I'd like to call the meeting to order. Today is April 20th and we are at City Hall for spring. Cheer me on. Oh, it is now.
Thank you. Okay, I will start it again. I'd like to call the. Okay. 630 planning and zoning. I'd like to call the meeting to
order. Roll call please. Chairperson. Present. Vice chair Vessey here, Mr. Rocklin. Miss Earley, miss Swenson here,
and Mr. Collins here. Miss Julie Wade is going to be absent. Okay. At this point, I'd like to. All rise. Anybody in the audience, please silence your cell phones before I
forget. For the Pledge of Allegiance. Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. And to the
Republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Please remain standing. At this point, Mr. Vessey, as he does every
meeting, gives us a moment of reflection, and I'd appreciate
if you would do that again. It's such a special time right now, and I personally feel that
we should focus on the words of the Pope of Peace, and that we can take strength from the
local Orthodox Church that joins the Pope in peace, and that our work here today, just being decent to each other, can
help bring about a little bit more peace in the world. Amen. Thank you. Okay. First I I'd
like to go ahead and introduce Maria, who is our attorney on the board. I've known Maria for longer than I want to admit,
but Maria, I want to thank you. And I you know, you're very talented attorney, and I appreciate whatever insight that you can give us as we. If
we should go astray. Okay. Thank you. Okay. All right. Okay. That being said, I'm going to let you go ahead and explain the quasi judicial
announcement and swearing in of speakers. Sure. This is a quasi judicial proceeding where the Planning and Zoning Board acts in a quasi judicial rather than
legislative capacity at a quasi judicial hearing. It is not the board's function to make law, but rather to apply law that has already been established in a quasi judicial hearing. The
board is required by law to make findings of fact based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, and apply those facts, those findings of fact to previously established criteria contained in the Code
of ordinances. In order to make a legal decision regarding the application before it, the board may only consider at this hearing what the law considers competent and substantial to
the issues. If the competent, substantial and relevant evidence at the hearing demonstrates that the applicant has met the criteria established in the Code of Ordinance, then the board is required by law to find in
favor of the applicant. By the same token, if the competent and substantial and law and evidence at the hearing demonstrates that the applicant
has failed to meet the criteria established in the Code of Ordinances, then the board is required by law to find against the applicant and anyone speaking or providing testimony.
Will they please stand to be sworn in? Do you swear to affirm that the testimony you are about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth? Thank you, thank you. Okay. Moving on. Our first item is resolution 2026 dash 20. It's a conditional use and site
plan approval for a four unit multifamily development. And I believe the applicant is here as well. But before you get a chance to speak, we're going to
let the the city make a presentation. Thank you. Okay. Ali Keene, principal planner again, this is resolution 2026 dash 20. It's a conditional use
and site plan approval request for the property on the south side of East Lemon Street, approximately 230ft east of US 19. The site is comprised of two lots, lot seven and eight.
It's just under a third of an acre in size. The current land uses retail and services. Zoning is highway business and the applicants are proposing to develop the property as a
multifamily apartment building. They will have four units. The building itself is approximately 6400ft■!S and two stories. It will have on site parking and stormwater retention, and each unit is
approximately 1300 and 50ft■!S n size. Again, the site is on the south side of East Lemon Street, outlined in yellow on the screen. The block immediately adjacent to US 19 is all within
the Highway Business Zoning district, but there is a residential zoning to the east of the site, which is R 70, a net single family residential.
Zooming in a little bit to the property within that block between US 19 and japonica is really a mix of uses. This site is the only undeveloped property within the block, but
there are existing commercial uses along US 19. There's a preschool and childcare facility to the north of the site. There's professional offices to the south, and then there's an existing multifamily
apartment complex immediately adjacent to the east. Here's a look at the proposed site plan. The building is situated on the rear of the property here, about 60ft from the front
property line. They're proposing the stormwater retention to the rear of the building and then parking in the front. The applicant did go before the Board of Adjustments back in December of 2025 to
request a setback variance to reduce the side setbacks to four feet, whereas 20ft would typically be required. The variance was really in response to the relatively small size of
the property in the zoning district. That's something that supports more intense land uses that typically are on larger properties to accommodate all of the improvements. Here's a
look at the landscaping plan. It was found to be in compliance with the Land Development code. They are providing the required landscape buffers along the east. I'm sorry, on both sides and then the rear of the
property and then parking lot frontage, landscaping along the front. Here a look at the proposed floor plans. Again, there's four units in the complex. There are two stories,
each about 1300 and 50ft■!S in size. Here are your elevations of the building. When looking at the review criteria for
conditional use, the project is found to be in conformance with the Land Development Code. It is also found to be compatible with the surrounding area. The proposed project does provide an appropriate transition
between US 19 and the low intensity residential to the east within that immediate area. Again, there's really a mix of uses that are nonresidential and residential, and it does include an existing multifamily
development that's similar to what is being proposed by the applicant immediately to the east. The project is complementary to the surrounding development pattern, and it is also complementary to the existing and planned uses
in the area. Project is also found to be in compliance with the comprehensive plan. The Retail and Services Future Land Use category does support a mix of commercial and personal service needs, but it also allows for appropriate
residential uses. The plan also has policies that support infill development and a variety of housing types. The site is not located in the historic district. It's also
not on an environmentally sensitive property. With respect to adjoining property values, there are a mix of uses in the surrounding area, including the multifamily
development offices, restaurant and a childcare center. The proposed project is serving that transition between US 19 commercial corridor and the residential neighborhood to the east, and it's not expected to
adversely impact the surrounding property values. The property is or the project is able to be served by existing city facilities. It does represent efficient and orderly development. The site
is again the only undeveloped property within the block, and infill development is really desirable because it makes use of underutilized lands and is able to be served by existing facilities, so the city does
not incur any additional costs. And then lastly, it does. We're not expected to have any effect to the public health, safety and welfare. These are the four criteria for site plan. Again,
the project was found to be in compliance with each of these land development code, as well as the comprehensive plan. The project is able to be served by existing facilities and not create an adverse impact on our
levels of service, and it is expected to be able to meet all building codes, fire codes and technical codes. Project was also reviewed by the Technical Review Committee before coming
forward. With that, staff does recommend approval of resolution 2026 Dash 20 for conditional use and site plan. We have to have five conditions here, but these are your
typical conditions that we place on all site plans about the public art program when the site plan expires, final details provided a building permit and just being consistent with what's being
presented today. With that, I'll take any questions. Okay. Typically I start on this end, but this time I'm going to start on this end. Any
questions for staff? I really don't have any. The only question I have. Is, oh, my question was I read through it. Sorry, I was just reading
through the reports. And this particular one is the geotechnical engineering. And that's probably because I'm an engineer. My background. But they said that sampling and
testing of the soil rock actually shows presence of environmental contamination beyond the scope of this. And they also said it's underlain by limestone bedrock that's
