Good evening. We'd like to call this meeting to order. What? What? July 7th of the commission chambers. Will you please call roll? I sure will.
Chairman Woff here. Sort of. Commissioner Cloud here. Commissioner Dylan here. Commissioner Noble here. Welcome back. Commissioner Connelly here.
Commissioner Maher here. Commissioner Laroo here. Okay. Roll call is completed. Public comment. Public participation is encouraged. If you are addressing the planning commission, step to the podium,
state your name and address for the record. Please limit your comments to three minutes and do not include any topic that is on the agenda. Public comment on agenda items will be allowed when they come up. For any quasi
judicial hearings that may be on the agenda, any affected person may become a party to this proceeding and can be entitled to present evidence at the hearing, including the sworn testimony of witnesses and relevant exhibits and
other documentary evidence. and to cross-examine all witnesses by filing a notice of intent to the party with the community development director not less than 5 days prior to the hearing. So with that uh first agenda is approval
of minutes. Do we have a vote for the approval of the minutes as they were read? A motion toot approve the minutes. Right. Can I get a motion? A motion to approve the minutes from the previous meeting, April 2025. Wow, it's a while ago.
I second the motion. I'll call the role. Commissioner Laroo, yes. Commissioner Cloud, yes. Commissioner Connelly, yes. Commissioner Dylan, yes. Commissioner Maher, yes. Commissioner Noble, yes. Chairman Woff.
Yes. The motion passes. So, we'll move on to new businesses, which as I see in here, we don't have any new business. I mean,
okay. If there's no new business, we'll move on to the old business. And it looks like there's nothing on old businesses. So we'll move on to administrative staff presentations. No presentations. So then we'll move
right on out to planning commission discussion. And it will be notice that the C the dumpster enclosures have been eliminated from this discussion at this time.
So we'll start with a nonconformance open sky sections in the code. Okay. Okay. So for the um non-conformances open sky sections. I'll let um Andrew can speak more specifically to those
those code sections. The main reason they were listed here is we needed to make some adjustments to our land development regulations or we needed to make some adjustments in our code to address the um number of elevation projects that we have and we simply
weren't able to permit these properties because once you get them elevated the ability to get into the home became we couldn't do it within a setback. So you couldn't get your staircase in there um or any decks or anything like that. So, we had to start looking at our code to
figure out what were the best areas for us to start addressing. Originally, it started off looking at the non-conforming in the open sky section to start there. But we also have a section in our code that relates to moving structures. And if you'll look, you'll see that there's article 4 in
front of you and it says elevation and relocation of structures. That is part of our ordinances, but it's not necessarily directly in our land development regulations. So, this one was kind of an easier one to start with to start making some adjustments to help
the people who are elevating their homes. So, what you have in front of you is something that we presented to it went to the um it's going this week, right? Everything's running together for me right now. Yeah, it is. So, this was this wasn't
presented at the BOC workshop, but at the last BOC workshop, um was it the non-con sorry Marcy the non-conforming section and the open sky section were was discussed um as well as
this chapter 14 which is not in the land development regulations uh and since then we have kind of crafted up this this section under that would be going under that chapter 14 which is not in the land development
regulations to create this um new division uh that addresses the elevations of all these single family homes within the existing footprints. And we think that the addition of this language will help
us achieve um a faster review for all of these elevating permits that we're seeing. So, um, sorry, in your, um, in some of the printouts you received, there's one
specifically that kind of jumps out at us, and it's on Vivian Avenue. It's the second page of your printout. It's got the green highlighted area, and Andre's pulled it up on the screen as well. Um, I actually had spoke with the homeowner and asked if they were okay if I shared
this because I felt like it was the perfect example of the challenges we were up against. If you see with this home as it sits now at grade, the structure is already 20 ft from the property line, which gives them no
ability to add a front set of stairs to their home. So, this is just kind of a really good example of some of the struggles that that we're up against. And really, you know, the homeowners are up against it and it's making it difficult for us to get the permits going. So, we want to make reasonable
use for the front access. We don't want people to have to completely rearrange an existing home to try and get a set of stairs in. So, with our changes or with our ads to the section that we provided you and just
discussed, like we said, it's not in our land development regulations. So, it's a bit quicker and once we start touching the land development regulations, there's a lot to that and a lot of sections that we would have to then of course address as well. So, this is what we're bringing to um to the BOC this
week and wanted to share that with you guys. Uh what's going to be going before them? So, we have Did you want to show is there I think there's I think Andrew has some Yeah, Mine Mine's Oh, excuse me. Mine's more related to rebuilding after
catastrophic loss, which is new construction. And so I don't know if it's a little bit different than what the uh uh the proposed ordinance of chapter 14 covers because that's focused on elevating your existing house and then access to that.
