A significant portion of the meeting centered on the exclusion of properties east of 19th through 21st Avenue from the PAG overlay district. This area, originally intended to be within the overlay in 1999, was excluded in 2003 for reasons that were not clearly documented. The board engaged in a discussion on why these properties were left out and what it could mean for the future of the historic district. The need for updated zoning maps was emphasized to ensure consistency with current standards and the potential for further investigation into the matter was proposed.

The board also delved into the issue of rezoning and spot zoning in the historic area south of 32nd Street. The discussion raised questions about whether the historic board had been adequately informed about the rezoning process and if property owners were given undue consideration, resulting in the construction of larger houses that conflict with the character of the surrounding area. The members debated the application of height restrictions, oversight, and decision-making processes, noting the potential creation of a new zone for commercial areas and the implications of combining lots for larger structures.

Further, the proposed changes to Division 40 and Division 20 sparked debate among the board members. Some members advocated for a careful, line-by-line review of the changes, while others pushed to address broader updates and potential issues. Updates under scrutiny included clarifying livable square footage, incorporating language about historic contributory structures, and revising setback requirements. The board also questioned the practicality of a 15-foot alley access requirement for parcels and the necessity of a design review process for parcels without alley access. The height requirements for institutional buildings, like a new fire station, and the need for possible adjustments were also a topic of debate.

Discussion on the board’s role in reviewing zoning permits, particularly for driveways and rooftop dining, reflected differing opinions on the extent of the board’s oversight. Some members argued for more involvement to fulfill their duty to preserve the historic district, while staff members voiced concerns over the practicality of the board’s involvement in certain review processes. The board’s advisory role was further discussed, highlighting limitations experienced when their advice is seemingly disregarded by the commission.

The vulnerability of historic buildings to flooding was a critical point of concern, given St. Pete Beach’s susceptibility. The board reviewed the 2021 guidelines for flood adaptation for historic buildings, emphasizing the need to consider flooding risk, sea level rise, and storm surge. Ongoing survey work in Bel Vista and the Don Cesar neighborhood was noted, and the potential for televised workshops and public participation to discuss flood adaptation measures for historic properties was proposed.

The possibility of conducting a case study on a private property to evaluate the benefits and costs of certain processes was suggested. This initiative could provide valuable insights for public and building owners. The board also discussed grants for private homeowners, particularly in the B Vista and Don CeSar place neighborhoods, and the potential for additional grants for the Corey Avenue area.