During the meeting, a member of the public, associated with the Florida Home Inspection Bureau, underscored the importance of the proposed ordinance 17-2024, which mandates that roof coatings require a building permit. The board acknowledged that while the permit cost would be under $100, additional costs could arise from the administration of the new ordinance, such as third-party certification to verify compliance with manufacturer’s installation requirements.

The board’s deliberations clarified that the ordinance was administrative in nature, not altering the technical aspects of the Florida building code, but ensuring documentation and inspection procedures for proper roof coating installations. This move was seen as a step towards resolving issues with insurance underwriting and renewals for property owners. The implications for different property owners, from individuals to larger complexes, were considered, especially for those who had previously applied roof coatings without permits.

The board reached a consensus on the necessity of final inspections for city-issued permits to prevent refinancing and insurance claim issues, leading to the approval and recommendation of ordinance number 17-2024 to the council.

Another focal point of the meeting was the proposed amendment to the city code concerning non-conformant lots of record for single-family dwellings and duplexes. This ordinance aimed to address the development challenges posed by non-conforming lots and the construction of residential lots inconsistent with current plat regulations. It would allow for maintenance, alterations, expansions, or reconstructions in compliance with the code and would enable property owners on non-conforming lots to add a second story to their structures.

Debate ensued over the language of the proposal, with an emphasis on clarifying the terms to ensure property owners’ ability to effectively navigate the regulations. A resident expressed opposition to the changes, particularly the provision enabling construction on undeveloped lots based on the property appraiser’s assessment, fearing this could lead to development on non-conforming and illegally subdivided lots without city approval.

The City attorney offered clarifications.

The board also discussed the need for clarity in the ordinance, addressing concerns that some neighbors were unaware of code violations on their properties. The City attorney suggested adding language to specify that the ordinance applied only to developed parcels of land. After some debate on the motion’s wording, the board recommended the ordinance to the city council with the proposed clarifications.