Yeah. The other thing too we were having is um with the situation that we're kind of describing, it was also pushing people to have to get variances which is we don't want to permit via variance. We'd rather permit via by right in our code. So that was another thing that was happening is people just wanted to
automatically go towards variances and the time and money associated with that. It it just wouldn't be reasonable for the high number of uh people who would be impacted. So this is the best way to to get this moving in the right direction. I've got a question real quick. Is it
your intent to come up with new hard codes that only apply to old or non-conforming homes that are being elevated so that new build construction doesn't get that same sort of variance? Correct. Yes. If you're building if you're building new and cleaning your
wiping your lot, you do still get benefits from that because we do want that. So you can work within you can build within your existing footprint. But for the most part with new builds, there's a little more flexibility with that um depending if the lot is
conforming or non-conforming. So there are adjustments and changes that can be made with that as well. Right. So, if it's on an irregular or substandard lot, we do variances to reduce setbacks
uh to allow for them to uh build a rebuild a new house or or we've done some duplexes and triplex, I guess, a forplex also. Now, most of the the variances we've been approving have all been on like uh like a non-conforming
size lots because because our rebuilding after catastrophic loss part of our code allows them to build a new structure to replace their old one. But for certain things, it's either with single family, it wants it in the same footprint, which in a lot of cases isn't workable, or it
wants you to try to meet the required front setback, which is uh 20 ft, which is on some of these lots, it's not possible to do that. Um, I have an example, and I think this last page, this is of a recently approved variance
for a single family house. Um, uh, that's in the R2 zoning district. It's on a lot that is less than 4,000 square feet. Um, this shows the the footprint of the existing home that's getting demolished. And as you can see, the side
setbacks were very very non-conforming with less than a foot off the side here, which we by right technically they could have either elevated this house or built a new house within this existing footprint, but this would have been very
bad to approve. So the variance was the better solution where we did get them to uh fix the side setback to the best of their ability. The law it's still a weird shape. So this section is four but beyond that the the side
setback gets larger and then um the variance also allowed to match up with the neighboring properties rear setbacks and maintain the existing front. Um, so this is one that's been approved
recently. Um, all the variances we've approved though have been on non-conforming size lots. Um, the variances that have failed or been have been on conforming size ones where we felt that the property owner could could make the the larger lot work.
Um, do you have any um, sorry, I I have something to jump back and forth on two different topics if you'll indulge me for a minute. One of them is with the houses that were elevating that are already non-conforming. Is there a way to I know
we've granted variances in the past or um you know for ingress and egress and I' I've heard of a few people recently that you know they were going to elevate their house but then they realized their back wall couldn't have a door in it because well they could have a door they just couldn't have any stairs up to it
um because it had a setback or they couldn't have any kind of a deck on the back. Um, is there something that we could have in there that even though it doesn't touch the ground, there could be a canal lever deck allowance of some amount or a square footage amount on the
ground um that would be allowed to exist uh you know in that rebuilding effort and the elevation of the existing structure. I'm definitely not talking about building new, talking about elevating existing structure because some of these they're already non-conforming, but we're going to let
them, you know, they're allowed to pick them up uh and elevate them, but then they've got to get in, you know. Um, so I know I read somewhere and I can't remember where it was that there is some allowance, but I don't remember what it is if it's only for the front or if it's
only for the rear. But I think if we could come up with something reasonable that would allow especially on the rear a small deck to allow access out the back um with a footprint on the ground not to exceed X Y or Z um to allow a landing to come down to the ground so
that they could you know it would it would be in the setback but at least it's only a minimum um infraction for lack of a better term. We do have in the open sky section uh which is on page 14 of the packet
tonight section 110-427 A 2 that allows for rear yard second floor and above balconies not to exceed 4t into the required setback. But a lot of
these properties are already non-conforming. So they may already have reached or exceeded that 4 feet into the rear setback. So that is something that we may be able to add into this um
amendment to chapter 14. And Mike, sorry you don't have this in front of you. Um we have a written out draft of um chapter 14 division one elevation with the existing footprint.
Um it does have a section in it for setbacks and access encroachments, but that's mostly for the front access. Yeah. I've had a couple people come to me and say, you know, I'm trying to get my house elevated, but I can't get the
plan approved because I can't use the back door, you know. um but or the side garage door or whatever because of this setback. So I think if we're if we're allowing people or encouraging people obviously what we're doing to elevate the houses instead of um leaving them on the ground
and going for a reconsideration of value, we're getting them up out of the flood plane. Um there should be some encouragement to let them get a staircase in there somehow to get in and out of the house from more than one place or at least use the backyard. And I don't know what that is. I'm just
saying That's something we need to work on. The bad part is we need to do it fast because everybody's trying to do their stuff right now. You know, we're already 10 months into this and we still got a long way to go. So then on the other topic I had was um
a lot of our multifamily lots in R2 um there are multif family that are covering two platted lots but there's only one structure on it and there's one in particular 145th it's a nonwaterfront
lot they want to they have torn down the duplex and have proposed to build two single family homes. The proposed construction would fit within all of the required setbacks, but they're being denied uh the permit to
build new because the lots are substandard by about 10% uh of the requirement. Um so I'm wondering if there's something in there because basically what's happening is the two lots are under a common title because there was a duplex that straddled the
lot lines, right? So now they're wanting to separate those lots. I can't remember the person's name, but it wouldn't be the form to divulge that anyway at this point, but I know it was back on 144th, 145th. I'm not sure if you if you want to email
that to one of us. Um Okay. We can look into that. For some reason, everybody comes running to me with their problems lately with these things and I'm trying to help them. But um but that but that's that's a an example of something that's happening where you know we have a
substandard lot but they can build the house within the setbacks. Um so that gets a duplex out of the flood plane creates two single family homes no increase in density. Um you know seems like a logical thing that could should be granted especially if it fits within the setbacks.
