All right, here we go. 6 o'clock. Let's do this. All right, we'll call this meeting to order of the planning commission for December 2025. Please call the role. >> Chairman Woff, >> present. >> Commissioner Cloud,
>> present. Commissioner Dylan, >> Commissioner Noble >> here, >> Commissioner Connelly >> here, >> Commissioner Maher >> here, >> Commissioner Laroo >> here. >> All right, looks like we have a quorum. Thank you for everyone for showing up. Uh, next section here is our public
comment. Seeing no one here, I'll dispense with the rules about public comments. Uh, we'll move on to the approval of the minutes. If someone would be so kind as to make a motion to approve the minutes or if there's any amendments are necessary, please bring them out.
>> A motion to approve the minutes from November 2025. >> Thank you. Got a motion. We have a second. >> Second. >> All right. Motion a second. Please call the roll. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Maher. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Connelly
>> here. Yes. [laughter] >> Yes. Commissioner Cloud. >> Yes. >> Chairman Woff. >> Yes. So, we have approval of November meeting minutes. Thank you. First item of new business, uh, ordinance 2025-20,
certified recovery residences. Someone from the city like to give us their input. So by January 1st, 2026, the governing body of each county or municipality shall adopt an ordinance establishing
procedures for the review and approval of certified recovery residences within its jurisdictions. The ordinance must include a process for requesting reasonable accommodations from any local land use regulation that serves to prohibit the establishment of a
certified recovery residence. So basically this is a ordinance we we need to adopt because of a a state law. >> Nancy say that pretty much sums it up. This is a mandate from the legislature. >> Right. >> There you go.
>> Is this their mandated language and everything? It's it's not anything we crafted out of thin air. >> I mean they don't they don't give it to you in this form, but the the statute lists what needs to be included and that's been drafted for you. >> I had a question. You can ask.
>> Um, can you scroll to the section where they describe the different levels? >> Yes. >> At the beginning, I think. >> Yeah, it's on bottom page nine. >> Nine through page 10. >> There we go. Yeah. Is there anything in this in the word smithing that requires
them to reapply if they want to change levels? There's there's a big difference between level one and what is it? Four >> or Yeah. four. Yeah. There's a really big difference
>> and what's happening in and around that place. >> Yeah. >> The the the definitions come from a a 397 311 Florida statute which defines how those different levels are and there's licensing requirements within those. I can read through them before
we're done. I haven't looked at them in a while to tell you exactly the process, but to have your license for one, you couldn't be doing another. So, there would be a there would have to be a process if you went wanted to go from a level one to a level three within your licensing requirements that would be noticed.
>> You know, >> would they be required to reapply with MadiRaa Beach? >> That's what I don't know how I can I can look and see if if section 397 in the Florida statutes talks about that. I I instinctively would think yes, but I don't know that answer off the top of my head. Yeah, I I would I would like to see it in ink.
>> Yeah, let me see if I can and find it the statue while you guys look at the next next provision and I'll I'll get back to you. >> Okay. Any other uh questions you want to ask? Come up with something because she's got to dig for that. [laughter] want to give Nancy a moment to find that
statue >> and and I'm not sure that section 397 will address that specifically, but I'm going to start there and see what I can find. >> Well, if it doesn't, would there be an issue with Madiraa Beach adding that? >> I think Go ahead, please. Go ahead. Um, go ahead, Andrew. Sorry.
>> So, I mean, the use is tied to a specific like application to submittal. So, I mean, I think that they would have to reapply if they wanted to change it from the use they applied for >> because because it has a it has like submitt and it has certain requirements
like um you have to have um what you're what you're specifically asking for and requesting. It definitely seemed clear that you needed to say what level you were applying for when you first were
looking for that non-conforming permit, >> but it's not clear that once you got it that you that you need to reapply and rego through the process if you change the levels. I think clarity in this issue would be easy to write >> and so this was drafted um by the
attorneys based on the state requirement. So we took what uh you know Tom Tras and his team had drafted. I think the question that we would have to ask ourselves is other than the notice to the public from a
permitting aspect, what how would we what would change from the actual permit? Um, but I and I like with alcohol license if they expand their footprint and things like that, obviously it has to go back or they change the type of of alcohol use.
So other than just notifying us that they change levels, it probably wouldn't impact how the structure itself and its use was permitted in general like wouldn't drive more the need for more parking or additional access. So from that part, I don't know that the permit
process would change other than simply us being notified. And so we could work with with Nancy to see if we can at least make that very clear. >> Yeah. >> That way. Okay. Yeah, >> it's a good point because I think the surrounding properties would want to know what's going to be
there and in with some level of permanence to that type of uh pro of use, right? I mean it there's a very different from level four to level one where some people might not be comfortable with just having the recovery center that's run by the people
that are staying there. They might be more comfortable knowing someone else is there full-time or vice versa. They might want one that's a lower level and be okay with it and that at least that gives the public some idea of what's going to be there and they can speak out on their own behalf based on what's proposed. But I think it's important
that there's not some sort there's not any fluidity to the to to the different levels. >> That that's what I That that's my position is that >> it shouldn't just slip from one to four because the people that are inside level one house are not the same kind of people >> in the level four. If you've been near
it, you know what I'm talking about. >> Yeah, >> level four people are mostly on methadone. >> Yeah, >> at least. >> And >> so it would be nice to know if there's going to be a change. >> Okay, we could definitely get that get that determined and uh completely agree. And when you see something like this
come through from the state level, you're like, okay, something's driving this. There's obviously an overarching reason why we're having to address this. >> Yeah, some lobbyist somewhere is pushing an agenda somewhere on this. Most
likely. Um just as a point of clarification um from our attorney, if we are to approve this as it's written, could we make, you know, obviously we're not the one approving it, we're just recommending to the commission. Could we
approve based on >> that clarification >> the addition or that clarification >> just so you know we don't have to we don't have to pencil it >> tonight but we can approve it subject to some manner of um clarification to that point >> going to the gives us time to to look at
it and work together and come up with language if if we're able to do so >> yeah because we don't want to cobble something together tonight that's silly and doesn't make sense because there's going to have to be some research done but understanding I think several of us at least a couple of us are in agreement on there probably needs to be some permanence to whatever that particular
level licensing is. >> And Nancy, what I'm what we'd want to get with you guys about too is it does reference that there's a form to be submitted to us. Okay. >> So, I think within that form once we create that um work with you guys, that's an opportunity too for us to definitely put it on the form that they
acknowledge that the you know acknowledgement of the level and if any changes are made so we can discuss the form with with you guys and build it out in that as well. >> Sounds perfect. So, so what's the timeline then with being required to approve an ordinance
by January 1? If we're, if I'm understanding this correctly, we're going to >> draft this up again is what we're saying, >> right? >> You guys would approve it with the condition. The condition would appear at the next reading for the BOC. Um, we
don't have to have the form fully actualized at that point in time, but we can at least make the note in there and then also make sure that whatever form we create based on this, it's included in as well. >> Got it. Okay. >> Okay. Any more for anymore?
