansion to the front. Um that's why I'm I'm making this

186
00:52:07.680 --> 00:52:23.920
statement that this is not to expand the construction of the building, but to allow for a future tenant. with retail, they would not have to come forward and say, "Hey, I want to put outdoor display." They don't we don't have to come back to you. Um, we do have to come back to you if they want to serve or

187
00:52:23.920 --> 00:52:39.760
they would have to come back to you if they want to serve alcohol. Um, expand their cop. Say it was a restaurant and they went out, they would have to come and discuss that with you. Um, and we're not being vague for any other reason except that we don't have the tenant. This is based on the feedback we're getting trying to put either a tenant in

188
00:52:39.760 --> 00:52:56.319
there um and to try to really understand what what what is the best use and the best use I mean it's pretty obvious like to be something downtown walk away. >> So to kind of piggyback on councelor Mlan is saying would would the applicant be okay should this get approved to add a condition to say something along the

189
00:52:56.319 --> 00:53:11.920
lines of as long as the footprint of the building does not change. you' mentioned that I mean so you're not going to come back and add something on that this would be conditioned if approved to the existing footprint that exists today >> as long as existing footprint of the structure >> structure yes that's what I'm referring

190
00:53:11.920 --> 00:53:27.599
to still you know have the opportunity to come back if they wanted to expand their their uh restaurant wanted to serve beer and wine not the building itself you'd have to like the building the face of the building would stay the four walls are going to remain we're

191
00:53:27.599 --> 00:53:45.520
we're really not here trying to, you know, sneak something in. It's the building is the building. The building is the building. >> Uh, I think I'm fine now. Thank you. Okay. >> Um, so I have a couple questions. Does the applicant also own the parking

192
00:53:45.520 --> 00:54:00.960
on Crescent Street? >> The parking lot? Yes. >> Okay. Um, then overnight guests. So, we heard that you haven't used that parking lot for years. you don't let people park there, but you there is an arrangement

193
00:54:00.960 --> 00:54:18.079
with another rental property. What if that arrangement goes away? Then perhaps the parking option could go away. That's the that would be resolved with the multiple parking lots on Old San Carlos that allow overnight parking. So

194
00:54:18.079 --> 00:54:33.680
if someone like no different than if I if I go into I'm going to say New York City. >> I understand that. I understand that. Um, so overnight parking is charged is a fee to overnight park. >> Okay. >> So the people who rent there would also

195
00:54:33.680 --> 00:54:49.280
be required to find a parking space somewhere else and pay an addition. I understand that the person who wrote that beautiful uh review said this is great. This is walkable. It you could also see on the other side I needed a

196
00:54:49.280 --> 00:55:04.160
car for whatever reason. I was going to baseball games or something and I had to pay an additional whatever to park down the road. So, there's both sides of that. Um, so I'm thinking of those things. Um,

197
00:55:04.160 --> 00:55:20.720
why have you not been using that parking or I I heard comments that we don't allow people to park there. Is that is that accurate? >> I I'm not aware of >> not allowing >> or could it be just the renters? You don't allow people to park there.

198
00:55:20.720 --> 00:55:36.480
>> Park in the >> in the front parking lot. >> John Rashard, for the record, thank you. Um >> in the front? Yes. >> It's the tenant um space um that that can park there. It's not for the upstairs people. >> It's not for the renters. >> It's not for residents. Residents have

199
00:55:36.480 --> 00:55:51.599
overnight parking. Hell, you could excuse me. Um you can park in Margaritavville overnight if you even if you're not staying there. So, >> so you're saying you do not allow the tenants to park there? >> No, the tenants like any city you go

200
00:55:51.599 --> 00:56:07.520
anywhere, they have to go to another place to come. So, they could go to Old San Carlos. You're allowed to have >> I understand that. I'm just saying they cannot park there. >> Cannot. Correct. >> Okay. >> Correct. They don't allow the the dwelling units, I think is the is what you're referring to, the dwelling units

201
00:56:07.520 --> 00:56:25.040
up top to park out front, right? They don't allow them to do that because the tenant downstairs. Got you. Thank you. Those are my questions. Thanks, >> Councelor King. >> In addition to the condition the mayor described, do you have any other problems with the staff recommendation for conditions?

202
00:56:25.040 --> 00:56:43.280
>> I don't think I did. Let me look real quick though. I don't think I did. >> I think they were pretty consistently standard. There is what one of the conditions one of the conditions and I I I will let's just

203
00:56:43.280 --> 00:56:59.599
discuss it maybe here. All existing on-site parking with backing movements into Asterero and Crescent shall be permanently eliminated. So staff is recommending that with an approval that we put this condition on there and not allow any parking in that area.

204
00:56:59.599 --> 00:57:16.240
I think we could live with that. So I I think we're okay. >> Um existing shall be converted pedestrian oriented enhanced landscaping building edge planting and perimeter landscaping shall be provided along a stereo

205
00:57:16.240 --> 00:57:32.319
boulevard. I'm not sure that that's something that you want us to do. I'm not sure that that would be something that would be applicable. >> Well, that I I think it's 100% applicable. That's the whole reason you're saying it's not safe to back onto

206
00:57:32.319 --> 00:57:47.440
a sterile boulevard. So why would you want vehicular access from a stero boulevard? >> No, no, no, no, no. What I'm saying is the enhanced landscaping. It one of the the condition number three enhanced landscaping including building edge. So if you want some building edge planter and perimeter landscaping shall be

207
00:57:47.440 --> 00:58:03.920
provided along. I'm not sure with that where that location is that you would have that ability. >> Yeah, it's very broad. I I get what you're saying, but >> yeah. Yeah, that's a kind of a broad statement. So, >> well, again, is if this if this is

208
00:58:03.920 --> 00:58:20.480
approved, does that ramp that goes up there go away and become a retaining wall or something? I don't know if that's what staff is trying to get at. I don't want to speak for Jason, but >> I don't know. I don't know. >> What's it I think what you're trying to get at is what's going to prevent people from pulling into park in there anyway. >> I I think I think that's exactly it. And

209
00:58:20.480 --> 00:58:37.040
the idea here is that should now become a pedestrianoriented area. And so we're asking them to delineate that from what we're going to hope is a lot of people down in down in downtown around that area. So this is for them as much as it

210
00:58:37.040 --> 00:58:52.880
is for the town to just provide that visual delineation and they're going to do that to show that this is no longer a parking space. This is pedestrianoriented space. >> So maybe it's that number three condition. Again, if this was to get approved, it should read a little bit

211
00:58:52.880 --> 00:59:10.079
different. instead of saying enhanced landscaping. That to me that's a very broad what does that mean? >> Whereas a clear delineation between parking and pedestrian traffic. >> I I think staff would encourage any input on if this is a good idea. Um town

212
00:59:10.079 --> 00:59:25.680
council putting some some guard rails on there or things that they would like to see. I think these are just sort of the initial idea for you guys to use as a seed. Is this something that you'd like to see? Is it something you'd like to mandate be done if you approve the

213
00:59:25.680 --> 00:59:42.319
removal of the spaces? This was just staff kind of looking at it and saying, "How do how do we essentially get away from this backout uh parking area? If you're getting rid of them, then let's turn it into something that is that is actually in line with the the rest of

214
00:59:42.319 --> 00:59:59.040
the the area with the comp plan, which is asking to beautify the areas adjacent to Asterero and make it a pedestrian friendly area. >> Okay. And I just reread your number five. It actually is better than what my suggestion was. That was talking about the footprint of the building, but

215
00:59:59.040 --> 01:00:15.119
you're talking about intensity that also protects elevation >> versus just out. >> I have some other John. I'm sorry. >> Well, no, no. And you brought up a good point because that's kind of where I was going is if uh this day and age, if folks see an open spot, somebody's going

216
01:00:15.119 --> 01:00:31.359
to pull in. >> We don't have any problem doing that. making some kind of uh buffer and whatnot make it beautiful. We're looking to encourage the the pedestrian so that that is not an issue. But I am going to say something about number five. Now um

217
01:00:31.359 --> 01:00:47.760
any future change in use I don't know that we've defined a use yet unless we can maybe clarify that anything other than restaurant retail >> current use maybe. Uh, right now they're downstairs. It's an office. So, I don't want to have to be back here.

218
01:00:47.760 --> 01:01:02.640
>> No. >> For a restaurant or retail. I think if we want to, and I'll reconfirm with John, maybe we can expound that and use those words retail, restaurant, and the for the existing uses that are have been

219
01:01:02.640 --> 01:01:19.839
historically used there other than that office. >> Well, that's why I guess I'm a little confused. if it's currently existing that you can use those. What's the change in the future use of current a change in the current use? >> I I think what maybe and I can't speak for staff. I think what they were trying to do is if the the use would become

220
01:01:19.839 --> 01:01:37.599
more intense is I'm I'm thinking I'm not sure because the change in use the downtown district allows a lot of uses. So if we want to maybe say the uses that are allowed in the downtown district >> within the within the comp plan zoning >> and just still right and consistent with those uses, we're okay. So, and and

221
01:01:37.599 --> 01:01:53.680
quite frankly, we're really just looking for restaurant, retail, and the units up top. So, if we wanted to make that the condition, the existing previous uses, something like that to tie it in together, that's fine, too. That's But I want to be a little careful that we don't say change of use because right

222
01:01:53.680 --> 01:02:08.160
now today, the certificate of occupancy, I see what you're saying. >> You know what I mean? It's for an office and then I don't want somebody saying, "No, you're now." No, I I see you're expanding that condition again if it was approved to to be more specific as to not just a broad paint brush.

223
01:02:08.160 --> 01:02:25.680
>> Correct. And again, we have no intention of putting another story on the building for this approval. So, if that needed to be in there to address your intensity, that's fine, too. >> Okay. >> I have some more comments. >> Yeah. Oh, go ahead.

224
01:02:25.680 --> 01:02:42.960
>> Okay. So, Kon, I'm going to just come right out and say my concerns. Sure. >> Okay. Um, and if we can find a way around this, I I like a compromise. I am never for giving up parking. I mean, it just is pains me. I understand if you're starting over and you are

225
01:02:42.960 --> 01:02:58.720
limited and now how do I get all these other great things, maybe we have to give up parking. So, that's hard for me. I want to overcome that. Okay. >> The second thing I'm concerned about is we do know that that is a confusing

226
01:02:58.720 --> 01:03:16.000
area. There are a lot of people wandering around. My concern is point blank, you serve alcohol there, you put the restaurant, people are sitting outside having pizza. I would be the first one to come there. One too many drinks, too much intensity, and I'm less

227
01:03:16.000 --> 01:03:31.119
worried about people backing out than I am. People walking across the street from something we agreed they could do when they've had a couple too many in that area. So, I'm really concerned. I I'm okay if you're not serving alcohol

228
01:03:31.119 --> 01:03:46.880
and you're using it as an extra patio. Um I do know that if you gave up the parking and you had a restaurant, I'd be disappointed because we so often would go to that very spot, the Greek restaurant, the pizza place, we

229
01:03:46.880 --> 01:04:04.000
scootered up probably three times a week, got something, scootered back. We will not do that as residents if we have to go find a place to park to park, you know. So, I think maybe the parking could be an advantage. It depending on what kind of restaurant you want. If

230
01:04:04.000 --> 01:04:21.200
people can come and go, we don't have very much takeout. That would be a huge benefit for residents. So, I'm just looking at uh public safety, too many people, drinking, walking across the street, and giving up parking. So, that's what I'm

231
01:04:21.200 --> 01:04:36.319
weighing and that and I'm being very frank with that >> that I appreciate that. And just to clarify again, if someone wants to do outdoor consumption, they will be back before you. They have to come back. >> If that will help, >> I agree.

232
01:04:36.319 --> 01:04:53.760
>> You know, if that will help at that time to deal with that issue, that specific issue, that would be the time to do that. >> Um, >> well, then I guess to to >> my condition would be that you don't serve alcohol. Well, I as as Cara has

233
01:04:53.760 --> 01:05:08.880
said, if they decide whatever it ends up being, if it's approved and they want to do it, they still have to come back before council to request to be able to do that. >> I agree. >> Um, >> correct. >> Would the applicant be open to, because I'm guessing if this ever happens, there's going to be a question about

234
01:05:08.880 --> 01:05:25.839
finding dedicated spots for this restaurant. Would the applicant be open to using his own parking lot to provide spaces should that happen or the request or however an approval may happen. I'm not asking you to commit to it. I'm asking you to be open to it because I'm what has happened in the past is people

235
01:05:25.839 --> 01:05:40.720
have said, "Have you worked with somebody else, come up with a shared parking plan to be able to operate the way you want to operate?" My question is, would the applicant be open to that discussion down the road? >> Should that ever come up? >> I think open for discussion is operative words. Yes.

236
01:05:40.720 --> 01:05:57.119
>> Okay. >> Yes. And I I I I can understand. >> I feel like I want to see the whole picture. I'm only seeing half of it. >> There really is nothing more to it. That's what the building will stay. We don't have a tenant. The building is

237
01:05:57.119 --> 01:06:12.880
what the building is. We are committing to We will not expand the building up or out. We would like the ability to allow someone to do outdoor display of merchandise if that's what they so chose to do. Um if they chose not to do that

238
01:06:12.880 --> 01:06:28.960
and they wanted to do outdoor consumption, they will have to come back before this board to get that approved. um at which time you would then condition that. That may or may not ever happen. I don't know. I really don't know. So, the uses are are pretty much we're looking to

239
01:06:28.960 --> 01:06:45.200
confine the requests to the uses, the retail, restaurant, and the dwelling units. We are okay with the size of the existing building, the footprint of the building, and the height. Just to clarify that, too. We're not looking to say if we put a second story on it, this is

240
01:06:45.200 --> 01:07:00.319
>> No, we're saying that that what you see is what you have. >> Um I understand it is not uh a typical request because I'm not standing here with a buyer or with a tenant saying this is specifically what they want to

241
01:07:00.319 --> 01:07:15.520
do. But we are willing to agree to those those parameters the uses the three uses in any way shape or form not increase density just to to clarify for that too. We're not looking to say, "Hey, we have

242
01:07:15.520 --> 01:07:30.720
three dwelling units now, and if the comp plan and zoning don't allow any more dwelling units, then this is off the table." You know, it doesn't matter. If we come back for a comp plan, a CPD, or they come back for a CPD to expand

243
01:07:30.720 --> 01:07:46.480
it, this is off the table. So, this is really absent a tenant, specific tenant. It's pretty defined. We feel I give I will help clarify it any further I can. >> I appreciate you clarifying but it feels

244
01:07:46.480 --> 01:08:03.200
to me chipping away to get to a desired outcome that perhaps is easier once the parking is gone. Again, it's just because I'm trying to fill in the gaps where I don't have information. So I want to protect uh

245
01:08:03.200 --> 01:08:18.880
parking and public safety and that's where I think I will come down on this for now. Well, were you leaning in earlier? It looked like you had something to say. No, >> I just wanted to make sure Jason uh he looked like he had something to say on the on the uses, the land use. >> I thought I saw you leaning in.

246
01:08:18.880 --> 01:08:34.560
>> You know, what what is what is allowed currently? So, I'm I'm a little I'm a little concerned and I I think this may be a legal question I think for Nancy on whether or not this process right here is correct in limiting them to seemingly

247
01:08:34.560 --> 01:08:49.839
three uses that could be done in accordance with this considering how wide downtown's use table actually is. Are we saying that the the three uses that have been enumerated by the representative of the applicant here are only what's going to be allowed in that

248
01:08:49.839 --> 01:09:05.600
building and and is that is this resolution or this ordinance the the proper method to essentially limit them to three of what might be a couple dozen uses? >> So Jason, your question I think is well taken. However, I think that by using

249
01:09:05.600 --> 01:09:20.640
this as a condition, it would apply to the varants. So if they deviate from the uses as the condition in the variance then their variance is no longer applicable. >> Can I ask another question for

250
01:09:20.640 --> 01:09:37.040
clarification? If we do put these three specific uses in the approval and they decide to do something else, what is the outcome? Does the variance then become moot for just that use and I have to go back and then validate and say, "Okay, you're zeroed out for all these other

251
01:09:37.040 --> 01:09:53.679
uses, but for this new nonspec specified use, you need to provide me three more parking spaces." >> I think that's correct. >> Okay, >> Jason, the three is the three uses just for everyone listening, including myself, are >> I heard I heard restaurant, retail. I

252
01:09:53.679 --> 01:10:10.400
want to I I want to jump in on that because I don't want to get in the habit of if we already have uses within a zoning district, >> right? >> Why make it more specific? I mean, to because it's going to make more work for you, it's going to make more work for the applicant. I to try to pigeon hole what those three things are. Either you

253
01:10:10.400 --> 01:10:25.600
allow them to do it or you don't within the already existing zoning district. Like we had the conversation about the the uh the marinas when we were going through the complex. I agree. To me, I'm not going to be a fan of specifically making it because it's going to create, to your point, maybe not this property

254
01:10:25.600 --> 01:10:41.199
owner, maybe the next property owner, the property owner after that is going to have to come in and waste more time and more staff to ask for something that's already in the comp plan to allow, but because we restricted it so far into this variance that it's going to just create more time, money, and effort that doesn't need to be

255
01:10:41.199 --> 01:10:57.679
recreated. >> That's absolutely correct. staff is now responsible to remember that this one individual lot has a limitation of three uses when when we look at the at the wider area. >> Good point. >> Um so I I agree. I I don't know that we should enumerate three specific ones. I

256
01:10:57.679 --> 01:11:12.960
think that's a perfect perfect plan to do in furtherance of a CPD where we're reszoning and talking about what the actual uses are >> here under a variance. I don't know that that it's it's the best way to go about it. Um, one thing I did want to bring up

257
01:11:12.960 --> 01:11:28.800
though, just for clarification on number five, when we talk about intensity, the way this is written is we're not talking about just physical intensity of the building expanding horizontally or vertically. In planning speak, intensification could be a more intense

258
01:11:28.800 --> 01:11:44.719
use. So, if you do not want to limit them with number five, if they come in and want to go from office to restaurant, that's an intensification of the use. >> So, But wouldn't that be wouldn't that be dictated by the fire department? I mean, wouldn't they wouldn't they set

259
01:11:44.719 --> 01:12:00.000
the occupancy load of that? I mean, the town wouldn't set that, right? >> Oh, well, we can look at it as a proxy by how much parking spaces they would be required. If you go from an office use, which might only require three or five parking spaces, and you go to a restaurant use with a bar, that could

260
01:12:00.000 --> 01:12:15.199
have 13 spaces per thousand square feet. I would say that yes, that is an intensification as far as the jargon that planners use. >> Mr. Mayor. >> Yes, sir. Um, so I actually I have a question for Nancy. Okay.

261
01:12:15.199 --> 01:12:30.239
>> Uh, Nancy, when we talk about the newly adopted comprehensive plan and there was a comment made about the LDC not catching up to the vision that is outlined in the comprehensive plan. Is

262
01:12:30.239 --> 01:12:46.320
it correct for us to make determinations that are better aligned with the comprehensive plan? >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> There is a consistency requirement that basically any development order is

263
01:12:46.320 --> 01:13:03.920
consistent with your comp plan um which would be a variance. A variance would be in the form of a development order. >> Okay. So, as a comment, I'm very concerned about the safety of this specific parking lot. I think it's very difficult as far as

264
01:13:03.920 --> 01:13:20.239
the conditions that the town has put forward, I think we've had a discussion and instead of saying perhaps in condition three, instead of perimeter landscaping, we state something about a delineation and a separation preventing

265
01:13:20.239 --> 01:13:37.040
parking in that existing spot. something along those lines. And then for statement five, I'm concerned about limiting in and further encumbering this property. So I would suggest that any instead of increasive intensity or any

266
01:13:37.040 --> 01:13:52.239
use. It's just all usage should be as permitted in the Times Square District as defined in the comp plan. Whether we even need to state that, I think it may be redundant, but I think the language that's in here is much more restrictive

267
01:13:52.239 --> 01:14:08.560
and I'm not in favor of that. I'd like to hear my fellow council members thoughts on that. >> Yeah, I think we can Do you have any more questions, Councelor King? I think we're still still here. >> We're still in question. Sorry. >> I'm good. Thank you. I think we'll we

268
01:14:08.560 --> 01:14:24.640
can have we'll go to public comment and then if sorry the applicant wants to go ahead Jason >> before we transition I'd like to actually um dovetail off to after uh Mr. Mlan's point here. So if if all the uses are allowed that they're asking for here

269
01:14:24.640 --> 01:14:40.560
today is just straight zero zeroed out no matter what use. Um, so I think number five, if that's where your concern is, is probably is the one that needs to be the words need to be rearranged there. Uh, again, my my

270
01:14:40.560 --> 01:14:55.840
understanding of intensity is is two it it it appears in two different places. >> Um, the second one was the delineation of the of the space. If we just say delineation, could that be literally just a paint marker on the ground

271
01:14:55.840 --> 01:15:12.080
delineating the parking area from their seating area? If you guys do want a physical barrier uh here, which is what I think staff was sort of envisioning, like a landscape separation, then I think you have to be explicit and state that needs to be a landscape or

272
01:15:12.080 --> 01:15:26.800
something else that's amendable to your vision of what that corner looks like um when they're done. I I appreciate with Jason Smallley's um comments. I I was going to make those myself. Um >> so to have council define

273
01:15:26.800 --> 01:15:44.320
>> more specifically what type of um delineation, what appears in the staff report is enhanced landscaping. Um planters are another example. So maybe language saying um including but not limited to. So there are some

274
01:15:44.320 --> 01:16:01.520
examples. So, it's not a surprise. >> I agree. >> Well, >> what would be some other ones? >> Well, my I think my question would be it's solid concrete, right? So, what you're not going to put and it's at an elevation. You're not going to put planters there. They're just going to tip over. So, my guess is they're going

275
01:16:01.520 --> 01:16:17.440
to have to tear out some concrete to be able to do something to delineate to your point instead of just having a line that says do not park, >> which is going to require them to have a permit to be able to do that, which is then going to probably trigger you into having to having to, you know, review

276
01:16:17.440 --> 01:16:34.159
the landscape buffers and all of that. How do we get around all of that? I think if this gets approved, the comments seem to be that there's got to be something that delineates that between parking and not parking. What does that look like without creating more work for staff, more financial

277
01:16:34.159 --> 01:16:51.360
burden for the and and time >> for for the for the applicant >> to to achieve the same goal >> as well as contending with the um site visibility triangle which is going to complicate some of your material on the front property line. Anyways, I I fully

278
01:16:51.360 --> 01:17:06.080
agree, but unfortunately I think if you want the delineation, you're going to have to specify a physical barrier. Now, is that no more than sorry, is that no more than 14 inches high so it meets the um the site visibility triangle double

279
01:17:06.080 --> 01:17:23.199
planting so we at least get 5 ft of area. Do you want something smaller? I hate to say that we have to be prescriptive about it, but if we intend to provide it, we have to be. >> Well, maybe we should hear from the applicant if they have an idea. I see in the fact they're nodding their heads. Maybe they have an idea. >> While they're coming up, may we ask

280
01:17:23.199 --> 01:17:39.760
Will, do you um have any concerns from a public safety that uh >> just what what's already been discussed. It's currently, I think, a public safety issue if if there were to be parking allowed in that area and ever, as everybody in the here, I think, has

281
01:17:39.760 --> 01:17:54.880
expressed. Uh, going forward, I think to your maybe if you're asking specifically, uh, Council Link, to your comments about if a future use includes restaurant or a bar. Um, I don't think my concerns would be anything more than we have along Old San Carlos or some of

282
01:17:54.880 --> 01:18:10.800
the other areas that are similar. It's it sure that's always a concern, but I I um within the you know our current way of dealing with those issues. No, I I don't I don't have a specific issue. I think it would have to but I'd have to see in the future like we're talking

283
01:18:10.800 --> 01:18:26.480
what that use would be right now. I think it's just important that we address the parking uh issue and uh I think if if Cara does have an idea, I'd love to hear it. Does that answer your question? >> It sure does. Thank you. I just wanted to see if you had anything additional >> on the on the delineation. What would it

284
01:18:26.480 --> 01:18:41.600
work if we put in something to the effect that we had to install some type of vertical delineation within um conformity to your visibility triangle or some such thing like that so that whether you know just something

285
01:18:41.600 --> 01:18:57.360
that will cover it when we talk about um the planters in one breath and I'd have to go out there and go look again. I'm not sure where that that incline that drastic incline ends. If maybe up there, you know, if we did a temporary uh

286
01:18:57.360 --> 01:19:14.640
barrier there that wouldn't require a permit and we could do that >> expeditiously, something like that, you know, might might help. Like I don't think we have any true um concern about doing something that will will satisfy what we need. So whether it be like a

287
01:19:14.640 --> 01:19:29.920
maybe like even a white little picket fence or something or some planter combination, right? Some, you know, mixture of the two maybe and make it look nice. You know, a little low little white picket thing and then maybe a little planter and then a white picket thing to delineate it. So, I don't we're

288
01:19:29.920 --> 01:19:45.920
not opposed to any of that. >> All right. Well, I'm sure we'll get into that. >> All right. Any other questions for the applicant? >> All right. Public comment. Does anybody here like to speak in public comment? All right. Seeing none, we'll close

289
01:19:45.920 --> 01:20:01.440
public comment. I'm just curious if the discussion here it's not a question you if this would change the mind of any LPA member that was sitting in the on how they voted um hearing >> I wasn't there then >> yeah well I was just trying to be general

290
01:20:01.440 --> 01:20:19.440
so uh okay well so comments suggestions questions discussions councelor Kane we'll start with you >> I guess for me it just boils down to a common sense safety issue and that's a concern and um honestly I could see myself sitting at that stoplight and

291
01:20:19.440 --> 01:20:35.600
somebody wanting to back out right into me. So, uh, that's that's happened to me on numerous occasions. So, it's it is a concern for me. >> Councelor Link, >> I would ask Jason if is there anything that you would recommend that would make

292
01:20:35.600 --> 01:20:52.159
you feel more comfortable that you would then approve and >> Well, I wouldn't say approve, but be comfortable with moving forward should it get approved. That's a great way to say it. >> Um, so I think I've said everything in my in my mind. Um, as long as we are