So the um I'd have to check with Joe when he he's back in to see if one of either we've been answering a lot of zoning questions. Uh the challenge might have been our division of zoning lots
section requires the lot to be a a conforming size. If it was previously platted that way, we might be able to split it, but I would need more information in an email to
clarify that. As shown, we have been doing variances to get um houses and residential structures built back on non-conforming size lots, but um I would need a little more information to see if there's any any mis about because
usually we've if the lots were previously platted that way, we usually have allowed them to reeparate them. Um, it's it's more of we don't want people to create new non-conforming size lots, which is prohibited. Um, but I I need to
see more specifics about the property. All right, I'll check into it and get back to you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I've got a couple, of course. So, and and I agree with this and that's what there was one that we've been watching over by the Elks Club uh that
tried raising and they found that they didn't have enough footprint for their stairs to come out the front door and it sat and sat and sat waiting, I guess, for the variance. Is is the red um highlighting or the red printing what
you're looking to do to change the or basically to specify elevations that they can get ver well they don't have to go through the magistrate's hearing. It can just be part of the code and I think that's what Mike was referring to. So,
if if you raise your house and all you need to have is stairs to go up to it, that to me seems like a no-brainer. And also the egress also in the back. If you've got to have access to the house and by raising it out of flood plane, I
think that's definitely um a very good thing to do. So, I guess I don't know where the question was, but is this what all the red ink is? Yes. So before this this all this everything in red was just reserved. There was really nothing there. So this
is kind of brand new verbiage to be inserted into here. So all the red is new. So it's basically taking what we currently review with our permits with elevating um our elevation permits um
and then just kind of copy pasting what we do and then allowing for some allowances for those setbacks for egress. Okay. So since this is a discussion today, will Wednesday the the the board
will it be discussion for them as well? They don't come back to us next month and then go on to them for the approval for a second. Since this isn't in the land development regulations, it actually does not require planning commission recommendation.
So this will go to BOC for discussion on Wednesday. this this draft um and then we'll be bringing that to BOC for approval or denial on the following meeting.
Yes. Okay. So in other words, so basically, so if we have any questions or concerns about any of this, we can of course bring it up at the BOC discussion possibly Wednesday or the following month when it becomes um um putting in
to pen to paper. Yeah. So we'll have BOC um on Wednesday. This draft is as discussion. If you have any comments, we can always um bring that to the BOC on Wednesday. Anything that we talk about
here tonight and then also it'll have to go first and second reading to BOC. Okay. So, can you guys send that to me? Okay. Yes, we'll send that to you. So, we'll have to go through two votes. So, in other words, this can't happen
for two months. We're looking to see if we can do a special meeting. Um, but I don't have that confirmed. Okay. I mean, you know, and like and like Mike had said, you know, this is people have been waiting for a long time and there's all this stuff about the elevating.
They're elevating and having trouble trouble with permits. Yeah, absolutely. We're trying to make it um as fast as we can, but you also have to have the notice requirements. I Okay, thank you very much.
I have a question. Um, when I read this stuff, I'm always kind of concerned with like cross referencing and making sure everything's matching up. So, this section 14134 where it's like no elevated structure or associated access feature
shall be located closer than 10 ft to the property line. Um, that's obviously a that's essentially allowing you to have an access feature or something that juts out into the
setback requirement, right? But to me, like, and you can tell me, oh, it's you you have to look in here. I don't really mind, but to me when I'm just reading this without looking at the rest of the code, like I it seems like it's not very clear on like what is and what isn't
allowed to be considered the elevated structure like I don't is it is it clear clearly delineated somewhere else in the code or does it need to maybe get a little more specific here? That's my only comment.
Are you referring to defining specifically the footprint of the elevated structure or defining specifically what can encroach what it what the elevated structure can be? Yeah. Like cuz if I'm looking at it because access, right, I don't think
everybody's just going to look at this as like I'm going to put a stair an exterior stair up to a door, right? Some people are going to want something that's maybe conditioned or like an interior access that's technically your access or a porch like okay so are we
saying you can have a porch that goes up to 10 feet and that's considered part of your access requirement you know so right does that does that make sense like no so is there somewhere else that kind of says hey like this is is and what is not
allowed to be considered access so you know obviously we've been working very quick. We wanted to get something out for discussion. So we couldn't like kind of cover everything. So those are things that we we are looking at but the goal with this and it does you know say that this kind
of over overwrites or precedes anything else in the code when it's in conflict. So we did want to for elevated structures make sure we bring it back to here. But that is one of the things we're going to work on too is honing in kind of the specifics about the because minimum necessary is going to be
different for everybody and we agree with that and it's one of the struggles we have constantly. So our goal will be to get it in more of a finalized language so it's very clear to the homeowners so that we're not left going back and forth nor do people you know end up with these really big decks in
the front yard that are wanting them and us telling them they can't have them. So, the goal with this is the minimum necessary with the ramps and stairs to get people access to their homes. Um, and we probably do need to tighten that that language up for sure. Yeah. I don't I mean I'm not trying to
make it like more strict, but it's you'd hate to like leave it too much to interpretation and then it just causes the same problem and we're trying to like make it very clear and obvious, right? So, that's all. No. And you can definitely tell throughout our code where there's been
knee-jerk reactions to fix something and we broke something out. So we're definitely trying not to do that just based on history of kind of the evolution of our code. Yeah. So my feedback reading this would be like right now it reads as very like if I was going for this I would I
would be interpreting this my way, right? And I would be I could like do XYZ and you know it just would become a an issue I think. Okay. Um,
I got a couple things. This to me is if you ride around, there are so many things that are not going to be in compliance with certain houses. And how is this all going to fall into
place without doing it on a as needed basis? Because not only are you struggling or not struggling or finishing up with the permits,
now you're going to open up all of this, which is going to require a lot more eyes on physical leave the building, let's look, measure. Um, and there's so many places