We sort of have to do it, right? >> [laughter] >> not uh not sure why they bring us to a vote, but but I think that's an important point. So, if anybody is prepared to make a motion, I would say to make sure we include that there's some clarifying language in there.
>> A motion to approve uh uh with the addition of uh verbiage that addresses um the applicant changing from level one through two through three through four. Um, yeah, that's it. >> Would require a new application.
>> Yes. >> Okay, makes sense. We got a motion to approve 2025-20 uh with the addition of language to be determined that will prevent changes from one level to another without a se without a new application.
That sums it up, doesn't it? I think Okay, got a motion. Need a second. >> Second. >> Thank you, Mr. Laru. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Let's call the roll, please. >> Commissioner Cloud, >> yes.
>> Commissioner Laru, >> yes. >> Commissioner Connelly, >> yes. >> Commissioner Maher, >> yes. >> Commissioner Noble, >> yes. >> Chairman Woff, >> yes. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you, everyone.
We look forward to seeing that on the BOC agenda. Uh the next item is approval of the 2026 planning commission calendar. So we're still looking at the uh first Monday of every month.
Hopefully this meets with everyone's approval. Any comments on it? Notable issues. >> I'll make a motion to accept the planning commission meeting schedule for
2026. >> Second. >> All right, we have a motion and a second. Please call the RO. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Cloud, >> yes. >> Commissioner Connelly, >> yes. >> Commissioner Maher,
>> yes. >> Commissioner Laroo, >> yes. Chairman Lyoff. >> Yes. Looks like we have ourselves a schedule. Thank you. Uh the next item, uh old business. Seeing none, we'll move to any administrative or staff presentations.
Do we have anything on that from anyone or esteemed staff? Nope. Okay. Uh planning commission discussion the nonconforming time restrictions. This should be fun. >> Yes. Uh so first I'm going to pass
around a couple of the ordinances. We just rewarded it with the building official but it's similar to what you have there and I highlighted the changes. >> Okay. Make sure Thank you. So really this so this is our
non-conforming section. It addresses any use, lot structure that doesn't conform to the current code regulations, whether it's zoning, flood plane, or really anything in our in our land development regulations. So, this entire code really
is is messy. There's a lot of changes that need to be addressed. Um, we're planning on doing a more deeper dive in the coming months to really reword this entire section, [clears throat] but specifically there's two that are time
sensitive with the recent hurricanes. And those relate to non-conforming uses and non-conforming structures. So, three types of non-conformities. There's a non-conforming lot if the lot doesn't meet the lot size requirements of the zoning district. uh non-conforming use
for example a commercial building in a residential zoned area and non-conforming structures which could really be anything. So like all the prefer houses that are not elevated are all non-conforming structures. Any structure that doesn't meet setbacks is
non-conforming structure. And currently the non-conforming code gives two time limitations. Uh one of them on page 206 of the handout is one section section 110932 uh that gives for non-conforming uses
a one-year time frame. So if the use terminates in a year then currently the way the code reads is you lose that use. But then section 110-95
kind of contradicts that which is one of the many issues with this code section and it doesn't it doesn't give a time frame. So it's kind of up to interpretation. Does that mean that it's limited to the one year? So that's one thing we want to address.
And then the non-conforming structures in 110 933C on page three of six specifically says that any non-conforming structure. So again that's pretty [snorts] much that's most of the properties in Madura Beach any
prefirm house that got flood damage any non-conforming structure has to be repaired the way the code currently reads has to be the repairs have to be completed within 18 months. So for hurricane Helen and Milton that means that the way the current the code is
currently written every house that got flood water so every prefer house their repairs have to be completed by March 26th would be 18 months from Helen uh which is only a few months away. So we're trying to get some feedback on
what we think is a reasonable amount of time. Uh the way we drafted it right now with these underlines would be that they have 18 months to get the permit and then 36 months to complete the repairs
which is in line with our fee schedule how we did permit fee waiverss for 18 months and then 36 months is in line with the uh state preeemption on RVs. how you can keep an RV on the property as long as you're making a good faith e
effort to rebuild. But really, we we're trying to get feedback on what does the planning commission think is a reasonable time frame for people to be able to rebuild. Um because a lot I
ran the numbers basically about 50% of the pre-firmed structures in Madiraa Beach haven't pulled any permits to either re repair build new demo or elevate. So if they so about half a
little more than half haven't either did work without a permit and then this code would would push them to be discovered that they didn't pull a permit they did repairs or the property is just sitting vacant. Maybe they're selling it. Uh there's a lot of abandoned properties
which is another complaint from the community. So, it's trying to find that balance on what's reasonable for someone to make the repairs. But yeah, that's where I'm at, where we're at. >> So, we're we're like 14 and a half
months into this and we still have people that haven't done anything. No permit, no >> Yeah, more than more than half haven't done anything and a lot of people are selling. So, we sent out substantial damage letters to most of the properties. Um, about half of them said
you were substantially damaged, meaning they have to repair, elevate or builds new. The other half we said you weren't. A lot of the ones that were substantially damaged that maybe do want to do the right thing and builds new,
they're still trying to get the funds or insurance money to build new. So, we're not going to have any documentation on those. A lot of them, a lot of them did unpermitted repairs, which we're not going to get any documentation until we do a code case. But yeah, more than half haven't done anything. >> Have we sent out notices to um Well, I
didn't get one, so I'm thinking the answer is no. Have we sent out notices to people that haven't even applied yet? >> So, that would be the next step. So, we sent the substantial damage letters for most properties got those. Um, anyone that asks us questions, obviously we can pull up their property and let them
know. But as far as being proactive about like the 18 months, no, we haven't done anything yet. So that's why we want to figure out what is a reasonable amount of time and then from there be proactive and
mail letters, push it on the city website. Um, like for example with the permit fee extension, uh, we put that on our website. We got over 100 responses. So that was pretty effective. And this we would also mail letters, but then
it's also Yeah. So to answer your question, not directly related to the time frame. No, we haven't sent notices yet. >> Yeah. I feel like 18 to apply and get a permit and another 18 to build is pretty reasonable.
