Hello everyone and welcome to uh our Thursday night land use meeting. Uh Marne, would you please call the role? >> Council member Steve Freriedman >> here. >> Council member Deb Gillis >> here. >> Council member Anna Richards >> here. Vice Mayor Don Horton >> here. and Mayor Sharon Mahoney
>> here. >> We have a corn. >> Okay. Mr. Wishmire, would you lead us in the pledge? >> Certainly. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Thank you very much. >> Terry, did you drop your Swiffer? Huh. Okay. All right. Uh, addition for
deletions and emergencies. Steve, >> Anna, >> Deb, >> Don, >> okay. Well, we do have the um continuation the from the other night of the calendar. So, that would be um slipped in before tab A.
>> Okay. Um, real quick, I want to remind everybody that we, Terry and I are doing uh toys for the Keys kids and uh we have 15 locations. Florida Keys Electric, Wind Dixie, both of the CVS's, Trading Post, Centennial Bank. So, I'm hoping
everybody will help us out uh getting toys for families who are going to be struggling here in the Keys. Any information, you can talk to me. Anybody who wants to volunteer, yes, please. And Sue helped me with the flyer. Appreciate that very, very much. You did a great
job. And again, it's going to people who are having a hard time down here, which we all understand. So, please help us help them. So, having said that, um, Marne, can we open public comment? >> We certainly can. First up, we have Mr.
Wish Meer. Yes, Joe Wishmire Alam Marada. One thing I would like to remind everybody here about that big discussion that we had on Monday night with the baseball field. We are under no time crunch. Okay, supposedly this has been going on
for 5 years. Yet a lot of us have been in the dark until just recently. It's not just about artificial turf or grass. As our manager point out, it's a lot of it has to do with the agreements that we're going to make and these agreements
are going to be in place for a long time. It was very disheartening to hear that the school board didn't seem to be able to have time to meet with us before their meetings, but they expected us to give them an answer. That's not the way
it works. They can't do anything without our approval. So, if they don't want to take the time to meet with you all to try to hash out some of these very very important uh items on the agreement,
they've been playing on that field for 20 years. if they have to do it for one more year, I'm sorry, but you know, somebody's dropping the ball and we shouldn't be put in a situation where we have to make a rush decision and then regret this couple years down the road
because we didn't make the proper agreement that we should have. So, please make sure you take the time and you make sure that you all meet with the school board and let's get this hashed out and get it taken care of. The second one that I find really
disturbing, I brought it up also on Monday. I know you all have had three executive sessions now with about this Ted Yates thing and I since then I've been going over all kinds of stuff and I just can't understand how you can have somebody under a one-year contract and
not renew it and yet this goes on and on and on and on. Somebody's dropping the ball here. So, I think it should have been squashed in the beginning. Lord knows we've paid way too much money to people in the past that have been
terminated or asked to leave, but not that was under contract and just for a non-renewal of contract. I wish we could get a closure to this and I wish I could get an explanation on why it's gone on for so long. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Joe Marne. >> Next is Sue Miller. So me lower madakumbi I just have a question about the agenda itself and I don't understand why changing the
requirements for um the um now I can't even think of the word um the vzone in our comprehensive plan requires quasi judic judicial hearing. It seems to me that that's legislative
and so I don't know why why it how it became quasi judicial and who's representing whom if it is quasi judicial and then when we talk about quasi judicial one of the main differences in quasi
judicial in my opinion being interested in what the public has to say is the fact that in quasi judicial hearings that the public watching on Zoom cannot
testify or comment. And um and it seems to me that that we've always allowed that until just recently. And the Supreme Court of Florida allows it. Many courts have remote hearings. We
ourselves have a special master that meets remotely. And so I don't understand why we have that requirement and I thank you very much. >> Marne, who's next? >> I think we are set. Let me double check
Zoom to make sure. >> Yes, we are all set. >> Okay. Um, I neglected to ask our attorney and our manager if you had anything you needed to say, discuss. John, anything from you? Um, I was just
going to ask as a um matter as a proud father if you guys would if uh if it wouldn't be possible to maybe put the land use items for in December on the December 9th meeting. Um, my kids are both getting an award. Um, and I'd like to be there. Normally, I'd have one of
my colleagues cover, but it happens to be our firm holiday party that day. So, I'm probably not going to get much many volunteers for that. So, if it's not possible, obviously, I'll be here. Um, I did speak I know Mr. Harris is is representing one of the applicants. I did speak with him to just to make sure
it wasn't an issue with them and and and staff too and at least from staff and Mr. Harris's side, it wasn't an issue. >> Is that something that we can all agree on right now? Is anybody have any issues? >> What kind of award? academic. >> Come on.
>> So, there's two. My son um uh his team, he's in robotics. His team came in first place in his region and they're being recognized by uh the school district and by our our town uh for that. And my daughter is a playwright and she's the head playwright for a play and they're
being recognized for the work that they do for that as well. So, my daughters is outside of school, my sons is within is with his schools. That's >> so Jennifer, do we have a lot on the 11th that we could move it between? >> Right now we have three items. Um I'm not anticipating at the moment anything
additional unless something gets continued from this evening. Um and uh Mr. Harris actually represents two of the three. So I believe he's okay with that. >> Okay. And Ron, are you good with it? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> And there's not that much for the the
Tuesday meeting, the night's meeting at this point >> on Tuesday. >> I just pack it on. Pack it on. I'd rather stay late one night. Pack >> a two meetings. How do we do we just give a thumbs up if we're good with it and we can move it to the 9th? Is that how this should work? >> Yeah, that works. We can just get
guidance and we can because the agenda hasn't been published. The ads haven't been run or anything like that. So, um, we can >> Steve. >> Yeah, I he wrote an email. I said it's fine by me. >> Anna. >> Yep. >> Don, >> absolutely. I'm going to the awards. >> Thank you all. I appreciate it.
>> And Ron, do you have anything? >> I do. Oh, uh, mayor, just before we go into Ron, just one more question for John, just to answer the question that Sue was asking about, um, quasi judicial via Zoom. Um, why is that in place? Is that a is that a statute? What's it's so
under for quasi judicial, the the people testifying have to be sworn in. They can't have um they can't be reading off of anything or have any evidence in front of them that we wouldn't be able to access, and they have to be subject to cross-examination. So because of uh because of those um requirements and
they're and they're strict if if there's an appeal uh we don't allow it via quasi judicial because there's no way we can guarantee that happens. And I know a lot of people as Miss Miller brought up that that courts do allow it. But the difference with us and courts is the courts can hold you in contempt. So if they find that you didn't proper get
properly sworn in or if you had somebody helping you there or something, they can hold you in contempt or you know throw you in jail. whereas we just simply have no recourse at all um to if if somebody violated the the requirements of quas judicial. So it's really just to protect the village so that um if somebody
appeals it that there's not a procedural uh hiccup that could get something overturned um and then have to come back for it. >> So it blankets everybody including council members that might be zooming in for quasi judicial. >> That's correct. Yeah. Actually, our our council meeting procedures specifically state that um that council members who
appear remotely can't participate or uh or vote in quasa judicial. >> Thank you. >> And I will say I've been this is my third year and it's always been that way and Deb it was that way with you too before, right? >> Yeah. I I can't I don't think I can remember a time that it's hasn't been
that. I know for sure a lot of that got started during the co days, but I think it was in place before that too. Uh but I I'm having a hard time remembering that. >> As I said, there's a resolution on it that it predates um all of us. It was
from 2021. Um so, but like it probably took place before, but it was formalized in in 2021. >> Um and it it lays it out in in that resolution. >> Okay. Mr. Saunders, would you like to go now? >> Thank you, ma'am. Uh as y'all know, uh this year I appointed two citizens task
force. One was the citizens budget review task force. The other was a task force on the baseball field. Uh all five members of both each five member panel did a great job. Um they were very helpful as far as working with me. They were they're task force not committees.
>> Um obviously the budget's done and uh we're not plan on having any more budget review task force and the baseball field is at the point now where I don't need more meetings. Certainly everybody's welcome to continue giving me input public otherwise but when you have them in creation I think it creates some
issues. And so I just wanted to formally announce uh that both task forces from my standpoint are no longer in effect and if we need them for example next year's budget if the council would like to have them next year we can do them but there's no reason to keep them in effect. So >> so they're dissolved basically
>> basically both are dissolved because if two of them are having lunch then somebody could question that. So I think at this point it's better to just officially dissolve it because they were created by me. It didn't get count the council was not officially involved with it. So, I just thought it'd be safer just to say officially both task forces,
we thank them for their service. They did put a lot of hours in. So, I do appreciate it. But at this point, I don't see the need to have them on the books anymore. >> And now that they're dissolved, I will like to say that all of them did a great job. Both task forces, they put a lot of time and hours in there. And so, they
are officially released. >> Okay. >> With our thanks. >> But with our thanks. Okay. All right. So, now Marne, let's go to the schedule. Okay, so we have the 2026 meeting calendar in front of you. Um the dates
that are tenatively on there in blue are the dates that um are required by our council rules of procedure. So the second Thursday and the Tuesday immediately proceeding. Um there are a few months where there may be conflicts.
um August there's would be a conflict with uh the Florida League of Cities conference and one thing I particularly wanted to note was I would like a decision on the November me council
meetings they're currently scheduled for the 10th and the 12th um that would have this council presiding over them um if the council would like to have allow the new council to preside. Um the election
is not certified until Tuesday the 17th at 8 am. So it would be most likely um you know we would probably know who it's going to be before that point in time and we can do what we did last time which we had uh
can or excuse me orientation sessions and uh got everybody up to speed and then that day we would swear in the new council and they would uh take effect. So um it's really the will of council. I've seen it done both
ways since I've been here. So >> Don, you want to say something? >> I So are you recommending that we move the 10th and 12th to the 17th and 19th? >> No, she wants she wants to know if we want the new council there on the 9th. I mean the the 10th and the 12th
>> and but if they're not certified, should they >> can't swear them? >> They Yeah, they can't um perform duties until the election is certified. So >> So you would move the meeting, would you not? >> No. Mhm. >> You would either you would either if you kept the meeting on the 10th and the
12th, this council would meet. Um if you uh if you wanted if you all wanted to the new council to uh sit for the November meeting, you would bump it back to either the 17th or 19th. So depending on the date, we'll will determine. Um
>> don't forget Thanksgiving too, >> the week next week. >> Why don't we why don't we bump it to the 17th and 19th then? So that gives them it's getting certified that morning. >> Yeah. >> And they they would sit that night. >> So they would sit that night to be ready,
>> right? >> I would be ready. Well, that would give that would give Marne the week of the 9th to be able to go through and have, you know, orientation and that kind of thing and they'd be able to pop in >> just ready to go to work and knowing
what the heck >> unless unless there was an extremely tight election, you know, we'll know we'll know the night of the election or for sure the next day. And what Marne or the staff can do is
provide books for both in case >> I have that happen with you. >> It doesn't matter to me. Steve, do you have a preference? >> No. >> So, what do we do here? >> I would suggest we move it.
>> Yeah. 17 and to the 17th and 19th. >> Okay. Is that all right with you, Marne? And >> whatever works for council works for me. >> Okay. And then with the with our charter, uh, we could go ahead and since the new council will be seated, you
could, um, would you be able to elect a new mayor and vice mayor? >> That'd be the first item of business. >> Yeah. On the 17th it would be. So, normally it says >> Yeah. In non-election years, it it's
supposed to happen no earlier than like the 3rd Tuesday of November, which which means our our December meeting. In election years, it's the first regular council meeting after the election certified. So, it would be on the 7. If you move it to the 17th, the election would be on the 17th.
>> Okay. Whatever everybody wants, I'm good with. Yep. >> All right. >> So, we're moving November. >> So, then the 17th and the 19th. >> Yep. >> Okay. So, what else, Marty? Do you have anything else or does anybody have a conflict with the month here? >> The only other thing I had was the uh
Florida Keys Day in August >> or next Florida Keys Day >> Florida League of Cities Conference. >> And what is that? Um the 13th through the 15th of August. >> So could we move August to the 18th and the 20th? >> Normally we had canceled the August meeting because of budget. Is that
right? >> That's correct. >> You can schedule them now and then we can >> schedule them. We could cancel them in case I don't. So, I have a suggestion. >> Go ahead. >> Go ahead. >> Um, well, you cancel August, but because because that puts your uh July and your
September meeting a full two months apart. If you move July down Oh, you >> you said something about you needed a problem with July, but if you move July down uh a week or two. >> Nope. Can't do. >> Okay.
>> Well, I guess I don't get to finish my suggestion. Go ahead and finish it. But I have a right to say no. >> All right. And I'll just shut up. >> Well, why don't we just >> I was just trying to figure out how not to have >> That's why I was going to say tentatively schedule the August to 1820.
>> I like that idea, but >> always cancel. There's nothing pressing. >> Okay. >> 1820. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. 1820 August. >> Yeah. That way there's nothing pressing. >> Steve, did you have any issues?
