Thank you for joining us for the July 6th local planning agency meeting for the town of Lake Placid. Miss Tina, please call the role. >> Dustin Woods >> here. >> Jack Edgeman, Donald Clark,
James Oxer, Gary Freeman >> here. >> Chris Duncan, Alex Ramos >> here. >> Thank you. I wait to entertain an a motion concerning the consent agenda.
>> A motion to approve it. >> A motion from Gary. >> I'll second >> and a second from Alex. Thank you. >> Uh any further discussion hearing? None. Tina, please call the role.
>> Gary Freeman. >> Yes. Alex Ramos. >> Yes. >> Dustin Woods. >> Yes. >> All right. Let me turn it over to town planner Dana Ryel. >> Thank you and good evening uh local
planning agency. As mentioned, my name is Dana Redell with Stonehenge Land Development Consultants representing the town planner today. Uh our first public hearing will be ordinance 20264 which is hearing number LPTC.26 26.004
and these are text amendments for temporary shelters. So I'm navigating to that section of our code of our package. Um so essentially this is a text amendment. It will have to go through three meetings, two of
which are public hearings. Tonight's meeting is a public hearing. So we'll open for public comment at the end. But there was a Florida statute passed which is Florida statute 166.0335
specifically relating to temporary shelters after a state of emergency. Originally our code doesn't provide for temporary shelters, RVs, um transient housing, anything of that nature. So,
we're opening up our code to be able to allow these things in accordance with Florida statute that's essentially saying we must allow it, but we included some regulations as to how that will be implemented. Um because you know you could have someone out in the community
who in good faith goes goes ahead and puts up an RV and then ends up living in it for the next 10 years and we have no way of knowing whether or not what natural disaster that was pursuant to or how
what they're they're needing to repair. um you know and if it's hooked up the way that it's supposed to be hooked up because right here in for statute it specifically says it must be connected to water and electric utilities and does not present a threat to health and human
safety. So it's within our purview to implement regulations to regulate this type of use. Uh we can't necessarily tell someone no that they can't have a temporary shelter, but we can revoke the permit if they're not showing a good
faith effort to actually repair their home or to comply with the rules and regulations if they don't actually connect it to water and electricity. So, you know, we were having some conversations earlier today. I will have some changes that I'd actually like to propose to the text that's being
presented to you tonight. But what we did was we took language from the Highlands County Code. We weren't exactly reinventing the wheel. And we we believe what we did was try to
make it a little bit easier because Highlands County implements a temporary shelter permit and then they implement like a more permanent temporary shelter permit. Still not permanent, but more permanent, right? Temporary shelters are
allowed up to 36 months. Um, but you know, I think we all know that immediately following a natural disaster, we can't necessarily get all our ducks in a row. We can't say like, "Here's this inspection report. Here's uh this receipt of something I
purchased. Like, we're having a hard time even getting things delivered to the county, anything put together. We're having a hard time calling inspectors, finding qualified people to do this work." So, I trust that you all read the language,
but here's what I'm proposing to change tonight. So, under section 3A, we go over what's required as part of the application package.