>> There's going to be cases where it doesn't work, but those should be able to be worked oneonone. But that really I mean if I weren't sitting up here, I wouldn't know that you had rules on how how long I had to get a permit, how long I had to take built. How would I know that? And a lot
of these people are living up somewhere else and this was their second home. They didn't live here, you know, every day. >> So it it feels like everybody needs to get a letter that says, "Here's the new dates. We're serious." You know, you give them
the scare. You got you got this date to apply and get a permit. You got that date to finish and close your permit. >> Yeah, I agree. I think we need >> to be fair. I mean, I don't, you know, the people up in New Jersey and Connecticut and Ohio own houses down here that in fact my neighbor across my
street is from Ohio actually and they're aware that they're do they're going to do something. They probably have applied, but they wouldn't know that there's any dates associated with applications or finishing, but they have no idea. >> Yeah. Most people don't aren't aware of
the the date restrictions. It just took so long to get the substantial damage letters out that I don't think we should punish the people who didn't know like I thought I was going to build back and then I get the letter and I'm like oh scramble mode and I still don't have the
plans from the architect even back yet and financing and insurance and >> you know increased cost of compliance and >> so I don't know if we could work something in from the date that they received the substantial damage letter
and start then that might be a little more >> so with the substantial [clears throat] damage letter um two things I want to add to your point number one with if they're building new or elevating this wouldn't apply because we have a different section in our non-conforming
that allows you to keep the some of the non-conformities like the setbacks. So that's fine. You don't have to build a whole new house within 18 months. This would really only apply to the people that just want to repair their house. shift to get the repair. So, that would we could be more flexible with. And then
for the people that maybe don't have any documentation, we could probably find a way to to document that they sent us a letter. Okay, they're they're not going to repair it under the 50% rule, so this 18th month rule won't apply. And then we would in a perfect world maybe create
some kind of code case that sits dormant so that if they sell the property the buyer can be aware, okay, this house can't be repaired but it can be rebuilt. Um but they don't get any fines or anything like that. That's an option. Um
also our substantial damage letters, I didn't mention this, they did have a kind of a false time frame. It said you have to get your perm within 60 days. We didn't really have a way to enforce that. Now, obviously, we have this code section, but that 60-day,
some people ignored it, obviously. >> So, yeah. So, it's important to note on this, this section C where the 18-month thing is, it's only for those that want to repair a not substantially damaged structure, >> right? It's not for somebody like you
who's going to end up having to be to rebuild and everything. You have some time. But um I I think we have like two camps we need to address in some version of public awareness campaign. Those who have done just absolutely nothing and we have no clue what's going on or those
that are in the process like Mike who had to switch gears because of the substantial damage notification. Um then kind of all bets are off, right? you've got kind of free reign to do what you need to do. But I mean, I see some of these properties that I'm out here all
day every day riding around and there are some that are obvious they haven't done a thing. I mean, just nothing. Like some of them I don't think they've even taken their drywall out, you know? It's it's that >> that bad. So, I don't know if do we have an action plan? This is staff work, I'm
sure, but I'm just curious. An action plan to deal with >> that the people have done absolutely zero. I mean those that needs to be kind of a focal point I think. >> Yeah, that's part of what we would be working through and with this code it would help us because ideally like when
FEMA audits a property and we have no documentation, you know, it's not a good look. If we have something like this in our code, then we can at least create a code case. It's sometimes it's hard to create a code case out of nothing. we can't prove that that they did repairs
if it's sitting dormant unless we have something like this in our code that says you have to make the repairs. So, that's one avenue to go about it. Also, Marcy just brought up a good point uh regarding notification when we sent out the permit fee waiver extension forms to
allow people to extend no permit fees. We did put this code section on that form and the 18month date and said March 26 deadline. So that was the first time we really publicly pushed this ordinance, but um those weren't mailed
directly mailed. So everyone like we'll do when we push this ordinance a little bit further. >> Yeah, I I think it's reasonable. The 18month and another 18 months is reasonable. I mean, you know, a lot of the slowdown was just trying to get permits for a while. um that was not
ideal, but um now that that seems to have worked itself out a little bit better, I think the 18 and 18 is good for people that are rebuilding. And then for those who are I shouldn't say rebuilding, that are repairing, >> but those who are going a different route, their timeline's all is
completely different, right? >> Yep. And then one thing so with is there any more feedback on the non-conforming structures in the 18 months and then I'm going to go back to the uses. >> Is that a demo permit or new permit or
what? It doesn't really say. >> Yeah. So it' be for the 18 months it would really be a repair permit >> because or a full demo would work too because obviously there's no structure there anymore. But if you're building new or elevating,
uh, like I mentioned earlier, you would be able to still do that. We just ideally want some documentation so we can tell after the 18 months, okay, they don't have a permit yet and it's because they're working through their finances to build a new home or something like that. I don't know if that answers your question.