that don't even I mean on 140th and Island Drive, the corner house, the fence in between the both houses is not 5t from the wall. Where's the setbacks there? where if that person wanted and the
house is for sale, where are they going to if they wanted to lift it? Even if they wanted to knock it down and rebuild it, you know, and wanted a back stair, you I was always in the rule of thumb, you
want a front door and a back door. God forbid you're in the back and the house catches fire in the middle of the house, you got a place to get out. So, if you can't have another staircase, and I've seen that happen here,
where it got voted down to put a second staircase in. All right. That being said, the people that a year ago and two years ago
that got their feet held to the fire because of the code, Woody, they're going to be running here saying, "Okay, you're letting Joey over here build a staircase,
you know, with with a setback. you didn't allow me to. How are you gonna, you know, all of these? You're you're just opening up more and more um confrontations
basically. Um, and the thing is I just, you know, I ride around and I and I I keep hoping that areas come back and people move back and it's not happening and and I see more
and more houses get torn down. It's unfortunate, you know. Um, but if you look at, you know, these houses and and how they were built back in the 40s and 50s and this code is
I I just don't know how you're going to write this. We're going to start somewhere and right here is where we're going to start. I I hear you and and and I understand. And so when you're dealing with something and you have a oneoff every so often you're permitting and you deal with it
through variance, it wasn't um obviously it was in our mind, but now that we're dealing with it to the tunes of, you know, 30s and 40 permits, it it it obviously needs to be addressed via a start. This doesn't fix
everything. It doesn't help every single property, but if I were to go through the permits that we have now, this helps this approach and addressing this with some additional verbiage regarding rear access and maybe describing a little better gets most all of those permits
through the process with by write conditional comments. And that's really kind of what we're we're looking for is to get it started. Um, we know we can't fix everything. We know we've got a a large code that does need um some attention obviously. So we do want to
work on that, but this is our first start to try to really get these things going and to be as inclusive and as thoughtful as process as thoughtful as process as possible at this process. All right. This the second thing is with
all the torrential rains we've had in the last two to three weeks, our streets are getting flooded and our storm water drains are not being able to handle it. Um,
and I look around and and wonder where all this water is coming from. And all your houses that are getting elevated and your new houses that are being built are all two to feet two to
three feet above grade of the existing grade, which puts that much more water in the roads. How we How are we straightening this out? I
mean, I know this is this is something it's a it's that's an you know, obviously um that's another, you know, that's another long thoughtful process as far as elevating the homes as much as we can at a time and then getting the roads elevated and there's there's a balance there that has to be achieved
and a very long-term commitment to that. But I remember having a year two years ago having this conversation with you and the grade is not supposed to change and it is
the the I could take you around Marcy and show you the grades are are raising the the new houses that are being put in even by me are are elevated higher. So the the the height that they're allowed
to go is measured from the center line of the road. So going no higher than two feet of that has been the rule of thumb throughout the permitting process since I've been here. What I'm basically saying is you've if you have a flat table area and you take
the middle of the table and you raise it up, the water is going to go to both sides. It's not going in that area. It's going where it shouldn't go. and you have a more of a volume and as this construction keeps going and the and you
keep building, you're just going to have more and more eventually you're going to have to raise the streets or get bigger storm drains or pumps. Thank you. I had a comment about the uh process. Um I really like the idea that we're hard
coding in some of the variances that we know that we're going to have to do. And if you capture in the hard coding for elevating old structures, if you capture 80% of the variances you've already in the 30 to 40 that you've done, that
would be pretty good. I just would suggest that when you get done editing it and you think you're ready to publish to doing an analysis on the 30 to 40 to see whether or not you're capturing 50%, 90%, where are you in there? Um I
because that's going to unburden the whole permitting process to if you got 80% of the of the variances out of the way you're I think you're doing pretty good actually. Yeah. Um so that was just a process one. Uh the other one is um 14135 which said B
separate permits are required for all companion work. That seems a little loose for the person submitting the engineer submitting the permit. I would recommend that it said it must the original permit must include these items.
So the onetime hit. Here's what happens just to kind of be a little stiffer on you got to put all your cards on the table when you bring a plan to the table, right? And that's the unfortunate part of this. So what we have is we have actively have roughly four to five elevation
contractors working in the city right now and they're working throughout the community. um kind of came down here from Louisiana but then started working down south after Ian and the problem is is you have one in particular all they do is elevate your home and they're out of there they don't pour your slab they
don't do build your access they don't reconnect your plumbing they don't even disconnect your plumbing so the verbiage was such that that those people know and we're having a lot of conversations with homeowners like listen you this contractor is only doing this work you need to have that next contractor in the bullpen to come in and say okay I'm
going to pour your slack build your stairs and where are those going? Um, then you get to another one, all they do is pour your slab and build you one set of stairs and then the next one will do everything. They're going to interior remodel your garage, your stairs. And so we're trying to do the the balance of
whatever work is not covered by your elevation contractor must be covered in another permit by another contractor. So I so I guess I didn't understand that the ele there's a separate elevation permit
that's not part of the overall plan the project permit their master permit if you will. Correct. And that and that's what that's kind of was part of our learning curve is when we first started talking to the contractors were like why don't you have a GC and under this permit you have the elevation portion the plumbing
electrical that is not how the industry works. And so um and in fact when I went to a conference there's actually an industry for structural movers and I I met with them and spent a lot of time trying to understand their business so that I could better understand what we needed to be doing here and that is just
their business. Some of them only elevate. So we are issuing permits. Yeah. I've elevated homes in a different state but the master permit included the overall plan before I jerk the house off the ground. They and they they they don't want to do that because that the
the elevation contractor do not they do not want to get caught up with all the other stuff because they want to close out their permit and boogie to the next project. So there was that just that approach it was ideal but it it's just not how the industry is working right now.