293
01:20:52.159 --> 01:21:08.960
providing for the ADA space, as long as somewhere within a reasonable distance, as long as they can access that site, because I'm thinking about some of the broken sidewalk on that side of the street along Crescent. >> But Jason, if they require if they if the parking goes to zero, do they they

294
01:21:08.960 --> 01:21:24.880
don't have to have a requirement of ADA space? >> No. But in realistically, they still got to get their people from whatever parking spaces they have to them to the space. Again, that that doesn't become the town or the code's responsibility at that point. That's on them. Just one of

295
01:21:24.880 --> 01:21:41.280
my concerns is moving an ADA space from directly in front of it to approximately 300 ft away and then they have to traverse over broken sidewalk panels. So, so that but that would be covered under any potential whatever may or may not go in there. I

296
01:21:41.280 --> 01:21:57.440
mean, absolutely. Anybody would have that same requirement of how to physically get their people from where they're parking to the space, but that's not the concern of the code here, >> right? >> Um what they're dealing what the request here today just deals with removing the parking spaces. I have a lot of whatifs

297
01:21:57.440 --> 01:22:14.320
and I've think I've gone through a lot of them with you. Um, as far as the landscaping, I I think we're open to anything. The real concern here is again just making sure that it's uh limited to 2 feet. So, whatever the town council believes would be visually appealing and

298
01:22:14.320 --> 01:22:30.800
still provide that break within within it being no more than 24 in high. I think that's probably the biggest concern from my code perspective. >> Thanks for that. And then and that's the the 24 inches. Then it doesn't interfere with the view triangle, >> right? Between it's you're expected to

299
01:22:30.800 --> 01:22:48.320
have clear um clear vision in that triangle from 2 feet to 6 feet. >> Okay. >> Thanks, Jason. >> That's it for me. Nope. >> Councelor Mlan, >> um I guess I'll restate what I stated

300
01:22:48.320 --> 01:23:05.120
before. Um I think that uh I believe that we should be embracing the changes that we've made to the comprehensive plan. They have not included increased any of the uses uh or

301
01:23:05.120 --> 01:23:22.159
the intensities or densities and the marketability of the property. If I've stated this previously about other uses, including restaurants in that district, the parking

302
01:23:22.159 --> 01:23:39.280
issues that may or may not be there, that's part of the the ability of the company to or the owner to market their property as being parking is an issue here. You know, we suggest you take an Uber or you will have to use an off-site

303
01:23:39.280 --> 01:23:56.239
lot. And I don't have any issues with that. Actually, I think that's just fine. Um, so I would personally I would support this removal of the parking requirements because as defined in the

304
01:23:56.239 --> 01:24:11.600
Times Square District, we're trying to encourage a walkability and use of shared lots. And I would change number three. Instead of enha I think we could state keep enhanced landscaping but include something remove perimeter

305
01:24:11.600 --> 01:24:28.960
landscaping and add something that says a physical barrier to block off the parking no more than 24 in high. And then number five, I would suggest that it either goes away completely because or if not then it should be all uses

306
01:24:28.960 --> 01:24:46.239
that are permitted in the Times Square District and those would be my recommendations. >> Yeah, I share a lot of the same points that you raised, Council Mlean. I mean, I think had Cara and the applicant had a chance to answer questions at the LPA that may have changed some of the

307
01:24:46.239 --> 01:25:02.800
recommendations. can't speak for them, but um public safety is a big thing. You know, parking to your point, Council Mlean, is a big thing. But that we've all seen it. That is a very dangerous parking lot to back in and out of and and Uber is using it, Lift's using it to

308
01:25:02.800 --> 01:25:18.480
pull up on there for, you know, now car doors are winging open and people are getting picked up at that corner. I think eliminating that is in the best interests of the community as far as public safety standpoint. Um the fact that they're not willing to increase the footprint or the density as spoken in P

309
01:25:18.480 --> 01:25:34.800
as by the applicant is very important. It does meet the criteria of the new downtown district that we've put in place or the Times Square District. So it would be consistent with that. Um the fact that they have to come forward to if they want to do a restaurant with a

310
01:25:34.800 --> 01:25:49.840
bar, they're going to have to have those discussions about parking and shared use. The applicant owns several parking lots in that area and has demonstrated that they they try to follow the rules of laws best they can. I mean, I've hadn't heard any complaints and we all know that this applicant is very um good

311
01:25:49.840 --> 01:26:06.960
at doing landscaping and delineating between public rightways and public spaces. So, I'm I'm going to support this based on the on the two changes I think that you were talking about. I think that's important that we have the number three is changed to to what councelor Mlan said. Number five, I

312
01:26:06.960 --> 01:26:22.639
think we still need to work on that wording a little bit. I think is to be consistent with the Times Square zoning district. Would that cover all of your questions, Jason, as far as not having to come back to look at what the use is as long as it's a use that's within the

313
01:26:22.639 --> 01:26:38.800
down or the Times Square zoning district that that would cover any change in use? >> Uh, well, then I believe five becomes functionally moot. If you're just saying they get everything in in downtown, they already get everything in downtown. But but but also in the increase of intensity I think it's important to have

314
01:26:38.800 --> 01:26:56.480
that there but maybe not to your point how do we codify what they have said they are not willing to do the perimeter of the building the existing height of the building how can we codify that in this condition to say that if this property were to change hands that the next person can't just automatically add another story without having to come in

315
01:26:56.480 --> 01:27:12.000
>> and rectify this condition number five. Um, I'll I'll defer to Carara's expertise here, but I would think that then you could say no um no increase of the footprint, no increase to the height, and that covers an expansion of

316
01:27:12.000 --> 01:27:27.360
the building without touching the available uses. So, we don't get hung up on that. >> Could we not just say no increase in FAR? >> Technically, no. I don't think so because that's a I mean, >> I wouldn't be comfortable with that.

317
01:27:27.360 --> 01:27:43.120
>> Okay. All right. Let's >> bar changes in a lot of different ways. So I I think I take the mayor's point. >> Yeah, I I wouldn't become I I think keeping it simple to your point, no existing size to the footprint, physical footprint of the building or increased height of the building would cover those two

318
01:27:43.120 --> 01:27:59.520
>> and and maybe primary structure so that we can address Cara's point of if they want to do an outside deck that's accessory um without changing the building, they could come out and do that. uh but it it would be the physical increase of the existing foundation of the >> foundation of the of the primary

319
01:27:59.520 --> 01:28:15.199
structure. So I think if we add the term primary structure in there that'll differentiate between if they want to do any decks or things that they've mentioned that they might want to do in that new pedestrian area. >> So if they wanted to they still would have to come in obviously to go before staff they want to extend the upper

320
01:28:15.199 --> 01:28:30.639
level deck >> out they would have to come before and do all that. >> Yeah. any any attached decks would would trigger this. Um if to Cara's point, if they want to do a deck and they're allowed to do it in the pedestrian area now, um and they want to do service of

321
01:28:30.639 --> 01:28:45.840
alcohol, that would trigger them having to come in and talk to us as well. >> Did you get all that, Nancy, for number five? Does it is there some wording that you could suggest that would help clarify for the record?

322
01:28:45.840 --> 01:29:01.199
um we can work on it after the after the meeting, but I think there's been adequate testimony from both of the experts um where that um criteria or that requirement um where we could mold something that

323
01:29:01.199 --> 01:29:20.320
would that would be sufficient. >> Okay. Do you both feel comfortable with what Nancy said? Oh, Cara's coming back up. I just want to >> I I think there's agreement between you and Jason. >> I think so, too. I just I think so, too. I just got a little I just want to

324
01:29:20.320 --> 01:29:37.040
clarify the the the outdoor use. I just want to make sure that we're not we don't lose that. So, the outdoor use, we want to make maintain that. We want to be able to still do that. No new walls, right? So, we're all like this. So, the patio I I got a little lost if he was implying

325
01:29:37.040 --> 01:29:52.080
that I have to come back for the patio. I don't have to come back for the >> what he was saying any elevated structure above the existing patio. >> Okay. >> As long as the patio is consistent with the the Times Square zoning district, >> right?

326
01:29:52.080 --> 01:30:08.320
>> Then that would be encompassed within this condition. >> Then that's fine. That's all I just wanted. Yeah. So any alterations that would otherwise require approval or a permit, >> you would go through, right? I mean >> Yeah. And that's fine, right? We'll get the permit if we do anything out there if that's what we're saying. But I don't

327
01:30:08.320 --> 01:30:23.280
want to have to come back here unless they're doing outdoor consumption in which case that would address those issues. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Well, clear as mud. The So,

328
01:30:23.280 --> 01:30:39.280
there's nothing in here to say that if this gets approved, how soon is it going to be implemented? You talked about doing something temporary to to keep people from parking in that spot. Is there are you going to try to do something temporary when you come until you come up with a >> whatever the permanent solution is going to be?

329
01:30:39.280 --> 01:30:55.520
>> Whatever the record. Um there's it's it's up to God in the wind. You know, we're going to we're going to take it at We don't have any plans. We're just trying to set it up for the tenant or if I sell it, if I keep it, if I put my own store in there. Um there's so

330
01:30:55.520 --> 01:31:11.360
many things that so that I can't tell you any there's there's nothing going to happen right tomorrow. No, what I'm saying is is Cara had mentioned some temporary. So if this gets approved, your parking is not there. I don't want you to be in non-compliance for now parking people there

331
01:31:11.360 --> 01:31:27.840
>> tomorrow. Right. That's what I'm trying to get at >> without a barrier. >> I'm not sure if he was hearing the temp the the the >> uh barrier for lack of a better word, right, is what we're all talking about. The vertical barrier, some vertical barrier, >> something to keep people from parking the parking

332
01:31:27.840 --> 01:31:43.840
Senate. No, they No, you're going to need to remove it now if they give you Yes. >> because technically you technically you would be in non-compliance >> with Hello. What I'd like is I have the tenant that's in there now. >> Yeah. >> What I'd like to be able to once we have if I'm going to put the store in what

333
01:31:43.840 --> 01:31:59.600
we're going to do something, we can block the because tenant is moving out. Once that tenant moves out, it's going to stay vacant until the next thing, so to speak. No, I I understand that, John, but what I'm trying to get at is you're asking to eliminate parking in that

334
01:31:59.600 --> 01:32:15.360
today. And if it's approved, parking would be eliminated today. >> Correct. >> So, you could no longer have people parking there or you'd be in non-compliance. >> And what I'm what I'm asking is if I can put cones up or whatever until I actually get because I don't know what the timing is going to be.

335
01:32:15.360 --> 01:32:31.199
>> Yeah, that's what I was asking. As long as nobody's going to be piping there because I don't want to have to go through. So, I asked for some relief on that until, you know, hell, I put some net blocks up there if you want me to. But, >> no, I'm just I'm just there's going to be nobody parking there. That's all I'm trying to get at. If this gets approved

336
01:32:31.199 --> 01:32:46.320
today, >> could we >> I just heard one thing though that concerned me is I really would rather see like a concrete planter put down there as opposed to orange cones. We

337
01:32:46.320 --> 01:33:05.360
need to move away from being a perpetual >> construction site unless we're actually constructing. >> So, John, could you put >> I don't know, concrete planters or something that blocks the the parking. >> I think also

338
01:33:05.360 --> 01:33:22.560
>> I can put some planters in there. That would be that would be uh to block the thing. But I >> we're just trying to stop the Ubers and everybody else. I'd ask until October when my tenant is actually leaving. His lease is up in October. So, if you can make that effective October until he

339
01:33:22.560 --> 01:33:38.719
vacates. >> But then we have >> what the mayor is getting. >> But I can't do that to my tenant, you know. I mean, I still have a tenant there that has a lease until October. >> But >> that's why this might not be the best timing to be bringing this. I think is >> I can't agree.

340
01:33:38.719 --> 01:33:53.920
>> That's why this may not be the right time to be bringing this to us because one thing is going to put you in in another situation that you might >> or couldn't you couldn't you dedicate >> I'll put the plan I'll put the planners up. This is approved right away. >> Okay.

341
01:33:53.920 --> 01:34:10.560
>> Okay. So that would basically block any type of parking once the variance is approved. >> That that's what I was getting at. I I just didn't want to I didn't want to create a non-compliance issue for the applicant starting tomorrow. >> Correct. Right. >> That that's what I was trying to get at. And you could dedicate one spot if you

342
01:34:10.560 --> 01:34:26.159
want from your other parking lot to that current tenant till October. So, >> did you want to put any type of time limitation on it like within 30 days that they would >> Yeah, I don't expect him to do it tomorrow, but I just don't want him to. >> No, I I think he needs a reasonable time.

343
01:34:26.159 --> 01:34:42.239
>> John would go John would go right to the place and put planners up tonight. So, yeah, 30 days. 30 days would be fabulous. >> Got it. All right. >> 30 days would be fabulous. We will put up a barrier. He will have the tenant use his other lot.

344
01:34:42.239 --> 01:34:58.639
>> Sure. >> Okay. >> Can I just see clarity that we're not putting out cones though because those are movable by anyone. >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Or drive home. >> Okay. I'm going to ask one last question. >> Sure. If let's say the next person who comes there and who rents or purchases

345
01:34:58.639 --> 01:35:15.199
says I really want um takeout pizza and so we'd like uh golf carts to come in and you just took it away. Can you add the parking back? Is there any reason they could not come back? They have to go through. >> They have to come back to you >> but it could be something we decided

346
01:35:15.199 --> 01:35:30.400
>> if it's the right thing to do. >> If it is okay. >> All right. >> Thank you. All right. Any other discussion? Or is there a motion for resolution 26-094 for variance 202600011

347
01:35:30.400 --> 01:35:51.679
for 1161 and 1165 Estero Boulevard? Mr. Mayor, I'd like to move uh approval with the conditions as modified through our discussion here today, including

348
01:35:51.679 --> 01:36:09.280
the putting up a physical barrier within the next 30 days that will include planters and not movable plastic cones. and taking away condition five because it's

349
01:36:09.280 --> 01:36:26.000
moot if we allow all uses that are available within the times square district. >> I'll second that. So, for purposes of the record, I wanted to go ahead and and state that um the conditions that have been referred to are on page 98.

350
01:36:26.000 --> 01:36:41.600
And uh condition number C is the enhanced landscaping. And that's the one that's going to have the additional time, the 30 days. And then um the motion is to remove condition E in its

351
01:36:41.600 --> 01:36:58.800
entirety. >> Correct. >> Correct. Well, thank you. I have the conditions though on 113 and 114 of my packet, but >> I'm looking at the resolution. >> I'm looking at the staff recommendation. >> We're in a staff which has

352
01:36:58.800 --> 01:37:15.119
one through five as opposed to They're the same ones. >> Yeah, they're the same ones. >> They're the same ones. >> It's just that when we go back and amend the resolution, I want to make sure that staff and and I we're all on the same page. Well, I don't think there was an elimination of five or E, whichever. >> I think that was part of your motion.

353
01:37:15.119 --> 01:37:31.280
>> I just did. And >> yeah, he eliminated five. >> I believe Mr. Smallley said that it was moot if it allowed the uses that were available in >> but I thought I thought it was important to have in there that the footprint of the building.

354
01:37:31.280 --> 01:37:46.960
>> If I can make a Yeah. differentiation between them. So the use the change in uses or intensification of the uses would not trigger this but the intensification or the increase of the footprint of the building or the height of the building would then trigger this. >> Thank thank you for that. I I missed

355
01:37:46.960 --> 01:38:04.560
that. Excuse me. So I would like to amend and I would like to amend to include five to be there will not be uh no increase in either the footprint or the height of the building will be allowed >> and the second

356
01:38:04.560 --> 01:38:20.400
>> I'll amend it. >> All right, we got an amended motion and amended second. Any further discussion? >> Councelor Mlan >> I. >> Councelor King >> I. >> Uh Councelor Link >> I. >> And I'm an I as well. Uh the motion carries 4 to zero with Vice Mayor Safford abstaining.

357
01:38:20.400 --> 01:38:39.679
>> Thank you for that discussion. >> Next is item B. >> This is ordinance 26-09 FPNL meter installation above FEMA required flood elevation. This is a legislative agenda item and first reading and public hearing on proposed

358
01:38:39.679 --> 01:38:55.600
ordinance 26-09. If approved at first reading, a second reading and final adoption hearing will be scheduled for June 15, 2026 at 9:00 am or at any time another time identified by town council. This is an ordinance of the town of Fort Myers Beach, Florida, amending article 3,

359
01:38:55.600 --> 01:39:12.800
division 3, section 34-638 of the land development code, creating a new exception to minimum setback requirements, reducing minimum setbacks to accommodate new Florida Power and Light requirements for platforms to locate and provide service to elevated electric meters. providing criteria and

360
01:39:12.800 --> 01:39:29.199
conditions for the permitted electric meter equipment and associated platform access stairways and related structures providing for clarifications as necessary providing for conflicts of law scrier's errors seability and providing for an effective date Jason.

361
01:39:29.199 --> 01:39:44.880
>> Hello again. My name is Jason Smallley. I'm the senior planner here with the town. So before you today is a is a minor amendment to the land development code. If I can just provide just a little context about how we got

362
01:39:44.880 --> 01:40:00.560
here and what staff has been seeing that sort of spurred uh this this request for the change. So um what we had been noticing is since the storm uh it started out in drips and drabs. We would hear we would hear about it once or

363
01:40:00.560 --> 01:40:15.360
twice, but now it's become somewhat regular that in the midst of the development, not at the initial permitting phase, but after uh applicants have been already given permits and have functionally completed

364
01:40:15.360 --> 01:40:32.239
the project, FPNL shows up to install their meters. Well, um, it used to be that you could have a wall ladder to give access or the the people on site coming to read the meters or fix the meters would provide their own access to

365
01:40:32.239 --> 01:40:48.719
your meters. Since the storm, what I've been notified is FPL no longer does that. Um, they expect you to provide access to these meters. And what they've been telling folks in the midst of their inspections as as the building is already up and

366
01:40:48.719 --> 01:41:04.960
vertical is, "Oh, by the way, you've got to put a set of stairs or some other um acceptable access where our where our meter readers and our technicians can step back, turn around, um you know, do the Macarena, whatever it is that they

367
01:41:04.960 --> 01:41:21.760
do up there." uh but they're what they're saying is that we can no longer provide just a a set of climbing a climbing ladder uh to be sufficient. So what we've what we've noticed here is that people are stuck in bit of limbo. They now need a variance because we

368
01:41:21.760 --> 01:41:36.639
don't have code sections that would allow specifically for this type of incursion into particularly a sideyard setback. And so they're being forced at the end of their build as they thought everything was coming through to now come in and either get a variance or

369
01:41:36.639 --> 01:41:52.719
somehow jump through hoops to satisfy both FPNL and the town's land development code. So uh staff has presented a alternative here. This is uh being requested to be put into the section that is by carveouts. Uh this is

370
01:41:52.719 --> 01:42:07.679
differentiated from things that require you to pay for and apply for an administrative variance. We do have sections that deal with that, but this is in the allowances for any home that runs into this problem. Uh the the

371
01:42:07.679 --> 01:42:24.960
language is intended to satisfy what FPNL is requesting, which I believe is a minimum of 4 foot uh by 4 foot final platform and set of stairs that are of the width as required by Florida building code. I believe that's 36 in, but I'll defer to the building official

372
01:42:24.960 --> 01:42:40.800
on on the Florida building code requirements. The point being, um, this would allow for them without applying for admin variance or paying the town $750 to solve this issue to come in and and develop this uh this set

373
01:42:40.800 --> 01:42:57.119
of stairs that they're being told is required. Uh, staff has put on there some what we think are common sense limitations. Uh, we've put in there a limitation on in uh encroaching into easements. Easement, you cannot encroach into an easement as of today. So, this

374
01:42:57.119 --> 01:43:12.960
just reiterates that these particular stairs wouldn't be allowed anything more than normal permitting would allow for. Secondly, uh what we're saying is that if the stairs do encroach into a required storm water area, particularly the swailes that need to be put on the

375
01:43:12.960 --> 01:43:30.639
side of new homes in most cases, that it would be the responsibility of the applicant either during build or after the fact if FPNL has them do it once the house is built. they have to make sure that their storm water system uh continues to function and is not cut off

376
01:43:30.639 --> 01:43:46.480
uh from the way that it was initially designed. So what you're seeing in the code language here provided to you is staff's concern that if you take advantage of this and need to use that area that was previously designed to provide storm water attenuation, you are

377
01:43:46.480 --> 01:44:01.520
still responsible to make sure your storm water system works on that site to the minimum Florida water management district standards. It's not a carveout for that requirement even though we are being flexible with where the stairs need to be.

378
01:44:01.520 --> 01:44:16.800
Um, I feel like I've rambled just a bit there, but if uh town council has any questions about uh staff's view on this, we're here for to answer any of those questions. >> I just want to add that other coastal communities that have endured um

379
01:44:16.800 --> 01:44:31.920
hurricane related flooding um have already adopted similar type ordinances. >> Jason, the concern that there's a couple not concerns but questions I have. You mentioned that FPL you think is 4x4, but in here it says minimum clearance of 5

380
01:44:31.920 --> 01:44:48.239
feet. Would it make more sense to not necessarily say specific footage, but as to comply with required safety requirements of utilities or something along those lines? >> I think that's absolutely relevant. We were just a little unsure whether FPNL said they want a 5x5 or a 4x4. We got

381
01:44:48.239 --> 01:45:03.119
>> I think that would just cover any changes down the road should something happen. And the other thing that I don't see in here, I think that's important, is that these stairs are only accessible to this utility. You can't use them as an ex to enter into the house. You can't

382
01:45:03.119 --> 01:45:18.880
use them to add an existing deck off the side of your house. They have to be specific to just the utility that it's being built for. >> That That is correct. And I I think that's indicative of how we're seeing people notified about these things. they've already designed their home and and they're being asked to effectively

383
01:45:18.880 --> 01:45:33.679
just put a set of stairs in a little corner or right on the side of the house. But that that was an attempt to ensure that we're not creating a loophole or an incentive for people to do this and then create a little tiny

384
01:45:33.679 --> 01:45:50.400
Florida room or an additional playroom um because they think they've been given this additional setback into the sideyards. So yes, the language does limit um how how it can be used uh what things it cannot turn into and really um

385
01:45:50.400 --> 01:46:06.080
reiterating that this is for service to FPNL's meters and nothing else. >> Okay. I just see it says it's limited to non-habitable structures, but to me that could be a deck. Yeah, >> that could be someone could down the

386
01:46:06.080 --> 01:46:22.080
road put a take a window out, put a put a uh slider in and build a deck off the side, you know, a sitting deck or something that there's nothing in here that limits that. >> In theory, that would be addressed at

387
01:46:22.080 --> 01:46:38.719
the uh review phase when we get into planning because ostensibly they'd be asking to fill in this room inside of a reduced setback. So, we're going to look at this and say, "Why are you telling us that you're only going to provide 3 and 1/2 ft on this enclosed room that you're

388
01:46:38.719 --> 01:46:54.719
talking about? Oh, this is your deck that you were allowed to have." Well, you can't enclose that. It says right there in the code, you can't do that. >> I think that would be our check on this, >> but that we're talking about an enclosed space. This is a non-encclosed space. That could be a slider door. You want to walk out and have two chairs on a

389
01:46:54.719 --> 01:47:10.159
three-foot deck out there >> to watch the sunset or sunrise. This, to me, doesn't cover that exception. Um, so I think we would probably just have to Well, I I think the language does at least talk to that eventuality

390
01:47:10.159 --> 01:47:25.360
of this not turning into habitable space. Um, >> I guess the question is, do you consider a deck habitable space? >> Depends on the circumstances, but >> see, there we go. >> If you if you're talking about putting a slider and then throwing a table on

391
01:47:25.360 --> 01:47:41.520
there, you got 4x4 or 5x5 to work with. I think it's somewhat self-limiting. But I do take your point. If somebody's slider is at the correct 7 and 1/2 ft setback, what stops them from putting a slider in there >> to access this deck? And I think that's

392
01:47:41.520 --> 01:47:57.760
where the limits specifically in the code where it says this shall not turn into this shall not be uh made into that type of space at least gives the staff the ability to say, okay, what's going on here? What's the history of this thing? Why is this deck out here? Um,

393
01:47:57.760 --> 01:48:13.199
why are they saying that this deck is three and a half foot setback when we know the house is 7 and 1/2t set back? It at least gives us some triggers to say go and look into this a little bit more. >> Councelor King, questions for Jason? >> Nothing currently. >> Scott,

394
01:48:13.199 --> 01:48:29.440
>> nothing current. >> Rebecca, >> no. But thank you for amending things as you go. I ran into this in my house and we're talking thousands and thousands of dollars because the electric placement went in before everything else. Indeed, >> the swailes were dug, the drainage

395
01:48:29.440 --> 01:48:45.119
houses. So, I think um you're probably seeing other things just like this that hopefully will come before us to make it easier for everyone. >> Indeed, >> my question is um it seems like it's clear to you in your mind that this

396
01:48:45.119 --> 01:49:00.239
should not be um an expansion of the living the use for living in the property. Uh, but I share the mayor's concerns that it's not restrictive enough of being for utility

397
01:49:00.239 --> 01:49:16.719
service and I'm worried that this is becomes the loophole that allows people to expand their decks further than they would uh would be allowed. Um, so I want to make sure that there's some protections in there and I'm it sounds like you're comfortable with it, but I'm

398
01:49:16.719 --> 01:49:37.520
I'm think we need to tighten up non-habitable structures to also um decks uh not include decks >> not used for utility purposes or service >> service decks cuz

399
01:49:37.520 --> 01:49:53.679
I think where I see this most likely happening is where you will have, you know, your air conditioner unit, your hopefully your background or backup generator and your electrical panel or all sitting there and maybe

400
01:49:53.679 --> 01:50:10.000
your pool equipment underneath it or something. I kind of want to limit it to services as opposed to >> Yeah. Where I see the loophole happening is in new construction. They're going to build a house and purposely put their utilities where these steps are to access an accessory unit inside the

401
01:50:10.000 --> 01:50:25.679
building. That's going to be another short-term rental. >> Gotcha. >> That's where you're going to see the design happen. That's the That's the loophole I think people would take ad I certainly would if I was building a house knowing that I could get away with it based on the loophole that's here. So, what I'm hearing from you is is everybody would like to see a little bit

402
01:50:25.679 --> 01:50:41.920
more tightening up of the language explicitly stating that no new doors, windows, accesses can be made to here um to this deck area other than the approved set of stairs to allow access specifically for the utility holders.

