you were live streaming so you know I thought maybe we we stood a chance because they would be pulling down people would come from home from All right, we'll call the meeting to order. Um it is 6 o'clock on September
29th. This is our monthly workshop. Maryanne, can we get um roll call? Yes. Mayor Young here. Vice Mayor Story here. Council member Brandon here. Council member Painter here.
Council member French here. We can just let the record reflect that Council Member French and Mayor Young are participating by Zoom. We do have a quorum. Um okay. The first item on the agenda is discussion on limiting hedge height on residential property. Jeremy,
thank you. Uh discussing um at the July 10th regular village council meeting. Uh a resident came to the village council asked for us to consider a code for limiting the hedge heights. Um obviously
having some issues with um his neighbor his neighbor's hedge encroaching upon his property. Um, so the village council asked staff to put this on an agenda and do some additional research, do some comparables. We have provided comparables to other cities. Um, I think
uh working with legal, we've captured the legal essence of what the property owner is responsible for as well as adjacent property owner. Um, and so we have that and for discussion and if council uh would like to move forward
with anything uh any kind of code, we can definitely put that together. So you have um have some some backup information if you have any questions. I know Keith can elaborate more on the legal requirements if that's a a need. I will say from our
background, from our staff, uh this is the only complaint that I've heard in my six years and staff hasn't heard of any other complaints of this nature um in my time. So if that if that helps.
Council comments. This is Jason. Go ahead Jason first. Go ahead Jason. A few comments on it. Um, like you said, this is a a one case incident currently. Uh, I do have large hedges at my home as
well, and you know, they do protect my view from a larger house behind me, so I can kind of understand both sides of this argument. You know, anytime I do get my hedges cut, I I let my landscaper go, you know, knock on my neighbor's door, see if they, you know, need me to trim them for for them, even though you
don't necessarily have to. um just uh some some neighborly um etiquette there. And I think for me, if just as a one incident, I'm not in favor of adding more restriction or ordinance. I think this is something
best left to neighbors to have those conversations to figure out. And I don't uh normally agree with the state on items, but I think that the state's language um is good language that we uh have used up until now.
Yeah, I I tend to agree. I mean, unless there's been more incidents and I I feel for, you know, the resident that was in here, it sounds like, you know, there's some issues there with the neighbor, but um if it's just an isolated situation, I'm not in favor of passing an ordinance for this.
All right, I'm on the same page. Um, with my history working with council members, we've never had an agenda item put on the agenda for one complaint history historically wise. I have heard on my time on council complaints about
neighbors trees hanging over their yards, but it never came to council. It went through code enforcement and it was resolved. So, I'm not in favor of us doing things like this as far as hedge heights. I think that's a slippery slope for us because our side setbacks are
very narrow already. And with the McMansions going in, a lot of them, that's your only option for privacy. Again, I haven't heard any complaints about other hedge issues other than they might be too close to the road. And guess what? Code enforcement goes out there and they ask the neighbor to trim
them back. You know, problem solved. So, I'm not going to do anything with this. I think we should just leave it be. I think it's a property owner's responsibility to trim them and that a neighbor next door may go out and trim it up on their side. And if there's
anything beyond that, code enforcement needs to get involved and then the proper process needs to go in place before it even comes to council. That's it. Um, mayor, I'll give my comments and if you're available, you can go last just like if you were here. Okay. Okay. Um, I I agree with what's been
said so far. Um it's a seems to be a one-off um that if it has been historically handled by staff or through code, then maybe even a friendly visit from the village could just say, "Hey, can we trim that up?" or get the two neighbors talking. But I I am on board with what my colleagues have said that I
don't really feel there's a need to to legislate this at this point. Um so I don't see a point in moving forward. Mayor, yes, I agree. I think we can monitor it. if we receive more complaints, we could always revisit. Um, but also the the
hedge height, I don't know if that actually resolves a problem of overhanging onto another neighbor's property. Those are kind of two separate issues. So, I think we should keep that in mind, too. If we if we get more complaints, just because you have a hedge height limitation doesn't necessarily mean that that's going to
take care of um overgrowing onto someone other uh someone else's property. That's it. Thank you. Okay. Um, do we have any comments from public comments? Okay. So, I think we're in agreement that just something we just monitor and don't bring it back unless it needs to come back again. Agreed.
Clear with that. Council. Okay. Yep. Um, item two, discussion of rightaway ordinance revisions and additions. Doug. Good evening. Uh tonight I want to introduce a draft
revision to multiple chapters in the code. These are existing chapters. Uh we're referencing chapter 30 which is vegetation. Chapter 50 property maintenance. Chapter 60 which includes streets and sidewalks and other public
places. Chapter 70 driveways and off- streetet parking. Chapter 74 which is storm water management that includes swell and right ofway design standards. Um chapter 78 which includes zoning for
landscaping and setbacks. And then also included in your packet and on the powerpoint this brief PowerPoint is appendix 8 which is a recommended approved plant list. I also wanted to just say upfront too that
the revisions that we're introducing here is just standardizing the code, the existing code. And these practices are not unique to Tqua. Every city across the state of the United States has restrictions in their right ofway and policies and and codes. So we're in
alignment with what's standard practice. So we're talking about unifying right ofway, swale, and landscape ordinances, right? Aligning village codes to protect infrastructure, safety, and aesthetics. The purpose and goal of standardization
is to protect the substantial investment the village has been making and continues to make upgrading and replacing underground utilities, infrastructure, roads, sidewalks, swelles, and to date approximately an $8 million investment in our infrastructure.
This ensures the investment in public infrastructure is preserved for long-term community benefits. It's also important uh that this initiative is not to issue violations to pre-existing conditions. Instead, it's to ensure that projects and private investments do not
undermine villages funded infrastructure projects. There are some exceptions in there to artificial turf and some driveway swailes that have recently been put in without permits. So staff has completed a comprehensive update to multiple ordinances governing
rightways, swailes, landscaping, driveways, and maintenance. These revisions unify standards across the code, ensuring consistency, clarity, and enforcability. The goal again is to protect storm water drainage, infrastructure, public safety, and village aesthetics while making
requirements clear not only for residents, but for staff. Down to the basics, right? What is the rideway and what is the swell? The public rideway is land owned and controlled by the village for public use. It includes streets, sidewalks, swailes, utilities, medians, and drainage areas. The swale, which falls
within the ride ofway, right? It's a slope green space designed to carry and absorb storm water, prevent flooding, and protect water quality. However, it's more than just drainage, right? swells also provide space for all your underground utilities, your sidewalks, your driveways, street trees, access to
corridors that serve residents and businesses and properly maintained swailes and writers ensure safe travel, reliable services, attractive streets, street scapes and resilient infrastructure. Why is this important? Right. This
aligns multiple chapters in the code so that resin staff and contractors, especially contractors, can follow the same clear rules. It removes conflicting language and creates one reference point for right ofway, swelles, landscaping, and driveways. It also standardize
fines, permits, and responsibilities, making the code more enforceable and transparent. This also again protects the storm water drainage, public safety, and village aesthetics. Why permanent inspection and compliance fees are important? This ensures that all work in the right of way and swelles
is performed to village standards. It covers staff time, inspections, and restoration when violations occur. It encourages property owners and contractors to follow proper permitting and installation requirements. It applies consistent rules and penalties
creating equal treatment for all residents and all businesses. It safeguards our storm order, our utilities, and public safety by providing oversight. And then violations trigger stop work orders, fines, leans, and special magistrate review to ensure
compliance. Typical standards for the ride ofway. All work within the rightway requires a permit for inspections and fees. For example, if you're redoing your driveway, you're going to obtain two permits. You're going to obtain a permit for the private property, the driveway that falls on the private property. And
you're going to get a secondary permit. This already exists for the rideway. You'll have two inspections. One by the building official and his department, and one by either Marjorie or myself and staff. Turf restrictions, right? Artificial turf is not permitted in the ride ofway
or swelles, and only approved sod grasses are allowed. Artwood trees are prohibited in the row and swailes due to root and utility conflicts. Only shallow rooted approved species may be installed. Manager and I have talked about exceptions for village funded projects
that do do not conflict with infrastructure projects or existing underground utilities. Driveways must be constructed of concrete within the ride ofway. We had standard driveway details for the ride ofway. Uh pavers are not are only
allowed where there's no sidewalk and village approved. They must also uh follow and conform to our approved PA detail. Swailes must maintain drainage flow and must also follow the approved swell detail. Tree removal. No trees uh can be removed or planted in the
rightway without a village permit and trees must not obstruct visibility, storm water or utilities. Plantings must maintain clearance from swale center line and sight triangles at the intersections. Allowable plant list. We have a list of ornamental grasses and wild flowersowers
we're recommending and we have approved sod and turf grasses. The approved grasses and sod were selected because they are Florida native and/or Florida friendly, drought tolerant, and compatible with swale and rightway drainage. They provide storm water absorption, erosion control, and low
maintenance coverage while avoiding damage to underground utilities, roads, sidewalks. Excuse me. Artificial turf and hardwood are excluded to protect storm water flow, safety, and infrastructure longevity. I love this picture right here.
What don't you see in the rightway? So, everybody has this in front of their home or their business, right? And in that little footprint, you have all of your underground utilities that provide service to all the residents and businesses. You have storm water, you have water distribution, your drinking water, you have Florida Power and Light,
you have AT&T, you have Comcast, you have your sanitary sewer. And in that footprint, we need room for all of these utilities. So when you look at that rideway adjacent to your to the property, everything is sized accordingly for the whole community, the entire community.
So everything within that rideway is a 4-in pipe, a 10-in pipe. You know, it's sized for the entire community. When it branches off and goes to the individual houses, it's a much smaller utility pipe, right? Might might size down to 3/4 or 1 in or fiber optic cable.
A homeowner has the benefit of planting anywhere within that property on their private property because the utilities can be separated out on the property. So, for instance, if you were going to plant on your property, right? And let's say whatever that is in the back, you know, whether it's a shed or, you know,
motheraughter house in the back there, right? You certainly wouldn't plant on top of those utilities going to that house because at some point you're going to have an irrigation break, you're going to have a water break. You're going to have to get in there for maintenance or break and fix that. Well, the same holds true in the rightway,
right? It has to be protected and it has to be serviced and it has to be maintained on an as needed basis. If we're planting out in the rightway and there's no boundaries, you'll just put anything you want in there. And when we and when a project comes through, for instance, the Questa
Drive project. Well, that's not good, sir. What happened? Maybe there was a battery. So this is Questa Drive right now, right? And that's your rideway.
