It's 5:30. Let's go ahead and start the meeting, please. Okay. May the meeting come to order, please? Thank you. All right. Welcome everybody to the whatever which holiday this is. I've
lost track. I think Columbus got lost and found. Well, it's also indigenous people who actually belonged here. So, welcome to whatever holiday this is. Whatever you choose to celebrate. LPA chose to meet anyway. It's a good time. So, uh if we can start with the pledge of allegiance, please.
And Corey, would you pledge lead the pledge, please? To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible
with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Thank you. Could you go ahead and give us a roll call, please? Madam Roger Young here. James Ry
here. Corey McGra Ael here. Tony Hammond here. Greg Daly here. Lori Leland here. And Cheryl Covererson here. We have a quorum. Miss Jennifer, do you have anything for us tonight? Or Mr. Quick, do you have
anything for us before we get started? Nothing from me. Just um you've got I just want to introduce you. I'll reintroduce you again to Jamie who was here last time. Um, it's actually works out. I have a conflict for the November meeting. So, she will be you'll be in good hands with Jamie. Jamie, we look we look forward to
scaring the hell out of you. We're good at it. I I just will have a want to have a discussion about something afterwards. Okay. All right. I don't can't see my agenda. I don't have my
Oh, no. Fails. I'll put my glasses on. All right. Um before we get started, we have a fairly short agenda, but we Oh, thank you. Otherwise, I'm going to do this for memory. Oh, good. I'm good so far. Um does anybody on the committee have
anything they would like to add or delete from the agenda this evening? Seeing none, they're good. I'm pardon. Okay. Sorry. Anyway, moving on. This is the time for public comment. This may be about the particular subject that's going to be on our agenda this evening
or you may comment on something else. Regardless, please keep your comments to three minutes and keep trying to keep retain civility here. Do I have anybody in the public who wishes to make comment at this time? Seeing no rush to the microphone, we'll
move on. Okay. Consent agenda. We need to have a motion to approve the minutes unless anybody has an objection to the minutes. I make a motion to approve the minutes. Second. All right, Tony. All in favor, please. Would you
please do roll call, please? Roger Young, yes. James Ryan, yes. Corey Ael, yes. Gregory Daly, yes. Cheryl Calersonson, yes.
Tony Hammond, yes. And Lori Leon, yes. Motion pass 70. Thank you. Mr. Quicks, sir, we pass the consent agenda. Do you have anything that you wish to ask you or Miss Robasard?
Anything else? Nope. Nothing other than uh than what's on the agenda. Okay. Then go moving on. We're going to go on to public hearings and this will start with the first ordinance we have in front of us. And is this something that we need to combine like we've done with some previous Yes. I was going to ask if you want to do that cuz there there's
I already asked in my com Oh, okay. There's two separate items, but they they're companion items. Um so I can read them both if uh just in terms of ease uh um so we don't don't have to duplicate the uh presentations if you'd like to hear them both together. Um I think I would personally love that. Yes.
All right. Let me read both titles. Thank you. Uh the first is an ordinance of Alamada Village of Islands, Florida, considering the request of Tai Harris, PA, agent for Horse Pens LLC, to amend the village's future land use map from conservation to mixed use for the subject property on overseas highway located on Upper Madakumbi Key with real
estate number 009-6850-00002000 and to establish a new sub area policy under objective 1-2.11 as legally described herein. uh providing for the transmitt of this ordinance to the state department of commerce and providing for an effective date upon the approval of this ordinance by the state department of commerce. The
second title is an ordinance viara village of Islands, Florida, concerning the request of Ty Harris, PA, agent for Horse Pens LLC to amend the official zoning map from conservation to neighborhood commercial for the subject property on overseas highway located on Upper Madakumbi Key with real estate
number 009-6850-00002000 as legally described herein providing for the transmitt of this ordinance to the state department of commerce and providing for an effective date upon the approval of this ordinance by the state department of commerce. All right, moving on. Let's I'm assuming we should deal with part one first and
dealing with the amending the flum from conservation to mixed use is do we have anything here from Mr. Harris is our presenter? I'll do I'll do my presentation first. Okay, my apologies. No worries. Um so uh here tonight with the ordinance for the future land use
map from conservation to mixed use and the zoning map amendment from conservation to neighborhood commercial for the subject property on overseas highway with the real estate number 0000968-50-00002000. Um, Ty Harris on behalf of the property owner Horse Pens LLC submitted the
application uh requesting the approval for again the future land use map amendment from conservation to mixed use and the zoning map amendment from conservation to neighborhood commercial. The subject property comp comprised of approximately 6.4 acres 3.16 of which is
mangroves and wetlands. The current use of the property is considered is riding stables and horse pens. the proposed they're also proposing a sub area which would limit the uses to the existing riding stables and the potential development of workforce affordable housing. The Floam amendment Oh no,
sorry I said that. Um the applicant has agent has submitted a needs analysis detailing the map amendment request. The subject property has a current existing conservation future land use designation. The property to the north is designation designated residential high. The properties to the south are
designated conservation and the properties to the east across overseas highway are designated mixed use. The character of the surrounding area is mixed use with residential uses and tourist uses. The property contains a mix of habitats including mangroves and high quality hammock. The applicant
provided a vegetation survey and I have included that in your packet. The property is recognized as habitat to several protected animal species as well. And pursuant to the village's GIS data and records, the parcel is defined as hammock disturbed with hammock and mangroves.
Um, in your packet, there's a full analysis of staff's review of the comprehensive plan policies and the data for approving flum and zoning amendments. Um, after reviewing all that, at this time, staff does not have a recommendation regarding the uh review
the passage of this of either one of these articles. I'm here to answer any questions that you might have. Any questions for Mr. Berbasar before we start with the presentation from Mr. Harris? Hearing none. Mr. Harris, would you like
to come up and present? Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the LPA. My name is Ty Harris. I'm the attorney for the Limbach family who owns the horse pins. Um, and my address is on Plantation Key.
