During the public comments section, citizens Mr. Libby and Mr. Brandon raised concerns about the removal of the grandfather clause from the LDR, particularly highlighting the challenges faced by investment property owners who would now need to seek variances for duplex properties under new ownership. They criticized the perceived lack of notification about the regulatory changes, despite their regular attendance at meetings. In response, the chairman pointed to the extensive efforts to involve the public, including 19 meetings over a period which were meant to gather public input on the LDR changes.

A debate unfolded over a variance request concerning the continued non-conforming use of a triplex property in a residential neighborhood. The property owners argued that they were facing a specific hardship due to the strict application of the regulations, as the zoning change was brought to their attention only when they attempted to sell the property. They expressed economic difficulty in discontinuing the property’s use as a multi-family dwelling.

The conversation delved into the representations made to the city regarding the conversion of the property to a single-family dwelling and whether a variance was previously granted based on those representations. The council members and the applicants discussed the use change, the representations made, and the documentation provided to the city. The implications of both the new and old LDRs on the property were reviewed, alongside the impact of short-term rentals in the single-family residential area.

In a related issue, the council discussed a request from a property owner who sought to split a single lot on Lake Drive. After reviewing the site survey and request, the council voted to refer the matter for review and approval.

Further variance requests were also debated. Mr. Forand sought an 8-inch variance to build a shed while preserving two large oak trees, following damage from a hurricane. His request was recommended for approval. Mr. Roso’s request for a triplex property was also discussed, with no clear resolution reached during the meeting.

Citizens submitted multiple letters regarding a variance request for a property on Do Road. While some opposed the request, desiring to maintain the area’s low density, the applicant expressed frustration with the guidance received from professional staff.

The council’s discussion also ventured into broader issues of property use within residential areas, the legal aspects of non-conforming use, and the financial uncertainties caused by changes in staff and the transition to a new financial system. Public comments referenced case law and the need for careful consideration of the LDR changes, alongside the challenges posed by financial uncertainties.

Another topic of contention was the city’s enforcement of rules and consistency in granting variances. A council member suggested that if the rules are deemed wrong, they should be changed, emphasizing the need for improved communication and consistent application of regulations. The council discussed the legality of non-conforming structures, the transition from a non-ad valorem to an ad valorem tax system, and the impact of the toilet tax.

The meeting also included a heated discussion on home rule and the city’s ability to dictate property development. Specific variance cases were debated, including one where the council considered whether to void a prior variance and grant a new one for the sale of a property as a Triplex instead of a duplex. The Planning Commission debated whether to recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial of the variance.

Lastly, the council addressed the issue of billboards, discussing whether to extend the moratorium on new billboards, eliminate them entirely, or adjust the existing laws. The need for the Planning Commission to review the comprehensive plan for any conflicts with the Land Development Rules was highlighted.