and instead of requiring an inspection report be conducted by a licensed inspector or in writing from the town building official as deeming the structure as uninhabitable. We're going to go ahead and bring that down to
conditions for use. So, we understand that it will be impossible for everyone to meet all of the conditions established in these regulations right off the bat because
they aren't going to have the resources available to. So, instead of doing like Highlands County and having like a temporary permit and then a more permanent permit, we're building that into it. So, and this is what um Tina and I were trying to get up
on the screen for you all because I'm sure it'd be a little bit easier to see it, but we're adding language here where it says conditions for use for it to say the conditions of this section shall be satisfied within 3
months of the issuance of the temporary shelter permit unless compliance within that time is not reasonably feasible. In such cases, the permit holder shall provide sufficient documentation demonstrating why compliance cannot be achieved within the required time frame
and identifying the anticipated timeline for compliance. So, for example, if in 3 months someone doesn't provide that report from the inspector, maybe they show us an email from the inspector saying, uh, we can't make it in the next three months, but we can make it on month four or five. um were all booked
up and maybe it looks like they're not making progress on their repairs, but they show us an email or a receipt for the building supplies and we understand that they're being shipped. So then the next paragraph that we would add would
say, "The temporary shelter permit shall be subject to review by the town every six months to determine continued compliance with the requirements and conditions of this section. Following each review, the permit may be extended
for an additional 6-month period not to exceed a total duration of 36 months or may be revoked immediately upon a determination of non-compliance or when the permit is otherwise no longer warranted. If we set it up the way that the county
had it, there's a certain amount of uncertainty. What happens if you finish your temporary permit and you can't produce those documents or the onus is on you to continue coming back to the
town and and providing proof. But what we're offering to do here is to say we're going to check in with you in three months. We're going to make sure you have met the conditions, meaning you're connected to water, electricity, um you have in writing that your house
is uninhabitable. the the major landmark things we're going to look into. And if you are working, you show us proof that you're working on it, we'll bring you to the six-month period. After 6 months, if we continue to see that nothing has
happened and no progress is being made, then maybe at that point, we revoke it. But we will be coming to you every first after the first three months and then every six months thereafter. Um can again I have actually seen
firsthand in the town of Lake Placid where I have been told that work is being done but all that exists is a roofing permit to replace the roof when there is zero roof on the home whatsoever completely unlivable. Nobody
could live there. Um, so this holds everyone accountable. It keeps the momentum moving and hopefully it also gives us an opportunity to help where possible. So I wish I could show you those changes on the screen tonight. So I apologize
because I know it's really lengthy. If you need me to repeat that, I certainly can. Is there uh if their applications being re-reviewed every six months, is that going to come with a processing fee every six months or is that just automatic until it's
done? >> No, at this time I'm not proposing any filing fees or processing fees or anything of that nature. I don't believe Highlands County requires that either. Do we need to item uh article 43A2
about the inspection report conducted? Do we need to the building official deems the do we need to add the word permanent dwelling uninhabitable or is that assumed? Um, let me >> because of the nature of the
>> 032, >> which deems the dwelling as uninhabitable. >> Um, >> is that assumed? I mean, the headline is temporary shelter permit >> and then there's a line in there that says kind of a vague comment about deems
the dwelling. Clearly, it's assumed, but does should it be stated? >> That's optional. If you would like to add that, you can. I actually went in and used the definition for dwelling in our code, so it is clearly defined what
a dwelling is. >> Well, then that answers that. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Any questions from you guys in regards to this one? Uh, chief and town administrator, any concerns with this one? >> No. All all concerns were already
addressed. >> Okay. So, the motion we'd be asking for tonight would be move to recommend the town council approve ordinance 20264
with the changes as recommended by staff. >> I wait to entertain a motion. >> Yeah, I can do it. Oh, well, it seems like it would be number two would be the right one. Number one is actually kind of like just there.
>> Correct. Yeah. So, it would be number two, which would be to move to approve with the changes. And instead of listing out the changes, I just said with the changes as recommended by staff, which I have in writing over here. >> Oh, I see. Okay. Then it would be number one then.
>> What's that? >> Would it be number one then? >> No, we want number two. so that the changes that I talked about tonight that I didn't show you on the screen so that they can be included in the recommended motion to council. >> Okay, I'll move to go with number two.
>> Thank you. >> I have a motion on the table. >> Second. >> All right. And a second now. Any further discussion? This is a public hearing. Any comment from anyone else in the community
hearing? None. Let me bring it back. >> Would you please pull the council? >> Gary Freeman. >> Yes. >> Alex Ramos. >> Yes. >> Dustin Woods. >> Yes. >> Ready.