>> Um I may have an issue with the uh with the February dates. I it would be helpful to move it to the 17th and 19th. Um I can do the 10th. I just can't do the 12th. >> Uh and then in March if preferably move
that from 101 12 to 171 18th. >> So the 19th might get to start getting a little busy because that's the nautical is the >> getting cranking. >> I don't want to move it. I want to go February. That's going to be chaos. So, how you which which of the two can't you
do? >> Uh, the I can't do the 12th. I can do the 10th. >> Well, how about if we plan on just having one meeting on the 10th that month? >> Well, I think it'll depend on what >> Yeah, that's fine. I mean, >> it's fine. >> We if we plan for it.
>> I was just trying to figure out the >> if if I know if I know that there's no Thursday meeting, I can work I can accommodate that. It's up to them. >> That's great. We can do >> You like that idea? >> Yeah. >> Can you do the 10th at least?
>> Do you want to do one meeting that month or you want to do >> I don't know. >> I don't care. >> Okay. So, we're losing the 12th and now it's just the 10th >> and then I'm I'm going to be out of town March 10 and 12th. >> Oh my god. >> So, you want to do 17 19? Is that what you're saying?
>> I'm I'm going to be out of town the 15th through the 18th. So, >> well, >> let's just keep the 10 and 12 then. >> Um, how about if we move it forward a a week? The third and the fifth.
What's the What's the second? What's meeting? >> The fifth is Florida Keys. Oh, sorry. That's different months. >> Oh, it's LPA meeting. Um, >> don't worry about LPA. We can adjust those things. >> No. Right. Um, how about March 3rd and
third? >> I can move it to three to the week earlier. So, >> does that work on yours? >> Don, does that work for you? >> What's that? >> The 3rd and the 5th of March. >> Uh, I don't see it. I didn't I didn't think we removed anything in March, so I
don't know. >> Um, >> he's got a problem the week and she's got a problem with the second week, >> the next third week. No, cuz I planned the calendar. So, >> do you have problem with the third and
fifth? >> No, but I mean it's only two weeks in between meetings. >> I know. >> I mean, these Tuesday dates were already >> problem moving it to the 19th. >> Huh?
>> Yeah, I got a problem moving to the 19th. Um, >> well, she can't she can't do that with Anna can't do that with >> you want to just >> I know >> I have a problem with the fourth and fifth. So
>> Oh, well okay. Um, >> fourth and the fifth. >> They just leave it. >> Why don't we just leave it right now and then we can adjust, I guess. I don't know. >> Yeah, that's fine. We don't have to 10 and 12. >> We'll figure it out as we go.
>> Okay. Any any other months, Steve? >> No. >> July. >> July is good. I >> checked it. The dates changed on it, so it's on the second week instead of the the first week. So, we're July 7 and 9 should be good. >> Do you have a
>> Tuesday? No, I'm fine. Tuesday, you said or Monday, I'm sorry. You said you might have a conflict on some month. >> No, Mark. No, he was saying there was a couple of weeks that there was no meetings even planned that he wasn't going to be here. So,
>> I just I highlighted these in case y'all wanted to move things around. I knew I was >> totally unavailable for those. I didn't look at mine. >> Got it. >> Anna, do you have anything? >> Nope. >> Okay. So, just to recap, it's the 6th
and the 8th in January, the 10th in February, 11th and 12th in March. >> 10th and 12th. >> Oh, yeah. Se Oh yeah. 7th and 9th in April, 12th and 14th in May, 9th and 11th in June, 7th and 9th in
July, 18 and 20 in August, 8th and 10th in September, 6 and 8 in October, 17 and 19 in November, and 8 and 10 >> December. >> In December, correct? >> Are we all on the same page? >> Yep.
>> Okay. Well, that was fun. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> All right. Marne, can you provide us with a clean copy when we're done? >> Um, I will get to you in the morning. >> No, no, that's fine. You know, whenever,
but >> just before January >> I put it at my calendar. >> Just before January. >> Yeah, exactly. >> Okay. So, now we're moving on to the resolutions. John, >> yes. Tab A is
>> caught you off guard there, didn't I? >> You did. >> A resolution of the village council of Alamara Village of Islands, Florida, approving residential building permit allocation system rankings and awarding residential building permit allocations for quarter 3 of 2025 and providing an effective date.
>> Jennifer, good evening, council. Um, tonight I'm here for your approval of your third quarter 2025 residential market rate building permit allocation. Pursuant to section 30-475 of the code of ordinances of Marada, the village council is required to take action after reviewing the building permit allocation
system evaluation report. Pursuant to resolution 24-11-131 adopted November 19th, 2024, two market rate residential allocations were made available for 2025 through EPASS and one market rate without land education is
available for distribution in quarter 3 of 2025. At the close of quarter 3 of 2025, 47 applications for market rate residential permit allocations were in the BP pass Q awaiting building and permit allocation awards. The market rate residential applications were have
been evaluated, scored, and ranked according to the criteria outlined in village code section 30-476. The application recommended for approval is listed below. Permit number PRSFC 20220001015 with 20 points was submitted by Gary and
Beth Nichols on June 25th, 2021 at 10:36 a.m. for parcel ID 00388-960-0000. The proposed resolution in your packet approves the residential B pass rankings and award market rate building permit allocation for quarter 3 of 2025
pursuant to the village code section 30-476. Um, at this time we approve the uh resolution as proposed and I'm here if you have any questions. >> Anybody have anything for Jennifer before I open public comment? Anybody? No. Okay. Marne.
>> Yes. Gary and Beth Nichols. We all just really came to say hi. I haven't seen everybody in a long time. Um, it's been a this has been a long process. Even though that says 2021, it was actually another five or six years before that. We tried to do owner
builders. So, we went back and forth and back and forth and basically it was my dad's lot and my lot. Um, my dad's in pretty poor shape, so he had power of attorney. So, now it's my lot, but the reality of the situation is we're taking care of him up at the Palace Gardens and
it's about $10,000 a month to maintain his quality of life. So, this is very important to our family to support my father. Uh, it's the one thing that we could probably liquidate. I would love to have built a house next to him.
That's why originally we were trying to get the lot. My dad, one of his big wishes and in bucket list was that we build a house next to him and either myself or my daughters and we have two daughters and and f their families, they live next door to us. One lives in only
a two one and we were hoping to be able to build the house for them to live in our house and we would that actually Don Horton built my house by the way 40 years ago. >> 40 years ago. Yes. >> And it's still standing. >> So, the plan was we were going to have a new house for the the old people that we
be looking at the ocean, which would have been really cool. But anyway, at this point, um finances and everything, it's been a little bit of a downturn and the commercial fishing business we've been doing for 53 years. And her and I started that when she was 15 and I was 16. So, we've been doing it 53 years. Um
and we've been married almost the same. We've been together all that time. But anyway, so anyway, I just hope that you know you consider that and uh approving that and that would be make our day. My dad was here a year and a half ago, by the way, sitting in that chair there. He was asleep most
of the time. >> And poor guy. I think we you almost killed him. >> It was all It was all night, too. It was a long >> Right after that, I ended up He's in the hospital a lot, but now we got him in a really safe, great place. That's Palace Garden is an awesome place. It's like this Fitz Carlton of places, but it is
pricey, but they take care of them medically super and they also stimulate them with things to do. And that's about all I got to say. And I, this man right here, he's he's my hero. The only reason I'm a commercial fisherman today is because of him. >> Who are we talking?
>> Because he helped with us commercial fishermen have the first fisherman derived limited entry system in United States in commercial fishing. And that's that basically put up a our uh lobster traps not gave it a value and we have now we buy pieces of stock. We've also
reduced our lobster traps in half over the last 20 years. We've gone from a million traps down to 425,000 traps. We're going to go to 400,000 and stop on that. On the lop on the stone crabs, we also have limited entry. We've gone from 2 million. We're down to
900,000. So, the environment's done good and and um I every time I hear Ron on his radio shows and stuff, I mean, I just I remember the days he helped us walk through the the halls of uh Tallahassee. So, my my hats off to you,
of course, and and my family have continued our first steps. My daughters, my son-in-laws, everybody's in the posa. And you want to say something? >> No, you said it all. >> Oh, come on. She never talks. >> I do. But no, I I just hope you pass it and give it to us because we could
really use it and um it he pretty much said >> I know what you've been through. You've been through a lot. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much for hope you consider. >> Marty, is there anybody else? >> No, there is not.
>> Okay, councel >> move to approve. >> Anybody have anything else? >> I'll second. >> Okay, Martney, call the role, please. Vice Mayor Don Horton, >> yes. >> Council member Deb Gillis, >> yes. >> Council member Steve Freriedman, >> yes. >> Council member Anna Richards,
>> yes. >> And Mayor Sharon Mahoney, >> yes. Motion passes. >> Congratulations, you guys. You've been through a lot. Thank you very much. Been a long time. >> Thank you. We We would love to hear you all have your meeting, but I got to go cry. >> Come on.
>> If anybody wants to go on a boat in the morning, we get on the boat. We leave at 4. I figured you can bring stone crash claws forever. >> You know what? You come by. >> Seriously, go buy your cast and you can get some for dinner. >> My prices in the paper I just put in
there today. $14 on mediums, $18 on large. Freaking >> You're not going to find out to go that low, but the market's that bad. >> But I can't literally I've been doing this 53 years and I saw my own people. It's very tough market for >> Yeah, it is. >> But we're catching a lot of breath, so
that's a good thing. >> Well, that's good. Well, >> have a nice evening. >> Congratulations you guys and thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Okay, Marty, I mean John. >> Yep. Uh tab B is a resolution of the village council of Vermont Village, Florida, approving non-residential building permit allocation system
rankings and awarding non-residential building permit allocations for quarter 3 of 2025 and providing for an effective date. >> Jennifer, >> good evening, council. Uh again, we're here for the approval of the third quarter 2025 non-res residential building permit allocations. Pursuant to
village code section 30-475, the village council is required to act after reviewing the building permit allocation system evaluation report. The remaining available total of non-residential square feet for allocation in 2025 is 41,626 ft. This is the second allocation for
2025. There is one application for non-residential B pass in the queue awaiting an award for quarter 3. The proposed resolution approves the non-residential building permit allocation ranking system ranking and awards pursuant to comprehensive plan policy 1-3.1.11
and village code section 30-476. The permit um in the queue is PRC OB 202500765 for Native Storage LLC. Uh date of application was 92925 on parcel parcel
number 0042528590-00000000 and they are requesting uh 1,632 square ft. At this time staff would recommend approval and I'm here if you have any questions. >> Anyone have anything for Jennifer Deon? No. >> Okay. Marne public comment.
>> We have no one. >> Okay. Council. Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Okay. >> Council member Deb Gills. >> Yes. >> Council member Anna Richards. >> Yes. >> Council member Steve Freriedman. >> Yes. >> Vice Mayor Don Horton.
>> Yes. >> And Mayor Sharon Mahoney. >> Yes. >> That motion passes 5 to zero. >> Okay. John, moving on to C. Tab C is a resolution of the village council of Alamar Village, Florida, establishing the total amount of non-residential floor area and residential dwelling units quarterly allocations and the distribution of allocations between
categories of the building permit allocation system for 2026 and providing for an effective date. >> Jennifer, so this is the uh annual distribution of our building permit allocation system allocations for 2026. Uh your attached
resolution proposes the following distribution schedule for non-resident residential BPASS allocations um is 4 47,164 square ft shall be allocated in quarter 1 of 2026 with unused allocations
rolling over into each subsequent quarter for distribution. This amount reflects the total square footage available being rolled over from 2025 which after the previous award is 39,994 plus the additional 7,170 provided for
in our comprehensive plan in 2026. There's one market rate housing allocation available for distribution in 2026. This resolution proposes to distribute the remaining allocation in quarter 1 and there are 84 affordable housing allocations available for distribution in 2026. 54 of these
allocations are rolled over from 2025 and there are 30 additional as provided for in our comprehensive plan. At this time, staff recommends approval of the resolution. I'm here if you have any questions. >> Anybody have anything for Jennifer? >> Okay. Did you >> I do go ahead.
>> I do. >> So So we have the one that's rolling that is recommended for quarter one. Should it be rolled to quarter two? Um, >> does anybody have any >> desire to do that? >> Why?
>> Why? >> To draw to draw out when we're out of allocations. >> It's already going to be drawn out. We're only doing one, >> but it it it adds another quarter for us
to potentially get the ones that are looming in Tallahassee to get the new ones before we actually run. I don't think that'll happen, but it's just a thought. I'm I'm cool with it either way.
>> I don't see a reason to kick the can. You either have them or we don't. >> Yeah, >> it's it's it's only a >> related to takings. I get it. Oh, >> it's only related to takings. I don't I don't really want to kick the
can. I don't. But there's that argument. >> Anybody else have anything before we open public comment? >> No. >> You two want to keep discussing or we're good for public comment first? >> Oh, >> okay. Go ahead, Martney. Anybody?
