The most significant topic of the meeting was the public hearing on an ordinance aimed at banning future billboards in Parker. The planning committee presented extensive research on the implications of billboards, citing beautification, blight reduction, scenic conservation, and potential dangers during hurricanes as reasons to disallow new billboards. The proposal, while allowing existing billboards to remain, aimed to prevent new ones from being erected. Council members expressed concerns about the legal ramifications of removing existing billboards, noting that legal challenges could arise.

During the discussion, the chairman acknowledged the opinions expressed while emphasizing the committee’s recommendation. The ordinance’s language was scrutinized, with some members suggesting that provisions initially stricken should remain, as they applied to all signage. The conversation centered on maintaining restrictions on the location and size of signs, with a proposal to keep those regulations for future consideration. The council reached a consensus on the need to ban future billboards and discussed how to regulate existing ones, especially in the context of hurricane damage. A motion to move forward with the recommendation to disallow future billboards was made, including a stipulation about retaining some provisions initially considered for removal. The motion passed after a vote.

Another topic was the update to FEMA flood insurance rate maps (FIRM) mandated by Bay County. The new maps, effective from October 24, 2024, showed a reduction in properties classified as flood zones, potentially relieving many residents from the burden of flood insurance costs. The council discussed whether a formal reading of the ordinance was necessary and eventually recommended approval of the changes, including a new ordinance number, Ordinance Number 2024 D423. This ordinance would amend the Land Development regulations to update the flood insurance study and rate maps. The chairman noted that this reduction in flood zone properties could have a positive impact on residents’ insurance costs.

The comprehensive plan review covered future land use, focusing on seven distinct districts: low-density residential, mixed-use, general commercial, recreational, conservation, and public institutional districts. Discussions included potential conflicts and necessary alterations to the proposed plans. A specific conflict regarding the floor area ratio in the general commercial district was identified, requiring correction. The comprehensive plan was deemed authoritative, and necessary changes were documented for future reference. The council also clarified the difference between high, medium, and low-intensity commercial development, aligning the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) with the comprehensive plan.

The powers of the city clerk regarding dock construction approval were debated. The current language allowed the city clerk to approve construction without council oversight, conflicting with the comprehensive plan that required council approval for such structures. The recommendation was to align the LDRs with the comprehensive plan, reinstating council oversight.

Concurrency management was another topic of discussion. The city should assess whether essential services like water, sewer, and electricity are available before approving new developments. The ongoing review of district compatibility was suggested to align with the city’s vision, particularly regarding infrastructure adequacy.

The meeting also addressed transportation and housing elements within the city’s comprehensive plan. The council focused on maintaining service levels, accommodating various forms of traffic, and ensuring diverse housing options. Concerns were raised about sustaining service levels amid Florida’s rapid growth, with emphasis on ensuring that the comprehensive plan language was up to date. The council established a principal arterial level of service. This framework required traffic studies for new developments to ensure compliance with peak hour levels of service.

The housing element of the comprehensive plan aimed to promote the development of housing across different income levels, with builders already engaged in constructing low-income single-family homes, aligning with state expectations. The council emphasized protecting and stabilizing existing residential neighborhoods, mitigating impacts from new developments, and ensuring adequate buffering between commercial and residential areas.

Toward the end of the meeting, questions were raised about non-conforming uses and structures, particularly when properties are sold. It was clarified that new owners would lose non-conforming status, necessitating a variance for continued use. This discussion highlighted compliance with zoning regulations and the need for updates to Ordinance 871, which dealt with the location of mobile homes.