the Monday, December 15th, 2025 meeting of the planning board. Please join me for the pledge of >> allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands nation indivisible with liberty and justice for
all. Roll call, please. >> Member Izzy >> here. >> Member Perry >> here. >> Vice Chair Angelitus >> here. >> Member Laorenzan >> here. >> Chair Hubard >> here. >> We have a quorum. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh before we approve
the agenda, I just wanted to thank uh member Grocott for her service on this board. I appreciated the time and interactions I had with her and I wanted to welcome member Lorenzen to the board. Do we have any changes to the agenda?
>> Okay. Can I please have a motion? >> Motion to approve the agenda. >> Second. Roll call, please. >> Vice Chair Angelitus. >> Yes. >> Member Laorenzan. >> Yes. >> Member Izzy. >> Yes. >> Member Perry. >> Yes. >> Chair Hubard. >> Yes.
>> Motion carries. >> Okay. This is unusual. We have audience comments. Um, I I'll be happy to do comments before each action item if in case any of these comments are specific to those items. So, for right now, let's
just start with general comments that are not pertaining to any of the action items on the agenda. Okay, we'll redo comments at the time of the action items. Uh, let's move on to approval of the minutes. Does anyone have changes to those minutes from the
prior meeting? Okay, no changes. Uh, do can I please have a motion? >> Motion to approve the minutes. >> Second. >> Roll call, please. >> Member Lorenzan. >> Yes. >> Member Izzy? >> Yes. >> Member Perry? >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Angelitus? >> Yes. >> Chair Hubard?
>> Yes. >> Motion carries. >> Okay. Thank you. So, our our first action item is the recommendation of ordinance 2025-02. And I would like to open it up for public comment on this action item. >> John Kursman.
Um, thank you and thank you for all you do. Um, I uh have to I I first of all I have to say that I am a beach steward but obviously I cannot speak for the beach stewardship committee. I only speak for myself. Um, could you uh one
of what I'd have to ask is that you not rubber stamp this but actually look in detail. I think there's a lot of things that need to be considered from a planning board standpoint. Um the danger I see is that like for some cups the pl the city commission may see if you agree
to something that gee if the city commission agreed to I mean if the planning board agreed to it the city commission should just go ahead. So I just want to make sure that you know just as in the plan in the beach stewardship there was one uh descending vote which was mine. They had two meetings that unfortunately I was out of
town for surgery. Between the scheduled meetings, there was two extra meetings that were added that were not on the original schedule and I couldn't attend them. Um the process has gone on for a very long time on the on the on this ordinance and there's been a number of changes that were made since then. Some
of the things we're trying to address though are all the chairs all over the place where people can really sit, the phantom chairs or you know zombie chairs, signage, uh things that are just placed on the beach and avoiding customary use changes which I think is
the most important um because it's very dangerous if the city makes a a statement uh that starts talking about private beaches that that will say that the city has agreed to that and that has not been the precedent historically and it would be very very dangerous to go
there. Um, and even the definition of beach, you know, I tried as a a beach steward to make some suggestions and I've also thought about it some more and I think maybe have a better idea for some of the terminology. I think that the city staff has done an excellent job on this. It's
just a lot of things to handle and a lot of things for the public to handle. But one of the things I want to remind everyone of is that you know even deeds warn that there's public rights to use the sandy beach. And I'll send these slides afterwards. And Mr. Twitty and
the property assessor does not tax anyone for the the sandy beach. They tax for the marshland. And I asked him why and he says because those properties are beachfront. Um and so you might own the land under the sand but you don't necessarily have full control. Um, and
then there's a whole bunch of things that have been removed and some of them are in your purview, some aren't. But all of a sudden now, no fireworks can ever be permitted any time of year. Uh, no smoking. Uh, I'm not even going to the the the things that were only in the
street ordinance are now being enforced for the first time about bikes. Up until the last meeting, regular bikes for residents could have a permit. That was thrown away. So um a lot of uh things on alcohol polyyrene uh there's new language about
unauthorized containers uh alcohol u vaping vending uh prohibiting sleeping on the beach won't doesn't paid to private beaches we need to protect them and also they forget I'll just one last word that all the ordinance about signage used to be going to be put in
the sign ordinance but the beach is the P zone and there's no rules about the zoning for signs on the P zone and that has to get fixed too and that's in your purview. Thanks very much. >> Thank you. >> Robert Sison >> Robert Sison 45506 G Boulevard. Um as
John mentioned, this has been a long time coming with this ordinance. So I'm happy to see that we're finally making some movement on it. There's just some things that I want to address that I think are very important for the property owners that are on the beach. And one of them is there it definitely is a difference between private beach
and public beach. Um I think there was a good case just recently with Undertoe Beach Bar putting up signs and basically it was overwhelming that it is true that it is a private beach. He put the signs up there up to the high water mark. The sheriff now knows where the beach is. They know the survey lines were there.
Everything was done correctly. So there is a private and a public beach at the hotel zone. The public does have a beach. It is where the county park is. It is up by Sunset area and down in Pasigril area. But where the hotels are, those are private beaches. So I think the beach ordinance has to make it very
clear that there is a private beach and there is public beach and where people can go. The hotelers are not opposed to having people come onto our private beaches. We have no issue with that. We actually encourage it as long as they're spending some money on our private beach. We don't want them coming out and setting up tents and chairs that
basically create a liability for us. And then if there's a liability, then we're in charge of that liability. Now, if they rent a cabana from us, rent, buy drinks from us, we're okay with that. When we even do resident discounts for our uh residents, so we are in favor for having residents on our private beaches as long as they're spending money on our
private beaches contributing to the economy. Uh so, I want to make that clear uh about that particular point. Couple things of beach ordinance that I kind of breeze through here. I'm not an attorney, so I don't really know the language too well, but I know there's something I read here about cheeky huts and tiki huts. Uh I think that was 95.6
six and 95.6 talks about having uh the same codes and building officials and building codes for both cheekys and tiki huts. Tiki huts and cheeky huts are completely two different things. So a tiki hut is what you would see at a lot
of the hotels. They got a now actual bar where they're pouring drinks. There's TVs there. There's different cheeky huts are actually ba by theuki Indians and by the seminal Indians. No HBAC plumbing, uh no electrical, no nothing. They're basically built out of uh prongs from
palm trees, open on all four sides, and that is a cheeky hut. And cheeky huts are exempt from all Florida building codes. So, I want to make sure that that remains that way. There's no reason to try to change things that the state has already put together. But with this ordinance, the way it's written right
now in 95.6, it does try to change the ordinances for the state code. Uh 95.10. Um, I love the fact that somebody put in the front there's going to be new boundary markers required by 4x4 post to deliterate the service area. I think
that's fantastic. The hotels, that's what we want. We want clarity. We want transparity. So, that's very similar to what Undertoe did by putting signs up so that people know where it is and what's not there. So by having this now in the wet zone for cabanas requiring the
cabana areas to have a distinguished 4x4 course in all four corners so that the sheriff knows where that is. We're all for that. So that was very well put in here. And just one more thing on here I just read uh the fireworks as we mentioned. I am 100% opposed to fireworks. I mean I
love fireworks. We need fireworks. I mean next year is our 250th anniversary of America. We've had a lot of people fight and die over our freedom of this country and I know we don't want fireworks on the beach because of the turtles but having fireworks on a barge does not affect the turtles. So I think
having them on a barge is not a big issue but to have no fireworks over the city altogether I mean that just that's not American. That's all I have to say about that. >> Thank you >> Kristen Simmons. Hello, Kristen Simmons uh from the Loose
Hotel on St. Pete Beach, 6300 Gulf Boulevard. Uh I came in to speak to you guys today about the ordinance um as it pertains to section 4410. Uh where you guys were discussing how it would eliminate essentially all nighttime events due to the lighting. Uh so we
wouldn't be able to even put up temporary lighting for our events. This would affect ceremonies, receptions, really our ability to actually give any of our clients confidence to be able to host an event at our property, even for temporary lighting. That would even be saying even if I were to move it inwards
where we have a tiki hut that's established at our property now that is oceanfront and my only gulfront um venue, even our pool side, the lighting around our pool and everything would be affected by that ordinance. And just some clarity on dates too and how that spans. Is it just within turtle season
or is it expanding outside of that? I would also like to touch on the fireworks. I think that is a definitely a community event. It brings us all together and it's something that I think has been a staple. I'm Florida born and raised and I can't imagine not being able to come out to our beaches to be able to celebrate that event. Thank you
guys. >> Thank you. Thank you. And just to clarify for the board, uh that is in reference to ordinance 2025-16 which we're hearing after this one. >> Yes. >> But sorry. >> Yeah. No, no, no problem. Okay, thank you.
>> I think that's it. >> Okay. Uh Brandon, you have a presentation? >> I do. We could pull the PowerPoint, please. >> Oh, I'm sorry, Chair. Um if we could convene as the planning board and reconvene as a local planning agency for these actions.
>> Sure. Yes. Uh I am adjourning temporarily as the planning board and reconvening as the local planning agency. Thank you. So, the first item on the agenda is ordinance 202502. These are land development code related modifications to the city's regulations pertaining to
conduct, behavior, operations, development, registration, and permitting on the city's beaches. There's quite a bit of content in this ordinance. However, the purview of the local planning agency is on the land development code um related modifications as well as to the
comprehensive plan consistency of the ordinance. So, this is one of three ordinances proposed to be brought forward pertaining to use of and development on the city's beaches. Um, board members may remember early last year, this item was brought forward to the city
commission as a consolidated ordinance with the second item on the agenda, the wildlife friendly lighting requirements and a potential future ordinance. It has not been drafted or proposed at this time. Uh related to cabana service area requirements, requirements for private
beaches and development generally. Again, that is not proposed at this time. Ordinance 20252 is largely conduct behavior and registration requirements. Uh that is the ordinance that is the first on the agenda. Uh this was recommended to the
city commission as was mentioned by the beach stewardship committee at a vote of 421. So there are minor modifications in the land development code um under the scope of this ordinance. It largely moves content from the land development code
over to the code of ordinances at the recommendation of the beach stewardship committee. We have left references in the land development code to the location of the relocated content just so that the information pertaining to Tiki Hut's uh dune modification permitting requirements and prohibition
on activities disruptive to marine turtles uh can still be located. That is that will be in chapter 95 of the code of ordinances. That is the consolidated beach ordinance that is proposed under this ordinance. um they will be moved out of land development code section
25.5 and uh point8 as well as 44.3 with references left in uh tying uh tying in that connection to chapter 95 >> I did yes >> so just to give me some background
why were they why are we moving them out of land development what's the what's the point what's the purpose and the intent so that I understand that >> so the original intent um with the beach ordinance in general was to have one consolidated chapter in the in this case
the code of ordinances where someone could go and see all of the city's beach regulations. Um so it it's it's a one-stop shop for all those regulations. The references are being left in. That was a recommendation of the beach stewardship committee and I felt it was a good one. They if someone's reading
the the coastal protection section of land development code, they know that there are regulations in chapter 95 that pertain. >> Okay. >> So that makes sense to me to have one beach ordinance, but then the slide before shows that we're actually
entertaining three beach ordinances right now instead of one. >> Uh it the intent was to show that that was being split out of the original consolidated ordinance. it was turned into three different ordinances. The third ordinance that I was talking about that pertain more to, you know,
generally private beach land regulation that has not been drafted or proposed at this time. That might be something that's brought forward in the future, but it's not being considered today. >> All right. So, what's the intent on So, I got the intent of taking things out of the um land development code into a
consolidated beach ordinance. Mhm. >> Why then break up the beach ordinance into two two ordinances? Why don't we meet the original try to meet the original intent? What what happened there? >> That potential third ordinance um there
was a there was concern with what was proposed earlier in the year, the content of that um that ordinance that might be brought forward. we decided to move forward with some of the more manageable modifications under ordinance 202502 related to behavior and conduct.