403
01:50:41.920 --> 01:50:58.000
Something something akin to that making it more explicit. >> That that's what I'm requesting, please. Yes. >> Okay. Is there any appetite to include the air conditioners? >> It's a good point. I think that yes, because a lot of you're seeing a lot of air conditioners now having to be

404
01:50:58.000 --> 01:51:14.560
elevated and I've talked to several people who are going through or having issues with trying to get what was there repered as an elevated thing because it's encroaching into the setback. >> So just trying to replace what was there is now dealing with issues. I think it should expand into any kind of whether

405
01:51:14.560 --> 01:51:30.080
it's an air conditioner should they choose to want to put it because some of them don't they just put them on the the pedestal that sits up there and they make them work off a ladder but >> right dangerously. So if I can make one comment here about that. Um recently within the past year I believe we

406
01:51:30.080 --> 01:51:45.520
actually added that carve out um to allow for replacement of electrical and mechanical units in the exact same footprint that have to be elevated even with non-compliance setbacks. You uh you have the ability to get that and that's that's another carveout. That's not an

407
01:51:45.520 --> 01:52:02.560
accessory or excuse me a um administrative variance. But but from what I've heard, the challenge is trying to prove that a home that was destroyed from Hurricane Ian had that unless you have a specific picture showing staff is saying we have no way of verifying that that existed pre-storm,

408
01:52:02.560 --> 01:52:18.480
>> right? >> So you have to go through all the hoops and things that you have to go through to apply to encroach in the setback even though it was there before much like we have to do when we had remember after Ian everybody had to try to track down that it was a habitable space before and we had to go through that whole scenario. I think this is an opportunity

409
01:52:18.480 --> 01:52:34.880
to eliminate staff's work of having to say sorry Mr. or Mrs. applicant. You have no proof showing that you had an elevated air conditioning structure before the storm that encroached into a setback. You now have to go through this process to be able to achieve it. >> Okay. So, you're envisioning that the uh

410
01:52:34.880 --> 01:52:50.960
the air conditioning units would also now be given um allowance to be roughly 300 three and 1/2 ft into the let's say a 7 and 1/2t setback. So that's going to provide for a minimum of 4ft separation between your your new elevated unit and

411
01:52:50.960 --> 01:53:09.199
your property line. >> Is that an allowance that you're envisioning? >> I see where you're going with that. It's it's Well, you still have the fire, right? We had it an issue in the past where the fire department said you had to have a minimum width of whatever five and a half feet between setbacks for

412
01:53:09.199 --> 01:53:24.400
life safety issues. I think that that would still probably >> have to come into play for fire review. Yeah, ostensibly you'd have to offset the units. You'd have to work with both both uh unit holder or unit owners to put one maybe further back and one unit

413
01:53:24.400 --> 01:53:40.960
further forward so that they aren't in line with each other and only three and a half ft of separation between your two AC units. >> But I'm getting I'm getting a little bit too deep here. I I don't want to talk about the the fire code because that's way beyond me. >> I got it. Um, I just want to make sure that everybody understands that if we

414
01:53:40.960 --> 01:53:58.239
currently this would allow for you to be in most cases three and a half feet off of the side setbacks. Um, it doesn't account for those areas that are allowed 5 feet through the um through the uh

415
01:53:58.239 --> 01:54:14.719
cottage codes because those explicitly disallow any other anything other than the primary structure to be reduced in setbacks. But in most circumstances, we're talking about where either an AC unit or in this case also a set of stairs and a deck would be allowed uh to

416
01:54:14.719 --> 01:54:30.639
be roughly 3 and 1/2 ft off of the side property line. If we assume that the other neighbor is going to take full advantage of the same thing, we've got uh roughly 7 ft separation between the furthest protrusion, which might be the deck or the AC unit.

417
01:54:30.639 --> 01:54:46.719
>> Well, I see I see where you're going with it. Maybe there's maybe you have to we certainly don't want people designing at least I don't think I would want people designing new houses purposely putting the air conditioners to stick out beside the house. You're seeing a lot of designs where they're including them into their recessing them in.

418
01:54:46.719 --> 01:55:01.199
>> Right. >> So maybe it's current existing structures or something along those lines, not new structures. I I'd hate to see people take advantage of something that we >> put in there. I don't want to create another problem trying to solve one. I I get it, but quite honestly, it's the new

419
01:55:01.199 --> 01:55:15.119
structures where we're seeing them pop up. It's it's folks that are just twothirds of the way down the build and FPNL shows up and says, "You guys didn't account for my guy being up there on the on the stairs." So, I don't think it's easy enough to just say, "This is for

420
01:55:15.119 --> 01:55:38.000
new homes and or existing homes only." Now, we can go that route, but I think you're going to leave a large part of the population sort of out of being able to use this section. John, anything else? >> Um, I think to NY's question then I

421
01:55:38.000 --> 01:55:55.840
would limit it to the electrical meters and not include the AC or generators. >> I agree. I think the AC stuff needs some more thought >> um because some people do have doors because it is safer for your AC guide to work right there

422
01:55:55.840 --> 01:56:13.199
>> than do a ladder. So, I think there's a a little more thinking to do, but >> Okay, no more questions. We're going to do public comment. Public comment. Anyone like to speak in public comment? >> Jim, you sure? >> Come on, Jim. You've not been quiet this

423
01:56:13.199 --> 01:56:30.280
long for as long as we'll close public comment. discussion or motion for ordinance 26-09 for the FPL FPNL meter installation above FEMA required flood elevation

424
01:56:30.719 --> 01:56:47.920
discussion. Uh there is one scribblers there on page one. Actually there's two on page 118 or my name's spelled wrong and her name is really spelled wrong. >> We've noticed that we're going to we'll reach out to him and get it changed for

425
01:56:47.920 --> 01:57:05.440
the next reading. >> Any other discussion? >> All right. No mo. I will make a motion to move ordinance 26-09 to the second reading. And my screen just went down. I Someone help me with what the exact date is. >> June.

426
01:57:05.440 --> 01:57:21.119
>> June 15th at 9:00 a.m. >> Yes. >> I'll second. >> We got a motion by Mayor Aller, seconded by Vice Mayor Safford. Any further discussion? I'm an I. Vice Mayor Safford. >> I. >> Councelor Link. >> I. >> Councelor Mlan. Hi. >> And councelor King. >> Hi.

427
01:57:21.119 --> 01:57:37.360
>> That motion carries unanimously. >> Next is item C. This is ordinance 26-08 for charter changes. This is a legislative agenda item and the second reading and final public hearing on proposed ordinance 26-08. This is an ordinance to the town of Fort

428
01:57:37.360 --> 01:57:53.280
Myers Beach, Florida, proposing amendments to the Fort Myers Beach Town Charter. Proposing charter amendments one, mandating ordinances required disclosure and quasi judicial hearings and prohibiting unlawful gifts. Two, re revising the town revising the town

429
01:57:53.280 --> 01:58:10.000
council compensation process. Three, revising the term of the council seats filled by appointment. Four, clarifying the service of the interim mayor. Five, clarifying the qualifying period for the town council candidates. And six, providing for the use of the Lee County canvasing board. Providing for a

430
01:58:10.000 --> 01:58:25.199
referenda on the proposed charter amendments, providing for ballot titles and ballot summaries for each referenda. providing for direction to town clerk and coordination with the Lee County Supervisor of Elections, providing for filing the revised charter with the

431
01:58:25.199 --> 01:58:40.400
Florida Department of State, and providing for findings, conflicts, severability, and an effective date. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, so since the last approval at the last meeting, the only changes that have been made to the draft

432
01:58:40.400 --> 01:58:55.760
ordinance is the inclusion of the Spanish translation of the ballot title. Um, also there was a question regarding whether or not the language that would actually appear in the charter if that

433
01:58:55.760 --> 01:59:12.400
would be on the ballot. And um, I researched that and the answer is no. Um, the only thing that would be on the ballot would be the yes or no question followed by a um explanation of of what

434
01:59:12.400 --> 01:59:31.119
it does, a summary. Okay. >> Well, councelor Link, we'll start with you since you seem to have the most questions at the first hearing. We'll start with you. Um, I am okay letting these move on to the residents to vote.

435
01:59:31.119 --> 01:59:47.199
Um, I made my case last time and I don't have anything else to add. I talked to Jim about a few things so I think we're we're clear. There was one change, Nancy. I think you changed um I think it was the compensation. There was uh four

436
01:59:47.199 --> 02:00:02.159
years, three years and that was corrected as well to four. >> That is correct. That that was Thank you. So, we take that one up as well. >> All right. >> No new comments, Mayor. >> Okay. Councelor Mlan.

437
02:00:02.159 --> 02:00:20.000
>> Uh, no, I have no no new comments. >> Councelor King, >> just like the new guy, no new comments. >> Vice Mayor Safford? >> No, I'm I'm perfectly fine with it. The only comments I've got is I I have spoken to some people who have a little bit of hesitation on the appointment

438
02:00:20.000 --> 02:00:35.840
part of it where not everyone is comfortable as I as we talked about at the first meeting >> if god forbid something were to happen to one of the council members a day or two after they were appointed to the seat that someone who was not elected by the people would then be sitting in that

439
02:00:35.840 --> 02:00:52.239
seat for the remainder of that four years. There's several people who are not comfortable at least that I've talked to. I've spoken to more who are more uncomfortable with it than comfortable with it. I don't know if it's if it's something that the council wants to discuss. I I can honestly go either way,

440
02:00:52.239 --> 02:01:07.840
but I see their point about, you know, in that scenario, you would be seated in for two years versus or up to two years versus an entire four years. It's a lot of whatifs. I get it. But, you know, the point of elections is to put the people in place that you want. And this, I

441
02:01:07.840 --> 02:01:22.960
think, extends the power of the council at the time to be able to put someone in that seat for a much longer time than maybe the the electorate would would like to see. >> I'm in agreement with you. I as I stated last meeting.

442
02:01:22.960 --> 02:01:40.320
>> So I John, how do you feel about it? >> No new comments. >> Okay, >> let's go with that. Yeah. >> Okay. So may is it if it's just two of us then I'm not going to continue down that path but it it's just wanted to bring it up that that is an issue.

443
02:01:40.320 --> 02:01:56.880
>> I don't disagree with you. I think that it's most important that we ensure that we've got the split every that we don't have a full slate that's being up for election. Um and I think that's what they were trying to do. And the other

444
02:01:56.880 --> 02:02:13.040
side of it is the voters will decide. I mean if they support it then they support it. If they don't, they don't. >> Very true. Very true. >> That is question number three. Yeah, >> that is question three. >> And I don't know that the um what I was trying to get at there was

445
02:02:13.040 --> 02:02:28.639
was I lost my train of thought as soon as you said number three. It made my brain go off. >> That's all right. It it was it was I don't I don't think that keeping it the way that it is doesn't alter it. still it would just shift when three and when

446
02:02:28.639 --> 02:02:44.000
two would you vote on much like is happening this November. So whether it stays the same or it moves it's not going to change how that 32 vote happens every other year. It just but to your point it's going to go to the referendum

447
02:02:44.000 --> 02:02:58.800
and people will either vote for it or they won't and it would just revert back then to what it is now. >> So that's a very good point. >> You want me to make one more attempt >> or are you guys retired? No. Okay, I'll make one more attempt. Um, and and this

448
02:02:58.800 --> 02:03:14.000
is what I had to weigh because I can see both sides of this issue. I I like trying to eliminate the 4-1 split. I think that is so important. I think it is outweighed though,

449
02:03:14.000 --> 02:03:31.040
you know, having somebody sit there for that long without it being a voter decision, I think trumps that. We never know. I was surprised in the short time I've been here how many people have uh either retired, chosen to step down,

450
02:03:31.040 --> 02:03:46.480
maybe had an illness. It happens and there's no planning it. Um it it just randomly happens. So um any change of your mind there, John? >> I think let the voters decide.

451
02:03:46.480 --> 02:04:02.719
>> Yeah, I I'm a proponent of letting the voters decide. I just wanted it on the record that >> people are out there and if they decide they don't want it, it's not going to change. But I >> there's no scenario whether it changes or doesn't where it's a four vote for council this time and one vote for another. >> At least that's the way I I interpret

452
02:04:02.719 --> 02:04:19.679
it. Is that correct Nancy? No matter what it ends up being, it's always going to be three and two. It's never going to be a four and one. >> That is correct. >> Unless unforeseen circumstances where >> the way it's written right now, it could be 41 or 5. Yes. >> Good. Right. If if multiple people uh

453
02:04:19.679 --> 02:04:35.520
for whatever reason uh are no longer able to serve, then yes, you could run into that situation. But typically that that doesn't happen. >> Well, technically you could do it with the way the changes are written. Technically, four of us could have a heart attack tomorrow and then you would have four people that would be up for a

454
02:04:35.520 --> 02:04:51.440
vote under the same circumstances. So, you're not solving that issue by changing it. That's >> right. >> The whatifs could be whatifs, but I'm comfortable with keeping it where it's at to let the voters decide. Is there a motion for the ordinance 26-08 for the chart charter changes?

455
02:04:51.440 --> 02:05:07.040
>> Is there public comment? >> Oh, public comment. I'm sorry. Thank you, Nancy. Public comment, >> Jim. >> No questions. All right, we'll close public comment. We'll bring it back to the council. >> I'll go ahead and move it. >> All right. Got a motion by councelor King.

456
02:05:07.040 --> 02:05:22.719
>> I'll second. I also want to thank the charter review committee. Jim, you did a fantastic job, me and your team. Thank you. A lot of heavy lifting going on. Now it's up to the voters to decide. >> Y it should be. >> All right. If there's no other discussion, councelor King, >> I.

457
02:05:22.719 --> 02:05:37.199
>> Vice Mayor Sappford. >> I. >> Councelor Link. I >> Councelor Mlan. I >> And I'm an I as well. That motion carries unanimously. >> Thanks again, Jim. >> Um Mayor Councel, >> are we decommissioned? >> Yes, you were decommissioned I think on the seventh. >> Love that. >> You're fired.

458
02:05:37.199 --> 02:05:52.719
>> Jim, thanks. I think um I speak for Amy as well. We want to thank the council and um our chair of the charter commission for getting this done in a very timely manner um because there is a very tight timeline to getting this to

459
02:05:52.719 --> 02:06:08.920
the supervisor and we are now on schedule. >> Love it. Thanks again. >> Thank you. >> All right. Does anybody need to take a brief break? >> I would like to fill up my water cup. >> Okay. We will take a 10-minute break and reconvene at 11:15.

460
02:16:08.159 --> 02:16:23.679
All right, we're going to call the meeting back to order. It is 11:15. Our next agenda item is administrative and it is the continuation of last discussion of the fiscal year 2627 budget hearing dates. Nancy, Amy, Will,

461
02:16:23.679 --> 02:16:38.479
who wants to >> Well, we had discussion last time uh trying to select some dates. >> Everybody get their calendars out >> for this. So, staff uh based on the conflicts that came up last week, we uh pushed it to this our last council meeting, we pushed to this one. Now, we

462
02:16:38.479 --> 02:16:55.120
recommend the first uh budget hearing on Monday, September 14th, and the second and final budget hearing on Monday, September 28th. >> I knew you were going to say that. >> I'm sorry. These are our recommendations. Uh those would give us the proper 14-day interval uh between

463
02:16:55.120 --> 02:17:11.280
the two two proposed hearing dates. Both starting at 5:01 p.m. I'd like to add as well. >> I already made plans to be out of town that last week of October, assuming that we would have a meeting September, I'm sorry, >> including September 28th. >> Yeah. So, I'll be gone that entire week.

464
02:17:11.280 --> 02:17:25.599
>> So, may I interject here? >> Please do. >> Um I think last meeting you all agreed on the 23rd was a good date for you. >> Yes. Um, which because of advertising requirements for the trim, excuse me, the ads and all that, we'd have to maybe

465
02:17:25.599 --> 02:17:42.880
go to Wednesday the 2nd of September. I don't know how that works for everyone. Or we >> second or the 9th >> or is that the nth governor's conference on the 9th? >> Sorry, that was I was the main conflict.

466
02:17:42.880 --> 02:17:58.719
>> Oh, that's right. Three conflicts, I believe. >> Yeah, there were multiple conflicts with the ninth. the nine. I can't do the nine. >> Well, it's the fourth through the >> 12th. >> So, I'm hearing the second maybe. >> The sec? I can do the second. >> I can do the second.

467
02:17:58.719 --> 02:18:14.800
>> I can do the second. >> Yep. I can do the second. >> Is that okay with second? It is. >> Oh, wait. Joe is >> That was saying the earliest he could do it is the third, but that's the third is Lee County's date, >> correct? We can't do it before Lee County, which is on this. >> That's right. Okay.

468
02:18:14.800 --> 02:18:31.280
>> On the second. >> Yes. the 4th May. Oh, that's right before the holiday. >> How about July 31st or uh August 31st? Sorry, not July. >> We We can't We can't We Yeah, we can't

469
02:18:31.280 --> 02:18:45.840
do it before. >> We can't do it before Lee County or at the same date as Lee County, >> which is on September 2nd. >> What about the ETH? >> Once again, I'm with that town. I'm sorry.

470
02:18:45.840 --> 02:19:07.120
>> Oh, boy. the new guy >> be the first meeting >> and then have a second one. We can't >> No, we have advertising requirements 10 days in there, >> right? >> And we Oh, that that you're gone that entire week. Second week, right, John?

471
02:19:07.120 --> 02:19:27.120
>> I am. Yeah. And I planned that before I could even >> Yeah. No, I remember. I just couldn't remember if it was the entire week. The only date it seems it's going to work unfortunately is the 4th. >> I That's what I was just discussing with Tracy. I know it's a long weekend. I know it's a Friday, but it looks like

472
02:19:27.120 --> 02:19:42.639
that might be the only day >> that we are going to have everybody here for that first meeting. >> I I won't be here for the fourth. >> For the fourth >> or at least four out of the five >> midnight on um the third. >> Can we do it with four is going to be my next question.

473
02:19:42.639 --> 02:19:59.520
>> The first the first meeting. Yes, I believe we can do it with four, right, Amy? Um, it'll be the second meeting where >> Well, I could also technically could also do it with four at the second meeting, but if there but if there's something that requires a supermajority, uh, I obviously we wouldn't have enough

474
02:19:59.520 --> 02:20:14.960
of a council. So, I I'd really prefer all five for the second. >> But the fourth, the first reading, yes, >> it'll be in the middle of >> I can, but it will be starting at like 11:30 at night and then it goes for how many hours? Yeah,

475
02:20:14.960 --> 02:20:31.120
>> you've just lost your two days. >> I mean, let me put it this way. I will make every attempt to be able to zoom in. If not, I'm confident that my fellow counselors will be able to hash out what they need and then when I get back, I

476
02:20:31.120 --> 02:20:48.080
will absolutely, you know, review and speak with staff. >> Are you going to be I guess I should be on record. Um, are you going to be at a place where you can receive >> That's what I mean. I don't know. >> You don't know because you don't know when you're going to be at your hotel or

477
02:20:48.080 --> 02:21:06.160
whatever. >> Well, I assume I'll be at my hotel at 11:30 at night. >> Oh, John, we know you. Come on. >> That's all I can say is I will make every attempt to be available remotely. >> So, can we go back to the 9th and the 20th?

478
02:21:06.160 --> 02:21:22.319
>> Councelor King, can actually attend a meeting from a hospital bed. I can attend a meeting from from a hotel room >> set in the bar there. Big >> set. >> Coincidentally enough, I was at the bar. >> Make sure your wife doesn't have

479
02:21:22.319 --> 02:21:39.680
anything planned the next day. So, we'll make between the fourth and the >> just set it for the 9th and hopefully councelor Mlan can make it via >> the nth better fourth would be better. The fourth would be better for me because um

480
02:21:39.680 --> 02:21:56.399
>> I know where I'll be on the fourth and I also know that my children won't all be with me on the 4th and on the 9th. It is the whole family together. >> Well, I hit the four I it is what it is. meeting.

481
02:21:56.399 --> 02:22:12.640
>> So, are we back to >> back to the fourth >> September 4th and then >> time >> for the sec at 50:01 p.m. and then the second meeting being >> 23rd. >> September 23rd.

482
02:22:12.640 --> 02:22:28.160
>> Yeah. >> At 5:01 p.m. >> Do we have all five at September 23rd, 5:01 p.m.? >> I will be here for that. Yes. >> I'm here. >> I'm here. I'm good. Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

483
02:22:28.160 --> 02:22:44.000
>> And may I interject one more time? What about your regular meeting for those days? Do you want them at I think we suggested 100 p.m. those days, not 9:00 a.m. >> Oh, so you want to move the the dates is

484
02:22:44.000 --> 02:23:00.399
what you're saying for >> We don't have currently have any September dates set other than these two that you just set for budget only. It's I mean it's fine with me. >> So from the first moving it to the fourth for the regular meeting,

485
02:23:00.399 --> 02:23:16.560
>> right? We don't have the first scheduled yet, >> but on the 4th, we'd hold the regular business meeting at 1:00 p.m. and then go into budget at 501 or whenever the meeting is the first

486
02:23:16.560 --> 02:23:33.120
meeting is over as long as it's after 5:01 p.m. And then on the 23rd, same thing. Regular meeting at 1 p.m. budget hearing after at least past 5:01 p.m. >> Okay. So, we're just moving. >> I'm going to ask a question. Um, will

487
02:23:33.120 --> 02:23:52.800
how many of your staff would have to be here on Friday if we did it on the 4th? >> Um, it would require all the directors, myself, the deputy. >> So, I I would like us to weighing all

488
02:23:52.800 --> 02:24:08.000
those people to be here on a long weekend that may like to go out of town. That's a big ask. Um versus what John had recommended that he is okay if he can make it, maybe not,

489
02:24:08.000 --> 02:24:23.680
but he will be fully up to speed for our second one. Um and that way we're not inconveniencing so many staff on a a long weekend. Do you have some thoughts about that, John? Before if I can sorry before I say that I just that that would

490
02:24:23.680 --> 02:24:39.840
be my preference that all the directors and of course the finance director and and >> two executive leaders be here. >> However, I will like we always do we'll work with the directors to ensure that their second is ready to speak on those matters if they have a family vacation

491
02:24:39.840 --> 02:24:57.080
or something planned. I'm not going to be so hard as to uh you know uh make them change any plans uh to be here for that. Well, but the staff will be prepared regardless. >> And I appreciate you you guys accommodating us. I'm I'm just making sure we're

492
02:24:57.280 --> 02:25:12.479
>> Okay. You want to reiterate one more time, Amy, of the times of all four meetings? Just so everybody >> So, if I'm understanding this correctly, on uh Friday, September 4th, at 1 p.m., we'll have the regular town council meeting. and starting at 5:01 p.m. or

493
02:25:12.479 --> 02:25:29.600
later depending on what time the regular meeting gets over the budget hear the first round of budget hearings. Then the second meeting will have um will be on Wednesday, September 23rd, 1:00 again for the regular business meeting and 501

494
02:25:29.600 --> 02:25:48.720
or later depending on what time the regular meeting gets over for the final budget hearings. >> Got it. Got it. >> Okay. >> Thank you all very much. >> Do you want to do we need a motion? >> Yes, please.

495
02:25:48.720 --> 02:26:04.800
>> I will make a motion to approve the said dates and times as laid out by the town clerk previously. >> I'll second. >> Got a motion and a second. Any further discussions? Uh I'm an I. Vice Mayor Sford. Hi. >> Councelor Kane. Hi. >> Councelor Link. Hi.

496
02:26:04.800 --> 02:26:21.359
>> Councelor Mlan. Hi. >> That motion carries unanimously. The next item is a special event for the Festival of the Arts. This is an approval of a special event for the Fort Myers Beach Festival of Arts to be held on January 23rd and 24th, 2027 at Times

497
02:26:21.359 --> 02:26:37.200
Square, Fort Myers Beach from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. As requested by Daniel Lynch of Blue Ribbon Events, including setup, event operations and breakdown, approximately 40 to 60 artists and vendor booths featuring fine art, handmade goods, artisian art, crafts,

498
02:26:37.200 --> 02:26:52.399
boutique merchandise, artist demonstrations, possible bottled alcohol sales, and community art activities along with portable restroom facilities and event support amenities subject to further approval by the Fort Myers Beach Fire Control District and Lee County

499
02:26:52.399 --> 02:27:07.920
Sheriff's Office. >> Hi. For the record, my name is Nora Skipper. I'm the special events coordinator in digital marketing for the town of Fort Myers Beach. It's a pleasure to be with you this Monday. I currently have the applicant on a Zoom call, but we know how technology is. So, I'm happy to be available, but I hope to

500
02:27:07.920 --> 02:27:25.760
let Danielle Lynch take it from here. Danielle, are you available? >> I am available. >> Perfect. Thank you so much. Take it away. >> Um, does anybody have any questions? I have previously been on the island with other events. However, it's been a while

501
02:27:25.760 --> 02:27:42.640
since before hurricane visited. Pretty much going to be doing exactly the same thing that we used to do down in the Lover's Key location. That location is not going to be viable for a while due to the debris removal. So, we are looking at bringing back two of the

502
02:27:42.640 --> 02:27:59.200
previous events and adding an additional third one to be able to bring handcrafted fine uh creations to the area. Um, I feel that this could be an added benefit to the residents of Port as we are still struggling to have

503
02:27:59.200 --> 02:28:15.439
businesses up and running for business. Does anybody have any questions on the layout or any of the logistics of the event? >> Council MLAN. Uh I don't have any questions. >> Councelor Link.