>> We do not have anyone for public comment. >> Well, that didn't help. It up a little time. That didn't do any good. >> All right, then. Back to council then. Do I have a motion or more discussion? What do you guys want to do?
>> It's only about I don't care one way or the other, actually. >> I mean, I'm good with the way it is. So, >> yeah, me too. >> Well, I need a motion. >> Move to approve. >> Second. >> Okay. >> Okay. Marty, call the role, please. >> Vice Mayor Don Horton. >> Yes. >> Council member Anna Richard. >> Yes.
>> Council member Steve Freriedman. Yes. >> Council member Deb Gillis. >> Yes. >> And Mayor Sharon Mahoney. >> Yes. >> The motion passes five to zero. >> Okay. John D. >> Tab D is an ordinance by Lamar Village of Islands, Florida, amending chapter 30, Land Development Regulations, Article 3, Decision-M, and Other
Administrative Bodies, Division 3, Local Planning Agency, Section 30-103 of the Village Code relating to appointment, removal, terms, and vacancies, providing for severability, providing for inclusion in the code, and providing for an effective date. Uh, this is an ordinance on second reading. Um, I can go through it if you'd like, but if you
recall, this was just to u make their terms consistent with the other other boards. >> Okay. Jennifer, do you want to say anything? Are we good? >> I'm good. Thank you. >> Okay. Does council any discussion? You want to do public comment? Marne? >> Yes. Sue Miller is like to speak.
>> Sue Miller, lower Makumbi. My only comment is that that you changed the procedures for committees hoping to get more turnover in the committee membership so that more people would
have an opportunity to serve on the committees. And it seems strange that now after you made that decision that now you're trying to eliminate term limits to make it easier for the same people to stay. Thank you.
>> Anybody else wanting? >> No, ma'am. >> Okay. Council discussion. Anybody have anything? >> No. >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Marne. >> Council member Debillis. >> Yes. >> Council member Anna Richards.
>> Yes. >> Council member Steve Freriedman. >> Yes. >> Council or excuse me, Vice Mayor Don Horton. >> Yes. >> And Mayor Sharon Mahoney. >> Yes. Motion passes 5 Z. John E. >> E is also an ordinance on second reading. It's an ordinance of Alamarda Village, Florida, amending chapter 30, land development regulations, article 5,
schedule of districts and use schedule of district use and development standards, division 7, off streetet parking, loading and driveway standards, section 30-851 of the village code, relating to backing movements or other maneuvering within a street right ofway, providing for severability, providing for inclusion in the code, and providing
for an effective date. Um, again, we've talked about this a number of times. It's second reading. I I can answer any questions if uh if you have any. >> Anybody? And Jennifer, you have nothing. Okay, Marne. Oh, she's your mic off. Okay. Any public comment? >> Yes. Sue Miller would like to speak.
>> Okay. >> Sue Miller. I feel like Van Caden head. >> You don't look like him though. >> Oh, don't say that. Don't. Um, the overseas highway, a scenic highwell. Highway. Well, it used to be
scenic until our businesses ran out of required parking. Now, driving through Alam Marada sometimes makes me feel like I'm navigating a city parking lot. I hate that the local government must resolve so many parking issues. But this ordinance is really just about safety,
not about providing or not providing parking. Let's start by acknowledging that backing up isn't a natural thing to do. Backing up causes more than its share of crashes. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates
that 292 pedestrians and cyclists are killed and 18,000 injured each year from backup crashes. When we're talking about backing into or out of a parking spot, backing up inherently has increased
risks. The parking experts, driving instructors, fleet managers, AAA, the International Parking Institute, parking lot architects, all say that backing in is better. Here's why. When we back in,
we drive past the parking spot first, giving an opportunity to make sure it's clear. And when it's time to pull out, we have much better visibility to spot cars and people. Backup cameras are helpful if you have them, but they're
not perfect at identifying pedestrians or to spot a vehicle driving 45 miles an hour as as they approach you. Backing in is safer than backing out. So maybe a sign requiring
back in parking only would be a safer solution, not a change in the code. She made a little sign. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Sue. Marne, anybody else? Double checking Zoom, but I don't
believe so. No, there's no one else. >> I thought I put a card. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Did you? >> Mr. Wishber would like to speak. >> Well, if you didn't come on up. >> If I did, I'll fill one out. Now, my concern, as I uh alluded to on the
first reading of this was we've been doing this ever since keys were around. We haven't had a problem. We haven't had to change the code, make ordinances. We haven't had to do any of that. I'm afraid that all this has come up because
of the parking situation at Angller's Reef and I'm afraid that we can't apply for a new parking uh because the code does not allow for it. So, by changing this code is going to help clear the path 40 anglers way. I
hope that's not the case because I am certainly opposed to doing away with more greenery. So, I hope you consider that. Thank you, >> Marty. Anybody else? >> No, ma'am. >> Okay. Council discussion. Anybody? Everybody wants to say something. Don, go ahead. I'll start
with you. >> I just I think this is something that's long overdue. The village put in uh parking in the arts district uh all on their own. uh where it backs on. Even though it's backing at an angle, you're
still backing uh onto the old road. A as I think of driving through downtown Alamra, I think of that entire area next to you. I think of the Green Turtle um uh Alamra Ace Village Gourmet Trading
Post and so many other businesses that that um I think of the the the brewery. I think of Pasta's area. I think of Marlin Jewelry. I think of the old original Manny andes and um uh which some of y'all may know where that's at
or not, but it's there >> and uh it's a real estate company now. And and and u all of that area by the moose and and I think this is long overdue uh to uh to to help uh all of these
parking issues that we've had many years ago. I even wrote a parking ordinance that and and rendered it to one of our past uh planning directors that that did this. So, this is long overdue. I'm glad to see it happen finally. >> All right, Anna, anything?
>> I'm good. No, it's just clean up. Like he said, we're cleaning up our own rules. >> Yeah. To me, it sounds like uh we're just um it's a compliance issue. You know, we're we're already doing it and it's not being enforced, so we're just cleaning it up essentially. Is that
right, John? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I mean, if we're going to allow it, we should allow >> allow it in the code. Yeah. >> Deb, do you want to >> And the only thing I have to say about it is that maybe Sue makes a point that we need to write it that they
back in and pull out instead of pulling in and backing out. You look like you had a comment about No, I was going to say it's also any any parking plan is still subject to safety review by the village. So if it if it's an unsafe like say it's it's an unsafe
parking corner or something like that, it would still be even though it's permitted, it still has to be permitted in a safe manner. So um uh those are those are issues that that staff would >> So you're saying that in selected areas it could be a backend only?
>> There could be. Yeah, depending on on what the the the layout of the uh uh the area might be there, there could be some limitations as to to their ability because it is it is still safety is still obviously important as well. >> Right. And this does just as a repeat
this does not include backing directly onto US1, right? >> Correct. >> Correct. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Okay. I think also would agree with Don. This is long overdue. Um there are places where you have no choice but
almost to back into US1. It's just the way the keys are and it's not going to change. >> Um I I agree. We just need to clean it up. So um do I have a motion or >> I'll move to approve. >> Second.
>> Marty. Vice Mayor Don Horton. >> Yes. >> Council member Anna Richards. >> Yes. >> Council member Steve Freriedman. >> Yes. >> Council member Deb Gillis. >> Yes. and Mayor Jared Mahoney. >> Yes, >> that motion passes 5-0. >> Okay, John. All right, we are into the
quasi judicial section uh tonight. That's tabs F through N. Uh please be advised the following agenda items are quasi judicial in nature. If you wish to comment on these items, please inform the village clerk by filling out the available signup form. An opportunity for persons to speak on each item will be made available after the applicant
and staff have made their presentations on each item. As a reminder, testimony and quasi judicial items must be in person. Zoom testimony is not permitted. These proceedings will be handled in accordance with the village code requirements. All testimony, including public testimony and evidence, will be made under oath or affirmation. Additionally, each person who gives testimony may be subject to
cross-examination. If you do not wish to be either cross-examined or sworn, your testimony shall be disregarded. The general public will not be permitted to cross-examine witnesses, but the public may request the council to ask questions of staff or witnesses on their behalf. The full agenda packet on each item is hereby entered into the record along with the village code and comprehensive
plan. Any correspondence that was received by the village staff is included in the file and part of the record. Persons representing organizations must present evidence of their authority to speak for the organization. Further details of the quas judicial procedures in section 30-256 of the village code may be obtained from the village clerk.
Tonight, the items as mentioned are tabs F through N. At this time, I'd like to ask anyone who intends to speak on any of the quasi judicial items to please raise your hand to be sworn in by the clerk. Again, this is tabs F through N. In the matter in which you are about to give testimony, do you swear or affirm
that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> The witnesses have been sworn. >> Madame Mayor, the first item is uh tab F. That is a resolution of the village council of Alam Marada village of Islands, Florida considering the request
of property owner Samuel L. Burston for administrative relief from the village uh building permit allocation system for property located at 129 Porto Vista Court, lower Madakumbi as legally described in exhibit A, providing for transmitt of the Department of Commerce and providing for an effective date. Uh before we begin, if you please disclose
any exparte communications you may have had with the applicant or anyone else. Again, this is tab F and please include the person you uh whether the person represented a group or entity uh as well as the substance of the subject matter as you recall. >> Deb uh just Ty Harris
>> Don >> uh Ty Harris and Mr. birds to vote about this the topic name >> Anna >> Ty Harris >> Steve >> none >> none okay all right then Jennifer >> good evening council Jennifer Deborri and planning director for the village of
Marada here this evening to discuss the administrative relief application for 129 Porto Vista Court Samuel Buren the applicant has applied for administrative relief pursuant to section 30-477 of the code of ordinances of Marada village of islands village code section area-477
requires that a public hearing be held during which the village council of Isa Marada village of islands shall consider all evidence presented regarding the application and shall follow the standard procedures standards and criteria are found within code sections 30-552 and 30-553
beneficial use the burden of proof shall be on the applicant the subject property is located at 129 Porter Vista Court and legally described in exhibit A of the proposed resolution attached the applicant has entered was entered into the building permit allocation system on
August 2nd, 2021. The application has been considered in four consecutive annual allocation periods and has failed to receive an allocation award. At the close of quarter 3 of 2025, the application was ranked second with 20 points. Pursuant to the requirements set
forth in code 30-477A, the applicant was eligible to apply for administrative relief between 12:01 p.m. on October 1st, 2025 and 12:00 p.m. on January 29th, 2026. The applicant submitted the application for administrative relief on October 1st,
2025. The proposed development is for one single family, two-bedroom, two-b home approximately 1,140 ft. The site is approximately 8,436 ft with allowed clearing mitigation based on habitat. The full analysis of
the administrative relief request is in your packet. Additional information provided by the applicant. The property owner has complied with all requirements of the building permit application system. The building permit application system application has not been withdrawn at any time. The property owner has not
applied for a deferral. The applicant as stated is seeking an allocation award remedies offered under code section 30-477F in at the conclusion of the public hearing. The village council may take any or the combination of the following actions.
Grant the application applicant an allocation award for all or part of the allocation requested in the next succeeding allocation period. offer to purchase the property at its fair market value or suggest any such other relief as may be necessary and appropriate. And
the village currently has 17 allocations available for administrative relief. And at this time, staff recommends awarding the administrative relief allocation to 129 Porto Vista Court. And I'm here if you have any additional questions. >> Okay. But anybody have anything for Jennifer before Mr. Harris goes?
Okay. >> Good evening. my first time up all night. Um, Ty Harris, the law firm of Ty Harris, PA, uh, Plantation Key. Um, I I really don't have much to say about this one. It's pretty straightforward, but there is a interesting thing that I
thought of note is worth worth mentioning. When I talked to Mr. Buren about this application, he was right on the cusp of getting award last year and was one of the folks bumped when we did the the lot donation. And normally when
you talk to people that get bumped on the list, they're not very happy. But when he understood that that meant that other lots that were wooded were going to be never developed because they were part of the lot donation program, he said he didn't mind waiting a little bit
and he was happy that the village actually acquired those lots. And so I thought that was kind of a unique and u unique response and I wanted to pass that on because it kind of shows the character of this gentleman and he's been waiting a long time to do this. Uh this is his retirement home. He's really
ready to get going. Thank you. Thank you, Ty. Anybody have anything for Ty before we go for all in favor for? No. All right. So um Marne, anybody for >> We have no one at all. Okay. Then we go
to um not in favor? >> No. >> Okay. Uh councel, anybody have anything discussion? Don, anything with you? Deb, >> just motion to approve.
>> I'll second. >> Marty, would you call the role, please? >> Council member Deb Gillis. >> Yes. >> Vice Mayor Don Horton. >> Yes. >> Council member Steve Freriedman. >> Yes. >> Council member Anna Richards. >> Yes. and Mayor Sharon Mahoney. >> Yes. >> The motion passes 5-0. >> Okay, John, we're going to G.