And then at the time there had not been a marine turtle lighting ordinance drafted. That is something we've worked on this year. So we brought that forward separately. The reason I split that one out specifically was because I didn't know how quickly I would receive feedback from the state. it might have
been something that was pushed out a little bit further or might have been able to move uh forward quicker than ordinance uh 202502, but they just happen to align. Um so we're bringing them both forward together. That third ordinance, we have Senate Bill 180. We
have other considerations that we need to take into account. So that's something that we if if the city chooses to address it, it will need to be addressed down the line. Um it can't be moved forward at this point in time. >> Okay. So right now then
one beach one beach related ordinance and one turtle lighting or turtle or wildlife ordinance basically. >> Correct. >> That's kind of where we're going. I mean I can I can buy into that. I just I just want to make sure we're not creating
multiple ordinances because we find it difficult to you know pass an ordinance that you know that we said we were going to do. I mean, if there's a if there's a good reason for it, then okay. But, you know, the stuff is hard for a reason.
Just, you know, >> it just gives the appearance that, you know, maybe something else is going on. So, >> all right. Thanks for the thanks for the background. I did want to talk about the tiki cheeky
hut regulations because those are under the purview of this um this board. Those are in land development code section 25.5. Currently they are being moved to chapter 95. There is also a section in the code of ordinances that is being
relocated and consolidated with the relocated section 25.5. This is specifically regulations related to tiki and cheeky huts that are placed on the beach not those that are upland on private developed property landward of the coastal construction control
line. when they are on the beach functionally, when they are permanent structures, just in the sense that they're not temporary for the use of a a special event, um they are treated the same. We don't allow for electric and plumbing when they're temporary structures that are placed on the beach.
So, they would be treated the same in that regard. We are not we we recognize and we're not trying to make any modification to the statutory limitation on enforcement of Chiki huts. those are um allowed to be constructed without going through the building permit process and that's not what the intent
of this is. Um I can I can uh clarify that through the modifications that are being made but these are just to consolidate the regulations related to tiki and cheeky huts um which are not currently addressed through our code and allow both structures to be constructed on the beach if they align with the
standards that are being adopted through this chapter. Can we can we say that in the in here so that it it doesn't cause confusion? >> Absolutely. Right. >> There is a reference this is in what is
proposed to be section 95.6 uh that the tiki or cheeky hut does not violate the terms of the statute. That is the reference to the cheeky hut statute. But I can make that more clear that this is what we're addressing through this ordinance.
So, there are some changes. Um, they're not necessarily under the scope of this review. Um, but I did want to talk about the major modifications that are being made through this ordinance. Um, as was mentioned by one of the speakers. This would prohibit microobility devices including bikes on the beach except
during special events. Uh, we do treat vehicles separately based on what is drafted in the code. Um, those would go through the vehicle on the beach perimeter, again, through a special event permit process. There would be proposed under ordinance 202502, a yearround prohibition of fireworks
fired from or over the beach. Um, there is also a prohibition in the forthcoming ordinance that limits that down to marine turtle and shorebird nesting season. The recommendation from the beach stewardship committee was that if
the city commission were to not approve an overall year round prohibition that it remain prohibited to fire fireworks um during shorebird and marine turtle nesting season. So that's the reason for the two different standards between
ordinance 202502 and 202516. The one in O2 is the preference. The one and 16 is the recommendation should they not go for ordinance uh O2. There is a prohibition on glass and polystyrene on the public beach. We
cannot prohibit it uh based on statute on the private beach but on the public beach it can be prohibited requiring registration of site and non-sightbased businesses. Those that are sitebased largely already go through this process through the business tax receipt registration. However, those businesses
that operate on the public beach that are not registered with the city would need to register. Um, it would be a way of of tracking these uses and make sure that they're not interfering with the intent, which is the public use of the beach. And then allowing Cabana service
areas to host non- guests of the resort. This was brought up earlier in the year as one of the consolidated ordinance considerations. There seemed to be support from the commission as well as from the public at the time for that change. Uh so that is something we are covering in this ordinance. It is not
more restrictive. It is more permissive. So it would not fall against uh Senate Bill 188. >> Brandon, if I may, before you move on to the next slide there. So the prohibition of fireworks on the beach is the intent of that to cover offshore if they want to set up a barge for example.
>> I think this would be specifically firing over or from the beach. That that was the that was the intent. those that are in sovereign submerged land. I don't know that that necessarily apply. It's their their purview is specifically the beach. >> I'm just wondering if we need to clean up that language because
>> that to me leaves the door open and not saying it's good or bad for somebody, you know, if the city decided to set up a barge off the coast like some people or some cities do instead of doing it over here. Um, so just to be clear, are we is the intent there to restrict that or are we leaving that part open for
future consideration? that could be left open for future consideration as written. >> Thank you. >> So in terms of comprehensive plan consistency, goal three of the future land use element um refers to coastal sound coastal management practices,
their policies related to the protection of sensitive coastal resources and provisions for protection of sand dunes. Again, this is content that is largely already in the city's ordinances. it just being relocated with the references remaining under the coastal and
conservation element. Goal one is about conserving, protecting, and appropriately managing the environment especially as it pertains to um the protection of protected species as as communicated in objective 1.9
and that would be um also the protection of the working waterfronts. We don't have any designated working waterfronts. We largely have recreational waterfronts. Um, so that is that is the focus of objective 1.9. So with that, I'm happy to take questions, happy to clarify anything
within this ordinance. We do ask for a recommendation of approval of the land development code related modifications of this ordinance to the city commission as well as the finding a modification of those um those modifications consistent with the comprehensive plan. >> Um, Brandon, what so what is the what
authority does the city have to regulate fireworks launched from a barge? I I don't I don't know that we do. Um this is specifically for fireworks launched over or onto the public page which is under the city's purview.
>> Okay. Would the would the city have control of that? >> That's something that I would need to look into further. Um >> Okay. >> I don't have an answer for you on that right now, but we can definitely get you an answer on that. Yeah, I I I think the the residents of the city made it pretty clear a couple years ago when the city
was taking votes on fireworks versus drone show and it was overwhelmingly in support of fireworks. So, I I would certainly want to ensure the code doesn't accidentally step on launching from barges. Uh that that could probably
easily be avoided if if we need to put language in there now. But I am in support of not launching them from the beach or over the beach because I've I've seen failed launches and what can go bad in a big crowd of people and that is not appealing.
>> It also can hurt the wildlife. I remember there was one year the uh black skimmers nest in a colony on the beach. One Fourth of July we lost 30% of the chicks over the fireworks. It's a threatened species and
It's so bad that the volunteers from Audabon try to fence them up through the fourth so that they they can protect them and FWC is usually there. >> That's from on the beach. >> Yeah. People doing fireworks on the beach or laser shows or whatever they
do. That's very disruptive at a very vulnerable time when the chicks can't fly yet. >> Yeah. on the polystyrene. Do you have do you have background on how that came to be written? Are we singling out that type
of plastic or are we What I was really wanting to get at is are we trying to police the foamed polystyrene that tends to turn into a nightmare or any plastic cup because polystyrene the chemical can come in both clear plastic form and foam versions?
I don't know that we got into the detail of which one was intended to be prevented. Um, foam did come up as one of the concerns and I think originally this was drafted specifically as styrofoam. Um, that's a brand name as I understand it. So, we changed the
designation, but if it's uh if it's focused on the the foam polystyrene, we could look into that. >> Yeah. >> Straws were on there as well, right? >> Correct. >> Yeah. If if if the intent is to eliminate the waste and litter that
those foamed containers tend to make, then we should probably just write it that way rather than singling out a a particular type of plastic in chemical form. >> Yeah. I'm guessing the intent was styrofoam coolers, styrofoam pieces, you
know, they break into chunks and they blow everywhere. >> Yeah. >> But uh whereas the cups are pretty easy to pick up. Well, not styrofoam cups, but plastic. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> And eliminating plastic bottles and glass bottles really limits you to metal.
>> That's not cost effective. >> Did you want to go through the document? >> Yeah. Um, >> sure. Yeah. Yeah. >> Otherwise, we're going to be repeating that work for you. >> Sure. We can uh so the the first item I had in a
numbered section was 5826. If I'll just ask about 6F or I'm sorry this was six strike uh change to item F. This was use of public restrooms to shave, shower or bathe. um
this prohibits that in city parks and beaches but that made me think of when we had such temporary facilities in the city parks and uh for postene recovery. So this would prohibit that and I wasn't sure if the emergency ordinances that
tend to get passed by the commission in that type of scenario would overrule this or if we needed to have an exception for that. Typically, the emergency ordinances would overrule this. If we want to write into an exception that would apply outside of emergency periods, we could
certainly look at that. >> Yeah, I I don't have a strong opinion either way. I just didn't want to forbid what I know we have done. >> I noticed in the definition of sunrise, it says reported time of sunset
repeatedly throughout the document. >> I'm assuming that means sunrise. Anyone else? >> Yes. I had a couple comments on um 5826 prohibited activities in city parks and beaches. Uh one of the things I think we
need to uh think a little bit further in the future is drones. Um, I have seen drones flush the um, skimmer colony which leaves all the eggs available to either cook on the beach or uh, be attacked by seagulls and crows and
predators. So, in the skimmers, one of the parents always stays with the net to protect the eggs and something like a drone or a dog causes the colony to flush and all those eggs are in jeopardy. So, um I think we need to
address drones somewhere. Um >> um so member Perry, I think I read in here somewhere there is a prohibition on any harassment of skimmers. >> It does. It does say harassment, but I don't think people flying the drones realize that that harasses the birds.
>> They don't connect those dots. So, um that's why I was thinking of that. Um, another one I had that we we have a little park in our neighborhood that that people use and people are actually like launching johnboats from there. Um,
somebody actually has a ladder um by the park wall and they they climb down. I don't know if that gives the um city any liability, but um they are using it. I mean, obviously it's a great place for fishing and and for people to go sit and
enjoy the environment. Um, but I don't I know they're launching boats and I know that they are climbing down the wall, so I don't know if those things need to be thought about. >> Any other comments on this section >> on on the definitions? Where we at?