susceptible to dissolution, but that they don't include any future or any development or investigation. If there's going to be sinkholes, I can defer to
the applicant to elaborate on that once. Once. Yeah. We'll wait for the applicant's presentation and maybe you can address that question. We're going to what our process is as we go through staff questions
first, and then as the applicant, you can address any questions that we have. Otherwise, I'm fine because I came to us once before. Thank you. No questions. Thank you
for the presentation, Ali. We keep going. We'll start on your on your. Good evening. My question is, when they went to the Board of Adjustments, got the four foot setback that's
approved can't be changed. That's moving forward at four feet. Correct. They got the variance to allow the four feet. They can't be any closer to the property line. If plans were to change slightly and they had a
slightly larger side setback, that would be okay. But four foot was approved by the board. Okay. And yeah, that's all I had. Thank you. The only
question I had was about the. The landscaping in terms of and, and forgive me, I, I've looked at the maps trying to tell are those oak trees that are right at the front of the lot. There
are a few existing trees. I'd have to, I'd have to look at the plan to see exactly what trees. They're preserving several trees on the property and removing the ones that were deemed to be necessary to be
removed. But yes, preserving what they can. Correct. Correct. Yeah. So the frontage landscaping is really a combination between existing trees. And they're also planting a few additional to meet the landscaping
requirements. Okay, looks like bushes, but okay. Yeah, there's bushes and trees, but I get concerned when I see a lot of concrete covering land, even
though it's a small piece of land, there's a lot of concrete covering it. You know, there's non forest and non-forest nature of this build and it
indicates and forgive me again, but that stormwater in all of that have been addressed correct. Yeah. It's compliant with the stormwater requirements. There are a few final details that are typically worked out the
building permit stage, but otherwise it's it's it's able to meet our code requirements. My big concern was the tree canopy, the trees always. And then the concrete. But thank
you. You're welcome. The answers. Thanks. Mr. Vessey. Yes. So I've got a couple
questions that actually are the same question on that is. The my questions aren't actually going to be able to impact this
because like is it has to do with the variance that has already been issued and approved in December. But if I can be so bold, if you could put your way back that on, of
course, that's what we call it. Right. Did anybody hear me say way back yet? Yes. Okay. Super. I know what that's from. Okay,
super. So so if if you would indulge me was were you by chance present at that variance? Yes, I was super. Okay, so it strikes me as odd and I just
need some help because we don't have any impact on that. It has been issued because moving from 20ft to 4ft, that's a pretty big swing of the needle. Okay?
A giant swing of the needle. And of course, as you've said, hey, it's a small parcel, a small parcel, great giant swing of the needle. In fact, it
moves it to a at four feet. It might as well have been zero at that point. And and it strikes me as odd. And and if you can
help me understand how you all presented and the Board of variance approved not just the request, because let's. This is
a neat project and I'm certain that everyone is for having some more multifamily. Here is. So now we've lost the easement
typically on a on a lot. There's a utility easement to the left and to the right. That's why we have easements. And so we've we've eliminated this arguably eliminated the
side setback. But then it leads to a bigger question for me is why do we have a rule that says 20ft when with a reasonably
casual request, it's reduced to four feet. So if I can, if you can help me understand how easy it was to go from 20 to for
sure. So the 20 foot setback is again, this property is in the highway business zoning district. So they have typically more restrictive requirements. So that's why you're seeing maybe a larger
setback than you typically would see in some other developments. I think a lot of other properties in the city are about ten feet or so for the board's consideration, just like you guys have. They have a
set of five criteria that they review. They have to determine that all of the criteria are met in order to approve a request. Staff reviews those as well and provides our recommendation to them, and
staff found it to be compliant with all those criteria. And really, what they're focused on is the physical constraints of a property, like what's preventing a project from meeting the requirements of the
code. So in this instance, we felt that, again, the property is relatively small for highway business. The project meets the density allowances and meets
the requirements for parking, stormwater, all of the above as well as landscaping. So we found that to be one of the constraints was the actual size
of the property. If they wanted to. One consideration they did have was flipping the building to be perpendicular to Lemon Street, to maybe try and get a larger setback. But what that
results in is impacts to potential parking access. It reduces the amount of green space on the property. So you can get access into the parking lot. So this is a more ideal
orientation. The other item that we look at is kind of, you know, compatibility with surrounding area. Looking at this development, it's, you know, they have professional offices right up against the
rear property line. There's an existing multifamily development to the east. There was a there's a privacy fence between the two properties providing some barrier separation. And then also
between the Queens Pizza property. The rear parking lot provides some additional separation for the development that's being proposed. Lastly, the Board of Adjustment had a lot of concerns potentially
about fire access if that was going to be impacted. This was reviewed by our fire marshal, and it does meet all the required codes for access in that respect. So that is a very
lengthy explanation. I love that explanation. Okay. You hit almost all the things I was thinking about and since you were there, and I appreciate your time, was there perhaps
discussion. And I want to add one more piece that caught my attention, which is this is in fact a conditional use. So we
have a conditional use. And the variance was granted prior to approval of the. Because that's what we're here today for, is the conditional use. And again, this has nothing, nothing,
nothing withstanding about the merits of the project itself. But so we've got a conditional use to approve an apartment complex. But there was already in advance a variance, a pretty
aggressive variance that was granted. That's fine. Was there discussion then about the proximity of the people whom
are going to live there, to the pizza, to the place? I'm trying to see a site map that might show that because now at four feet, there's it's almost a zero lot line. So these, these
folks that are going to live in that end unit are overlooking the Pizza Hut. Excuse me, it's Queens pizza. No disrespect meant to Queens Pizza. I know
that there's a parking lot. So was there any discussion then? And this is just to look back just for me of how how that very aggressive was done. Sure.
So the variance is a necessary step to happen first. So for conditional use application that also has a site plan associated with it, those have to be reviewed and processed concurrently. The code
currently has that as a requirement. So in order for them to develop their site plan they needed to get the variance. So that's why the variance is first and then followed by what you're seeing tonight. One
thing that is presented to the board is that there is a conditional use for this particular property, and it would have to come before you for review. So even if they approve the variance, it still
has to come before the board for your consideration. So say you don't think that it's compatible with conditional use requirements in theory. Then the variance would die with it.
As far as the surrounding uses, we did take a look at those distances. I'm about to go off the top of my head. I want to say from the Queens Pizza building itself, I want to say
it was about I want to say 70ft, but I might be incorrect with that. But it's about 70ft of separation. We felt that the actual building and the commotion was taking place further from the proposed
project. The rear parking lot helped to provide some of that buffer between the two developments. And then again, the apartments to the east is
very, very similar development to what is being proposed. It's a, you know, small multifamily complex on a small property itself. And there is existing
privacy fencing. There's going to be landscaping along the side to provide some additional buffering. So all of that was kind of presented to the board for their consideration. Thank
you for that very nice answer. I appreciate your patience with me. Okay. I just the, the, the
multifamily apartments, those site setbacks don't seem to be that wide either. So I, when I look at it, I look at the consistency of that as well.