>> All right. Thank you. So, moving on to item 5B. That would be ordinance number 2026-05, hearing number LPTC.26.005. And this is one that I'm excited to get straightened out. This is really so that
we can avoid more interpretation in the code because what you'll see in the ordinance is that there was a contradiction in the code between the setbacks that are required on a corner lot. So, originally under the
definition for lot frontage, it specifically said all yards of a lot adjacent to a street shall be considered frontage and yard shall be provided as required. What that means is if you have any street frontage, so you're on a
corner lot, each side of that corner lot must be treated with a 25 ft setback in residential districts because the front setback is 25 ft. But then you have this other section of the code that says the sideyard adjacent to the secondary street on a corner lot shall provide a
setback of 12 feet in resident. No, it doesn't say in residential. So, I did some word smithing. So, have a setback of 20 feet for the rear portion of the lot within 50 feet of the rear lot line. At least 12 feet for the remainder of the lot to the
front building line. Yes. If you are having a hard time wrapping your mind around it, imagine the general public and even myself, right? So that you it required two different setbacks on the same side of the road
and then there was a whole other contradictory setback here in the definition. So it would have required a 25 ft setback. So I'm proposing we go down to 12. Again, we're still under Senate Bill 180, which only allows us to loosen the rules right now and not go
any more stringent. So, that's part of the reason I'm recommending 12. Um, Highlands County has a corner setback of 15, but if we've been allowing 12 ft in portions of our corner yards, then it's
consistent with historic development. So, I didn't see an issue with that. While I was in there, it started opening a little bit of a can of worms, not only for corner yards, but
for through lots. Because this definition for lot frontage, remember, it's basically saying if you are along a street, you have to meet the front yard setback of 25 ft. Well, we know in downtown like right behind the college along Hibiscus and a lot of
those streets down there, they have an alleyway that can be used for anything. It could be used for travel, utilities, drainage. The towns don't currently use it for anything. My dream would be for us to have an alleyway plan and for us to be for it to be like a multi-use path. So, I don't
think that the alleyways are totally unusable and that they should all be closed. I think there might be a way to repurpose them. Um, so anyway, we're considering having to make a 25 foot setback there when people are using that as their rear yard, which would usually
only require a 6 to 8 foot rear yard setback for an accessory structure and they'd have to bring their accessory structures back 25 ft. I don't know if planners past were implementing it that way or what they were doing or if a lot of people weren't getting permits, whatever the case may be. But I figured
let's just straighten it out so that everyone is in compliance and they can treat those rear yards like rear yards because the 15t alleyways it's not going to be used for utilities. It's
too small and it makes more sense to run the utilities in the front of the property. But it could be used, like I said, for pedestrian traffic, bike paths, all kinds of things like that. So, you don't
need a full 25 ft setback. So, anyway, what I'm proposing is to call a double lot also a through lot and to say on double frontage lots, both yards abuing a public street shall be considered front yards and shall meet the required front yard setbacks. So, this is on any
other through lot. You still have to meet the front yard setback. However, any remaining yard shall be classified as a rear yard or sideyard as applicable and shall comply with the corresponding setback requirements. residential lots that abut an alleyway with a right ofway
width of 15 feet or less, which I took measurements all throughout town and the alleyways that abut are residential areas are 15 ft or less or are less than 15 ft. They shall not
be considered double frontage lots for setback purposes. On such lots, the yard abuing the alleyway shall be classified as a rear yard, and any principal structure or accessory structure facing the alleyway shall comply with the applicable rear yard setback
requirements. Simply saying, treat your alleyway backyard as a backyard. But if you were on uh if you had a full you own the corner of the block and you own both lots on either side, we
would still consider that a through lot. Um because that's an actual thoroughfare where people need to travel and it produces a certain amount of safety and visibility when you have your structures set back 25 feet. So, those are my recommendations and
of course always open to any comments or changes, but I'll put these motion options on the screen and turn it back over to the board. >> Thank you. Any questions for Miss Rodell? >> Uh, and when she was given the example of the houses behind the college, she
meant the houses behind Grace Lake Placid, just to be clear. >> Behind what? >> Grace Lake Placid. >> Yes. >> Isn't that right? Yeah. Oh, yeah. You're right. You're right. There's been a little change there >> for the record. >> So, you're saying that if the if the
through lots have the alleyway in between them that they can use that as backyard. >> They don't use the alleyway as a backyard, but they treat their backyard as a backyard. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Because since it that's an alleyway, if I wanted to put a shed up, I would have
had to stay 25t away from my rear property line. But if I get to treat it like a backyard, I only have to stay six or eight feet away from the rear property line. >> Okay. And then they're still unable to fence the alleyway out, right? Like they still have to if they put up a fence, it
can't cross the alleyway. >> Correct. Correct. You have to do it on or within your property lines, which would not include the alleyway. >> Which streets have the alleyways? I've not seen any in my driving through town. >> You would never really know they're there. Let me go ahead and pull it up
for you. We we've got some. I know we do. >> Yeah. >> Working here. We had some. >> Yeah. You don't really realize they're there until you look at the aerial shot. >> Yeah. >> And so it creates this whole thing of like, what do you mean I have an alley? What are you talking about?
