all right let's uh let's go to work this is the Planning and Zoning Board of Cape canaval it's May 29th 6 o' or after and let us come to order this meeting is now in order and uh we'll ask call a roll board member Denny here board member General cor here board member Miller Vice chair person price chairperson Russell here board member sharp board member St here okay we have Quorum uh now is the time for public participation and I'll ask if uh we have one card for a speaker would you come forward please identify yourself as though we as though we didn't know you and uh State your case with this building and thank you for that golly and um what steps we would need to take to make sure that we're moving in the right path so we're just looking for advice here the two units above the restaurant used to be residential units um they've been out of order now since the fire for a couple of years we're looking to see um what if anything we can do to put those back in as residential units if that's an option or what are other options are but we just wanted to introduce ourselves let you know that um the folks that went in to purchase this building I didn't do it all on my own or uh 90% of the funds for this building came from Cape canovo residents and we all want to do the right thing for our city so any advice of uh what I would do to move forward to make sure that we're going in the right direction would be appreciated thank you so stand by a minute please so so you've uh got this building I didn't realize you had residential units in it yes sir upstairs there were two residential units okay they've been unoccupied since the the fire that that building suffered in 2022 over by the thrift store area well okay I I would say just uh keep an eye on what we're doing with the livein units because you know we're doing some work work on that subject great we're not done with that yet are we okay I didn't think so we we've got some some more work to do and we're working through bring bring that back so we're we're working through some definitions and some requirements so the advice would be to uh come to the meetings when you see it on the agenda and be a part of the conversation great then you'll know what we're doing okay that's awesome anybody else want to say anything I one question is it just l or are you doing that whole area so the building encompasses five um addresses so um the building that we purchased is is the whole building including the two um detached garages so it's a it's a half acre plat of land there and um we're looking at all options on um what would be the biggest benefit to the city what are the residents looking for how can we be a part of that Vision so we all options I guess are on the table at this at this stage I certainly hope that my restaurant remains uh the the focal point of that building but to be honest all options are on the table as far as what's uh what's going to fit into the city's plan and vision thank you're welcome thank you for asking anybody else go ahead Don I just wanted to say personally I'm excited for your future and excited to see what you're going to do with that property uh you're really taking that from a place it was uh before to what we have now you've done a great job thank you very much look forward to it thank you thank you we met with uh three different Architects um engineer and designers um yesterday just to start throwing mud against the wall to figure out what we want it to look like what we want it to be and what would be the biggest benefit so uh our goal is not to just go in and paint walls and reopen our goal is to really make a make a change with with that area so your goal is to keep the restaurant yes sir i' like to keep the restaurant that's good news we appreciate that as one of our neighborhood what pubs so that that is definitely the goal good Gathering Place thank you anybody else okay seeing none we'll move to uh thank you the next uh person that may wish to speak this is public participation does anybody wish to speak if you I don't have a speaking card for you but if you do we'll make one all right seeing none uh we'll move past that and go into our next uh part of the agenda new business and let me do do some paperwork here there our next item is to approve the meeting minutes of May 29th and you have those minutes before you uh hopefully uh you read them and uh do you have any comments or changes Mr chairman I goodness gracious I'm sorry I uh suggest that we uh approve them as is I make a motion I that was I had a little brain for okay I'll second that motion okay we have a motion and second to uh submit approval as as as submitted uh call roll please board member Denny for board member D cor approve the motion chairperson Russell for board member stal for the motion okay thank you that moves us to uh item two on the agenda consideration of ordinance 17- 2024 amend the city's building and uh building regulations to adopt local ad administrative amend Amendment to the Florida building code to add a new city code section requiring a building permit for roof codings regulated under the Florida building bu code and da da da provided for repeal and all those things that add on to the ordinance so what this is for is to talk about roof roof codings and permitting and uh documenting so I'll turn it over to the staff to let you lead us through the uh thinking and uh just present the case to us and we'll deal with it all right good evening Kyle good evening board um so this ordinance uh 17-22 24 came out of the May 21st uh regular city council meeting it was raised by council member K Jackson um so the gist of the ordinance um would require a per any anybody who was installing or applying roof coding um under section 15 9 of the Florida building code to obtain a permit um except in instances when the coding is not rep represented to protect repair waterproof stop leaks or extend the life of the roof so my understanding is that while this goes above and beyond what the Florida building code currently requires this is actually a good way of documenting um there's proper installation of roof coatings and that can help with um obtaining property insurance