>> Yep. G is a resolution of the village council of Alamara Village, Florida. Consider the request by Ty Harris, PA on behalf of Mazal 233 LLC for administrative relief from the village building permit allocation system for property located at 166 Cring Drive, Plantation Key as legally described in
exhibit A, providing for transmitt to the Department of Commerce, and providing for an effective date. And again, before we begin, council, if you will, disclose any exparte communications you may have had. >> Deb, Ty Harris, Don, >> uh, Ty Harris, and John Gray. >> Ty Harris.
>> Just a text receipt from Ty Harris. >> And for me, Ty Harris. >> Okay. >> Good evening, council. Jennifer Deborri, planning director for the village of Vam Marado here this evening to discuss the administrative relief application for 166 Cring Drive. and Ty Harris applicant. The applicant has applied for
administrative relief pursuant to section 30-477 the code and ordinances of Marada village of islands. The village code section 30-477 requires that a public hearing be held during which the village council of Marada shall consider all evidence presented regarding the
application and shall follow the procedures standards and criteria found within the code sections 30-552 and 30-553 beneficial use. The burden proof shall be on the applicant. The subject property is located at 166 Cr Sebring Drive and legally described in
exhibit A of the proposed resolution as attached. The applicant was entered into the building permit allocation system on September 27th, 2021. The application has been considered in four consecutive annual allocation periods and has failed to receive an allocation award. At the
close of quarter 3, the application was ranked 30th with 17 points. Pursuant to the requirements set forth in code section 30-477A, the applicant was eligible to apply for administrative relief between 12:01 p.m. on October 1st, 2025 and 12 p.m. on
January 29th, 2026. The applicant submitted the application for administrative relief on October 1st, 2025. The proposed development is one single family, four-bedroom, three-b home approximately 2,602 ft². The site is approximately 6,600 ft² with allowed
clearing of 3,300 ft and mitigation based on habitat. Again, the analysis is in your packet. Um, the additional information provided by the applicant, the property owner has complied with all requirements of the building per allocation system. The BP pass application has not been withdrawn at
any time and the property owner has not applied for a deferral. Remedies offered under the code section 30-477F. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the village council may take or any or the combination of the following actions. Grant the application an
allocation award for all or part of the allocation requested in the next succeeding allocation period or extended PRA over several succeeding allocation periods. offer to purchase the property at its fair market value or success suggest other such relief as may be
necessary and appropriate. The village current council the village currently has 16 allocations available for administrative relief. And at this time the staff recommends approval of the administrative relief for 166 Cring Drive. If you have any questions, I'm
here for your >> Did you want to say something before Todd gets up? >> Me? >> No, both of you guys. I had a question for Jennifer, but I could wait for Ty. >> That's fine. >> Okay, go ahead, Ty. >> Good evening, everybody. Um, again, Ty Harris, uh, Plantation Key. Uh, this is
my client and some questions were asked earlier this week about who they are and what they're proposing to do. So, just like all of us, Steve's a fisherman and as a surveyor, the mayor has a flower shop. you know,
everybody's got a business and everybody's got a job, right? That's how we we put bread on the table. Um, my client is a small home builder. Um, more known for doing u projects up in um Kargo, but acquired these two lots just
like every other little home builder that we have in in the Keys. And they're proposing to build a house on this lot. Um, I've heard that some of the neighbors weren't too happy about that. And so I understand that when you looked
at a wooded lot for a long time, you would really like it to stay wooded lot. Got it. But if you look at the staff report, I I found something I thought was really important to to address, which is, you know, it's not always about what the applicants expectations
are. What's unique about these applications is there's a section where there's an analysis of what the neighbors should expect. And I I just want to read that to you because I I think it goes a long way in in formulating that these folks have done
everything right. Number seven in the analysis says, "What were the reasonable expectations of the neighboring land owners under Florida common law?" And this was the response from staff. Neighboring land owners have the reasonable expectation that the land
surrounding them will be developed in a character with the existing development and land use and zoning regulations. The property is currently undeveloped. It is reasonable to assume that the neighboring land owners could expect the development of a single family dwelling
unit, but only after demonstration of compliance with the applicable regulations and the receipt of the required allocation through BPASS. And as Jennifer's pointed out, they've done everything they're supposed to do. They're not any different than any other applicant that comes up here. Um,
they're building on a residentially zoned lot that's zoned R1 in a platted subdivision. And as much as we'd all like to keep all of our green spaces that are there, we also have to recognize that people have a right to build a single family house. And I know
we're running out of allocations and we're getting to the end, but this is what the end looks like. Um, and with that, I respectfully request that you um grant them their allocation just like anybody else that's complied with the requirements. Thank you.
>> Don, you want to ask Jennifer your question now? >> Um, I can. Sure. Jennifer, I noticed on all these applications you put the square footage of the house and I remember us having an issue with a TDR and square footage of a house and that
kind of thing. Um, you just simply put the square footage on these as far as what the app just to describe the application. >> That's correct. >> So, if an amendment was to be made to make this house, you know, 10 square feet bigger or something, that wouldn't
have a problem with with the allocation. No sir, that's not a uh a hard and fast they pull that from the building permit application that's been submitted to the department at this time. But if an allocation award is is granted, you know, they will have to go back and
tweak their plans, adjust their plans, um in some cases come up to compliance with current building codes. So that might adjust their plans. So um that number may may and likely will change over time. And the and the code says that you can make a change to those provided that it doesn't decrease the
points that they correct originally >> they have to maintain whatever they earned points for. They have to maintain those same things. >> Okay. I just kind of wanted that on the record. Thank you. >> Sure. >> Okay. So, uh, nobody has anything else. We'll go for on favor. >> There are none.
>> I was signed up to speak on this one. >> Are you in favor of it? >> Well, that's the next one. Favor goes first. Yeah. Favor goes first. Okay. So, in favor? >> So, there is no one just >> Okay. Now, not in favor? >> Yes. Donnie Lang.
>> Uh, yeah. My name's Donnie Lang. Don knows me. Used to work with him many years ago. >> Back in this neighborhood. It's a a street or two away from me. Uh, these are there two uh administrative relief side by side being heard tonight. This
is the first first 166. The adjoining lot is 170. Um, the neighborhood has gotten used to having some blocks of woods in there, some nice hammock. This is a nice hammock lot. Uh, as is one the
address at 170. Um, I have a feeling you guys are going to grant a uh allocation on on this one. I would like you to consider possibly an uh an alternative uh is combine the two lots for one
dwelling unit. Uh that would make the density a little bit better and leave a lot more hammock. If that's not a possibility, I'm going to throw another one out there. Um you have a roughly I I think it is a 50% clearing allowance. So that's about
3,300 square ft. Um, I've been around the Keys long enough to know how things happen when you have a clearing allowance. And uh I would profer that you would consider requiring a conservation easement be recorded to
make sure that the uh hammock areas are preserved not just during the building site but or dur during construction but 10 years down the road that it's still going to remain 50% hammock in there. Um
I really hate to see more development in the neighborhood there. Uh this is a beautiful little block of very dense native vegetation. These lots normally in normal times would probably not get an allocation, but I have a feeling you
don't have the budget to purchase these things. So that's probably going to be the uh alternative right here. So, don't want to put words in anybody's mouth, but I would like to consider either combining the two lots for one uh
dwelling unit or if that's not even a practical one, consider doing at least a conservation easement with a recorded easement. Uh for for the 3,300 uh square feet per per lot. Uh this I'm not going to speak on the second lot. It's they're
six of one, half dozen the other. So they're I'm speaking for both lots. Uh same comments. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Marne. Is there anyone else not in favor? >> No, that's it. >> Okay. Um
council >> Jennifer, is that not already a requirement that the the 3,300 ft or whatever is not cleared go into a conservation easement? >> I believe there is a requirement for conservation restrictions. conservation ement would be put in the public records.
>> That is correct. >> Yeah. Okay. >> And we'll agree on the record. I mean that >> adds to the value of the property to be beautiful like that. And we have no problem putting a conservation easement either on this lot or on the other lot for the area that's not developed.
>> And then so after everything is cleared uh then a survey is made. That survey shows the limits of the conservation easement and it's supposed to remain in that conservation easement in perpetuity. That's correct. >> I move to approve.
>> Well, I live in that neighborhood and um they are two beautiful lots. I'm sorry, but they are and they're solid wood. I went by there the other day and um but we're back to property rights situation.
I'm okay with the conservation of e easement, not on this one, but the one we're going to hear next. So, um I just wanted to get that out there that I think uh if we can protect some hammock cuz it is a be beautiful couple lots. I would be okay with that. >> Yeah, >> they're going to require they're going
to be required to do goas on both lots, not just one of them. >> We just wanted to get that out there. >> I know. I'm saying it's going to be on both of them though. It's not going to be Yeah, it's going to be on both lots. They're going to be required to do a go. >> Okay. So, you made a motion? >> Yes, ma'am. >> Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Marley.
>> Vice Mayor Don Horton. Yes. >> Council member Anna Richard. >> Yes. >> Council member Steve Freriedman. >> Yes. >> Council member Deillis. >> Yes. >> And Mayor Sharon Mahoney. >> Yes. >> That motion passes 5-0. >> Okay. Moving on to H, which is the other piece of property. >> Yeah. H is a resolution of the village
council of Alamara Village, Florida, considering the request by Ty Harris, PA on behalf of Mazal 233 LLC for administrative relief from the village building permit allocation system for property located at 170 Sebring Drive, Plantation Key as legally described in exhibit A, providing for transmitt to
the Department of Commerce, and providing for an effective date. Uh council, if you can please uh disclose any exparte communications as well, and then I'll have one thing to say before we turn it over to Jennifer. >> Ty Harris. Uh Ty Harris and John Gray. >> Ty Harris. >> Ty Harris.
>> Ty Harris. Same as before. >> Um the the gentleman before who spoke in opposition had indicated he wasn't going to speak again, but he had the same opposition to to this item. Um if you all want to incorporate the prior testimony uh from um item uh from tab H,
uh I would uh recommend that you make a motion to incorporate the testimony from pri tab H into tab I. That way it's part of our record. >> Okay. Can I make the motion? >> It's You've got the wrong letter. It's It's >> Sorry. Gab Gab. Thank you. Sorry.
>> Can I make the motion? >> I'll second it. >> Okay. Do we call the role, please? Morning. >> Mayor Sharon Mahoney. >> Yes. >> Council member Deb Gillis. >> Yes. >> Council member Steve Freriedman. >> Yes. >> Council member Anna Richards. >> Yes. >> And Vice Mayor Don Horton.
>> Yes. >> Motion passes 5-0. >> Okay. So, >> thank you councel. Good evening. Jennifer Deborri, planning director for the village of Island Marada. We're here this evening for the administrative relief application for 170 Sebring Drive. Ty Harris, PA is the applicant
and he has applied for administrative relief pursuant to section 30-474 477 of the code of ordinance to the Vam Marada village of Islands. Village Code section 30-477 requires a public hearing be held during which the village council
of Marada shall consider all evidence presented regarding the application and shall follow the procedures, standards, and criteria found in code sections 30-552 and 30-553 beneficial use. The burden of proof shall be on the applicant. The
subject property is located at 170 Sebring Drive and legally described in exhibit A of the proposed resolution as attached to your packet. The application was entered into the building permit allocation system on September 27th, 2001. The application has been considered in four consecutive annual
allocation periods and has failed to receive an allocation award. At the close of quarter 3 of 2025, the application was ranked 31st with 17 points. Pursuant to the requirements set forth in code section 30-477A, the applicant was eligible to apply for
administrative relief between 12:01 p.m. on October 1st, 2025 and 12:00 p.m. on January 29th, 2026. The applicant submitted an application for administrative relief on October 1st, 2025. The proposed development is one single family, four-bedroom, three-b
home approximately 2,62 ft. The site is approximately 6,600 ft² with allowed clearing of 3,300 ft and mitigation based on habitat. Again, the analysis is in your packet. Additional information provided by the applicant. The property owner has
complied with all requirements of the building permit allocation system. The property the BPASS allocation has not been withdrawn at any time and the property owner has not been applied for deferral. Remedies offered under the code section 30-477F. At the conclusion of the public hearing,
the village council may take at any or accommodation the following actions. Grant the application the applicant an allocation award for all or part of the allocation requested in the next succeeding allocation period or extended prat over several succeeding allocation
periods. Offer to purchase the property at fair market value. Suggest such offer of relief as may be necessary and appropriate. The village council currently has 15 allocations available for administrative relief
and at this time staff recommends awarding an administrative relief allocation to 170 Sebring Drive and I'm available if you have any questions. >> Okay. Anything for Jennifer or Mr. Harris speaks. >> Okay. >> I'm just going to incorporate the comments from the previous application
and make the same commitment related to the the conservation ement. Thank you. >> Okay. Marne in favor? >> None. >> And we already have moved the gentleman's um comment to this one. So, is there anyone else? >> No, there's not.