>> Yeah. 7491 >> 91. Yeah. Just Brandon, what again? What's the intent um and the reasoning regarding the um the verbiage that was added for humanpowered and non-human powered
things. And John, who had brought it up, just made me think because I I've read through it a couple of times and I'm I'm trying I'm just trying to figure out what the why the why behind this. What what caused this so I have an understanding? What are we really trying to avoid here that because that's what's
missing throughout a lot of this document is is there's a lot of like read let me read between the lines there's something here but I don't quite get it. So what what is what is the rationale here? >> So it was cons from from four of the five members of the beach stewardship
committee. They they did want to prohibit microobility devices on the beach except during special events. The reason for this particular definitional change was to bring the definition more in line with the current statutory definition. Um when we we have a
separate microobility ordinance that the definition here is being modified but a lot of the content in that ordinance which pertains citywide still applies. When that was adopted by the city back in the early 2020s, the definition in statute was much more aligned toward
fleet vehicles and more of the services that offer microobility devices. It since changed dramatically to be more in line with what is being proposed here, which is focusing on more the parameters and the type of device instead of it being part
of a fleet or another service. That's the reason for this modification. when there's a prohibition on a microobility device, we don't want it to be limited just to a fleet vehicle because that wasn't the intent of the beach stewardship committee. They were concerned about the actual device itself
on the beach. So that's the reason for this definitional change. >> Okay, that kind of sounded like what I'm reading here. So I'm still Can I ask John to come up and just can you give some clarification to us on what would
make this better or are you okay with this? >> Well, no. First off, I I don't think that the state statute either includes humanpowered. So I don't think that bicycles um are part of the state statute and all the meetings up until that very last
meeting uh had a provision for even even then for regular bikes to at least for residents to get a permit. Frankly, I still think that residents such as myself need an ebike to to get around on a thick tire and I do it all the way in the back where the where the police vehicles ride usually and I'm, you know,
less than 10 miles an hour and far away from people and I never got a complaint from anyone. >> All right. >> So, so, >> so can I interrupt just for a second? >> So, and this is what I'm trying to get to. So, I've only So, really, >> and it's okay if you're against bicycles on the beach, but is this what we're
really trying to get after? We're trying not to have any type of bike bike on the beach whether it's humanpowered or not humanpowered is I >> that's what I heard from them. But this definition by the way is not even in the beach section. It's in another section. So we could have ramifications across the city on sidewalks and other things
too intended or not >> for even the regular bikes. I didn't study that yet, but I sort of >> Can I speak to the risk? >> Yeah, go ahead. because um I I steward I'm on the beach a lot and I can tell you
most people unlike John ride their bikes along the hard sand, the water. >> Okay. >> Okay. That's like riding down the sidewalk. That's where everybody is. That's where the wildlife is. I have personally jumped in front of a child that was about to get hit and grab that
bike. Um I have pictures of skimmer chicks run over. Um, it's a very, very dangerous setting. Not everybody is as thoughtful as John. >> So, so that I think, and this is what I'm trying to get to. So, is this really
in here because there's a safety issue with people on the beach? Is it what is the what is the reason that we're trying or what is the problem we're trying to solve by by putting this language in there? because then we can then we can have a debate on >> right
>> you know whether or not >> it is enough of a safety factor to to actually have something put in here right versus the you know recreation and quality of life >> that it provides the residents. Um, so
that's what I'm trying to get to before before I, you know, before we can say even move on from this. Am I to understand and Brandon and those who have been around for a while that the real reason
for this in here is a safety issue just like our bad sidewalks are, you know, our three- foot wide sidewalks where, you know, people are falling off and, you know, we're this close to getting hit by cars. Is it is it a a significant enough safety issue? Is that
why this this is in here? >> That that is my understanding of why this was added in. Yes, it's a safety concern. But let me just add though that you know doing it during the turtle season or even the bird skimmer season could be could be made illegal and and
so we're only talking about even the non-time and you know days in the in January, February, December the beach is empty pe and it's G Boulevard that is the hazard and is killing people and and Penllis is written as the is the most dangerous place for bikes on the in the
country and so we need other places to be able to go and so the beach is an important place where we to seek that refuge and go less than 10 miles an hour. Make it 100 feet from the people. You'll have to walk your bike if you're 200 feet from the people. But the the the the attorney general site even says
that when when West Palm made a rule about no skiboards anywhere, it was unconstitutional because they said you can't just make a blanket statement and say, "Well, it's for safety." You have to say, "Well, wait, where is it specifically? Where is it unsafe?" And and that's what I think that should be done. People are just being lazy and
making rules about no fireworks, no smoking vapes, no no this, no that, and they're not taking the time to think about it. Thank you. >> Yeah. Thanks, John. So, so I'd like to add and I'll stop on on this one. >> Well, if I may, I just wanted to note for the board because I did hear a question of whether uh this language
tracked the statutory language and I have looked up the statute and does track the statutory language. Uh the statute does um consider both humanpowered and nonhuman powered devices. This is almost exactly the same language. Um if any board member would like me to read that definition, I can.
But I just wanted to make sure um that everybody was aware that this is based on the statutory language for the purposes of this discussion. >> Uh the statute is section uh 316.003 which is um state uniform traffic
control and it's the definition sections of that. >> Okay. The state of state. All right. So my point in in this and there's obviously an issue between a group of
folks who would say, you know, this is unfair, you know, and and a group of folks that might say, well, it's a safety issue, so we have to get involved in this and and fix it. Um, I I think we need a little more due diligence in determining how unsafe this
is. What other things can we do to, you know, if we allowed people to ride bikes on the beach, what things we could do to mitigate some of the risk? You know, you have to go through the whole thing and all or nothing does just doesn't normally work.
So, that's what I'm that's what I'm I I'll stop there, but that's kind of what I'm what I wanted to figure out with this. What What are we truly getting at here? So, thank you, >> Brandon. Do you know if this came from the beach stewardship committee having
an interest in safety or was it a reaction to actual events that occurred like the sheriff has reported this number of people being hit by ebikes or >> There were a number of events reported. I don't want to say it was based on a consolidated count, but there were
events that were shared at the beach stewardship committee, both the initial and final. >> Were those mostly electric bike related or was it a mix of human powered as well? >> I don't remember enough to know if it was specific. I I've seen both and I think it is a quality of life issue
because I know the time I jumped in front of that toddler because nobody saw this little kid sitting at the edge of the water and I I knew I was putting my health at risk but I felt like I had to do that. Um I've seen both and it's you
know people are on vacation and I I get that. U but I also think it's a quality of life for a parent that has a child by the edge. I mean, just like we don't ride bikes on the sidewalk, as much as I'd like to at times, you know, there you have to think about what environment
you're in. That is the sidewalk right down the water's edge. >> How slow was that bike going? You were able to jump up. >> It was going a fair clip and I got in front of it and I put my hands out and tried to move it to the side >> to get up and run over. >> No, no. I was standing at the water's
edge. There was a child sort of at my feet and I just pivoted. So I didn't have a lot of time. >> About to hit you too. >> Yes. But I was okay because I can get out of the way. The kid could not. >> Next section.
Do you have uh anything to go on from us with that or I need to look at sunrise and sunset is used and is that throughout the ordinance? >> It's any definition of sunrise. It has the word sunset in it as the
time. >> Understood. But thank you. >> It's minor >> for that for that same uh definition. uh micro micromobility device. The final sentence after the highlighted section I
thought might just need a little language tweak. It it mentions devices used by handicapped persons which I think is dated. >> Understood. >> Thank you. >> Is there a speed limit on those devices as well? >> So, well, they're they're prohibited
except during special events. So, that would, you know, inherently limit the speed. Um, typically, and this is again right out of the statutory definition, they typically operate between 15 and 28 miles per hour. So, that's that's usually the range they're
>> okay. >> They're in. >> I Yeah, I personally don't have an issue prohibiting ebikes. I've seen the speeds that they can achieve, and we don't need uninforcable statutes. the police aren't going to be out there with radar guns at
the beaches at the water's edge zapping people to figure out if their ebike was over the limit. Um I don't think there's a way to enforce it as written. So I'd be more inclined to if we had to have something no ebikes but manually humanpowered bikes. I I don't personally feel like those are
a big issue. That's just my opinion. >> I'm pretty sure and pass a grill before every beach walk over this thing that says no bikes. >> Oh okay. Yeah. If we already prohibit it, then >> so were a long time ago. >> Seems like we're chasing our tail here.
>> So, do we already prohibit all bikes? >> Not not no not all bikes. I mean, it it might have been a hold over or just a >> from the old days. >> Okay. >> If I could, um, member has you back to your initial
point. I I'm kind of I'm still not clear on and I know this is painful for you guys because you've been dealing with beach ordinances for years. They just keep getting pushed back and forward and back and forth and but I don't make me understand again why there's not one
ordinance and why we have to break this into two and potentially a third. And the reason I asked that is my concern that there's going to be some cross language that's going to be in one and then we have to put it in that third one if it ever comes around. Mhm.
>> And it's kind of like the Trojan horse or something getting put in there and then then we have to go back and fix that ordinance. And so one more time just to make me understand why we're not just doing one consolidated ordinance. >> So this it came forward as one
consolidated ordinance early in the year to the city commission. There was quite a bit of public comment and so the agreement at that time was to go back and reassess. I don't remember if at that time there was an agreement to split it into three, but um we agreed to to reassess the content. Between then
and this summer, there was a uh law passed, Senate Bill 180, that prohibit it's it's very restrictive on changes that could be viewed as adverse to development. Um it's not just redevelopment, not hurricane repair, but it's it's very expansive and covers most
forms of development. There was content that could be viewed as related to development in that ordinance which could be proposed in the future as some kind of future third ordinance. If that content were to be moved forward with
this ordinance and it were to be challenged and successful, it could jeopardize the entire ordinance. Okay. So, that's part of the reason for moving forward what we consider to be content related to behavior and um conduct rather than actual development
limitations on on property, which which could be viewed as adverse to that that um Senate bill. The reason for the marine turtle lighting ordinance being its own separate ordinance, which it's the second item on the agenda, so we'll be reviewing that today as well, but it's all in one division. It just felt a
little bit cleaner to have that be its own focus. that also is content that the state is reviewing. Um the rest of this content isn't necessarily in their purview. So having that as its own separate item was just for for ease of reading. >> Great expl.
>> So 180 operates at a all or nothing ordinance level. It can't strike specific sections. >> I don't know that we've tested it. Um, I don't know that it's I think there have been a few challenges working through the court, nothing with our local ordinances, but um I I think we just didn't want to put ourselves in that
position. >> Yeah, that makes sense. Okay. >> What is with the unfiltered cigar clause? >> That was an exemption in the statute. Um, they exempted out unfiltered cigars. Cities can't prohibit those on the
beach. >> The state did or correct? >> Probably written in Miami. Yeah, I guess that's a >> it's because of the chemicals in the filter. >> Yeah. Okay. >> That's what it is. It's the chemicals. >> Gota stay in touch with the Cuban roots of the of the region.
>> Since you jumped ahead to that, how I had the same question, but also um we we don't allow alcohol on the beach. It's fine. Public beach. Why don't we put something in there about marijuana?
And the and the reason you that got me thinking about this is, you know, I'm, you know, I'm a rights kind of person, but I don't like smelling it >> and it is all over the place. And so I didn't know what the
original intent of the no smoking on the beach was. Was it for smell or pollution or whatever? But, you know, why don't we can we can we do that? Is there illegal? >> Well, I think definitionally smoke the
definition for smoking it includes other smokable substances with the exception of unfiltered cigars. I don't know if there's a >> Yeah. You know, >> so so what I could see is someone going, well, I you know, you know, they they rolled their own, >> right? It's unfiltered.