But you would, you know what those site setbacks are? I, I know that the, this building here is larger than four feet. I don't know if it meets the full 20ft. I'd have to go back
and look the staff reports. I can tell you that I'm very familiar with the property. Okay. I think that's that's it. At this point in time, unless there's any other follow up questions from from the board,
I would like the applicant. If you have introduce yourself, name, address, are you if you're the agent for the developer or are you the owner? And, and that way this board
can ask you any, you know, questions with regard to anything that was brought up. My name is Jordan Jones. I'm the building contractor for this project live in New Port
Richey, 6541 River road. Ali did a great job of covering most of the project for for us. So any questions you might have
feel feel free to ask. I know your question. Was that a phase one that that she was referring to, that the environmental or the technical geotechnical? Was
that a phase one question? That's all we've got from them at the moment, but I can definitely contact them to find out and get more kind of an explanation on that report. Your biggest concern was the
sinkholes and potential erosion. Correct. Actually, states here the site is underlain by limestone bedrock that is susceptible disillusion in the subsequent development of cars, features such as voids and
sinkholes in the natural. But then it says. I don't believe it's beyond the scope of of exploration. And I don't think that it doesn't appear like
they're acknowledging it, but I'm not sure what, what's done or if this is typical in our. I got you. Yeah. In our in our area. I'll find out. I it's the engineer's report so I don't
want to guess for him. So yeah, but I'll definitely get that information for you and get back to you on that. Anybody else have any questions? I see
shaking hands. No. The current lot. What is the elevation and are we going to bring in. It's going to stay at that elevation during construction. Yes. Okay.
I'm not sure the exact off the top of my head, but we'll definitely work with the city to keep it within any. Just curious. Thank you. Okay. I do
have a quick question. Yes, it looks like the lot right next to it that has the two multiple units. It looks like from at
least from the air, it looks like it's that lots pretty much covered in concrete. It's mostly crushed shell. I believe they've got a concrete path, but it's a lot of shell that's
around it. Yes. Okay. Are you you're doing probably a bit of mulch and grass, but it will I
don't know exactly. It may change to shell if there's any requirements or depending on permeability, but our biggest concern is just making sure we have all of the city
requirements for permeability and such. Thank you. Yeah. No problem. Anybody else. I guess at this point I'd like somebody
to entertain a motion. I would make that motion, Mr. Chairman, to we still need to. I'm sorry. We still just need to open it for public. Right. Sorry. It's
been a while. Any public comment? Anybody have any correspondence that we've received? No, we didn't receive anything. Any emails? Nothing.
Okay. All right. Okay. Now, that being said, Mr. Rockland, well, Mr. Chairman, I would I would make a motion to approve resolution number 2026 dash 20,
which contains applications 26, oh seven and 2608 with the five conditions that were mentioned by the Planning Department staff to be attached to that.
Is there a second? Second, okay, roll call please. Mr. Collins. Yes, miss Swenson. Yes, miss
early. Yes. Mr. Rockland. Yes. Vice Chair Vessey. Yes. Chairperson. Curtis. Yes. Thank you. Thank you guys. Appreciate
it. Okay. Going on to the to the next item on the agenda. I had checked with council also checked with staff. Some of
these are legislative issues. Clean up some of the stuff that we have. And I'd like to take application 2026 I through I, I,
I basically consent agenda. Let me explain what that is, is that you can request that they be pulled if you want further
discussion on that particular item, but by doing it in a consent manner, that we would
make a motion and approve those items, an item B in their totality as accepted, rather than have to go through all the
items individually. If somebody has a specific request to pull an item from the consent agenda, they have the right to set that
aside and have a further discussion. Unless anybody needs a further explanation as to what I'm requesting, now's the time to talk about it. If
not, then I would like to hear a motion as to application 2026 the Stormwater Code revisions. Mr. chairman, if we have a
question on one, instead of pulling it to the side, if we could just get clarification or is that not what you're thinking? Typically, typically you pull it. If you've got a concern, you pull it from the
agenda and have a specific discussion about that item. But that's I mean, that's your prerogative. And, you know, so
if there's something in item B that you would like to, to have a further discussion on, we can more than happily an item on
section B on B, whether it's I, I, I or I, I, I. If not, then, then I'd like somebody to
entertain a motion. So may I ask, is this 2020 60809 ten. No, it's five six and 19 five six
and 19. Okay. Got it. Thank you. Oh, I see that. Well, I would make a motion, Mr. Chairman, to attach all to a consent agenda
and to make a motion to approve as written. Is there a second to adopt those particular items? I second it, okay. Okay. There's a motion and a second.
Any discussion? If not, roll call please, Mr. Collins. Yes, miss Swenson? Yes, miss early. Yes. Mr. Rochlin. Yes. Vice
chair Vessey. Yes. Chairperson. Curtis. Yes. Okay. Moving on. Application 26 dash 24, Land Development Code. These
basically are the same things. There's cleanup of things that we have actually gone through before, and that's items. 0809
and ten. I'd like to also entertain a motion with regard
to that. 0809 Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to adopt ordinance. 26 0809 and ten and
ten okay. Is there a second second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? Okay, roll call please, Mr. Collins. Yes, miss
Swenson. Yes, miss early. Yes. Mr. Rochlin. Yes. Vice chair Vessey. Yes. Chairperson. Curtis. Yes. Thank you. Moving
on. This one, with regard to the mobile food dispensing vehicles, this one I probably want a little bit more of an explanation on. So I'm going to
turn this over to to staff. Okay. Thank you. Pat McNeice Planning Supervisor So as you know, the city regulates mobile
food dispensing vehicles, also called food trucks on a permanent and temporary basis for for the use of those, the Board of Commissioners wanted
to provide some flexibility, more flexibility on the temporary use of food trucks to allow them to stay on site
overnight. So the changes that we're looking at here are mainly to let those food trucks stay on site for up to four nights, for four nights each
week, which they would pick and specify in the local business tax receipt that is already required to be pulled. So they would do that. This would be
reviewed by the Technical Review Committee. And again, they would pull up business tax receipt to be able to
memorialize that. Okay. So let me ask you a question. Is that fixed? Because let's say somebody was having a festival and they wanted they needed the food trucks there for more than
one night or different day, or like, let's say we're having a festival, a two day festival or something like that. Yeah. Well, if it's a temporary event, it's
coming in usually for a temporary use permit. Anyway, this is just for a business that wants to host a food,
temporary food truck on their site. Right now, the food truck has to come and go every day. This ordinance would allow the, the, the food truck to stay to,
to be stored there and park there overnight for up to four nights each week. So okay. All right. Yeah, we'll, we'll start
because I have some concerns. Go ahead. My, my question is, is if a food truck can stay up to four nights, can that shop actually have a food truck every night? So another
business could come in for those other three days, Wednesday through Sunday. Yes. Okay. So it's possible that they'll have I mean, okay, so I'm not sure I want to make
sure I understood your, your question. So a food truck can, can stay, whether it's the same one or a different one for four nights each week, you cannot
have a food truck, whether it's the same or different for, for seven nights. But I don't think this really clearly states that it states a food truck can stay
up to four nights, but it does not say that that specific location can have, you know, only can have a food truck for
four days. Well, the location is the business. The business is the one pulling the business tax receipt. It's not the food truck owner, it is the business. So they are the one committing
to it. So they cannot have a food truck more than four nights at the business. Right. They can't have it stay over more than four nights if they
want it. There are seven days a week it will have to pull up and leave for the other three nights. What I'm saying, I'm
questioning to. Do. We know if these trucks are. Oh. I'm sorry. That's okay. Thank you. Pat and I understand completely. My
only question is with the business tax receipt that's required for the proprietary business owner, do they also have to produce some sort of
insurance certificate that says that this vehicle may be there for a minute or up to four days at all to any department here.