And the utility department is replacing an old age water service line, 10-in water man. This is what happens to the rightway. And why does this happen? Because you have to have room in the rightway, right? You have all those underground utilities that I referenced.
On top of that, this is looking east, the other one's looking west. So, when you're looking back east, we have our beautiful tree canopy. We um we also have sanitary sewer. We have Florida Power Night has two lines in there. AT&T and Comcast have fiber
optic lines in there. There's old twisted copper 100 pair cable in there. So, in the planning of this project, I'm just going to go to the plans here. If you see that's the water man coming down to Quest Drive heading east from Ki Club
Drive. That's the section that I just showed you in the picture. And if you see the contractor and the engineer had to deflect the new water man out into the road. So if you're out there and you're driving up Quester Drive, you see half of the westbound lane has been
taken out because there's no room in the right way because we have tree canopy in there with extended roots. We have sanitary sewer. We have all these underground utilities are in the way and they have to deflect now that 10-in waterm out into the road.
That is your last resort. Taking all of those utilities I showed you and putting them in the road because that turns into this picture. Get a borderline break onto Quester Drive. That whole road is going to be
closed to fix that line that's out in the road. The only time you really want to cross the road is when you have to go across the road and you try to board under the road. But you don't take all of your utilities parallel and adjacent to your road into your properties and put them out in the road. So we need
room in the ride ofways. We have to protect the ride ofways. Right. The other part of that it's not just for you know your underground utilities. We've the village has invested millions upon millions of dollars on repairing
and replacing sidewalk, replacing roads. I got here about 10 years ago and I cannot even begin to tell you how many calls I got on a daily basis about this condition of the sidewalk in this community. How many trip and falls or
near misses and fall a weekly basis. There are people in this room that I know have fallen on the sidewalk and gotten seriously hurt. Right? So, we're investing in our community. We're investing in our roads. We're right. We want safe connectivity. Right? And we also need room for for
underground utilities. Well, we're spending money and we're rebuilding the crown in the road, right? So that pushes the water off the road. A lot of the roads had water pooling in the road. The roads were flat, right? A lot of defects in the road. And what happens when you push the water off and you don't have a
swale, it's going to sit on the edge of the road like this. This is the quester right here. It's going to sit on the edge of the road. It's going to sit in the resident's driveway. It's going to go up towards their, you know, towards their garage. You have to build swailes. You have to maintain your swailes for drainage. We're spending a lot of money to improve
our infrastructure, making it safe for residents to commute, walk around, enjoy the community. Part of this is the swale project and I know manager uh Marjorie is working very hard on improving the swelles throughout the community, right?
So, this is the reason that we bring this forward today. These are the things that we have to address. And you know, if you go back to this picture here, I'm sorry. I love this picture because it shows exactly what you're up against in the
right way. And typically, you don't see it, right? You step outside, you see grass, you see trees. You say, "What are we doing? Why can't we put more trees in there? Why why can't I just plant out there?" People are putting structures out in the ride ofway. People are planting trees out in the ride ofway.
People are putting pavers across the street so the mail truck doesn't drive on their grass. There has to be oversight in the village driveway. And this is a great picture that shows that if that were your home, I don't believe anybody would plant on top of any of
those utilities with the risk of having to dig it up or damage your ex your utilities that you'd have to repair on your own private property. Right? It it just wouldn't be cost effective. This this is just very basic, right? So when we talk about
right direction here, what would it look like? Well, this is an example of a sustainable rightway. There's your swale for your storm water runoff, right? There's your ornamental grasses. And this is just a little snapshot, right? More can go in there,
right? And there's your saw grass. Then at the top of the swale, you can plant, if you see further down in that picture, you can see trees planted in there. There's no reason that those trees couldn't be planted right on the property line or right on the resident's property and allow room for the water to
get off the road, but also, you know, can understand that folks want to have some color. They want to have some plantings in the right way, right? It it it looks great in the community. It it it really, you know, it really pops and looks nice. But we have to keep in mind
what the what the intent of the rightway is, right? It's very important. So that's a great example of a sustainable rideway. Next steps would be to finalize the revise ordinances. We still haven't sent it to Keith for review and we still have to Marjgerie and I and the manager have
to talk about fees. We haven't worked out fees. Um but we wanted to get your feedback and uh and just explain why we're bringing this forward. You know, we get it doesn't matter what project we're working on. The phone starts
ringing off the hook to us, to the manager's office, to the council members. What are they doing? They're tearing up the grass in the ridgeway. What's going on? We just had a project at FPL and Pike Pike Electric are working the country club hardening poles. Um running an underground power
line for the eventual 2026 underground infrastructure project with FPNL. when they go into the rightofway and we want to underground all these power lines and all the utilities and all the communication lines this is what happens in the rightofway so when a project
comes along a capital improvement project whether it's FPNL whether it's utilities department public works we're not putting back all the ornamentals and the trees and and the the light stansions and the fixtures it's going to be a swell and it's going to be grass so
you have to start somewhere you know over the years many many years, the ride ofways have been taken over by vegetation and plantings and pavers and you know there you see it out there and and you know this picture is worth a
thousand words. What happens when you have an infrastructure project? This is what's going to happen to the rightway. Not in all cases, but for the most part, this is just a 10-inch water man. And this is what the right foot looks like. And half of the westbound lane has been taken out because there's no room in
that rideway. So, thank you, Doug. Um, council member comments. Um, Jason, you'd like to go first? Yes. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Uh I I
support the idea of the ordinance and the approach. I do believe this is one of those where a a resident's decision to change the property or the swale in this case could affect other residents. It's similar to
the situation we're having with the one-way water valves um protecting our water system we discussed previously. Uh so for that I I support the ordinance. I did have a question on the violations. It says there's a $150
U violation or per violation it's $150. What exactly is per violation? What does that look like? Are we talking per week, per month? You know, what is the idea behind that? So, council uh and and council member French,
one of the things that I would like to do once uh this is uh sent to my office for review is take a closer look at the uh at that portion of it. I'm not I'm I'm not sure that that I would recommend
leaving it in that status. Um, so my recommendation if the council directs us to proceed would be to kind of keep an open mind on the on the penalty provision. My initial thought would be to
just put this in the uniform code enforcement process that the village has already adopted. Um, but but I would like an opportunity to look a little more closely at the penalty provision and and bring back recommendations. I'm not sure that I would recommend leaving
it the way it is. Mhm. I understand. Thank you. And I would agree with that approach as well. Thanks. My other uh uh input is that I I appreciate that there are options for residents to have some landscaping in their swale. I noticed that some of the
other municipalities there's zero options um given. I did appreciate that maybe some other native plants were able to be placed in those swailes as long as a permit went through. Doug, thank you for all your work on this. Uh I do
support the main idea behind this thing. Thank you, Councilman. Anybody else? I'll go next. If everyone just uh be patient because this might take me a hot minute. In a nutshell, my thought on this is you
guys are about and I mean staff about 25 30 years late on asking for this. I do not agree with this approach. I don't think we should be going down this road. I think it's extremely aggressive. It's not going to work for many reasons. So Doug, you and I talk about swelles
and I support swailes. Um I think when we look I don't know if it was you and Marjorie or Hoover put this together. This is so layered for me and so complicated cuz it's not a onesize fit all. And I say that cuz when I played for hours on the papa map with property
lines over the weekend, everyone's rightway is such a drastic size difference. And then the corner lots, those are huge side spaces that would lose all landscaping basically when there would be plenty of room to put a tree away from utilities.
So, I don't agree with that. When I look at the other municipalities, I don't think we can compare ourselves to them. I'm going to use Palm Beach as an example. Their rideaways are teeny weeny. So, I don't think they really even have that big of an issue because they don't have the largest rightways
nor the largest property sizes. Um, there's a lot of hypocrisy I'm having issue with, too, because one, for many, many years, we've been supporting more trees in the village in the rightways, creating tree canopies. What's the other one? Carbon emissions. So, while we're
talking about all removing and not allowing residents to do as much when the very simple way that's been working and if it's not working, I think we need to approach it in a different way. You need to call 811. Call before you dig, right? Not saying everyone does that,
but for me, that's just that's the basic way to do it. So, if you have an easement of 22.9 ft and your utility height is all the way down by the road, there's plenty of room to put a tree or a hedge or a different plant that's not on this list. I think this list is
extremely minimal. Um, hypothetically, let's say council moves forward and we did a right away with nothing, not even these little plants on this list. That's going to anger this entire village. And I do see lawsuits coming our way if that
were to happen. Secondly, we've heard this before. I don't know if this council's heard it. We've heard it before. Residents say, "Well, if I can't do this, is the village going to come and mow money right away?" That's right. So, if we really really limit to what
they can do, obviously being smart where they plant things, I can definitely see residents saying, "Well, fine. Then the then the village needs to have staff coming out here every day or every week and mowing our rightways." That's that's never going to happen. We don't have the budget. We don't have the staff.
What was another there's so many I mean, there's so many issues. Oh, the neighborhood entrances, those are all in rightways. and one one neighborhood on the west they you know we occurred some landscape damage so a permit had to be pulled to replace it and yet the village
signed off on it. So if there was an issue and there is a utility pipe there, why would they sign off of it? And then I want council to look at this too as if you guys were to spend time on Papa and literally scroll around the different properties.