coverage um and the Florida building code does allow for amendments like this um so that's something the city has authority to do so okay so this uh th this amendment mainly requires the permit to to document the application of the roof coding and it becomes a part of the conversation then when you have new mortgages new new financing sales and so forth right okay that's the the gist of it is there any other are there any other addons to that train of C thought well I saw something about this is an administrative change not a technical change could uh could you could you guys say some words about that just so we get the Anthony is that something you could answer to the attorney um you know the Florida building code um allows um municipalities and counties to adopt administrative regulations U for administering the the Florida building code so the city has the ability to make these administrative amendments the the cities and counties also have the ability to make technical amendments like adjustments to technical requirements in the floorida building code but there's a distinction between the two the city has the ability to make administrative amendments without going through um a c certain other technical process procedural process um and if they were technical amendments then you have to go through this other procedural process but this just by adding a building permit requirement that is an administrative Amendment this ordinance does not modify any of the technical requirements regarding what roof codings are permissible under the floor building code or or how they're supposed to be applied so this is purely an administrative Amendment um adding a building permit requirement just to add um having worked with the councilwoman on this and staff um there's um especially Condominiums are facing situations regarding the wear and you know the natural wear and tear of their roofs rather than do a new replacement some may consider putting a roof coating on top of the the roof covering that's over the over the roof and that coating um theoretically could possibly extend the term the lifespan of of a roof and um you know make it obviously more you know weatherproof and there's a question uh with insurance companies more recently whether or not um you know just doing roof codings is is sufficient and that some insurance companies through un their own underwriting are denying uh insurance coverage um um and requiring a full replacement so there's a thought that if you add a building permit requirement where um it's documented and goes through full Florida building code inspection uh procedures that perhaps a roof coding if done that way may be good documentation to help um a condominium project for example to uh get in their insurance renewed without having to do a full roof replacement now that issue of underwriting is completely outside the control of the city the only thing within the control of the city is if the city would like to add this extra step of uh requiring a building permit for a roof coding because under the current building Florida building code there's actually no building permit requirement for a roof coating there's only a building permit requirement for a roof covering right so that's the that's what the objective is with this ordinance initi that was originally initiated by Council woman Jackson and it's we're presenting it for the board's uh consideration okay so we require the document documenting of the covering and the inspection so after that's uh accomplished the underwriter decides whether that's satisfactory for them okay any other questions I have a question go ahead I'm just curious to be completely honest I am I'm not sure um I don't know if maybe Dave Dave could speak to that well just second I'm a renter best answer we can yeah I I'll I'll I'll take a stab at it um yeah I mean I I think there's going to potentially be a couple of costs one will obviously be the cost of the permit um that that will be minimal um CU that's all our permits are based on value value and so it's going to be minimal it'll probably be less than $100 for the permit itself now as far as the actual implementation and administration of this new ordinance you know one of the things that we talked a little bit about this this evening was the installation methods and making sure that generally these kind of products come with manufactured recommended installation requirements and so um depending on what those reg recommendations are will dictate whether our our staff can do it our building staff or we would need to look to an outside like a third-party in inspector to certify that the installation was consistent with the um product require the the manufacturer requirements um so that's something that we're yet to that that will have to play out um but potentially if there is a cost associated with a third party certification I would imagine that cost would be passed on to the actual applicant um so I don't know what that what that cost would be um you know if it's going to be an hourly or or I I just don't know that but that that's another potential cost Mr chairman if I can add too that there I'm not sure this is an added cost but this is a as I understand it a requirement you know when a roof cating is being installed for purposes of protecting repairing waterproofing stopping leaks or extending the life of a roof those that type of roof coating project um needs to be performed by a roofing contractor and roofing contractors obviously are licensed by the state and presumably would know how to follow manufacturers um instructions to place uh the roof coating on properly but so there's there's a Contracting requirement regardless of the you know whether there's a permit or not roofing contractors are the ones that are supposed to be putting on roof coatings that um protect repair waterproof stop leaks or extend the life of a roof I guess what I was thinking of is I have couple of neighbors that have done this and they've put coatings on and these are small buildings so they would be impacted they're not going to if they they really have done it themselves following the direction um but I wasn't thinking I mean I