504
02:28:15.439 --> 02:28:31.280
>> Yes, Mayor. I have a couple questions. Hi Danielle. Um my question first would be to Will. Are there any lessons learned? Um Tom Yazo is not here, but anything that we learned from the markets that we've done in previous

505
02:28:31.280 --> 02:28:48.240
years that we might want to uh make any modifications, now would be the time. Daniel, I'm wondering if there would be food and alcohol possibly and perhaps we put those in areas where they're not competing with another establishment. You know, try to h have uh happy

506
02:28:48.240 --> 02:29:04.399
neighbors. thoughts around those things and issues that we might be able to negate. >> Perfect. Perfect. So, historically speaking for me, and again, I'm going to come from being a resident. I was a former resident of Fort. I've also had

507
02:29:04.399 --> 02:29:21.359
multiple shop fronts in various sizes um in areas where I pay rent every single day. I traditionally in a venue like this do not bring any food or drink in. Instead, I like to support the local businesses. There are restaurants and

508
02:29:21.359 --> 02:29:36.640
things that are right in Time Square that I feel can provide those services. I generally bring in two additional portable bathrooms to facilitate our event patrons and also the artist so that we are not uh overstressing any of

509
02:29:36.640 --> 02:29:52.080
the local municipality services. I have discussed with Nora if we need to provide for garbage removal daily, we will provide services for that. as well. Uh, historically speaking for me, I'm kind of known for my logistics. I run a

510
02:29:52.080 --> 02:30:09.520
very tight lead shift. My load in and out are in a very professional quick manner. Um, or my participants don't participate with me. That's kind of the way that I've sort of run. Um, I have talked to Norah about some of my concerns with the ongoing improvements

511
02:30:09.520 --> 02:30:26.960
that are going down in Time Square and I believe that her and I have discussed that closer to the date like there in October, we will come down, look at the venue space and talk about any changes to the map or anything to accommodate the new things that are happening.

512
02:30:26.960 --> 02:30:42.080
I'm known for playing well with others. So, anything that I can do to facilitate the businesses around them that we're not impacting them, I'm more than agreeable. >> Perfect. Daniel, >> I did notice that one of the council members had talked about closed bottle

513
02:30:42.080 --> 02:30:58.240
sales. Nor and I have talked about on the um application. I'm not intending on having any open container sales going on for liquor in any way, shape, or form unless I was going to facilitate one of the not for profits to be able to

514
02:30:58.240 --> 02:31:13.520
generate income for their not for profit from that. But again, I'm more than easy to not have that happen. Um the other thing is when they say closed bottle sales, the way that that happens is I do work with three different small craft

515
02:31:13.520 --> 02:31:29.600
distilleries that are in Florida that have special licenses where they are allowed to sell closed bottles. They can't provide any open things or anything like that, but they're allowed to sell their closed bottles for consumption off location at

516
02:31:29.600 --> 02:31:45.040
their home residence. Perfect. >> I wanted to clarify that that was that that was allowed with the municipality guidance. >> Danielle, thank you. And I'm sure you'll work together with Norah closer because uh things will change between now and then. That's that's my questions.

517
02:31:45.040 --> 02:32:02.080
>> If I could address your question to me, councelor link and then just Danielle, this is Will Mccana, town manager. Thank you for working with Nora and the staff. I'd just like to reiterate that uh um if if the staff hasn't already asked you to, please definitely work with the the business owners in in the the area where

518
02:32:02.080 --> 02:32:17.359
you'll be setting up to make sure that uh you know your your your layout is compliant as not to restrict ingress or egress to their businesses. It sounds like you're already planning it that way, but I just want to reiterate that and I like in advance. Thank you for

519
02:32:17.359 --> 02:32:33.280
your flexibility. There will be some construction probably beginning or there's possibly going to be some construction beginning um around that time if not before in the Times Square area as well as we have ongoing town projects. Uh we will definitely work

520
02:32:33.280 --> 02:32:49.520
with you in advance um to make sure that you can make the necessary adjustments. Thank you. >> Perfect. Perfect. >> Danielle, >> I did have one other >> Go ahead. >> Go ahead. I'm sorry. I don't I don't have an ability to raise my hand, so I apologize. But I did have one other

521
02:32:49.520 --> 02:33:05.520
question as far as the event usage space of Time Square down there. Uh Nor and I have talked about some of my possible uh frustrations about the amount of events

522
02:33:05.520 --> 02:33:21.760
going on there preceding my three bigger events. Uh historically I spend quite a bit money on advertising, marketing and promoting not only for this event but also to help out the businesses that are locally if they're doing specials and things like that which takes a lot of

523
02:33:21.760 --> 02:33:39.280
time, effort and energy from me. Um I would really like to consider or propose to the council that possibly the the uh proposal that I am not going to have a conflicting event that would compete with me within two weeks of my event.

524
02:33:39.280 --> 02:33:55.040
And can we have that conversation, please? >> Well, I'm assuming you're referring to the farmers market that goes on there every year. I >> I I'm actually not referring to the farmers market per se because I'm very familiar with that, but I am referring

525
02:33:55.040 --> 02:34:10.880
to the quote holiday events that she was doing every single weekend in December of last year and in January. Those are direct competition for a larger scale holiday event. Farmers markets are set up different than a holiday party and

526
02:34:10.880 --> 02:34:26.479
craft show event. That is direct competition for a larger event like this. >> Well, I'm glad you said that, Danielle, because I'm seeing direct competition with what you're potentially proposing here with alcohol sales and having the breweries in there for the businesses

527
02:34:26.479 --> 02:34:42.960
that are already existing. Now, if they're going to be providing the service, that's different for me versus you having another vendor come in and provide a service that the Times Square merchants are already providing. And then have you all the other concern I have is I don't believe this time frame

528
02:34:42.960 --> 02:34:59.520
that Lynhal Park will be completed at that time. And I don't see anything in here referring to you talked about your load in your load out, but I don't see anything here saying where you're going to have all these people park. Um just gonna have them find their own spot. out there on their own or have you worked with the staff to figure out a parking

529
02:34:59.520 --> 02:35:14.319
plan whether it be under the bridge or somewhere else? >> Yes. So, I'm going to do all of those but there are also some private lots that I know um again I was a resident and I participated in film festivals for many years as an artist. There are lots

530
02:35:14.319 --> 02:35:30.160
that I can go and talk to the owners to facilitate us to park at a set flat rate. They some of these owners have done that for other events. So I would be agreeable to going doing that and providing my participants a reduced option for them versus parking in the

531
02:35:30.160 --> 02:35:48.640
municipality parks. >> And if you could also advertise the off island parking where they can take um you know the bus for what 75 cents. >> Yeah. They're never that would be huge. >> They got to drive in and unload all their stuff and they're never going to use that. >> Well, I mean guests.

532
02:35:48.640 --> 02:36:05.040
>> Oh, guests for sure. Guests. Yeah. Yeah. Okay, Scott, any questions? >> Yes. Yes, I have no problem with that. The other thing that the comment with the alcohol. I wanted to clarify that again. Nor and I had the conversation and she'll tell you I said I'm not doing

533
02:36:05.040 --> 02:36:20.720
any open liquor sales unless she said, "Let's put it in there just because we want to cover our bases in one meeting." The only alcohol sales that I'm proposing at this point would be closed bottles for offuse

534
02:36:20.720 --> 02:36:36.479
consumption. So meaning like if there's a liquor store there, I didn't think there was a liquor store there. That would be direct competition. These people are not buying bottles to take to their car or the beach to drink. It's a seal bottle like they would purchase any place and then take it for future

535
02:36:36.479 --> 02:36:53.600
consumption. It would be like Caribbean Caribbean distillery. One of them ever distillery is another one that works with there. They're both local, but again, they're not selling cocktails or anything like that. So, I would love some clarification on that to make sure we're conforming with what the city want.

536
02:36:53.600 --> 02:37:08.960
>> Well, I mean, it's Fort Mary's Beach. That sounds good on paper, >> but we all know, you know, people are going to buy if they can buy a six-ack of >> beer from they're going to take it out to the beach with them. and and to me that's a direct conflict with the the

537
02:37:08.960 --> 02:37:23.520
Times Square merchants. So that I'm not comfortable with that, but I'm just one vote. That's just my two cents. But Scott, what were you going to say? >> Uh, no. I've known Danielle for a number of years and she puts on a, you know, she does what she says she's going to

538
02:37:23.520 --> 02:37:39.600
do. So, I'm super comfortable with her. >> Well, yeah. For me, it's not about comfortability. It's it's about protecting those that are there 365 days a year. And how would that have an impact on what they're going to do or their business? We we've all gotten the

539
02:37:39.600 --> 02:37:56.080
calls and I'm not saying Danielle your your people would do this, but you can only control so much. And I don't know about anybody else, but I got tired of getting calls saying, "Hey, they're blocking my business again. They're setting up blocking my business again." And then we got to send staff down there to be the heavy hand of the law to move

540
02:37:56.080 --> 02:38:13.120
them around and nobody's happy. Now again, Danielle, I'm not saying you're going to do that. I'm just saying it's more than likely going to happen because it's happened every single year and it's nobody's fault. It's just the person thinks they could set up wherever they want and I just want to make sure that we're cognizant of that and I won't

541
02:38:13.120 --> 02:38:31.200
reiterate my alcohol comments, but >> John, >> perfect and I appreciate that. I know I know you haven't worked with me before at all. So, I'm looking forward to working with you and bringing all of these events back to Fortn. I think it's been a you know, all say it's been a

542
02:38:31.200 --> 02:38:48.319
hell of a five years and it will be nice to have lots of nice normal things back on the island and I think this is a good starting point for us. I do feel that people are ready and are ready to come and do some signature events there. We've shown with Sam sculpting competition the last few years there the

543
02:38:48.319 --> 02:39:04.080
impact of the occurred and spent breaks. So, anything that I can do to be agreeable with the city and stay within your guidelines, I am willing to work hand in hand with >> So, I think we we would have liked to have seen maybe some public comment from

544
02:39:04.080 --> 02:39:20.399
some of the local businesses. Um, I can think of a couple people that could have come and spoke for others, but I think Danielle, as long as you're open to future discussions, >> you know, because me, we may want to hear some things from our businesses that I haven't thought about. So, if we

545
02:39:20.399 --> 02:39:37.840
do, Nora will take them to you and cooperation is what I sound what it sounds like you're willing to do, >> John. >> Perfect. Perfect. And then the the other the other major uh development that I'm not sure if everybody there is aware of,

546
02:39:37.840 --> 02:39:54.319
but Lee County has signed off on my event. We do have an agreement in place. We will be having a um a uniformed officer on location and a vehicle from 11 to 3 on both Saturday and Sunday during peak hours to make sure that

547
02:39:54.319 --> 02:40:11.680
we're not having any traffic obstacles or any businesses being blocked or anything else. They will be on my payroll from 11 to 3 on both during the busiest times of all of those events to make sure that everything is running smooth. >> Now, K.

548
02:40:11.680 --> 02:40:27.439
>> Thank you. Um, I guess if I'm understanding correctly, I've got a a problem with blocking out a a week ahead and a week after. uh if somebody has already been doing that on this island previously um that that bothers me and

549
02:40:27.439 --> 02:40:46.319
and calling it competition. I think this island would welcome uh difference from week to week. So I I I just don't see that as something that uh I could agree to >> and and I can appreciate that. I'm not asking for you to to block out a week

550
02:40:46.319 --> 02:41:01.359
before or week after. A week after doesn't do any any good. The only thing that I'm asking for is consideration that they're not running a duplicate exact event. You know, again, farmers markets are completely different than an art and crafts show. They are structured

551
02:41:01.359 --> 02:41:17.280
totally different. They draw different people to them. Historically, farmers markets are supposed to be providing local food and other type things that they can't get in the stores versus more of the handcrafted items. Um, so that's the only clarification again is

552
02:41:17.280 --> 02:41:33.040
something I'm saying. I don't unsure to expect me to invest a lot of money in the community if for the two weeks before I'm going to be there for a proposed larger event there are two other exact same events in some way shape or form going on. That's the

553
02:41:33.040 --> 02:41:48.000
consideration I'm looking for. >> Um this is Abigail Eberhart. Um I spearhead this process with Nora. We process these applications and these permits in the order they are received. Danielle, yours was received first. However, we are currently processing the

554
02:41:48.000 --> 02:42:04.319
other special permit um application and we do not find a conflict and so we will be moving forward with processing that permit in the order of fairness. Um we have to give everyone an opportunity to have an event and as long as processes are followed, we feel comfortable

555
02:42:04.319 --> 02:42:20.880
submitting um and allowing that permit to move forward. So, the farmers market will be moving forward contingent on LCSO and fire approval and this council's approval. >> I I have a question if you don't mind, Abigail and Nora. Um, I'm not sure that

556
02:42:20.880 --> 02:42:37.200
it's permitted, but I'm love the bike parade every year. What do we know what date that's going to occur this coming year? >> The bike parade. >> December 19th. >> December 19th. >> We do not have an application for that yet. I was talking about the farmers

557
02:42:37.200 --> 02:42:52.720
market just then. >> Technically, it doesn't require a permit because it's public road, but we will be filing a permit like we did last year. >> So, didn't Danielle say that the farmers market does not compete with her event?

558
02:42:52.720 --> 02:43:08.399
So, it sounds like we're okay. Danielle, do you agree? Did I hear you right? >> Yes, ma'am. I'm Yes, ma'am. I'm not discussing the quot farmers market. What I'm discussing and can exactly on this. I'm discussing the other

559
02:43:08.399 --> 02:43:25.840
>> quote holiday art and craft shows that 41 markets or whatever did in addition to the farmers market. So there were events that were both Saturday and Sunday and were considered to be an art and craft show, not the farmers market. They were structured different. That's

560
02:43:25.840 --> 02:43:42.319
what I'm asking for clarification on. So in my discussion, there were previous uh events and there has been an application that is currently in processing for the June 15th council that encompasses a broad scope of events uh from a Miss Linda Miller. Uh that event is what

561
02:43:42.319 --> 02:43:57.120
we've traditionally seen as the events that have been happening in Sini Plaza as well as Times Square and that that is what I believe she is referring to in terms of their request for uh occasional Thursdays, Saturdays or Fridays that can

562
02:43:57.120 --> 02:44:14.080
sometimes overlap. In that application Linda Miller has sent to me, there are a couple dates that have overlapped. Uh and in order of fairness, that's why these 2027 events have been pushed to in front of you today. So obviously I leave your the discretion

563
02:44:14.080 --> 02:44:30.560
to you, but that is currently what I've been seeing from my end in terms of the requests. To make it simplistic, I've requested the applicants to put all of their requested events to more bunch them together so we're not having staff time and council time to continually approve. So we will be seeing in that

564
02:44:30.560 --> 02:44:47.040
blue sheet a larger scope event of Linda Miller's requests from both Santini Plaza as well as a Times Square event. Again, I leave the discretion to you, but that is currently what I'm seeing in terms of a couple conflicts. Uh, these events are much more limited in scope than what I've seen from Linda Miller in

565
02:44:47.040 --> 02:45:04.240
terms of dates. Uh, but that is just what I wanted for your information to put forward. >> Thank you. Of course. >> Well, I agree with Abby. It's kind of first come, first serve. You got to be fair, right? Correct. So, >> I'm not a fan of saying, you know, you

566
02:45:04.240 --> 02:45:20.880
get a weak buffer. To me, it doesn't I would hope people would want to do the same. I don't know. They're the same vendors. Maybe they're not even the same vendors. I don't know. But >> I'm not opposed to approving this. And if nobody is against the if I'm the only

567
02:45:20.880 --> 02:45:36.640
one against the the booth that's going to sell alcohol, then, you know, I'm the only one. But I just think that's not fair to the to the businesses that are there again every single day selling the exact same thing.

568
02:45:36.640 --> 02:45:53.040
>> Of course. >> So does anybody else have that issue that I have? >> Well, with the box sale, I guess it would be bottled sale, however you worded it here, >> possible bottled alcohol. >> Yeah, it's possible excluding I mean there is a liquor store there now, not

569
02:45:53.040 --> 02:46:13.040
in Time Square, but right in the district. I nobody else. Okay, then someone make a motion. Just >> Mr. Mayor, I want to clarify here. It's for open container of the entire Times Square. So, they could purchase from Buffalo. They could purchase from Los

570
02:46:13.040 --> 02:46:30.000
Solas and bring it into Time Square and drink. >> That's not what it says. >> I think it it is. They want open container for all of Time Square. >> I don't see anything here that says open container. I see possible bottled alcohol sales. >> They asked for open container ordinance >> for the special events, right? They did ask for an open container waiver on their application. Uh in terms of the

571
02:46:30.000 --> 02:46:44.640
vendors that are applying to this event, it is just simple bottled sales. I wanted to give maximum flexibility in case for the permit in case someone decides to open it. If that was what the applicant was requesting, then I wanted to put that forward to you. >> We don't imagine they're going to buy it

572
02:46:44.640 --> 02:47:01.760
and then hold it, not drink it. We find that >> that's opposite of what Danielle said. >> Yeah. Can we remove that from the application? Open containers. I I don't have an issue with if if someone's going to buy a beer from Lola and they're going to walk through the event in Times Square. I don't have an issue with that.

573
02:47:01.760 --> 02:47:17.439
Where I have an issue is if I'm selling knickknacks and I also decide if this is approved as written, I want to sell you a six-ack of Kors Light based on the way it's worded. I could do that. I'm not Danielle. I'm just I'm just saying based on the way it's worded, I could

574
02:47:17.439 --> 02:47:33.120
technically do that. >> And that's what I'm trying to eliminate. I'm not against the if you want to buy a beer from one of the restaurants or one of the the merchants and you're walking through Times Square. >> I'm just trying to protect Time Square merchants from someone that's selling me a plaque that says Dan's Place also

575
02:47:33.120 --> 02:47:48.960
says, "Oh, by the way, for an extra dollar, I'll throw in a six-ack of beer." >> So, I think it has to be one or the other. I don't think we can sell alcohol. It either has to be open container or not. I don't think we can sell alcohol and then just hope they don't open it. It's kind of like in New Orleans with a drive-through dairy. you kind of assume they're going to drink

576
02:47:48.960 --> 02:48:05.680
and drive. >> So, I think it either needs to be open container or we don't allow any sale of alcohol even if it's from the vendor booth. Does that make sense? >> I would agree. >> We're saying the same thing, but >> we're saying the same thing, but when you say possible bottled alcohol sales

577
02:48:05.680 --> 02:48:22.240
to me, that means any vendor that wants to sell alcohol can do it. >> Correct. >> Okay. Yeah. So, it's we we can >> I don't think it has to be one I don't think it has to be one or the other. You can allow open container, but you're not allowing the sale of it.

578
02:48:22.240 --> 02:48:38.399
The people that can sell it already are licensed to sell it. This is this is giving the ability to those who don't have the license to sell it to be able to sell, >> right? Then so we need to disallow that from happening with this event. >> I would I would feel comfortable saying possible bottled sales removed. Okay.

579
02:48:38.399 --> 02:48:55.840
>> And change that to open, you know, the for those time frames allowing open container in the Times Square area. Perfect. >> Because now at least the vendors can that are currently there, shouldn't say vendors, but the businesses that are there can sell it, but the people that are there to sell Dan's Place signs or

580
02:48:55.840 --> 02:49:10.960
whatever they're selling can't also do it. That's what I'm trying to >> So Danielle, that would mean that if you have any vendors that are breweries, they cannot sell their products. Just so we're all clear. >> Correct. >> I'm with you, Mayor. >> I understand. >> Okay. All right. Then we will

581
02:49:10.960 --> 02:49:27.920
>> clarification. No. For clarification, no closed bottle sales of any type. >> Correct. Correct. >> Whether it be a winery or a six-ack of special beer. >> Correct. I I just think it's I I just think it's fair to the the property owners that are there doing that

582
02:49:27.920 --> 02:49:44.560
currently. And they're not here to defend themselves, but I bet if they were sitting here, they would have a problem with that. >> I certainly would if I own Lola or I own one of the other businesses there. >> No, of course. Of course. >> But you understand, Daniel, what I'm getting at, right? I think. >> Thank you.

583
02:49:44.560 --> 02:49:59.279
>> Oh, yeah. I'm fine with that. I You know, some cities let me, some don't. It's all good. One move. It doesn't matter to me. >> Understood. >> Do you have any objection to that, Scott? >> No, I don't. As long as Daniel's okay with it. >> Okay.

584
02:49:59.279 --> 02:50:15.520
>> I I see see your point of view. And then >> So, no food, no alcohol. We won't compete with restaurants >> or with businesses. >> I don't Does it say specifically? >> I don't say food. I mean, people are selling dips and, you know, this is >> Well, that that's my other question. Did

585
02:50:15.520 --> 02:50:31.600
you >> Did I thought you said you weren't selling food? There wouldn't be food vendors. >> No. Historically, I don't bring any hot food in at all. If there are businesses that support that already, which there are in Time Square, the only food that I

586
02:50:31.600 --> 02:50:47.600
would possibly bring in would be like a kettle corn person or a hot nut person, somebody like that. It's like a grab and go sort of munch while you're walking sort of thing would be it. Like a carne type food thing, not regular food. They have a small impact. They usually sell

587
02:50:47.600 --> 02:51:04.479
one item. I never have more than two of them at an event. >> Okay, >> John. I'm good. >> All right. Is there a motion for the special event for the Which one are we on? This is the arts

588
02:51:04.479 --> 02:51:21.040
>> festival of the arts. I will make a motion to approve the special event permit for the Festival of the Arts to include open container during the hours of the event in the Times Square area contained to the area

589
02:51:21.040 --> 02:51:38.160
that's in the map and no bottled alcohol sales. Is that clear enough? >> Absolutely. >> I'll second that. >> Okay. Got a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? I'm an I. Councelor McLean. Hi, >> Councelor Link. >> Hi, >> Vice Mayor Sanford.

590
02:51:38.160 --> 02:51:52.240
>> Hi, >> and councelor King. >> Hi. >> That motion carries unanimously. >> Next is a special event for the Holly Jolly Market. This is approval of a special event for the Holly Jolly Market to be held on December 19th and December 20th, 2020 26 at Times Square, Fort

591
02:51:52.240 --> 02:52:07.760
Myers Beach from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. requested by Daniel Lynch of the Blue Ribbons events, including approximately 40 to 60 artists and vendor booths featuring homemade goods, holiday gifts, art, fine crafts, boutique merchandise, and bottle alcohol sales along with

592
02:52:07.760 --> 02:52:26.319
portable restroom facilities and event support amenities subject to further approval by the Fort Myers Beach Fire Control District and the Lee County Sheriff's Office. Danielle, still there? >> Yes. I'm so sorry. Um, yeah, it would be structured pretty much the same, but

593
02:52:26.319 --> 02:52:41.279
this is a holiday market, so you're not looking at as much fine art and crafts, the big wall paintings and things like that. They will be more of that sort of $100 and below price point where it's a more giftable item where they can

594
02:52:41.279 --> 02:52:58.000
purchase many gifts instead of just large pieces. >> Any questions, Scott? >> No, sir. >> John, >> nothing. Rebecca, >> no. >> John, >> no. >> All right. Is there a motion to approve? I'll make a motion to approve the

595
02:52:58.000 --> 02:53:13.520
special event for Holly Jolly Market to include open container as previously discussed in the previous special event to be confined to the Times Square area and no bottled alcohol sales.

596
02:53:13.520 --> 02:53:28.880
>> I'll second a motion in a second. Any further discussion? >> I'm an I. >> Councelor Mlan. Councelor Link. >> Hi. >> Vice Mayor Sappford. I councelor King. >> Hi. >> That motion carries unanimously. The last of our special events is for Mermaid Fest. This is seeking approval

597
02:53:28.880 --> 02:53:45.120
of a special event for Mermaid Fest to be held April 17th and 18th, 2027 at Times Square, Fort Myers Beach from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. As requested by Daniel Lynch of Blue Ribbon events, including setup, event operations, and breakdown approximately 40 to 60 artists

598
02:53:45.120 --> 02:54:00.000
and vendor booths featuring nature and Florida themed art, handmade goods, educational nonprofit participation, environmental awareness activities, wellness demonstrations, the mermaid contest with cash awards and related event support amenities along with

599
02:54:00.000 --> 02:54:16.640
portable restroom facilities subject to further approval from the Fort Myers Beach Fire Control District and Lee County Sheriff's Office. Danielle, you want to add anything to this one? >> Well, this was my very first event ever as promoter and I'm bringing it back to the island after it hasn't been there, I

600
02:54:16.640 --> 02:54:31.040
think, for five or six years. So, this one's near and dear to my heart. This is a little more of an ecological thing. Um, I mean, I had turtle time out there and all the local businesses way back when teaching the public about what we can do to help save our waterways and

601
02:54:31.040 --> 02:54:48.399
our beaches along with a lot of the artists that are chosen to participate are ones that are maybe a little more nature themed. They might be upyclcers or recyclers, but they're also people who are featuring a lot of our marvelous creatures through paintings and photographies and things like that where

602
02:54:48.399 --> 02:55:03.840
it's definitely a little more eologically driven. Structured pretty much the same way on the sizing and everything, but there is a mission on this one. >> Okay. Councelor Mlan, any questions? >> No, I love it. >> Councelor Link. >> No, I like this one as well.

603
02:55:03.840 --> 02:55:20.720
>> Vice Mayor Safford? No, I when she had it at le I attended. >> Great. >> The bottle sales here. >> I can't recall. >> Did you go as a merman? >> The answer must have been yes. All right, councelor King. >> I just want to know if he went as a merman.

604
02:55:20.720 --> 02:55:38.160
>> What's that? >> I just want to know. Vice mayor went as a mer man. >> I did have a merman at the last one and he actually won second place. >> Oh, cool. >> No further questions. >> There's a challenge. You just gave Concert King a a goal to hit.

605
02:55:38.160 --> 02:55:54.640
The world's largest mermaid. Man-made. Manmade. Manmade. All right. Is there a motion to approve the special event for the Mermaid Fest on April 17th and 18th in Time Square from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.?

606
02:55:54.640 --> 02:56:10.319
>> So moved. I want to see. >> Second. >> King in a mermaid suit. >> Got a motion by councelor Link. Seconded by Vice Mayor Safford. Any further discussion? Councelor Link >> I. >> Vice Mayor Safford. Hi. >> Councelor King. >> Hi. >> Councelor Mlan. >> Hi. >> And I'm an I as well. Thanks, Danielle.