>> Although it does say tobacco, you know, but I I don't know. I just don't know why we don't put marijuana in there since it's becoming so prevalent. You know, everyone wants to say marijuana and alcohol are the same, right? If they some people believe that. So, if it's the same, why don't we why don't we say
it? >> I I think I think the language covers it. I mean, it says smokable substances and in the vaping section similar vapor generating electronic device. Um, I think as soon as we include a word like
that, it's going to result in the same thing that is the reason we have all these stores popping up. they just change the chemical composition by one molecule and now it's delta 8 and now it's uh all these other things. Uh so you end up with the same result that
doesn't get covered by the ordinance. >> All right. >> I'm not hard over either way. I just curious more than anything in in that same section 952. Uh, I did have a question about
unintended or I'm sorry, unattended fishing. We we define it, but I could not find where it is used anywhere in this ordinance. >> Take a look. That might have been a hold over from an earlier draft that struck. So, thank you. There was something in
here about um the police or the the sheriff could tell somebody they were in a bad spot or something and that if they didn't move, they could take action because if someone's fishing right next to someone swimming, I think it's up the sheriff is supposed to >> Yeah. >> ask them to.
>> But that was the only thing I remember about fishing in here. >> I think it would make sense to ban people just leaving lines out there. But you're right, there's a definition that should be referenced. >> Yeah. >> In the document
>> or taken out, one or the other. >> Okay. >> So, so since we're here in this section still, so under the temporary structure paragraph, um again, what what was driving that? Uh
and and then my second comment on that would be uh when you use words like uh including structures such as but not limited to. So I get I have a feeling something was
driving this and we should be specific on the types of things we're we're talking about because if you leave this is a restrictive um policy verbiage, right? And anytime you have restrictive policy verbiage,
you want to be very specific. Um, if you want to allow leeway, you know, that's when you make it general. So, I'm kind of wondering what the what the intent here is and what why this is in there other than to define temporary and
permanent, which okay, 180 days or whatever. Got it. >> And it is it is restrictive. Most of the content of of the ordinance is restricted just being on the beach including the city's current regulations. The reason for this being in here is because we wanted to provide
a definition for it's permanent structures are much more restricted than temporary under this ordinance. Um and there are there is content in this ordinance that pertains specifically to permanent structures. We were talking about the tiki and cheeky huts earlier.
um those could be installed on the beach as a permanent structure, not necessarily in the way that it, you know, has permanent ground supports, but it it's something that will be out there for longer than 180 days. That was the intent of adding this in. Any structure that is intended to be on the beach for
longer than 180 days, consistent with the Florida Building Code, would be considered a permanent structure. Even it were even if it were to be something like a you know that limited limited hut associated with a special event permit they're treated differently and they're regulated differently under this
ordinance. Okay there we'll get to it but there's a the way that another paragraph later in the document reads talks about no temporary structure. Well, we'll get to it and I'll I'll bring it up again.
>> And pertaining to the three the three sections that were pulled out specific to the land development code. Um I just because I want to make sure I capture the content out of those those sections. Um again, I intended largely to just be relocation to chapter 95 with a
reference left in. Does the local planning agency have any specific concerns about those three sections? Which ones again? >> We'll get you exact pages. Just a moment. That is specifically on pages 22 and 23
of your packet. That's the first reference to um the relocated content for Tiki adding in cheeky huts to section 956. And again this is a consolidation of two
different sections of one from the code of ordinances one from the land development code. >> So we're up to page 22. I did want to focus on the the land development code amendments um just with that being under the purview of the local planning agency and then if if
there are other items that we need to address, we we certainly can I didn't have anything specific personally. I did uh I did want to ask if what had been
reflected in uh the email from Miss Betszel this afternoon and public comment. Do we need to do any cleanup related to Cheeki versus Tiki Huts or are you of the opinion it's fine as written?
I believe in talking with the building department, this does capture the inherent limitations of cheeky huts, how they can be operated. They can't have electric and plumbing, which we would not permit on the beach in a permanent fashion. Anyway, um we do have item D here that does reference the statute
that um does describe what a what a cheeky hut is. Um, the intent was really to be more permissive to allow Cheeki huts as well as tiki huts on the beach, not limit them just to Florida building code construction constructed tiki huts. Um, that that was the intent. I'm happy
to take another look at it again with the building department and and city attorney to make sure that was captured. >> Okay. >> And I would agree with what Brandon is saying. >> Okay. Uh does anyone else have >> I I just had um if you look at uh
section 25.6 six. It's got Gulf of America and there are other parts of here where it just says the Gulf or it just says the beach. And um I don't want to go into politics, but I just thought if we could be consistent and maybe just
say beach or whatever, but there's I mean there's a different reference on page 17 of 85 35 of 8523 there. So we're just inconsistent. Just a little clean up. >> Okay. Well, we we'll be consistent. Thank you.
Okay. If calling it the Gulf is sufficient, then we can avoid rewriting it as administrations come and go. >> True. I think this is an amendment in so that that should work. >> I had a question on 25.7. So it would be new 25.7
8 was struck. Um are these development requirements compatible with 180 since it is asking an applicant to construct a dune if one does not exist? >> It is only because this was adopted prior to the uh Senate bill 180 that
it's retroactive to the storms but no not prior. So >> do we require reconstruction of a dune if it gets washed away? that would typically be covered under their FT permit I believe. So in most cases,
Brandon on page 24 where I'm not sure this is no longer a section or where on temporary structures is just one sentence. Yes, that's that's a relocation to
chapter 95 that that is remaining. >> Okay. So, yeah, because it's a little redundant, you know, there by itself, right? So, it's okay. >> I have something on 28 of 85. I don't
>> Now, we're kind of mixing it up now. Yeah, go ahead. >> Okay. Um section 9510 alcohol on the beach. Um we've been inconsistent. Um we talk about somebody having an open container and then in other places we
just say they can't have a container. Um so there's there's been and also um some places we say glass is prohibited and then other places we say they can have a bottle. So I just think it would be good to kind of scan document for some of
those. Okay. Make sure again that's consistent. It's like um if you look at page 27 of 85 it says contain whether or not the container is a bottle whatever but it doesn't say open and it says it's not applicable. It's just a little just a
little clean up. >> Thank you. And then on on page 31, I don't know if anybody has something before that, but um if you go to section 95-13, dogs on the title, you've crossed out
the word sand, but then in the paragraph A, you've got sand beach twice. So again, I just a little cleaner. >> Keep that in. And on page 32, it's section 9514 where it talks about harassing the birds. And
I didn't know if you wanted to add like anything about the lasers or drones in there because like I said, people don't make the leap of what is harassing a bird. >> Understood. Any any concerns from the board on that
one? No, I just think with if you're going to talk about drones, there's, you know, other uh regulations out there that cover drones as well. You got to make sure that, you know, we're consistent. It's a new area for everybody,
>> but there is new guidance out there and it's changing all the time, too. So, let's just make sure we're in, you know, consistent with that. Yeah, the city does have a short aviation section that does prohibit what
I believe would cover drones, but it's definitely not as as fleshed out as some other municipalities. So, that might be handled separately, but it we can add in a no harassment uh reference. Th this this is not planning board
related, but this discussion makes me think it would probably be useful for the city to have a discussion with property owners along the beach, particularly hotelers. And it would it would probably be a lot easier if the city had guidance on
an agreement on this is a sign you should put up at your entrances to the beach for your patrons that says, "Hey, these birds are protected. Don't do this. Don't do that. Control your unparented kid because they harass the birds, too. Uh just just to make it clear because people come on vacation,
they bring their little pocket drone. They don't think if I go running into these birds, whatever, they'll just fly away and come back. They don't know that they're there doing nesting. Um but obviously having different signs at every property gets confusing. And so
perhaps the city could find someone to have that discussion and come up with a useful recommended sign that all the hotels agree on. It's a good idea. And moving actually just the the next section of that is land development code section 44.3. Again, this is relocation
of the content with the reference left in the land development code. It is proposed to be relocated to section 9515 of the new chapter 95. There is some content that has been brought forward from a much older
version of the beach ordinance that um is additional content that will be added into chapter 9515. Uh you can see that E through H on the following page. Um these are really just references to with F and G in
particular, FG and H rather in particular. Um these are items that tie back to the uh chapter 44 changes that are being proposed. And then E was a general best practices, you know, fill
in fill in holes, um remove beach toys and so on. So just a a general statement there. So this is a moving of language. It's not changing. >> Largely not changing. Just adding those last four items in.
So the new 9515 prohibition of activities disruptive to marine turtles. There's item C that I think could be better worded. It so this this is a list of things that are prohibited and it just says any flashlights. So like, hey, you're on the beach with a flashlight.
Now you're breaking the law. Um, it should probably be use of flashlights. >> Well, the original version of it said what you were doing with that flashlight. >> Oh, >> right. If you read what what's now
scratched out. >> Yeah. >> And so I think that's where the rub is with some of um some of our guests tonight as well as the email we received. It's um you know it went from an action >> with a light which caused an adverse
reaction you know with our wildlife to now any light. Um so I think that's that's the discussion that needs to happen further. Right. I think it's a similar issue to people don't realize the drone is harassing the
birds until you see them all fly up and and leave their nests. You don't realize that that's what's happening. Um the turtles, it's it's very difficult because somebody's not flagrantly pointing at a turtleneck to do the destruction
>> to make them not get to the water. Um, basically any light anywhere they will go to the light. And I mean, um, >> what about turtle lighting though? >> That's if and that's true. If we did have you can have flashlights that have
the right wavelengths. Um, and I I know FWC has put out a lot of information about this. Um, so maybe maybe this could be worded more clearly. Um, but again, I I if I'm out there with my cell phone, I'm not thinking about the fact
that I could be making a turtle head in my direction and not go to the water. >> Yeah, I I mean, obviously that could that could happen and I don't disagree with that. Um, but I think when you when you have these
issues, you know, you could you can what if all day long on things, you know, we we have to educate and then we also have to enforce. And what I mean by that is we already have and and I don't want to jump ahead so I'll I'll just tee this up and then we can address it when we get
to the lighting piece, right? Um I do not want our turtles to be adversely affected by lighting. We have been trying very hard in this city to prevent that. And I think maybe
because we've had some non-compliance um with either some some businesses or even even residences, let's say. There's a lot of residences that are backed up to the beach, too, that may not have turtle compliance porch lights or whatever.