So, up until this morning about 11:00, I didn't think anybody had a problem with this application and then I started receiving phone calls um and it became kind of an interesting conversation as the day went along um
somewhat about conservation property and some and some about affordable housing in general. And um I'll share kind of the gist of what I heard, but I want to start with the beginnings of the property. The Limbbecks bought this in
um 1976. So when they bought the property, we were still in the county, Monroe County, and this was zoned a and this was an appropriate use. And the story, as it was told to me, is a bunch of the kids
got horses. They needed a place to keep them. And it was not just one family, it was three or four families. And and that's how the horse pins came about. And it's been like that ever since. So fast forward into what I've always termed the original sin of the village,
which was the downzoning of all those properties on um on US1. And this is one of the properties that was impacted. Um the village got rid of the a zoning. Um whether you think that was a good thing or not, we do not have an a zoning
classification in the village of Alam Marada. Um and the property unsurprisingly was zoned uh conservation. So now we have a situation that you have seen many a time over the last few years where we have a legal non-conforming use
of the property, the horse pins, but a zoning and flume that if the use was to go away for 360 days or more would disappear. So rinse and repeat, right? What do we do?
Um Brian Limbbeck approached me about um opportunities for affordable housing and his original plan was is there any area on the property on top of the horse pins that could actually be used for affordable housing. So Jennifer and I
discussed it and Jennifer's advice um was hire a biologist and let's go ground truth the property and see what's actually out there beyond the disturbed area for the horse pins. So we did that and unfortunately really the area that
could be appropriately redeveloped is the area where we have the horse pins right now. So that plan kind of went by the wayside. So what you're looking at now is the the eitheror. There are no plans to get rid of the horse pins, but
if the horse pins go away, what can go there? And right now under conservation, nothing could go there. So, as we all know, affordable housing has been um an issue for us since the inception of the village. High land cost, high
construction cost equals not a lot of affordable housing. Uh in fact, the the last comprehensive study we did in 2007, which would have been the second or third study that the village did on affordable housing. At that point, that
flash in time, we were about 1,200 units below what we needed. And in a community of 75 thou 7,500 people, that's a that's a big chunk. Um, and that if you've looked and Jennifer, I've talked about it. I've talked with folks
that have been on the affordable housing committee trying to get a handle on actually what's the number now the number may be less than 100 um apartments type of of uses um in the village. So we get kind of down to this
central question which came up a few times in my conversations this afternoon. Do we really want affordable housing? I it if we don't, let's be intellectually honest and remove it from the comp plan and devise strategies
where we're going to rely on a workforce that comes from um Homestead and Florida City because there are very very few opportunities to put affordable housing into the already built environment that we have in Alam Marada because if you
try to put it somewhere where we have hammock then we have a clear clash between comprehensive plan policies. You know, policies that say we need affordable housing and policies that say that we need to preserve our hammock and and there's no there's no winner in that
argument other than usually a status quo, which would be to retain the the hammock and not put the affordable in. So the next strategy is to find opportunities for redevelopment where somebody is actually willing um to to
make the investment into affordable housing versus some other type of use of the property. And for the Lindbacks, they have businesses here. They have Laurelai. They have island disposal. So for them, even a modest few affordable
units helps them to keep and retain qualified folks to work at Laurelai and to work at Island Disposal. So even though horse pins would remain if horse pins went away, there's a there's a game plan going forward into the future. And
having plans that are multigenerational is not such a bad idea. And for anybody to say, well, you know, you'll never have this problem. The horse pins will be fine. Alls I do is I point to the tennis center. And I said, that's what they said about the tennis center until
CO happened and tennis center went belly up. So we have that same issue. So at one level, this conversation is about affordable housing in general. Do we want it? And if we don't, let's come up with pivot to a different
strategy and do something. It doesn't resolve the second question is what are we going to do with these properties that had a zoning that allowed them to use the property and then we took that ability away and gave them nothing. Cuz
what we did is we either turned things into conservation or residential conservation which required a minimum of 4 acres and they put that on a bunch of 3 acre parcels. So in either case, you've made something by a regulation
unusable. And when you deprive someone of all reasonable um investmentbacked expectations or all economic um ability to use their property, you you expose the village to some interesting lawsuits
under either Burch Jay Harris or just a straight up um inverse condemnation. And then our good friends at Weiss Serota get paid more money to defend the village and fight these these cases. and we spend more of our treasure fighting
rather than solving problems. So, I ask that we have this conversation. LPA is the place to have this conversation. And if we're going to be serious about having affordable housing, even if it's in modest amounts,
then we should move this application forward um with the understanding that what we have is a sub area policy. So the only two things you can do on this property are horse pins or affordable housing and uh with a recommendation
that a conservation easement go over the part of the property that is not developed and after we have the biological survey back should not be developed. Um and that's what I'm asking for you to have that have both those conversations. Um, but if the if the
choice is that we still want to have affordable housing even if it's in small amounts that we move this this forward with that condition on it that we put the conservation easement and we and we recommend the sub area policy. And with that I'm here to answer any questions
that I can answer. I have um Jonathan Lindach here as well who can um who's signed up for public comment, but if we need to put him on the hot seat to ask him any questions, um he's he's willing to do it. He's not smiling.
Darn it. He ran. There he is. So, um well, he is the president-elect for the chamber, so you might as well get used to public speaking and answering questions. So, this is a good place to start. But I thank you for your time and for your consideration of this application.
Thank you. How about if we start on your end, Roger? Do you have any comments? Yeah. Um, so on the affordable side, I I've kind of agreeing with them. This this affordable as it is is no good. We're not we're not getting anywhere. Nobody
wants to build it. I've built some myself and it wasn't worth the effort. And I believe Habitat and a few have a bunch of open right now, do they not? They're having a hard time. Yeah. So, I mean, I don't want the horse to go away. It's been there as long as I can
remember, too. But I understand both sides of that. And whatever's legal and lawful for the property owner, but my question, Ty had mentioned a modest amount. Well, how many could you put on there? 12.