607
02:56:10.319 --> 02:56:26.319
Look forward to it. >> Thank you so much, council. >> Thank you folks. I'm happy to be back. >> Thank you. Thanks, Nora. >> All right. Our next administrative agenda item is resolution 26-016. It's a quick claim deed to the Johnson's. This is a resolution of the town council of the town of Fort Myers

608
02:56:26.319 --> 02:56:42.880
Beach, Florida, approving the conveyance of the certain real property by quick claim deed to Christopher Lee Johnson and Mary Susan Johnson, authorizing the town manager to execute said quick claim deed, authorizing all appropriate town officials to take all necessary actions to effectuate the conveyance and

609
02:56:42.880 --> 02:56:58.720
providing an effective date. Nancy or Will or whomever? Um, I was I drafted the the quick claim deed, but I don't have too much information about the background. I think this one was one Frankie had worked on. >> Yeah, I don't see an address or a parcel

610
02:56:58.720 --> 02:57:15.800
number. >> So, I had trouble looking this up. >> Yeah. >> Page 202 for anyone looking. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. And 2062 is not find it. >> Yeah. 206. No parcel.

611
02:57:15.920 --> 02:57:32.720
The deed itself lists 6231 Boulevard. >> That's us. >> That's our >> Oh, yeah. Duh. >> I don't think we want to quick clean this over quite yet. >> No, not yet. For the the deed has um on page >> 39 369 Madison Court.

612
02:57:32.720 --> 02:57:49.439
>> It does have the legal description, but I don't have the um Yeah, there you're you're correct, Mayor. >> 369 Madison Court. Um, we did not get the parcel ID number. Um, but there should be a blue sheet

613
02:57:49.439 --> 02:58:09.120
that explains the blue sheet. I think is 202. Let's see. >> Yep. So apparently there's um I think you had a similar request before you at a prior meeting where someone was trying to put in a swimming pool and there was

614
02:58:09.120 --> 02:58:25.760
a concern about erosion next to the seaw wall and um I believe this is basically a similar situation where they want to repair their seaw wall. Um the issue becomes who has ownership of the um the

615
02:58:25.760 --> 02:58:40.399
area where the seaw wall and the water is. And instead of getting into um protracted title litigation over the submerged lands um from a legal perspective, the recommendation is to

616
02:58:40.399 --> 02:58:57.520
just uh provide a quick claim, which means if the town has any type of ownership of the land at issue, we are conveying it. We may have absolutely no title ownership interest at all, but to

617
02:58:57.520 --> 02:59:13.359
actually go through that process and figure out do we or do we not would be very time consuming and costly. Um I don't believe there's any type of specific need for this um area that's

618
02:59:13.359 --> 02:59:29.760
identified in the deed uh that the town has a a use for. Um, and I'll defer to you, Will. And >> no, that is correct, Nancy. Thank you. Who else is working on this? >> It was the community development team, uh, Frankie, working with the the

619
02:59:29.760 --> 02:59:46.800
property owner, similar to, as you mentioned, Nancy, other properties, um, working on the, you know, on their property, wanting to do work on their property where there's some t, you know, seaw wall issues or town property issues. Georgina, do you have any more details than that? It's okay if you don't right now.

620
02:59:46.800 --> 03:00:01.840
>> Okay. Um, so it's it it falls in the same line as the previous uh quick claim two quick claim deeds we've done like this so far. Um, and that's it's all additional I have. >> There's just a couple scriveners errors

621
03:00:01.840 --> 03:00:18.880
that okay are on page 204. There's no names listed next to any of the positions. And then also under the town of Fort Myers Beach, they it's got me listed as Dan Adlers, not Allers. Just want to make sure that those get cleaned up before. >> Absolutely, Mr. Mayor. Yeah,

622
03:00:18.880 --> 03:00:36.560
>> Mr. Stafford has a problem with that. >> No, thank thank you for pointing those out. >> So does Rebecca King. >> Those will be corrected. >> What page do you say? >> 205. >> 205. >> 204 and 205. Some errors on those. Yep. >> Nancy, are you comfortable with

623
03:00:36.560 --> 03:00:52.880
everything that's in here? You >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Legally, everything's here that needs to be here with the exception of those scrier's errors. No. Um, honestly, I think that, um, it really helps as far as, uh, risk management for the town. >> Okay.

624
03:00:52.880 --> 03:01:09.279
>> I concur. >> All right. Is there a motion to approve or deny resolution 26-01 or 106 for the quick clean deed to the Johnson's? >> I'll make a motion to move this forward, mayor. >> Motion by councelor Link. >> I'll second it. >> Seconded by councelor Mlan. Any further

625
03:01:09.279 --> 03:01:24.960
discussion? Councelor Link. >> I approve. Councelor Mlan. >> Hi. >> Councelor King. >> Hi. >> Vice Mayor Safford. Hi. >> And I'm as well. That motion carries unanimously. >> It brings us to item F, which is resolution 26-124.

626
03:01:24.960 --> 03:01:41.600
Mayor Mayor execute mod number two to FDEM contract D1502. This is a resolution of the town of Fort Myers Beach, Lee County, Florida, delegating authority to the mayor to execute modification number two to subgrant agreement contract number 1502

627
03:01:41.600 --> 03:01:57.120
between the Florida Division of Emergency Management and the Town of Fort Myers Beach to extend contract number 1502 to December 31st, 202026 and providing an effective date. >> Chad. >> Chad, please.

628
03:01:57.120 --> 03:02:12.080
>> Good. >> Morning. Oh, just >> good afternoon. Yep. Uh Chad shoots for the record. Uh so this is the FDM uh grant that has been funding our beach projects, including the uh dune plantings that we will be doing more of

629
03:02:12.080 --> 03:02:28.800
and extending this will give us the time to get all of this done. Uh just with all the repeat hurricanes we've been having over the years, we needed to extend it. >> And FDM doesn't have an issue with extending this. >> Correct. This is uh their their agreement and their mod that they

630
03:02:28.800 --> 03:02:43.120
provided for us and just authorizing you as mayor to execute with the uh council's approval. >> Councelor King, any questions? >> None. >> Vice Mayor Safford? >> None. >> Councelor Link. >> Yeah, I just have one question, Chad. Um I'm reading it looked like that contract

631
03:02:43.120 --> 03:03:01.359
expired on March 31st, 2026, so it can be extended retroactive. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Thank you for that, >> Council McLean. No questions. All right. Thanks, Chad. It's all we need. >> No worries. >> Is there a motion for resolution 26-124

632
03:03:01.359 --> 03:03:16.160
for the mayor execute mod number two of FDEM contract D1502? >> I'm all about executing the mayor, so I'll move that. >> Wait a second. >> Oops. I'm sorry. >> Inside voice, John.

633
03:03:16.160 --> 03:03:31.920
>> Got a motion by councelor King. >> I'll second. >> Got a second by councelor Mlan. Any further discussion? Councelor King. >> Hi. >> Councelor Mcclan. >> Hi. >> Councelor Link. >> I. >> Vice Mayor Safford. >> Hi. >> And I'm an I as well. That motion carries unanimously.

634
03:03:31.920 --> 03:03:48.560
>> Item G. This is a resol. This is resolution 26-125, Florida forest service technical assistance grant. This is a resolution of the town of Fort Myers Beach Town Council of the Town of Fort Myers Beach, Florida approving the proposal from Natural Resource Planning Services, Inc.

635
03:03:48.560 --> 03:04:05.200
DBA Legacy Arborous Services to create a tree canopy analysis, tree inventory, and urban forestry management plan to be paid by the Florida Forestry Service with an ININD match from the town using grant funds from the FDEM LAP D1502

636
03:04:05.200 --> 03:04:19.760
authorizing the mayor to sign the acceptance of the proposal and providing for an effective date. Chad? >> Yes. So, it's a little bit of a funky grant that um atypical where we're not actually the grantee. The FDAX is the

637
03:04:19.760 --> 03:04:35.840
grantee and then they are contracting directly with the vendor and we are receiving the services. Um the in kind grant we'll be doing we've already done more than enough plantings with our dune plantings that they would have accepted and we will also be planting additional

638
03:04:35.840 --> 03:04:52.720
trees at beach access as well which will meet the inind match that they are asking for. >> Councelor McLean any questions for Chad? Yeah, I was a little bit confused about the swap for dune planting versus shade and it

639
03:04:52.720 --> 03:05:08.880
appears that it's all within the same budgetary envelope, but could you just explain that a little bit for me? >> The match? No, the this the swap it said there was um towns already under contract with Earthbounds Corporation to

640
03:05:08.880 --> 03:05:24.399
provide dune plantings the amount not to exceed and the payment to Earthbounds for future would be the same amount of LS's services which wasn't clear to me. >> Sure. Um so Earth Balance is also going to be planting some salt tolerant trees

641
03:05:24.399 --> 03:05:40.319
at our beach accesses. So that will be the canopy a more traditional you know treetoree match so to speak. Um, but in talking with FDAX, they would have accepted the dune plantings in and of themselves as a match. Does that answer your question?

642
03:05:40.319 --> 03:05:56.960
>> So, Earthbound, it's going to be that did our dune plantings. Um, they're also going to be coming back and doing additional plantings um for us and those additional plantings will include some canopy trees at our beach accesses. >> Now, I understand. Okay. Thank you very much. >> Yes, sir. You're welcome,

643
03:05:56.960 --> 03:06:13.200
>> Chad. This one gave me a headache. >> Sorry. I apologize. >> It's not your fault. I was just trying to figure out who's on first. >> Yeah. >> Not yesterday and it took me a while. So my question is, >> we are looking at the proposal from L, right? >> Correct.

644
03:06:13.200 --> 03:06:29.439
>> And agreeing that they can do a canopy analysis for us for 2000 and um let's see, >> $8 per tree for the inventory. >> Yeah. The $15,000 urban forest management plan, phase two. And then the one that freaked me a little bit was the

645
03:06:29.439 --> 03:06:44.800
$8 tree, >> right? >> So why can you help me understand why we need this and what will do for us for them to uh you know kind of survey our trees and see what we have? >> Sure. So I think one of the interesting

646
03:06:44.800 --> 03:07:00.720
more interesting outcomes of this will be and it's a little bit of an academic exercise but they will be looking at um a before and after canopy analysis of Hurricane Ian to see um what survived and what didn't and that will help us manage our canopy better in future tree

647
03:07:00.720 --> 03:07:15.680
plantings, what works and what doesn't. Okay. >> Um they'll also be analyzing opportunities for tree plantings, looking at our rightways, uh you know, on side streets. Um you know, a a pipe dream of mine is to go to these different neighborhoods and say, "Hey,

648
03:07:15.680 --> 03:07:32.560
do we want to do a tree theme in your neighborhood? What do you want to plant?" Um we uh we're already starting to do that up on the north of the previous FDAX grant that we got and going to do some royal palms and flowering canopy trees up there. And um

649
03:07:32.560 --> 03:07:49.840
um I think you know continuing that up the side streets where neighborhoods are open to it. And uh what this grant will do is identify those opportunities where we do have rightaway space you know absent of you know um telephone lines and lights etc. So they look at

650
03:07:49.840 --> 03:08:06.160
>> kind of everything um all the different facets of urban forestry planning and will give us a better understanding of what we have and a path forward. Okay. So, my one concern is if so, for every one of those trees they site and they

651
03:08:06.160 --> 03:08:21.760
put on a plan, >> that's that's an $8 expense, right? So, this seems to be open-ended. Can we put a a limit on it or do we do we have any idea how many trees we have? >> What I mean FDA is covering the cost.

652
03:08:21.760 --> 03:08:37.840
So, I guess I don't understand what the concern is. This is there's no cost to the town. >> Correct. >> None for the town. Okay. >> Correct. Is that better? >> That helps. Thanks. >> Yes, ma'am. >> All right. Any other questions for Chad? >> All right. Thanks, Chad.

653
03:08:37.840 --> 03:08:53.760
>> You're welcome. >> All right. If there's no other discussion, is there a motion for resolution 26-125, Florida Forest Service Technical Assistance Grant? >> So moved. >> Motion by Councelor King, second by Councelor Link. >> Any further discussion? >> Councelor King. >> I.

654
03:08:53.760 --> 03:09:08.319
>> Councelor Link. >> I. >> Councelor Mlan. >> Hi. >> Vice Mayor Safford. >> Hi. >> And I'm an I as well. That motion carries unanimously. Item H. This is a resolution 26-122 for STA number 12, Carlos Circle Drainage Tetrate Tech.

655
03:09:08.319 --> 03:09:23.680
This is a resolution of the town council of the town of Fort Myers Beach, Florida, authorizing the town manager or his designate to approve fundamental task authority STA number 12 in the amount of $92,840 with Tetrate Tech under RFQ-22-25-

656
03:09:23.680 --> 03:09:39.040
A for Carlos Circle drainage improvements for utilities and providing for an effective date. Will >> thank you, Mr. Mayor. Due to the continuation of this project into a new fiscal year, the scope provides this will provide us for completion of design

657
03:09:39.040 --> 03:09:53.840
hopefully finalization and permitting um and construction phase support. So if there's any questions about uh where the funding is coming from or any details, Jeff can step up and answer those. >> Councelor Kane. >> Well, you know, I always like to meet

658
03:09:53.840 --> 03:10:12.560
Scott about funding, so >> I got to come up with some new questions. Good afternoon. Jeff Hogy, community services director. Uh this is coming out of the storm water fund. This is kind of tier 1.2. So we know we added on a number of um a

659
03:10:12.560 --> 03:10:28.640
number of projects onto tier one once we saw that the v vulner vulnerability study um showed some more areas. So we did uh a little bit at fair view um we did uh uh se not seaf fairs uh c view some drainage there. And then this was

660
03:10:28.640 --> 03:10:44.319
another one on Carlos Circle. >> Thank you. >> Do you foresee more of these come popping up or is this it? >> No, there uh with this the tier one, we do have other drainage um from our vul

661
03:10:44.319 --> 03:11:01.760
vulnerability um assessment. We did have other ones that are identified. It's just now identifying uh additional funds through maybe appropriations or um those kind of things to get the funds to do that. I know we there's, you know, you probably hear it too, my my street floods, my street floods. So, we're

662
03:11:01.760 --> 03:11:17.520
always looking at new ways um to improve. We just uh need to find a little bit more money um to do those projects, but there's there's a number of um of sites that we did uh identify as is needing a little bit more help. >> Thank you.

663
03:11:17.520 --> 03:11:34.560
>> Can you tell me where um Carlos Circle, the Carlos Carlos Circle drainage is? What? Carlos Circle is on the the north end of town. Um kind of by >> I couldn't narrow it down >> towards Pink Shell. Halfway between Pink Shell and by 7-Eleven. Yeah. 7-Eleven.

664
03:11:34.560 --> 03:11:51.520
North Tower. That area. >> Okay. Is that John? >> It's the only road up there that goes off a stair and comes back to a stair. >> Yeah, it's a loop circle. >> Oh, I know what you mean. Okay. Thank you. >> Just past Lagoon. Yeah, you got Lagoon

665
03:11:51.520 --> 03:12:10.640
then Carlos. Got it. >> King questions. >> Nothing. >> Well, it's like king. >> Oh, I did. I'm sorry. I meant to say, >> but he looked that way. >> Well, I got a king here and a king here and kings everywhere. >> Three kings. >> I don't have any further questions.

666
03:12:10.640 --> 03:12:25.680
Thank you. >> All right. Thank you, Dan. Mr. Mayor, you got any questions? >> No. >> Okay. >> Thanks. >> Any other questions? If not, is there a motion for resolution 26-122 for STA number 12 for Carlos Circle Drainage

667
03:12:25.680 --> 03:12:41.920
Tetrate Tech? >> I'll make a motion for that, Mr. Mayor. >> Councelor Mlan has made the motion. I'll second. Any further discussion? Councelor Mlan >> I. >> And Emmani, Councelor Link, >> I. >> Vice Mayor Seafford. >> I councelor Kane.

668
03:12:41.920 --> 03:13:00.080
>> I. >> That motion carries unanimously. Brings us to our last resolution. This is resolution 26-098 lean reduction request CE case number 2024994 rescheduled to June 1st 2026 from 518 at

669
03:13:00.080 --> 03:13:16.800
the request of Himlstein Associates LLC. This is a resolution of the town of Fort Myers Beach reducing not reducing the amount of lean due and owing the town from $16,250 plus $250 in administrative costs for a total of $16,500

670
03:13:16.800 --> 03:13:33.120
to zero as requested by Himlstein Associates LLC for a violation of keeping or maintaining on the property uh sorry keeping or maintaining a non-compliant structures or structures and or shipping container on the property which was not built to current

671
03:13:33.120 --> 03:13:50.080
flood design codes in a special hazard area in section 6-494 of the FMB code of ordinances providing for an effective date. >> Yes, sir. So, um we've got this obviously on here my as I made clear in

672
03:13:50.080 --> 03:14:05.680
in in the packet um as town manager my recommendation is for no lean reduction. I've got the code manager here to speak to the case in more detail if necessary. Right, Michael? From the town side. Yes. And then we've got I think we have representation from >> Hamilton. >> Yes. Yes.

673
03:14:05.680 --> 03:14:23.319
>> We're going to start with Michael first. >> Yes. This stems from a code enforcement case um special magistrate order entered on September 2nd, 2025 imposing $16,500 in leans against the property owner.

674
03:14:25.439 --> 03:14:39.840
Apologize. The original notice was issued on October 17, 2024. providing the um compliance date for the violation to be November 16th, 2024. Um that was held before the special magistrate and found

675
03:14:39.840 --> 03:14:55.840
in violation on January 7th, 2025 for the storage of shipping containers on the property where it was not permitted. Um property owner failed to come into compliance with that order by March 1st, 2025. Um following that, a status hearing was

676
03:14:55.840 --> 03:15:11.680
held on March 4th, 2025 certifying that the fines um would acrue. And then following that, a status uh fine fine and position hearing was held imposing the $16,500 fine.

677
03:15:11.680 --> 03:15:26.960
>> So I'm just going to add that um the special magistrate's order, just so everyone is on the same page, is on page 285 of your packet. Um, and the certification of the lean amount is on

678
03:15:26.960 --> 03:15:52.319
page 287. >> Uh, councelor Mlan, any questions for Mike? >> Not of Mike. Thank you. >> You're welcome. Councelor League. >> No, this was an awful lot of reading. Thank you. No questions though. >> Councelor Kate, >> nothing currently. >> All right. So I can summarize very

679
03:15:52.319 --> 03:16:07.840
quickly and then I'll turn it over to um council who's representing um Hamilton Associates. So after the um special magistrate rendered his order um the order was recorded in the public records

680
03:16:07.840 --> 03:16:25.279
um your code provides a process to allow a property owner to come to you and request a reduction of any recorded leans and um that that occurred and your code um basically that request first

681
03:16:25.279 --> 03:16:40.319
goes to the town manager who reviews it and can in certain circumstances um provide a satisfaction. If there's full payment, they're going to do a satisfaction and release the lean. Um however, if it is a mere reduction,

682
03:16:40.319 --> 03:16:56.560
there is there are criteria that the town manager needs to uh evaluate and thereafter render a decision whether or not he approves or denies the request for the reduction. And just to keep

683
03:16:56.560 --> 03:17:14.479
everybody together, um, on page 290, um, is Will's letter dated May the 5th. >> Mhm. >> And Mr. Hartell, um, is here representing, um, Hamilton's and associates who disagree with the denial

684
03:17:14.479 --> 03:17:31.520
um, and will provide argument and facts to you. Is that fair? >> Yeah, that's fair. >> Fair summary, huh? >> Thank you. Great summary. Um, Robert Hartzell Hartzell is our EPA uh on behalf of Himlstein Associates. If you

685
03:17:31.520 --> 03:17:52.080
mind if I approach the clerk to hand I have a timeline that'll just help us. I want to go through the timeline with you of what happened. >> Was this timeline also presented to the special magistrate? >> I'm asking. No,

686
03:17:52.080 --> 03:18:09.279
>> no, because Well, go ahead. >> No. The reason it wasn't presented to the special magistrate is cuz I just made it the other day in order to come here for the lean reduction. So, it's to explain the special circumstances that happened

687
03:18:09.279 --> 03:18:26.479
to uh m uh Mr. Himlstein. >> Is there a reason why you didn't prepare this in advance for the special magistrate hearing? >> I did not go to the special magistrate hearing. We actually when there was the the lean filing, we had agreed with council to go ahead and file that.

688
03:18:26.479 --> 03:18:42.160
>> Okay. >> So that was not objected to. >> It was not it was not um argued at that meeting. Um I think you did have a representative there, but they are within their rights to come to you to

689
03:18:42.160 --> 03:18:57.279
ask for a reduction. the magistrate was looking at the facts that code presented to him um and did his determination again um based on his written uh certification of the lean

690
03:18:57.279 --> 03:19:14.319
>> um that I pointed out and he he imposed the lean. But once the lean is imposed, your code does allow, and all jurisdictions do um a process to show mitigating factors that the magistrate

691
03:19:14.319 --> 03:19:32.880
would not take into consideration. >> I was just curious if this document had been seen before. That's all. >> No, I don't believe it has been. >> That was just that was the only question. >> And Mr. Mayor, we're we're here hatinand. We understand this the discretion of this board and we're asking for some relief from the 16,000

692
03:19:32.880 --> 03:19:49.439
and when we went to these the the DOA hearings we weren't objecting. We weren't saying like hey we didn't do it wrong but as I'll I'll show you what we did is we got a permit. We got a temporary permit for the containers from the city. We did everything we were

693
03:19:49.439 --> 03:20:06.800
asked to do. >> Do you have a copy of that permit and the site layout? That should be that's it should be in your records. I did not bring it with me. >> I'm just curious if the permit and the site layout that you provided to get the permit matched what was actually put on

694
03:20:06.800 --> 03:20:23.600
the property. >> Uh here's uh >> I can answer that. >> Yes. >> Okay. Come on up. >> I originally applied for a permit and >> got to move up and identify yourself. >> I'm sorry. I'm Jeff Walker. I rep I'm a representative of Robert. I help manage the properties. Uh I applied for a

695
03:20:23.600 --> 03:20:40.880
temporary permit back in 2023 for the containers while we're rebuilding the building. Uh I put them in the wrong location on the plan uh at which I I realized my mistake on a a Friday at 3:00 I reailed

696
03:20:40.880 --> 03:20:58.000
uh because I was in contact with Kendra Rosa. I re emailed her the new location and I reiterated it several times to see if that was approved or not. I finally got yes, we're okay to go. Uh at that point, I was under the assumption that where I was putting them was where I

697
03:20:58.000 --> 03:21:15.279
had, you know, corrected. Uh I never got a denial that that wasn't a a place to put them. >> But you you said where you when you applied for the permit, >> this is a temporary placement permit for them for that. >> Your your site layout did not match where you placed

698
03:21:15.279 --> 03:21:33.520
>> the site lay the second one I replaced already. Not the original one that you >> Not the original one, but the second one was. >> I was never told that when I put the second one through that that was not acceptable. >> You didn't have a meeting with Frankie

699
03:21:33.520 --> 03:21:50.319
Kachchic. Talking about No, that that they had to be moved from that location. >> No, I never did. >> Okay. That's not >> I was never told that they had to be removed from that location because I I sent all the email chain uh to the city

700
03:21:50.319 --> 03:22:06.239
to explain to them that within you know immediately after I I submitted I realized I made a mistake and I resubmitted the new diagram and I never got a response back one way or the other until the permit was

701
03:22:06.239 --> 03:22:22.399
approved. No one ever said no. You can't put them there. >> Did you ever go back in and talk to staff once you realized that staff said you were in violation >> about we had this discussion and no one ever told me I could or couldn't do it.

702
03:22:22.399 --> 03:22:37.600
I'm just wondering I'm just trying to understand what the conversations. >> The violation came from after the permit was issued, the containers were placed, then FEMA came in and said, "Hey, these have to go. They're not secured to the ground. they

703
03:22:37.600 --> 03:22:53.680
have to go or you're going to lose your FEMA certificate, >> right? So, what they did is they went back in and tried to repermit them on platforms in order to make them FEMA compliant. So it was a second set of permitting that was going through which

704
03:22:53.680 --> 03:23:11.239
held up the uh magistrate hearings and that's why there's a big time gap and if you can look at the timeline there's a time gap that we were waiting for the permits to be processed for placing the containers FEMA compliant on platforms

705
03:23:11.680 --> 03:23:29.520
at from the last compliance hearing. I think it was a day after, >> right? >> They did not issue the permit. We paid $600 and something dollars for permit fees. The permit did not get issue, got denied, and then, you know, everybody

706
03:23:29.520 --> 03:23:45.840
was going through the same thing at the same time, trying to move stuff here, trying to recover from the hurricane. These guys had a a CO for their business 5 days before. Ian, >> counselor, can I interrupt you for one second? um only because what what you're

707
03:23:45.840 --> 03:24:01.120
saying is not helping helping me and I want to understand this. >> Um and I'm wondering if we could go through your timeline if you plan to do that. Okay. >> Because at every step I'm going to want to make sure everyone was doing what they were supposed to. So going in at the middle

708
03:24:01.120 --> 03:24:17.359
>> is never helpful for me. So if we could start at the top because I may stop you at any point and ask a question, but let's start at the top. >> Okay, perfect. And what I just said was the very beginning, >> right? Okay, good. So, uh, Surfside Casual, they sell furniture, yard

709
03:24:17.359 --> 03:24:33.279
furniture. They came down, they wanted to open a business and small business. They wanted to invest in Fort Myers Beach. They live in Fort Myers Beach. It's on Astero Road. And they get their permits, they restore the building. It was a bank building,

710
03:24:33.279 --> 03:24:49.840
>> right? >> They go in there. Um, they get their CO and like all of you experienced, five days later, he's out of business. his products destroyed, the windows, everything was flooded out in the inside. Same thing. Probably better than

711
03:24:49.840 --> 03:25:07.520
a lot. He survived a lot better than a lot of the other people on this island. Um, so that was 2022. September uh >> 28th was the hurricane. Uh 2023, February 13th, they get a temporary storage container permit. there's

712
03:25:07.520 --> 03:25:26.399
actually a permit issued and then in December of 2023 they get a permit application for remodeling the store and you can see it now when you drive by it it's a lot nicer you've done a great job on it

713
03:25:26.399 --> 03:25:43.200
the outside's restored and >> if I may ask you a question okay and if anyone if I'm interrupting so your permit on February 13th your permit application was That's so you could take some of the inventory and put it safely in a storage container. What What were you expecting to do with the storage

714
03:25:43.200 --> 03:25:57.920
container? Yes. >> Just secure your >> secure that and any any supplies, materials we needed to >> to rebuild at that point. Yes. >> Many of us did the same thing. Okay. I'm following along. >> Okay. >> So, the model remodel plans were put in

715
03:25:57.920 --> 03:26:13.040
at December uh 2023. Obviously, it's taken a long time for everybody to get their permits out. March 26. Um the s the city issues our remodeling permit. >> Yep. >> And then you say which included

716
03:26:13.040 --> 03:26:31.000
permanent permanent container placement. >> Yeah. >> Permanent compl. >> Do we have any permanent container placement? >> It was uh to place the containers on a platform which would have been FEMA compliant. That permit was never issued. It was denied.