>> I don't think I signed up, but I'll fill out a form. I did not sign up for this. >> So, are you not in favor? >> Well, yeah, I'm not. And I just want to make a comment because I've seen these conservation easements in the past and
they have not been adhered to. So, how do we make sure that these people are actually going to follow through? You look at Ren Street. Those lots were like totally cleared out. Uh I remember there was one a beach property that had a turtle uh beach that was the burm that
was supposed to be done, but we don't check up on any of this stuff. So, it's great to have conservation easements, but we need to follow up to make sure that they follow through. That's the only comment I had. Thank you. >> Thank you, Martney. Anyone else? >> No, ma'am. Okay. Uh, council, anybody
have anything to say? >> I I agree with Joe. >> What do you agree with? >> I I agree that there's that that we do need to have more followup on anytime we put a restriction on any piece of
property for whatever the reason is that we should probably have, you know, some some type of additional followup. And and there's reasonable in our code. there's there's reasonable ways to be able to do that. It um I I just think
that um I I think we need to keep a little closer eye on some of these hammocks and especially the ones that are high quality hammocks that we're allowing, you know, 10 or 50% clearing. That's all. That's all. >> I agree with you. Um, and who would that
fall upon, Jennifer, to re enforce making sure the conservation easement? >> So, we we do the best we can follow up, but as you probably all know, our resources are are limited and we um will respond to any um complaints that are
filed in the office. Um, our village biologists will always go out, address any complaints um and follow up with those. um we don't have the staffing and the resources to just drive around the village and and look for things and and
do that. So, I mean, I'm I'm happy to take additional staff if the the council wants to to give me more people, but um it's just um you know, if people are aware that it's happening in your neighborhoods or or you know of somebody that's violating restrictions, please feel free to call
the code department and we we do we are proactive once we get complaints and we do take those seriously. >> And again, I'm I'm the I have had a 30foot natural border around my one of my buildings for ever. it's still kind of thick as anything. So, it's to be a
good person as well to make sure you do it. But I've also seen properties where it was wooded and now it's I can see the road and now so people do that. So, I do encourage if you do see it going on, you have to call call Jennifer. >> Absolutely. Call Jennifer.
>> She loves phone calls. I I can I can though say that not too long ago there was a a piece property that had a a conservation easement and and some clearing took place in the village was on that uh and they had to do considerable amount of mitigation
planting in order to bring that back into compliance with the planting code and all it was extremely costly. So they do do it. Uh sometimes it's not as easily seen in the backyard of somebody's house and it's pretty disruptive to go and knock on the door
and I think the code specifically says that you got to give a certain notice of amount of time and you just don't want government walking onto your house and saying I you know I want to check your backyard but if there's a complaint they'll follow up on that. But there was recently a pretty big mitigation that
took place. So they're on it. We we it's easy for us if if it's on US1 or the old road, you know, obviously we can catch those and we actually just reminding me today we had um somebody clearing in a in a GOIA area that we were able to do a stop work order and and we'll calculate
the mitigation over the weekend and get them taken care of this next week. But but yeah, so we we do do that um when we see it. But to your point, you know, when they're in a neighborhood, you know, and they're in the backyard or sometimes behind gated driveways, it's it's diffic it's more difficult.
>> It is. Yeah, they do it though. >> Deb, did you want to say something? >> No, I'm sorry. Everybody >> No, I I know that they do it. >> I mean, I've seen them people get hit with the mitigation pretty hard. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Do I have a motion?
>> Are we Are we there? I'll make a motion to approve. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Marty, would you call the role, please? >> Council member Deb Gillis, >> yes. >> Council member Anna Richards, >> yes. >> Council member Steve Freriedman, >> yes. >> Council, excuse me, Vice Mayor Don
Norton, >> yes. >> And Mayor Sharon Money, >> yes. >> Motion passes 5 to zero. >> John I. I can't believe we're halfway done. I >> know. It's great. Tab I is a resolution of the village council of Marta village violence Florida concerning the request by AJ and
Pamela good for administrative relief from the village building permit allocation system for property located at 110 sunset drive lower matakumbi as legally described in exhibit A providing for transmitt to the department of commerce and providing for an effective date >> Jennifer oh that's right
>> thank you I'm sorry >> I was going to get them too >> I know >> I was thinking about how quick we're going >> I had them all excited Uh yeah, if you would please uh disclose any exparte communications you may have had. >> None. >> Don.
>> Um >> none on this one. How about that? >> None for me. >> None for me. >> None. >> Okay, >> now we can go on. >> Good evening. Council Jennifer Deborri, planning director for the village of Isa Marada. We're here today to discuss the administrative relief for 110 Sunset
Drive. AJ and Pamela go have applied for administrative relief pursuant to section 30-477 of the code of ordinances of Vam Marada the village code section 30-477 requires that a public hearing be held during the village count during
which the village council shall consider all evidence presented regarding the application and shall follow the procedures standards and criteria set with found within code sections 30-552 and 30-553 beneficial use. The burden of
proof shall be on the applicant. The subject property is located at 110 Sunsite Drive and legally described in exhibit A of the proposed resolution as attached to your packet. The application was entered into the building permit allocation system on September 27th,
2021. The application has been considered in four consecutive annual allocation periods and has failed to receive an allocation award. At the close of quarter 3 of 2025, the application was ranked eighth with 19 points. Pursuant to the requirements set
forth in code section 3477A, the applicant was eligible to apply for administrative relief between 12:01 p.m. on October 1st, 2025 and 12 p.m. on January 29th, 2026. The applicant submitted the application for administrative relief on October 1st,
2025. The proposed development is one single family, two-bedroom, two-b home, approximately 1,528 ft. The site is approximately 7,35.5 square ft with allowed clearing and mitigation based on habitat. And again, the analysis is in your packet as
attached. Additional information provided by the applicant. The property owner has complied with all requirements in the building per allocation system. The BPASS application has not been withdrawn at any time. The property owner has not applied for a deferral and the applicant is seeking an allocation
award. Remedies offered under the code section 30-477F. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the village council may take any or combination of the following actions. Grant the applicant an allocation award for all or part of the allocation requested in the next succeeding allocation period or extended PRAA over
several succeeding allocation periods. offer to purchase the property at its fair market value or suggest such other relief as may be necessary and appropriate. The village currently has 14 14 uh allocations available for
administrative relief. At this time, staff recommends awarding the administrative relief allocation to 110 Sunset Drive. And I'm available if you have any questions. >> Anybody have anything? >> No. Ty, is this yours, too?
>> No. Okay. All right. S do I >> believe I don't the homeowner is um out of out of state right now and I don't know that he u obviously he can't participate remotely and he knew that. Um I don't know if he was able to send a representative but um he he is aware that it was happening tonight and he had
a medical issue and was not be able to come back to the state. So >> okay. So let's move in favor. >> There are none. >> Opposed? >> There are none. >> Okay. Council, any comments? >> Do I have to be consistent? I move to
approve. >> I'll second. Morning. >> Vice Mayor Don Horton. >> Yes. >> Council member Deb Gillis. >> Yes. >> Council member Steve Freriedman. >> Yes. >> Council member Ann Richards. >> Yes. >> And Mayor Sher Mahoney. >> Yes. >> That motion passes 5-0.
>> Jay. And Jay and K are actually companion. Um and uh in the past historically we we've normally taken them up together. Um, if you would, if council would like to do that, um, I can read both titles together. >> You're really okay with it? >> I'm good.
J is an ordinance of Alamara Village of Islands, Florida, considering the request of Ty Harris, PA, agent for Jamie and Mike Snyder to amend the village's future land use map from residential medium to mixed use for the subject property at 87469 Old Highway located on Plantation Key with real
estate number 00413300-000000 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 department by the state department of commerce. Tab K is an ordinance of Lamar Village of Islands, Florida, considering the request of Ty
Harris, PA, agent for Jamie and Mike Snder to amend the official zoning map from residential single family R1 to Highway Commercial for the subject property at 87469 Old Highway located at PL on Plantation Key with real estate number 00413300-000000
as legally described herein, providing for the transmitt of this ordinance to the state department of commerce and providing for an effective date on the approval upon the approval of this ordinance by the State Department of Commerce and council, if you would please disclose your uh uh any exparte communications you may have had and uh
when you do, if you would please let us know if uh if if they apply both to tabs J and K or if there are um different expartes for each one. >> Okay, Deb. Ty Harris and yes, both ordinance. Don >> uh Ty Harris on both.
>> Myself, Ty on both. >> Ty on both. Just a general text received. >> Okay. Okay. Good evening, council. Jennifer Deoverian, planning director uh for the village of Island Marada. I'm
here this evening to discuss um ordinances uh to amend the future land use map from residential medium to mixed use and the uh zoning map from residential single family to highway commercial for the property located at 87469 Old Highway. Uh Ty Harris on
behalf of the property owner Jame and Sate Mike Snyder Jamie and Mike Snyder has submitted um both the applications uh to amend the future land use map again from residential medium to mixed use and the zoning map from residential single family to highway commercial. The
subject property is located at 87469 Old Highway uh real estate number 00413300-00000000 comprising of 12,000 square ft. The current use of the property is a commercial business known as Island Air. Um the uh applicant's agent has
submitted a needs analysis detailing both requests in your pocket. The subject property currently has an existing residential medium flum land use designation. The properties to the north and west are designated residential medium. Properties to the south are designated mixed use. The
properties to the east across Old Highway are designated residential high and residential low. and the character of the surrounding area is mixed use for residential and commercial uses. The property is scarified and conta and contains no protective habitat. The property is not recognized as to as
habitat to any state or federal listed animal species. Pursuant to the village's GIS data and records, the parcel is defined as hammock and scarified. The property currently has an existing residential single family R1 zoning district. The properties to the north and west are designated
residential single family. The properties to the south are designated highway commercial. The properties to the east across Old Highway are designated residential estate and multif family. The character of the surrounding area is mixed use with residential uses and commercial uses. The full analysis
of both applications as in your packet. Um I can go through it all, but um I'm actually here if you have any questions. And um at this time staff is recommending approval for both. Uh the LPA reviewed both uh applications at a
September 25th me September 15th meeting and voted unanimously to recommend approval of both ordinances. >> Um anything for Jennifer before Ty gets up there again? >> Yes, I did. >> Go ahead. >> Well, Ty, go first. >> Thank you. Uh Ty Harris for the
applicant. Um, we all know this property as the Island Air property, and it's still kind of a mystery how a business that a property has been used for commercial for so long ended up being um flumemed and and zoned for residential.
So, yeah, I know. Go, go figure. Uh, in our in in our continuing quest are together to to write the wrongs, uh, this falls into that same category. It's an existing business. It's operating as a legal nonconformity because of the R1
zoning and it's just a simple request to fix the zoning to comply to what the business has been forever which is eye on air. Um and I any questions I'm I'm here to answer them but that's it's pretty simple. >> Anything for Tai? No.
>> Okay. Don do you want to ask your question now? >> So Jamie um >> Jennifer >> I'm sorry. Jennifer, um I I know this property well. 43 years ago, I put an addition on that house for Howard Shanley. >> Um it was a small member Howie.
>> Um and um uh it it's it's always been a single family house. I don't think it's ever had a change of use. I think it's good that we're changing this. I personally uh when I was on the other side of the counter changed the zoning on the uh
three lots to the key south of that um actually got a recommended denial first from the planning director back then and the council still saw my arguments and changed that. So when this changes to mixed use and commercial, um there's
going to have to be a change of use actually done on the building and the accessory building, I think, because I don't think on the record there's ever been a CO that's issued on the residential unit that's there uh to turn it into commercial. So that that would
if it does turn into something that's totally commercial with the proper zoning and all then we would need to legitimize the commercial uh recognition of of that building. Right. >> That's correct. And we would work with the building official to do that. >> Okay.
Anybody else have anything? >> You done? >> Are you done? >> I'm done. >> Well, >> motion to approve >> and I'll second. Oh, >> public comment. Did we do them? >> We have to do them in favor, but they're
just anxious. Any in favor? >> Okay. >> No, ma'am. >> And not in favor. >> Uh, Mr. Wish Meer. >> Mr. Wish Meer. >> I uh I changed my mind. >> You changed your mind. So, is anyone else?
>> There's no one else. >> Well, I will say that gentleman's in the same boat I'm I was in. So, it's a boat we need to sink. Go ahead. Yeah, I was just going to remind you we're going to need two motions because there's two separate ordinances. >> Okay. So, let's make you want to redo your motion for the first one. Who was
it? >> Motion to approve >> J and K. >> Just one at a time. >> Oh, Jay. >> And second on Jay. >> I'll second. Okay. Marne, would you call the role? >> Council member Anna Richards. >> Yes. >> Council member Deb Gillis. >> Yes. >> Council member Sue Friedman.
>> Yes. >> Vice Mayor Don Horton. >> Yes. >> And Mayor Sharon Mahoney. >> Yes. >> Motion passes 5-0. >> Okay. A motion on K. >> I move to approve. >> Second. >> Okay. Marty. >> Vice Mayor Don Horton. >> Yes. >> Council member Anna Richards.