Okay. So, I mean, I would recommend to when I was in Seattle, I elevated a house with her, you know, with earthquake requirements instead of hurricane requirements. Relatively stringent and the master permit included everybody.
There was no jerking it off the ground before there was a general plan. I mean, a a significant plan, you know, drawings and everything. It's all one hit. Yeah. So to to issue the elevation permit prior to the design of the rest of the building and this slab in egress
being permitted seems peacemeal and kind of herky jerky. It yes and um that was one of the the biggest struggles we were having. So, one of the requirements we do have for the elevation contractor who is only elevating is they must give us a schematic of how how the homeowner is
intending to access and do balconies such that when it's handed off to the next contractor, there's some continuity. But when our permits are getting approved, there's a there's conditions on there and I literally email the homeowner and say, "Your elevation permit is being approved, but
please understand these are your next deliverables." And for the most part, we've almost met with every homeowner who's who's doing this. So, we've sat down, we've talked to them. They seem to have a very good understanding of what they're up against and what their responsibility is. But, as that home is getting elevated, too, we have to know
that the access is secure. So, you will have to have that next stage permit in the door to be approved because the building official isn't going to just go, okay, house is in the air, walk away. That access has to be in place. So, the permit has to be in place to start doing that such that once the home
is elevated, it can be reasonably accessed. But that um that is it was kind of a shock to me that it wasn't an indust industry standard and something that they do, but we found out that that is what's happening throughout Florida. So, yeah. And the grant program will be
interesting to see how they deal with the grant program. I'm kind of interested how the state's going to manage it at that level. Um so, that's going to be another another facet of this that we haven't had to deal with yet. Gotcha. Any more discussion? I've got one final one as I'm finally
getting a chance to go through this. So the the one sheet that's um referring to 422 137th Avenue and it looks like there was the existing building and then what's proposed to be
a new single family compliant and if I'm reading that correctly it looked like the front corner was 66 feet off the property line and the back was 1.7
that the pre the existing structure was that that's that's why they came in and did a variance to modify because because in our code technically by right they could have elevated in their footprint but as you can see that really wouldn't
have been a good outcome with it being basically less than a foot off the property line on the side setback in that corner and then so what got approved by the special magistrate was we we got we maintained the five
foot on this side. Uh we got them to at least four in this corner and then they maintained five feet or more to the rear of their structure and then we matched up the rear setback with their neighbor structure and maintained the existing
front. So this allowed to get um better uh side setback access than than the previous structure did. Um, but this is an example to a lot of the variances. What helped though, this is on a non-conforming size lot, so it's much
easier to justify a variance in that case. The ones where we've had issues when people come in asking for variances are usually on lots where people have a conforming size lot, which for R1 is more than 5,000 square feet, and then for R2, it's more than 4,000.
Okay. So then um as I'm looking so they have a rear set back of only 15 feet and a front setback of 12 ft. That is what the special magistrate approved. Yes. So and then would the stairs be outside of those?
The this is a new build and the property owner wanted to um keep those under uh the expectation be it be under the structure. this this one the this chapter 14 this is for elevating an existing house. So I guess the confusing
thing is we're we're doing like two different types of things. We're either elevating existing houses or dealing with people rebuilding new houses. And uh this chapter 14 deals with elevating existing houses and that's what the POC is going to be discussing and then
voting on. Well, this dealing with the new construction houses, that's going to be a long-term process which will require updating our LDRs. Um, and it'll come back through you guys. So, I guess it's a little confusing because it's like like a almost two different processes going on at once, but of
people either elevating or building new. So, but is the outcome that we're looking to try to do is to have you guys in charge of the changes as opposed to the magistrate. That potentially could be one of the options with the rebuilding after
catastrophic loss would be to give a little more flexibility. Um, but that's going to be a more long-term discussion over the next couple months because the elevation stuff is we have to do this like right now. there's permits lined up, but with
the new construction stuff that um with there's a little there needs to be more time to work through things with that because we especially when someone's doing new construction, we want to make sure that they the the best we try to get the a better
outcome than what was previously there because um but as you can see with these non-conforming lots, it can be difficult, but I feel like with this was the best case scenario we were able to because as shown if they built within the same footprint it really wouldn't
have been a good outcome. I I mean I agree and I'm not you know I'm just trying to understand what all that we were given here and we're trying trying to decipher through there. Yeah. and and this is a kind of a startup discuss the sort of show what
we're doing with chapter 14 that we're doing right now and then um get the ball rolling with updating other parts of our LDRs which would which would go through you guys but um but yeah it's going that the LDR part is going to be a longer
process to work through. Okay. Okay. So, if there's no further discussion, I got to apologize. I forgot that we have members in the audience. And in the very beginning, I should asked if there was any public comment that anybody
wanted to say anything just on the agenda item. Okay. Thank you. I It's not usual that we have people here. Okay. So, moving on then. Unfit and unsafe structures is the next item.