So many people since I'd say maybe the 2000 early 2000s started the the U driveway. Yeah. The depth the circle driveways. The most common thing in the village I see is it goes all the way up to the house. And what is left is pretty much
like 80% of the time a little space where most of it leans in the rideway. So if that is not going to be allowed, then we need to look at not allowing driveways go all the way up to the house because we're creating a problem right there by not allowing people to meet
their code requirement in general of one canopy tree in the yard or three palm trees. So I see a lot of complications all the way around with this. I fully support bringing back the swailes. I fully support smart plantings like by
calling 811, having your utilities marked because there are many. I like that you put up that chart of how the utilities go into a property cuz I guarantee you most people don't know where their utilities are going into their property. But again, that falls on the property owner, right? So be smart
of where they're digging if it's on their property line or within it and not the rightway. Oh my gosh, there's so much. [Music] Oh, the other one, the other hypothetical I thought of. I was told that the village would not be
running around demanding current landscaping in the rideway to be removed. So, if that's true, how do you regulate new plantings? Because we don't exactly have like an HOA type staff member that runs around, takes pictures
of all the properties. So my concern is regulation of if we're not going to literally go around and scalp all the rightways, how do we monitor anything new if it's not a new development house? And I'm not asking for an answer. I'm just throwing out that complication.
Um, I guess that's it for now, but again, I'm kind of getting confused on the village has been so supportive of more landscaping, more trees. We put them in our own rightways on the village roads and we keep talking about carbon
emissions, flood waters. So I'm a little confused why we're backdropping at a aggressive level when we could be approaching this differently. If we were to look at taking back the swailes, which I do support, I don't support it in this manner because we have no plan
or budget to go out and rebuild swailes. So, if we're going to go this drastic and aggressive, we don't even have a plan. So, we couldn't even tell residents, yeah, cuz in 5 years, we're going to be completing creating all these new swailes, so we're going to take all this back without even having a
plan of what's coming. And piping, I looked into piping, and Marjorie, correct me if I'm wrong. And God bless you cuz I know you're taking on a a ton of piping that should have been done 40 years ago but previous village people I should say manager never addressed it
correctly. So there is a lot but the piping should last 50 60 years. So okay so once it's in there shouldn't be a need to have to access it so easily unless there's an emergency. So again, I always return
back to smart planting. Where could a tree of a decent size that's not super invasive go that's not all the way up by the person's house or front door? And then again, they go back to the driveways. Most of these houses have
driveways up to their house. So unless we're going to change the driveway code so people can plant closer to their house and have a better opportunity to plant inside their property lines, I'm really stuck with how this would be pulled off in a friendly village to
resident manner and I think we could do a better approach. I think we do need to educate better on the rideways. I know a lot of this might be coming up because of the other issues and I fully support us educating it and getting back but I don't see this going well if we go this
route this aggressive. That's it. Okay. Thank you. If I can answer a couple of those questions. Sure. Palm Beach County does not allow planting in the swell. You have to plant 2 ft beyond the invert side of the swell. That's part of their regulation and code. As far as maintenance in the
right of way, the village already has an ordinance. It's not new. It's not nothing new we're introducing and it's in line with every city across the United States that the property owner occupant is responsible for the maintenance to the road. So whether there were trees or grass or anything
else in the rightway, the homeowner occupant is responsible for the maintenance. That's not something new. I know that that pre-exists and that's every city across the United States. We're not creating a new maintenance situation where because we would ask the homeowner per code that
when you're modifying your property, you're leveling your house, you're changing your vegetation, right? You're redoing your driveway that you adhere to the code. We're not going backwards and saying you're going to take out the trees and you're going to do that. Is for new construction. It's for
modifications. is for new improvements where you have to come file for a permit and there are going to be requirements standard applicable requirements that are standard throughout the United States, standard throughout Florida. So, we're not it's not this revamp project where we're asking all the residents
across the village to tear everything out in the right way. We're putting in swelles. It's going to be a domino effect over time. So right now what happens for instance um Callaway Construction is doing a new driveway and I go out I uh we provide a permit we
provide the standard detail of what the driveway should look like. The driveway apron requires a swale. They have to follow the profile of the road. So the water gets out of the driveway and it doesn't sit in the driveway. And then my recommendation I meet with the homeowner. I say if you don't put a
swale in your grass, this water is going to sit in your driveway. So whether you want to do it or you have a landscaper, it's a simple process of just following the center line of the driveway, peeling the grass back, digging the dirt out, putting the grass back, and the water will move out of your driveway. So when
we do go out there, the homeowner will say, "Well, why me? What about my neighbor and the next neighbor and the next neighbor?" And I share the same story that it will happen over time. When they replace their driveway, when they redo their landscaping, when a developer or contractor comes in,
investor, and tears down the house, there has to be requirements in place. We're not asking residents throughout the village to tear everything out the rideway. We're not going out and tear everything out of the ride ofway. But when you have an infrastructure project and you have that in your rideway,
this for the most part is going to happen. Whatever is in there is coming out. So that that's it's not it's not like how did we get there and we're this is a massive project. It's from today, right? We already have things in place. We're just standardizing the language. These
codes are not new, right? These chapters are not new. They already exist. Exactly. That's my point. So we're standardizing the code and the requirements so we can protect the rightways, protect the 8 million plus dollars that have gone into the rideways and will continue to go into the ride
ofways. And it's not just the village, right? When Florida Power and Light comes here and then they underground every utility. All those power poles are going and they take all those power poles out and all that cables going underground. Where's it going? Where's it going on to drive?
You need room in the rideway. And I fully hear you on that. So this this will be torn up once. Maybe uh Locks Hatche River District who manages a sanitary sewer throughout the village. You see that all over the place. They're trying to line pipe so they don't have to take pipe out, right?
They're trying to do the best they can without digging up the roads, without digging up the rideways. AT&T and Comcast, they're trying to do the same, right? They're trying to bore. Boring is not always successful, but uh so it's a it's a it's a it's a phased
approach over multiple multiple years that this will happen. This is not going to happen to you revise the ordinances then and the next year it's going to happen. This is years down the road. This is 10 20 years down the road or more. Just like FPNL's underground
project, it's a 30-year project. This is a long-term phased approach. And that's kind of my point, too. Just these regulations already exist. If it's a safety hazard, he can't see around a corner because of landscaping, a tree is
dead or it's cracking a sidewalk, code goes out there, addresses it, and then staff gets involved. And if someone's doing a new driveway, which my neighbor just did a new driveway, and he has a ton of landscaping the rideway. So, where's the flip-flop here? And that's
where I'm getting confused. at or the FPNL guys, I know for a fact in our neighborhood they had to talk to residents and tell them, "Hey, this section of your landscaping is probably going to get ruined and it'll get ruined." But a lot of times that landscaping's over a decade old cuz it's
been there and they'll address it. But I don't think we should just take away all the plantings or trees because I think this list of choices is no bueno. I think there should be a lot more on it. I think it's very capable of doing a lot more. When you talk about um
the Lockxy Hatchee District, I looked at all their little utility areas. They have hedges and landscaping all around them. So clearly they're not limited to such a tiny list. They're landscaping as well. I just want to make sure that we have residents pull an apartment and
that staff goes out and treats properties because again they're all so different in size. Mine in particular, if we were to go through this in the future, let's say I redid my driveway and you come out, guess what? I have an adopted tree. Are you going to tell me I have to remove that? And I'm going to be
losing about 3,000 square ft. I'm sorry to be exact. 2,290 ft of opportunity to have shade on the road, half my hedges on the road. That's where I'm just It's actually enhancing rather than you just coming out and
saying this. And then I get stuck with the confusion again. For many years, we've been sitting here promoting landscaping. And are we going to hold developers to the same level? I mean, a lot of times they're creeping into the rightways. I just want to make sure we're not being hypocritical or just
treating each property they have to pull a permit and make sure that each property is planting smartly. If they happen to have a very large right away, give them an opportunity. Show them where the utilities are. give them an opportunity to put something beautiful there and not just say, "No, no, no.
This is the only thing you have to choose from." That's all I'm asking is that we approach it in a friendlier manner. When you have an issue like a new driveway or a new landscaping completely redo or another issue, treat it individually and we'll get there.
Just like you just said, we'll get there. If you're saying this is not a blanket, we're going to be doing this in a year or two, then just I think we said it fast. keep this course and just we'll get there and that's the approach that's why we're revising the language and it doesn't read like that
and that's my opinion okay so I'll be I shouldn't be too long here but uh so I've lived in several municipalities in Palm Beach County I've never been able to plant my rightway anything that I can think of when I moved up here it was one of the first
questions I had is what what can I put in the rightway what can I not and kind of the extra out was you know what anything you put in the rightway be prepared to take it out that was and that was a fair answer to me and I I've always understood that with that I put
in some nice trees in my yard that are not in the rightway there's still great trees that I think give you know we all love trees I don't I don't think anybody in this room has a problem with trees but I do think we need to there are times where we have to trust staff and
um we're investing a ton ton of money into our our our utilities and our storm water. And I have to think there's not a reason we're or there is a reason we're doing this and that is to protect that investment we're doing. So, um I don't have a problem with it at all, especially because I think we're just
taking a bunch of code that was, you know, pretty disorganized to begin with and unifying it. Um and I don't I don't necessarily think, you know, there's the rightway and then there's where your yard starts. You can still have trees in your yard. It's just it cannot be in the
area where the where the storm water the utilities are. I understand everyone's concern. Actually, I I don't fully understand everyone's concern because I don't I don't like Doug said, this isn't being retroactively applied to everybody. You're not going to come in people's yards and just rip out their
trees. But I to me I have never lived anywhere where you can put anything in the right way. So, I'm I'm happy with this. I And again, I have nothing against trees. I think we need more trees. I totally get it, but at the end of the day, this isn't my property.
