The council meeting was heavily focused on the Crooked Palm Distillery’s request to amend its existing conditional use permit, originally approved in December 2022. The proposed changes aimed to relax operational constraints, allowing the distillery to extend its hours and live music offerings, aligning more closely with other businesses in the area. This request was met with a mix of support and opposition from residents, reflecting broader concerns about maintaining the residential character of the neighborhood while fostering economic growth.

Residents neighboring the distillery voiced strong opposition, expressing concerns over noise, traffic, and safety. One resident emphasized the potential for increased drunk driving incidents with extended hours, stating, “If you keep it open until 2:00 in the morning, we’re going to have drunks.” Others echoed this sentiment, worrying that allowing more flexibility would lead to a rise in crime and a decline in property values. Pascal Schlaggel highlighted that, “It is a fact that the bars that serve alcohol are the source for 80 to 90% of DUIs in the Florida Keys,” underscoring fears of heightened risks to community safety.

In contrast, several council members and community supporters argued that the current restrictions on Crooked Palm were excessively stringent. They pointed out that the distillery had been a responsible business and that the imposed conditions were more restrictive than those applied to similar establishments. One council member noted, “We don’t put conditions on business to make them fail,” advocating for a more balanced approach to business regulation. The member also recalled personal observations of the distillery’s quiet environment and the lack of noise complaints.

The discussions extended to broader issues of regulatory fairness and the practicalities of business operations. Some members suggested revisiting the noise ordinance to establish objective standards, reducing reliance on subjective judgments. The debate also touched on logistical challenges, such as delivery practices and the necessity of maintaining a food truck, which some argued should not be mandated.

Ultimately, the council moved forward with a motion to approve the removal of six specific conditions from the distillery’s operating permit. However, the vote was not unanimous.

In other notable developments, the council addressed a procedural issue concerning an appeal filed by Joanne M. Herrera on behalf of Gino and Pier Bolognia. The appeal challenged a determination by the director of planning regarding dwelling units on properties located at 82925 and 82929 Overseas Highway. Discrepancies in the notice of appeal, which only referenced two of the three involved properties, prompted discussions about whether to proceed with the hearing or postpone it for proper advertising. Legal counsel advised caution, leading to a consensus to delay the matter to ensure adequate notice.

Additionally, the council considered a request for administrative relief from the building permit allocation system by applicants Joseé A. Dampo and Vivian E. Fernandez. The applicants had been seeking an allocation award for undeveloped land intended for a single-family home. The council’s discussion included references to recent state legislation affecting allocation priorities, with members ultimately supporting the relief request due to the applicants’ compliance with regulations and good faith efforts. The motion for administrative relief passed unanimously, highlighting the council’s responsiveness to individual circumstances within the regulatory framework.

The meeting also revisited a transfer of development rights (TDR) application involving properties on Overseas and Old Highways. This matter, previously approved with conditions, required clarification on the status of new plans and compliance with existing conditions. Discussions highlighted the need for clear communication between applicants and the council to avoid misunderstandings and ensure alignment with village codes.