>> So, if somebody is going through the contesting of the substantial damage, how long does that take to work through from what you've seen? >> Quick. Yep. Now we're we're processing repair permits pretty fast. The backlog now when it comes to plan review is just because there's a a lot of permits that
take a long time, like new builds that could take, you know, half a business day just on one permit. But to actually plan to review a a repair permit, reverse it to not substantially damage, it's like 20 minutes. So if some again somebody was substantially damaged and
they got to get the appraisal and go through that, how long does that take to work through >> from start to finish on the applicant's end? Um I would say on average if they say you can get an appraisal done roughly two weeks. Um get the cost work
done say another week realistically you can do that during the two weeks while you're getting the appraisal done. I would say three weeks is very reasonable to from start to finish to overturn a substantial damage determination and repair under the 50% rule. >> So the city can look at that in less than a month then if they get the
information. Y >> that would be through the county, right? >> No, just for the repairs it would just be through us. the backlog with the permits is just getting to them once we and obviously if we if we're going to enforce this
18month ordinance say like the day a couple of days before even the month before we'll prioritize the repair permits over all the other permit types to make sure that the ball is not in our court. I guess the last question is since this
no December 1st um this is going to kick in in March, are we going to give any grace since we're just is probably going to get some complaints, right? And maybe going forward use this and give some kind of help now, you know, I don't know. It's only four months away. So,
>> yeah, that's a good point. Yeah, >> that's what that's kind of what we talked about is maybe using some verbiage for for for people who experienced the storm in the 2024 season and back, but moving forward when with the more push to let people know. And um
I think pretorm we probably couldn't have predicted how long recovery would have taken. So I think it would have been an interesting conversation then. But now that we've gone through it, uh we have a better idea of the time frame it takes. But I definitely think we could work something in that says if it's for the 2024 storm or predates
this, then here's your, you know, your leeway. Anything after that, the 18 months is is firm. >> Yeah, I think that's fair. >> Yeah, that seems to be reasonable. >> So maybe like six more months for this hurricane season since we're late to
deliver the notice. Something like that. >> I need some help. Yeah. >> Section 2D. >> Yeah. So, that's that's the next topic. That's what the uses. Well, that's another big conversation. Well, we can get into that after we finish with the >> It seems like it at first, at least at
first glance, it should be in line with the 1836, not the 365 days. And I mean, for example, the Elks is a non-conforming use, right? >> It's a building sitting in the middle of a resident that they couldn't get that permit if they started from scratch, right? and they sure as hell didn't make
365 days. Parts of that building are still in op including the kitchen. Um, so that's already I mean we're not tearing down the Elks because I got to win the queen on Wednesday. So we ain't doing that. We need to get D in line
with whatever we're thinking. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Would you be interested in trying to protect grandfathered uses that were damaged from that? >> Yeah, sure. I mean, you got the Masons and the Elks that uh are pllopped right in the middle of a resident place, which
is cool. It's good the way they are. >> Y, >> but um you know, they got I mean, the Elks obviously one-story building got completely obliterated. Um and they well well passed the 365 for full permit close and are still working on it, you know, for sure.
>> Right. So yeah, >> permit is closed, just so you know, because I did the work, but >> I don't think the kitchen is. >> It is. >> It is. Is it? Oh, that's good news. I know January one, we got >> uh dead Bobs coming in. >> For those that you are not Elks members, we got dead Bobs now.
>> Cool. >> Think about that. >> Sign me up. >> That's good. Yeah. in your 18month period in a house sitting there and no one's maintaining it. I really
I'm wondering how you can um write something in there that makes them maintain the property for the benefit of the community, their neighbors, and the city of Madiraa
Beach. You shake your head. I [clears throat] have a house next door to me and the grass is almost as high as this counter >> and nothing's been done. >> So I I think that's the intent of this code.
>> You know, you can send Corey out there all you want. Don't mean Pardon my French. >> But >> that's not French. >> I'm talking about my next door to me. But there's other places.
And if you go back a year and a half and you look at the community, everybody maintained it and all of a sudden everybody runs away. how I feel that something's got to be done even if it's just cutting the grass
and maintaining a look and you know to find somebody 50 bucks or 100 bucks is really not doing anything for me because all I got is rats and snakes. Um
how are you going to solve that problem for me? So, it looks like the city has something in its code related to clearing of excessive growth and litter from open private property by city. Just
>> Andrew, it's got to read more than that. It's got to say a lot more than that. >> And we've discussed this. This has come up a lot internally and at commission meetings about how little leverage we have to enforce timely realtime
solutions on people's private property. So the mayor's even brought up like uh getting a volunteer group to go mow and stuff like that and we're we legally there's there's that's a tricky path forward to go on private property and maintain
that. So in the properties we can we're doing legally what we can but with it being private property and the growth I agree the fines are minimal and people are taking them trying to sell them. So the code enforcement aspect of this is very is very difficult and we would take
care of it in the code enforcement section but as of right now per our code we are doing everything how to tighten that down. Um, we have a meeting with TRA coming up and that's one of the things that we need to talk about as far as the non-conforming what happens when you allow them to continue and how
little control we have over like I said immediate fix for for those type things. >> Well, that's where you have to write something in this somehow. >> I don't I have to but legally like I'm trying to I know that we just have
limitations and you'll have I know there's a bigger conversation so I don't want to you know steal anyone's thunder or whatever. You're not the only community dealing with this. Everyone is, right? People left. They're think they paying a guy to mow the lawn. No one's mowing the lawn. They're not there. They don't know that. But there is a process because it is private
property. You can't just walk on. You can't just write something that says we get to walk on whenever we want. You have to go through it. They have to have their due process. So, I'm sure if there's ways that this can your current code can be tightened up to make it quicker or better, Tom will find that and and help you do that. that there are limitations on how
quickly you can do it and what you can do because it is not your property, the city's property. >> Do we have any words? >> This is very frustrating for a lot of people. Do we have any words on abandoned pools of which I have near me
>> that Cory that the Penelis County Sheriff's have been responding to as well again with it being on private property if they allow you to go on the their property you can go uh Penelis County has those mosquito fish that they'll go put in there but they have to have written permission from the
property owners and we've been it's this the same situation we come into with that is the same situation we have with the grass. What we have been doing for people who want to demolish their property but keep their pool. We're requiring pool protection and a temp pole to keep the pool pump running and
maintain. But those are typically people who are demolishing their home and getting ready to rebuild. So they're more interested in maintaining it. the ones that you're talking about are the same ones who have their grass growing and they're not making >> they're biohazards at, you know, a year later. Yeah. >> So, the sheriffs are following up on them. They're issuing tickets. Um, we
did have one property who allowed uh Penelis County to go on and put the mosquito fish in there, but again, it's private property and we have to have that permission to get on there. Other than that, we follow the due process, which is not quick. But so we do have some codes or ordinances that address
abandoned pools, not just for safety, but for the biohazard that they can become. >> I'm guessing I'm trying to look quickly as I talk. I'm guessing you probably have something within your code about a nuisance, which that would probably qualify if it's in a certain state to become a nuisance. You have mosquitoes, you have smell, you have right. So