Frankly, I don't really want the village mowing my lawn anyway. Um, but I have no problem with it. Um, I think this is sort of being mischaracterized in my opinion. Um,
so yeah, I'm not I'm struggling to see the huge issue here and I I I've read several emails. I think it's just being taken as if we're coming in and telling people like, you know, no trees. We don't want trees. I don't I don't see it that way. So, just my opinion. Thank
you. Uh, mayor, if you don't mind, I'll go and you can wrap up. Sounds good. Okay. Um, I've always said this and I will continue to say it. I believe my role on council is to protect the health, the safety, and the well-being of our residents. When I look at this, I
hadn't seen this before tonight. When I look at that, that is protecting the health, safety, and the well-being of residents. Just tonight, we got a text on the way here, which was is an unincorporated Tquesta. We had a 500gallon gas tank get hit. Now, grant
we had nothing to do with it. It was a private property and somebody was digging in their yard and hit a $500 and they're out there right now letting that bleed off. Um, so it can happen even in your yard or in your driveway. Um, so this is a a safety and and a well-being
of the residents is for me it's how I look at it. Um, I think it's been addressed, but my first question, what happens to the existing ride ofways? And it sounds like it'll be out there that it sounds what I hear you say, Doug, is that when somebody applies for a permit, that's
will go out. So they're like, it's been discussed. No one's going to knock on doors and say your stuff's in right away. The village owns it right away. Period. in the sentence and as was stated just a minute ago, they can come in and do it. But I don't think that's the intent. I've never I didn't read it this way. I know we can read this and
depending on, you know, where we stand on the issue perhaps I didn't take it as aggressive. I didn't take it as uh we're going to go ask people to rip things out. Um so, but my my one question is, you know, and I think it's been answered. How do we ensure common sense,
you know, through this approach? And it sounds like it is as we the common sense approach would be as things move forward and somebody does pulls a permit that we go out and we address it with them like you said and one swale one driveway at a time you know we'll get there. Um I just want to make sure that um that we don't
restrict you know any of the rightaway plannings that are consistent with the with the existing planning. So if it's there like if somebody's got say a palm tree small palm tree one doesn't get more than 3 ft high that's not an approved that's not approved then they can't put
that back in there even if it was already there. But I'm I'm okay with that because when I look at the multi the rainbow of colors that run through there I don't know how deep that is. I don't know how deep I can go before I hit it. Variable death depths so they don't interfere with each other.
Yeah. So I just want to make sure we have common sense. It sounds like the common sense approach is how we will do it as permits get issued. We'll talk to them and explain to them what our driveway needs to look like. Then of course the swale should should mirror that. Um
the water man projects um I think we've had one or two problems with them. So I even the professionals that do this um experience because they're moved around after 75 years close. I'm sure some of these things have moved around and they've shifted and roads and sidewalks
coming in through. So, even the professionals that do this have had a problem identifying where they are. And it's another concern that I have is that, you know, we spent um I think we spent Friday afternoon and and our first responders right now are in the county
taking care of a a project. Um and the tree canopies, yes, we have invested an inordinate amount of time and energy to promote those. I know that's been part of city the village leadership going back years and years and years. Um, but
I think when we do it on our own property, if I'm not mistaken, if we use a uh a root ball container or something like that, root barrier, root barrier. So, so that we're doing things to mitigate probably the pro the trees that in the past weren't planted
with those that perhaps created some of those issues before. Um, and I guess how do we monitor, you know, new swailes? I think council member Brandon brought it up. Um, for monitoring new swells. So, that monitoring goes back to before the
common sense issue. We're just going to be able to This is only going to be addressed with somebody if they pull a permit for some type of irrigation, driveway, pavers. Correct. Correct. And as far as how do you mitigate that, we have code enforcement
that drives the village every day. Yeah. Or whether it's Marjorie or myself or staff and we see new plantings, new pavers out in the driveway going in without a permit. It's the same way we do it now. Same way we conduct business now. All right. Um, so that's kind, you know, I I I see the importance of this. You
know, we're we're not creating anything new here. I we're just, like you said, we're taking these seven or eight chapters plus the appendix and kind of putting them all to something sensible. So whereas now chapter 30 might refer to chapter 50 and it says go see it here and there. So we're dropping them all over the place. So it'll make it easier
for developers, builders, homeowners, things like that. So I I see the point in this. I'm I'm I'm anxious if we do move forward this evening to what legal counsel will come back with on recommendations for fines and and things like that. Um so I'm in favor of this
for all the reasons that I just spent a long time describing. So, hi. Thanks, Vice Mayor. Um, I just want to say I do appreciate staff streamlining and clarifying the code and also adding that appendix with allowable
plans. After speaking with a resident and searching our code online, the various uh violations that he received, it was very difficult to navigate um our code. I don't this is coming from
someone who knows how to do that. So, I think this is uh long overdue. I do know that code enforcement has been issuing notices and violations as it relates to artificial turf in the rightway. So, I do want to make sure that we're not, you know, unfairly targeting anyone when we
are uh performing code enforcement duties. One kind of minor thing I was hoping we could clarify on the ordinance if rock or mulch is or is not allowed anywhere in the rideway, whether that be the driveway or the swale. And then I do
support kind of the long game approach that Doug mentioned. I know we budgeted for some soil rework this upcoming fiscal year. You know, I walked those projects myself and I fully supported that. I do ask that uh staff does provide an enhanced public education
campaign on our rightway to educate the residents and businesses. Um and I think we need to make sure that staff has a unified message when speaking to the residents and businesses about the rightway requirements because I think we've had some challenges with that in the past too. But um I do I agree with
vice mayor uh especially when it comes to flooding and getting water off the road. you know, it becomes a public safety issue. And this really is just kind of streamlining and clarifying existing code into one place to make it uh clearer and easier for residents,
businesses, developers, who even council members, right? Like I said, I really struggled myself clicking around um all the various chapters of the code to try to find this information. So, uh thank you for the time you've spent on this. And uh yeah, I guess the only thing I'd
like to consider for a revision a revision is um clarifying if rock or mulch is allowed or not. That mayor, that's already in the revision. And um rock, mulch, gravel, and artificial turf are not permitted in
the rideway. Concrete is in the driveway. Pavers are allowed where there is no sidewalk. So the pavers can continue straight through, but where there's sidewalk, it's only concrete. There's no gravel, no rocks, and no asphalt.
Yeah, I saw that for the driveway. Is it as clear for the swale? Yes. And I'll go back and look at that, but that was in there. Okay. I could have overlooked it. So yeah, if we could just double check, that'd be great. Thank you. Thank you, mayor. Public comment, Mara
Perry. Maria, I live in the country club. Um, with respect to Mr. Chambers, this pro the as written, this code does require immediate compliance. And as such, this proposal should be rejected categorically. Enacting any part of it
would be devastating to the village's property values and most likely also its drainage capacity and heavy rains. The worst of it is that it proposes through fines, leans, and ridiculous permitting processes to enforce against village residents a policy that is directly contrary to the expressed wishes of
residents to have beautiful treeline streets. I have four main points. This is an number one, this is an unnecessary misappropriation of power by staff. There is no need for this proposal to enable the village to access underground infrastructure to make repairs and preserve the swailes to prevent
flooding. The village already possesses all of the power it needs to make repairs and preserve the swailes. Instead, the plan gives the abil the village the ability to severely punish residents for not clearcutting the right of way in front of their homes. There is nothing in this proposal that restricts the village from requiring immediate
compliance. I have to underscore that this would require immediate compliance. Number two, this plan would devastate property values. This proposal would destroy the beautiful mature trees and hedges in the village and accordingly decimate property values because by its literal terms, no trees are allowed in
the right ofways. To be clear, the proposal requires that one, all plants in the right ofways must be on the approved plant list. Two, any non-compliant plants must be replaced, i.e. removed on pain of punishment, and three, there are no trees or shrubs on the approved plant list, which means
that any trees or shrubs in the rightway must be removed immediately. As such, this proposal is wholly inconsistent with our comp plan on which residents have relied, especially policy 1.16.1, which states that quote, "The village shall consider its street trees as
infrastructure to preserve and protect them as community assets." End quote. It's also totally in conflict with 1.16.2.3.4 and.5. It is incredible that staff would propose an ordinance so completely at odds with the comp plan and wishes
residents. And to underscore this this desire, look at the recent mobility plan where residents top request was for more trees adjacent to the roadways. Number three, the plan is antithetical to flood mitigation and public safety. The purpose sections pay lip service to protecting storm water infrastructure,
but by making the swailes exclusively grass, they will encourage landscaping trucks to park on them, compressing the soil and causing it to absorb less in major storms. Heavy trucks parking on top of underground pipes might also damage them, probably more so than roots of small bushes. Trees and shrubs in the
rightway prevent parking in addition to act actually absorbing the rain water. If staff believes that the slopes of the swailes are not being maintained by residents, they bear a major share of the blame for that. In over 10 years of living here, there's never, to my knowledge, been any sort of general education campaign by the village about
what the slopes of the swale should be or even where they're located. It isn't clear that even a res if a resident sought to figure out what the slope of their swale should be that the v that they could easily the village could easily point to existing information to show them. That is not the resident's
fault. But this plan threatens to punish them if they don't comply without telling them exactly how to do so. And that is extremely unfair. Um, it's also unfair to find threat to find residents who have pooling if the village doesn't intend to require immediate restoration of all of the swailes because the
swailes that do are put in or do currently exist will have pooling in front of them. Uh, due to time, I'll briefly state point4, there is a major litigation risk for the village if it proceeds with this plan. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. P. Marsha Nielson.
Marsha Nielson, I'm in the Pines and I support Lori and I support Marie. Um, I read it. I'm, you know, I didn't do as much research as you guys. I saw it as very, very aggressive. I have, oh my
god, I have u the riot pee in my swale. So, I guess that I'm going to have $150. And that's how I read it. I didn't read anything about being grandfathered in. Nothing in the background. Now, maybe I missed it, but that's not what I read. I think it's aggressive and I I I think
and the plant list is not the plant list that the homeowners have that gives me. The homeowner say I should plant something. You're saying I'm plant something else. So, you know what I'm going to do? I'm going to pull everything out and you guys can deal with sand.