>> Yes. >> Council member Freedman. >> Yes. >> Council member Deb Gillis. >> Yes. >> And to Mayor Sharon. >> Yes. >> Motion passes 5-0. >> Okay. Now, John, we're moving to L. >> Yep. L is an ordinance of alada village of islands Florida amending policy
3-2.12 specific standards and requirements for workforce affordable housing providing for the transmitt of this ordinance to the state department of commerce providing for severability uh providing for an effective date upon approval of this ordinance by the state department of commerce and council you can uh disclose any exparte communication
>> before you do that this is a companion the next one is a companion article with this one >> oh it is oh it is >> okay well council would you like to take uh that's good um L&M together then Yes. >> Okay. M is an ordinance by Lamar Village of Islands, Florida, amending village
code sections 30-476 building permit allocation evaluation criterion award providing for the transmitt of this ordinance to the state department of commerce providing for severability and providing for an effective date upon approval of this ordinance by the state department of commerce. >> Okay. Now communication Deb on either
>> um Ty Don Dumbold. Yes. It's okay. >> Tie >> on both. >> Um, yeah, I'm sure. >> Sounds like we're ordering a lot. Ty on both.
>> Ty on both. >> Ty text. >> Ty text. Text. >> Okay. Now, Ty, would you like to come up and say anything before we start? >> He's already said it. >> Would you like me presentation? >> He's up here so much. >> Let's wait. Ty, staff hasn't gone yet. >> Okay. >> Oh, sit down.
>> Sit down. Sit back down. >> Get out. Good evening, council. Jennifer Deborian, playing director. Um, so this is a second reading on both the ordinance to amend policy 3.212 um and the uh ordinance uh 30-476.
This revolves around the uh removal of the uh vzone from the workforce affordable housing allocations that we had on first reading a few months ago. Um so this will be second reading. Um the one thing to note is when we rendered this to the department of commerce between first and second
reading we did receive an objection recommendation and comment report. Um that is in your packet as well. Um after receiving that report um we provide we submitted a in your packet a draft response with uh what we believe is
their enough information to address their objections um regarding what they objected to. So, uh, we're comfortable submitting this for second reading and then resubmitting it, rendering it to commerce for approval. So, I'm here if you have any questions. Um, I would like
to just acknowledge that. Um, as Tai represents the, uh, developer who instigated this project, he was instrumental in helping with the response that um, and that we we were doing to commerce because it is is basically for his clients. So, I just
wanted to acknowledge that. So can you for the people who didn't see it, can you tell us what the objection from the department of commerce was? >> Yeah. So their first objection was that our recommendation lacked or that our vote lacked uh uh internal incon had internal inconsistency and lack data and
analysis. Um they wanted us to provide uh relevant and appropriate data analysis to evaluate the impacts of affordable workforce housing allocations and vzones and coastal barrier resource systems. um and that we would ensure that the amendment is consistent with all elements of the comprehensive plan.
Um so what we did um was we um first of all we took we left the coastal barrier resource systems in the code in the comp plan. So that wiped that piece of it out. So um we're only removing the vzone portion of it now. And then um we
provided them with um a housing um study that was done um the most recent one I think that we could find um was from 2007. I know that doesn't seem very recent, but I don't believe there was another one um that was done more recent
than that. So we provided them with that to um make the argument why workforce housing is desperately needed here in the in the in Monroe County and specifically in the village of Isa Marada and why this will help uh us create create those goals or achieve
those goals. Um so we we did that. Um and I think what else did we do? I'm trying to look. I think that's mostly what we did. We were submitting them some maps. Um, we talked about the project that's being proposed. So, we
addressed many of their questions and and most of it was data and analysis that will probably bore most of the people here. >> So, let me just ask you a question. If if we're voting on this, what happens if we vote yes and they say no? >> Well, I'm not a lawyer, but um
>> I believe that um they would you can respond. >> Yeah. I mean there there's a uh there's a legal process where we could uh we could challenge that um should the uh the village so decide. So uh if they deny it, I mean there there I mean we'll we'll have to see what the basis would
be and if there's a legal basis to uh to challenge it right now based on everything they've said, we we think we've got it covered. >> Um so but yeah, there there there are legal options. >> Okay. All right. Um are you going up again? Are you tired of
getting up now? >> Oh, never. Um, again, Ty Harris, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you on this. This is um the Julie affordable. This is the last step for 42 brand new um affordable allocations. And
when we saw the the ORC, we call it an ORC report, objections, recommendations, and comments report, we all kind of scratched our heads collectively about what could they possibly be objecting to. Um, this seems to be a trend right now with the Department of Commerce. Um,
I think what was the number Don and you and I were talking about? They've objected to over 150 applications, but out of those 150, they've actually only gone to hearing on three of them. So, they there seems to be a pattern in practice um mostly because they don't
like SB80 and really none of us really like SB80. So they keep citing to SB80 is one reason to object. And in our case they pointed out something that is is a little confusing which is every this is not a secret. Every comprehensive plan
contains internal inconsistencies because on one hand we have a section that were required by the state to protect private property rights and on the other hand we have a section from area critical state concern. We must protect the environment. Those in many cases are internally inconsistent
provisions and we grapple with that every time we're up here when we talk about that finding that balance, right? We put up we give somebody a right to build but we request a conservation easement. That's where we strike the balance. And so what Jennifer and I did,
we we poured through the studies that would make Department of Commerce happy. The 2007 affordable housing study established the need for affordable housing. And hey, we may never get to 1300 or whatever the number is, but 42
is a lot closer than where we are right now and their new construction. We also pointed out that any any kind of residential, including affordable housing, if it wasn't tied to the early out program, could be built on this property. This restriction only went to
the early outs which makes no sense because the first people out are the people in here just with like the tourists. So again a headscratcher. We found another study with the help of Barbara Pal that dealt with kind of hurricane evacuate. It was let's let's
put it this way. We're giving them 600 plus pages of data and analysis for them to choke on. Um, and it it's just frustrating because when you get these objections, recommendations, and comments reports, they usually make sense. And the ones we're getting back,
just like everybody else, don't seem to be making a lot of sense. It looks like a a very amateur reading of our comprehensive plan um, and and not understanding what what actually the village volata is and what the village is about. So when you tell us we have to
have affordable housing and we're trying to do that and then you tell us well that doesn't it doesn't work because now you're you're you're in the vone which FEMA has already addressed with how you constructing a vzone. Again I don't want to take too much more of your time but
is extremely frustrating and thank you to Jennifer for um how much work we we worked on this to to get this resolved. Thank you. >> Thank you Ty. Okay. Um, Marne, let's start. In favor, >> there are none.
>> And now, not in favor. >> Joe Wishmire. >> Yes. Joe Wishmire, Plantation Key. We all know how much devastation happens, especially along a coastline, when we have the H word that we don't like to use here in the Keys. So, I don't know
why we would be trying to put 42 especially affordable housing units, which means these are people who can't necessarily afford market rates and all. So, they're already behind the eightball a little bit. Nobody's saying that we don't need affordable housing. It'd be
great to take this project and just move it inland somewhere, but to take and offer to put stuff in vzones where we know there's going to be mass destruction. I don't care what the code says. Let's let's look and see what's happened here
recently. You know, when we've had uh storms come up on the ocean side and all the devastation there. So, I don't see why we would encourage people to be doing the building in the Vzone. Secondly, if the Department of Commerce
kind of objected to the first reading, how can we be doing a second reading now? Shouldn't we be going back and doing a first reading again that might get their approval and then come back to the to a second reading? I think that's more of a legal issue and I just wanted to bring that up. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Marne. Who else is it in favor? >> Sue Miller. >> Okay. >> Sue Miller representing the Alamada Community Alliance. The original requirements from Governor Scott for the 300 allocations after Hurricane Irma had
restrictions. Reynolds only, multiple family, on-site manager, Vzone. The no v zone was an original requirement of the state when the allocations were awarded. If you eliminate this requirement, why not
eliminate all of them? Are you jeopardizing the 300 allocations that they gave you with those stipulations? Or do you think you can just sneak one in um without them objecting? There are others that create problems of one kind
or another. the multi-family on site management. Why not eliminate them all if you think that it's okay? The state required this limitation when they gave us the 300 alloc allocations. They objected to the change. Are we
jeopardizing those 300? It really makes me nervous. Are we kidding ourselves about what this community really needs? Our code says folks qualify for affordable um homes if they make up to $140%
of the median income. That'sund excuse me $165,000 with rental limits over $3,000 a month. Is this what we desperately need or we need to or do we need to fix other
portions of our code first? If you live on the ocean like I do, you probably love it for many reasons. And you don't love it for even more reasons. I live in a home near the ocean, not in a Vzone. It's elevated well above the base flat
elevation and built by a builder for his own use to standards above those required. Yet, I can tell you being near the ocean is extremely costly. not the extra expense you want to put affordable housing owners through. Resiliency is
critical. Cost is critical. This change is in direct conflict with the numerous comp plan policies and objectives. And the state department of commerce objected. Why would you ignore the objections of the state planning experts
and call them immature changes? And your own comp plan has policies that say restrict future infrastructure in the coastal high hazard area. Why? Policy to limit public expenditures.
Policies to avoid population concentrations in the coastal high hazard. Policy to restrict development in coastal high hazard areas. that should include and that includes
FEMA velocity zones. Using a single property on Windley Key as justification seems a little odd. This lot is just under 1 acre. I know that it'll be combined with the adjoining motel to get to 3 acres, but the 42 planned units
will be on the currently vacant 1 acre. Can you imagine 42 units on this tiny property with with the ocean setback and a street setback? Not at all what we envision as a lowdensity community.
Highest density for that property of motel units would be six or affordable housing without combining the two lots would be 14. The other property remember is fully developed. So it these homes
will all be on a 1 acre site and that lot is all fill. It used to be a channel between two umbrella islands that were filled to create a single
island. Windley Key tough to build resilient 42 unit building on top of Phil. When will we stop using a ridiculously outdated affordable housing study from 2007 to justify a totally new
environment as far as affordable housing is concerned. I just hope you reject this. Thank you. >> Thank you, Sue. Marne, anybody else? >> No, ma'am. >> Okay.
Council, does anybody have any questions or comments? Deb, do you want to say something? >> No. >> No. I was just going to make a motion. Um, Ty, this property is that where the um
pipeline people used, correct? >> Yeah. >> And so next door to that is a hotel and next door to that is >> a hotel. >> A hotel. And the next door to that trailer park. >> So, um, they're all
>> already there and already built, >> right? >> And if they have to meet building codes, they have to build in a V zone higher up. Am I wrong? >> One foot above the base floor. >> Anything that goes there. >> I learned some. >> Any any building that goes there is
going to have to meet the same building code requirements. I mean, we could put a hotel there and then I'd hear complaints about we're adding more hotel rooms from because we could take the hotel rooms over at SD Marine and move them over there right now. >> Yeah. >> And then we'd hear complaints about
that. You know that you it's a you can never win sometimes. And um you know when we talk about projects on Phil, Venetian Shores, jokingly called Vanishing Shores, is all phil. Mhm. >> Um, a lot of lower mat is all fill. So,
it's not an uncommon thing because up until the the 70s you could still fill and that's what people did to en enlarge their properties and they did it with the state's blessing. It wasn't until like 1981 that the state reversed course
and said fill is a bad thing. You know, no more fill permits. And so that's kind of the that beginning of 1980 is when the change started happening if I remember correctly my my history of of um of building and build and fill Phil
and Bill in Florida. But we need the affordable housing. Um I made these comments on another application. If we're not going to be serious about affordable housing, then you know what? just scrap the darn thing and then let's start coming up with a strategy to to
ensure that we have a continuing workforce that can live in Homestead in in Florida City. I mean, let's just be honest with ourselves because this is the the best chance to put new construction. You know, the other opportunities we're going to have are going to be converting existing hotel
units into affordable housing. This is a purpose-built project made for one-bedroom, primarily one-bedroom. um units, but some twobedrooms as well. And yeah, a lot of the people that work in those hotels probably going to be living there, which
is great because then they don't have to get on a bus. But again, that's a a conversation for maybe another day. But if we're going to, you know, kind of pull back and say, you know, we really don't want affordable housing, then let's be honest and and have that conversation.
>> Did you want to say something, Tom? I just reminder that that we do uh have now have to build one foot above the base flood elevation. So whatever vzone that is, they're going to be at least one foot higher than that.