It was Now, he had in there it was like Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't like three acres, they could do 18. I'm sorry. I didn't realize it was three. I thought it was two. Oh, that was Yeah, but if they But if they did see what T says more, right?
That was in the packet. That's based on the density. That's not a real number. Yeah, we all we all we all know. What's the real number? I I think the real number is more like six, honestly. Yeah, because once you put in the the buffers and you've got to
put in parking, you're really I've been on the site and I've walked enough sites to know that you're you're looking at a very few amount. And the thing that gives them the opportunity to do it is because they already own the land. Now, you're just dealing with construction
costs because you've you've overcome one of the two obstacles. High land cost, high construction cost. So, you you've taken care of one. Their family does anyway. So, yeah. Yeah. Any any other comments? Roger. I got to think about for Okay. All right.
I just wanted to clarify. So, what they're talking about is the only area that would be developable developable would be where the horse pins are now. This already scarified, right? The rest of it would be under a conservation easement. Continue because you have to add in, as he just said, you have to add in the
buffers, the driveways, the parking spaces, and everything else. And that limit land very quickly. So, we don't have to worry about all the high the really nice hammock being torn down and and a market rates being built there later. I thought that they'd look cute on top of the barn myself. Right. Right.
But Okay. So, Ty, I have a question for you. So why was the why was the the recommendation or the request to go from to highway commercial versus
multifamily when you're really that's what cuz because when you when you get right down to it that's what you're talking about right now is when you're talking affordable housing units you're talking multif family. So with highway commercial it offers you know a broader range but you're talking about housing.
So why did you choose highway commercial versus multifamily? To me, it doesn't matter once you do the sub area policy whether we do highway commercial or multif family. I don't see a difference. And if you want us to amend the application to
but there really is a difference, isn't there? Because there's a there's a different amount of type of of not if we put the restriction in. But but we got to get away from doing all these restrictions and let's just simply place them in the categories, you know. Yeah. I mean, Ty, my understanding is
it's just a scarified area, right, that they're currently using now and um everything else will be conservation and it' only be limited to either continuing to be a a horse or affordable housing, workforce housing, right?
I I guess it's maybe me being gunshy about putting anything where I ask for for any type of housing classification because we're out of units and then so that's the first thing I hear is well why are you asking for this dummy we're out of units and like and then they then
it gets into the well how do we know you don't want to be a condo? How do you want to I mean pick your poison, right? That's kind of why we've started to go with the sub area policies where you literally you're putting your money where your mouth is because if you have the sub area policy, you don't have a deed restriction that could fall off in
30 years where then you do something else. And so if the sub area policy is kind of controlling the the application and it's saying one, it's either affordable housing or um or horse pins. Can I ask Jonathan to clarify a point? Sure.
Were you planning on the I'm assuming you were planning on these being rental units. Sorry, what's that? Are you planning on I assume you were planning on these being rental units, not individual ownership. Um, from my understanding, correct. So, I'm here to represent as uh my dad, Brian Lindbeck. He's up in Georgia with
my grandma, or else he would be here right now. Um, but yeah, this is something that they're they're rental units. It's for our um you know really our workforce housing that we're having a major issue with. Um and it's going to
help the village out as well just through our property taxes. Obviously right now being what it is aren't much. Um those themselves are going to go up a lot helping the village out. Um on top of helping the village with the workforce housing. Um I mean past that I
know I've heard a few different things. Um, my dad said that, you know, people were thinking that we just bought this property and we're trying to develop it and resell it. This has been in the family for 50 years now. Um, it is in my grandma's trust to go to the grandkids.
So, this property goes to all 10 grandkids. Um, if it's just raw property that costs money, it's going to turn into nothing. Nobody wants to hold on to that. if it can be something that can help the community and, you know, help essentially our family keep it in the
family. Uh, obviously, as Tai said, we live down here. We have many businesses down here. I pick up your garbage. Um, so we aren't, you know, just trying to make a profit on this. It's it's a property that I think anybody who grew up down here, if you grew up down here
and you got to learn how to ride horses, that's where it was at. Um, and it's, you know, there's a lot of history there, so it'd be great to keep it in the family if at all possible. Okay. Thank you. That's a good plan. I'd like to hear that. Another Lindex. I just want to clarify a couple things
to for Lori. Um, so they're requesting neighborhood commercial, not highway commercial, first of all, but also multif family zoning doesn't allow for affordable housing and it doesn't allow for riding stables. So I that's probably why Tai didn't go that route. Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. Okay. Anything else that we need to
clarify on before? Okay, there's all kinds of subjects floating around. I'm trying to diagram everything into my head. Corey, anything else? Mr. Ryan, sir. Um, I'm just I read through obviously our
communication and um there was a couple items that I guess it's not um it's not consistent with our our comp plan for. Um, I'm not trying to put Jennifer, not trying to put you on the spot, but can you elaborate that on those a little bit for us? I'm sorry. I was being asked another
question. No worries. Some of the items on our comp plan, that's kind of like a ABCD portion of our report. I guess we're not consistent with um can we elaborate on some of those or at least this I would like to discuss some of those and see how we came to
those cuz there is no recommendation for us either. Do you have one in particular you want me to elaborate on? Um I guess well the I think the environmental impact one is big. Um but I think with the conservation easement maybe that addresses those two. I think it's B and
C or maybe it's C and D. Oh are you talking about the compatibility for principles for guiding development in the area state concern? Yeah. So when I read through those I see like okay we're consistent we're consistent. Oh we're not consistent now. So those are things that kind of throw up I guess where like talking points for
us as the LPA to look at. Sure. Uh we can you want to go through them all? Is that what you want to do or how you want? I just want to go through the ones we're not consistent with. Not consistent with Okay. So I identified um B as protecting shoreline and re resources including mangroves, coral ree formation, sea seagrass beds,
wetlands, fish, wildlife and their habitat as not being consistent as there could be a negative impact on shoreline marine resources including um because it referenced wetlands, mangroves and habitats because the property does include a significant amount of
mangroves and that it is a habitat for many species um significant to the Florida Keys. So that's why I identified that as not being consistent. Um then uh letter C protecting upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater wetlands, native
tropical vegetation, for example, hard water hammocks and pineelands, dune ridges, beaches, wildlife, and their habitat. I identified that as being not consistent for the same reasons that um not only the wet the wetland and mangrove impacts, but also there are upland resources that could also be
impacted. Um, then I think there's one. Let's see. Is that I think that were the only uh nope. K. Limiting the adverse impacts
of public investments on the environmental resources of the Florida Keys. Um, obviously for those same reasons, it could have impacts on the environmental resources of the Florida Keys. Um, and then I think that's it. So, so I guess then I go to Ty and
Jonathan. Is there a way we could revise or you could we could adjust the application so we are consistent with these items that that are concern either either or. I was just looking up something kind of interesting when you were making those comments. So, I I would I would say that
by putting the conservation easement over um the unbuilt area that we've resolved both of those comp plan policy issues. And I also thought you might find this kind of interesting. Um I don't know how many horses are out there, but this isn't my first rodeo and
I know that a cow generates five times the waste of a human. So right now there are no regulations on a out there as to how waste is disposed. And when you talk about impacts on your on your nearshore and on on your non-source pollution,
which means runoff into the wetland area, you're going to get more I can tell you this cuz I represent farms. You're going to get more from the farms than anything that requires a controlled um storm water um mitigation plan. that
there's not even an argument about that. So, I think I think we've addressed both those policy issues with the with the conservation easement. Thank you. Um, I'm going to yield for a little bit, Ron. Sorry, Mr. Lond.