there's probably something like that in there that it would be couched under. It's just still a process, unfortunately. Right. All righty. Anything else you need from us? >> So, overall, it sounds like the consensus would be that 18 months is
reasonable since we're late to push out notices. Maybe we do 24 months from Helen for repairing. uh when it comes to non-conforming uses, we want to align that
with the other sections of our code. So, also when it comes to non-conforming uses, you have to keep in mind that could potentially include say a triplex on a lot that's only big enough for duplex, which other code sections in here like 11095
allow you to keep the triplex with the new builds. So we would probably word it in a way that maybe the uses don't have any time limit possibly because 11095 doesn't specify a time
limit for rebuilding a a non-conforming use. So just just things to think about if you're following with the uses. Well, I think we should, as Andrew brought up, protect the the grandfather,
the continuous non-conforming use. >> Um, I think we should protect that to whatever extent is reasonable. Um, I don't think it should go on in perpetuity to just let somebody have an abandoned property and just because it's already a non-conforming use, let it go
on forever. There does need to be some deadlines enforced, but I don't think they I don't think a year is enough given the circumstance. I mean, we're already past a year. I mean, so we're already kind of screwed >> um technically. So, >> um there there and part of the process, you know, it just took so long to get
everything done. None of us saw that coming, >> right? >> Um so, I think there needs to be some give there, but um I think some of the focus should be on on the non-conforming uses being allowed to continue. And I don't know what that what that deadline should look like, but maybe it's more in
line with what we've been talking about the 18 and 18. And then if it's a pre if it's Hillene or before there's a little bit of forgiveness, you know, it's 24 and 18 or whatever the number we came up with. Um because the process is I mean
this is so new to everybody and we've never done it. Right. Right. >> And we'll know better going forward and other systems will be more efficient for pumping out permits and you know substantial damage letters and things like that. Um but I think I think the if you look at our city, you know, the plat
map was thrown on top of an already developed area in a lot of cases. So it by platting thing or by coming in with codes, we created non-conforming uses that previously weren't because it was the wild west out here, right? We got 35
by 40 foot lots in some areas, man. Stuff's not you can't fly. But so those things need to be protected because otherwise we we tread very care very closely to being a taking of property rights which we don't want to get involved in. Right. >> So I think there need to be some
protective measures in there um to allow residents to figure this out and the city quite frankly to figure it out as well. >> Yeah. Um, so I I'm I'm in line, my opinion is more in line with what we're talking about for this other one to get give it the 24 months if it's helener
before and then you can establish 18 months later and if it needs to be revisited because of another god forbid thing happens um you know then we can talk about it then too. >> Okay. any. So right now in our code related to
the use there are some limitations with um rein rebuilding that use. Uh for example um there's a limit you're limited to how
many dwelling units existed and the amount of square footage that existed prior to the day of immediately preceding such damage. So basically, if you have a non-conforming
use, you could rebuild it to the same square footage, >> but that would potentially mean you're re rebuilding uh something that could have like let's say it was a nine unit apartment on an R2 zone lot,
they would be rebuilding 500 square foot units, which Um, so I guess that keep that in mind with the with the reference it' be referencing this reestablishment of uses which has some limitations and I guess
we'll need to have to add commercial structure as a reference here too because right now we're we're we only reference residential and hotel motel. So there's at the end of the day when you read through the whole non-conforming section, there's just a a
lot of issues and a lot of um it's not um reasonable the some of the some of the you meet this but then you have to follow this, you can you get it back, but you only get 300 square feet. So that's why the bigger push for us tonight was to focus on the use time
frames so we can get those cleared. Okay. But we do want to make to your point much better use of the nonconformity and the long term and especially when it comes to the uses how they're rebuilt and what limitations apply. So once you start reading through
it, it just hurts your brain once you get so it just it's yeah. So, um, and what this does too, to be quite honest with you, codes like this eat up staff time because we've talked to hundreds of people about their properties and each
time we have to go back to this, look at the interpretation, review all these other components of it, then make sure we're in the right direction. If we can create a clear code, it will be much easier for the public to understand, much easier for us to enforce, and quicker. So, this is a
section we have to touch, but it's also with this we're going to have to probably touch definitions, few other code sections and things like that. Um, but that's a priority and it's something that I want to put on our calendar to have done well be not I want to say well before but before next hurricane season.
We've we've got to get this this section to protect the residents. >> All right. So, given what we've got here, hopefully that gave some direction. Matt, you got something? >> Yeah, I just had one thing. I've been thinking about this in my head this whole time. might not be super pertinent, but Mike brought up now that
was for substantially damaged property where you're kind of in the middle of like waiting on insurance and waiting on permit and waiting on or the architect and so on and so forth for maybe just for this round like we're talking where we want to give a little bit more grace
to um this storm season. Um, is there a way, you know, is there a mechanism that folks might be able to just say, "Hey, like I'm in the process of doing this, you know, by a certain time." Like what if they're not quite there to get that
permit, you know, right at the deadline, but at least they can, you know, provide some sort of proof of action to the city that like, you know, I'm I'm working on this, but here's the reasons why I'm I'm not quite ready for that permit yet. if
they open a permit >> without having everything ready to go. >> So, let me first ask a question. So, proof of action for a repair permit or a new build, >> I guess anything under this non-conforming.
>> So, the non-conforming use is tricky because like if you're building a new triplex, then you would need a whole new build permit. I think I try and reword it in a way that the 18 months only applies to the the pre-repair permits.
Um, in which case we kind of word it that it has to be permitted like the permit has to be approved within the 18 or the 24 months. Um, if we we we could certainly do like a notice of intent
type of thing to track like new bills and stuff like that. I think we could absolutely do that. >> Um, but for the repair permits, I think the best route to would be to hold them to having the permit approved and notice of commencement filed because it's very easy for someone to just >> right
>> submit like a bull, you know. >> Yeah. >> You know what I'm getting at. >> We're practicing French today. >> Um, >> out of French. >> No. [snorts] So, yeah. So I guess yeah to your point more [clears throat] so the intent behind that would be for
rebuild and not repair right because >> gotcha >> theoretically yeah repair you can just pull a permit that you're changing a light fixture or something you know and then kind of carry that on um >> versus taking the full action. But for
rebuild, I think people need a maybe need some sort of a mechanism that allows them to say, "Hey, like I'm in this process." >> Yeah, we would definitely do that. Um, and we were talking with uh a new person we have on the planning team that was a
previous community development director of Treasure Island, and they kind of did something similar. They had a one-year time frame, and they started tracking uh the people that had the intent to rebuild. So we probably do something similar to that
>> and then you know on the next communication if that can be sorted out before the next communication so people understand and it's very clear like hey you know you have this for your getting your permit but if you're planning to
rebuild you can submit this form so we we know you know and I think there should be some time limits to that too right like to that same point about the prepared. You can't just be granted like immunity because you said you have an
intent. Like there should be a reasonable time frame on well I'm making this intent but I might miss your deadline by a month or two you know. Um I I don't think it can be like a year obviously.