was thinking of large condos but I was just one that's why I asked about the impact if you have a small townhouse and you're coating it uh the roof to try and get another five years out of it I I will tell you this that it hasn't worked for either of them because the insurance company said we don't care about codings so this might legitimize it I don't know but I was just back for the small individual owner well the permitting process just verifi documents the fact that it was done and the inspection process documents the fact that it was done according to proper methodology IE manufacturer instructions or whatever so okay uh it's going to be more it's going to cost more but in the long run it may give the Builder more benefit or the owner more benefit only time's going to tell that we're going to if we do this recommend it and enact it we'll drive it around around for a while to see how well it's working and if it doesn't then we'll come back and have this conversation again okay any more questions all right seeing no indications um sir if you have one come forward identify yourself as though we didn't know you and uh we'll get you a speaker card after the fact hi I'm Madam morard uh live at 212 Adams Avenue the owner of Florida Home Inspection Bureau uh we do Residential and commercial property inspections so one of the big issues that you're having with the roof coatings like you guys have said is the insurance underwriting on a roof certification form which is what they want to see or is part of a four-point inspection they want to know the last permitted roof replacement so now whether the underwriting of the insurance company says it's a replacement or a recoding is kind of up in the air but having no permit totally eliminates any ability for them to get insurance we're running into it we did roof certifications for Atlantic Gardens their roofs were last permitted replacement most of them were in the early 2000s if not late '90s however they've kept up with the roofs by putting coatings on them they have their maintenance staff installed the coatings regardless of that even though I gave them I believe the lowest amount of roof life on one roof was five years and then up to 9 years on the best condition roof they still are not getting Insurance because those are not permitted Replacements if it's not within the last 15 to 20 years for the permitted replacement most insurance carriers are not going to accept it including citizens so that's the issue that they're running into so having a permit May legitimize help but most definitely on the roof certification form at least that we have to fill out for insurance purposes being able to per put a permit and put a permit number on there with a date and show a copy of a permit goes a long way for an underwriter I'll say that okay uh stand by a second we might have another question for you so all right we've got I don't remember exactly how the new proposed ordinance is written does it have the requirement for a inspection after the coding is applied after or during the application of the coding is there a requirement for inspection it does not specifically put that um state that in here it it just says a building permit uh shall be required for the installation and application that that inherently requires permit and then inspections okay that's what I was because once you have to get once you p building permit building official needs to inspect going to be inspected all right all right clarified are there any other questions come forward uh David yeah I'll mention something to kind of piggy back on what Anthony was just talking about yeah all all of our city issued permits requ don't get don't get too close to that Mike it's it's uh very very sensitive T it's very sensitive tonight it's turned up that's it's an adust that's my problem go ahead all of our city issued permits requires What's called the final inspection so when works all completed the contractor will call the city and one of our our building inspectors will go out and perform a final inspection and that's noted in our system and that's important because especially with roofs um when someone's refinancing or making Insurance claim or purchasing a house um they they go through and they look for permits and if it's not final it's like it never happened uh we have um and it happens more often than you would think for one reason or another various permits are never finaled and um that that causes a problem so but yeah as as Anthony said it's it's inherent in the process that uh um a final inspection will be will be provided to to ensure that the installation was proper and that's really the purpose of the final inspection is to this part of the process okay yep thank you all right any other questions okay seeing none I'll ask uh if the count if the board wishes to uh say anything else about it and if if not we'll ask for motion but uh do you have a question no I think it's a great idea to do as long as you know the permit fees is that much and right uh you know Dave said it was based on the value of it so I would assume that a permit for a coding is less than a permit for a roof replacement yeah and it's all relative I'm done thank you okay go ahead I'm looking down to the end here y I'm good you're good all right looks like we've discussed it uh is there a motion chairman I'd like to make a motion uh for approval of ordinance number 17-22 is there second I'll second the motion thank you we have a motion in a second call the r board member Denny for the motion board member Jor for the motion chairperson Russell for board member stoud for the motion all right that motion carries and we recommend that to council it's now in their hands to enact that ordinance that moves us to item three on the agenda and it's an amendment Amendment to the uh city code regarding non-conformant lots of record and single family dwellings and duplexes and providing for the repeal of inconsistent ordinances and resolutions and so forth all right turn it back over to uh p and lead us into the topic all right so there's there's a lot of texts in this in this PowerPoint presentation tonight and I'm going to be pretty much just