>> Quite a few of them that run back through there. >> Uh, where am I? Open the map. Here we go. >> That's usually the way it is. You don't even So, the alleyways aren't constructed.
>> No, I don't think you'll see it there. >> Yeah. >> Well, maybe. >> So, like here's an alleyway. >> Yeah. >> That you would never really know. So, that's Spruce AB and Hibiscus. Um then coming over here on South Oak
and Pine, we have alleyways right through here. >> So theoretically, if someone were just walking through that right there, like they could not say anything about it. >> Correct. Don't be up to any mischief. >> No, I'm just I was just thinking whenever you said
the multi-use paths in the back of the alleyways, I just not sure that would be desirable a lot of people. >> Maybe not. Maybe not. it would have to be part of like a much more integrated connected you know path and everyone would have to
get on board and yeah but then so and it specifically references residential property. So here we have commercial. We have all kinds of alleyways here along South Main, but that has a commercial zoning and that we likely want to keep the
keep the setback requirements and these alleyways very well could be integrated into some kind of alleyway system like a true one-way driving alleyway system. This text amendment allows those folks
to use more of their backyard but still protects the current alleyways. >> Exactly. Correct. >> So like the structures here that are on the alleyway like lot 75 I guess that structure in the upper right hand
corner. >> Yeah. Like these ones here like these structures. >> Yeah. >> They're currently not in compliance. Yeah. So, it brings a lot of things into compliance. >> Great question. Any other questions for Miss Ryell?
>> Um, I'll wait to entertain a motion. >> Sure. I will move to recommend the town council approve ordinance 202605 with changes as discussed. Thank you. A motion for Mr. Ramos.
>> I'll second that motion. A >> second for Mr. Freeman. Any further discussion hearing? None. This is a public hearing. It's our chief town administrator or Sarge. >> Detective.
>> Detective. All right. Hearing none, I'll bring it back. Would you please poll >> the agency? >> Alex Ramos. >> Yes. >> Jerry Freeman. >> Yes. >> Dustin Woods. >> Yes.
>> I lived in a house like that. A lot of times the utilities will be in the >> All right. So that brings us to item 5C and that will be ordinance 2026-06 hearing number LPTC.26. 26.006.
This is text amendments for home occupations. Again, this is in response to a Florida statute uh legis a legislative change. Sorry, my brain's not on all cylinders, but I'm here, promise.