Thank you. Any other comments from council? I do have a follow-up question. Um, Wayne is not here, so I guess I'll direct my question to Jeremy, but it ties into what Doug mentioned that the
goal is not to go and start finding basically 90% of the village who is grandfathered in. But I go back to regulations. So, how would code regulate new plantings? And I mean this with all disres or respect. We go through code
enforcement officers like candy. So, every time we get a new one, it's it's happened a lot this year where people get upset cuz they got all these code violations taped to their door, but technically they were grandfathered in. So, how do we educate new code enforcement officers who are driving
around doing their job and they see things in the rideways? How do they know what's old, what's not, what's new? What if it's little? If it's flowers, they could be a perennial. They just came back so they look new. How do you regulate? How is code with new officers
coming and going and don't know what's been here? They're looking at it with fresh eyes. How do we regulate that? Does code know how to function that? I mean, I think a keep our building official. I mean, he's here. He'll have the longevity longevity with that. We do
have two code code officers now. So, in theory, if one leaves, we still have the other one. Um, most of the time, you know, you can see it when you drive down the street. you can see when people are putting in new landscaping didn't pull a permit. I mean it's pretty it's pretty simple to see that. Um
I mean I think yeah that's the answer to your question I think. So my point is just like I keep going back to regulation and I'm all for for doing this in pieces and I like that the goal is not to go out and basically have everything ripped out and start over. I like that you're saying that. I just
don't know how we actually be successful at basically regulating this and moderating it. Um, but thanks for the just the little tools that we use now now, you know, more than ever is I mean Google Maps and Papa like you can get on
Google Maps and and see when you know go back a year or two and you can see that it was planted there or that it was there and you can go now and you see well that's not there now and usually date stamped on that. So that's a tool that we use. I mean, I know there was one with a we'll say a cracked sidewalk
that they, you know, said the village did, but you go back and you look four years ago, it was already there. So, like, it really wasn't the village. So, there are a lot of things, a lot of tools like that that we could use that that show, you know, something was there prior or not. And all due respect to you, I I agree
that we could use those as tools. I don't think we should rely solely on those because not all of them are updated often. Um, and again, based on when we make this a little more concrete, if this goes forward, I mean, what's the date point then for residents? Couldn't they say, "Oh, I did
these in June of 2025." I just, again, I go back to So, I wish you luck on how to regulate this. Um, but I'm all for keeping our pipes and everything safe. Please get that right. Just I think some people are going to be very upset cuz they're they aren't going to have a lot to work with and our
driveways are not going to be helpful, right? I want I wanted to read a message I got and this is an interesting perspective because the perspective is usually the opposite of this. This morning someone installed a sign at the northeast corner of our property.
Although the sign is in the village driveway, the imp placement of the sign and the sign itself demonstrates poor judgment that is problematic. The installation of the sign required digging in a space where there's two water lines and electrical utility lines. Last time
a construction crew dig in that space, they broke the line twice and it was a real nuisance. It seems very basic not to dig over these lines. It seems to me that whoever is doing this work should assign a higher priority being less invasive than they currently are. It poses a risk of
harmful I'm sorry. It poses a risk of harm unnecessarily. So, you know, that's one sign in a ride ofway for construction project,
and yet you want to see trees and all these other things in the right way and then send that email out before and I go back to what Vice Mayor said. If we use common sense and people per pull permits, I just don't like the limiting of what could be in there if there's enough space away from the
utilities. But I agree with vice mayor just people have to pull permits if you're in the right way just like Mr. Painer said like and you have to know the risk. It might come out if you put in molly grasses. I mean they might be coming out at some point. That's the risk. So don't put anything super expensive or lifelong there. But I like
the idea of having more options again cuz some like those corner lots. We can have naked corner lots now. There's plenty of room to have more options away from the utilities. But I like mirror. Are you going to go with that? Just use
common sense. Pull permit. Call 811. Patrick, anything else? Nothing else? No. Mayor Jason? Um I my only question would be if it's there's obviously there's some understanding from folks that we've heard from this
evening that this is immediate and it's going to happen and there's going to be fines regardless. While we're looking, if we do move forward, and I hope we can get a consensus, make sure we understand what the consensus would be, can we look at options or some language perhaps that
would address um current landscaping until a permit would be pulled or can we look at something that may have that part of the code or Yeah, I've seen some code as we were doing the research that that says from this day forward, anything that was planned prior, you know, stays, you
know, stays the course. knowing that having said that if we have a project and we have to come through there and rip stuff out, it's a problem with responsibility. I mean the other thing that I would offer um since you know most of this is clean up and trying to combine the seven chapters if
there are plants that you would like to see incorporated we can take a look at them and see if there's you know that if if it doesn't we can bring those back as well. Um so that'd be something I would say would be you know something you said that the list wasn't very good.
if if you want to see some additional plannings, you know, let us take a look at them and, you know, meets the criteria. Okay. Uh I just since we don't have two people here in front of us, do we are we in agreement to at least have legal counsel look at some additional options
and I think we might need to bring this back again before with that. Yeah, I would appreciate if legal got a chance to look at it more in depth. Thank you. Mhm. Jason or mayor, I don't have anything further. I I do
think there needs to be some cleanup language and we can get to that, but I would like to move forward on the project as a whole. Okay. May have less may have lost the mayor. So, I think we're in agreement that we'll we'll at least get this information brought back to us. may be
at the next workshop or it may be at a future council meeting depending on what you're comfortable with. Yeah, I understand that the sentiment that's been uh verbalized and you know understand what you've been presented tonight is is not in ordinance form at
all. It's very conceptual. So there's there's a lot of work to do still to get this into a format that would be presented for actual um voting. Uh, I I will um do my best to get something back
to you that's in ordinance form by your next workshop. I'm not yet, but but there's, you know, there's there's there's there's this is conceptual. There's there's a lot to do before it's ready for prime time.
Okay. and is sitting as the facilitator of this evening. I would appreciate that and believe that it's an emotionally charged issue that a lot of people have some very strong opinions and let's just let's hear it all out. Agreement. Good. Good. Thank you, Doc. Thank you.
Thank you. Thanks, Doug. Item number three, um discussion of One Main Street and Paradise Park. And I I'm going to be really quick because I know Mr. Frankle's here and I don't know if he wants to say any words but um he just kind of as an opening as
we have talked about this several different times. I did think it was important for me to just kind of talk about how this process came about just to start and um you know Mr. Perko which I believe is one of the owners of this property you know called me and told me that he was putting it up for sale at
that point is when I triggered the idea of why doesn't the village entertain buying this? this wasn't, you know, the, you know, anything to do with, I think, the relationship that the developer has had with the village, you know, with other projects. Um, he offered to to
have the discussion about us put it out for a referendum and entertain the idea of of, you know, putting a lease to the property so that way we could go through that process. I think it it should be said that, you know, at least the developer, the owner, Mr. Frankle, Mr.
Perco have been willing to, you know, work with a village. This is not to say that, you know, whether it's right for the village or not. I mean, they were putting the property up. They had an appraisal for $9.8 million, offered to sell it to the village for $8.8 a million less. At that point, we
worked um to get our own appraisal. Uh that own our own appraisal uh which was stated last meeting, which is now part of your backup, came out at $8.45 million. So I know that we wanted to have this as a public discussion and
instead of you know just through through the you know at the end of the meeting last meeting after a couple hours to really just have the discussion about uh you know Paradise Park and the the desire to you know for the for the residents to have this park but knowing
the challenges with parking and the cost um you know I think we we brought this back for discussion per council. Um Mr. Frankle's here. I don't know if he wants to say any words. I know he's on a short timeline, so he does have to go, but um I believe you have all the backup you
need for that you guys requested. Um I know Jay's here. I know there's been discussions about the parking. I think that's covered, but if you have additional uh discussion about the parking, Jay can help with that as well. So, uh with that, I turn it back over to you. Mr. Franklin, you're on a timeline.
Okay. We'll do this out of order just thank you for coming. Okay. Uh, for the record, Tom Frankle, the property owner, uh, with Phil Perco of Main Street. Um, Jeremy pretty much said it accurately.
We didn't approach the town about selling it. He approached us. We are open to lots of things. We are not like this way, our way of the highway. We're open. We've been trying to, you know, figure out what to do with this property. Whole Foods was interested. We were at the one yard line with the lease
and we did not do it because their demands were so so overwhelming. Um and and there's, you know, there's been a lot of discussion. We've thrown a lot of ideas at all you guys. Um really haven't made much traction. We talked about variances and all stuff. We would
entertain a fair price for the property. Um 845. Sure. Right. Um and the lease number was discussed. We have to pay property taxes for a period of time. We obviously have um a lot of carry costs
involved. So, you know, the number I think was thrown out of the 100. We asked for 120. Again, we're a willing partner in this thing. Ultimately, whoever develops this property, if you don't buy it, has to be it has to be a partnership to make this
work. It's such an significant property for the town. Um, we've been struggling with how to make it work to be quite honest. And and you know, Phil's a residential developer, I'm a residential developer. Neither of us are really mixed developers. And there's a lot of
mixed juice developers out there who who have a lot of interest in the property and probably more expertise to make something happen. But again, we're open. And that's that's really all I want to say. So, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Michael. I appreciate that. Uh, council comments. Jason still
on. This is Jason. I can go first. Yes. I think um the owners, you know, having the conversation with us and just over the last couple years, I've enjoyed hearing from them and I think it's a great group that I'd love to do business
with. I think at at the 8.45 price, even though it still is a fair price, I think we're very far off as a village on being able to afford it. And I believe that going to ballot with the residents with the parking situation would just create
a lot of confusion. Um so in in plain I'm not for going ahead with this project as is, but if there's some other alternative solutions, some partnerships, you know, I'm sure there's some some improved solutions out there that we just need to uncover. Uh, I
would be interested in finding a way to have that partnership or find a way for us to own that property. Thank you. Thank you. Right. No, I uh well, first of all, I think Mr. Frankle and Mr. Perco, I you know, I didn't even have to open up to that
conversation when the when the village manager even, you know, brought that up. So, thank you. I think you guys have been a good partner. You've worked with us. It's been it's been a gosh at least a year we were working together on trying to make this property you know special for everybody. Um
you know as much as I wanted this to work I I I think it would have been something really awesome for our village. I think I just think the parking requirements and the unknowns of what we could actually do for it this time. I just I just don't think we're at a point where we can go to referendum on it.