I like your necklace, whether it be a policy or a writer or something that specifies this additional structure, albeit
temporary. Okay, so I think I heard two issues. For one thing, the operating hours would have to be the operating hours of the business. So whether they
stay there or not, they can't be open outside the business. We there are no insurance requirements in our code. I
would hope an owner would have insurance that covers that covers something that might happen with the food truck, but we do not currently have a
requirement to for them to provide that. Okay. Thank you. Just for the record, obviously, you all know I am a local
attorney and I represent a lot of businesses. And I got several calls from several restaurants with regard
initially for the initial food truck when we were going through the the food truck ordinances. And then I got calls with regard to this, you
know, my concern is this. It'll be up to this board whether or not, you know, they they see merit in my argument. Is this
is a, a business opportunity to have a kitchen without having a bricks and mortar kitchen, without meeting those requirements. And to some degree, is it fundamentally
fair for restaurants who have brick and mortar, who, you know, have a lot more requirements overhead, etcetera, to, to, to
have a restaurant where a business can just go out and bring a food truck on their premises and not worry about, you know, turning it basically
turning a, the winery into a restaurant. And that's, you know, when you started that business, you knew what you were getting yourself into. Either you were in the restaurant business or you were
in the food and wine business. But this is just and I understand looking at your business as an ancillary approach to increasing your business model, but, you know,
is it fundamentally fair for those who actually are in the restaurant business to be competing with somebody who just drives in a food truck and
takes the money and leaves town, whether it's there, because, you know, it's not four days a month, it's four days a week. And basically, well, I'm there Thursday through Sunday or
Wednesday, you know? And, and so I think this is a sideways opportunity to try to create a restaurant on wheels for
businesses who, who basically. You know, in any event, I said my piece. Do you have a
question or. I'll wait till to wait till the discussion after the motion. Did I hear correctly that there are no
insurance requirements? Well, the city doesn't require them to provide us with their insurance policy. No, that this
is all conducted completely on private property. So there's no liability issue with the city. There is with, say, a sidewalk cafe. Then they name the city
as an additional insured in this case. No, we don't we don't request it. My other concern was if they leave, they run the truck all day. It's
time to close it down and go home to bed. If they have refrigeration or whatever, they're still that that truck is still going to run. The compressor is still going to
run to cool down. Compressor has its own generator. I mean, it has a yes or has its own generator. And generator is usually powered by we don't
have a generator in this case or your temporary food truck section already requires that they connect to permanent power on the building. Those big
tanks. No, I killed the generators. In other words, the the primary business power plugged in. Oh, and I'll tell you why. My concern. I was
exposed to a food truck recently in Tarpon, and it was so loud, it it ruined my entire day where I wanted to be. It. It was horrible, horrible. So
if that was a temporary food truck operating in a business, it was a Howard Park. I'm sorry, Howard Park, Fred Howard Park,
that's that's a county park. And they contract with vendors. But but just to answer your original question, the temporary food trucks must plug
into power provided by the primary business. There are no generators allowed. So we're not going to hear all that. We went through that. Okay. Thank you, thank you. May I say
something? I think after go ahead. Do they know where to start? Miss Mcneish, thank you for the presentation. You're
welcome. Can you hear me? Yes. What is the current ordinance? Refresh my memory. How long and what's the basics of the current ordinance for food
trucks? How long ago did it again? Only spend one night right now or no nights. If. If you remember, there was a. I
don't want to say this was two years ago, maybe that the state passed legislation saying you have to allow food trucks. You can regulate, but you have to
allow them somewhere. So we decided if we had not passed anything, they could they could pull up on the street and operate. Right. So so we had to pass something or that the
board felt that that we had to put some regulations in place, that that's how the whole thing started. And with time going by so fast, I want to say it was two years ago, but maybe it was
three. I'd have to look. But that's that's why I didn't ask my question clear enough for me currently. How many nights can a food truck stay overnight?
They can't stay overnight. Okay. Temporary food truck. Super. So right now, as it is, they can show up, close up shop, they go home and they can't remain on
site overnight. That's correct. Super. And so that we came to that over a lot of hand wringing, as you said two years ago. I remember that distinctly
now. Okay, so we've gone from 0 to 4. That's the recommendation that staff is making now. That was the direction of the Board of Commissioners to come up
with an ordinance that would allow so. So I do read clearly that there was some guidance provided. So did the Board of
Commissioners say that number and say they wanted four nights. Yes. They they originally were talking about maybe, maybe the weekend days. Mr. Just
mentioned. And then it kind of morphed into four nights of the applicants choosing, okay, okay. So and I just got a couple more
questions. So I wasn't present at that board meeting. I, I honestly, I don't go. So the, the Board of commissioners listened to some folks or their
own input and the board of commissioners decided that they want to amend our current ordinance of no nights. And
they directed staff, the Board of commissioners directed staff at that meeting for you all to write a new ordinance that said food trucks shall have the
right to remain four nights. Well, yeah. So this was workshopped before the board, I believe, in January, and there was just a general discussion.
They didn't make any decisions, obviously, but they asked staff to bring something back that would allow up to four nights
for Food truck to remain. That was kind of the basics of the direction and to provide some parameters around that. So we have the temporary use the T r,
c those things to kind of make sure it could be enforced. Okay. So and you have to bear with me because I'm a little bit slow sometimes. So what I'm hearing is, is that the board of
Commissioners directed staff to write an ordinance that we're supposed to review and provide, because we're just a recommending board, right? We're just provide guidance.