I think the compliance issue is the biggest issue that we have to get after versus, you know, saying, you know, no soup for everyone, right? You know, you you you know, to pre to try to prevent something from happening by restricting
and taking away things from everybody is not usually the best first step. And I know we're past first step, but believe me, um, we got to get there on the turtle lighting thing, but um, so I'll just leave it there because I think I don't want to I think that's jumping
ahead a little bit to the next one. So, so the question here though goes back to what Dave uh member Hubber said is you know what about this sentence here >> because it's very very restrictive for I think in the intent we I think we know
what the intent is. >> Yeah. Why why was that struck? I'm I'm not I'm not sure specifically that that sentence, but this is this is something that's relevant to the local planning agency. So, if as a board you would like to see this modified, we're
happy to take that recommendation forward. Brandon, do you know the statistics on the uh percent compliance of meeting the turtle lighting standards that are in our been in our code for years versus I mean I remember I don't I
don't know if I'm outdated but it was like 90 something% was not compliant on the beach. I mean it's more uncompliant than people that >> Right. And and also on top of that, I'd like to add, do you do you know the
amount of fines that have been given out to folks who have not complied? >> I don't know. I I don't believe it's very high because I do believe that from from what I understand um first inspection each year, there do tend to be lights that are identified as being
non-compliant with the lighting ordinance. Maybe a bulb got changed out, a shield fell off, whatever ended up happening over the preceding year. um it's it's non-compliant. It would it'll usually usually be a handful of sources. There are buildings of course that are not compliant with the new tinting
requirements, but in a lot of cases if they haven't been altered or um and that's something we'll get into in the next ordinance, but they are allowed to close blinds or allowed to take other actions that don't necessarily require apply. >> So, I think it was meant to be glass,
and plastic straws. Okay. Yeah. >> And glass would I would not want to try a good glass draw. Anyone else have items? Okay. Um,
is the Brandon is the next section also for LPA? >> The 2025-16. >> Yes. Anything directly out of the land development code would be >> Okay. So, we will move on to action item 4B. If there is any new public comment
relating to ordinance 2025-16, now is your opportunity. Okay. >> Oh, yeah. Are we making >> Oh, sorry. Oh, you need a motion. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
Jumped ahead. Um, do we have any motion related to 2025-02? I I don't I mean I Are you talking about a motion to >> recommend? >> He needs a motion uh a direction. So we would we would likely make a motion to
recommend approval, recommend against ask for it to come back to us modified. >> All right. I'd like >> We can also make modifications and also send it for first reading. There's no I'll make a motion to um
readress and bring it back to this board. I don't think it's I don't if I thought it was close enough to um make some changes and go for first reading, I would do that. But I I think there's too many issues with with this to to do that without us seeing it again personally
for my com comfortably. So if someone could put that in words of emotion, I appreciate it. >> Sure. Um, >> what you just did, >> and if if before the board takes action on that, if that is the direction you're going to go, I I would like to just
clarify what you would like to see modified for the second um for when we bring this back. We we can definitely bring it back in January. Um, if there is content that significantly modifies what the beach stewardship committee recommended, we will likely also need to
bring it back to them as well. Their next meeting is February. We we could schedule a special meeting if necessary. >> I I think that's why this thing is just dragged on and on and on and I personally feel most of the time we make a motion to accept it with changes and
you tell us what the changes are and I've always had um confidence and and good luck with the things being addressed that we brought up. So I just hate to slow this down for another four to six months. I I think that's one of
the reasons that I guess it was trying to get it into bite-sized chunks so that um you know you can always come back and amend things, but I just hate to drag stuff on um unless there's really um I I guess I've been at this a lot longer
than you and I've gone to a lot of beach stewardship meetings and so I I guess I feel pretty comfortable that there's been a tremendous amount of effort to get us to this stage. So, if I would be comfortable with um staff making the
changes and um there's other opportunities where it will be in review. >> Make the motion. >> Well, we have a motion on the floor. >> We do do. So, member Izzy would would like to see this go back for revision and come back to this board at a future
hearing. Do I have a second for that? I'm I'm getting ready to make a possibly a second, but I'm not sure we've given the staff adequate guidance. >> Do you feel like we've given you enough guidance or has it been kind of scattershot? Am I able to summarize what
I believe that is at this point? >> Certainly. >> Okay. All right. I'll just I'll cover what I what I believe the guidance is up to this point. Starting at the beginning of the ordinance, there is dated language in the definition of microobility device. We need to look at
the use of the word sunset within the definition of sunrise. Uh the the term unattended fishing andor line is not used in the ordinance. I need to check to see if it was intended to be used. If not, it needs to be stricken.
what is becoming section 957 temporary structures may be redundant. I will go back to make sure that that is not addressed in another section and can potentially be stricken. What is becoming section 256 um making sure that gulf is used
consistently throughout the document. In section 9510, I need to scan for the use of glass and bottle and open and non-open. They are consistent inconsistent rather within this section. Under item seven under section 9510,
glass needs a comma before and plastic straws. unstrike. In section 9513, dogs prohibited on the beaches add sand back in before a beach.
Under section 9514 in the prohibitions on harassment include um the use of drones and lasers in um examples of of what could constitute harassment. add use of in front of
flashlights under section 9515. There are and I I do want to state with that under the forthcoming ordinance. There are also prohibitions on um lighting on the beach during marine turtle nesting season. And so that is something that I will make consistent
between the two if there are any recommendations from the local planning agency at that time. I also had um amending the fireworks section to ensure that it does not prohibit fireworks from barges but
keeping in the prohibition of firing from or over the beach. um prohibiting foam polystyrene specifically on the beach, not other forms of plastic and those were that was a specific
direction that I picked up on. Was there anything that was missed? So if it if it goes with those changes um alone, we would still be sending up something that prohibits um humanpowered bicycles on the beach.
>> If if the local planning agency would like to make a recommendation to permit humanpowered bicycles, you're welcome to make that recommendation. Um, you could make that recommendation and ask to move it forward or you could request to see all of these changes back
again in January. >> Is that under our purview? Bicycles or is that more of a beach stewardship thing? If it's something that you find prohibiting humanpowered bicycles would
be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, I think that that would be under your purview because that is something that you as a local planning agency are reviewing. Um, as far as the planning board's duties, you are looking at the land development code. So, that is not
specifically within the land development code. Um, but if it's something that you find would cause an inconsistency with the comprehensive plan, I believe you can make that um that that recommendation. >> Do we make that recommendation through a motion?
How does that? So I would like to recommend that we allow humanpowered bicycles on the beach because until I see enough risk analysis that shows that it is a real safety concern for our residents and citizens. So I think the
quality of life outweighs because I haven't seen any evidence that it's a significant safety factor. So how >> would you would you be inclined to advance this ordinance with that change? Yes.
>> How does how does everyone else feel? >> I would like that if there was some kind of language as to where on the beach as well the bikes are allowed. >> Mhm. >> I I might give into that too because I can tell you they're a disaster in Pasig Beach in the summer. People coming down
that beach and bikes. It's a train wreck. >> Open beaches. I don't know. >> Is it human powered as well or? >> Oh, anything. Any bikes, wheels. I don't most of the residents hate that stuff going down our beach. >> I would say just from a legal standpoint, I feel like I believe that
regulating the use of bikes on the beaches is more of a beach stewardship uh responsibility and somewhat outside of the purview of this board. Um if there was a motion, I I would like to keep the two issues separate and so a separate motion pertaining to the
ordinance um without touching on that issue. And if >> because they voted four to one in favor of this, right? The beach stewardship. >> Yes. >> See, the issue that we have in this city, we all know is it's not a very
walkable, pedestrian friendly, bike friendly city right now. The way just for the way it is, our roads and all that. I know many people choose to go to the beach and do some of their exercising to get off the
roads. Um, we just had a lady who was walking back from an exercise class about a week or so ago who walking the street, walking in a crosswalk who got hit by a car, right? Broker Lake and this is a senior citizen.
the beach in especially in the early morning hours for those residents that want to exercise and get out where it's not crowded um provides a good opportunity to do so in a safe environment. So perhaps you know when we
like you had mentioned about putting uh areas perhaps we could put some times or something to something to mitigate the risk because if it's really a safety thing we should have the discussion about the safety risk and how to mitigate it before we say no. So but if that's not
the purview of this board and it's not going to happen. But without that in there I it won't get my support going forward. So, >> well, I mean, you've made a motion, right? >> Yeah. If there's no >> second.
>> Is there a second? >> All right. Motion dies. Do we have a different motion? I make a motion that um we have um staff make the changes that were identified by us and let it go to the next review
step. >> Do I have a second? >> I'll second. Roll call, please. >> Sorry. Member Izzy. >> No. Member Perry, >> yes. >> Vice Chair Angelitus, >> no.
>> Member Lorenzan, >> yes. >> Chair Hubard, >> yes. >> Motion carries 3 to two. >> Thank you. >> Okay. I apologize for my mistake earlier. We are now moving on to action
item 4B and this is ordinance 20256-16. And I would like to give opportunity for public comment on this ordinance. >> John Kursman. >> I'll just read from it. Uh John Kursman uh behind way St. Pete Beach. I am in
half my home so I can say that. Um thank you for every all your efforts. It sounded like you were about to still talk about an ordinance though to help make sure that you were consistent with the comprehensive plan and use your guidance there that maybe there could be some discussion on the on the U bikes uh
and and similarly the land development code um for signage and also for the chicky huts you know the chicky huts language also says you know as per the land development code but you know I don't think we're thinking about the fact that because there's spots That's
in the ordinances where they refer to like in the in the resort zone, but there is no beach in the resort zone. If it's the beach, it's in the preservation zone. It's got a P on the zoning map. It's not in the resort zone. It's not in Pasigril. It's not all those zones have
different names. But when it comes to the beach, the entire beach is a P. And that's in I think that's from the marshlands that are taxed to the I think it might just only be the untaxed area. Uh, so that should be looked at because because for the turtles, you you know, we got all upset about the chairs and
now you're going to allow a big chicky hut to be built on the beach. How's that work? Um, and again, you know, don't ride the bikes during the turtle season. Uh, or don't do the fireworks during the turtle season, but instead you you just made it illegal every all the time. Um,
I also read the study to justify some of the terminal ordinance changes, and I'm not convinced. And what we said at the beach stewardship was we were going to bring an expert in to come in and and talk to us and that never happened at the next meeting. Um, and you know, I go out during I go out at night during the
turtle season and I see the moon with a bigger ball of light behind the hotels than the light coming out of a hotel. And I go, "Wait." You know, first I went, "Oh, look at that. The lights are on." No, that was the moon. And yet if the turtles go towards the hotels that
night, we all go, "Oh my god, look at the t look at what the hotels did wrong." So I I I I and I and I read our ordinance and we actually have something in in even the sample ordinance where you can put a barrier behind the turtle nest as long as you don't interfere with the turtles, but the turtles shouldn't
be going towards the pools. So, you know, think about it. The turtles are one inch tall. You know, they're not standing up there seeing some of the lights. So, you know, when they get out there, you know, they just need to make that judgment on where the biggest light is. And if the biggest light is coming off the water, they're heading that way.