>> That we designed at a minimum of 180 mph wind. Now that we uh that an engineer has to take into account the combined forces of wind and wave uh when you're designing a structure like this. Um, and
uh, the parking is going to be underneath, so there's no illegal below flood enclosures or or mother-in-law apartments or storage rooms that you've got to worry about. The the the idea of of being in the vone u for for the way
that the code is written now, I think is is archaic. And I I think this is a a great thing that we're finally moving things around so that we can actually get somebody that's willing to go in and develop a real affordable housing
project. Um the today I was sitting um at the trading post looking at that that building that Buddy Collins just built. It's a fortress and it's great that he's building those affordable housing units there and and and I think we should be
proud and then we should be encouraged to to to to try to build our affordable housing stock up. So I I I think this is great and if you know if the Department of Commerce doesn't want us to start building affordable housing uh and and
and move our code around to where we can do that then uh shame on him. Well, then we'll just go with a hotel and then when I get up here to talk about a site plan for a hotel, I get to hear all the same stuff. >> Deb, did you want to say something? >> No, I was waiting. I was going to make a
motion. >> Well, and say anything. You guys ready to make a motion? I mean, I don't think any of us really want to see building building. It's the world. >> We don't have much choice. >> Well, and they have to build with the specific standards, Jennifer. So, >> okay. Now, go ahead, Jennifer. I just
wanted to note that um uh prior to first or between first and second reading, staff also did an analysis at the request of the department of commerce of all the uh parcels in the village of Alam Marada that may be affected by this change. Um based on zoning and location
and there were four um three of them on Windley Key and one in Plantation Key. >> Okay. Um anything else, Steve? Do you want to say anything? Um I believe that uh people that would be living there would also be the first to evacuate as well. Right.
>> So they would get out before any sort of possible devastation that may occur. So >> I'm happy with that. >> Y >> All right. So now did you want to make a motion? >> I was going to make the motion, but I was just waiting. So I'll make a motion to approve the comprehensive plan item
which is L. >> Do I have >> second on L? On L on L 2 L >> Marney, you want to call the role, please. >> Council member Deb Gillis, >> yes. >> Council member Anne Richards, >> yes. >> Council member Steve Freriedman, >> yes.
>> Vice Mayor Don Horton, >> yes. >> And Mayor Sharon Mahoney, >> yes. >> That motion passes 5 to zero. >> Okay, so now we're going to M. Do I have a motion on >> May I make a comment about L? There was a typo in part of this. Um, >> yes, I I have the typos. >> Did you?
>> I haven't corrected it yet, but I have the note to correct them. >> Okay. Never mind. So, do I have a motion for M? >> I'll make a motion to approve M as written, which is the um the ordinance that goes along with them.
>> Second. >> Morning. >> Council member Depulus. >> Yes. >> Council member Richards. >> Yes. >> Council member Steve Freriedman. >> Yes. Coun, >> excuse me. Vice Mayor Don Horton. >> Yes. >> And Mayor Sharon Mahoney. >> Yes.
>> That motion passes 5. Okay. N. >> Yep. Last but not least is N. A resolution of the village council of Alamara Village of Islands, Florida, considering administrative appeal of number PLP20250056 filed by Ty Harris, PA, agent for Boy Scouts of America. Appalent relating to
a dwelling unit determination by the director of planning for property located at 73800 overseas highway having real estate number 00009-7710--000000 on lower Madakumbi Ki as legally described herein providing for the transmitt of this resolution to the state department of commerce and providing for an effective date upon the
approval of this resolution from the state department of commerce and council if you please disclose any exparte communications. Deb, I talked to Ty Harris and I c talked to Keith Douglas. Dawn, >> um, I talked to, uh, Mike Johnson, Ty
Harris, Keith Douglas. >> Okay. He only talked to Ty Anna. >> Ty Harris, Mike Johnson, and Keith Douglas. >> Steve, >> same answer as before. Ty Harris text. >> Okay. Would this be Rob?
>> That would be me. All right. Good evening, council. Rob Mather, review engineer. Um, we're here for the administrative appeal of dwelling unit determination for a 73800 overseas highway. Um, this property is within the public semi-public services
zoning district. The agent, Ty Harris, has requested a dwelling unit determination on behalf of the Boy Scouts of America in May of 2025. The request was for the recognition of at least 10 transate units associated with the former Tollgate Inn uh which was in
existence from approximately mid1 1950s to approximately 1980 uh at the time when the boy scouts purchased and occupied the property. Uh the appellent has previously held a pre-application conference with the village PC-17-07.
Uh the resulting summary letter dated June 1st, 2018 states that the village confirmed the approximate existing conditions, total of one market rate residential dwelling unit and 14 residential institutional dwelling units on the property. Permit number C-10881
issued by the county in 1982 was identified in this letter which authorized the conversion of 10 of the 10-unit motel into a 10-unit staff/ facility quarters. staff has made the determination that the criteria in section 30-473D
have not been met for the requested transient units resulting in the determination that no existing transient units are available for use on the property. Um I have the complete analysis of the determination which is
in the packet. That letter is dated August 5th uh 2025. Um, we were unable to find uh areas in criteria one or two uh which would satisfy the recognition of the requested units. Um, if there are any questions,
I'm available. Please let me know. >> Anybody have anything to >> not right now? >> Not right now. >> Um, yeah, Rob, were there any um record gaps here? Was there was there anything where storm, you know, you couldn't find any records or do we have a good
timeline in this? Uh that's a good question. So we do know that the tollgate in was in existence uh from the 50s to the 80s to approximately 1980. We do have building permit records um you
know starting in 1982 that specifically authorized the conversion of the transient units to residential institutional units. Um and same thing so there was one building which had 10 transient units that was converted. There was another one that was converted
later down the line in 1988 uh for four transient units into non-residential floor area. That was in 1988. So, we do have records. >> Rob, I got a question for you. >> Mike, >> huh? >> Mike, >> sorry. Rob, I got a question for you.
>> Y >> the the the building that was that was converted, is that the building that uh is um parallel to Tollgate Boulevard? Is that the one you're talking about? So, I think the easiest way to do this, um, that way we're all on the same page. If
we go into the packet, um, if we look at the historic permits, it's on page 119 of 132. Um, there was a site plan that was filed with the county. It kind of lays out what was there in the early 1990s.
>> 119. Let me get the >> Thanks for numbering these two. >> Yeah, got it. >> You got it. >> And this one actually has a a black strip along the bottom, so it doesn't show the page number, but find 118 or
120 and you're almost there. >> Got it. >> Okay. So, if you look in the bottom left, um it shows a 10-unit building, staff housing with 10 parking spaces existing, and then it's got a leader. Um it's kind
of the angled building, so it's not exactly parallel to Tollgate Boulevard. >> Yeah. >> Mhm. >> That was the building that was converted. >> That is correct. >> Okay. What is what the building that's kind of L-shaped as you travel down
Tollgate Boulevard that's kind of L-shaped. What is that building? >> As you as you're on Overseas Highway, you go into Tollgate, the building in the top right corner. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Um that's participant housing. I believe
that was part of the site plan approval in the early 90s, but that was not part of this request. >> Okay. But so so at this point all they're asking for is what? >> So the request was for at least 10 transient units.
>> Okay. When you were reviewing this, did you review all of the buildings and all of the permits that were issued and and me too? >> Um, and the history of of that piece of property. >> Uh, yes, we went through, we looked at the relevant buildings. Um, there was
something like 130 different permit records in our system. Um, so we didn't go through every single one directly, but we looked at the ones that were specifically related to the request. Um, and those would be where it says the ship store, um, and the 10-unit
building. Those were the two that were identified as former tollgate in transients. >> Don, are you done? Do you have anything here >> for now? Yeah. >> Deb, anything for Rob? They're right this minute.
>> Okay. So, Rob, thank you. Ty, >> thank you. >> I'm >> That's the one they're asking for. This is the one I was looking >> again. Ty Harris, for the record, and I want to clarify because I guess it was confusing. We were actually asking for
four, recognition of four, which is the conversion of the the four remaining in 1988 that became the ship store. And I will explain how we got to from 14 to four. Um, but this has been a very very
interesting exercise. And again, as I stated last month, I really think we need to amend the code to give staff a few more tools to use in making these determinations because it puts everybody in an awkward spot when we have to appeal because they can't find under the
code that units are available. And if anything, we should be trying to find units that are available because we don't have any more units, >> right? >> Um that being said, um I don't ever use these, but today I'm going to I'm going to try my best to um to to walk you
through it. So, this is the this is the a portion of the denial letter that we received from the village that I thought was was kind of interesting to start with. be >> um >> before before you move into that, may I ask a question? >> Yes, sir. >> Because you said something at the
beginning. >> So, I understood that we were we were trying to approve or or look at appeal 10 units. You said four, >> right? We So, when we first started this process, we were looking at at the
original tollgate in, >> right? Um then when we started working through the process with with planning um we started to focus more on a compromise where the four units that were the that are now the ship store was
a more defensible position and a more reasonable compromise than asking for the 10 from Tollgate in and I'll kind of explain how we got there. >> So what are you asking for? >> We're asking for four. >> You're only asking for four. only asking for four. >> Okay.
>> And and the four specifically we're asking for are the ones that are now the ship store that were converted in 1988. >> I Yeah, I understand I understand where that or what that's about, but that's not what I was led to believe.
>> I'm sorry for that confusion because >> like I said, when we were going through the process, there was a a second discussion about the other four and we were still denied. But our our intent was always after that to just focus on the four and leave the the original
tollgate in alone. So when you look at the letter, the first thing that I that stuck out to us was this this policy that the village is focusing on of new transient units. Um we're not asking for recognition of new transient units.
We're asking for recognition of existing hotel units. So, I'm not quite sure that that policy would apply, but I understand why, you know, staff would put that in the in the letter. Um, the second part I thought was important was
further down. Uh, the requested transient units were legally converted via permits from Monroe County prior to 1990. Therefore, the surveys and aerials are unable to clearly show the existence of these requested units. This goes to the the 10-unit hotel which was the
original part of of Tollgate in the original 10 units were in in one building and that's what that was and that relates to a permit um that's identified by the village as permit
C10881 which was issued in 1982. And this is important because that permit does have on it, it says the conversion from from hotel to um to dorm
housing. Y >> and it and it lists $22,000 worth of improvements to actually make that happen. And important an important part of that discussion is something Deb and I actually talked about today about when
did rogo come into effect because that date is critical to this discussion. ROGO came into effect in 1986. So in 1982 we were kind of trying how can you cross the streams? How can you
mix rogoexempt allocations from rogo counted? But in 1982, nobody was counting anything. Um, but it was just a building permit. It didn't it didn't have any seal of any there was no planning file. There's no planning
notes. It was just the conversion. So, still a question about the original 10. Um, but what we we got into a little bit further and I because it's more fun to look at pictures.
Is it the middle button that I press? >> Right. >> That's good. >> Correct. >> This is this is the one of the several listings for for the Tollgate in at the time. And this is
important. There were three of them. I found one from Holiday Isle as a real realtor that was was listing it. And this one kind of showed the property at the time that the Boy Scouts purchased it. And so the question was what what
did they actually purchase and and why is that relevant now? So what they purchased was a hotel with 14 recognized units and the village. We're not arguing. Nobody's contesting that there were 14 units on the property and that's established
through building permits. They also bought a 4600 foot restaurant with seating for over 150. They bought a 100 seat 100 slip marina. And funny enough, they also bought a transferable liquor license with package sales. Go Boy
Scouts. So that's what they bought. They didn't buy Seabase. They bought a commercial property, a commercial venture that was operating and had operated since the 50s. that's what they bought.
So, what what is the next thing that happens um in this kind of line of of approvals and building permits? And we've already gone over the the permit in 1982 before ROGO. Well, the next thing that happens is a major
conditional use approval in 1989. So, now ROGO has been in place for 3 years. Now, we're counting. Now, we're counting units. Everything counts now like Depes Bode said in large amounts, but that's
for people that know old '8s music. Um, so this is what the the approval in in 1989 said. The county recognized 40,597 ft of commercial space. They approved housing for 120 camp participants. They
approved housing for 20 staff members. They approved a special activities building for 600 ft², a conference and multi-use space for 4,900, a storage building for 4,200, and they said you got to have a sewer treatment plant that
back in the day of the package plants. And so, okay, that's what was approved. So, again, where are the hotels? The mystery. Where are the hotels? This is these are the conditions of approval.
And so when they when they received permission for all of this stuff, ROGO's been in place. These are the the 11 or 12 11 conditions that were that were put on on this approval. I'm not going to read them all to you, but if you take a quick glance, you will
not see anywhere in there the word hotel. the they were not because they they were not required to give up hotel allocations as part of the major conditional use and there's a reason for that. The reason is rogo
um I've put up one more this is the county code boo um and this is the existing code but it hasn't changed and this is this is talking about
development that's exempt from rogo institutional uses are exempt from rogo so when they when they approved in 1989 120 beds and 20 spots for for um the counselors.
Those are called rogoexempt just like the hospital is rogoexempt just like dorm housing down in Key West for the College of the Florida Keys is exempt just like the um the assisted living facility up here at Marada is exempt.
These are all exempt from rogo. So there's a reason why the hotel isn't discussed in this because hotel units are are rogo counted, BP pass counted and dorm space and dorm rooms are not.