Unfortunately, I just I don't think we'd be able to to deliver a clear picture to our residents as to what we could actually do with it. And that's that's where my hesitation is. But, um, I think it was a, you know, a great thing to
look at that we considered it. I think ultimately it would have been awesome for us to own it and have, you know, like Mr. Frankle just said, it is a very significant property for our village. you know, I my fear is someone's going to come in who isn't willing to work with us as much as they were and, you know, try to bully us around a little
bit. Um, but I do know we have certain, you know, controls that we can, you know, make sure that doesn't happen. But, uh, right now I just don't think we're at a point where we can entertain it and, you know, maybe the lease is an option that we can look at, but right
now I just don't feel right putting it on to the residents with with what we know or don't know. Thank you, Mina. This property is like this thorn in my side. Um, can we just clarify
the lease amount of 120, 125, whatever it is, cuz it always goes back and forth. What was that to cover the future till March or back paying the property owner? Well, I mean, I think on an annual basis, they had to pay taxes and
insurance. So, it was going to cover that for a year period. However, you want to say, you know, pay a little bit from behind, pay a little bit forward. It's just to cover their annual cost for insurance and taxes. I mean, that was what I mean, we we had talked about prior. Um, I know there was
some language in there they were going to take take half of that and deliver toward the, you know, principal. Um, I think if we move forward with any kind of lease agreement, which I don't know if we are at this point, we we may drop some of that. I mean, just to make it simpler because we were as we started
some of this lease discussion and some of the language, it was it got pretty convoluted. So, um I know talking to him even today, you know, we try to simplify that process a little bit, but still be 125 with 25,000 probably estimated for
maintenance costs throughout the year with tree trimming, mowing, utilities, that those types of things. That's roughly I think we were at 20,000 3 years ago when we were leasing it. So, we're estimating about 25,000 now. Okay. Just to double check. And again, just I've said it last
meeting for the record. have never said we should or shouldn't buy this property. We were just looking at if we should ask the voters to vote on it because we always get asked about this property every time it comes up. We have since the past few months
uncovered very complicated issues with the property. When the developer bought the property from the previous owner, they accepted the parking agreement. I'm only saying this so residents can understand a little bit more. They when they build a
mixeduse they are able to accommodate those parking spaces such as I believe in one of their designs there was a parking garage. If the village were to own this we would not be building a parking garage. So we would be stuck with the parking spaces where they are currently. And then if we were to put
anything of use on any of the back two parcels, we would have to create more parking for visitors whether they were visiting or if we had an event there. And since Austin the past few months surrounding property owners have expressed parking issues on their
properties when there is events. So there are a lot of things that came to light. I appreciate the appraisal we sought out for came back. I appreciate the property owner who owns it now coming down and accepting that appraisal as well.
I still sit very in the middle. I understand my fellow council members are kind of really leaning towards one side. I still to be honest I still just hear such mixed feedback from residents. I absolutely hear the that is not a good
deal. We should not even be talking about it. And then I hear a lot of residents also say we would want a chance to try anything to get that property and not necessarily to combat development, but to have they say to have ownership and skin in the game in
that area to safeguard an actual part of downtown that very well could be part of the future over there. So, to be honest, I'm really stuck in the middle. I can kind of go either way. I'm not saying it's a good deal. If I if I were looking at this property, I would not buy it for me and my family. Um, but again, this
isn't my village. This is the president's village. So, we do, like Mr. Painter said, we do still have a couple little tidbits kind of unresolved. I mean, council, I know staff has talked with the property owners, but council really hasn't had
any conversations with them as a group. I don't like this time crunch and it's just ticking away. I mean, we're going to be in October or Wednesday. I don't like doing that to the voters. let's race this and not have all our ducks in a row and really know what we're doing. So, that does leave me a little on
consensus side with you guys. Um, only mostly in fairness to the residents because this is such a risky and expensive deal that would go through. I don't like the timeline passing us by so quickly. Um, but to be fair and honest, I'm really sitting in the middle for
multiple reasons and because truly I I still to this day get really mixed feedback on both sides. So, answer that. Good. Um, thank you. I, um, for a different reason, I believe, really don't want to put take this off the tax roles. Um, I
was all for trying to acquire Paradise Park, as we call it. Um, try to make it a signature destination, you know, consistent with one main street. Um, I am just overly concerned about the
village losing real estate tax income in some form or fashion. Um it will be on the ballot next year. If you listen to the current administr administration, they're going to have something that's going to be put forth. Um and it scares me that this is one of the two significant properties remaining
in the village that can generate income. Right now, at least it's generating some tax revenue for us. I think you take it off the tax role. Um I along with I think every other council member received feedback pro and con. I've heard the people that I've heard say acquire the property. said a choir, but
at the village expense. They will not pay for a bond. I can't tell you that's enough to pass or defeat a bond issue. Everyone thinks the village should do it and we have it in our backup every month at village council what our investment reserves look like and our reserve
accounts and we are fiscally sound that would we don't have the money to buy it. Um so I didn't have not one person said sure bring a bond forward to us. So that's my concern uh from from a financing standpoint, but I it's in the mixed use. We spent a lot of time and
energy on trying to develop overlays that may or may not at this time be enforceable or applicable due to Senate Bill 180. Um but I think it's mixed use. That's what it is called for and almost every document that I've seen uh since
moving to the village, comp plan, you know, long range plan, you name it. sharetses. People want to make it some type of destination and I think a destination that is mixed use again I look at a role in being fiscally sound and if we take this off the tax roles we
lose what potentially could be I don't know what the number would be as far as taxable you know revenue to us. Um, but I think if this was a year from now, we'd have a I would have a better comfort level taking something off the tax roles, knowing what may or may not apply in a lame duck administration at
the state level. Uh, but something's coming and I think there'll be something put forth to the voters. I don't know that. Uh, and that concerns me is taking it off the role. So, I don't want to move forward with this just really because I don't think it's the right thing for the village from a fiscal responsibility uh, point of view. So, that's kind of
where I'm at with this. Mayor, hey, thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Um, I do want to thank the property owners for being willing to have the conversation with us um for us to potentially put out a bond referendum to purchase, but since there's been no
changes to the shared parking agreement and we would basically have to use taxpayer dollars for an entire parcel to accommodate parking for adjacent private property owners, I still don't believe that it would be fiscally responsible for us to move forward with the bond on
referendum to purchase that property. Thank you. Okay. A public comic excuse me Marie Superior. I live in the country club. Um the acquisition of Paradise Park, if it were possible, would be a great thing for the village because the village desperately needs
more park space and more park space is immensely beneficial to residents and the quality of life, not to mention the property values. This location in particular would also benefit all of the local businesses along US1 and immediately surrounding the park. It would be a major achievement for the village and I do hope you will do
everything in your power to make it possible. In that regard though, I would like to ask through the chair um the clar for clarification. I appreciate the clarification earlier um but I'm still not sure I understand the of the parking status of the parking agree or the
status of the parking agreement between one main street and the potential sellers current owners. Specifically, it is not clear to me that whether the reference parking agreement complied with the village off-site parking requirements set out in the code section 78-707 C. Um it's my understanding that if
these code requirements were not met, then any agreement between the owners is not binding on the village. And if that's the case, then the question of the parking deficiency at one Main Street is an issue for the current property owners to resolve between themselves only. The village would not in that case have to agree to their private agreement if the village were to
purchase these properties and the village should not and this issue should not deter us from moving forward to potentially purchase these properties. So I respectfully respectfully request that the status of the parking agreement be clarified publicly. Thank you. Thank you.
to the village manager. Can we address that or maybe Jay? Yeah, give it a shot and Jay can back me up. But I mean really what the property owner at the time owned all four parcels of the of the park of the agreement. Mr. Frankle is here and he can clarify too if I'm in the wrong in any of this, but
they owned all four parcels. when they decided to purchase the other three, they wrote it into the agreement that any future development would not hinder uh they had to get approval and they couldn't put them in a nonconforming
use. So, if they needed, you know, 90 spots, they would have to make sure they even though they took and sold that that part of it, they would have to leave and make sure that property stayed in compliance. So at the time when they owned all four parcels, shared parking,
not a problem. They I mean they they had all four parcels. But when they decided to sell that property and they put that language in that agreement, that became the problem is they I mean and and this is just my terms. the the property owner
that um that sold the property basically I mean got value out of that still has value in that property even though they don't own it anymore because they have you know 50s something spots that they still have value in that they don't that
they got money for and so and that's just my terms that's the way that I you know that I put it in and Jay can add anything more to it maybe get a little more technical than me The answer is it's an extremely complicated parking situation and um
dating back to 1999 when the current building with italiano was built they actually showed the parking for um that's offsite in one of the other parcels being used for the italiano building. Then in 2021 when the Harvey School came in and was getting a special
exception, there is um indication in the staff reports that there were 110 spaces that were being utilized for that entire plaza on site. And so uh to to Mrs. Perry's point, um, the village probably
procedurally in 1999 should have reported an off-site parking agreement to formalize that off-site parking agreement, but and and they they essentially um counted those spaces without the off-site agreement. So, they took action as if um those spaces were
being used for that current building. So, I don't I mean I defer to Keith as as always, but I don't see any way that we would be able to approve anything on those building on those vacant parcels that would bring the Italiano building
out of compliance with the required parking standards. Um, that's my answer, Keith. And if you any thoughts, nothing I could add. Yeah, just disappear. I know just cuz you
asked for clarification. That actually didn't quite answer my question. So my question is that and I perhaps I don't understand but the my understanding is that off-site parking agreements have to be approved and that would include be between the two current property owners
like that piece. So that would be when it was purchased in 2023 that it would have it would have to come back. We couldn't rely on something from 1999 especially since it was they weren't separate owners. And yeah, I can see the chain of why you would have done it in
1999, but when they become owned by separate people, that link is broken. So 1999, they should have put a recorded off-site parking agreement onto whatever parcel the was being used for that parking. They, from what I can see, they
did not actually record that. Um, and so um that's where we're at. Um, in an ideal world, they would have recorded that. Um, but in 2023, the fact that that off-site parking agreement wasn't recorded in 1999 didn't uh prohibit the
property from being sold to the current owners. So, is it legally binding? Well, I think what we look at is um what I I the is this being passed on again from we're building consensus. Is this
being passed on because of the the unknown of this parking agreement or is I know I'm not in favor has nothing to do with the parking agreement. I don't want to take it off the tax roles. Um I think the mayor I don't want to put words in his mouth. I think Mr. Council member French thinks the value is too
high. So I think with or without the parking agreement because the second the appraisal we did obtain does take into account a discounted value for some type of for the parking agreement. So if the current owners got it at 9.8 and we got it for 8.45
that included my understanding is the discounted value of the property based on a parking agreement. So I guess it comes down to why are we going to what why can't we find consensus on the deis? Is it because the value is too high that we don't want to pay for it? I want I
don't want to take it off the tax roles and and I don't want to put it to a referendum. I think it should be a mixeduse property and I don't want to speak for I heard Mr. Franks say the value is too high. But I think while that may be an issue that we could again kick the can down the road for yet
another month and spend more time on on this. But is that the reason why we're we can't come to a consensus? That's my question. Does the consensus have to be on the dis or does it include Zoom people? Because I'm pretty sure it's clear the consensus overall and I know last meeting the
mayor made her comment. My understanding, I've always believed a consensus means all five of you are of a like mind. That's a consensus. If it's not, then it requires emotion and a vote which cannot be taken at a workshop. Mine's a little bit all over.