Okay, Mr. Hammond, sir. Yeah, it is. You're right. It's a dilemma and Tai is absolutely right. We either need to address the affordable housing, workforce housing issue honestly and head on or we need to take
it off the agenda and just say we're happy to let people come down for Florida City and fight the traffic all the way. And that's a I I tongue and cheek uh have mentioned to a couple of people that I'm going to type up a letter that I'm going to send to the council that basically says uh let's see
a couple of things. Uh it'll increase traffic flow. It will devalue the property uh the value of our properties nearby. It will and a whole list that goes on and on and on because we hear that argument about every single issue.
Um which wastes a whole lot of time because it's not gerine to the to the real issue that we're dealing with. Um if we're protecting the mangroves, we're protecting the hammocks. Um I'm not opposed to this. I'm vehemently
opposed to anything that's going to allow us to remove hammock area or mangrove community. Um, you know, I mean, that's just goes against everything that we are hearing and that we represent. And so, there's got to be a compromise in this. I'm for the
affordable housing. I also don't want affordable housing to become the the standard. Uh, and we've seen it several times in LPA over the years. Let's throw the magic word affordable housing and that'll give us a ticket to do
anything. I want I want some kind of guarantee that this is actually going to be affordable housing, not to become, you know, a condo or a commercial business after we've made the
allowance for that. We have the ability to do that, but we have to have it added in. And Mr. Debroard is quite familiar with it. I found the language. There's language all over the state. It should be in the new comp plan on what has to happen and we have the ability to do it. I have
to find somebody with the will. But there's very easy way to do it. But Julie, sir, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Mr. H. Where you finished? I'm done. I'm all through. Uh, I agree with Tony. Um, so I serve, if you don't know, on the affordable housing and workforce housing committee.
Uh, we are in desperate need of affordable housing. I mean, we're thousand plus units behind what we should be. Um, I'm also a big proponent of our conservation. I also am chairman of the land acquisition committee. So, you know, we typically look for parcels that we can we can do conservation. Um,
they're not asking to impose anything that's already been scarified and been used. Um, I'm also very against taking people's property rights away. So, they've been using this since 1976 and I think they have the right to do something with it. Um, and the fact that it's already scarified.
I'm not a biologist. Are you okay? I'm not a biologist. Whatever you say, don't say it again. Yeah. Don't say that again. Wow. I'm not a biologist or uh or have any
experience in in in farms, but I would think that the uh Tai's probably right that there's going to have less of an environmental impact by putting a planned affordable housing on there as opposed to just farm animals that can
It's not a great place for a pig farm. No, I got the I I got the numbers or dairy farm. I got the numbers. So the average for 15 horses, which is what's out there, is 525 pounds of feces a day. The same number of humans generate 22.5
if I take the average. I I know it's going into the into the sewer system, but I know that 525 isn't. I don't even want to know how you get the horse to poop in the sewer system. Yeah. Oh, no.
Can't ride the humus either. Mr. Douly, anything else? No, that's it. Okay, Laur, I I think I'm pretty much in agreement with everything that has been said before um by my fellow chairpeople here. Uh
you know, our problem with workforce housing is that yes, there is a need. The problem is is that people who own the workforce housing are charging rental rates that are higher than what these people can afford. So that's why I think we see some that are not being
rented because they're they're being rented at the highest uh price point that is allowed under their category and yet we still have people who just can't afford that as a monthly um rental rate. So I think we could need to figure out a
way how to put some lower caps on it or figure how we can can that's determined by the state and the feds, right? But maybe the with workforce housing can come up with a subsidy aspect, right, where they're subsidizing some of these people's monthly rents. We've been talking about presenting to
council um something in regards to maybe some tax incentives and things like that because unfortunately the way it is today, by the time you acquire land, of course, this is a different situation. They purchased a long time ago. You acquire land and then you pay for the cost of building it, there's no it doesn't make it doesn't pencil at all. I
mean even if we said listen u you know we I think uh Mr. Horton had suggested that we um you know give them a portion of a grant based on loss income for 20 years. I mean it would literally even in 20 years they won't recoup the loss of
the construction and the land costs. Um so we're we're going to present to council at some point uh in the near future, forget the date, asking them if maybe we could do some type of tax subsidies and things like that. So I agree with you. Um, and unfortunately we
don't set the the amounts for what they can be rented for, right? We don't we don't. But we we're seeing onebedroom, oneb units renting for for, you know, $2,400. That's it's insane. I know. It's insane. Well, you can thank the state for that because of the windstorm insurance.