717
03:26:31.040 --> 03:26:46.560
>> Okay. Um, >> but the city's code provided for it. You could have done it, but it just the way they were placed, it was too close to the road, >> only elevated and strapped down, >> right? It was but it was it was in the setback and I think that was the problem.

718
03:26:46.560 --> 03:27:02.080
>> Um, no, they their the problem and we didn't realize that at first. We had them designed to where they were on helical peers, so they were above uh the the base flood elevation. So, um, they were going to be behind the building as

719
03:27:02.080 --> 03:27:18.800
our storage for inventory. >> Okay. >> Uh, so that they were and we were going to decorate them so you wouldn't really know that they were containers. >> But you wanted them to remain there after the storm. Okay. >> Not where they were being stored on your property, but relocate them on the property. We put through a permit

720
03:27:18.800 --> 03:27:35.359
application in January, okay, >> of uh, 2025 to locate them permanently >> to to try and comply. In other words, we were told to get rid of them. We wanted to move them permanently, put them in their permanent location even before the building was finished so that we had we

721
03:27:35.359 --> 03:27:50.319
were able to comply, right? >> Uh we had the engineer draw up the diagrams. We had helical peers designed putting them together. We had we had designs to to cover them so you didn't see them as containers so they were not visually, you know, obstructive. >> And did you get approval?

722
03:27:50.319 --> 03:28:06.640
>> And we did not get permit. >> Uh we got an objection letter. The first rejection letter was that they wanted to know the setback from Lover's Lane. >> Okay. >> Which we complied immediately, gave him that information. It wasn't until the day after the March 4th hearing that I

723
03:28:06.640 --> 03:28:23.279
got a letter uh from Jason Small. He says, "No, they're not going to be allowed." >> Okay. >> At which point we we were scrambling to find a way to get them out. We owned them. We didn't rent them. Uh we had to move the material out, which we did, and try to get rid of them. I had to sell

724
03:28:23.279 --> 03:28:39.200
them to get rid of them and that took a while. I even asked uh uh I think Tom Yaza or staff, who can I who do you use or who can I contact to try and get rid of these things? I advertised them. I got rid of them as as quickly as I possibly could as soon as we knew we were not going to be allowed to raise

725
03:28:39.200 --> 03:28:56.560
them. Uh then I did whatever I had to. >> And can you tell me how long that took you to >> It took about two months. >> Could not find a place to move them to in the >> I had no location to put them there. Everybody else was moving them off the island. I had no place to put them. >> Okay, just a question.

726
03:28:56.560 --> 03:29:11.600
>> Uh, and we owned them. We didn't rent them. I couldn't call the company and say, "Hey, come take them back." We owned them. >> I I'm still stuck on the question that I asked you at the beginning. I remember seeing the original drawings of where the two build those two were going to be put, right? >> As you just mentioned, they were going

727
03:29:11.600 --> 03:29:27.279
to be behind the building. So, on the back side of where you drove out. >> If you made the mistake, why did you never move them to that location? You say you submitted a new drawing, but I did. >> You never moved them to that location. >> I submitted that drawing immediately.

728
03:29:27.279 --> 03:29:44.560
>> But why did you not move the containers? >> That was your intent. If your intent was to move them to the location that I saw, which was behind >> No, that was the original one. The the new one was where they were located. >> I immediately changed that location from behind the building to where we had them

729
03:29:44.560 --> 03:30:00.160
located in front of Crate. >> Okay. Well, I never saw that. The only one I ever saw was the one that showed them the original >> behind the building. I never saw another drawing after that. >> That was the original one, but I I emailed that drawing several times >> because I remember having a meeting with staff specifically about that that they

730
03:30:00.160 --> 03:30:16.640
were going to be meeting you that day because they were set in a place that they were not. >> Nobody met with me about that. And I had emailed >> So you're telling me that our staff lied to me? Is that what you're telling? >> I didn't meet with them about that. >> Could they have met with somebody else? >> They could have. I don't know. >> Okay. But I had emailed immediately

731
03:30:16.640 --> 03:30:33.760
after I submitted that that it was that I made the incorrect uh drawing and I I redrrew them where they were. We did place them. I was never told that they couldn't couldn't go there. And then when they said, "No, you have to move them." I said, "Wait a second. I

732
03:30:33.760 --> 03:30:49.120
I have an old email chain." And then they finally the the last email says everything's approved. Nobody said I couldn't move them to where I changed the location >> except for in December of 2024 when you got the revocation letter. >> Correct.

733
03:30:49.120 --> 03:31:04.080
>> Wouldn't that be an inclination that you were told you couldn't have them? >> Yes. And that's when we put through the permit to locate him permanently. >> Excuse me. Before we jump to December 2024, the magistrate's um findings of facts

734
03:31:04.080 --> 03:31:20.560
says that on October 17th, there was a notice of violation that was served. >> Right. The notice of violation that was served was after the city revoked their temporary permit because of FEMA. before they revoked,

735
03:31:20.560 --> 03:31:36.160
>> right? >> No, that notification was uh before they revoked the permit return >> October 17 of 2024 the the re revocation of the temporary use permit happened in December of 2024. So you were you were served I think to

736
03:31:36.160 --> 03:31:51.680
council MLAN's point you were served a notice of violation two months three months before you actually got the revocation of the permit temporary use permit >> and given one month to correct it which would have brought you to November 16th

737
03:31:51.680 --> 03:32:08.479
is that true what is >> uh I don't get the notices that would have gone to Robert and I know there was an issue with um getting some of the uh notifications because there's two Himlstein associates one is Himlstein Associates LLC in Florida, which is not him, and that was getting a lot of the

738
03:32:08.479 --> 03:32:23.760
notifications. His is Himlstein Associates LLC of New Jersey. So, there's actually two That's a confusing thing, but there was actually two of them. So, we were getting delayed getting notifications. >> Did you bring that up to the magistrate as well? >> Uh, no, that never came up. Uh, the

739
03:32:23.760 --> 03:32:38.880
magistrate when I was talking to him, I explained to him that we were trying to work with the city to locate them permanently. I had an application for a permit in already in, you know, applied for to put them where they're going to where that we wanted them to go permanently

740
03:32:38.880 --> 03:32:54.560
>> from what our original permit had had shown. >> And and I would add before the magistrate hearing that the city actually spoke when the city spoke to the magistrate said, "Look, they are working with us. They are trying to get a permit. They have a permit. Uh it's

741
03:32:54.560 --> 03:33:11.120
submitted. We're reviewing it and we've got we got continuences based on the city's testimony about hey they're working with us. They're trying to get this done. They're trying to find a permanent solution. It didn't happen. So then when finally when that permit was

742
03:33:11.120 --> 03:33:30.080
denied, that's when the clock triggered on the money and that's when the clock triggered for him to try and sell these things and get rid of them. He ended up they lost 11 $11,000 on the containers. Can I ask staff on October 17th when

743
03:33:30.080 --> 03:33:47.040
they notice a violation, how was that delivered? Was that mailed? Was that posted? >> In October, that would have been certified mail and posting at that time. >> Do we have the address it went to? >> I do not have that in front of me now. >> Thank you.

744
03:33:47.040 --> 03:34:03.279
Um, if I could add, the revocation letters were not immediately sent out because at that point in time, staff was doing an analysis of all the temporary placement per permits or emergency temporary placements since we changed

745
03:34:03.279 --> 03:34:20.479
the name. Um, to see whether some of those could remain in effect. And if they could not, then they would be the property owners would be issued the revocation letter. And that's why the revocation letter came after. Okay. >> So the notice of violation in October

746
03:34:20.479 --> 03:34:35.200
giving them 30 days to try to come into compliance, come and discuss with staff. Having heard nothing, I believe that the revocation letter then went out with the special magistrate hearing um the first special magistrate hearing occurring in

747
03:34:35.200 --> 03:34:52.239
January along with other um non non-compliant structures. um several container situations in January. >> So, it sounds like that was the time period where everyone is saying, you know, we're looking at it. We're working it out. But when the rejection

748
03:34:52.239 --> 03:35:07.760
revocation letter went out, >> that's the clock >> at at that point. However, then we did go to the magistrate in January and there was that um it appeared that there was the intent to try to come into compliance by applying for a permit that

749
03:35:07.760 --> 03:35:22.560
would allow them under our flood code to have the containers there. Um the magistrate however did issue a March 1st deadline to come into compliance. The magistrate's hearing was

750
03:35:22.560 --> 03:35:39.600
on March the 4th after the deadline at which point there was discussion I believe with code and with the property owner that we just need a little bit more time. We think we can work this out. We think we can get a permit. Um and then at that point I'm going to

751
03:35:39.600 --> 03:35:56.479
defer back to code. >> Okay. So we're at March 4th. >> Correct. >> Yeah. I I think if you you just look at between number four and number five here, it it it through January 7th, 2025, it said that you had till March 1st of 2025 to come into compliant.

752
03:35:56.479 --> 03:36:12.800
And then when you go down even further, it says you did not by number five says you responded to fail or comply. But between the January and that March, you had the special magistrate hearing. It was rejected. It was reviewed and rejected. And then you had another

753
03:36:12.800 --> 03:36:29.120
magistrate meeting after that. I'm guessing that's where you were saying, Nancy, they had to ask for more time and then three days later it was rejected again from the town for resoning >> and and then it was going to go back, mayor, this is on page three of their timeline. It did go back to the special

754
03:36:29.120 --> 03:36:45.600
magistrate hearing at which time I believe code would have said that they are not in compliance and they would be requesting a fine and the imposition of a lean. But that particular magistrate hearing was rescheduled. Um and then it didn't go back to the

755
03:36:45.600 --> 03:37:02.239
magistrate until June. Um and then there was Go ahead. >> Correct. They um actually gave them several continuances to work with them, hopefully give them into compliance um from March to June 3rd and from June 3rd to August 5th and finally it was heard

756
03:37:02.239 --> 03:37:17.040
and the lean was assessed on the September 2nd hearing. So when did the clock start >> affidavit of compliance from May the 5th, >> right? >> Correct. And that was um

757
03:37:17.040 --> 03:37:34.080
>> that was it was not it was upheld um but the lean did not start until the um fine assessment hearing. >> Correct. Until the lean was actually be the request for the certification of the lean and the imposition of the f I said it backwards. The imposition of the fine

758
03:37:34.080 --> 03:37:52.000
and the certification of the lean. correct? >> Uh for that period of time from March the 1st through May the 5th where they were not in compliance. >> So it looks like on March 8th you moved the stuff from inside the container into

759
03:37:52.000 --> 03:38:07.760
the business and then you listed two days later the containers for sale but they still remained in the non-compliant area that the magistrate ruled on. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. And then you went to the special magistrate in April 1st of 2025.

760
03:38:07.760 --> 03:38:24.640
>> No, we weren't we weren't there. >> That was reschedled. >> Well, yeah, I'm just reading through it because councelor Link wanted to go through >> cuz I'm like that. I got >> Well, just stop me anytime if you need to stop. Okay. >> Then on May 2nd, you went to the financial impact where the containers were sold. Um affidavit of compliance

761
03:38:24.640 --> 03:38:40.319
was issued on May 5th. Business confirmed in full compliance and that's when the clock stopped for the violation. >> Correct. So that's where the March 1st of 2025 to the May 5th of 2025 came into. Once you emptied the containers, why

762
03:38:40.319 --> 03:38:56.319
didn't you move them to become compliant? If you knew that the magistrate had already ruled that you were in non-compliance. >> We were trying to find places to put them. I had nobody I was calling everybody could get a hold of. I was trying to get rid of them. >> You weren't trying to do that for the year previously that you were going through this process with the special

763
03:38:56.319 --> 03:39:10.880
magistrate. >> Um Mr. Mayor, he they were trying to get a permit for them. I understood >> to to put them up on pedestals. That's why we were getting the continuences at DOA uh by the magistrate. >> I understand that. I understand you were

764
03:39:10.880 --> 03:39:26.160
trying to go through the permit process. You received a second zoning verification failure, but in no time you're saying that you didn't think that we should at least be looking for a secondary location to place these to come into compliance. You were just

765
03:39:26.160 --> 03:39:42.239
hoping that the zoning was going to change their mind. Well, I think they were looking at efficiency. If it was if they were in the middle of process and they're working with the city, the city's looking at the permits, why would you move the containers? >> I'm not saying I'm not saying you should

766
03:39:42.239 --> 03:39:58.080
or shouldn't have moved them. What I'm saying is you're saying that you never looked at a secondary location should you not get your permit that you could come into compliance much quicker than the 60some days that they said you were. We did look at we did look at that and I at that time I couldn't find anything

767
03:39:58.080 --> 03:40:14.399
that quickly >> and we were trying to come into compliance by our original permit had shown them as located there permanently as part of our uh business. >> Do you have any evidence to show us what you were doing? How who you called? How

768
03:40:14.399 --> 03:40:30.000
many phone calls you made? >> I I could >> Did you look for rental places, excuse me, off the island? >> I I talked to contractors. I did talk to them, but I don't have any physical evidence of that. But I did talk to uh like landscapers that had properties and and so forth that they, you know, if

769
03:40:30.000 --> 03:40:48.239
they could take them. I did ask them. I don't have any physical evidence of that. >> Okay. >> All right. You want you're continuing to read, mayor, or where are we? >> Well, I Well, then it came into compliance, right? So the special was rescheduled, another res, you know, rescheduled, rescheduled, and then it

770
03:40:48.239 --> 03:41:05.200
got to September 2nd of 2025 where the the magistrate certified the previous order. >> So that's where the 65 days are from 3125 to 55. >> So it's it's March 1st 65 days >> 2025. Yes, >> it says,

771
03:41:05.200 --> 03:41:22.000
>> is that right, Michael? 65 days. >> Yeah, March 1st. >> That's correct. Um, just for the record, the attorney would say this is not a reharing or appeal. It's good to get a background on the case itself, >> but that's your focus. I would I would recommend was that the time that fine ran and the fine amount,

772
03:41:22.000 --> 03:41:40.479
>> thank you, >> councelor King, any questions or you have anything else you want to add before we >> No, and this isn't all or nothing. We're not rolling the dice like, hey, just, you know, get rid of the whole thing. But, you know, any kind of relief that my client can get, I mean, he's small

773
03:41:40.479 --> 03:41:57.359
businessman. he's been here. He's trying to invest in the community. You know, if you guys can help, that would be great. >> So, there is criteria in your code that um assists you when you do have a uh

774
03:41:57.359 --> 03:42:13.920
request for a reduction of a lean so that it's done very transparent and not arbitrarily. Um and that is ste set set forth in um Will's letter uh which is on page 290. >> Yep.

775
03:42:13.920 --> 03:42:31.359
>> Um the first being the gravity of the violation. I'm Will, if you want to walk them through your letter. Um it's on page 290. >> Pull it up again. Thanks. >> I have a print up. >> Yeah,

776
03:42:31.359 --> 03:42:47.439
>> Mr. Town Manager. So really and we we go through >> my main points in the letter the gravity of the violation sorry my main points in the letter are the gravity of the violation you know keeping and maintaining non-compliant structures this was a major issue for the town

777
03:42:47.439 --> 03:43:02.800
across uh you know all properties uh including the town ourselves had to had to go through removal of non-compliant structures that the town owned. Um, next, the amount of time it took uh for them to uh come into compliance u

778
03:43:02.800 --> 03:43:18.319
continued for 65 dates from the date of the uh initial violation. Um, I know that in talking with staff uh during this process, uh, as I was thinking through this, um, I will say I know that they did reach out, uh, through Tom Yazo

779
03:43:18.319 --> 03:43:34.000
asking, uh, which passed over to other members of staff asking, you know, how they could, it was a way to properly remove these structures. Um, information was provided to them uh, at I think in April of 2025. Does that sound about right? You reached out to the town about

780
03:43:34.000 --> 03:43:51.040
that time. Yep. Um and I don't know what happened after that uh that that information was provided to them. I will say that from a town perspective that uh every time we used that was royal auction uh every time we used royal auction um it was that they were removed within a week or two weeks of when we

781
03:43:51.040 --> 03:44:06.160
made the request for them to be removed town property just for context. >> Um and that weighed into my decision process here as well. Um and then uh you know the acred amount of code enforcement you know uh cost as well as

782
03:44:06.160 --> 03:44:20.960
the lean compared to market value of the property is the fine amount is where how we came up with the fine amount uh or how it was calculated I should say not came up with but how it was calculated. Um and you know also have to take into

783
03:44:20.960 --> 03:44:37.760
uh consern uh consideration any previous code violations uh as I made my uh my analysis um that there was investigation pending on on uh 21381 Wijon also owned by the same um applicant uh 2815 Eterero

784
03:44:37.760 --> 03:44:54.160
Boulevard. This is there were other code violations on this particular property as well. And uh um then at the time there was an investigation or say looking going in for an uh emergency temporary placement permit. Um but that is that since the time of this that has

785
03:44:54.160 --> 03:45:08.960
come into compliance. I've worked with the property owner on that ETP. That is so in my letter you see that listed but that is now in compliance. >> But the other two are still outstanding. >> I believe the other ones are still open are they not Michael? >> Still under investigation. >> Still under investigation. Yeah.

786
03:45:08.960 --> 03:45:26.399
>> Yeah. We're not aware of any citation that was ever issued on any of those two. >> And I from what I remember, they're fairly old. >> They're still under investigation, >> right? They have not >> Well, this letter notifies you again,

787
03:45:26.399 --> 03:45:41.760
right? >> Yep. >> No, we we haven't been there's no citation. >> There's no citation issued. It's just an investigation. >> One is related to docks and mangroves. So, that's an under investigation. Yeah. >> And I think the mangrove issue was resolved, right?

788
03:45:41.760 --> 03:45:57.680
>> Yeah. That there was found to be no no issue, but it was >> they're mentioned for context because not not that violations have been issued that they're under investigation for potential violations. They're mentioned for context in my analysis. >> Um >> so there's been no other magistrate rulings on >> No, not at this time.

789
03:45:57.680 --> 03:46:14.399
>> Are there any other fees owed outstanding um on any of these properties? >> Uh yes. Uh we have I have outstanding or the town has outstanding water bills um for both for this property and the other property uh owned by Mr. Himlstein on on the uh

790
03:46:14.399 --> 03:46:30.399
within the town. >> Do you have uh how many days they're late? >> I I can certify that those were paid this morning. >> I'm just wondering how long >> we got an email this morning at 7:30 prior to this hearing that there was outstanding amounts. Mr. Hamiltonstein

791
03:46:30.399 --> 03:46:45.600
immediately called the office. Nobody picked up. He finally got a hold of somebody and paid it all. What it was is there was a credit card. It was supposed to be recurring charge, but it something happened after the hurricane at some point and he just went in, gave a new

792
03:46:45.600 --> 03:47:01.520
card, so everything is squared away. >> Good. I appreciate that. Thank you for >> But it was a hefty It was a good chunk of money. >> It was It was because they hadn't been paid for in one case over two years. >> Yeah. So, >> okay. >> But we hadn't gotten notice. I mean, we didn't >> you don't Okay.

793
03:47:01.520 --> 03:47:16.800
>> Water bills are sent every month. >> So, but there was a credit card on file and he he let's get back to this because what I'm what I've got a question for is of the three rescheduled hearings, who requested those rescheduled hearings at the magistrate that drug this on

794
03:47:16.800 --> 03:47:32.960
further? Was it the town or was it the applicant? >> Anyone? Nancy, do you remember? >> Um, I don't remember honestly. Um, >> and I was president at the time. Um, >> I know there was discussion looking back

795
03:47:32.960 --> 03:47:49.120
of them trying to come into compliance and that's generally when they would give an extension. Um, if they're working with the town trying to come into compliance. >> That's more or less what happened. When I when I told the judge asked me what we were doing about it, I said we I explained a permit that we were trying to locate them permanently where we

796
03:47:49.120 --> 03:48:05.439
originally had designed it and the the town said we'll just move it down the road to to the next meeting. And even at that March 4th hearing, the same thing happened. It was going to be continued down the road. And at March 5th is when I got the notice that they weren't going

797
03:48:05.439 --> 03:48:21.520
to be allowed at all. And that's when I immediately tried to figure out. Now, I'm I have to explain, I'm not from the area, so I don't know a lot of places. So, that's why I even asked the town >> help me out. Who can I find? And I did call that people, the auction company, and he was kind of

798
03:48:21.520 --> 03:48:37.760
>> didn't really He was supposed to come out and talk to me. He finally did. It took a while to get a hold of this guy and I don't know because I'm not first I'm not the town. I'm just Joe Blow. So, uh, he did finally come out, but he wasn't as responsive as maybe he would be with you. So, I had to keep trying to find somebody to get him as quickly as I

799
03:48:37.760 --> 03:48:54.720
could. And I had several people say yes and then never show up. So, I would have gotten them at faster if I could have, but you're just trying to get people to take them out. So, I'm trying to see what what date did you put I don't see it in your timeline.

800
03:48:54.720 --> 03:49:11.600
What date did you put those containers on the property? >> I honestly don't know. I I'd have to go back. I I honestly don't know. >> Was it 2023? Was it 2023? >> 2023. So it was 2023 >> and we had a permit for it till 20

801
03:49:11.600 --> 03:49:26.960
September before the >> so the emergency temporary placement permit when you got that >> was was the expert >> February 13th so it would have been around that time more than likely >> it would have been somewhere it would have after February so I don't know exactly when but I would say March or

802
03:49:26.960 --> 03:49:42.080
April maybe just that's a guess >> so roughly two years before the magistrate ultimately ru ruled on >> right but we had to permit >> I understand I'm just trying to understand how long they were there because I can't how long they were there. >> John, do you have I already asked you,

803
03:49:42.080 --> 03:49:57.439
John, do you have any questions for >> I guess in the in the matter of context since we've been discussing context, is there any other ongoing legal action against the town boy, Mr. Hmelstein? >> Not right now. No, >> there's the only thing that's pending and is is an administrative appeal.

804
03:49:57.439 --> 03:50:13.520
>> Correct. >> It is a administrative appeal of a building permit that was issued to a neighbor. Nothing specific to this property. >> No, not to this property. >> Yeah, not to this property.

805
03:50:13.520 --> 03:50:30.239
>> Scott, I guess I have a question for Will. Do we have or or Nancy, do we have other properties that were getting fined? 250 that were ruled by the magistrate that >> the $250 admin fee.

806
03:50:30.239 --> 03:50:46.960
>> No, no, the fines. Are there other properties on the island that had containers? >> I believe there are. Yes. And if >> especially since I've been here, >> if uh if anything, they probably got a lean as well for the admin fee that hadn't been paid >> because there was an ad 250.