Um, so what essentially happened when this legislation came in, and I'm going to get to this legislation here, is the state started preempting certain regulations regarding home occupations, which
I'm not always a fan of the state preempting things because not all parts of Florida are created equal. We all have different needs and various requirements, but and they're all there for a reason. Um but in this case
if I'm a fan I'm a fan of these regulations and essentially probably when I was doing code enforcement maybe two years ago there was a home occupation issue where you
had a business being run from a home which is fine everyone's okay with that but they have a high number of vehicles, trucks, commercial vehicles parked in their driveway. They have uh they're using an empty lot across the street to
park some of their vehicles. They have equipment visible out front. Essentially, this home occupation language requires that your home has to look like a home. So, if I drive by, I shouldn't see 10 cars parked in the
parking lot across the street or in your front yard. It's not supposed to generate any more parking than would usually be required. So, whatever could fit in your driveway. Um, it shouldn't look like you have equipment
in your front yard for your business. If you look like a home and you have a fence and we don't see what's behind the fence, then it allows for that. It allows for you to use other parts of your property for your home occupation,
but if you're doing some kind of retail transaction, it has to happen in your home. That's what makes it a home occupation. Um, so this the town of Lake Placid talks about home occupation all throughout the code. It's like, yeah, this is allowed
as an accessory use. It's a lot in this district, in this district, in this district, but it never really defines it. It never really establishes criteria or conditions. So, when I was doing code enforcement and I had to enforce this, I knew that there were four to statute regulations that preempted
our code. But in terms of code enforcement, you site someone based on your local code. So, I wasn't able to site. Of course, we ended up being able to work with that person and they understood and they came into compliance with the Florida statute requirements. But we're taking these
requirements that were established in Florida statute and we're bringing them into our own local regulations so that we can actually enforce them. And that's essentially what we're accomplishing with this ordinance. >> I have a question.
>> Sure. So this is brand new basically >> the preeemption or >> look like it's like brand new right wrong >> um 2012 >> I mean the town didn't have anything like this >> correct we didn't have it well defined well we do there is some definition in
here that was like very narrow >> right yeah >> we're opening it Are you aware of any local homebased businesses that this tax amendment will affect immediately? >> No, not that I'm aware of. I don't know
if Chief might be aware. >> No. So, >> so it's not a problem. This is just getting out in front of it. >> Yep. It's not a problem. Not at this time. And it's also getting us into compliance with the legislative changes that came about.
>> Any questions for Mr. Ryell? >> I I just have the the county has places like this. I live I live in Placid Lake, so I see this all the time out there. >> Yeah. >> Cars everywhere and just just ugly.
>> Looks like a junkyard in some places. >> Yeah. Like something as simple as running a barber shop can fill the whole front yard with 10 different cars. Everyone's waiting. I've seen it happen. >> We ran into this probably about three years ago. There was a church, actually, a small church that was kind of m coming
into town and they were looking at purchasing a house, but that house wasn't going to be anyone's home per se. It was going to be the church. >> Oh, yeah. And that's kind of what made the conversation a little tricky was they were small at the time,
>> but it doesn't mean that there wouldn't be 20 cars in a month, you know, and so this this would prevent something like that from happening in a neighborhood, >> you know. >> Yeah. It's >> that's the only situation I can think of in all the years I've been sitting here
that this text would have been a good backing for that, you know. And obviously I'm for church activity, but that's probably not the safest way to do it, >> right? Yeah. So, it's not something that doesn't happen, right? You know, you've experienced it. You see it out in Placid
Lakes. We I had a case, you know, when I was doing code enforcement. If we really looked, we probably could find if But, you know, code enforcement every day, they're mostly focused on those nuisance cases, those things that are really sticking out in a sore thumb. Um, I
think that might have come about from some kind of complaint. It was one of those things, well, it's like, well, if they can do it, why can't I? And I looked and I was like, oh no, they can't do that. You know, >> I wait to entertain a motion if there
are no further questions. >> I mean, is there any concern about some of the jargon like no heavy equipment such as commercial, industrial, or a vehicles? You know, this is heavy area. So like does that mean they can't bring their gator home on a trailer and leave
in the front yard every night? >> Not in the front yard, but if they have a fence and they put it in the backyard, they could >> because that would be a violation of current town code. >> Uh no, this is actually coming from Florida statute. This particular line
comes from Florida statute. Um, but yes, there are restrictions in the current town code regarding what size trailer can be parked in the front and if it's over a certain size, it has to be parked in the side or rear.