Yeah. So, any of that any further unsolvable problems? Yes. Since we have a member of the the workforce, I mean the affordable housing. The one I had I had one one neighborhood
commercial building. There was I was given a sheet of paper when I seed that said maximum amount for it was a 21. And I can tell you I had that building for 10 years and absolutely no one ever
checked on it. Wait. So my thinking would be if you have affordable, you have affordable. If you're going to call it workforce housing, I don't think tax breaks or any of that's going to work. If you have true workforce housing, like they have
Limbbecks have a lot of employees. Then you you and you make it for everybody else that wants to build too. The caveat is if it's workforce, even if the property sells, someone has to be responsible for the lower rents. So if it's workforce, I pay
for my guys some months to live in apartments. I pay for part of their rent. I pay for gas. I pay maybe you put that to get true workforce housing and it has to stay in perpetuity like it's in perpetuity. But workforce is workforce affordable is affordable.
They're still part of the same part of the law. I understand that. Maybe you need to change that where you can put affordable could have a certain number on it. So maybe it makes a little more palatable for a builder. Workforce is, hey, these are your employees. You're going to kick the difference in so they can
live there and work there if that's where we're really going. Does that make any sense? I chair the original work affordable housing committee here. I currently chair the Middle Keys Community Land Trust for which Woods Corner, which is ownership, is built, but we have four
rental units in Marathon. I also help make sure that the wet neck got built, which is rental. Thank you, God. We had to bring in somebody from out of town, but they do a good job because they have that and they have blue whatever it is up here at in Tavanir that
the blue water not blue water whatever the thing is at the corner on Burton Drive before the adobe looking buildings. No, it's Dutch colonial. Did you if you've been to Aruba that's Dutch colonial buildings? It doesn't look thing like Taco Bell.
It is like blue. It is blue waters or blue blue something. Yeah. Okay. Anyway, part of the part of the issue we found when we started doing the research on it was most counties have a dedicated person who they either bring it in from
Southside or they have somebody in the community that does this every year on each in January for our units, the land trust. We have to send a letter back to Tallahassee letting them know who the people are that are in there, what we
have on income. There's an income sheet that we get and they have each tenant has to fill that out. I can't. Now, let me tell you, rentals are totally different than affordable, but I have to have each person sign it, has to go back to Tallahassee. We tell them what their income is. They meet
that. And if they don't meet that, we evict them. It's that simple. Rarely do I have anybody that's living there high on the hog. It just doesn't happen. I can tell you in affordable once somebody owns something if they win the lottery you're not kicking them out
but they can't sell it to anybody above the rate either that's the hardest part we found is there was nobody in the village for a long time to check on it we did no well it could be that way now Jennifer as I understand we finally are using um uh the outside committee from
okay then we're supposed to be we if I can interject we were um we fired them because they weren't really doing a good job um and what we've come to learn is so we send out letters, the cities, the village sends out letters. Um there's that the affordable people
are supposed to comply. Um if they don't, we send them a nasty letter. Um but that's about all we can do. Actually, there's this thing called eviction. There's no Well, I don't think we have the legal something you might want to talk to John. I don't think my understanding is we don't have the legal
authority. We tried getting uh maybe making a code violation out of it that but so essentially we have no teeth to enforce it on the what happens is you have to put it and this is where the problems come in because we as a community in Coral Gables in all the communities across
Dade County you're required if this is built on the affordable permit you cannot get the deed out until this clause goes in the deed that such time that you're compliant and that if you do not comply with this they will remove you from the property. the this county is going this is it's very simple just
like they do with any other county owned property if you are not complying they come in and they have three days to evict you um is that for people newly deeded though once they're in I guess once they're in there's nothing you can do but they can't sell it that's what I was saying I'm just saying affordable ownership is totally different
can I just redirect a little bit so we do do income verification on rentals we it is in the deeds for all the rental properties the village is limited in quote the teeth that we have. So we do send
multiple letters since we've took taken it over from Cordino Group who was doing it and when they were doing it we had about a 10% return of uh responses which was not good. We've gotten back about 40%. So since we've been doing it we've we've had an increase in responses which
I feel is is pretty decent. It's not the best but it's better than 10%. Um but we are looking at ways that we can um make it more um something that we can require more legal have more legal teeth to. I've been working with Weiss Serotaa and
right now the only thing we can do is bring them to court and spend village money to take them to court and I don't know that that's a wise um use of village. You only have to do it once. Well, I mean it's not my decision to make. It would be a council's decision to make. So we we would have to have
that conversation. But we are working on that. I I feel like this conversation has taken a a turn away from what we're supposed to be talking. So I don't know if we want to get back to that. We still have some public comment and some things to to work on. We can move on, but I'm just telling you what we did in 2008. We presented it to
the council at the time on what the deed restriction was. It goes with if you get the affordable permit, this deed restriction goes with it and it allows the community requires verification. And if you fail to verify, they will move to evict if it's a rental. I mean, I don't know that we can evict
on private property, but that's I will find the three deeds restrictions that I was using at that time. I still have that on a hard drive somewhere. Okay. Anyway, we're dabbling in things that aren't gerine to the subject at hand. Um, I for one would be perfectly happy to have with leave the horse farms
forever, but I know good and well that that's probably not possible. It's not grand for the horses hooves to be moving around on the coral here, but I've I used to ride down there, too, so I know how wonderful it is, but the traffic's too bad for riding now. But we need to let people be able to utilize their
property. I think the consistency of having scarified land use six units that will be rental rental restricted um makes more sense. It's already scarified. Something needs to sit there. And one thing I will make very clear
right now that I don't want to hear about any nimiism. For those that don't know what nimiism is, it means not in my backyard. That's utter nonsense. We lost seven units we could have put at the wetnet because people across the street went, "Oh my god, somebody that makes less money than I will ride down the
highway." That's a public road, people. So yes, I'm I'm in favor of this with the restrictions that are going on it, but I will is there any public comment that'd like to come forward now? First public comment, we have Bill Deweiler.