807
03:50:46.960 --> 03:51:04.319
>> I'm not asking about the No, I'm not asking about the admin fee. I'm saying are there other properties >> there? There might be, but even if they had a larger amount because of their non-compliance, there may have been also a subgroup of just properties that maybe came into

808
03:51:04.319 --> 03:51:21.239
compliance but didn't pay their admin fee and that still would be a lean. >> Okay. >> So, yes, there are others. >> This would have been a standard request for the amount of the fine for this type of violation. >> Okay. Council

809
03:51:21.279 --> 03:51:36.800
>> Mlan, did I already call on you? >> You already called on me. Thank you, Council Lake. >> You called on me. I'm good. >> All right. >> Well, for me, I could tell you it's it's I've been involved with with this since the very beginning when they were

810
03:51:36.800 --> 03:51:53.040
placed. I remember having specific conversations with town staff at the time. Will was not here. So, it wasn't Will, it was the town manager, Andy Hyde, at the time, myself and Frankie Kopachic. Um, that they were obviously not happy that these

811
03:51:53.040 --> 03:52:10.000
containers were placed in a place that didn't match where you said they were going to be. They both told me at two separate occasions that they met with, maybe it was you, maybe it was somebody else, they met somebody out at the property to ask to have them moved to the location. They were trying to

812
03:52:10.000 --> 03:52:27.199
educate versus issue violations. So, you didn't get a violation then and then they never got moved. You say nobody ever talked to you. Maybe they didn't. I'm not I'm not going to question whether or not, but I have no reason to not believe that staff would lie to me about it. >> I did talk with Robert and I talked with

813
03:52:27.199 --> 03:52:44.399
Frankie once. Um I honestly can't remember that exact conversation. Uh I think it might if it was about the containers and it's a while ago to be honest with you, it may have been two three years. It may have been 2023 when we talked to Frankie. Um I

814
03:52:44.399 --> 03:53:00.479
>> it might have been and and the reason I remember it so vividly is because I always thought where that front container was closest to the library, I didn't realize that that was part of your client's property. I thought it was part of the secret plaza. So when I saw it there, I thought they put it on the

815
03:53:00.479 --> 03:53:16.640
wrong property. And that's when they started looking and they're like, "Well, they're not in the right spot." and and obviously we were getting complaints from the property owner where it was sitting adjacent to that they weren't happy about where it was placed. So I remember this going on for a long time and a lot of discussions and they just seem to sit there and they seem to sit

816
03:53:16.640 --> 03:53:33.920
there and then for me all of these continuations through the special magistrate which has always frustrated me since the storm. You know we we we issued temporary use permits where we probably shouldn't have. We thought we were doing the right thing and we didn't. And had these fines started from

817
03:53:33.920 --> 03:53:50.319
the cancellation of that permit, that would be a whole different thing for me. But this started year or a year and a half after you knew you were in complian or out of compliance and didn't do anything to come into compliance. For me, that's difficult to swallow because people that were in the same scenario as

818
03:53:50.319 --> 03:54:06.479
you did come into compliance so that they didn't have to go through the magistrate process and pay a $250. I never got a notification initially where they where it said that they were placed wrong. Now, Robert may have and I don't know because we had a issue with the where stuff was being mailed to. It was

819
03:54:06.479 --> 03:54:22.399
going to somebody over in Florida where he's all his stuff went to New Jersey. I personally didn't get a response or see anything until it came to to me directly. Now, I know there was somehow there was miscommunication. Maybe it's part of my fault when I reailed Kendra

820
03:54:22.399 --> 03:54:37.600
saying, "No, this is that was the wrong location. please, I want them at this location." And I didn't get a response and I redid it and redid it. I think I text her or I I called and left a voicemail at that point. And I assumed, again, that was my fault. I assumed that

821
03:54:37.600 --> 03:54:52.720
it was okayed at that new location that I showed, which was where they were put. And then I got an email from her saying, "Okay, your everything's fine." Now, to me, that meant that my new placement was fine. That otherwise I wouldn't have put

822
03:54:52.720 --> 03:55:09.199
him there. and and I understand that and but for me it's based on your own timeline that you provided us it it appears to me that the town worked in pretty good faith with you over almost two years to come into compliance allowing continuences repeatedly asking to come

823
03:55:09.199 --> 03:55:24.960
into compliance for almost two years and >> but I never received any of that and I don't know that Robert did either saying where there where they were >> you never received a violation saying you weren't in compliance >> no the the only violation that we were in out of compliance that we received

824
03:55:24.960 --> 03:55:42.000
was that hey, FEMA says that you have to you cannot have them here anymore. Not that they were in the wrong spot. You can't have them on the property. They have to go unless they're attached to a platform at that point. It wasn't like we were

825
03:55:42.000 --> 03:55:59.760
working with the city. We are relied in good faith on our permit that the city gave us and we made, you know, we spent a lot of money on those containers to put them on that property. >> Right. But again, the the the town gave you a permit based on a site specific

826
03:55:59.760 --> 03:56:15.920
location you were going to put those. You can't show me anything that says that you got the approval to change from what you originally submitted. Unless somebody shows >> I submit I have a chain of emails submitting to right after immediately like within a very short period of time

827
03:56:15.920 --> 03:56:32.080
like day that I resubmitted the new location to Kendra Rosa by email and resubmitted it over and over again. I had an email chain that I showed Frankie. >> But what I'm curious about is the actual permit that was issued based on the site plan that you put out. Is that site plan

828
03:56:32.080 --> 03:56:47.680
in there or is the one that you said you submitted after in there that the approval was based on? But no, the approval wasn't given until I I had given the new site plan before the approval was ever given. >> What I'm trying to get at >> I don't know because I could pull that

829
03:56:47.680 --> 03:57:02.399
up and we could see that >> regardless there was still almost a two-year window between when that permit was issued and when you were out of compliance, even though you had been >> seemed like two different issues. Well, but my point is is if a permit was

830
03:57:02.399 --> 03:57:17.840
issued based on a plan that wasn't laid out the way it was supposed to, you were in violation. >> But I changed that plan before anything was ever approved immediately. >> I know. But again, what I'm trying to get at is you don't have anything here to show me today that what you're saying is true. All I can go by is the plan

831
03:57:17.840 --> 03:57:34.640
that I saw that showed the containers being behind the building where you said earlier they were supposed to be originally, but then they got moved to where they were at where your violation happened. But there's nobody that's can show me anything that drawing shows that to get to to to where we didn't have a

832
03:57:34.640 --> 03:57:49.520
code V because I didn't realize there was a code violation. We never got a notifi notice of it. I gave them a whole email chain of what I did and never got denied for that. Nobody ever said no, you can't put them where you want them.

833
03:57:49.520 --> 03:58:05.840
Where the the location, the new location you Nobody ever said that to me ever. And maybe that's true, but if that wasn't submitted into the permit for the application, >> but I assumed it was. >> I assumed it was a lot of things, but I was before

834
03:58:05.840 --> 03:58:20.880
>> he got the permit. >> I'm just trying to >> And then the permit technician says you're good to go. >> So, I assumed it was. Well, I I can't support any reduction simply because there's there's too many things that could have been done differently here on

835
03:58:20.880 --> 03:58:36.479
both sides, quite honestly. And had this violation started back when the ETP was originally issued because it was issued in error, we would be talking about something completely different. But this was almost 2 years after that permit was issued that you still after the

836
03:58:36.479 --> 03:58:52.880
magistrate said you have 30 days to come into compliance. You still chose not to come into compliance. Regardless of what was going on in the background, the special magistrate said you've got 30 days to come into compliance. You chose not to do it. Why? uh as >> the answer to that was they applied for

837
03:58:52.880 --> 03:59:09.439
a permit to have them permanently placed on the property, >> right? But what does it have to one doesn't have to do with anything else. If the judge says or the magistrate says that you were in violation, you have 30 days to come into compliance. you were just hoping. So if a week before you still didn't have your permit, you're still not in compliance

838
03:59:09.439 --> 03:59:25.199
regardless of what happens with that permit, >> but you made no plans to go come into compliance. >> And now you're you're you're trying to say that it was the town's fault that you were out of compliance >> because you were going through a permit and we were holding up a permit that never got approved and in fact was

839
03:59:25.199 --> 03:59:40.160
rejected according to your timeline twice. >> But the permit brings you into compliance. >> Yeah. But as long as you're out of compliance that I I'm with you here, mayor. If you're out of compliance, I had I'm built a home. Just finished it. >> There were some things where they

840
03:59:40.160 --> 03:59:56.160
weren't allowed to be. If I'm fighting it, I can't leave them there. I have to get rid of them while I'm fighting to see if I can bring them back. Non-compliance is non-compliance. I'm not sure that continuing to wait for a permit leaves you open to stay

841
03:59:56.160 --> 04:00:12.560
non-compliant. and councelor I and I believe in some circumstances that's true but I believe in this circumstance where the city was like hey hold off let's continue this let's you know we don't need to go to you know don't make any waves let's get the permit we're

842
04:00:12.560 --> 04:00:27.279
working on anything you can show us that the city said you're okay to hold off the records of the city >> I think he's referring to the magistrate >> yeah this was at a magistrate hearing where the city testified that Hey, we're

843
04:00:27.279 --> 04:00:43.520
working together. We hold off. Don't don't impose any fines yet. We're working to come into compliance. >> Okay. >> But I agree that a permit applied for is not a >> is not is not >> it's just an application for a permit. >> Does that make sense?

844
04:00:43.520 --> 04:01:00.720
>> Well, yeah, it's hard. >> I I understand what you're saying, but there's also that aspect of, okay, well, you need to tear this down. You also need a demolition permit. So you can't come into compliance until you get a demolition permit. So while the permit is and that's an example while the

845
04:01:00.720 --> 04:01:17.359
permit is pending that is typically what they consider compliance and that's why a DOA judge will say I will give you the continuence I will stretch it out while you are working your way through it to get to compliance. >> Okay.

846
04:01:17.359 --> 04:01:34.319
>> However, in this case it was really about removing a couple of shipping containers. >> Yeah. Right. Not a demolition permit, not any other permits that are required. It was notified in December 24.

847
04:01:34.319 --> 04:01:50.000
>> Got to get rid of it. >> And and that's a good question. The idea was that to bring those containers into compliance, not move them off property, but to move them onto a platform on a platform and move them in. However,

848
04:01:50.000 --> 04:02:06.000
to several comments that have been made, an application for a permit doesn't mean that a non-compliant structure can remain non-compliant without any consequences on the hope that >> plan B is going to come into fruition,

849
04:02:06.000 --> 04:02:22.720
>> right? And I think you you balance that against also the Supreme Court precedent that says if you issue a permit and somebody makes concrete steps in furtherance of that permit, You can't revoke that permit. >> Yes, but in all due respect, there has

850
04:02:22.720 --> 04:02:40.560
to be a good faith showing that um that the reliance that the Reliance was in good faith and there is disputed facts. So, I can't I can't agree with you on that particular concept. What what I can add to the conversation if if it is the

851
04:02:40.560 --> 04:02:55.439
will of the council is the clerk and I are are looking through the permit records and we're trying to find documentation that perhaps gives additional information um as to the disputed facts. If there's

852
04:02:55.439 --> 04:03:11.120
an opportunity for um a brief recess, we're happy to confer with our permitting staff to help us interpret the documents um that are part of the permitting management process if you want to take a break.

853
04:03:11.120 --> 04:03:27.760
>> If that's if you think it's necessary to take it, that's >> I think it's in all due fairness to our property owners as well as to our staff. >> Okay. >> If there is a legitimate dispute, um 10 15 minutes. >> All right. We'll take a brief break and we'll reconvene at 1:15.

854
04:03:27.760 --> 04:16:13.920
>> Does that work? >> Thank you. >> Yes. Thank you. >> So All right, we're going to call the meeting back to order. It is 1:15. Nancy, so Mayor, um town staff has had an opportunity to um discuss and try to

855
04:16:13.920 --> 04:16:31.439
determine um if we have some documentation that could be added to today's hearing to um to clarify some of the debated issues. Um the the best way to uh proceed in my opinion would be that perhaps the questions be redirected

856
04:16:31.439 --> 04:16:48.000
or or restated and allowing um uh Mr. Hartzville and and uh the representative for the Hamilton to uh respond and then allowing staff to respond as well. >> Okay.

857
04:16:48.000 --> 04:17:04.960
Well, I'll re ask. You're directing that specifically at me or anyone in general that had questions. >> Anyone in council who has questions? >> Again, my question was, do you have a copy of the original issued permit that shows what layout was approved in the

858
04:17:04.960 --> 04:17:21.920
original temporary use permit? the the permit wouldn't have the the layout on it, but we have the email where the site plan was sent to the city and then the chain of emails back that said everything's good. You're good to go. We're waiting on fire to get paid and

859
04:17:21.920 --> 04:17:38.560
then after that you're good to go. >> But there's nothing in the permit. >> Permit doesn't identify the plans. The plans are what is submitted. then that would be different than any temporary use permit that I ever saw because they pretty much required you have to have a

860
04:17:38.560 --> 04:17:53.199
site layout of where your temporary use trailer or permit was going. >> I don't have the permit with me. >> That's my question. Do you have a permit? >> There may have been a site plan there with it. I don't have it on my person. I didn't I don't have the per >> Do we have a copy of that? Does staff have a copy of that anywhere?

861
04:17:53.199 --> 04:18:11.199
>> Jason's wallet. >> Yes, I believe we did see some sight. So I think the question was what site plan was attached to the temporary placement permit? >> Yes. >> Uh there was actually two. The original one uh as far as I can tell here was

862
04:18:11.199 --> 04:18:28.000
proposed on the rear side of the building. >> Okay. >> Then there was a series of reubmitts and at some point the I'm I'm going to refer for instance to the Oh, hold on a second right there. So, the permit was issued

863
04:18:28.000 --> 04:18:42.640
under the one that you're talking about with the behind the building. >> No, the original permitting for it, the the original uh layout issuance. >> No, no, the original layout that they that they sent to us during the application showed behind the building.

864
04:18:42.640 --> 04:18:59.520
>> Okay. During the review of that ETP permit, the they submitted, for instance, to the fire department for their final review a layout that showed the two um trailers in the location that we recognize them to be in.

865
04:18:59.520 --> 04:19:15.840
>> Okay. >> Um out front of Seagate, >> right? >> Um and so the approvals were for the location in front of Seagarpe ultimately. >> Okay. But they had to meet the requirements of that and one of the requirements from fire seemed to be set

866
04:19:15.840 --> 04:19:32.880
back from the road and the uh driveway area to allow connection from the two complexes had to be had to stay open. Uh they both have an e signed easement between them and fire department needed that connection to stay open. Um,

867
04:19:32.880 --> 04:19:50.159
ultimately they agreed to get rid of the fence idea and I believe that's what the ETP was proposed on with the two units in the location that we saw them. >> Okay. >> Later on when they came in to do the permanent location of it is when they

868
04:19:50.159 --> 04:20:06.159
went back to the design of having it behind the building. But the only two times we see the lo the locations proposed to be in front of the building is the initial submitt which was overtaken by later submitts and the most recent one that never got

869
04:20:06.159 --> 04:20:21.120
completed where they wanted to permanently move them behind the building. Those are the only two instances we see of behind the buildings. >> And for clarification in the record that we're talking about temporary use permits, not ETPs in at that time frame. >> I I'm sorry. Yes, the it would have been

870
04:20:21.120 --> 04:20:37.439
the temporary use permit before the ETP was in effect with ordinance. >> So this this is when we didn't have a whole lot of >> information. Yeah. No on that. >> Yeah. >> Can I certainly >> Okay. The u the original location was

871
04:20:37.439 --> 04:20:53.520
located >> be closer to the mic. >> I'm sorry. The original location was behind the building. Uh I sent that in on a Friday late in the afternoon on the 23rd. Monday morning, I resubmitted the new location in front of Crra Plaza. It

872
04:20:53.520 --> 04:21:09.920
never went back to the other. I never changed back to going behind the building. That was always the final location. And I emailed that several times. >> I I'm sorry. In the temporary placement process, because when it comes time to permanent placement process when you applied for

873
04:21:09.920 --> 04:21:26.479
>> No, no, I'm talking about temporary placement. That's correct. Thank you very much. >> That's That's >> He's agreeing with you. >> All right. Okay. Okay. I'm >> He's saying that that's what >> I misunderstood. I Sorry. I'm sorry. >> Okay. Anybody else have anything they need to >> Well, I I'm trying to understand the

874
04:21:26.479 --> 04:21:42.159
relevance. if the temporary permit was revoked and received back in December >> and then the process takes over from there where there's the magistrate hearing in the

875
04:21:42.159 --> 04:21:59.920
beginning of January where you're given considerable time to come into compliance and just haven't I guess my my understanding and I want to confirm that your thought process was because you had a new permit application

876
04:21:59.920 --> 04:22:15.840
that it wasn't a requirement to get into compliance. Is that >> the And I if you don't mind, I'd like to ask that of staff if >> typically to to get a permit for an out of compliance item is part of becoming

877
04:22:15.840 --> 04:22:33.279
in compliance. Just reading the magistrate order. It says to remove or bring non-compliant structures into compliance with the town regulations by March 1st. >> So if you were able to get a approved >> permit >> and where it's at and pass inspections

878
04:22:33.279 --> 04:22:48.239
or remove it. >> Right. So part of compliance, the judge is saying part of compliance is either remove it or get it into compliance. Go get a permit. Go get the the right to have it. So that's part of getting it into compliance.

879
04:22:48.239 --> 04:23:04.479
>> But you didn't even make steps to move it into compl. You didn't move it from the location where it wasn't non-compliant to where you prop approve applied for the temporary permit which you just said was now in the back of the building where the original plan was submitted submitted wrong and for the

880
04:23:04.479 --> 04:23:19.760
temporary permit. But you didn't even take the time to move them to back to where they were going to be in the permanent solution that you applied for. >> I'm not following that logic. But are you saying that we didn't put them on platforms? >> I'm saying you didn't move them. You were you were in violation. >> They were in the location that was

881
04:23:19.760 --> 04:23:35.920
permitted that he just said that he said that the >> No, they were No, no, no. >> We couldn't move them back there because we were going to have to build what pilings to put them on. So if I moved them back there, did I have to move them again to do the construction if the permit was issued? >> But that would have brought you into

882
04:23:35.920 --> 04:23:49.920
compliance, correct? >> No. You said you wouldn't have them at all. >> No, he wasn't allowed to have them at all. But that wouldn't have brought me into compliance. >> If I can add a bit to that, it would have been in compliance if they had responded to the turndown note. My note

883
04:23:49.920 --> 04:24:08.080
was that you cannot have just a storage container out there. It's disallowed explicitly by code. The next step was to then come in with a design that would put them behind actual fascia and make them look like actual buildings. They never responded to that u turndown note

884
04:24:08.080 --> 04:24:24.560
and that permit to permanently place them in the rear never went anywhere. It never got approved. It basically died on the vine after my second review was turned down. >> I took that letter to mean that they weren't approved. Period. >> Well, they I mean my

885
04:24:24.560 --> 04:24:40.800
>> and they weren't going to you weren't going to allow us to put containers on the property no matter what we did with it. Well, because they the um engineering that you provided on the second goround was the same as the first goround which was just the helical piles and placing the pardon the term the just

886
04:24:40.800 --> 04:24:58.399
the naked um storage container and a container without any fascia on it is specifically disallowed. That was my comment in the second round of review. U it just never went anywhere. again whether that was an interpretation of you didn't think it would go anywhere or nobody picked it up after

887
04:24:58.399 --> 04:25:14.080
>> it wasn't explained that way to me that that I needed the fascia uh around it as well to be com to be approved I I >> Mr. Brockman was made aware of that who was the original contractor that I was dealing with. Yes. >> I don't know when he separated.

888
04:25:14.080 --> 04:25:30.239
>> We we had talked to him about that >> and I don't think getting anything out of him was very forthcoming. So yeah, we had talked about that's what we wanted because we didn't want them to look like containers back there and he was supposed to do something like that and I

889
04:25:30.239 --> 04:25:44.880
never got anything from him like that. >> Well, that's that's where I think >> unfortunately that's our fault. That's >> um and just just as a point of clarification, originally you guys were approved in February of 2023 between the

890
04:25:44.880 --> 04:26:03.040
13th and the 28th for approval to put the two containers on the back side of the building. You had received approval for that including fire check off. I'm looking at it right now. Later on, you guys came back and in September of 2023,

891
04:26:03.040 --> 04:26:18.560
so this is seven approximately seven months after the fact, you came back with a new revised trailer location. And that revised trailer location is the one that was out front of um Crate. >> That's an incorrect timeline. >> I'm I'm looking at >> I know, but that's an incorrect timeline

892
04:26:18.560 --> 04:26:35.760
because I submitted I have email chain that I submitted the new location. original location was submitted in February 23rd of 23. I submitted a new email Monday the 27th of February with the new location in it and submitted

893
04:26:35.760 --> 04:26:51.600
that several times. So, on the 28th, you received your job site copy. Uh, excuse me, uh, February 28th of 2023, you received your job site copy or whomever is getting the emails received the job site copy establishing the approval for

894
04:26:51.600 --> 04:27:08.640
those uh, containers to be around back. Um, the job site copy was issued, fire department gave their okay. Um then in September 29th of 2023, there was a submitt which was titled revised survey

895
04:27:08.640 --> 04:27:25.279
and revised tri uh trailer location and that's when the trailers then go from the rear of the building to then being visible from >> that's not what happened. >> I I'm just letting you know. >> I know but that's not the way it happened. >> Okay. >> I mean that's the way it shows up on

896
04:27:25.279 --> 04:27:43.920
there because I >> chain showing the new location right away. We didn't We didn't get anything. My email, I got a final permit number. She said I was fine at March 9th after I had already submitted the new location

897
04:27:43.920 --> 04:27:59.279
on the 27th. >> So, I'm I'm looking right now at the approval that was sent out. The job site copy is what we call it. That's where we collect all of the documents that have been submitted up to that point and stamp them and show them that these were

898
04:27:59.279 --> 04:28:16.399
the plans that were issued to us that we were approving. The job site copy issued um on February 28th, 2023 contains the location behind the building circled um and states the proposed temporary

899
04:28:16.399 --> 04:28:32.960
storage containers would be in the rear of the building. And then again in September that came in and there was an alternative layout that was proposed then in front of Crate. That's the record I'm seeing here. >> Hold on. But that was permitted in September, right?

900
04:28:32.960 --> 04:28:51.920
>> It got a temporary permit in September. Is that what you're saying? >> We got it. Pardon me one second. Okay. So ultimately there is submitt of documents

901
04:28:51.920 --> 04:29:06.880
um and then ultimately I believe it was ended because of a revocation that was issued by the town manager at that time. I'm seeing a letter finally uh introduced into this record on

902
04:29:06.880 --> 04:29:23.120
January 28th of 2025. That was the revocation. So up to between September seemingly and the revocation letter, the location of it was then moved to in

903
04:29:23.120 --> 04:29:39.520
front of um Crate Plaza. >> And then ultimately the revocation happened according to this date on January 28th of >> But the revocation happened because of violations of FEMA, not because of their location. Right. I I can't I Yeah, I

904
04:29:39.520 --> 04:29:55.040
can't address that because I wasn't involved with with that process. I'm I'm just laying out what I see here as far as submitts and things that have timestamps on them. >> Jason, for the record, could you just set state what you're looking at and reading from? >> I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Okay. So, what I'm

905
04:29:55.040 --> 04:30:11.600
looking at here would be permit number 231 578. And this was listed as 240 foot storage. The scope is listed as two 40 foot storage trailers. Um, and then some more

906
04:30:11.600 --> 04:30:27.199
notes about limitations at that time that were known mainly on the >> and this is in the town's I work. Yes, >> this is this is a permit that was that was issued um in I work according to that number under the uh temporary use

907
04:30:27.199 --> 04:30:43.600
that was occurring at that time prior to the ETP pro uh process and then ultimately the revocation happened in 2020 or excuse me um what did I say I lost my 2025 uh January 28th of 2025

908
04:30:43.600 --> 04:30:59.600
>> Jason does that scope of work say 40 foot trailers or 40 foot containers because they're two completely different things. >> Now, you got to understand when we when when we put stuff into the system, we've got nontechnical people that are doing

909
04:30:59.600 --> 04:31:14.720
it, putting it in, so the scope may be a little off, but it is it is uh noted in the scope as 40 foot storage trailers. >> Okay. >> Thanks, Jason. So I I'm trying to bring it back to the

910
04:31:14.720 --> 04:31:30.560
time frame in which your your magistrate ruling calculated the fines and based on again your timeline the the judge said as of March 1st 2025 through

911
04:31:30.560 --> 04:31:47.120
May 5th of 2025 is when the violations the 65 days that acrewed to the number that we're talking about the 16,500 with the $250 per Okay. So, and that ruling was issued on

912
04:31:47.120 --> 04:32:03.120
where was it again? >> What's that, Nancy? >> I I believe it's November. >> March 1st. No, January 7th of 2025 was held and said they had to come into compliance by March 1st. >> That is that is correct. But the

913
04:32:03.120 --> 04:32:19.920
certification of the lean of the fine and the lean um was a little bit later due to um renoticing. Um it looks like it was September >> September of 2025 and that's page 28.

914
04:32:19.920 --> 04:32:42.560
>> Yep. 287. >> Okay. So from the time that that was September of 2025, that doesn't make sense. >> Oh, that's the lean due. >> So the process is that um it it is the

915
04:32:42.560 --> 04:32:58.960
burden of the property owner to notify the town that property that is non-compliant has come into compliance. Okay. At that point, then the town would go and um review the property, determine whether or not compliance has been

916
04:32:58.960 --> 04:33:16.000
attained and issue a affidavit of compliance or an affidavit of non-compliance. Um so as of May of 2025, um code found that they were in compliance. So then there was a

917
04:33:16.000 --> 04:33:32.879
subsequent hearing before the magistrate to basically request the imposition of a fine for the period of time that they remained non-compliant from March the 1st when they were supposed to come into compliance based on the magistrate's

918
04:33:32.879 --> 04:33:50.160
order but failed to do so until May the 5th. >> And and correct. Thank you for clarifying that. What I'm trying to get at is basically between the time March 1st that the magistrate ruled that they were in non-compliance. If you're following the timeline that you provided on the 4th, you had a

919
04:33:50.160 --> 04:34:07.199
special magistrate hearing. On the 7th, you got the second and final rejection letter, it sounds like, for the permanent application for the the zoning reject for to permit the containers on the property. After the day after that, you decided then to

920
04:34:07.199 --> 04:34:23.520
move the stuff from the containers into the store according to your timeline on March 8th. On March 10th, two days later, you listed the containers for sale. So now you're 9 days past the date of when you were found in non-compliance. And then you go to April, then you got the financial impact. You finally sold

921
04:34:23.520 --> 04:34:39.039
the containers on May 2nd. Where I'm having a problem is between the March 1st and the May 2nd, which is three days before The magistrate ruled you you didn't take any actions to move those containers.

922
04:34:39.039 --> 04:34:54.160
You didn't take any actions to come into compliance. Your rejection letter had been rejected for your permanent location >> before your timeline started. >> Does that make sense? So you you applied you applied to elevate them. You had a

923
04:34:54.160 --> 04:35:09.520
second rejection letter for that which was rejected before the timeline which the magistrate ruled and which you're asking for forgiveness of of March 1st happened. And in the time of March 1st to March 5th or May 5th,

924
04:35:09.520 --> 04:35:27.439
you took steps to empty the container, list them for sale, but continue to leave them there until they were finally sold on May 2nd. Now, it doesn't say that they were moved off the property on May 2nd. just says that they were sold on May 2nd. So we don't know when

925
04:35:27.439 --> 04:35:43.840
technically those things business conferred them. Oh, May 5th. So that's why it stopped May 5th at full compliance. >> So you didn't take any actions to come into compliance, but you're asking us to forgive a something that you chose not to take

926
04:35:43.840 --> 04:36:00.160
actions to come into compliance on >> it. It if you look at the timeline, and Mr. Mayor, you make a great point, but I I think there's a small flaw in that reasoning. And here it is, that we didn't need the containers anymore once we took the materials out.