So, the studying just was more like the right-hand rule than whe whether they're with with with a with a Y in a box, which is not at all the experience of a turtle who's hatching on a beach and has an as a gulf on one side and a moon on
the other side or or hotels. So, and I also see in there that we're saying now, uh, if if if a if a building needs to repair one broken window, it needs to now be compliant with the tinting. Well, if they didn't have to before, they should still be allowed to use shades or
whatever else because that's just why should we dictate that yet? Thank you very much. >> Thank you, >> Robert Sison. Roberts is on Plaza Beach Hotel 45506 Golf Boulevard. I appreciate the discussion you guys just had. It actually would be very helpful. Maybe we can kind of chime at the end. I like
chiming in the beginning and so you guys can hear what we have to say, but being able to chime in at the end, I think would be very helpful as well because the suggestions you gave Brandon were fantastic, but I think the one that you guys also missed that should be suggested to go back is to look at the tiki and cheeky again. They are in the
same phrase, but they are apples and oranges. They're completely different. So the way these codes are written here, if you're looking at 94796 94 947965.6, if you look at number two and number
four, it just doesn't really make sense. Number two says anyone applying for a cheeky hut or a tiki or cheeky hut must have the permit from the approval from upland owner or property owner of beach land, which makes sense. But then it
then says that they are subject to the Florida State Code unless it is built by Missuki or seminal Indian. The only two Indians in Florida that can bill them are those two Indians. So you're automatically exempt. So it kind of reiterates what they're and it makes it
confusing. I just think it's opening up for more lawsuits later on. I would like to make it as clear as possible. I almost think there should be a separate section for cheekys, separate section for tikis, and that way it's going to be very clear going forward as opposed to being bunched up into one ordinance. All
right. Now, about this one. I apologize. I'm going to try to make this one quick. Uh I'm going to concur with what the lady earlier said, Kristen, from the new loose hotel, which is the Marriott hotel, uh that's coming up, and I'm excited to have a new Marriott property on this beach. But the way that section
4410 is written, there is not going to be any allowance of anything near the beach whatsoever, special events. And that's basically put down from February the 15th until the end of turtle season, which is in October. So that takes away all weddings, all birthdays, everything,
any pool party. So that's huge. So there should be a provision where special events are allowed. Uh, and it should only be during turtle season. I don't know why we're starting it so early in February. So that should be looked at alto together. And then if you look at provision 4413,
>> could you give me that uh section you were referring to? >> 4410. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. And if you look at provision 4413, it talks about the violations for standards. So it talks about going to the special magistrate if you have any light associated uh through your building or any structure. But it also
then specifically says violations from transit lighting sources unassociated with unassociated with special events, temporary structures or any individuals on the public beach. So it almost looks like it's attacking the transit properties which are the hotels, but the
hotels aren't the only ones on the beach. We got plenty of condos on the beach as well that also should be following the same laws that the hotels are following. So we have to tent our windows. We have to have the special yellow lights. They should also have it. We got, you know, you've got Seaark. You've got the Leo building. You've got
5000 building. There are a lot of condo residential buildings that also should be getting violations, not just the hotels. So, it should be a fair play across the board for everybody on the beaches. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Kristen Simmons.
>> Hello everybody. Uh Kristen Simmons from the Loose Hotel, St. Pete Beach, 6300 Gulf Boulevard. Um, again, thank you so much for hearing our concerns today. Um, to piggyback off of the comments made just a moment ago, uh, this would heavily impact us with the lighting ordinance and also thinking a little bit
deeper into that, the staff that's coming back to work, not having the opportunity to actually make money from the events that we would be hosting at our hotel or giving our clients even the confidence that we can host these. Um, speaking on section 442, the definitions
are what makes the bulk of the turtle or ordinance problematic as they are very broad. Artificial light, light emancing from any humanmade device. Cumulative cumulatively illuminated illuminated by numerous artificial light
sources that can be seen by an observer standing anywhere on the beach. directly visible when glowing elements, lamps, globes, or reflectors of an artificial light source can be seen by an observer standing anywhere on the beach.
Indirectly visible light reflected from glowing elements, lamps, globes, or reflectors, or an artificial light source that can be seen by an observer standing again anywhere on the beach without the light source being directly visible. Transient lighting. Any
non-permanent light sources that may may be handheld or portable, including but not limited to tiki torches, lanterns, flashlights, including cell phones, flashlights, candles, flash photography. When used in the context of a special
event permitting, this term also means any non-permanent source associated with the special event to which it's associated such as temporary installation of a light fixture visible from the beach which is not uh preceded by the modifier directly or
indirectly and they shall be inclusive of both. And then while the remainder of the turtle ordinance makes it clear that its intent is primarily to regulate the new and existing coastal construction, the definition should be tightened up to ensure that businesses do not get penalized for visible light from any
human-made device like headlights from a car on a property. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay, Brandon, you could pull a PowerPoint, please. So this ordinance is fully under the
purview of the local planning agency. So happy to take any contents on any any content in this or comments in any content in this ordinance. Uh it's the second of three three ordinances that I outlined at the beginning of the presentation. It was written to avoid conflicts with Senate
Bill 180. Um looking at the definitions, those are directly out of the state's model lighting ordinance. the visible directly from the beach. There are a few items that I'll address as we go through um that were drafted by local staff and and happy to take any comments from the
board on those items. It does not redefine construction as a basis of compliance. It defers to the land development codes definition of construction that has existed for a couple decades at this point. It heightens regulations pertaining to repair, maintenance, and special event
permitting rather than development or fit within construct the existing construction definition. It's intended to clarify to developers and staff when particular improvements must be made. As with the proceeding ordinance, this was recommended 4 to1 to the city commission by the beach stewardship committee.
So looking at some of the major changes that fall under technical standard amendments, uh this removes some of the outdated language. Our current ordinance was based on an early 1990s model lighting ordinance. I don't know if it was adopted wholesale, but it was very
um similar in in language. At the time, um the state model lighting ordinance included bug type bug type bulbs and other bulbs that are not well defined. uh they don't have specific nanometer standards which is the recommendation that is currently made by the state. Long wavelength being those bulbs with
greater than 560 nmters. It adds definitions for full cutoff and shielded lighting. Uh you can see some examples on the right. There are a large number of fixtures including baller lights that are certified by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection as wildlife friendly lighting. Um they are generally
full cut off. They project downward at a certain angle. Uh they are of a certain bul uh bulb type and and they're shielded from emanating upward or to the sides. It requires glass visible from the beach to have a 30% visible light
transmittance or less. The current model ordinance provided by the state recommends 45%. There was a research study that I believe was partially funded by the FD earlier this year that said that 30% visible light transmittance is what really makes the
difference in false crawls and and issues related to that. So 30% is what was recommended from the by the sea turtle conservancy who has uh reviewed our ordinance and I have a meeting with later this week to discuss some of the changes as well. And this also adds in requirements for the use of
longwavelength bulbs in new pools. We're not adverse to applicable safety laws. That's the only major technical change related to a new structure that doesn't currently exist in our code. It is in the model state ordinance, not in our local code. So that's being uh proposed
for for amendment. So looking at the major changes, this was brought up by a speaker earlier just to go through some of the construction changes that trigger new lighting standards. The city already has a standard in place for existing lighting.
That's how the code enforcement department enforces the exterior lighting that's unshielded. Doesn't matter if the bulb has existed for 20, 30 years. uh if the fixtures existed for a long period of time, it still needs to be made compliant based on a current um ordinance requirement that any exterior
lighting be made compliant by 2007. This pertains specifically to whittling down what falls under the new construction standard. So the recommendation of the beach stewardship committee was that any new building or structure would need to be made fully compliant. That is in line
with how we currently interpret this standard. Any redevelopment of a primary structure on a property would need to achieve full sight compliance with the lighting ordinance. If there is a nonsubstantial addition to a building or
structure, so it's an addition onto a building that does not constitute a substantial improvement, that addition must comply with new construction standards. Again, consistent with how we currently interpret this ordinance. It was something that was recommended to be codified.
Modification, repair, or replacement of windows, fixtures, and doors would also require that modified window, fixture, or door to be compliant with the new construction standard. In the case of windows and doors, that would be applying the tint instead of using curtains or blinds to block the source
of light interior to a structure. For those fixtures, windows, and doors that were installed prior to 2007, that was the compliance deadline. They are still grandfathered until they're modified. External lighting must comply as I mentioned at the beginning of this slide.
So looking at other items that I felt constitute major changes. It specifies code enforcement as the enforcing division of this ordinance. It updates some of the penalties. A recommendation of the beach stewardship committee was that any screening that fulfills the existing lighting standard. So we do
have an option in our code that vegetation in some cases can be installed to constitute effective screening of existing light sources from the beach. The recommendation of the beach stewardship committee was that it be Florida native rather than just Florida friendly. It requires annual
reporting to the city commission and the beach stewardship committee of a report that we send up to the state. And as mentioned um it prohibits the use of transient special event lighting during marine turtle season. Terms of comprehensive plan consistency, we're looking at goal four of the future
land use element should be adopted to implement the goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan as amendment amended. Policy 4.1.2. We shall adopt the land development code that among other items protects limited amount of marine wetlands including
seaggrass and turtle nesting grounds remaining in the community and those areas that are designated as preservation on the future land use map. The area designated preservation is any land water of the coastal construction control line. So any land that is on the
beach land word of what can be constructed on as a a permanent basis that would be considered preservation under the city's comprehensive plan. Also under the special planning area that doesn't run the full length of the city but it is applicable in our what is
currently referred to as our community redevelopment district in the zoning code. Um this provides as a goal rebuilding the core commercial and resort areas of the city and under objective 3.1 um implementing standards that u among
other items protect future degradation of the beach dune system and coastal wildlife species habitat along with restoring or enhancing conditions through dune restoration, lighting and other measures. Under the coastal conservation element of the comprehensive plan, goal one is to
conserve, protect, appropriately manage, and where appropriate, restore, or enhance the city's natural resources. Those being aquatic, wetland, air, and terrestrial to ensure the highest environmental quality possible. There's objective 1.5 and policy 1.5.3 that feed
into these goals as well. So, with that, um, we're requesting a similar action to the first ordinance. However, I will say that this entire ordinance is within the land development code. It is under the purview of the local planning agency. We are requesting a recommendation of approval of this
ordinance to the city commission and request that it be found consistent with the comprehensive plan. Happy to take any questions. Can you address any potential incompatibilities with 180 or are these changes expected to be a non-issue?
So, as drafted, I I did I was considerate of Senate Bill 180. I have talked to the city attorney's office about this item. We will continue to do so. We'll continue to address this. I did want to say that under the Florida state
definition of development that is referenced in Senate Bill 180. It's a little meandering and getting to it, but it's under uh Florida statute 380.04, which is what defines definition or what what defines development rather. Um work
that involves the maintenance, renewal, improvement or alteration of any structure. If the work affects only the interior, the color of the structure, the decoration of the exterior, that is excluded. So, some items pertaining to maintenance do fall under an exemption
from Senate Bill 180 as I understand it. Um, but a lot of these regulations are not so much new requirements. It's just a cotification of what we already enforce as requirements for new development. We are not changing the definition for construction, which is the trigger for all of these
requirements. >> Okay. What is the existing rule on special events during sea turtles nesting season on the beach? >> Um, I believe it's more ambiguous. I don't think it has the limitations that
are being proposed here to to them. >> So, this would limit them from May to October 31st then. >> Correct. The the addition of the transient lighting is a is a local amendment. So, that that would be more restrictive. I I don't dispute that.
Is it is it defined that the visibility of such lighting has to occur in a particular direction? So for example, I I remember they may even still do it but we had some type of uh like lightning games on the beach and
they were projected on a large screen. is if that equipment is set up where the light is projected in a manner that cannot be seen eastward, is that permitted? But letting turtles see it is not
over here. I I believe it is written more broadly than that if that's a recommendation from the board um on whittling that down, but it is any transient lighting associated with the special event. >> So if the special event was constructed in a manner that would not be visible to
turtles, but a human standing somewhere on sand could see it, it would still be prohibited. >> I believe it falls under one of the definitions that was brought up earlier, which is inclusive of directly or indirectly visible. So, it applies specifically to if it's visible from the
beach as a light source, it would be prohibited. If it's not, that that's that's a distinguishment we would make. >> Okay. >> What kind of spaces are these events allowed to have on the beach? Are they allowed to set up like those wedding tents you see in parks and
>> um it's it really comes down to the parameter of the special event. I don't know that the exactly how that's enforced because it's through the uh a recreation division handles those permits, but larger events do go through a oneoff special event process in most
cases. The smaller events, you brought up weddings, I believe that those are are more of a blanket or a um a recurring permit if I understand correctly. >> Who drafted this? Just out of curious, >> uh, some of the content was drafted by
staff. Um, other content we worked with the sea turtle conservancy on. Um, they work with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and a large number of the definitions came directly out of the model lighting ordinance. the
>> I I'm pretty sure the obviously the intent is to help protect the sea turtles, which is what we want to do, >> but I pretty sure the intent was not to um you know, forbid any type of special
event, right? I mean, I would think that'd be quite sinister if that was what was in here, but I don't think it is. So, could we have them go back and draw up some scenarios or work maybe even with some of the um places that do hold
special events to actually put a map together of some sort or some type of schematic that shows like how they could have their special event because the way it's written right now I think is like you and I think you heard the concern that you won't be able to have an event.