Hello, my name is Bill Deweiler. I live at 80450 overseas highway right next to the pens and Jonathan and I are neighbors. Um, when I read the the ordinance
uh today, it to to me it appeared uh a little broad a little more broad than what I think we would all want to see. And and listening to Tai earlier today, he he explained uh the the um changes that occurred from the original
zoning to what what it was changed to and eliminated the A and now we're at the point where we're at. Um and I believe I don't remember the exact number. What was the total number in the um ordinance or the description? Was it
41 or higher units? That's based on the density, right? 49. 49. Okay. 49. Well, and and see when you when you read it and you see 49, that seems like a high number to put on
the the the scarified area of that that property. So coming back with a different number of six, I think that's a reasonable number to to to develop in that spot. So I'm a civil engineer. I'm licensed in Florida and various other states. So I understand these issues.
I've been on this type of board in other areas. Um and I I again when I came in I was not in favor of this, but I think if we if we tweak it, I would be in favor of it. You would be comfortable with the six? Well, I I don't know. I don't want to
call a number. Okay. But I'm just saying that's a comfortable level for you if we reduce it to those numbers. That type of number. I don't want to commit to a number. Okay. I I I think it needs to be engineered. Okay. Based on what the code allows and how much area has been disturbed and if
you're going to keep it within that area, that's fair. Okay. Because they deserve the ability to de develop that property to them. You have the same concerns that I think you're hearing up here. Thanks, Bill. Yeah.
Next, we have Jonathan Lindbeck. Hello again, Jonathan Lindbeck, Alamrada, Bill's neighbor. Um, a lot of what I was going to say was said earlier, but I think I can also answer a few questions um or concerns that have been brought up. to start with workforce housing or affordable housing, whatever
you want to call it. Uh outside of the fact that we all know it's a major problem, it hits me personally as well. Um and my fiance, we both work 40hour jobs. We also have a side business doing microgreens. We do have a little farm down here. Um and we're still talking
about like trying to pick up some serving shifts at the lower lie or whatever we can do cuz we're we're still renting one of grandma's condos because it's all we can afford down here. Um, are we going to have it affordable housing and jack the rates up? Ridiculous. Like that's not the
intention at all. It's uh that would go against me and what I'm trying to do just living down here trying to make a living. Um, and Jimmy, you know, a lot of people that we grew up with are having this issue across the board. So, no, we're here for the community. Um, I think we've proven that across the board
in the many different businesses we do, but we are here for the community and we're not looking to just make a profit off of this. That's not at all the intent. Um, secondly, if you haven't been to the property or seen the property, I know one of the violations uh you mentioned was it being mangroves,
wetlands. Ideally, when you look at the property itself, there's US1, there's some woods, and then obviously the horse pins, and then it slopes down from there that goes pretty far back before you get to any mangroves, uh, wetlands. Of course, the
very front between the horse pins and the road, there's undisturbed um, hammock there. Uh, well, I guess it'd be disturbed hammock. Um, but that is essentially the best place if we're talking about, you know, runoff or I
know there's a lot of people concerned about the horse pins and where they're going to go. I know you said you rode there, too. It is an iconic spot in in the Keys. And when people hear that there's horse pins there or the kids that are learning how to ride horses there, I mean, that it it does mean a lot and it's tough. I mean, I learned
how to ride there. Everybody in the Keys did. So, it would be great to be able to put these units closer to the road and still have some sort of um I guess it's not agriculture zoning because that was thrown out. But, uh obviously like
personally looking at it as a a legacy in the Keys, but also it's been in the family. it's a part of the community to have some for the horse owners that there are 15 20 horses there um and families who rely on that you know to go
show a lot of the families too or the people that ride there they show professionally or competitively um you know I think if you really look at the property and you see that the front is not something that's going to be disturbing uh the environment in the sense of messing up our mangroves or
wetlands and I would not be up here making this as a public comment when my fiance is the chair for Surf Rider. If you haven't heard of them, they're they advocate they're a nonprofit that advocates for environmental um you can say it much better than I can. Protects
our waves, waters, and beaches. We protect public access to water um and just environmental uh policies in general. Uh we wouldn't be a garbage company if we didn't care about what was going on and trying to do things better than it was being done before when Waste
had the contract. Um heard it across the board. We love this environment. We love this community. We aren't looking to turn some major profit or destroy a whole bunch of land for our own benefit. Um but again, if nothing's done with this, like Tai said, it just then we
just lose any chance of housing. Now, I know this goes like way backwards. It's it's a lot more than what we're talking about when I'm saying it would be great to somehow allow for some horses back there too so that we're not putting people out completely. Um especially like if you guys know Lynn and Ashley
who their their whole family their whole lives they've helped run the horse pins and train kids how to ride there and um yeah it'd be a pretty pretty disturbing effect uh depending on which way this
goes. And again when grandma when uh my grandmother passes um it's going to go to the grandkids and uh if there's nothing there it's going to be nothing. Um so I just wanted on a personal level let you know everything affects me here
majorly and I do appreciate you guys taking the time to look at this and thank you for your comments. Thank you. Okay, any other public comment? No. All right. Any further discussion among the
members? Anybody got anything else they want to add? Do I hear a motion? Well, um just remember we just a reminder we have two ordinances. So motion um we it would just specify which one. I'd recommend doing it on the one
on the uh the flume. Um doing that one first, but you guys can go in whichever order you want. Okay. So, ordinance number one would be the uh Flume future land use map. Okay. Do I hear a motion to approve or
disapprove of ordinance number one? Can we can we specify something because there's there's a couple things that were brought up before we have the motion. I mean, you can make the motion, then we can discuss. I don't care. Go ahead and discuss it and then we'll the but they said a couple things about not disturbing the hammock and then
potentially disturbing. I just I'm No one else heard that? I did. Um so I think I mean is there an opportunity for both these things to exist? I think then we can't do the conservation easement, right? Well, I think he's only discussing from
the highway to the um to the horse pens. But that would be part of the conservation easement, wouldn't it? No, I was thinking the conservation ement wouldn't start until after the horse pins. It would just be the wetlands. Just be the wetlands behind. So everything from the horse pens. I can tell you that in 1981 when I got here,
there was nothing planted along the highway except a couple of scrub pieces and most of it was Florida holly. Now it's gone to more like buttonwood and other natives. Most of the Florida holly had disappeared. So the whole hammock area from the road to the to the mangroves could be ripped.