>> Yeah. Yeah. So maybe like the 24 month time frame for like Hurricane Helen to either get a a repair permit approved and issued or to submit some kind of letter of intent
um that you're going to rebuild or elevate. >> Yeah. But you're still bound by the back end of >> a later time. >> The permit must be closed by X. Right. So >> right >> for the repair for the repair permits you would have you would be bound by that.
>> But yeah for the new >> as long as we get the letter of intent by the 24 months >> and if the new structure is conforming then there is no deadline. >> So yeah but then the >> correct. Yeah.
>> Right. If you're just building, if you demo the house and then you're taking your time, but if you want to have that >> nonconforming because of the 35 by 40 foot lots we have, you have to get the ball rolling or show the intent to get the ball
rolling. Hurry up to hurry up and get ready and to wait. Just something to kind of keep in mind as we as we in hindsight look back over this. Only within the last three years did we go like digital with a permit
software. So we did that and then most recently post storm we've engaged forerrunner which is more of a floodplane software. Now that we have those in place, our ability to track, document, mass issue stuff, cross reference
permitting is greatly enhanced with those software programs. So we now have better capability than we, you know, did four months ago. So we are working through that and trying to leverage that as we learned the new 4Runner software. Um, so those are things that we've added
on that will help in these situations. >> All right. You good? >> I think I'm good. We I wanted to circle back real quick on the letter of intent thing. If I've got a house I keep the yard mode, you know, it's crappy 1955 house. It's swamped. It's substantially
damaged or it's not substantially damaged and I let it sit there five years and then I scrape it and build a new house. And I never gave you a letter of intent. I'm still going to scrape it. I'm still building a new house. So, the lack of a letter of intent has
no remedy. There's no remedy if I don't. And I know this because there's a guy across the street from me three doors down. It's got a house that hasn't anybody lived in it for 20 years. But he keeps the grass mode and it looks okay. It's non-livable. It got redteged >> uh when we called an Marie because it
was a disaster inside. They cleaned it all out, shut the doors again, keep the yard mode. five years from now if he wants to scrape it and build a new house and never gave you a letter of intent. So what? There's just no remedy to not giving you a letter in.
>> If we did a proactive code enforcement, then we can create a code a code case for everyone that either doesn't give us a letter or a pull a repair permit, which we haven't done. The city hasn't done that before in the past. So, we could hypothetically pull all of the pre-firm structures in
the city and remove all the ones that pulled repair permits, remove all the ones that gave us a letter of intent, and everyone that's left gets a code case, >> right? But what what are you going to do with that information? What are you going to do with the ones who haven't sent a letter of intent and they've gone
past the 36-month their non-conforming, you know, you know, slab grade singlestory home, >> then potentially they could go to the special magistrate and have a a daily fine for not repairing within the 18 months.
>> There's a house across the street for 20 years is in that exact condition. >> It it hasn't been enforced. >> So what I mean, it looks fine. So what? It looks fine. You know, welcome to America. Free property. They keep the grass mowed. The house is reasonably painted. You can't live in it. It's It's
probably substantially damaged and it's been there for literally 20 years. If you wanted to scrape it tomorrow and build it, okay, but I don't see how you could find somebody for that. Are you going to find, you know, it's my property. I pay the taxes. The yards mowed. It looks okay. I don't see from a
legal point of view. I'm like, "Yeah, so I'm not going to give you a letter of intent." But if I'm understanding it, they just wouldn't be eligible for the nonconforming part of it. They would have to then go into conforming. >> Talking about this need for the letter of intent to rebuild a new structure.
>> I say you can't do anything. If the guy doesn't do it, you can't do anything anyway. So I think you're fussing about nothing. >> Why would the non non-conforming section be relevant? Because he could probably do a single family home there by right, >> right? So let's say he goes past that window. We've talked 1836.
Yeah. So, >> it'll sit there and do >> the remodeling of his old 50s house is gone. You just let it go too long. Okay. And uh so he never gave a letter of intent that he's going to scrape it and build a new home. So what? You got to fight him for not giving a letter of
intent. You can't do that. I don't see how that would work. So, at the end of the day, what we would hope what we what this would help do is if they if they are a pre-firm home, non-conforming use, they don't pull a permit and it just sits there and we put
them into code enforcement, the hope would and they started collecting daily fines, the hope would then be that they would want to come into compliance sooner or after the 20 years is up and they've accumulated those fines and they come before the board, those fines are we impose the fines and we keep we
impose the leans that we put on there and they'll have to pay the fines. >> Why Why are we finding them if the property looks okay? >> Nobody's living in it. Why What are we finding them for? >> I mean, we're struggling with people with grass up to their knees and pools
that are biohazards and we seem to struggle on what to do about that. I think maybe we should do something about that. >> And we're worried about a house that looks fine. There's no pool. The grass is mowed. The house is painted. Non-livable, right? >> You know, it's substantially damaged.
Okay. Well, he's paying his taxes. >> What's the fine for? How is that agreed to anybody? >> If the if our code requires that you pull a permit to repair your home within a certain time frame. So, if we go with 24 months now, you're non-conforming because you're at grade. So, that's what
would trigger it to your point if you know at that point in time you put them in the code and then you wave the fines at the end of it. But at the end of the day, we're still enforcing the code that we have in place to help with those types of things and to get people moving along. That would be the goal with
having with having that and similar to what we do now for other code violations. So, >> yeah, there's part of that I'm not buying. I understand the the the want at the city level that for every single property, I'd like to know kind of what's the plan here.