I had public comment on that. Oh, okay. The non Yes. Comment earlier, the earlier public comment. Okay. Yeah. Sorry. Thank you. Hi, Nicole Restnneck 14024 Vivian. Our home is one of the uh examples that Marcy had shared today. Uh
I'm coming to speak to you. Uh we are a military family here on orders to McDill and we chose MadiRaa as our home and we moved in and bought our house. Sorry to be emotional. in June of 2024 when we were ele we were motivated to elevate even before Helen but now our
home is substantially damaged and it has to be and we looked at all the options demo and rebuild use our house as the foundation to rebuild upon or elevate and the only thing that makes sense for us economically in you know with our mortgage and everything is to elevate
and so it's not it's not a choice anymore we we have to and I understand it makes sense to you know have the grand plan together, but we're in hurricane season and my number one priority is getting this house out of a flood zone and figuring it out as as we
go. So, I really appreciate the the work and the collaborating with the community that's happening here. This means a lot to us. Um, so again, as I mentioned, it's also important to us to have codes change as,
you know, as homes are changing and being built differently in the future and moving forward. They're not the same as they were in the 1940s and50s when our home was built. And I appreciate the ability to, you know, think about a staircase to the to the entry to access our home once it is off the ground. I
also think it's important to think about curb appeal and equity and putting equity into our investment. We don't want to encroach on our neighbors. We want to be good community members and citizens, but we also want to make sure that our home just doesn't have, you know, stairs slapped to it wherever, but you know, investing in our uh property
here. Um, yeah, I think those are all of my points, but yeah, again, I really appreciate the commission, the planning commission taking the time to meet, to discuss this, to move this along as quickly as possible, but also doing the right thing. We understand that, you know, there are ripple effects to these
decisions, but again, keeping your community in mind and keeping people here and keeping people rebuilding, elevating, and making their homes more sustainable and safe as the environment changes. So, thank you. Thank you for choosing Mad Beach, and
thank you for your service. So now I guess if that item is finished, any more discussion, we will be moving on. I want to say something. Um I agree with what she said. Um it's a it is kind of emotional. You
know, if you drive around Madera Beach, you see it's kind of basically half a ghost town around here. And if we don't um figure out how to work with the people, it's going to be three or four or five years and it's going to be all these threetory houses and it's going to change the character of Madiraa Beach.
Kind of what we talked about John's Pass, you know, changing the character of John's Pass. So, I'm for, you know, working with people and figuring out how to get this done sooner rather than later because people need to get back in their house. So, it's important and I
thank you for coming. I agree completely and that's why I was like saying in terms of if it has to go through two board of commission meetings that's two months. So yes, let's let's push this through and great job that you guys are doing.
So now if anybody else has anything else to say. I do if I may. I want to make sure that that staff has what they need regarding the nonconformity variance open sky requirements. We've spent most of our time talking about we like things with red highlights because it gives us a direction. Um, so I know we wanted to
talk about that and it's very important also, but I know you wanted to talk about these other topics and I don't know if you have any direction or enough direction from them to move forward or I think so. Okay. Uh, we'll definitely look at the rear yard and access um and putting that in
the drafting up something in the setbacks. Just want to make sure you have what you need before we jump to the next topic. Marcy, did you have any? No, I think that we're good. Y Okay, thank you. Thank you for that as well.
So, now will we move on to the next item, unfit and unsafe structures. So originally this got put on here because obviously we have a lot of structures that were damaged uh posttorm
and our code of ordinances addresses like unsafe and like nonoccupiable structures, but it it didn't necessarily address like um I'm sorry. It didn't it addressed unfit, but
not necessarily unsafe. So, you may have a house that's not fit to be lived in, but it may not be on the verge of falling down. So, we put this on here to to discuss that. But after we did that and got into a deeper conversation with um attorney Tras, he pointed out that
because our code has in section 14-32, it explicitly states that we follow the International Property Maintenance Code, uh unfortunately the 2015 edition, but we do follow that. So, we will be able to utilize that for the unsafe aspect of
that and be able to lean on that for the building official to um take immediate action and require an immediate response to start safing up the buildings. So, we don't necessarily now have to make a change to to our code. Our attorney has clarified what we can do under that um
property maintenance publication. So, that is what we will be following and that's what we'll be doing for for structures that are unsafe or un Yeah, unsafe. Seems like small, but yeah, so that's really there's really nothing for discussion unless you guys want to talk
a little bit about it. But we'll be adhering to the property maintenance, start getting some of these properties uh shored up um and holding them account more accountable more quickly to get these properties taken care of or then giving the city the ability to step in
and and do things to safen up buildings. I have a question. Does Madiraa currently have a because I've seen houses tagged, red tagged or whatever it is for not occupiable. We have one just down the street from us, but it's not it's not structurally unound. Do we have
a another color that we tag a house with that's structurally unsound or I mean not just the color of the tag but is there a process that MadiRaa has ever gone through to deal with a house that's eminently
dangerous if anybody were even near it could typically fall down. So to your to your point we hadn't had to do that and that's why it came to light kind of with some of the structures we do have. I do believe I know post storm um there were black
tags. I know that um the fire department was black tagging certain things. I don't know that we officially have a color to denote that. Um but to your point, those are those are we'll look through the property maintenance code and see what mechanism by which the building official wants to to make that
notification. And if it's black versus red, then that would be the option that we would go. But I don't know that we specifically discussed that. Yeah. And this is kind of new because there are obviously, you know, right across from the corner kitchen, there's one that looks like I could kick it down and it needs I do believe that's the one that started
all this trying to figure out what what we do, right? Yeah. What legalities we have and what we can sink our teeth into. So, as far as not the enforcement issue, but I guess the inspection issue, you know, there has to be a determination that it's something, you know, which is part of the enforcement. Is there a process
in place here in MadiRaa to go actively look at homes that are structurally unsound? So, we have code enforcement out doing regular rounds and typically and also when our building official is out, she's very good at identifying those properties. So, we do have it on code
enforcement's radar. Public works is also um a great um advocate because they're always out in the city doing work. They always let us know if they see something they want us to check out. Okay. So post storm we're all it's kind of all hands on deck all eyes on deck looking for those kinds of things.