So that's why they're not talked about, but it doesn't mean they went away. And the clearly the four that were converted in 1988, which is 2 years after Rogo, should have been counted, which is why
I'm making an argument for four instead of the 10 because I'm not quite sure that I'm on as good a legal footing on the 10, but I feel darn good about the four because Rogo's in place. They should have been counted and they should
be they should still be recognized as um as units that are transient that can be sold by the Boy Scouts to pay for improvements at sea base. I mean I know we're not supposed to talk about or it's not cogent to the argument about well
why do they need the money? Well the money is so that they can put in their they have a plan to put in a coral restoration portion and they want to get involved in restoring the reef like everybody else. So that will fund that's what that's for. That's why it's
important that will fund it. Um and then because you know I love movies I I thought of a movie that kind of made sense for this Ghostbusters. Don't cross the streams. It would be
bad. What that means is that you can't start mixing rogo counted and rogoexempt allocations. And we know that that what happened in 1982 with the building permit, Rogo wasn't
there. So maybe that was possible, but it was not possible in 1988. It is not possible. Those units should have been counted because they were still standing 2 years after Rogo.
And so when it was taken down and converted to a ship store, those allocations didn't go away. They're still there. They're still in the property. Just like a a liquor license doesn't Just because you're not using a liquor license doesn't make it go away. We all know that.
So, it it's an entitlement. It's something that they bought when they purchased the property that they're still entitled to. And that pretty much sums up my um my presentation. >> Anybody have anything for Ty before and
I know what you're going to ask. Go ahead. No, I was just going to correct you, Ty. >> ROGO didn't come into effect until June 10th of 1992. >> The the comprehensive plan was under appeal and we we accepted the 90% plan,
but ROGO didn't come into effect in 1992. That doesn't harm your argument whatsoever, but I can tell you that we did not have ROGO until June 10th of 1992. M >> uh what but
but I I I still completely agree that they that pre- rogo there was no importance of attaching what units were what and what was going to be built and they didn't count those
things. Um and uh and the the the the permit that was issued to convert uh a hotel to something else, they they wouldn't have like gotten rid of or not
gotten rid of. You didn't swap one for the other back then because it was pre free prego. >> Yep. So I Googled when Rogo started in the county. Yeah. and it told me 1986. >> Well, don't trust her. That that's when the comp plan was adopted.
>> So, that's where that information came from. >> September 15th of 1986. >> I apologize if I don't have that right because I I looked it up through Google because I I'm I hate the county code. No, no offense. And so, I Google a lot of of county code >> preferences. Plan was under appeal and
that was the >> the 90% was the 90% of the plan was being enacted, adopted agree. other part wasn't until they settled. It >> it didn't it doesn't change the analysis as far as >> as the the units
>> um that they bought the units and they didn't sell we don't have any evidence that they've sold the units or transferred them off. They still have those units, >> right? >> So, thanks thanks for clarifying that and darn Google, but Google it yourself and see what it pops up. 1986 is what it
says. >> Anybody have anything else for Ty before we move on? >> No. Okay. All right. So, Marne in favor. >> I would like to clarify that these folks are in favor of the
>> of the appeal. >> Of the appeal >> of the appeal. >> Okay. All right. So, uh first up is Mike Johnson. >> Hi, good evening. Mike Johnson. I'm the general manager of the seabase. I live and work on the seabase. And out of this
whole process, perhaps the most exciting thing is learning that we may have a liquor license. I'm I'm bringing it attempting to bring some levity into this. So, >> you may need it after the meeting tonight. >> I may. I've got plans, Don. So, as we've
said this evening, when the Boy Scouts of America bought the Tollgate Inn in 1979, they paid market rate for a property that had 14 hotel units in two different buildings. the 10 which are almost parallel to tollgate in and then
four that were closer to the water that at some point in time uh were converted into a ship store and then approximately uh probably about two I don't know would have been 2005 or so that was demolished
but again had 14 hotel units a bar and a restaurant a dock and a marina our perspective my perspective is that Just because we didn't use those 14 hotel units doesn't mean those rights went away. And because they weren't
counted when the list was made doesn't mean those rights went away. I'm not uh a lawyer, but as I read the building permit that has been referenced for the renovation, it simply was repairing an
age old building, those 10 units, to make it more habitable for staff that were already living there. That's my perspective on that. We initially inquired about the 10 hotel units and were told by the staff that
because those 10 units were still in existence and being used, we were told by the village staff that because those 10 units were still in existence and being used by staff that we we couldn't uh receive or have those
rights reinstated. So, we changed based upon that feedback and we are instead requesting recognition of our rights for four hotel units that were on the property when it was purchased and were on the property uh once uh Rogo came
into play. We really believe this is pretty fair and reasonable. We're not making an argument for 10. We're not making an argument for 14. We're saying four. We're asking for four to be recognized. And yes, uh, we do have some capital
needs at the base. One of which is to build a coral nursery. We have a highly successful coral nursery at our second location on Summerland Key at the Britain Environmental Center. We grow about 15 to 20,000 corals a year. Scouts and staff uh, help in that whole
process. And then we plant them out there on the reef as part of Mission Iconic Reef. We are part of that. We're recognized as a partner. We have a whole scuba diving program there at CBase Salam Marada and this would be part of that. So, we have shared this with uh
the neighbors. I've shared it verbally as well as via email exactly what I've presented to you. And I had five different neighbors uh that received the notice. Uh Ed Gallagher, Sue and Wally Whitley, Joe Campbell, and Bill and
Annie Boyd who all came back or bond all came back and said they're in favor. Um, so that's our perspective. Thanks for your time. I appreciate it. >> Thank you, Marne. Who's next? >> Next is Keith Douglas. >> Good evening, honorable mayor and
honorable members of the village of Mon city village council and staff as well. First of all, thank you for what you have been doing in previous councils for affordable housing. I couldn't resist the opportunity to thank him because it's really something that's so important and so needed. I had the
pleasure over the years. First of all, I'm definitely in favor of this. There's no question we're being as fair as we think possible for we're living by the scout oath of the law in what we're asking in my opinion. But also I was part of watching um the various projects
that staff actually helped u for sure help with getting it going um and and building the this the the um scuba complex for example and converting and repairing those 10 hotel units um and
and renovating and building a whole new um pier at the sea base. All these are very positive things and it was part of the meeting where the heads of Moat Marine came to Alam Marada saying we want to expand what we're doing down
there in the Britain environmental center and it made me really excited that we could be doing that up here too and that's where these funds would be going. So, you already heard the technical stuff. Uh, so I don't need to go over any of that, but I would hope that you would would consider that we do
still have some value that can help bring some more improvements here to to our young people and to the village of Alamada. Thank you again for your public service. >> Thank you very much, Martney. Anybody else in favor? >> No, ma'am. >> Okay, now we'll go for not in favor.
>> Sue Miller. Sue Miller, I have nothing to say. I read a completely different application than what I'm hearing tonight. Thank you. >> Thank you, Sue. >> Okay. >> There's no one else opposed. U Mr. Richmire would like to speak and
neutral. >> Do we have a category for neutral? >> Let's make We do now. >> Let's make >> Yes. As a matter of fact, it does say neutral on there. >> Go ahead. because when it comes to some of these administrative appeals, you never know. We've been through this time
and time again. My name is Joe Wishmire and Plantation Key. I can speak firsthand a lot about Florida Sea Base. I happen to know these gentlemen over here, that bald-headed guys, the guy
that hired me in 1989. I ran my >> I ran my sailboat for 30 years. Uh when I first started there was only seven sailboats in the program to help out with so many kids across the country. They have expanded and
continued to provide experiences, life-changing experiences to these young kids. I still get letters today from some Eagle Scouts thanking me for the adventure that they had down at Seabbase.
So, they do so much good down there for not only the Boy Scouts, but for the community. They add a lot of stuff to it. I wouldn't want to see anything happen that would take away their opportunity or any opportunities for them to expand. I think this coral
restoration is a great way to continue education for a lot of the young people. I remember we used to have reef balls. We made a whole bunch of reef balls and put them out there and it created a wonderful artificial reef. We didn't have to use ships or anything like that.
We had actual concrete balls with balls in them that got busted. Anyway, there was lots of lobster and all. So, I hope that you see it fit to uh give the Boy Scouts what they need so that they can continue to operate and continue to
offer an ex you get I I've had kids from in the middle of the country never even seen the ocean before and we put them on a 41 ft sailboat. They jump in the water and the first thing they meet a barracuda. >> It's like oh my god. You'd think it was
Moby Dick, you know, but to hear them and to see them turn into a squid and leave a brown trail back to the boat. By the end of the week, they're chasing them. That's how good a program it is down there. So, let's do what we can to keep it operating. Thank you. >> Thank you, Joe. Go ahead, Jennifer.
>> I just want to go on record in saying that staff has no issue with the Boy Scouts operation as a whole, and we also think that they do good things for the community, but we have to follow the code and and that's what we did here. So I don't want anybody to get the impression that we have anything against the voice guns. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> No worries. Uh councel >> so staff is constantly seems to be put in this position to where our regulations almost require them unless there is just in-your-face documentation
by permitting or some other governmental thing that makes them say, "Oh yeah, it's there." Um and and so we we seem to face this a lot, but um it's obvious to me that knowing the history of the
tollgate in the Boy Scouts and and and that uh the the work that's done there and the permitting that was done there and I think I issued that permit for the dive tank uh uh when they tore down the other building. So, um, I completely agree that there's a total difference
between what the way they looked at things before ROO and after ROGO. So, I would move to a, uh, I would move to rule in favor of the appellant, >> which is how many units? Four, >> which is four units. >> Four. >> Four. Yes.
>> Four transient units. >> Four transient units. Yes, ma'am. >> Yes. And the only reason I asked that question is because when I had the discussion, I thought we were talking about the 10 units. >> Yeah. >> Um so I'm royally confused on how that
happened, but um they tried to explain it to a degree. >> Um unless there's other conversation, I will second this. >> Anybody have anything else? Can Can I just Can you clarify in your motion that
they're wet transient units since they're have shoreline? >> Yeah. >> Yes. Wet transient units. Yes. >> Yes. >> Did you guys want to say anything before? >> I I um I I sympathize with the Boy Scouts and and would love to see that
facility continue to thrive and improve. I myself am a of a life scout. Um this really has nothing to do with uh you know with any of that. We're we're here for testimony and and I happen to um support the staff's findings here. Again, as uh Don alluded to, it's it's
very difficult for them. They have to go according to the code. And so I I just kind of look at things like, you know, when I believe the village capped the number of transient units in December of 2001. and you know there was ample opportunity
for the owner of that property to come in and and and list those units and and that wasn't done. So, you know, I I think for me that's one of the reasons why I I'm going to find with the staff's recommendation.
>> Do you have anything to say? >> No, I mean other than that they're they're just doing good things and we need to keep correcting things that have fallen through the wayside. Mayor, can I >> Yeah, go ahead. >> I I will tell you I personally went into
the village uh trying to get lawfully established for uh hotel rights or transit rights for a piece property down in lower mount of Cumbi. This was um uh well uh Tai was actually planning
director. Um I um uh I was uh I I had documentation and licensing on a piece of property that had gone back 10 years. Um most current a year before I walked in there all the way back into the 80s.
Uh I was originally denied not by Tai but by the villages attorney back then because I was an unsub nebulous list. They had a list of hotels that they recognized as hotels. I looked at that list. I went through that list and I
found five other hotels that were currently operating operational hotels that the village documentation had completely missed. So when they did their um when they made this list they
were completely off and um I think this is Marada Hotel actually motel was actually one of them. >> The sign is still there >> and um and those units did not go away on that piece of property. They actually pulled a permit to demo those. They've
been gone for probably 15 years, maybe a little longer. Uh but um the village didn't even have that. They didn't have the one behind um uh Porttoarda that's back all the way back u um uh the Racket Edge that was not on their list. It's a
long operating uh hotel. So the village's list by um my personal knowledge was completely remiss. So, uh, it's real easy for them to have missed the the tollgate in, uh, if they could
miss some that are actually operating. So, I stand by my motion. >> And again, um, we are earlier tonight with uh, the properties that were zoned residential that are really commercial. We have we have some issues and I do
feel bad for the staff. They're just following the code. But until we can fix all this stuff, we're almost penalizing people who shouldn't be penalized. So >> I think we're glad we should be glad that we continue to revisit this. >> I I agree with you. So do I >> So that people don't lose their rights.
>> I have a motion in a second. >> Correct. >> Yes. >> Marne, would you please call the role? Am I right, John? You're looking like you're lost. >> Just as a reminder, who was the second? >> I was. He he had that look like. >> And if you want me to caveat that based on the testimony that we heard tonight.
Yeah, everything is based upon the testimony evidence presented, >> right? Okay. >> Marne, please. >> Okay. Council member Don or excuse me, Vice Mayor Don Horton. >> Yes. >> Council member Debb Gillis. >> Yes. >> Council member Steve Freriedman. >> Well, I appreciate that explanation. I'm
still a no. >> Council member Richards. >> Yes. >> And Mayor Sharon Mahoney. >> Yes. >> The motion passes 4 to one. >> Okay. um before that's the end but before we leave Monday 5:30 uh wastewater so I just want to remind
everybody yep >> and the agenda is posted on the website >> okay and so with that do I have a anybody want to leave >> motion to adjourn okay thank you early.