>> Everyone, you're going to remodel, get reappraisals, you're going to scrape it and rebuild. you're gonna scrape it and leave the lot. What are you gonna do? I'd like to know. But in the case where there's there's no issue with the property because there's nobody living in it, >> right? >> Mowed, painted, looks okay, nobody
complaining, no pool. Um, and three years from now or five years from now, let's say the window for remodeling your non-conforming non-FEMA flood house has passed and that person wants to scrape it and build or he sells and scrape it
and build, which is likely what will happen down the street from me. Okay. Why Why was anybody fined for that? >> Fine for what? I don't get So they would have been fined for. So in that case, the intent in the of the code on having them having to repair it within whatever
deadline is because most of them are not keeping their house painted and their lawns mowed. Most of them >> Well, that should be a different ordinance that says you're an isore, you're a nuisance, you got a biohazard in your backyard. That should be a different code. >> But that's one thing. And then there's also the people that did the unpermitted repairs. So when FEMA comes and audits
and they want give me all the data on this pre-firmed structure, how's it still standing and they did on permitted repairs, we can't prove that they did on permanent repairs. We have no documentation. >> I Okay, I get that. So there's okay, there's part of the need that I didn't understand that when you report to FEMA,
you need to say something about that property, >> right? Yeah, that's that's a big component as well. Yeah. And at the end of the day, we would the goal would be to have the code enforcement in the system such that if they sell the property and somebody buys it, we can immediately tell that person just so you
know, you don't get to remodel at grade. And that's >> lost your window. >> Exactly. You've lost your window and we have it in the system. If you're going to rebuild whatever, that's fine. The code enforcement gets turned off, you go with your new build. But it's a way for it's really the way we can track and implement stuff. doesn't mean it has to
be enforced, but it's a metric for us to to track the property and to report on it to FEMA. It's a good point. >> And the biggest issue is when they sell the property, right? If it's the current owner, you get it. But when they sell, people >> people come in here all the time with these lofty dreams about what they're
going to do with these homes. And then we're the people who get to watch their dreams fall apart as we tell them about the FEMA 50% rule. So, >> and it happens a lot. Um, realators aren't real good about talking about it. As much as we publish it, it didn't it didn't mean much to anybody until we
went through the storm. Then everybody's like, "Oh, that's what you were talking about." So, unfortunately, when we have new people come in, that's where we really want to catch them early on. And the good thing is is if we had a code enforcement case on the property you're talking about and it's gone, it's lapsed, it's missed its window, and
somebody calls and says, "Hey, I'm looking to buy this property. Can you tell me anything about it?" we can go in and go, "Yeah, it has active code enforcement and it can't be repaired." So, that's kind of where that helps. It doesn't mean we have to enforce any fines. >> I get wanting to know for a variety of reasons that all totally makes sense. I
just I'm I suspect the idea that you could find people because they didn't tell you I'm going to scrape it in a couple years and sell it or I'm going to scrape it and build. >> It's hard to find somebody because they just didn't make you happy and tell you. I get that you wanted that, but the fine associated with that is a little dodgy
from a legal point of view. >> Yeah. >> Being an engineer and not a lawyer. So, >> but it has to be part of violation of your code and you can't just put in your code what you want. It has to be something that legally you can >> Yes, that's that that's my concern. We get too excited about people. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. >> We're definitely planning on talking to Tom Tras about it more, but the >> I get wanting to know. I totally buy that. The the thought is the code they would be violating is the code that says all the repairs have to be made within 18 months and it's 18 months we have
documentation that they got damaged but no documentation of any repairs and that would be the cause for fine. >> I I I just think for the letter of intent which again I totally get why you want to do that. I think the carrot is better than the stick in that case. I don't think you're going to stick
anybody into giving you a little letter that says this is what I plan on doing. I don't see that working. You know how stubborn Americans are. >> Yeah. >> You can't even get them to put anything in the pool or mow the grass. >> So >> So the the violation would be not that they didn't give us a letter of intent.
The violation would be that they didn't repair the structure within 18 months or whatever date. The letter of intent would just be, okay, these are the people that didn't repair the structure within 18 months, so they're still in violation as well, but at least we have documentation, so we're not going to
push them through with the code enforcement case. That's kind of the thought. I'll stop talking now. >> No, [clears throat] that was that was a a very good point. >> You're good. All right. Giving you some stuff to work on.
Sounds kind of fun. All right. Uh let's see. The next item up here on discussion B, propose C3 zoning district and C4 zoning district amendments. Discussion on said topics.
So, one component of the uh master plan um a part of Kimley Horn's contract was to review the C3 and C4 zoning districts. Um and they went through them and uh proposed changes based on what
they recommended in the now now adopted master plan. Um so attached to uh your agenda packet are are the um the proposed changes that based on the recommendations of the master plan. Um
some of these changes do require comp plan amendments. Um so that that's one of the things that be important to talk about. Are there any changes that you would want to be brought forward sooner in an ordinance
that would just be that wouldn't require doing a comp plan amendment or would you rather have everything done in a in a larger ordinance but it would require doing the comp plan amendment specifically? There's certain uh
countywide rules um with mixed use that they they recommended us to add in our comp plan and our LDRs that would help uh um especially with the C3 zoning district help like property owners be able to
better utilize some of these smaller lots. Um, one thing that we do have going um that you guys already saw and voted on it's going to second reading is the is the um that private amendment relates the setbacks that that was very similar to what was proposed in here.
So, that is moving forward and going to second reading, but but the rest of this is just uh stuff that's that was proposed, but we haven't put it in an ordinance form yet, but we wanted to just bring it forward as a discussion. Um and and
at the top it kind of well explains the compreh so one of the things was that um was adding a um something related to a vertical mixeduse development where right now in our code you have when you have a mixeduse project you have to do
this proportional density intensity calculation that that's kind of annoying to deal with because basically it kind of punishes you for doing something mixed use where you you you lose
like a like a so in C3 the F is 0.55 so for almost every one square foot of commercial F you lose almost two or you lose 1.81 donate one square feet of lot area. So potentially if you have like a
thousand square feet of uh commercial you could like lose some uh the mixed use like the residential density like whatever above it. So this uh adopting then or
complaint or LDRs would allow you to fully out allocate the density intensity. So it wouldn't be an increase in it. it would be calculating in a different way that would that would um make it make use more attractive than than currently.
But um I have it attached as a discussion item. There's some other definitions that um we might we probably have to do in a separate for our definition section of our our code. Um but I'll let you guys discuss it now.
So when you're talking about stacking density, you're talking about if it's zoned for one or two residential, you can have two residential and two commercial on the same site
or one and one. I that this is where I'm confused on the density stacking. Maybe I should have brought in like an example lot area to kind of or even just a hypothetical lot to explain what like would happen if you had like a 10,000
square foot lot like currently what you would be able to do versus um what you'd be able to do if we did that code change. um as as you know in um C3 right now if it's uh residential office retail you're limited to 18 residential units
per acre and if it's commercial general it's 15 uh so I I mean like 18 residential units per let's see just going back to the
lot area stuff so we have it with multif family right now um how much lot area has to be dedicate per dwelling unit. So, and that's to just do a quick math example. So, let's
say you had a 10,000 square foot lot and divide by 24. So, that would be about um four residential units on that 10,000 square foot lot,
but that's fully maxed out. You can't really fit any commercial on there right now because it's proportional. And for every one square foot of commercial, because this is 0.55 F, you have to dedicate 1.81
or 1 eight 1.81 square feet of lot area. So, so changing it to the new thing, you'd be able to get those four units and then you'd also be able to have the um commercial
square footage on the property because right now talking about >> you wouldn't be able to have this because you maxed out the residential. So yeah, this the the residential wouldn't cannibalize the retail. So you >> can right that that's where I was headed with that. So you can so you can get both.