927
04:36:00.160 --> 04:36:18.879
>> They were free to go. And what he has testified today as being the firstand guy, the only guy that was out there, he called he called the city and he asked, "Help me. I got to get rid of these these containers." and they said, "Call this um the this auctioneer." And that

928
04:36:18.879 --> 04:36:35.039
auctioneer, it took him two weeks to get back to you. And then he showed up. He hemmed. He hauled. And meanwhile, he's trying to get rid of and move these. He's asked a couple of the the local businesses, "Can I move them >> off the island? I got to get these things off the island." He couldn't. If

929
04:36:35.039 --> 04:36:51.760
you remember that period of time, >> I certainly understand that, but what you're not saying, I completely understand what you're saying, but what you're not telling me is why did you wait until March 8th to start relocating the product from in that container into the building? Why didn't you do it beforehand and start this process before

930
04:36:51.760 --> 04:37:08.400
you you were in non-compliance? You didn't make any actions to move this stuff and start this process before. You only did it because you were found in violation through the magistrate. You didn't take any actions to do it ahead of time. The reason that the materials weren't re relocated was because we were complying with the DOA order that says

931
04:37:08.400 --> 04:37:24.400
come into compliance. So, and that's what we did. We issu we went and got a permit to try to get a permit to try to come into compliance. That's what the DOA order said for us to do. We're just following people's directions, Mr. Mayor, and we're not trying to make

932
04:37:24.400 --> 04:37:41.359
anything very difficult. And we come here in equity and fairness that we're we weren't trying to abuse the system. As soon as you guys said, "Hey, FEMA wants them out." My my client owns a giant house, man. He wants He doesn't want FEMA insurance to go up. He as soon as they said, "Move them out. Let's get

933
04:37:41.359 --> 04:37:58.639
them permitted or move them out." And that's what he tried to do. Tried to like put him on platform, spend the money. He wants to invest in your community. And it's about equity. It's not about punishing Mr. Himlstein for waiting a day before he got his stuff out or 60 days. I mean that doesn't

934
04:37:58.639 --> 04:38:14.639
build compliance. You know what builds compliance? You got compliance in the end. Compliance happened and they got moved out and you have a beautiful building there. You got >> Nobody disagreed with you, sir. But >> this process started

935
04:38:14.639 --> 04:38:30.400
way back in September or in 2023. For two years this was going on. It wasn't. So for you to insinuate that the town is not being not trying to help to me I find appalling because for two years the town did nothing but work with you and your

936
04:38:30.400 --> 04:38:47.199
client to try to come into compliance. At the end of the day you made the decision not to be in compliant by the date that the magistrate ruled. In fact you didn't start until after that. So, it's hard for me to understand why I should grant you relievance from a fine

937
04:38:47.199 --> 04:39:03.439
that you didn't start taking action on until after the fine started occurring. You didn't take any proactive steps to do it. Yes, you applied to elevate it in a different location than what was originally temporary used or but again that was rejected that was rejected

938
04:39:03.439 --> 04:39:18.639
before you started doing anything else. So even if your argument is we were going through the process, why wasn't it moved on the eth once you knew on the seventh that you were rejected to move him where you wanted to permanently mate? You didn't do anything for 2 months after that rejection. That's hard

939
04:39:18.639 --> 04:39:35.520
for me to swallow to say, "Oh, poor me. You knew you knew for two years that you were having this issue." And and I disagree with you that you say staff didn't meet with you because I remember seeing that circled area for the I I distinctly remember it because we were going through the whole FEMA thing and

940
04:39:35.520 --> 04:39:50.958
it stuck out like a sore thumb. So I I I remember seeing that circled drawing that you referenced. So for me it's hard and I'm sorry I can't I support all the businesses on the but I can't support something that someone brought on by themselves. Did the town maybe have some

941
04:39:50.958 --> 04:40:07.120
issues in this before the fine started? Potentially. I'm not going to disagree with that. But from the date it started until the date it ended, which is what you're here asking for relieving, the town worked with you in good faith for two years to get to that point. I don't feel that the applicant worked in good

942
04:40:07.120 --> 04:40:23.680
faith to take proactive measures to be able to reduce, if not almost completely eliminate, we could be talking about a couple hundred dollars versus a few thousand. And as much as it pains me to say that because of someone that is trying to invest in the island, I simply can't support a reduction at this time because of all the reasons that I've

943
04:40:23.680 --> 04:40:40.400
said and I've probably talked too much too. I'll refer to my or defer to my fellow council members to Scott. You haven't said much. You've just been sitting there quiet. We'll go to you. So I I guess my my biggest question for you, sir, is is on

944
04:40:40.400 --> 04:40:56.958
your timeline says March 4th. There was no indication a lean was being considered, but in order for the town, correct me if I'm wrong, Nancy, or Michael, in order for the town to

945
04:40:56.958 --> 04:41:13.920
issue a fine of $250 a day. There had to have been a notice that you should have received. >> Did you send it certified? >> On the March 4th date, they would have assessed the fine, but not certified the lean. But I'm not talking about the lean, but but what

946
04:41:13.920 --> 04:41:30.160
>> So they their claim is they had no indication whatsoever that they were going to going to be fined $250 a day. At what point did the town notify them that they were going to be fined $250 a day? >> They would have been notified at the January 7th hearing when the deadline

947
04:41:30.160 --> 04:41:46.000
was approved with the 250 fine and at the secondary status hearing on March 4th. And that's when they the fine would have officially been started. >> It could have started that day, right? >> March 1st >> there. The town's saying that yes, you

948
04:41:46.000 --> 04:42:00.878
were notified that if you're not compliant by March 1st, you'd be fine 250. But on your timeline, it says you had no indication. There's >> so I'm I'm I'm trying to >> just for clarification I totally agree with what he's saying and totally agree with what you're saying but I think what

949
04:42:00.878 --> 04:42:17.680
he said at the very beginning that line says we had we didn't know they were going to put the lean at the time the lean is a totally different thing than the fine. Yes, the city is statutoily has the right to find. All we're doing

950
04:42:17.680 --> 04:42:35.600
here is in equity we're asking you we there's not much we don't agree with. We got rid of the containers. It's been It was 60 days. There was a lot of There was mistakes on all sides. We're just asking you, like I said earlier when I opened, I said I come to

951
04:42:35.600 --> 04:42:52.240
you hat. Help us out. We're We're not trying to, you know, we're trying to to operate a business. We're small businesses here, you know. And I totally agree with you. Everything you said was right. We just didn't we didn't know at the time there was going to be a lean until September. council called me in

952
04:42:52.240 --> 04:43:08.480
September and said, "Hey, I need to file this lean for the fines that you had already received." And I said, "Yes, go ahead." I because it's statutoily she's permitted to do it on behalf of the city. So, I don't have it. I'm not fighting against the hey, these fines

953
04:43:08.480 --> 04:43:23.440
are too much. What I'm saying is in equity. my client had such a difficulty coming into compliance, going through the permitting process, going through, you know, all of a sudden here we are on March 4 and we have to, you know, empty

954
04:43:23.440 --> 04:43:39.040
these containers, get rid of them and find somebody that's willing to take them in the middle of the aftermath of a terrific >> storm where no equipment's available out here. There's no places to store stuff. There's I mean, it just wasn't

955
04:43:39.040 --> 04:43:55.040
available. And out of fairness, I think you meant horrific, not terrific. >> Oh, horrific. Absolutely, Mayor. >> And I I agree. It's It's frustrating when you drive to Lover's Key and there's there's 15 containers just like you had. >> It's like,

956
04:43:55.040 --> 04:44:11.520
>> yeah, >> it's I I understand the frustration there. >> Councelor King, anything else to add? I guess I'm not hearing ownership from anybody actually, but um I I'm going to

957
04:44:11.520 --> 04:44:27.520
have trouble pleading the Ian U defense in in 2025 or even 2024 for that matter, which I saw earlier. So that that that bothers me. But um yeah, I'm not I'm not hearing any ownership of the 65 days

958
04:44:27.520 --> 04:44:43.040
that you chose not to be in compliance. Um and and I think I'm with you, mayor. Councelor Mlan, anything else you'd like to add? >> Uh, I'm in agreement. I didn't see any real activity to try and come back into

959
04:44:43.040 --> 04:45:00.718
compliance or ownership of the fact everybody that had anything to do with this island knew that containers were not going to be allowed and we got rid of them. >> Anything else, Councelor Link? >> No. No. >> All right. With that, if there's no

960
04:45:00.718 --> 04:45:17.680
other discussion, is there a motion? I will make a motion to deny the request to relieve any of the $16,500 to zero. Um, as requested by the applicant, Himlstein Associates LLC and

961
04:45:17.680 --> 04:45:34.240
his council. Is that all that enough suffice and Nancy? >> Um, yes. Is there a second? I guess >> I don't know. >> I'll second it. >> Got a motion by Mayor Allers, seconded by Councelor King. Any further discussion?

962
04:45:34.240 --> 04:45:51.600
I'm an and I. Councelor King. >> Hi. >> Vice Mayor Safford. >> I. >> Uh, Councelor Link. >> I. >> And councelor Mlan. >> Hi. >> Motion carries five to zero. >> Final public comment. Thank you, gentlemen. Seeing no one, final public comment.

963
04:45:51.600 --> 04:46:07.360
Town manager items. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'll try to be brief, but we have a I have a lot of things to cover. So, uh, first of all, want to emphasize something I emphasize or re-emphasize something I did over the weekend at our upcoming, uh, recovery

964
04:46:07.360 --> 04:46:23.120
and resilience plan town hall on June 18th. Um, this is going to be really important, uh, for our community members, uh, business owners, property owners. And uh just to give uh a bigger picture of what this is, remember we

965
04:46:23.120 --> 04:46:38.160
brought forward to council the uh asking for authorization to move forward of planning for potentially a community uh redevelopment agency, a CRA. Um and we are using our acom engineering firm to

966
04:46:38.160 --> 04:46:55.120
do a uh a study basically of necessity for that. This is part of their factf finding and uh you know public comment gathering process of that findings of necessity. Uh they've been reaching out to property owners and business owners who they'll be meeting with but they also need need and want to do some town

967
04:46:55.120 --> 04:47:10.718
halls. Uh first one of which will be June 18th. So I wanted to talk about that June 18th 5:00 p.m. to 7 p.m. here at town hall. uh invite everyone interested to to come in and uh and provide public comment. At time AECOM

968
04:47:10.718 --> 04:47:25.280
will be talking more about what it is, what a CRA is so the public can understand that and ask uh their questions of them and maybe provide us and not maybe but definitely hope provide us some recommendations uh for some things that they would like to see

969
04:47:25.280 --> 04:47:42.080
uh us emphasize if we do have a CRA uh in the future. And again, >> you said that was the 18th. the 18th. June >> Saturday, >> June >> Thursday, June 18th. I'm sorry. Did I say >> Oh, I'm on July. >> Did I say July? Okay. Thursday, June 18th. >> So, will I mean, you're traveling >> really fast

970
04:47:42.080 --> 04:47:57.600
>> at lightning speed, so I have to try to keep up with you. Um, do you know when the report um is there a new deadline of when the report would be coming out? >> We'll say that. >> Sorry. >> Did they indicate to you when they would

971
04:47:57.600 --> 04:48:15.120
complete their report? because >> once that's done, I have a lot of things I need to do. >> Um, and I I guess I in my notes, I think it was the end of May is when we were going to get it. >> It was an original goal, but now >> So now, is there a rescheduling of that?

972
04:48:15.120 --> 04:48:31.280
>> I I I'll reach out to them and and try to get a um >> a revised >> a revised date. I I would say August probably at the earliest based on this information. >> That gives us a summer to really get orientated. >> Yeah, thank you Nancy. Good clarification. I will get that. And so

973
04:48:31.280 --> 04:48:48.000
so looking for max maximum participation uh at that town hall. >> Um myself and uh and a couple of directors and deputy town manager attended the FCCMA conference up in Orlando uh last week. It was excellent opportunity for

974
04:48:48.000 --> 04:49:04.240
us to >> explain that acronym please. >> Sorry. Florida, >> Florida City and County Managers Association, FCCMMA. Uh, great opportunity for myself and others to network with our peers, uh, receive information briefings from the organization, but also from other towns

975
04:49:04.240 --> 04:49:21.520
and, uh, and, um, the Florida League of Cities, uh, as well as some others to, uh, update us on, uh, new new statutes, um, new successes that other towns are having, and for us to just have a great dialogue. Um it was it was a tremendous

976
04:49:21.520 --> 04:49:38.160
opportunity. I would say the beginning uh when we uh met with some other of our peers and had some scenario-based discussions with other city uh managers and deputy city managers that was great. And then probably the bookend was also uh a good opportunity of legislative

977
04:49:38.160 --> 04:49:54.000
update. Florida League of Cities and FCCMA councils provided uh everyone there with an update of uh what is starting this afternoon. Um the governor's special session for property tax relief. Um, we received just great

978
04:49:54.000 --> 04:50:08.638
information from them that that covered uh, you know, what their plan, the Florida League of Cities and FCCMA is going forth to speak on behalf of all of us uh, municipalities uh, in the state and the uh, um, the concerns we have to make sure that those are are addressed

979
04:50:08.638 --> 04:50:24.480
during discussion. Um, but I can tell you that uh, um, I've had some discussions, some initial discussions with Joe uh, with the finance director on that. um that uh for us we have about 1,700 just over 1,700 homestead

980
04:50:24.480 --> 04:50:41.200
properties on the island. Um and uh so we're looking at you know uh definitely an impact uh if if it's passed in full um as as proposed by the governor. Definitely probably somewhere arounds of 300,000 maybe a little bit more uh a

981
04:50:41.200 --> 04:50:58.000
reduction in revenue um you know as as it works its way through next year and the year after. Um, in to some that may not sound significant, but when you're me and when you're looking at what that what that money can do for us in regards to staff and services, uh, and really

982
04:50:58.000 --> 04:51:14.560
just most importantly the services we provide on a daily basis, I would say there would be an impact. I'm not prepared right now to talk exactly what those impacts would be or what my recommendations would be to council, but just we will be having that discussion as we move into budget season. This is all preemptive. don't know what the

983
04:51:14.560 --> 04:51:30.480
decision from the legislature is going to be and if they if they do uh move a proposal forward, it'll be on the November uh ballot for a ref statewide referendum. So, I just encourage everyone to, you know, watch that as it goes through uh the legislative process

984
04:51:30.480 --> 04:51:47.040
and read it in detail. And uh even though I say some like the impact on on what Fort Myers might be, you know, there the impact on surrounding communities of ours and the impact on Lee County will also affect us because you know uh when if Lee County has to

985
04:51:47.040 --> 04:52:04.958
make service cuts, uh th many of those could also infect affect Fort Myers Beach. So just something to uh to consider. >> Well, can I ask you a question about that? Would you expect that if we do have an impact like you you anticipate

986
04:52:04.958 --> 04:52:21.280
we could, would we have to make that up with a millage increase or I mean we've got to get money somewhere, right? Or is that still to be determined? >> To be determined. Councelor Link, I I I I really want to take time to fully

987
04:52:21.280 --> 04:52:37.440
digest what whatever that is. And even even if you know I think we're going to be moving forward with our budget for FY27 before that anyway. >> So we will assume that it's not going to happen. >> I I won't you know I I will be prepared for um and I will work with uh with the

988
04:52:37.440 --> 04:52:52.560
finance director and the staff to make sure that we're discussing that during the budget hearings with all of you so you understand how >> it wouldn't go into effect till 2027. >> It wouldn't go into effect till 2027 >> assuming it passes the reg. assuming and and if the numbers sorry the numbers

989
04:52:52.560 --> 04:53:09.040
that I'm I'm giving you are if it goes into effect the way the governor is proposing it you know which is the you know um a progressive uh increase up to 250,000 from 50,000 which it is now to 250 >> that's not how I read it I read it would

990
04:53:09.040 --> 04:53:24.240
be two if it gets passed the way the budget or the governor is proposing it now it would be 250 day one and then would go up to 500 >> you're correct that's right miss >> I thought 150 was in at the beginning. >> Yeah, that's what I thought. So maybe it got changed. 250 is what I but again

991
04:53:24.240 --> 04:53:40.320
that's how much it can change between >> well and and what we do know what they the Florida League of Cities and the FCCMA um councils did discuss during that hearing was there there will be this this afternoon tomorrow the next week there there will be proposals and counter proposals and that's why you

992
04:53:40.320 --> 04:53:55.200
know I don't want to get too far ahead of it but I definitely wanted to start working with staff to you know to uh think about so we're so we're providing all of you with the best advice uh going forward and like the mayor said it won't go into effect immediately there will be time um even if it passes on uh in

993
04:53:55.200 --> 04:54:10.560
November. Um >> we'll let you and Joe worry about that for now. >> Well, and that we will. Um next, Education Freedom Foundation donation. So, uh as part of the uh beach school planning process um moving forward, um

994
04:54:10.560 --> 04:54:26.000
we continue with parallel tracks here. I continue to work with our our um town attorney on uh the draft ILA that the school board uh sent over to us. We continue to work for work through that and we'll uh our counters back to the

995
04:54:26.000 --> 04:54:41.360
school district. More to follow on that for all of you. But at the same time, the other parallel track we're working is is the application process and and how we're going to do that. We we uh the Education Freedom Foundation graciously h has offered to donate their services

996
04:54:41.360 --> 04:54:58.000
to us to help us with the application process. Um so that the estimated value of that of those pro bono services about $18,000. So what I'm requesting right now today uh Mr. Mayor and council is that requesting consensus to accept that

997
04:54:58.000 --> 04:55:14.320
$18,000 in value uh donation from the council. Nancy, is that is this okay way for me to ask for that? Like our donation? >> Yes. So, if you recall, we recently adopted a donation policy and um anything that was over $10,000 um before

998
04:55:14.320 --> 04:55:30.560
it was accepted by the town would have to be brought to the town council for acceptance. Um, I don't have it in front of me, but there were some criteria as far as if there was like a reoccurring cost or anything like that, but I'm sure Will you looked at it and there is no

999
04:55:30.560 --> 04:55:46.798
adverse um impact on the town by accepting it? >> Not at all. Yes, we looked at that very closely and and on the this will be very helpful to us. They have um assisted many communities with their charter school applications um and so we're appreciative of their

1000
04:55:46.798 --> 04:56:02.560
support. Just asking for consensus. >> I consent. >> You have my approval. >> I do too. >> Same here. >> Thank you all very much. Um and then I I mentioned the ILA on the school thing too. Um myself and the deputy will be meeting with the the island school, the

1001
04:56:02.560 --> 04:56:18.400
Bokeh Grand Charter School. We will be meeting with the the the leaders of that school, try and gain as much information and knowledge as we can from them as we move forward. Um and finally, I'd like to say, you know, thank you to Lee County. Two two aspects. Thank you to Lee County Sheriff's Office for the

1002
04:56:18.400 --> 04:56:35.040
tremendous support they've provided us over the previous the holiday from uh a week ago, but also throughout this week and uh even throughout this afternoon uh being the last day of school. Uh it was a half day today and there's we so we did expect possible influx onto the

1003
04:56:35.040 --> 04:56:50.400
island. Um, and I will say that Lee County Sheriff's Office has gone above and beyond even even beyond what we normally ask for them and services and haven't really haven't asked in many cases. They've done it through the just as good partners and not asking anything

1004
04:56:50.400 --> 04:57:06.638
additional from the town. So, I'd like to thank them for that. And, uh, Lee County for I don't know if everybody know has noticed lead Crescent Park is coming along nicely, really looking good. So really appreciate uh the county and their contractors for moving forward uh with that project. That's all I have,

1005
04:57:06.638 --> 04:57:21.120
Mr. Mayor. >> All right, town attorney items. >> Um just a quick reminder that in your emails, you probably have received um notice from the uh commission on ethics reminding you that the form one deadline

1006
04:57:21.120 --> 04:57:37.040
is coming up in July 1st. So I think they sent that out today. So, just to make you aware of that. >> Thank you for the reminder. >> The gift that keeps on giving. >> Yes, exactly.

1007
04:57:37.040 --> 04:57:49.920
>> Anything else? >> No. >> All right. Council matter items and reports. Councelor Mlan. Uh, the only thing I have to report is that I'll be meeting with Nancy and Amy

1008
04:57:49.920 --> 04:58:06.798
to review the handbook for the um for all the committees that we we have. So, we hopefully will be moving that forward and you guys will have something to look at soon. >> Very good. Councelor Link, >> I look forward to that. John, um I'll

1009
04:58:06.798 --> 04:58:25.840
take this time to say that I am going to run for reelection. Uh the form one. I completed mine and uh now you have to do yours. >> U Vice Mayor Safford. >> I did mine already. >> Look at you. Me, too. >> A couple months ago. Um yes, just a

1010
04:58:25.840 --> 04:58:41.840
reminder I'd like permission to on the June 15th uh meeting uh zoom in please. >> Fine by me. >> Concur. >> Council King. >> Uh you touched on it earlier and I'll

1011
04:58:41.840 --> 04:58:57.680
just u put my two cents in. Thanks to uh Representative Batana for being here last Thursday. uh don't always agree with everything the representative uh brings forth, but uh I don't agree with uh my wife on everything either and she

1012
04:58:57.680 --> 04:59:12.798
doesn't agree with me. Um the representative has done a great job for this town. Um especially got to meet with him in January when I was up there with the Florida League of Cities, lobbyed on behalf of the town for the little over a half million dollars we

1013
04:59:12.798 --> 04:59:29.440
wanted for a couple of projects. Again, our asks weren't very big. um he got them in the budget. It's up to now uh hopefully the governor does sign it and doesn't veto our um asks. So u thanks for that and thanks to uh TPI Mary and

1014
04:59:29.440 --> 04:59:47.600
Tom Toruson and uh um Dawn and Brian Thomas for for putting that together. Also, I'd mentioned previously and I'll reiterate uh the Lee County Metropolitan Planning Organization has a citizens advisory committee. The CAC members make

1015
04:59:47.600 --> 05:00:03.200
recommendations to the MO board about the project priorities for state and federal funding and FDOT's 5-year work program, proposed long range transportation plans, project plans, program plans, and other transportation issues. The CAC usually meets the first

1016
05:00:03.200 --> 05:00:20.638
Thursday of each month in Cape Coral. Um, we do have a seat for Fort Myers Beach on that advisory committee. if you're interested. I believe it's applications to Amy. So, uh, thank you. And that's all I have. >> Thank you, John. I just have a couple of

1017
05:00:20.638 --> 05:00:36.480
quick things. One, is there a way we can get back before the storm? We a couple times a year, Lee County would come in and you could bring paint and batteries and recyclable stuff that you wouldn't have to normally go way out there. It' be nice to see if we could get that back

1018
05:00:36.480 --> 05:00:52.638
on the schedule to allow Islanders to be able to >> I think Murth has worked. believe we do have something scheduled. Chad, do you have that date handy? >> We can we'll definitely get it out soon if we can't pull it up. We we there is one scheduled in the I think at the end

1019
05:00:52.638 --> 05:01:08.718
of summer. I think it's August, but yes, we'll we'll get that published. >> Perfect. >> In addition to that, well, we were hearing during the water about not putting your pills. Is that something they do at that same time or >> usually it's anything toxic, any type of battery, >> your medications, I should say.

1020
05:01:08.718 --> 05:01:26.240
>> Paint. I know that uh most uharmacies I know Walmart and I know mostarmacies have have a drop bin for uh unused medicines and stuff, but uh we can check on to see if that'll be something they can do there. >> Thank you. And then the other thing I had speaking of the school, I had the

1021
05:01:26.240 --> 05:01:41.440
conversation with Will and then today I had it with Nancy, but it's something I should have probably brought up here before we and we're talking about the school and we're talking about a lot about how we're going to pay for it. One of the things I had an idea for is I would like to have staff go back if council's okay with it, we could bring

1022
05:01:41.440 --> 05:01:59.680
it forward on an MMP and discuss it when we increase the parking fee from $3 to $5. That $2 was going to go to something. And if memory serves me, it had something to do with short-term rentals. It was done quite a while ago. So, but I'd like to have the research done. If that isn't earmarked through a

1023
05:01:59.680 --> 05:02:15.680
specific fund that it has to go to, would it make sense to take that already allocated funding? If it's just sitting there not being used for something else and reappropriate it to help offset what the school would cost to operate should it be a charter school and what that

1024
05:02:15.680 --> 05:02:30.798
would be, you know, how that would impact. I know there's a lot of things in the air, but to me that seemed like something that would be a lowhanging fruit that we could look at that's already been in place. it wouldn't be adding any more fees to anything as long as it's not detrimental to something else that it's being used for. So, if everybody's okay with having that

1025
05:02:30.798 --> 05:02:46.958
discussion, I'd like to add it to the one of the upcoming MMPs to see what that financially would look like and have a chance to go back for staff to look at what the discussion was about, why that was increased. >> I also remember having a discussion with Keith Wilkins when he was here. Uh at

1026
05:02:46.958 --> 05:03:02.958
the time then there was $100,000 in uh the short-term rental um that we were holding. I don't remember exactly why we hold that. >> Yeah. >> And we talked at that time about a a possibility of of um steering that

1027
05:03:02.958 --> 05:03:19.200
towards a school if we needed to come up with that. I just if everybody's okay with it, I'd like to have that discussion to see one how much money that would be on average and how that would take potentially away from something else if it's not being spent. It's just a lot of information

1028
05:03:19.200 --> 05:03:35.680
that's out there to me. Seems like a pretty trans pretty easy transition >> of something that's already there. >> Everybody okay with that? >> Okay. >> And I apologize I didn't bring it up here and talk to them about it beforehand, but I think it's something that everybody should have an input on. or mayor, it may even be funding that

1029
05:03:35.680 --> 05:03:51.200
can go towards helping the application get done. I'm not sure that 18,000 is, you know, the full scope of it, but those things can be pretty hefty. >> Sure. I mean, however works out. I mean, however that funding can go to that specific cause, >> right? >> You know,

1030
05:03:51.200 --> 05:04:07.440
>> there may be money needed in preparation of applying. And I know a lot of things are going to change obviously between the bridge loan and how that goes and what you can and can't do with some of the money that's there that we have to hold here and that frees things up. So there's a lot of different things that are going to go into it. But it's something to at least start looking at

1031
05:04:07.440 --> 05:04:22.638
and how that would have an impact. I mean I would love nothing more than to say, you know, the bridge loans forgiven now that frees up what we can do and this money now can be appropriated in perpetuity to make sure the beach school can be successful. So in a perfect world that would be fantastic.

1032
05:04:22.638 --> 05:04:37.600
That's all I had. There's nothing else. >> Um I I did neglect I forgot. Um after Thursday's M&P meeting, I'll be heading over to the East Coast to uh do some Florida League of Cities board of directors work there. So just wanted to put that out on the table. And with

1033
05:04:37.600 --> 05:04:53.520
that, um I'm reminded of something four lads from Liverpool used to sing. It's a wonderful to be here. It's certainly a thrill. You're such a lovely audience. We'd like to take you home with us. We'd love to take you home. And with that, we'll move to a journ. Any objection? We

1034
05:04:53.520 --> 05:04:57.160
are journed at 203.