A specific property’s compliance with city codes and foreclosure status was also a focal point during the discussions. The council deliberated on the possibility of putting the foreclosure on hold while the property owner worked to bring the building into compliance. This led to a motion to instruct staff to bring back a document concerning fines, liens, and foreclosures for the first reading, which was met with unanimous consensus. The council members anticipated the first reading of the ordinance, hoping to streamline the process and provide relief to affected property owners.

The North Port City Council also engaged in a review of the Unified Land Development Code (ULDC) rewrite, which included presentations and debates on requirements for community meetings for all projects, mailing notices for rezoning, and allowances for fences on vacant properties. The increase in non-residential development and the changes made to the ULDC were addressed. The Planning and Zoning Advisory Board recommended approval of all petitions to repeal and replace the ULDC chapters, and the Development Services Department recommended approval of the ordinances. The first reading of the ULDC ordinances took place, with a reminder that these were subject to change and further amendments could be made.

Discussions also revolved around the requirement for translucent materials on vacant properties and the proposal to include the phrase “radius from the property line” for mailing notifications. The council members reached a consensus on this matter. However, the debate on the tree planting requirement on residential private properties, particularly for those with septic tanks, led to a division among council members. Some expressed concerns about the potential damage to septic systems and associated costs, while others emphasized the importance of maintaining the tree canopy. The council did not reach a decision on the motion to remove the tree planting requirement, and further discussions and education initiatives were proposed to address the concerns raised.

Another notable debate concerned the distinction between variances, waivers, and modifications in the ULDC. A motion to require the commission to approve any variances beyond minor variances did not receive a second and therefore did not pass. However, a subsequent motion to have staff define modification and waiver in the definitions section of the ULDC generated discussion before being put to a vote.

The council also discussed the concept of a master concept plan, with one council member advocating for a clearer flowchart to help developers and the public understand the process. Concerns were raised about the transparency of the administrative approval process and the possibility of citizens appealing decisions. The layout and clarity of the ULDC book were criticized for not being user-friendly, with suggestions to make it more navigable.

Public comments included concerns about the lack of notification to property owners about rezoning, fears about overdevelopment, and the impact of development on residential areas. One citizen encouraged the council to consider the perspectives of residents affected by commercial and residential development.

The discussion on code enforcement’s potential impact on residential and commercial properties highlighted concerns about the implications of code enforcement being in charge of commercial buildings and its potential failure. Frustrations were shared about the limitations preventing a speaker from building on their property, citing issues with zoning and planning departments. The lack of communication regarding rezoning was also a point of contention, with some stating they had not received any notification despite property rezoning taking place since 2021.

The meeting included an array of other topics such as the city’s flood management efforts, the Myakka Hachi Creek watershed, and proposed ordinance related to sign regulations, specifically the inclusion of raceway signs and the definition of “obscene.” The consensus was to remove the specific provision (line for 10) from the proposed ordinance, with considerations about the city’s ability to enforce such regulations.

During the meeting, multiple ordinances were discussed, with the council voting to continue all the ordinances to the second reading on August 6, 2024. Commissioner McDowell sought clarification on various aspects, including the height standards for signs, the impact of zoning changes on specific parcels, and the authorization required for tree permits. Concerns were raised about potential preemption by the state regarding the city’s fertilizer ban and its compliance with newly adopted regulations.

The council also debated a proposed ordinance related to emergency borrowing for infrastructure projects, with amendments made to include a provision preventing the city from avoiding the limitations set forth in the ordinance. Discussions on proposed changes to the city’s comprehensive plan, particularly regarding the designation of medium density corridors and the future of Warm Mineral Springs, were also on the agenda. The council acknowledged the need for a discussion on the future of Warm Mineral Springs before making any decisions about the comprehensive plan.

Other discussions focused on the intensity of development for a specific property, with public concerns about potential changes to the development plan and the impact on traffic and home values. The planning staff mentioned the need to update various maps that are part of the comprehensive plan. The council addressed the complexities of making decisions regarding future development in the area.