It's just it's just Google map. It's disturbed hammock at at best. But excuse me, Mr. Harris, sir. I just I just also want to note that um because this property was developed prior to 1986, they are not allowed to clear any additional land under our code. So what
is clear now is the maximum clearing that is allowed. Okay. That's the way I I just want to be clear. Sorry, Jonathan. So we're not adding or subtracting. We are taking it status quo. And you're not considering cohabitating with the with the horses either. You're
thinking that like if the horse pins go away then you're going to build or you thinking about building before the horse pins go away. Thanks cuz that's kind of like if you know I'm sorry to bring it up. I just No, it's okay. It's a it's a good question because we've been talking about that internally. Is there a way to
keep the horse pins some level of the horse pins and provide a modest amount of of affordable housing? And the pins are spread out. So you've got the area that you have to work with. Can you make it work? That's what you got to figure
out. But if you don't get past this stage, there is no sight plan stage where you go, okay, we can do horse pens here and we can be more efficient with the use of the property and there's an opportunity for four to six affordable units up at the front. That that's kind of what they have to figure out or do
one or the other. Can they coex? So the question is can they coexist within the code? Can they with a sub area policy? Yes, they'd have to do the change. We They'd have to have this though. But I've seen I've seen I've seen site plans with on a conservation land before. I mean
where the easement just is around. No, I mean I've I mean there's properties I deal with all the time that are zoned, you know, conservation and then they come in and they say, "Hey, I want to put 24 units." And then that's proposed as the change. But I don't think they're there yet, right? But this would be I guess this could be
the first step or step a one. Well, we have to get to this step before they can to to create a sight plan at which point you don't plan on messing up the hammock close to the road. I guess you called it disturbed. I would say high density or No, I apologize. 10 different words for it. Yeah, I was saying if you drive in, you're talking about where we used to
dump the horse manure right there to the right. Well, I mean to the right, yeah, there's there's the parking and then there's just a whole bunch of empty space and even right before that there's even the road that goes through the property. So, I apologize not talking about like the entire hammock going up to it. I'm just saying in front of where the horse
pins are when you get back to the horses, there's so much already cleared land um that you know I and again I apologize maybe I was speaking out of turn saying that I would love to be able to keep the horses as well because I know how it's going to affect not only another local family but well a lot of
local families. Um but no, I'm talking specifically about the already cleared area that is like you said where they used to put all the horse manure and where the parking is. Um, everything can be compacted. If you've been there, it's very spread out right now. Uh, there's places that used to be horse stalls,
there's not horse stalls anymore. It it could be moved around. Um, again, I'm working with limited knowledge. I was is a very last minute thing. Me being here, my dad being out of town, he would be able to be giving you much better information. Um, but again, this is uh coming from me personally and also
from what I've heard. So, so the conservation easement would be for that back three and a half wetlands or three point whatever wetlands. Then the front half if it's already scarified, we can we'll do what we can with it. Yeah. But Jennifer says we can't take out the highdensity hammock anyway. So, okay.
Even if it's in the front. In the front. Jen just said that. Yeah. Yeah. We can't do that anyway. So, it's already protected. And that was one of the things the we're at our clearing ratio now, right? Like so what you got is what you got and you can't take out anymore. I I had
that conversation with Daniel a few months ago to see even if the even if the environmental study came back favorable to some of the stuff up front. Where were we? And he's like you're at your max now anyway. So now you're just reconfiguring things in a way that that
worked the best. And you're if you're trying to still get both uses on there, then that's a site plan issue. Um, can you can you put four or six affordables and and increase your efficiencies with a horse pen? I don't I think that's kind of the conversation that's happening
internally, but nobody knows cuz until we change colors on a map, what's the point of having the conversation and Jennifer, we allow like mitigation on things as well. Like in that area, I guess I don't know if we want to call it disturbed or undisturbed, but that high density hammock is there. We allow I
guess removal of things but then we'd have to do mitigation. There's efforts there. We would normally but again they've reached their clearing limit so they would they reached their clearing limit. They can't clear anything. How how how do we determine they reach their clearing limit? So under our code um I can pull up the
section. There's a section that um give me one second. Um I'm sorry. You don't need to quote. No, it's okay. 30-16 uh4 F4 that um major development sites prior to September 15, 1986 shall not be permitted to clear additional habitat
along the clearing originally approved. And we can follow aerial photos back through 1985 that this was previously cleared at 1985. Okay. Sorry, Jonathan. I'm just I'm learning here, too. So, yeah. No, I mean that's interesting
about the uh clearing of the property or reaching our clearing limit. So I don't know fully what is um involved or included in that, but I know in 2019 maybe 2020 uh you know the property after the horse pins then there's also kind of open pasture that slopes down
and then another one that goes off to the right which was used for I believe training uh training sheep dogs uh back when Lynn said that there used to be someone that came seasonally. Um but yeah, so it it's cleared down and cleared off to the side. Uh there's even
Yeah. For like hurting. Yeah. I remember the lady, she had super curly hair. Yeah. And uh I mean there's even the stalls back there for the for the sheep and the other animals. Um you know, so that area now is completely overgrown. I mean, there's still fencing
that lines the whole area, but you probably couldn't even walk through it. So then you know what since that has been now overgrown I guess open just leave that there cuz you know if that was in included in the clearing
limit uh I don't know when that was taken or when the survey was done but parts of the property haven't been used the way they used to kind of like you said it used to be up front was just shrubs there was nothing up front by the road um there's other parts of the property that have also gotten overgrown
in similar ways Mr. Ryan, sir, a question for you when you're looking at this. And did did that answer your question as to what could and could not be done? Yes. No, I just I wanted some clarity. Yeah. Okay. Well, I don't blame you. Um, is there something that would make you more comfortable on a restriction on it?