Um, but I know that's not the intent because we're we're not trying to punish anybody, right? I I just don't I don't know how we would get there from here. I mean, obviously there's some lighting issues that can be addressed and all that, but I think I
think if we kind of owe it to folks who are who are going to have special events to tell them how to how they can do it legally, right? I I don't see anything in here where and and we heard it. It's kind of like you you basically you can't do it. This is
so restrictive you can't do it. I don't I don't think that's the intent and I mean unless it is. Brandon, please tell us. >> Um I I I'll have to go back and see if there was something potentially missed um under one of the recommendations. I I
drafted what I understood they >> intend to be, but I I will go back and and verify. It seems like the focus, however, the concern appears to be on the definition of transient lighting and the limitations on special event lighting. Is is that the is that your
main concern with >> I'm only going by what what I've read and what I've heard. >> Sure. >> And other comments here by the members that I don't know how you you get there from here. Um, >> maybe there's a way of in issuing
permits for special events having some sort of pre-event inspection to demonstrate that your event will not have lighting to disturb the turtles. >> And I I believe that's currently what occurs. So that would be a potentially a codified policy. >> The only issue with that is unless
you've given some um criteria for them to follow. >> Yeah. you know that you don't you know we don't want to put >> oh absolutely >> a burden on someone that you show up as an inspector oh doesn't meet criteria >> yeah I think there should be a written list of >> yeah there should be we we we need to give give them help right
>> light bulb recommendations >> yeah so that they can do their events so people can get married on the beach or whatever whatever they're going to do >> I mean from a legal standpoint we can definitely add language that special events shall shield the event um lighting from the beach if that's
something that would work for the board. >> Again, if I read if I hear that shielded by what do I got to do? I got to put up a big curtain now of some sort or you know, so this is what's going to happen, right? The first time, you know, someone tries
to have an event, they're going to say, "Well, I did all this stuff." Well, no, that doesn't mean that's not what we were talking about, you know? So, I think if we're going to do this, we have to at least give them here's what is acceptable. here's an example of what you can do. And and then and then I
think the managers of the properties will actually come over and go, here's my property layout. Can you help me design something so we can get this done ahead of time? Right? This this just doesn't sound like anything's doable the way it's written right now.
And I and again, I know that's not our intent. We're not trying to punish anybody. along that same line. So, currently the hotels are allowed to do it during turtle season, right? There's no prohibition. >> It was up to >> subject to the special event permit. Correct.
>> Okay. And along that same line, why would we prohibit um special events during 15 February instead of one May during turbo season? Because it's in there 44.10. >> Correct. Um, I believe that was
inclusive of the start of seabird nesting season. >> Seabirds in there, too. >> I'm not that one. >> There there was a thing that was on wildlife. Um, and I I can only tell you the skimmers don't start that early.
They're not even here till April. Um, I mean, in numbers. >> Yeah. >> So, I don't I don't know the dates. Um, it's it seems early. Um, and I think there is an attempt in here like where there's standards for lighting and it tells you what you can do in terms of
aiming them down and you know and maybe it's not friendly enough. But I I think making sure people know what to do as opposed to don't do this. I I think that is um and I think there is there's an attempt to do that in here. Um but it's
probably not as clear to make it um like a little pamphlet. Here's I know with the um the documents that have been issued by um the Florida Wildlife, they do tell you wavelengths. They tell you what to buy. They've gotten a lot more
specific about exactly how do you meet the requirements? >> How many folks, and I don't mean to put you on the spot, it's probably not you might know how many folks in code department actually do lighting inspections under a normal year, not a
post hurricane year. I believe it's typically two. >> And is it is it an active thing or more of a reactive where somebody reports it? >> It's it's active and reactive. They they do go out before season um to do an inspection. So,
>> do we have a sense for how many hotels um full special event permits between just to be fair, let's say uh one May and 31 October? Generally, is it just a couple hotels that do this? big ones. >> I don't know. I could I could get that
information. I just don't have it handy. >> Yeah. There again, you know, just flushing out more details. Um like member Lorenza says, if you don't we don't know the impact, it's not just impact to the hotels. like it's not the
that's not the point, but there's also an impact to the community, you know, if there's events these events overall bring in money. So, what is the overall impact if no special events were allowed? >> If you if you look I'm sorry, do you mean to interrupt?
>> No, no. I'm just saying if they if things become so restrictive that they can't do them, like what's what are the impacts and what kind of impact analysis has been done? Go ahead. Um, in answer to that question, I I'm not I'm not one of the turtle people, but I know they
come in and they do statistics every year about how many nests um get directed incorrectly and and they all that statistic that you're asking for is available. Um, I'm looking at page 48 of 85 and I see section 44.7,
standards for new beachfront lighting. And it does say things like exterior lights are completely shielded and down lit. Um it does try to tell you I mean I think it there could certainly be more information but there is information on how do you do it which I think is what
you're trying to get to. >> That's exactly >> and and like I said the sea the sea turtle people can tell you exactly how many nests are successful and how many are not. >> Yeah. I was more talking about the economic impact of not
having these events in our community and and all that. So >> said I don't think anyone is saying we don't want to have events. I think we're trying to figure out how to have events that are it's a win-win all the way around. >> Right. So,
what's the best way to figure out how we can have events and still meet lighting criteria to ensure we don't harm the turtles? What would be the best way to do that? >> Certainly, if there's recommendations
from this board, we will take them forward if the board is willing to move this ordinance along. If not, we can bring back examples. We have a the current spectrum is handled by by at the permit level. The state model
lighting ordinance says explicitly lighting associated with the special event that may directly, indirectly, or cumulatively be visible from any portion of the beach shall not be authorized at nighttime during sea turtle nesting season. So that's that's where we are at
with this current draft. That is the model recommendation and we are currently handling it on a permit-to- basis. If there's a middle ground that the board would like to see, I I'm I'm happy to move that forward or come back with potential options for that. But
that is why this was drafted the way that it was. It was intended to be in line with the state model lighting ordinance. >> Yeah, I I would just offer a recommendation on how to do that. I think whoever's drafting this document and who's an expert on the sea turtle
lighting piece of it um should actually sit down with the folks in our community that are affect potentially affected by it and then because sometimes these concerns just the language brings about concerns that
may not actually be valid but you don't know because this is a very emotional topic right you talk about sea turtles everyone's going to get a rally behind that. But um sometimes you got to bring the parties together just to find that common ground
versus fighting about it. And if it gets to the point where you can't come to common ground, then that's another issue. Then the city has to make a decision on which way they want to go. But I always believe there's common ground can be found if if actually people get in a room and talk about the
problems and issues, things can be resolved. So instead of trying instead of tearing this community apart with this issue like so many issues recently, maybe we can get our community uh and you know the folks in the
community and the experts together to draft the language that will work or put in the examples that they need so that we can just move on. That's my recommendation. Have the have the experts we've
consulted with given any opinion on uh what Mr. Kursman brought up during comment about can can shields be installed eastward of turtle nests to prevent this issue? >> I haven't asked that specific question. I have a meeting with the sea turtle
conservancy this week. Happy to happy to bring it up to him. >> Okay. I would like to see the language just changed so that it's instead of lighting associated, just lighting that's not sea turtle compliant.
I think that that could open it up for permitting these things with appropriate lighting during the season. So going back to what was shown in the PowerPoint with the FD compliant lighting sconces and other you know
shield shielded lighting and so on that would potentially be acceptable provided that it it you know and granted that's that's for more permanent lighting. You wouldn't typically see something like that with a special event popup but something that meets the ordinance would be allowed as as >> Yeah. >> Okay.
>> And I think if hotels are throwing numerous weddings then it'd be useful to Mhm. >> inventory >> those lights. >> Yeah. I if you're throwing enough weddings that this is consequential or you're having a special event of a
magnitude that you can't shield it, uh I don't have that much sympathy for you. I mean, we've had this ordinance in place for almost 20 years and have almost zero compliance. uh people are not seeing the greater benefit of this and
complying willingly. Uh I think it is not impossible to comply and I'd certainly be open to creative solutions, but I I think we need to define it clearly. Hotels can't guess at what may or may not be compatible with our ordinance. I'd like to see some very
specific language and ideally have maternal experts tell us how this should really work. I think it would be good to reference some of those standards like you can't say use model 123 light because um model
123 is not made next week but they that's why they tried to get into you know the wavelengths and and unfortunately going into say you need a I don't remember what it is a wavelength less than 460 or whatever it is then that doesn't mean anything to people.
Um, so you're kind of torn between trying to give them guidelines of what how to do it, but that it's not in a easy language. So maybe there's I know there are publications that FWC and others have come out with and maybe just referencing the current how you do it
publication. >> Does Florida's model ordinance delve into what what defines visible? Like are we talking from the height of a turtle or human where they're standing? Let me get that pulled up.
Because I I agree if if there's other ways to solve this problem, you know, if we've got dunes and we've got plants that make this light invisible from a turtle's perspective, >> then it seems like to me like we've solved the problem. Uh I I don't know why we want to be as specific as Florida
native plants versus Florida friendly. I mean, if if >> you want to save the dunes, >> well, >> they'll spread invasive. >> Yeah. If if that's the issue, then I can I can understand that. I just I wouldn't want someone to be forced to plant a
specific species that dies all the time in in the name of saving the turtles and it's going to be dead and not saving the turtles anyway. So, if if people find a certain plant is more compatible with protecting turtles, then I'd prefer they'd be able to do that.