>> There's a house over on I jog by it from time to time. I can't remember what street it is, but they have like a food truck trailer. M >> um but they're not running it out of their house, but obviously their trailer they park at their home.
>> Um is that kind of what you're talking about? >> Yeah. Stuff like that. You know, things that aren't really a nuisance, but >> it's clearly commercial. >> Yeah, it's clearly commercial. Isn't really a nuisance, but under code, they would be in violation. And then, you know, that's a hardship finding somewhere to park your food truck. It's
250, 300 bucks a month. Or if all you have is a gator, a trailer, I can't park the house anymore. you know, now we got to pay $200, $300 a month to park it. And we've seen what's happened when they park anything on a trailer in a fenc. >> Yeah.
>> To meet Florida statute for commercial motor vehicle, it has to be a vehicle. You're going to need need a CDL to drive. The food trucks are just considered trailers, not commercial motor vehicles. >> What about the agriculture vehicle? >> Agricultural vehicles are anything that
is considered agriculture. So you would look at the buses, the grow goats, those are agricultural. >> What about like a tractor on a trailer? >> A tractor on a trailer depends on what use you're using that tractor for. If it's for like the county for mowing and
things like that, it's a commercial use. If it's there for harvesting fruit or things like that, it would be agricultural use. Good questions. Um, are you suggesting a variation to the language there or are
you just trying to wrap your mind around what this means? >> I I think a little bit of both because, you know, it's, you know, there's a lot of people in town that's, you know, they have a equipment. isn't quite
but I understand what it's trying to do is just trying to find a way to limit the hardships that it would cause at the same time. Would we be at liberty to uh propose a recommended language change in regards
to that piece that both protects the intent of the article yet still leaves room for what seems to be reasonable? I think so. What I'm actually trying to look for right now is the section of the
code here. And so maybe what we say is no parking of those anything basically anything that doesn't comply with section 161-12 which is to what you were saying is is
this more stringent than our current code? We have to be mindful of that. And what that says, I'll read it out loud. Um, within any R or A district, so that means residential or agricultural, no trucks or trailers in excess of one ton capacity, which is how they're
identifying things as commercial, or motor homes or motor coaches in excess of 35 ft in length shall be parked for storage purposes for more than 24 hours in any 5-day period. Nor shall such equipment be parked on any public rightway. Nor shall such equipment be
parked on private property except within a completely enclosed structure. Trailers of less than one ton capacity, including pleasure boat trailers and collapsible camping trailers, may be parked on private property in R or A districts,
provided that such trailers are parked only within the areas in which the principal building, accessory building, or the parking of passenger vehicles is permitted. Travel trailers 35 ft long or less may
be parked for storage purposes only in A or R districts provided that they are parked within an area of the side or rear yard meeting setback requirements plus an additional 5T for an accessory building and are not attached to any utility service lines.
>> And that's current code. >> That is current code. Would the right amendment be uh in item 4 C uh no heavy equipment uh that is not in compliance with 161-
whatever that line was. >> Yes, I like that equipment. Um let's see. Yeah, >> that is not in compiance with >> at least that gives a a specific declaration instead of there being the
subjectivity of what is or isn't commercial versus well that's just my personal tractor, >> right? >> You know, I mean, well, okay, because everybody's got one of those.
Um, but that that may satisfy that concern. Chief, >> uh, just to clarify a little bit better, Florida statute 320.51 spells out exactly what agricultural and commercial vehicles are. So, you can
actually look up what they actually are. Oh, I'm looking I'm sorry. For commercial, it's 320. That's the agricultural. >> I think that's helpful, too. You said 320.11 01. It's subsection 25.
>> So interesting. >> Apartment off the D hall back would those considered residential areas since they're apartments or is that commercial since they're apartments?