reading it so just just for warning everyone um there's a good amount of info to to kind of digest here um so to give a little background on this ordinance U back in October of 2023 council member Don Willis presented a discussion item at city council regarding consideration of an ordinance pertaining to the challenges posed by non-conforming lots and this this item was about how over many years residential lots have been developed on divided Parcels that were not approved by the city in accordance with its subdivision regulations and many divided and reconfigured Parcels have been developed inconsistent with the current underlying plat a review of the original 1923 Avon by the Sea plat which is much of what's considered the presidential streets today established most if not all Lots at a width of 50 ft the standard lot width requirement uh today the minimum lot width is is typically 75 ft so the 50-ft lots are under unders sized considered non-conforming lots of record so uh from that meeting city council requested that the City attorney review this matter and work with staff to propose an ordinance to address these concerns and afford citizens and their homes better protection next slide please so the uh proposed ordinance 18 2024 addresses permitting challenges that some residential parcel parcel owners have faced regarding these single family homes and duplexes that were constructed on these Parcels of land that were not approved by the city in accordance with the subdivision regulations the the section it's amending is 110 196 which is about non-conforming lots of record the proposed amendment recognizes that Parcels of land with existing single family homes and duplexes as developable lots of Records even though the parcels were not approved by the city the amendment also allows an owner of an existing single family home to construct a second story or addition of habitable space on a lot of record under limited specified conditions which I'll go into a little more so this kind of went over what a lot of record is a little bit before but basically a lot of record is part of a subdivision recorded in with Bard County or a parcel of land described by meats and Bounds legal description which is recorded in official record books with The Bard County property appraiser and complies with the division of land regulations of the city so the current language that uh 110 196 which is going to be Amendment currently reads in any zoning District in which single family dwellings or duplexes are permitted a single family dwelling or duplex and customary accessory buildings may be erected expanded or altered on any single lot of record not withstanding that such lot fails to meet the requirement for area width and or depth for the applicable zoning District so if this lot's 50 ft wide you can be built on even though the minimum requirement in R2 is is 75 ft if it's if it's a lot of record so the provision shall only apply where yard dimensions and setback requirements other than area width Andor depth confirm in all other respects with the ldrs for the applicable zoning District uh let let's don't glance off there that's an important sentence go through that again current the provision shall only apply for your dimensions and setback requirements other than area width depth and form and all I get lost and all this other than where wherefore and where as yeah so so I'm sorry if I'm going to let you talk and then I'm going to ask Anthony to say some words about it okay so so yeah my quick explanation would be that when these Lots in Avon by the Sea were platted the width depth and area were all smaller than what the current minimum is so this is saying although you know there might be a 50 foot by 100 foot lot which doesn't meet the minimum width doesn't meet the minimum area because it was platted in 1923 far before we had these zoning requirements um you can still construct a single family dwelling or duplex so long as it meets setbacks um lot coverage all the other dimensional requirements and at that time were they recognized as the city as official platted Lots even though they were smaller or are these part of these Rogue ones I even even by the sea in 1923 that would have been about 40 years before the city was incorporated but I think they were they were pled they were platted before the city was incorporated okay yeah so there was no I mean maybe there was zoning but it would have been different so so they're platted and recorded in the county records that's right yeah if you go to the property appraiser and go to a property and click plat you'll see this really old huge Avon by the Sea plat and you'll see it's all 50 foot wide lots and a lot of them are still in existence in that current configuration go to the next one okay go ahead Kyle move on through your presentation so this is an overview of what these amendments will do um as part of ordinance 18 2024 so most importantly the amendment provides that on any parcel of land that does not constitute a lot of record but upon which an existing single family dwelling or duplex was issued a certificate of occupance by the city said parcel of land shall be deemed a single lot of record approved by the city in compliance with the code so as such the existing single family dwelling or duplex can be maintained altered expanded or reconstructed on said lot of record in accordance with the applicable provisions of the code so I don't know if Anthony if you want to maybe elaborate on that or we can wait until we can go then actually okay uh Anthony we'll just move on or continue to talk and when you see something that we need to Bear Down on please I me we let you know Kyle finish the presentation and i' be happy very good sure so the the next um number two the proposed amendments um the amendment clarifies the phrase yard Dimensions under this section means minimum lot coverage minimum living area and maximum height so these requirements are provided in each of the residential zoning districts see that that's confusing because I've been in this business a while and even when I read the words y yard Dimensions I immediately think setbacks that's not what they're talking