And and so here we've got the circular loop where the board has told you what to write. You're supposed to bring it to us. We. Weigh in and say yay or nay, but the board is kind of already said this is how they
want it. AM I understanding that? Right? They gave us direction, but I do. I would not read into that. Forgive me,
I just I'm just let's just talk candidly here. I would not read into that, that you're going to get A50 vote on board for for this ordinance. Okay. You know,
if one commissioner brings something forward, for example, and gets that, you know, they get that discussion item on the agenda. Sure. So they agreed to,
yeah, let staff write something up for us to look at, but I wouldn't jump to that next conclusion for sure. I think they will listen to your input, your recommendations and
anything you want to suggest because we're an advisory board. Okay. Fair enough. So since I wasn't at the workshop and I wasn't at any meetings prior to
that, and when, let's just pretend that there was an applicant here. Usually we can ask them questions and say, hey, you know what? Why? So just for
me, what was the driving force? I'm very curious as to what the data is. Is there a group of food truck owners? And you may know this, you may not. So you
can just walk right out of it. Is there a group of food truck owners that have felt that they they really need to be there overnight? Or is there a group
of restaurateurs that should be here bringing their case? But or is it just because one board of commissioner just thinks food trucks are a great idea and wants them to have them
going all the time? I kind of need to know why this is being brought forth. The impetus of this I was there. No, you may not, I'm afraid. And bless your heart. And without being
impatient, I'm talking to staff and we can talk about that later. So I'm asking staff for the record as to why the background other than and I'll
just read it out loud and so that there's no secret here. I love food trucks like everybody else, but but I want to go back
and please, again, be patient with me. Is that I want to read it exactly how it's led. At the regular meeting of February 10th 26, the Board of
Commissioners provided direction to staff to draft revisions to the standards for temporary use of mobile food dispensing vehicles, a k a in
quotation food trucks. I don't think that that's how that's supposed to be written. The primary objective of the proposed revisions is to expand the ability for temporary food
trucks to remain on service site over night for a limited period. Okay. Fair enough. Q four out of seven seems like a
lot. And then I want to go forward a little bit. And this is something that concerns me. And I'll just ask a question and you can walk out of it or say you don't know. But I am very concerned about how this
ordinance is written and this particular. Section. Bear with me, please. I was just going to
say, Mr. Bessey, while we're waiting. Yes, perhaps. Mr. Curtis, you said you received a bunch of calls, but you didn't elaborate or say who called or
what. The topic was two trucks. I mean, we need to make a record. My client's names. And I checked with the attorney. That's that's. And if I may, I'm asking questions of staff.
That's a discussion item. You're right. I'm sorry not to get in the way. There is a verbiage within the ordinance
that says. Attorney client, dang it. More or less says, hey, if this is a concept and we want this to rule, there it is.
Section seven, please of the ordinance, go down to the second page. Section seven. I want to read this a couple of
times for it to like sink in. It's like a get out of jail free card on the end of any paragraph. This ordinance is to
be liberally construed to accomplish its objectives. I want to read this again. Again, fan of food trucks. Just
curious about why this is being done this way. This ordinance is to be liberally construed to accomplish its objective. I am
not an attorney at law, but here's what I know about ordinances. They are never to be liberally construed. Period.
That's not the purpose of an ordinance. That's an idea. An ordinance is exquisitely specific so that it is not subject to interpretation. I'm
very concerned about section seven. I have to admit, it appears that I'm concerned overall about who's driving and why. I'm also concerned about
the circular positioning of how the Board of Commissioners has directed staff to provide us something that they want us to rubber stamp as advisors to
move forward, whether the idea is good or not, that I could be wrong and our council could weigh in if I were to ask her directly, is that how it's
supposed to work? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I would also like, at the appropriate time for our new council to weigh in on whether or not she feels
that section seven underlined this ordinance is to be liberally construed to accomplish. Its objective is normal and customary language,
and if it is terrific, it just strikes me as odd. I didn't ask Pat a question or miss McNeese on on that, but if you wanted to comment on my words, great.
If you didn't, you could. I do have one. I would defer that question that liberal construction to to, to staff attorney, which I think would be the appropriate person to answer it. And just so you know,
I don't release clients names without their permission. Let's speak with the staff attorney. Okay. I just want our record clear. We have to be careful of conflicts. And it's happened
with Mr. He's a popular attorney in our town. People call him. And I think we need to know the nature of the conversation. And if it was the
applicant, we need to know that. I think what applicant I'm sorry, the contractor. There is no contractor. No. I'm talking
I'm not talking this right now. The food trucks. I'm sorry. Okay, okay. All right. Okay. So and miss Pat, before anybody else goes, I kind of rambled on
there for a second. Please forgive me. And if I asked a question, please answer, and then I'll be done and we can move on. Just one point of
information that that is as far as the liberally construed is pretty standard language. I will say that in the rules of interpretation of the code in
article one, it says that, you know, if you've got the public health, safety, welfare language and it says the code shall be liberally construed in favor of the city, that may
give you a little more context of, of where that language comes from, and your attorney can help you further. Thank you very much. Yeah. I don't see
any issue with the language. I think this is more like staff said, it's providing parameters that you guys want to see. So if it's if you're hung up on
the four days, you can revise it how you want it to be less or more. They've just they've been given direction. The board wants to see something and it
can be whatever you guys decide. I do have some comments, but I want for your answer. Thank you. Mr. Okay. I'll let you explain the circumstances. Why this. I wasn't at the meeting, I don't
believe, but I listened to all the meetings and it started with one of the commissioners. And he had had a conversation with one of the food truck vendors that specifically
located at Tarpon Avenue and Pinellas. Okay. That particular food vendor was utilizing a space behind the gas station,
and he would park his vehicle in there every night. And it became apparent that he wasn't he didn't have a license or approval or ability to do that.
It also became apparent that the when he was told he had to leave, he would leave every night. But it also became apparent that he was paying a good amount of rent to that gas
station owner. So the whole discussion became. Obviously, it says they have to have, you know, some kind of permit at the parcel of land. So it
became. Maybe we should allow this more because these people are having to move it, move it. But I also think it had to do with the specific location and the specific person. So it
wasn't out considering others, it really kind of focused on this one, but then said, well, maybe others would need the same thing, but this particular one was staying there and was
paying the guy rent. And there was some discussion that that made a hardship. That's all. If that was for me. Thank you very much, I appreciate it. Mr.
chairman, question for staff. Okay. Who would be enforcing these rules? Code enforcement. Code enforcement staff
ultimately would serve any any notice of violation if there was one. But they were business hours. I'm assuming 9 to 5 time
frame code enforcement after hours is not a thing. Just wait till the next business day. It's just a question. I'm just trying to understand. If
somebody was found out of compliance. Business closed, it basically doesn't happen. Next business working day. Then it would get enforced. Yeah. If
there's a complaint, code enforcement will will respond to that. Whether it's whether the complaint refers to off
hours or not, if that's your question, it is. Thank you. Yeah, I do have a question right now. Let's say I'm a business owner and I want a
food truck and I apply for a permit for a food truck. Is it a permit by right? Or is it or is there conditions to that permit? Well, it has to comply
with the ten standards. I understand that one of of which this is one. But it's it's when you say by. Right. It's a local
business tax receipt apply for that. They provide all the documentation and staff reviews and signs off on it. If you
wanted to make a more than one night where it was a conditional use application to come in front of this board, is
that would that be problematic? That's certainly a recommendation you can give the Board of Commissioners. When you say would it be problematic?
Well, staff could run any application that the board. Sees fit to pass. So. If that's
something you want to recommend to make this a conditional use. So go to the TRC, the planning and Zoning Board, and then the Board of Commissioners in that
case. Does the ordinance require on site bathroom facilities by the owner and not
by an adjacent property owner? Require on site? Well, we talked about if somebody had a food truck and we talked about
the owner of that business has to had it had to provide. Bathroom facilities to those patrons of the food truck, he's
required to do. So. That's correct. Right. But if somebody did not have bathroom
facilities. Open to the public and the adjacent property owner did and offered them, would that be acceptable if the
adjacent when you say adjacent property owners, so the business pulling the business tax receipt is not the food truck. Remember, we have to remember it's the business.