Yeah. Um, a big part of it I agree with I think most of council. I don't think that's a good deal that we'd be paying for one parcel to be all parking. I also think we need not that I'm asking for more time but again this timeline that
it's just taken away makes me just very anxious and I don't do business that like rush rush rush rush rush especially again this is such a delicate piece for so many in the village um knowing that like the the value okay
so the owner very nicely was like hey I I'd be willing to go down to your appraisal was that the only conversation Could there be more conversation um in that conversation discussing maybe the DV value so to speak of the parking
agreement? Also, is there something in the village staffwise with the parking agreement depending on how binding it is? I mean, that parking lot's not always full. So what happens if the previous owner who still owns the
one parcel I mean sounds like that owner made a bad deal too? I mean is it that our job to clean up that and pay for it or can we have a conversation with that owner and then is there technically a way that council could discuss with that
owner how do we work this out? Is there a special exception? Looking at the I'm not saying that's the way, but I feel like the conversations aren't done. And that's why I'm kind of not one way or the other. It's definitely not black and white for me. Um I don't think this
right today. I don't think this is a good deal for the village residents money. Can I say it's an extremely complicated parking issue to litigate at the podium like this back and forth? But I but I will say uh which just adds to the issue too, right? um because I
can't even at this late at night I can't get my brain to to fully explain it to you guys properly. But I will say that one thing I did not mention I think Jeremy touched on is in 2023 when the current owners purchased the property from the the Italiano building in the there was an addendum to that purchase
agreement and in that addendum it said that the purchaser can do nothing to bring the current building out of compliance with the parking code. So, I'm hearing staff and our legal counsel say there's nothing else to add.
Yes. Connect. That's And if we want to go against staff and our legal counsel, no, I I as far as the value, I mean, I'm sure there's somebody that'll pay, you know, 8.45 or more, you know. I just I think there's too much um uncertain.
Well, I don't even know if it's uncertainty. There's there's going to be some issues with the parking. It would sound like um I don't disagree with your point. you know, taking it off the tax roll. That's significant. I would love nothing more than to turn this into a park. I just don't think it's the most um fiscally prudent thing
right now. I mean, could we put it out to the residents? Sure. I just don't think we could really I don't think there's it would be so open-ended right now. We wouldn't be able to put anything really in the verbiage in the referendum. um like
originally we had you know had some pretty clear guidelines on what we thought we could do with it and I just don't think that's certain right now and I think out of fairness not that the property owner is waiting for us to make a decision but out of fairness for them I don't think we should you know kick this another month I just um they need
to make a decision and go ahead can I chime in vice mayor yes please um I just I mean I want to say we've been talking about this for months I don't think it's been rushed Um, and you know, our our perks parks purchasing policy is very clear about
the process too and how we would go about negotiating uh a potential purchase of a property. So, you know, we already have that policy in place to guide us there. Um, and I think, you know, with the parking restraints that
we have, even if we decided that we did want to go out for bond referendum, knowing those parking restraints, how are we going to even develop anything ourselves because we're going to have to have more parking for that. So, I feel like the developable the amount of land we can actually develop for a park would
be so small. And um, you know, I think that's very difficult to explain via a bond referendum. and we are here and elected by our constituents to make these smart choices because we're the ones that are supposed to fully educate ourselves on the matters, right? Not the
constituents. So, um I just want to throw that out there and you know, my statement that I said earlier remains. All right. Thank you, Mayor. Mr. Frank, you know, there's a lot of concerns and talk about all this parking.
I have a suggestion and just trying to facilitate this one way or the other is maybe we or us together just engage someone for a couple thousand dollars to do a site plan study of how it could fit, how much of a park you can get and
how many spaces you actually need on the property based on the uses in the building that are there and so forth. just it would be quick and you and you see and then you're either gonna have not enough room for a park and it's just
not worth your money or you know maybe it's not that bad cuz you have all you also have parking along Main Street and I don't know just an idea. Yeah, just to even have it a park we have to change the zone. So we just it's just another step cuz currently we
couldn't put a park on a mixeduse parcel could we? Yeah. multiple open space zoning and comp plan. Yeah, let me let me complicate this a little bit more and add to Miss Brandon's point probably is that if we don't have a consensus tonight, it will show up on
your next agenda in October to say yes or no. And then by November, we have to have 75 words uh and approve that language for the ballot and by November meeting, council meeting. When you say October, it's the October the council meeting, not the October.
No, this is the October council meeting. We have to have an official vote. Are we moving forward or not? If we don't have consensus tonight and we will draft of 75 words to put on the ballot that we have to vote on yes or no, we're putting on the ballot in November because we have to turn that in by the first week
in December. Yeah. So, just and I don't want to you guys tell me if you want to do the the space study, you know, have consensus to do that, we can do that. I mean, we we serve with the pleasure of the council. So I I but I think if the definition of consensus is that the five people moving
in the same direction, I don't think we have that right this evening. So then we would come back and we'd go home tonight, try to put this on the the agenda for next next week or for the 9th and then we you guys would vote on moving forward or not.
Is there anybody here that's a yes or in reference to a study? I mean, I think we have enough to scale drawings to visualize where it would all fit or not fit. I don't think that's necessary to spend a couple grand. I don't think I
I'm pretty sure I could figure that out. And I'm pretty sure there's consensus already. Consensus of not moving forward. That's what I'm hearing, but I don't want to speak for everybody. I mean, the past few meetings, the last meeting and this
meeting, it for me, I'm I'm hearing that the consensus is not to move forward. I I that's what I'm hearing and that's what I'm in favor of is not moving forward. Is that what the attorney hears? I agree too. Okay. Okay. Yeah, I do appreciate the offer to do
the parking study. I don't even know how long that would take to get. I have no idea. Um, I think the question is is, you know, is that going to change the what the vote could be? You know, I I I'm not I don't know if
I can tell you I I I sorry to interrupt you. No, I it could be we could fit all three parcels. I don't think we take it off the tax role. So, I'm a hard I'm hard to to be to move off of my position. So, I hear we don't have consensus. Yeah. I'm not a hard no. I just for me
it's this isn't fully vetted. Not I know we've been talking about for months but I feel like it could be better for the residents and I'm yeah like I said I'm really stuck in the middle. I mean I don't hate the idea of doing
this parking study. You know how I feel about studies. We'll do it anyway. I mean I just think like we've all said this is a significant property. I I'd like to beat this up as much as we can. And I I I think we all have our reasons
for, you know, thinking it's a good idea or not a good idea. And ultimately, we might decide it's not a good idea to me. We just something just got brought up that we haven't discussed yet. And that might change my mind. It could change a
few of our minds. I don't know. Um, so yeah, I don't I'm I'm okay with going toward the parking study cuz to me, you know, whether or not do I think do I think 8.45 is a a a good purchase? I
don't even know. I mean, obviously the appraiser did. Um, to me it's more about we have had so so much opinion from residents as to what this property these parcels could be or what they should be and this is the opportunity to potentially do that if a parking study
could potentially answer some questions for us. I mean, who knows? Maybe it comes back and we're all, me included, are are thinking that the parking is more of a problem than it could be. So yeah, I'm I'm okay doing that,
Miss Brandon. I'm in the middle. Um, are you going to front it? Yeah, we'll do it. Okay. I mean, I'm not asking for this message to be on the next meeting. I mean, it has to be though. Has to be. Which is fine.
We'll get We should do it again. What's 75? It won't be able to be done by October 9th. It will not be. No. So, my point is that's what I That's what I mean by the time is ticking. It's not that we haven't been talking about this for a few months. It's to really
get all the ducks in a row. That's the time that's ticking. It's this is a process. And anyone that buys property like this knows it's not you just don't show and go, "Oh, I want this. Here's cash." And give it to me. It's it's a lot of logistics to go in. And that's what I mean by the time is ticking and
I'm not 100% comfortable delivering it. the option to the residents yet because it's it's not ready. Well, I think that matters if if the parking thing gets done. I mean, and it misses our timeline. That's a whole new conversation. Yeah. If if it can't be if the parking
can't be here by October 9th, which isn't going to answer any more questions we have tonight. Then that would matter, right? Because we we'd have to know by the next council meeting. Am I hearing that correctly? Yeah. So, we'll put it on there. We'll just go ahead and put it stop, you know, going around the the wagon. We'll put it
on the next council meeting. We'll see if the study can be done and that may make your guys decision yes or no at that point. And if it's a no, then that'll put it to rest. If it's a yes, we'll continue down the path. We talk about a lot of stuff up here probably more than we should. I think this one deserves it. I mean, that's just my opinion. Yeah, very true.