about they're talking about minimum living area maximum height and minimum lock coverage not set box yeah I think it's that's not yard that's I don't know what it is so the original Renee can you go back to I believe two slides my attempt at digging around all this what this exterran question is to try to make it clearer not to get rid of it absolutely it's important to be clear so in the current language if you go to the last sentence so to two lines up from the bottom it says this provision shall only apply where yard dimensions and setback requirements other than area width Andor depth so it's setback requirements are already addressed there this is clarifying that the yard dimensions are those other height minimum living area minimum lock coverage I read it and I hear what you're saying but I don't get it out of reading that sentence provision shall apply where yard dimensions and setback requirements probably we ought to put yard yard Dimensions parentheses what we mean by yard Dimensions right there and then setback requirements we all know what those are in other words if you H me just bring back a uh well no you're not this is not going to be be part of any ordinance so it doesn't matter forget okay we can move past that we'll deal with it as we have more conversation sure go on so number three the amendment provides existing one story single family dwellings may be expanded and altered to add a second story or a ground floor addition of habitable space either in conformance with the yard Dimensions which these yard dimensions are minimum lck coverage minimum living area and maximum height and setback requirements for the applicable zoning District or you can add a second story of habitable space within the existing building footprint of the existing dwelling not withstanding the existing dwelling footprint does not conform to the minimum lot coverage minimum living area and setback requirements so essentially you're not if you're not expanding it into more into the setback kind of wraps it up okay and I believe there's one more um yeah so the amendment provides a statement of intent for this section which generally provides preserving existing lowdensity residential neighborhoods by allowing certain single family dwellings or duplexes to be erected expanded or or altered on Parcels of land that would not otherwise be considered developable lots of record or conforming under this article and two allowing existing single family homeowners to add a second story or ground floor addition of habitable space on such partials in conformance with the code or at a second story within the existing building footprint of the existing dwelling so kind of restating what we what we had previously spoken about um so I think that's Rene is there another slide yeah I think that really is just kind of the the gist of it and then we can leave leave slide uh on and then we'll we'll talk about it if we need to uh Anthony is there anything else you you want to add to what we've talked about or any points of confusion I may missed Kyle but did you cover the second story in the building footprint I made yes on the previous slide um I think it's the second one uh yeah oh yeah there it yeah yeah it does so we we ran into that situation last meeting that issue as you know Mr chairman and board that issue came up um at the last planning and zoning board meeting where the individual came up and spoke about his issue with his particular property and um not being able to add um a second story because he's he is on a um non-conforming lot of record but in addition that person um I don't know if was brought up at the meeting also has a non-conforming structure because the structure actually um is slightly into the one of the side setbacks so you know this this proposed language would address that situation at least it was put in there for discussion purposes allow a second story in an existing single family footprint that's on a non-conforming law period you know even if it has a um well the thought occurs to me that if you want to add a second story to the existing structure you might have to beef up the underlying structure hold a second story um and that Second Story well the first story may need to be enlarged a little bit or or get get the walls bit a little bigger I don't know I'm just thinking out loud here um okay well let's let's don't close the door on that we'll just we'll talk about it some more um ask the board members if you got any more questions to ask then we'll ask uh Mr marada I don't have your card and I normally oh where is it here it is Adam Adam would you uh come forward to the mic again since you're the one who asked us to do something about this in the origin the ordinance does does this ordinance get you where you want to be or do you see any holes in our approach it seems like it I think the attorney pretty much touched on everything I in order to move forward with a project so basically all I was looking look for is to expand to a second story without expanding any non-conforming features so without continuing to eat or eat further into a setback uh because that's where my property becomes non-conforming to the east side I have a six foot setback and to the West Side I have a 5 and 1/2 foot setback yeah uh but the plan would be just to pour Footers on the North and South Side not to eat into the setbacks run uh beams if you will support beams and use that for the support for the second story as opposed to using the initial four walls for the Second Story support because like you said you were saying you would have to beef up that structure the majority of the homes in Cape canaval that were built in the late 50s early 60s are not going to be able to support a second story without pouring voids and doing serious structural reinforcement to that concrete it just wasn't built for that uh most of the voids are uh except for maybe a couple pores around doors or windows so my original thought was to do columns all around the exterior but that eats into the setback so we've gone back and forth and Kyle's helped with a couple different uh iterations of our plan to get us to where we're at to where we're not