They're the ones that are saying, yes, I have bathrooms available, etc. they do not have to be on the same parcel if that's what you're asking. Well, yeah. Or somebody says,
well, you could go use the city city services. That's not an option with this. Okay. But that was that, that was
discussed, if you remember, in the original ordinance not provided as an option. Thank you. Any other questions with
staff? I'm still stuck at the four days versus the seven days because in here it states again that the mobile food dispensing vehicle may not remain on the
site for more than four nights, but it does not say that another mobile cannot be on that for three nights. So it's r
location cannot have seven days. That reference is not to a specific food truck. The reference is to what they're pulling the tax receipt for is
the use code. Okay. Mobile food truck. It could be four. It could be two days overnight and two days overnight for somebody
else. But we don't monitor. Definitely not my food truck business that that would get a little bit more complex with enforcement. Okay, thanks. Code
enforcement people. Do we have one. And after hours, it's hard to hard to police. Yeah. So.
Thank you for the presentation. I figured this one would need discussion. So at this point in
time, if if. Somebody's got to make a motion whether to, to approve this or or. And then
there could be a discussion and a vote. So just because you make a motion to approve it, you could in your motion, you could actually ask for additional conditions or, or
other restrictions. Whether you think four nights is too many, you can recommend whatever you would like to recommend for the commissioners. And they could
either. Embrace your whatever vote this this board has or not, or come up with their own. As. As Mr. Vessey said, we are an advisory board and we can make
a recommendation and it would be up to the Commission to either accept our recommendation or not. So at this point, you know, I leave it to any member of this board
if they would like to make a motion or not make a motion, but. Well, Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of discussion, I would make a motion to approve
ordinance 2020 6-07, where Council will advise whether an affirmative vote or a disagreeable vote constitutes approval or disapproval. And
that's what the for four nights. Okay. All right. Is there a second now? Second. Okay. Any discussion? All right. I'll
start the discussion. To me, this it's kind of an additional accessory use to any property. And that of course was greatly
limited by the single day or, or eight hour ordinance compound, you know, requirements that initially were passed. So there's not as
much impact to the surrounding properties and people and such. In my opinion, this should be a conditional use for each individual property. I don't
think it should be a blanket application to the whole city. I think every individual case should be based on the site plan, based on the surrounding
uses and the potential impact to them. And, you know, a fixed period for that type of permit, maybe three months or six months, so that it can be, you
know, addressed going forward. It's not just a, you know, blanket four day approval for this location forever. So those
would be my recommendations to amend the ordinance as written to require a renewal of permit term three months, six months,
12 months, something of that for them to make a conditional use application for each property. Desirous of this 3 or
4 day landing, and to consider the impact to the surrounding properties and have them again
submit a site plan to us. Yeah. Any further discussion? I tend to agree with Mr. Rochlin. If
we're going to do food trucks in our town, I don't think it's a bad idea that each one be considered on its own merits individually, rather than I think that splitting the baby
in half, which sometimes is not a bad thing. But I'll listen to any other comment. Well, it states that right there that it has to have an individual site
plan. Is there any other for me? For me, it's my it's my opinion that a good restaurant and a good food truck will continue bringing customers. I don't
feel that it's my opinion that if your customer base serves good food and serves the customers well, people will
come back. And so I think if as on the opposite side, if there terrible food truck there, they're going to close down, they're not going to make any money. And I just don't want to
limit businesses. I know there's businesses that their full time kitchens is outside the restaurant and serves a full food truck. There's next
to Rusty Bellies. The Bayou Bistro I think is called that's a food Truck permanent. And so there was a burgers and beans that was that was grandfathered in because they were there
before they passed ordinance. And I, I'm saying, do you consider that a, I don't like I'm not eating there. So I couldn't tell you. Yeah. No. So
but I, I think I, I lean more towards less regulation and I would be definitely okay with the three night that that's
Friday, Saturday, Sunday they're cleaned up by Monday. I'm assuming that's what the four day weekend is. I don't see Monday to Thursday being the boomer. So. I would
definitely recommend go down to three nights would be my input
on this. I think those are good thoughts and worth listening to. In addition, I think Mr. Rocklin's proposition about
that. Perhaps we're approaching this completely wrong and that it should be a conditional use application is very strong. He consistently comes up with really thoughtful ideas for the
long range health of the community, which is maybe more important than anything. I'm going to let my personal
opinion come in without is that I the concept of food trucks, just whether you like them or
not. But I am concerned that one business, one whistle can. And it's okay that the city listens and the commissioners
listen. But to change an ordinance and do something so dramatic over the need of maybe just one particular
inconvenience, I struggle with that. It doesn't make it right or wrong. I just struggle with that. There's not a groundswell,
community based or organic request from residents at all. Now that's the business of the of the commissioners and the
and the city managers to listen to businesses. That's fine. But just a knee jerk and go, all right, let's totally change how we do business. And as Pat
mentioned, we wrestled over food trucks, frankly, probably more than long ago that nobody was here besides Mike and I, we really labored over this. Whether we made good decisions
or not is an important. But we made really good decisions back then. We tried real hard. And so just to have one truck because you can't back in. Now let's change the rules
completely for everybody. That just strikes me as maybe not thoughtful. We are planning this seems quick, easy reaction to just take care of something.
So again, that has nothing to do with it, this ordinance but that, that's my concern about it overall now. And I want to again give more credit again to
Mr. Rockland. Maybe this is the opportunity to quick stop this because here's what's going to happen in about five months. You're going to get a new request whether I'm here or not.
Make it seven days. This is how it's going to slide. We know it's going to happen. So why don't we just get there now and go, let's just throw out the rule book and just let it roll, because that seems to be the
slope we're going down because it appears there is someone driving the process, because it's not the citizens asking somebody else doing it. Okay,
so maybe instead we follow Mr. Rokhlin's recommendation and go, we need to address this differently. I maybe I didn't understand his words really clearly, and maybe he would
like to expand on it more on maybe what the ideal position is on that. I would like to hear more, I really would. And then I would also agree that, hey, if a food truck is good,
it's going to live or die, right? They come or go. But last but not least, let's say they all go really well. Do we want Tarpon Springs to be known
for a place where there's a bunch of food trucks? I go to Costa Rica for that. Is that is that what we want? Food truck on every corner outside of
every business. Sure, they're quiet, but golly gee, we're going to change it so that we're the land of food trucks. They're probably not all going to come because we were worried
about that before. But if we open the door up, why? Why is that good? I'm in a neighborhood of 186 people, been there for 25 years.
Everybody knows that I'm part of the city and volunteer work have been for a very long time. You know what? Not one of those residents has ever asked me. Can we get some more food
trucks? Justin? We really want them here 4 or 5 nights a week at every restaurant. No one's ever asked me that. They asked me about more serious and important things. That's it.