As to your question, the model lighting ordinance, it defines it as any light that is visible uh by an observer standing anywhere on the beach. It doesn't define what an observer is. So, if that's a human or a turtle or otherwise,
>> yeah, I I feel like we could do a lot better than that. someone erecting a stage with the entire back of it blacked out from turtle vision shouldn't I don't feel like they should be prohibited from doing that if if it's not otherwise affecting turtles. Uh
there's there's ways around this. I I would like to be more compatible with that while also protecting the turtles. >> Any I'm not opposed to it. if not. >> Sure. >> Thank you very much. So, I think John
made a great point. Instead of us trying to hide the light from the turtles, how about we just hide the turtles from the light? So, building something around them. Literally three pieces of plywood, a 4 by8 plywood. I mean, the turtle guys are very good at what they do. They literally put the turtles, you know,
stakes around there and they mark the stakes. However, the stakes are wide open in all four corners. If we literally put a piece of plywood like this, another one here, and another one here, that literally points them towards the beach. Even if you have to put another piece on top, the light's going to be blocked. There's no re I mean, and it's a simple solution. I don't know why
no one's thought about that. >> As soon as they walk out six feet from that thing, they're no longer blocked. They have to walk down to get to the water. >> True. But I think they get lost the most as soon as they hatch. So as soon as they hatch is when they're going the wrong direction. So they hatch, they
only hatch during, you know, June, July, August, and they go the wrong way. Soon as they get up and they go the wrong way, that's the issue. So if we can point them in the right direction by blocking off the sides, it'll at least get them going in the right direction. So there has to be a way. >> Wish it was that simple. >> Yeah. I I'm not an expert, but I mean,
there has to be a way where we can block, you know, because if someone's going to have light behind them, that's what we're talking about. I mean, their light doesn't affect them in May or June because they're not hatched in May or June. They hatch usually in September. So or August, September. that just a solution I'm trying to come up with just to help you guys out as well. >> Okay.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. Yeah. Hopefully Brandon, your your meeting will bear some fruit on this. >> Um >> does anyone have further questions? >> So having your meeting with them, if we were to approve this, then you would
follow up those comments with the commissioners. >> So this will at some point move forward to the city commission. um will have two readings. So there are, you know, there's time to modify this ordinance
and then time to modify it again. Um I did want to say I we we were talking a lot about special event lighting, transient lighting. It sounded to me like there was some consideration from the board on applying the
full cut off shielded longwavelength standards to transient lighting whether that's associated with a special event or just someone out on the beach using a you know transient light is defined in the code. um but potentially
moving it on or otherwise going and engaging with the community and potentially getting input and then either coming back or moving this on to city commission with that knowledge. I just I would like to get direction from this board on on how to handle that.
>> I I can tell you I'm not good with it because of the special event prohibition and the dates are definitely out of whack, but that's a simple fix. But I I think we need to uh have some leniency, some way to work in special events if it's at least through May to October. Um
how that happens, I don't know. But I don't think we're there in that particular part. >> I I would agree that splitting this section 4410 into perhaps subsections. So it's because it is special events,
transient lighting, people on the beach. These are three distinct things that I don't think should be covered by one paragraph. Um, that being said, I I would probably be opposed to this as
written. I think it needs some changes. I I think we can find a better solution that meets the needs of the turtles and the needs of the businesses and the public. Uh, and we need expert testimony or information passed through you on on
that. I I don't think I could support it as written before I know what other solutions are available. >> So, you you need a motion that basically says we don't approve this and it's current.
That would be my personal preference, but if there are more questions or anyone else has another motion to make. >> No, I I I concur with what you what you said. >> And I don't think we really are in a position to change the verbiage right now.
>> Yeah, that's great. That's how I feel. I feel like should create a >> if I may, I if the intent of the motion is going to be to direct staff to make any changes, um I would ask for a motion and I believe staff would agree a motion to that effect, not necessarily a motion
denying um the ordinance. >> Okay. So, would that be worded as a as a delay or >> make a motion? >> A motion. >> I can do it if you'd like. >> Yeah. and then it can come back before you um for review.
>> I'll make a motion that uh item 2516 um go back to staff for rework on the issues that we've discussed. >> Do I have a second? I'll second. Roll call, please.
>> Member Perry, >> yes. >> Vice Chair Angelitus, >> yes. >> Member Lorenzan, >> yes. >> Member Izzy, >> yes. >> Chair Hubard, >> yes. >> Motion carries. Thank you. Okay. I am going to adjourn as the local planning agency and reconvene as the
planning board. So discussion item 5A. This I asked to have added to tonight's agenda. I had a I pay attention to a lot of the commission and board of adjustment meetings and
all of our various meetings and I I was watching a a particular case that came before the board of adjustment and I thought there were problems with the testimony given and I think my personal
opinion is the result is going to potentially harm several residence that was likely unintentional. Um, I asked I asked Brandon to include two images and if you're are you able to pull those up
>> if if I may just to provide a quick procedural framing and just to make sure we're legally compliant tonight. The pling board's acting in a legislative role, not a quasi judicial role. Uh, so it's appropriate to discuss in broad strokes general navigability issues um
or whether code application requirements or code itself should be clarified. Um, but it would not be appropriate for the board to revisit the merits of a specific >> No, no, not at all. >> matter um or to review evidence uh that was presented to the board of adjustments. >> Okay, I can uh I can reframe this.
>> Let's So, the only picture I would like is the one from the aerial view. If you're able to show that, >> if we could pull the PowerPoint, please. >> The next one.
Okay. So, currently in our land development code section 6.23, we have portions of this code where in section D3, the the way it's written, no residential
dock, Davids, boat lifts, or typoles shall extend from the mean high water line or seaw wall of the autenant upland property to a length greater than 1/2 the width of the zoning lot of the waterfront. This requirement may be varied administratively provided that signed statements of no objection from
both adjacent waterfront property owners have been submitted. So my concern here and I I live on this street. So what you can see here is that the in the far distance there's some pilings out there. That is the navigable waterway. This
tiny little area to the left of what looks like a sandbar is the only way for the houses on the eastern end of this street to get out of there. And my concern is that the way our land
development code is written, if a resident obtains a no objection form from the two adjacent properties, it can be approved administratively and that's that. But in this case, there there could potentially be many homes who will
now lose access to navigable water for what could be a very significant portion of days or hours they would like to be able to leave their dock. So my concern with the code as written is that the city does not take what could
potentially be other neighbors access to waterways into account when administratively approving these requests. So, I wanted to bring this up just to suggest it would be beneficial to the city to residents if the city
could begin taking those into account and if that requires a code change. I don't know. That's that's why I wanted to bring it up here. Um, what I'm looking for, David, and I I read this that somewhere in here it says something about you can't encroach, I
think it was 25% into the navigable. >> Yeah, that is 6.23c6 23C6 and it but and that's why on this particular item I wanted to see if the the city could provide me with a definition of what waterway is in the
context of our land development code because in this case the waterway that appears on navigation charts is way out there on the extreme right side of this picture and this little lucky bit of water that helps us get off our docks is
not what I would all navigable waterway. >> How does this house even >> Well, you can So, you can see there's grooves in the mud and that is what happens when you come back a little late. >> Yeah, that's digging up the seagrass.
>> So, as to your question, we do not have our own specific definition. Um, a lot of the navigability issues are handled through water navigation with the county. Um there have been a few and I I don't I'm not talking about any
particular permit but there there have been a few issues where for example properties around the mangrove island in the bayou where navigation was a consideration um especially for those properties that had a limited um distance in which they could extend
before they could have a dock head um or a boat lift because of the uh seagrasses or or mangrove near their own property. But in situations like this, that is something that would typically be looked at from water navigation. And I'm pulling up their own definition because
I believe they have one that's fairly close to the federal definition. Navigable water means and includes all tidal waters such waters as are in fact navigable and swamp and overland sorry
overflow lands. >> Okay. So it's effectively anything that I mean if swamp is included then this area >> regardless of whether it's a marked channel is navigable water. >> Okay. >> Then
I guess my my request would be for the city to give consideration to possibly amending this code. So it it takes into account any other residents who may
be impacted by a restriction of that navigable water. And and the reason this comes up is if one of my neighbors to the west were granted this type of approval, I would lose half the days I can get my boat out
of there. And I know there are several areas of the city like McFersonson by Bayou and the area around Donsesar that could have similar navigation issues. So, >> uh I just wanted to make sure everyone's rights to get access to the water are
protected. I did talk with the city attorney's office about this briefly before this meeting um with with Senate Bill 180. We're going to have to talk that through, but we we did discuss potentially adding in a requirement for any kind of variance that we do get a
Noah uh depth chart that is information that's widely available and that that could be something that helps to inform the the board's decision in the sense that it would not be directly contrary to development. So, okay, limitations.
>> And the other item I had was related to 6.23. 23C2 which is the height of a docking facility. Um member member Perry has mentioned at prior meetings the the desire to raise both seaw wall and and
lot elevation. And this particular portion of our land development code prohibits you from going 12 in above on dock height from your seaw wall or natural grade. And I wanted to make sure people weren't prohibited from raising their dock if that was the first step.
you know, if it's not time to replace your seaw wall, but it is time to replace your dock, I wouldn't want someone to install a dock that's of a lower height than they would otherwise like to be at. And Helen and Milton showed us why. We have a lot of wrecked docks right now that had they been
higher likely wouldn't have been destroyed. And those those docks are now sitting half broken underwater and are hazards to everyone. So, I just thought that could get potentially revisited to allow a height up to where we we think we might want to go.
I agree with that and I I reviewed all this since it was in the packet and this really um predates like the goals that we've stated about a 5-ft seaw wall and I mean there's actually several things
in here that um I saw as issues. Um I I can put one of them up there. You >> okay with that? >> Yeah. Yeah, definitely. There's there's several things in this ordinance that I think could be clarified.
How do I do this? Jenny, just put it on here. >> We need the overhead, please. So, one of the things that um I noticed in there was they were talking about having to have the dock go out
perpendicular to the seaw wall. And in a lot of cases, that doesn't make sense. And we've had this problem when we've had lots that weren't square for like setbacks or culde-sacs. And it seems like we don't do thinking about what if what if it's not shaped right. Um, and
just to give you an example, this ours was done by the county. Um, but you can see, and I'm on the same, uh, you can see that, um, our dock was put in parallel to the property line and not perpendicular to the wall.
And you know, the reason for that and and you have to go out a certain depth to get to the water. So, some of the docks are longer, but the reason to do that is so that you don't end up in somebody else's um property front
>> property line. >> So, there's several things in the as I was going through this ordinance, not knowing what your purpose was, I noticed there was several opportunities that um it needs to be updated.
>> Sorry. >> Oh. updates right now obviously are are challenging given that we need to balance with SB180. Um, one thing we could do and I don't know if you had an opinion on this is uh could have an option to make them higher. Uh, so
that's still less restrictive um while allowing them to be higher. I don't know what your thoughts on that are. >> I agree with that. I looked into it a bit and it looks like that is only a local standard. I don't believe the county has any limitation on dock height. So that is something that we enforce. I I understand that the basis
for what you're asking for and we haven't run into that situation to my knowledge yet, but there's with all the docks that need to be replaced and and future development, I I could see it being an issue down the line, um it does make sense to not require somebody to put a dock at four feet when they're going to be raising the seaw wall to
five or five and a half in the next year. So, that's certainly something we can look into. >> Okay. Yeah, that was uh that was the extent. I I just wanted to bring it up and for whenever it fits into the the review schedule. And um if in if you look at number four,
item D, number four, where it says perpendicular um I think if you I don't know if you can do anything to to loosen that up a little bit because when when we did ours in 2014 or whatever that was, it was actually the county that came out and did the parallel to the lot line. So,
>> I don't know if something's changed or if this was just, but I do think people are going to be replacing their docks and it would be good to try to give them current guidelines. >> So, it's a concern with the actual measurement itself being perpendicular
to the seaw wall. It will be looked at as following the lot, >> right? The plot line. >> Yeah. because you'll end up encroaching on the setbacks to your neighbors and so she's she's exactly right that needs to
be looked at. >> Okay. Anything else? >> All right. Thank you everyone. Meeting adjourned. Good. >> Thank you.