expanding any non-conforming feature and keeping the same footprint well you might also uh have want to put a a stairwell off the Second Story and external stairwell and that's going to come down into the it's going to encroach in the existing setback um if it's on the side I don't know about the back stairwell on the side okay so I don't I don't know what I would need the stairwell on the side of the house for okay I'm not trying to design it for you I'm just trying to think through some of the other encroachments Poss possible need for encroachment um okay anything else you want to tell us I just think in addition to my personal situation I think it helps the city in general uh you know uh we're losing more families in the City of Cape Canaveral the cape View's pop or enrollment is down I want to say around 300 students or so right now uh they've lost their Title One uh the fact that the city wants to improve through low impact methods of building this is an Avenue to do that the other Avenue is to knock these houses down that's not low impact at all and on top of that it ruins the aesthetic of our neighborhoods uh the only thing that gets put in those old homes places are new stucco monstrosities that don't fit with the original aesthetic of Cape Canaveral that's what we want to do want to stay with their original aesthetic we don't want to build a sore thumb in the neighborhood we want something that is period correct and doesn't ruin air flow doesn't take up more green space keeps our family here uh that's our goals and I think you guys are helping us out so I really appreciate it I want to thank you guys for that okay uh any questions for uh Mr Mara why are we having here time Mr chairman all right we'll call him back if we need him uh now we have uh Pat Campbell is has asked to speak on this subject come forward Pat tell us who you are again and where you live and we'll have a conversation my name is Patrick Campbell 307 surf Drive K canaval uh I want to I want to speak in opposition to moving the ordinance chains through as written uh there's a lot of things in it that I'm absolutely not opposed to I certainly sympathize I think that's a good idea what we're trying to do with uh letting them improve existing property my objections are to a very specific piece uh that I'll speak speak to in a minute um the other thing I want to talk about is there's no urgency to do this stuff right now there's no urgency in this there shouldn't be any pressure the city's literally had decades to figure this out and hasn't made any progress on doing it they've been aware that these situations exist for a long time uh Mr Willis introduced it uh at the October 17th uh council meeting and he was talking about the Christopher lot split uh I don't want to make this about the lot split I think that's going to come back I hope uh because there's a case pending on on my objection to that but what I do want to point out is that this ordinance as [Music] written I'm going to read to you exactly the piece that kind of got my attention it has to do with the uh ability on an undevelop lot to just accept what the property appraiser did and build something on it and that that really is you're talking you're talking about an empty lot an empty lot building on it uh even if it's not conforming um and that was brought to you a long time ago um went to council and and Council didn't move it forward so I believe because it's been so long and because there's so many unknowns and what you're being presented with and unknowns being um how many lots are we talking about what lots are we talking about where are they and give citizens information about what's being done to what for who uh just to to say that it's impractical to handle on a Case by cases you're already handling on a case-by casee basis it's not impractical I'm not saying you should do it on a case-by casee basis but there should be information about exactly what we're talking about here if we're trying to fix specific properties what are they and I object to deciding that whatever the property appraiser put out there is a buildable lot it is not should not be cannot be uh there's a lot of discussion about the property appraisers being the problem and even in the in Mr Willis's uh comments at Council he talked about uh let's go to the property appraiser and see if they can put something on the site letting people know that if you're going to split a lot um you need to check with the city to be sure it's conforming this is a document that you get when you apply for a lot split I'm going to read pieces of it to you it's in bold red on a color copy please read all instructions before proceeding it's a partial split request from theard County property appraiser check with the proper agency to verify the partial split will result in a legal Lot number one second thing it says the property appraiser will not create or draft property of descriptions third the processing time and or record update by the property appraiser should not hinder the to sale or purchase a property issuance of a permit or any outside agency's process so the property appraisers doing their job they're telling people if you want to do this you need to go to your city to get this process through there you get this form to alert you so there isn't any unknowns or any Gap in what the property appraiser does why why are we talking about lot splits well because it was introduced this particular ordinance necessity was introduced by Mr Willis because he said it began with the Christopher lot split it that's how all of this came up I disagree with that this came up a long time before that lot splits are not what we're talking about tonight well you kind of are because part of this ordinance says if you got vacant property like the the Christophers and the property appraiser says they did that that's become become a develop a lot so by default it does it without a lot split not sure I follow your logic if you have a parcel got a parcel a parcel is defined by the Property Appraiser's office tax parcel if you have one this ordinance will say you can build on it you don't have to come and ask the city about anything you can just