This was a discussion forum, so I could say that I'd love to hear a little bit more about Mr. Rocklin's concept, about maybe addressing this in a more formal, less haphazard way. Maybe that's the advice that we
can move forward to the council, rather than just knee jerk reactions to some guy that wants a food truck and it's inconvenient. Okay, okay. All right. Now, my, my take is I've
listened, I've listened. And you know, my observations from from everybody's discussion is I heard I heard you mentioned three nights. Okay, okay, three
nights. I, I, you know, going by what Mr. Vessey said, well, three nights, why not make it instead of four? Let's make it seven and I and you know, the thing that what, what I also
found out this was driven by one person who feels inconvenienced, who want his inconvenience, that he's got to remove his food truck every night. And he was not compliant
to begin with. Okay, so he was non-compliant to begin with and getting his food truck permit correct. I'm not I'm not
exactly aware of who you're talking about. Okay. Go ahead. Was compliant to be there, but he was not compliant to leave
his vehicle there. They had a storage unit behind it that he locked it up in. And you could not see it from the front. But.
Yes. Okay. All right. So so you've got one person and I don't know if he's a resident or not wanting to expand because it was inconvenient for
him. Okay. I know who it is. I'm sorry. But but one of the things that Mr. Rockline talked about, which I think has merit, is, okay, if we're going to
expand this or look to expand this, whether it's we say three days or four days, they should come in. I know there are conditions. Those are conditions for the permit, but
that's not conditions for a conditional use because with a conditional use, we could add other conditions looking taking consideration, the adjacent
property owners things, things of that nature that we can, you know, you know, verify whatever we need to verify, but put conditions in place that make
it okay. If you want three nights either these are additional conditions other than the conditions for the permit. And I think that would be a maybe a fair opportunity
to expand if that's what this board is looking at doing. As Mr. Ratcliffe said, with with requiring it that it comes in front of the P and Z for for
conditional use permit. I think that's what you were getting at. That was okay. So so we can make that recommendation. I
still have angina with regard to this particular ordinance, but that it's not just me. This is a board decision. And, you
know, we have a motion to approve as read, but from the comments, I don't know if it will pass as read, but we will call for a vote. And then if
Mr. Rockland would entertain another motion, then we could have a discussion on that and move forward. So right now there's a motion to approve as read. There was a second. So I
will call for a vote. And if that vote fails, if the if this count, if this board wants to consider another motion, we can entertain that. Mr. chair. Yes,
I might interrupt you may. And of course, then, miss, I know that. I just wanted to make sure you guys said public comments, even though there's nobody here. Just put it on the record before proceeding with
the vote. You know what? I forgot to do that the last time. Yeah. Dang. I'm slipping. Y'all gonna have to fire me. Any public comments on this matter?
So. So. Okay, just a little bit of the discussion. Could Mr. Rockland, would you expand a little bit more about your concept? Maybe so I could hear it again, and the entire board
might understand a little bit more about how you think this might best be solved. Certainly. And also keep in mind that if the board would like to cut to
the quick that this motion can't be amended unless legally it needs to be voted on first and then amended thereafter. But basically, every food truck
that looks to operate outside the box that's been set in statute already, which is the single appearance on a single date, single period, whether
it's before midnight, after midnight, that any expansion of that, whether it's to three days or four days, be presented as an individual case for a
conditional use. And equally important in my mind is to have a fixed period for that conditional use, be it three months, six months, 12 months,
whatever the board, our board and the Board of Commissioners sees, as, you know, most, most applicable and certainly the the planning department can can
weigh in with that to say that it's over redundant to do it three months or six months. But the main thing is, is that the impact gets assessed consistently over time as to
the other businesses and that environment around them, because what may sound like a great idea to beginning and may go over good for a weekend or
two, all of a sudden becomes something that is problematic and causing negative impact to the surrounding businesses, be they be food oriented or just
other oriented that, you know, you have all these factors of impact like noise, lighting, odor that may take a little time to develop. So that's,
that's my reason for a permit for a fixed period. But the individual case, I think allows the surrounding people to weigh
in if they want something there on a regular basis or not, and to take their opinion into consideration. Can I add a follow up question? Unless
someone else has a follow up? Have, have? Do you feel that the way that our current codes of ordinances are structured in
regards to conditional use, that it would be reasonably easy? This is a really a question for staff, but I want to ask you, because I think that you've thought through this, that we could slide in an
additional conditional use because the conditional use language in within our rule is very specific in it and it
waves upstream per se, if that makes sense. Yeah, I understand, and I would certainly defer to to those in the planning department to see if it can be
streamlined enough that it doesn't become overly complex and bothersome and labor some to share. Would it be okay for staff to weigh in in our discussion about this conditional use? Yeah, but let
me give you an example. Okay. Let's say you have a a place and it's close to residential. You have one night where they have to, you know, leave. And
typically you're there on your busy nights, whether it's Friday night or Saturday night. But now you're there Wednesday night, okay? And you're there till midnight and you're, you
backed up to a residential neighborhood because even though we've got business district, we've got residences that would allow us to add additional condition that
certain days of the week, you have to be closed at a, at a certain time. And that's kind of what adding conditions,
reasonable conditions. So I get all of that. I'm a big fan of this. I guess my question was more logistics of of Miss Mcniece is it seem reasonable
that an ordinance in regards to food trucks could be weaved into conditional use, which we already have certain standards for? So in other words, we're going to say every property has.
Now, we would say every business property that's already approved for the acceptance of food trucks. Now we're going to add a conditional use of food truck to that conditional use. And then we'd go through that. Does
that seem like something that could be pulled off? I don't think that's what. If you're talking about really there's
only one that I know of off the top of my head that has pulled all the the local business tax proper local business tax for a
temporary food truck. The way this is written, local business taxes are licenses are renewed every year. So we would see we
would staff would see it every year. That business, if they want to stay overnight, they would have to come in and
change their local business tax. But if you want to make this a conditional use process, it would be like any other conditional use process in the
city and everyone including that business. When it comes back up in a year or when it does come back up, would have to follow the conditional use
process. So, so maybe my question wasn't clear is that when we get into the big binder of zoning and uses, and within each zoning category, there's a
list of conditional uses, either that conditional use is on it or it's not. Airport hangar, used car lot. So would we then go in and insert food
truck to every one of those conditional uses? Or would we just have this as a star star exemption that anybody could apply for said conditional use and then would follow that? I
mean, it's temporary. It's an accessory to some principal use. So it's going to be an accessory food truck. Yeah. Because right now there are certain requirements that a
property owner has to have before you could entertain having a food truck on premises. Those conditions won't change. I think with Mr. Rosalinas
suggesting you correct me if I'm wrong, is okay to have a food truck overnight. There are certain conditions as far as the permit is required, but if you're going to go beyond one
night, okay, then you have to come in front of this board. If you're going to park your vehicle there for four days or three days, that you have to get a conditional use permit to
come in front of this board in case we want to incorporate additional conditions for more of a three night or four night stay. Does that make sense? And just to answer your question,
we could just add the provision to this ordinance that says however you want to word it, whether they want to stay overnight or any temporary food truck would be a conditional
use. We know it's an accessory to a principal. We don't have to add it to each district, just like other accessory uses. But yeah, we can just add it.