And so the last question I have is um who has the authority to blacktag it or condemn it structurally? Do you need engineering to do that or the building official has that authority? Um so we have that authority locally in Madiraa. Okay, that was the question.
We do. Thank you. Um, Marcy, walk us through this a little bit. All right. So, the building department goes out and the structure is un totally unfit. It's
condemned. What's the next step? So, at that point in time, we would we would try to attempt to contact the owner through whatever means necessary that we have to alert them that they're going to be receiving a violation due to the concerns over their property.
And how long does how long supposing you don't hear from the people, what do you do then? So, the building official can set a time frame that basically says you have x amount of days depending on how concerned we are about that. that if
they don't respond in x amount of days, I believe the property code maintenance and we literally kind of just acknowledge that this would be the path that we'd be going. So, I I don't want to quote what's in there, but it is my understanding that if we follow that route, we do have the ability to as a
city, if we wanted to put forth funds to fix it and then put a lean on the property or go out to the property owner, there's avenues for that. um tearing down the property I believe is also an option if it's an im you know imminent threat. So there are very
proactive things we can we can do and like I said the building official can set that time frame based on the concern they have over the structure. All right. So I had this conversation with Mr. Tras. Um
where I'm from you had 30 days to comply. if you didn't comply or showed some kind of effort or where you were going with it, um the city or the county would tear the
place down at your expense. In other words, they'd put it out for bid, knock it down, clean it out, and put the bill on your taxes. And he said, "We couldn't do that."
Um but but here again you had 30 days like at 140 if there's a house that is just sitting there with a garage that's half apart. And that's what I was complaining about. I said no one's doing
anything with this. I mean it should be knocked down and you know it's still there. So, how fast could this be expedited? So, the city took it over.
That's a a great question. Kind of one of the things I thought about too is, you know, is it something we go ahead and do an RFQ on and we have those contractors already selected and in the bullpen ready to go. So, that was kind of one of the things I was already kind of going to in my mind. What I'm going to do is I'm going to, like I said, it
was just recently kind of clarified by um TRS that we could follow the property maintenance guide. So, we're going to put together like a bulletin of how quickly we can do and expedite, you know, these situations. I know the building official was looking at it as well. So, we'll get with her and I'd like to better answer that once we've
had a chance to fully digest what we can do. I don't want to speak out of turn and I I don't know if Nancy has any experience. I was Yeah, I'm sorry. I was trying to find the the International Property Maintenance Code as you were talking and it's not coming up quickly enough, but in generic terms, that's what you're saying is usually the the process.
there's notice, they have a chance to correct it themselves, right? Um if they don't, the um the city can come in and do it and then you lean their property for the val whatever the city spends to demolish or clean up whatever you do. You you put a lean on the on the on their property. So at some
point someday you might get it or you might foreclose on it to get it. That's a different, you know, different process. Okay. So where I came from, after the town would tear the house down and put it on your taxes, you had to start paying back
to the town or the county whatever it was, whatever you could afford. And if you couldn't if you didn't pay, they foreclosed on it and sold it. Yeah. Only process I've seen here is a lean. Pardon me. The the only process I've
seen here is after if the city does does spend money to demolish or clean up, they can lean the property, but they don't put it on the taxes. That's that's the only process. They don't put it on your taxes. No, they put a lean on your property. Okay. So, how would that be?
So, when you go to sell it, someone's going to have to pay it. Sometimes you'll see foreclosure actions initiated to get them paid. That's obviously a determination of how much is it going to cost to foreclose? How big's your lean? What's is it worth waiting to see if they pay it off their, you know,
on their own or or sell it? But the city doesn't want to be a landlord. Well, no, that's a decision for the city to make at that time. I'll tell you, mo most of the time I don't see cities take over the property. They wait and they work out the lean with a new If I can interject, I followed that
project all along. They She got damaged. She was waiting to get a permit for demo and the permit was not issued. And then she finally went to the magistrate. The magistrate had a hearing and she had not had the permit yet. And at that meeting
she told the lady to wait around and get together with the city and she was waiting to get the permit to be able to demo the place. Once she got the permit then she was able to get the contractor. Once a contractor on board, there's like, you know, many of them it's just
wow, wait in line and wait till you get it. And she was given, I believe, 45 days to get things situated. And if that 45 days or is probably 60 days and if it wasn't done by that, she could come back into the magistrate's hearing and have
another hearing because it's the process and and the process just takes it it takes time and uh you know the city has to do their due diligence and it's just like this you know this thing about the elevating and we are all on
board with this but they still have the city still has to follow their legal guidelines. lines and so it's time and and in terms of for the city to take over it that she has done everything that she could to get the place
demolished and I I believe at least that's what all my understanding was. So it it the process is slow and uh here once again just like this sounds very good and that couple that was here. I
mean you know they they moved in in June like many people and so now they're still waiting to hear what they can do. I'm off my soap box. Well and with what you're talking about John is not a community that was hit by
a disaster. We're under disaster declaration and these homes are people still dealing with insurance companies, dealing with permitting, and we're going to go start putting leans on their property. I I don't think the city should start doing that. They got to
have some leadway to understand that this is a communitywide event. We didn't really have this problem. I think the one you're talking about is like one that we've had since I've been on the planning commission where the people weren't responding and finally they did.