No, I I'm I don't really like the the spot zoning as much. You know, I think that's a lot of work. I mean, my profession obviously is engineering as well as some people here, but uh the spot zoning that having specific uh restrictions on specific properties is is is a lot of work. I think if we can
find a way to to make it work within our existing code, that's the best thing to do. I think what's being proposed? Well, I I this is a this is a this is a sub area policy. So, you know, is it spot zoning or is it I mean, I'm
sub sub area. You understand what I'm saying? I know exactly what it's a specific we're making a specific item for a specific parcel. But I take do we even want to do is that is that the best route forward? I mean, I think it protects the homeowners, but
it's a lot more work for our I think it'll help protect the environment or what we want to see there. It takes an hour and a half for us to make sure they get what they want and we don't see it. I think it's You're the one who asked me the question. I know. I'm just answering the question you just posed. But um
I guess you know one of the unfortunate things about or fortunate depending on how you look at it being in an area critical state concern a bunch of the typical planning tools that would be available in the rest of Florida we do not have
access to what we have is a sub area policy which is our only ability to really tailor this like we don't have planned unit developments anywhere else in Florida you use a PUD to kind figure all this out and you can actually create even a landscaping plan that's tailored
to just this area and you avoid the the the spot zoning issue. Um the only thing that the state left for us is a sub area policy and that's how we avoid legally the um either contract zoning or a or a spot zoning issue um by offering
voluntary conditions and doing it through a sub area policy. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Todd. I'm good now. Okay. Um, now that it looks like we're not going to jail for it. Hope not. I volunteered. Okay, let's let's get You were going to
make a motion, then you had a said question. Did you still wish to make a motion? Nope. Okay, Miss Ael. Motion. Oh, did I didn't mean to have my light on, but as long as it's on. Um, for the
we're working on the flum at this point and for the first one, as long as you know the conservation easement and all that, I'm willing to accept it as it's been described. Yes, I'll make a motion to accept it as it's been described. Do I hear a second? I'll second that. Thank you, Mr. Douly. Would you call the role, please? Ma'am, excuse me. Any
further discussion? Speak now forever. Hold your peace. Is there need to be any tweaking to that for the density? But maybe as Ty was saying to me earlier that it's a matter of you got to get the the color change from the map before and also the conservation easement
because you know takes care of a lot of that too. Got they're going to be limited based on the fact of they're only able to use what they've already cleared. Exactly. Yes. May we have a roll call, please? Roger Young. Yes. James Ryan.
Yes. Tony Hammond. Yes. Cheryl Cersonson. Yes. Lori Lon, yes. Gregory Daly, yes. And Corey Ael, yes. Motion pass 7 Z.
Thank you. Having approved that on the flum, do I hear a motion to approve? Make sure I'm doing this correct, please, Greg. Um to amend the amendment to the zoning map from conservation to neighborhood commercial.
Is that correct? Okay. So, it's still neighborhood commercial, not affordable. Yes. Yes. So, that way it can accept the affordable. I got you. Yeah. Okay. Do we have a motion to approve this? I motion
to approve. I'm sorry. Whatever I said to approve. Yes. I believe Roger has made a motion to approve the ordinance to amend the official zoning map from conservation to neighborhood commercial is presented in our paperwork.
Is that correct? Correct. Okay. Do I hear a second? I'm still worried about the horse. Excuse me. Do we have any discussion further on this motion? Seeing none, please ma'am. Would you call the role? Gregory Dy.
Yes. Corey Ael. Yes, Tony Hammond. Yes, Cheryl Culverson. Yes, Lori Leland. Yes, James Ryan. Yes, Roger Young. Yes. Motion pass 7 to zero.
Thank you. Um any comment u from any of the other members on any subject at hand including future agenda items that anybody would like to see that pertains to us damage. I I know that's why I'm looking over
here so I don't hit anybody. I can't remember that area hearing none. Um I have I have a madam miss Jennifer. Yeah. Uh so I just wanted to talk a little bit about upcoming scheduling. Um so November we have nothing scheduled so
that meeting will be cancelled. Um December 1st would be our next meeting. Um right now we have nothing scheduled but we'll keep that on the agenda um because there's still a little bit of time. So we'll see what happens um between now and then. I'll be in touch.
Um I also wanted to talk a little bit about 2026. I'm putting together your um yearly um agenda or schedule for 2026. Um so recently, prior to most of you joining this committee, we moved our
meetings to the first Monday of the month to avoid the same week as council meetings. Since then, um Mr. Quick has um gotten a conflict with the first Monday of the month. So, um, is there another is
Monday still the best day for everybody? Is there a different day that works for anybody or a different week that we like the third the third Monday? I don't know if that works for people. We're just trying to avoid the second week of the month because that's council meeting week and for John and I that's difficult
to do three meetings in a in a week. So, third Monday is fine with me. Yeah, me too. I'm looking through most of them and I don't see any major holidays or anything. Do you? I'm good. Third Monday. Third Monday. All right. We can always vote to have a unique
moment. Go somewhere else. Does that work? But we still have that one for you. So December 1st is still we're good after football. All right. I'll put I'll put that together. If there's holidays, I'll adjust accordingly um and make it work. Um, I'll probably skip next July
because it tends to be a a vacation month. Um, a good plan. John and I take vacations in July. So, I'll probably skip July all together. So, can we skip July and August? Huh? July. So, I'll put that together and send it out and you guys can provide me comments. So,
where did you go? Okay. And that was all that I had. Okay. Mr. Quick, do you have anything for us, sir? John, do you have anything for us, sir? Sorry. No. state now. We were just talking about the calendars. Okay. Do we have any other motions to be brought before us from this group?
Move to adjourn. Everybody vote by leaving