We could if you want to recommend that, you know, to the Board of Commissioners to add something, we could certainly express that. Can we
strike a provision as well? You can recommend anything you want to the board. Thank you for your answer. I appreciate it and thank you for your additional explanation, Mr.
Rocklin, I appreciate it. Thank you. Okay. Any before we beat this to death, is there another. I have a question. Yes. How do we make sure, on this
conditional use that we're doing things fair and equitably? Someone comes in and wants two days versus three days versus four days. Well, I think that's my concern is, well, if you're
going beyond a day, if you want to be there two days, you still have to get the the conditional use permit. So, so what, what triggers, what triggers? I
think it what triggers the, the application for this board is staying beyond one day. And it would be. I think this board's discretion to see what
reasonable conditions that that we would put in place other than what the requirements are now. So I understand all that. Okay, let's use a situation.
Say what happened to try, say a person does come in and we have it at one day and he goes, well, you know, I can rent that space back there. I don't have to
bring it home. I'm just trying to figure out. You know, we're going to have a lot of different reasons. I don't I don't, I don't follow. Oh, I'm
just concerned with consistency and equitably. Well, how we but I guess that's just what we do. Well not everything, you know, you always try to be equitable,
but, but each each particular circumstance has its own equity. But I still don't know in most cases, if they came in how we would say, okay, well, we'll let you two days, we'll let you three days. And I well, I think
it's up to if the ordinance is three days, it's three days. Yeah. Okay. If they choose to stay two, they choose to stay two. Right. Okay. Go left. You can't go more. Yeah. Unless you
come forward. Okay. All right. So I will ask Mr. if he's so interested, if you would like to make a motion. Yes. And I
guess I'd be amending the. Oh, no. No, we have to vote on the first. Okay. Yes. Then restate your motion. Okay. You don't want to amend. Okay. Can you
repeat the first one? The first one is to to go as read. Right. And then as per as per presented. Yeah. One day or four days. No, no. As in so the
answer the question is, is if we do not vote in favor of that, then Mr. Rockland may entertain another motion. So call, roll call please, Mr. Collins. Yes,
miss Swenson. Yes. Miss Earley? No, we. Mr. Rockland, I just have a question for council. I believe I stated that motion in the affirmative that we were.
The motion was to approve as was written. So would a yes vote constitute approval as written? Yes. Yeah. So I think everybody needs to understand that as written. Yes. Right.
Yeah. Yes. Four days, no restriction as written. So you said no I did. No. Okay. All right. So can I have a roll
call again please, Mr. Collins? Yes, miss Swenson. Yes, miss Earley. No. Mr. Rocklin, no.
Vice chair. Vessey. No. Chairperson. Curtis. No. So that motion fails. Okay. All right. So now, Mr. Rockland,
would you. I would restate a subsequent motion to motion. Right. Ordinance 2020 6-07 to.
Approve the application process on an individual case for conditional use of a food truck
and or home property owner to extend on one night to three nights. Of the of the food
truck remaining upon that property. So the conditional use would have to come before this board for them to
articulate that it's more of a need than a want, and to allow the surrounding members up to three, allow the surrounding
property owners and businesses and residents and such to weigh in their their opinion on the matter. I would second. Just
just just for clarification, but that they would still have to make the requirements that the city, the existing permitting requirements on top of it. Yes, nothing would change. As far as the preamble.
There's a motion and a second. Okay. Any discussion? Okay. Go ahead. Chairman, just to clarify, basically this as
written stays, but the applicant has to come back before us one on one, state their case in order to get three nights food truck correct.
Yeah. It just seems overregulated to me. My, that's my take. I think this will to. I think this will settle itself.
Bad food trucks will leave good food trucks stay as it's written now. One night overnight prevents people from coming here. That's why there's only 1 or 2. Just because it's
too much hassle to move, move back and forth. I don't see this taking over the city. If it did, that means families are coming here spending money on the corner, buying stuff,
enjoying time here. That's not going to happen. It's not First Friday. Every weekend. I think we're overregulating it and this will settle itself out. That's that's my opinion. Roll
call please. Unless anybody has any other questions. Oh. Public comment. You're out there. So I'm going to remind public comment. I don't see any public.
That's why. Okay. All right. Yes sir. You're the third row. Roll call please, Mr. Collins. No. Miss Swenson. No. Miss
Earley. Yes, Mr. Rochlin. Yes, vice chair Vessey. Yes. Chairperson. Curtis. Yes. Okay.
Thank you. Okay, okay. That being said, any board comments? I actually have? There is a meeting tomorrow morning at
9:00. Ethics, ethics. And I think a lot of people don't like that look on his face. Thank God. Thank God I got caught. Is there really a
meeting tomorrow morning for ethics? Yeah, it's a voluntary. It's a voluntary meeting. Who's who's presiding? There is a city attorney training tomorrow
morning for all boards. You should have received notice of it. It's. It starts at 9:00 here in the auditorium. Is it?
Is it? Where is the location? Clerk's office. I'm sorry? The location. They got that thing open. I don't know where is. Where is the meeting? Where's
the meeting? It's here in the auditorium. Here in the auditorium. Oh, ethics in the auditorium. Okay, that sounds like a Greek tragedy in this room. Socrates and Socrates is
giving it. Okay, okay. And that's Wednesday. Tomorrow morning is Wednesday. Wednesday? Yeah, 9 a.m. Yeah, yeah. Because isn't there a party
this Friday too? The morning breakfast? Yes. At the. That's in Craig Park. Okay. Board
comments. I would say I, you know, what thing I like is we have differences of opinion, but at the end we kind of work it out and, and, and that's
what's I think this board, I think it's the, the sum of these issues a lot better than,
than some of the other people that don this building. But I want to thank this board for its for its engagement. And I'd
like to thank staff for putting up with us. I do too, speaking of staff, I have a board comment and it. I would like to
welcome our new council area and admit that I was struggling. How to pronounce Maria correctly, but I have something
else too I. I heard through the coconut telegraph. I was on our city website and Miss Ali Keen, who's been a principal planner
for a long time. It said interim planning director. And so I had to ask her personal questions. And so it's good
news, bad news. She shared with me that Miss Renee Vincent would be leaving the city of Tarpon Springs. And if Miss Vincent, you are watching, you
deserve it. And what a great job you did for us. Wow. I will second that. Wow. And we are at a loss. I was afraid that might have been happening, but I like
the terms that it's happening under. But lo and behold, Miss Kean is going to walk into the Crucible and through the Ring
of Fire. And I think that's fantastic, right? Yeah. Any other comments before I hit the
gavel? We are adjourned. Good meeting. Yeah. You did good there. Yeah. Oh, yeah. Before you leave, before you all leave.
One, one question, one question. The consent agenda stuff. Is that is that okay that we do it
that way? Any feedback? Yeah. All right. Good. Right. Doesn't
always win. Well you could have helped him. Not on that one.