So, I think we got to have a little leadway and understand that I mean my personal situation. I'm still trying to get the IC from the insurance company. I started the permitting process which was very tough
sitting right up there and then I had to go out of town for work in western North Carolina and then I get the letter finally from FEMA after many requests that oh you can't build back. So, I get the uh the letter and now I'm stuck
dealing with a builder and architect and trying to get everything done. And you know, my house is not getting any better, but it's not getting any worse. And we have a storm coming in. So, I'm sure I'm not the only one in the
community who's dealing with the process and have other things that, you know, you still got to pay the bills. I still got to pay the flood insurance. and I got a house that I'm paying the mortgage on and I'm not spending any money on Golf Boulevard. So, I don't think we
should aggressively pursue this. I think if you notify them, that's fine. But to say we're going to start putting leans on your house, I think it's a little uh a little quick jump in the gun for that at this time. Just uh you know,
community was struck by I mean, this wasn't even the big one. This was 100 miles offshore and I thought we were way more prepared than we are. I thought the insurance was different. I thought FEMA was different. This whole
thing hit me and I'm in the industry of cleaning up at national disasters. And I thought I understood FEMA. Nope. The whole thing is uh it caught us off guard, caught me off guard. So, I
think we have to have a little patience with with some of the people that are still trying to get it together. I I wanted I wish I was back in my house, but I'm not. And if I can add to that, just I know this is something that you guys haven't done yet. It's it's a new process, and
you're going to figure that out with your building official, and I can never speak for a building official. I will tell you, most communities that we are in, if if the building official sends that notice and you call and tell them that, they are going to work with you. They're they're not trying to knock down houses. Obviously, I mean, there's some
they may need to maybe there's really a structural concern of the house next door might get affected or or some some specific situation, but I can tell you most communities the goal is to work with you and and know what's going on. So, a lot of times the issues are they the building official sees the
structure, they see the unsafe condition and no one's responding. They've sent letters, they've made phone calls, they stop by, and they have no no information. At that point, the city has to do something. So again, can't speak for your building official. I don't want anyone to come here in three months and say, "No, Nancy said you won't do this."
Just for people listening, yes, but we just said scary. We're going to give you a notice and if you don't do it, we're going to knock your house down and we're going to lean your property. That is one very specific process. But if you're communicating with building officials, usually you can work together and try to get things accomplished without boom,
we've taken your house down and there's a lane. So just to maybe make maybe maybe like not make it sound so uh technical, it is a process and there's a lot of emotions involved and and conversations very very important in these these situations. Absolutely. We do have a lot of uh out
of town residents and you snowbirds you call them. Uh and they're just out of sight, out of mind right now because it was so uh so stressful of a of an event. And you know, I've
it's just completely different than I thought. So, yeah. Uh the the lady who spoke, I feel for her because this process is a lot longer than I thought and I've been on the planning commission for quite some time. I thought we had our ducks in a row and obviously we
didn't. Um you know, we got to be writing this whole thing up now. I think that we should have had that all taken care of. We've all live in a flood zone. We knew we were in a flood zone, including myself. Told John earlier, you know, I felt like suing myself because I
built my castle in the sand. I'm the one who did that, but I'm also the one now paying a mortgage, homeowners, and flood insurance on a house I can't go in, and I'm not the only one. So, you know, it it's going to be better in
the long run, but for right now, uh it's been a mess. So, if there's any more discussion, I've got to say thank you guys. You guys have been doing a very good job, not only with all of this, with all the building issues as well. I got to give
you a personal thank you. And then moving on. Well, did the master plan update get uh postponed also? No, we just wanted to give you an update um that we have met with DOT uh Ford
Penelis and then tomorrow we'll be also meeting with PSTA to get input on the draft master plan. Um we have our last uh workshop. It's more of like an open house. It'll be on
July 22nd and that'll be paired with the community development meeting. So the majority of that night uh which starts at 6 p.m. will be discussing about community development and um what we do in community development. So that'll go
into uh long range planning. There's planning efforts, um, planning commission, land development regulations, building permitting, code enforcement, and everything that's encompassed in
community development. And then we'll also pair it with the openhouse of the master plan. That'll be the last workshop or any input that we we will gather for the master plan before we have that draft. and then that will come
to planning commission and BOC. So then since the meeting's July 22nd and our meetings August 4th, will there be most likely the discussion at that point about it? They'll be the presenting what their information was.
Um I don't have a date yet, but it'll be it it won't be at the August. I think that that'll be too too soon. But once we have something, we will definitely bring it to planning commission. Okay. Uh well then the next next meeting
is scheduled for Monday, August 4th, 2025 at 6 PM andformational materials. I'm not sure what that is. Nope, that's all that we have.
If not, I close this meeting at 7:09 p.m. Thank you. Thank you. Thank