>> Apartments are considered >> depends what context you're speaking in, but >> the area you're talking about is under special exemption as migrant housing. >> Okay. So, that was where I was going because like >> Yes, that that has special exemption >> the people in for buses. So like is is
this going to prohibit them from parking the buses there in the evenings after? >> No. Again, that that one has special exemption under state lensure for migrant housing. >> Okay. Now, what about the other migrant houses that are actually homes that are
in town limits that have the vans? Would that be >> if they are permitted as migrant housing? >> Okay. >> They have to be permitted through the state as migrant housing. If it's just a house that someone's renting out
>> and they're putting multitude of people into it without that special permitting, it is not migrant housing. >> So, that would prohibit that. And it wouldn't prohibit a van. A van is just a van. If you're using it to haul people,
it's still a van. It's not considered farm equipment. It would be when you get to the bus size, that would be when you're looking at farm equipment. I just thought that if you carry more than like 10 passengers, you have to have a CDL. >> Now, say that again.
>> If you carry more than like 10 passengers, you have to have a CDL, don't you? >> Yes. But then you're getting into buses and not vans. >> Okay. >> Just want to make sure like we're not going to accidentally like >> Right. Yeah. I'm glad you're bringing it up because that was we got to think of
the downstream effect, >> right? Um, with those questions asked, does that bring to light any current situ I just asked earlier, can you think of any businesses that are going to be affected by this and in what
way? Alex brings up some good questions. Now, since you guys have a sit a little closer to the campfire, can you think now of any scenarios where this is going to create an immediate change or is this also just purely preemptive
to bring us into compliance? >> There is nothing in the city currently that this would affect >> in the city limits. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Nothing. >> Just curious. >> Yeah. Like same. There's nothing I can think of.
All right. Yeah, good questions. Uh, any other questions or comments? Hearing none, I wait to entertain a motion. >> Okay. I want to make something back on. We're going to have to add what you had said, right?
>> Uh, was that the right text amendment or did we want to pull in that Florida statute line or is that necessary? I still think it makes sense to say >> town code 160 whatever and state or is that state all uh assumed because
it uses the word commercial or should we also put no heavy equipment that is uh or no heavy equipment that is not in compliance with town code 160. Um, our codes actually define everything
in line with Florida state statute. There wouldn't need to be an amendment made for that >> to include the state. >> Yeah, you're saying is assumed to be in there. >> Item C, no heavy equipment that is not in compliance with town code
>> with section 161-12. >> I think that's the right one. >> Yeah. Does that again protect the the intent of the article while also leaving some latitude like what Mr. Ramos talked about just our you know we're a heavily a based
community and we don't want to create any hardship of any non-nuisance. >> Yeah, I think that protects what's currently allowed while making sure that we aren't introducing anything that's more stringent. >> Okay.
And again, uh, for LPA's purposes, this is a recommending. When we have our LPA hat on, we're recommending to the town council. Historically, they always align with the LPA. Doesn't mean that they have to or expected to, but they will
ultimately have to decide whether it goes forward or not. If there are no other questions, >> go ahead. Bob's going to make the motion with those changes if if we can get them right. Just those minor >> Perfect. I think that's a perfect motion
just to say uh I make a motion to approve with the changes as mentioned. >> Okay. So that would be two with the with the uh changes as we talked about. >> So for this the only change I have is that we're mentioning section 161-12.
What was the other change? Is there another one you're thinking of? >> Right. Yeah, that's it. >> That's it. Okay. M. >> Yep. >> All right. We have a motion on the table. >> I'll second >> and a second as well. Any further discussion?
>> Uh, this is a public hearing. Any comment from any members of the public? All right. It's good. Well, good news, Chief. You can keep parking your tractor in the yard since you only use it for personal use. >> Oh, Lord.
>> All right. Well, you know, you say that, but remember, you could consider a lawn tractor, a tractor, your your lawn mower. So, I mean, >> that's true. They make them pretty big. >> Uh, hearing no public comment, Tina, please call the role. >> Gary Freeman,
>> yes. >> Alex Ramos, >> yes. >> Dustin Woods, >> yes. All right. If there's no other business, uh, meeting adjourned. Thank you all for being here. Thank you gentlemen.