What's that? Very true. Yeah. I So, let's do it. Can we ask for some direction? So, what what would you be looking for in the parking study? I think a realistic um view of how much wait how well I guess whatever
it was from our point of view though it wasn't for a development right did I hear that for you guys buying so if if we if the village had it as a park what would the parking that's what it was I'm just going to say this I don't even know if it makes sense but are we're all saying we realistically we'd have to
give up a whole parcel for parking that may not be true I think it's trying to answer that question cuz is it that's how I took it too. Yeah. Is it half of it? Is it threequarters of it? I don't know. And then then we I think we can make a decision. So I have a quick question if I could
chime in. What I mean usually a parking study is done for either um existing buildings like what we've done in the past on when we updated our um guest and visitor and loading zone parking
requirements or a parking study will be done for an actual uh plan development so you know what the actual impacts are. So, what what exactly are we looking for from a parking study? Because we're not going to have a plan to provide of what we would develop there to get an idea of
the parking. And I mean, yes, we could do a parking study of what existing uses with the buildings at uh the adjacent properties that use the parking. But I I guess I want more clarity on what exactly we're asking for and what the
what data or outcome we're looking for from the parking study. Well, so the way I'm viewing it is I think we take it as the worst case scenario on what the parking could be, whatever that is. And and we know we want it to be some kind of park. You know, ideally it' be all
three parcels. We know it's not going to be that. But if we could somehow take that worst case scenario and make it work with some kind of plan that we've been kicking around for the last few months, and you know, they're they're offering to pay for it. Usually I don't like studies either, but you know this one's kind of
I appreciate that by the way. Um to me I don't see a loss. I don't see a downside here. That's other than talking about it one more time, which again there's so much we talk about over here over and over again. I uh this one to me is worth it. Well, I look at parking studies that we
did. Like the mayor said, it was peak usage. I think a somebody's going to go out there and monitor that parking lot maybe on a weekend they can get in in time and say that it's overparked that there's a lot of unused spaces that are out there that doesn't take away the fact that we we take them away then we
put somebody in the non-compliance. So I think we're going to get a parking study that's going to say it's over parked. I I think parking study is probably the wrong term. It it should be I think it was more of a sight plan more more of a site plan. So, so what we would be trying to do here is determine how many spaces the current Italiano
building is required or mandated by code to provide which actually nobody actually knows the exact number. We have not it's it's very complicated. I think we go worst case scenario. So, we'll yeah we'll go we'll we'll we'll go for that then determine how much space that would take up on on the
site. Mhm. and then figure out how many how much acreage is left over and then figure out how much parking we'd have to provide for our own park on top of that. I think Miss Brandon brought that up earlier. So then at the end of this we would be able to determine we have x amount of
acreage that is actually buildable for a park. It might be one and a half acres. It might be two. I don't know what the number is. I think what you're looking for, right? Absolutely. And what about do we have to take into account anything with Wells Fargo? There's 21 spaces that for Wells Fargo and roughly 40 plus for the
Italian building. Okay. I think we just I'd say worst case scenario, but I think we we have to go off of what we don't what it could be and go from there. I mean, we're talking a little bit of time. That's That's fine.
I think we can get that done this week. So, I'm I'm okay. I think it's as long as we can get back in time to get it properly. Yeah. I think we have to. Unfortunately, we're in this position now. We don't have a choice. So, let's do it. That's my opinion. All right.
Okay. Do all five of you are all five of you of a like mind? I don't think so. Well, what we're going to do, Keith, we're going to put it on the agenda for next Wednesday or next Thursday. And then the short term, they're going to see if they can get this parking study done. That will help them make their
decision next Thursday. Property owner wants to do it. You guys can do whatever you want. we have to put on the agenda either way because we don't have a consensus. I can't take I can't let council direct staff to do something in this workshop setting. So you need consensus to even move
forward with doing the site plan study. If you're directing staff to do it, if the property owner wants to do it, you guys can do whatever you want to do. We have no control over directing you to do anything. So you can take this conversation to heart and do whatever you think is uh in your best interest.
Okay. So, what do you need from us? Nothing. What's that? I'll just look at the attorney. Well, I So, what were you saying? What were you saying we have consensus on? I I apologize. My My Zoom was cutting in and out. This is Keith Mara. I from what I've
heard in this discussion, uh, nothing on this. Oh, okay. I thought you said we had confessions and I'm like, I don't think we do. said you have to how much would this Okay, sorry that's hence I said the zoom's cutting in and out. How much
would this the site plan study be? Not the they've offered to pay for it, Mayor Molly. Yeah. Yeah. The the the owner offered to pay but because there's kind of a unknown Well, there's a 32 41 position up here.
Um, all right. I think to put it to to rest and give it a vote because consensus is not, but I hear staff saying, "Well, perhaps we just put it on the agenda and if we get a site plan study or site plan proposal that can show the parking, then it could
be, you know, we thought this would be a quick discussion as well, but this is what the ordinary." So, again, my position won't change because I don't want to take it off the tax role. So, I don't leave it to legal counsel. I I don't want to be the to kill this thing because I'm willing to
talk about it again at the next meeting. So, if it's to say yes, I I'm in agreement to see if we can put it on the account on the on on the council agenda with the assumption or hope that maybe we'll get something to look at, then I would agree to that. Just knowing that there will be a vote taken at the next
council meeting. Yeah, I I agree with that that we need a vote at the next council meeting. If we have a site plan, great. But um yeah, if we're still paying for adjacent private property owner parking for a good portion of it, again, it's just going to be hard for me to justify using taxpayer
dollars for that. Yeah. All right. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Thank you. I'll support it on the next agenda as well. Uh this is all about working a deal, and I think this is part of it, so we'll have to see what comes out of it. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Frankle. Uh item number four, discussion on establishing a permit process for commercial motion picture use permit. So from time to time we have received an application from a company or different companies to film movie or picture uh scene here in the village of Tquesta. I
think in my six years we probably had six or seven of them. Um they're very small. We had one the last the weekend before last where they just came in and filmed a scene. We've had one at Const a couple out of Constitution Park. Um, so, uh, with that, we don't really have a
process for these. Um, so this is, uh, this is just for council discussion to put together a formal process. Right now, we have do a special events application, but our code is pretty specific that special events applications are only for residents or
businesses with a with a valid BTR. And so while it hasn't been an issue, uh I've been able to approve these administratively, um sure would be great if there was a better process in place that you know that uh did that. So I reached out to Mr. Davis. Mr. Davis had done these in
in a city or two or at least one provided me some some draft language. We haven't put it in code form, but we have put it up for discussion. Um, I think it allows for, you know, similar special events process where they'll, you know,
submit the application. It'll go to staff, staff, police, fire, public works, rag, depend on, you know, what the what the application looks like. And then our staff review it. With that, we would propose, you know, a similar
application fee for special events in the amount of $40. And that would be per day if they were doing a multiple days. and they would cover additional staff cost. If we have to do anything with police or fire or or any other staff, they would have to cover those costs.
That hasn't been the case in previous, but um my previous city, we we had a couple filmings that were multiple days and multiple people and took staff uh several several hours. So, u we will allow for that in the code. So, with that, have that for discussion for
council to decide. Um, but I think it's just really just formalizing a process, not to muddy the waters, but to give us something that gives us a process to approve or disapprove these. Thank you. And just to tighten that down a little, I mean, this this would deal with situations where somebody wanted to come
in and on village property on rights of way basically ask to temporarily, you know, shut it down. Uh this is not about a uh personal or or family event. This is not about uh
channel 5 coming in and shooting a story for the 6:00 news or this is not about a college student or high school students project. This is about production company coming in. We we want to use Village Hall parking lot. want you to shut it down so we can making sure that
um the the appropriate uh protections are in place. Uh that's what this is about. Um one thing we really can't deal with um would be uh to the extent drones are used, drone
regulations are preempted to the state. Um, but this is sort of on the ground. We want to come in and use these interfere with these public places to shoot our our movie, our TV show, our commercial, do a print, whatever. Um,
that that that's what this is about. Council, any comments? I would comment on the definitions. uh commercial motion picture probably needs to be defined in more detail unless the vagueness was on purpose.
We would we that that that's a an example that needs to be expanded to include all the things I just mentioned for sure. Okay. Thank you. And then I support it. I don't have any other comments. My legal question is I know you were
talking about village areas. would they be allowed to go into neighborhoods? And I asked because Palm Beach used to be really known for having movies shot in their area and a lot of them too. And I think about this cuz we have the river. If they're doing a boat scene and you
can see people's backyards, where does the privacy? And I don't know the answer and I don't expect you. Um I just want to make sure we're covered on that. And an example would be Heartbreakers. They ran boats up and down the inter coastal and you could see backyards of those beautiful mansions which are very recognizable. So I don't know if they
asked permission from those property owners that they could be in it. That was a very commercial shooting. Not to be too vague but you know there are certain places the expectation of privacy on public property is is different than the expectation of
privacy on private property can range a spectrum. I mean, if you're standing in your driveway in your front yard, there's much less of an expectation of privacy than if you're standing in a fenced in enclosed backyard or or inside your residence. So, okay,
there's not an easy answer that I know, but there are laws about expectations of privacy and certainly uh we would require any permit that's issued under this regulatory scheme to comply with those
laws. they they would you know we don't have to redefine those laws they exist now and we would say you know you're required to get consent or or be you know be mindful of yeah I guess another point to my like in my shooting world and this goes into
minors maybe when they pull a permit they have to identify where they want to shoot certainly so the village knows they'll be shooting near let's say on the water and they're doing a tubing scene and there's visible backyards I would very much appreciate the village cuz they have that permit
inform those residents because there could be a young teen in a very risky bathing suit. Now, there are laws about um they don't really want to be in a motion picture. No. And there are laws about about minors and and so those would all have
to be complied with as a make sure that's covered because I'd hate the village to be going down that road. Yeah. All of that would be taken into consideration for sure. Perfect. Okay, mayor. I have no comments. Mayor, um Keith addressed a lot of the
questions that I had. Um so, kind of like what council member French said. I just hope that uh when we see the final ordinance draft that it kind of clarifies what is and is not uh applicable to that code. And then would this also include professional
photography or do we already have a separate ordinance for photography? Well, I think so. If it's a like a I guess it depends on,
you know, if you've got a a production company coming in wanting to do like a a print ad and they're taking a bunch of still shots that it it may very well be captured. If you're talking about I I want to I I'm a personally doing a
taking pictures of a family member for a wedding invitation or something. It probably wouldn't. It it it's uh but I think it would be captured in the definition of uh to council member
French's comment the definition of uh commercial probably motion picture is not even the right term. It would need to be you know filming or film photography type of thing. Okay. Yeah. So if that could just be addressed as well, that would be great.
Thank you. Okay. So I think we're at a consensus to move forward on that. Okay. Yes. Any public comment? Okay. I guess next issue is a motion to adjurnn. So moved. Second. All in favor? I I
You scared me. I thought there was another way you agenda. Thank you, mayor. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, guys. Bye. So here's a your art.
Yeah. Even like the schools Nice.