>> Yes. >> You don't have to adjust one side of the equation to allow >> you can get your density and your other intensity use and and use that and it doesn't cannibalize perfect word. >> Yeah. >> Um I mean I can give you a perfect
example. I got one uh my lot. It's allowed to have two units. Well, the hell. I mean, if I do a residential and commercial, I could have a store with a apartment above it. That's all I can do. Um, so in that case, it would be I would
be able to get the two residential units and some commercial in addition to those two units. >> Yeah. And and this would and the benefit of this this would help kind of smaller lots and and property owners. So because
right now it it really deincentivizes kind of having these small mixeduse projects that people like that have kind of the that are not large developments because basically the way it's set up now is unless if you're get like like combine a bunch of lots together, you're
really limited on >> I mean I can attest to it. If you look at Gulf Boulevard >> between 140th to 148th, >> most of the lots are are 80 by 80. >> Yeah.
>> Contiguous ownership. So you've got really small lots and it doesn't make any sense to redevelop the way we have now. So >> um the you know the older stuff that was there like mine work the way it was but it doesn't make any sense to put back
one unit there. >> Currently right now uh forward panelis um is doing a study for Indian rock speech related to adopting this into their code. Um so we uh city staff has
been keeping a close eye on that that uh study and process to to see how it goes because they they have a similar situation where they have their own equivalent of C3 retail commercial where right now because of the proportional it
doesn't it deincentivizes mixed use. So um we've been kind of keeping an eye on that um that process of them uh working to adopt that to to see how how it works out there. But >> I think this is important if we don't
want to lose all of our small commercial uses. >> Yeah, I was going to echo that. If if we don't allow small lots, Am I talking too loud? If we don't allow small lots to be economically viable, we'll end up eventually looking like Clearwater where all these lots will get combined and
somebody will build something that we don't really want. Small lots need to be economically viable >> if you want a smaller look, which is kind of what the master plan is after. >> Yep. And that that is for example, the the ordinance that the setback ordinance is example of kind of almost like a part
one of that is adjusting the setbacks for the smaller lots to help them with that. But this would almost be like a part two of updating our comp plan and and the C3 zoning to um allow for that uh that that mixed use density intensity
bonus that allows you to calculate it differently. It's kind of everyone when you hear the word bonus, they freak out because they think of like a big increase when in reality it it's calculating it a slightly different way.
Um where it's still as you know we're coastal high hazard area. We're capped on residential density. We're not allowed to add anymore. Um, so this allows us to make use of what we currently have and make these properties uh more commercially viable for smaller
developments. So um >> well I think that fits in with the intent of the master plan too to create more of a streetscape, more walkable city, right? if we have small businesses that are out there where otherwise what we end up doing is just what you said everybody's got to go through an
assemblage process and then build something big to make it viable and then you lose that small town effect >> right >> um so I I think this is really >> right yeah clear water beach >> we we we can't be we don't allow the height but still >> and the density either
>> it doesn't all have to be big national franchise things and you know it would be nice and that's why I proposed when we talked about the master plan thing, another town center in the middle to create this kind of small town feel where the locals uh which are, you know,
our biggest neighborhoods are back there behind 140th would be able to go there and not have to leave the island to go do do trade on smaller items. Um anyway, I think it's great. I I actually so I guess on a with the land use thing
basically with with so any any sort of land use change has to go through forward penalis and as you know we saw with the activity center >> the only reason why they approved that is we had to prove that the existing development patterns were not compatible
with the retail and services future land use category. The thing is they will not approve another activity center in our city. They would work with us on allowing
commercial uses, but it would have to be in a way that doesn't increase residential density and it would probably still have to match the current uh 0.5 intensity that we have for non-residential uses for residential
medium. So we we wouldn't actively be able sorry I didn't mean to cut you off to actively create a quote unquote activity center but by default through correcting our LDRs we're kind of doing that and helping to to do exactly what you're talking about >> a neighborhood center. >> So yeah and so we wouldn't be able to
there we the activity center that we got through I think will be the the last one. Um so >> well I think it it wouldn't increase the residential density. I think it would quite the opposite. I think it would pull away from the residential density and add to the commercial use on some of
those areas because it's lacking we're really lacking the commercial uh easily accessible commercial. So, and then so the the county really has two categories
for a a commercial that could they have an office one which I've I've talked with him about it that I it's kind of weird it doesn't have retail and services like retail allowed but then allows all the kind of other small commercial uses and then you have the
general retail and services category um that um could potentially be an option, but in our comp plan, it would need to be more restrictive and and match basically the density intensity of the residential medium category that currently exists
where it would be capped at that 15 residential units per acre and probably a 0.5 F. >> Yeah. Um, so I mean that that's what I I I mean those changes would be limit like which is what we'd want because we want smaller neighborhood
commercial but I I guess the question is like with the residential medium future land use you have everything from areas adjacent to commercial like along Palm Palm Street to areas well into areas just surrounded by purely residential
including single family. So it's kind of diff residential, medium, future land use and R2 zoning district really covers a lot of Madiraa and and it varies vastly depending on on what what area of the city it is.
>> Um that definitely could be a discussion item um next time like this this discussion is just related to the zoning category itself, right? >> So it wouldn't expand it. It would be for the existing C3 and C4 zone properties.
um currently. Um but >> well I think the important clarification was what you provided about the density stacking. I think that was a little bit u you know something I I was trying to wrap my head around. So thank you for
that. Hope everyone else >> grasp that and understands the intent, sees the benefit of it. Anybody got anything else on this particular subject they want to address? Everybody's gone. Quiet. Okay, cool. I
guess we're there. All right. So then the next item on our agenda is to announce the next meeting will be Monday, January the 5th at 6 pm. wish everyone a great holiday season and a happy upcoming new year and um
hurricane season's over. Can all go celebrate with a frosty beverage about that >> as of today. So, thank you everyone for your time and attention. Appreciate everyone doing a great job >> meeting the journey. Good talk.