go ahead you can build on it get a permit on it and build on it is what that what this ordinance says a piece of it small piece of it stand by a minute I want to ask I just want to understand that is that is that what this ordinance says you can on existing I'm addressing existing addressing City attorney and I'll come back to you is that what this says absolutely not um can you pull up can you pull up a slide that has the definition of lot of record please it's um I don't I don't know what it is on yours but it's line item 24 here it's up on the screen um right their division definition of lot of record so um I would first agree that this ordinance does not apply to Lots just because somebody records a deed at the county this ordinance only applies to lot of Records lot of Records the definition is very clear and the tail end of that definition right there there says and complies with the subdivision land regulations of the city so to become a lot of record the division of land must have been approved by the city this the existing ordinance that currently allows single family dwellings or duplexes to be constructed on nonconforming lots of record meaning meaning lots that have been approved by the city in accordance with the subdivision regulations does not apply to Mr PC's Lots because Mr penc never received City approval for what he did okay so it does not apply to those types of those types of situations this is a very narrow ordinance expanding the benefits to existing lot of records and introduces a provision that declares a I'll use this term illegally subdivided lots that have been given a certificate of occupancy for an existing single family home or duplex by the city those lots even though they did not comply with the subdivision regulations would be considered lots of record in compliance with the city subdivision regulations only because the city had issued a building permit and you have an existing single family home or duplex on that property today okay so we that that's what this applies to um to try to as it says preserve existing lowdensity residential uh single family dwellings and duplexes there are people that have illegally that are residing on illegally subdivision divided Lots in a single family home okay that that uh have issues let's just just say that so this this ordinance again is just expanding upon lots of record or nothing less I'd like to I'd just like to read it so it can be clear in my mind uh what the City attorney just said it this is what it says allowing certain single family dwellings or duplexes to be erected expanded or altered on Parcels of land that would not otherwise be considered develop a lots of record or conforming under this article now the way I read that is you can build it whether it's a develop a lot of record or conforming am I reading it wrong I think what we need is a definition of a developer record I don't I'd like to address that but I mean I'm trying to find where you're reading from what what line don't mind me asking a question at paragraph on line 25 that's where I am oh under the intent yes he may be getting hung up on the word uh erection right because that's things that's something that you think that you're building from new and this ordinance is for existing yeah that that's the that's the intent section just trying to add I was trying to add some clarity um to a comp very complicated situation um that's not otherwise considered developable lots of record you have to go to sub paragraph B those are those other those are those other Parcels that have not been approved uh by the city in accordance with the subdivision regulations that's what that's referring to is that on any part sub paragraph B says on any parcel of land that does not constitute a lot of record that means it doesn't comply with the city division regulations hasn't received City approval but but upon which an existing not former an existing single family dwelling or duplex was issued a certificate of occupancy by the city so it wasn't approved under the subdivision regulation so it's not a lot of record but there's an existing single family dwelling or duplex that was issued a certificate of occupancy by the city those Parcels of land even though they didn't comply with the subdivision regulations are hereby deemed a single lot of record not two a single lot of record approved by the city in compliance with the code and then the existing single family dwelling or duplex can be maintained altered expanded or reconstructed on said lot of record in accordance with the applicable Provisions above sub paragraph a so that intent language is referring to those lots that today are not in compliance with the code we're affording those lots even though they weren't approved in accordance with the code this label of a lot of record so then these existing single family homeowners or duplex owners can come in and get development permits to maintain their properties to alter their properties in accordance with the language that's above so that's what this ordinance is attempting to do um uh my mind it's clear but you know we're using the English language thank you and we invite you to join back in as needed so I think I think you know what certainly respect Anthony's opinion but when it when it comes up and says that this section is intended this section being section B it's intended to allow exactly what it says single family dupel to be erected expanded alars on Parcels of land not otherwise considered develop a lots of record or conforming under this article there's where I get totally confused I don't think that's clear we're all confused by it take a position and decide which Hill you're going to die on but it ain't going to sway it until we all get a complete understanding of what we're we got that's why I said I think this as written it should not go forward there needs to be some clarity in this so everybody does understand it and there needs to be some specifics in here so we understand what lot we're talking about not just we can't do it because it's Case by case uh some maybe not all you know we're not defining what properties we're talking about and I think that's important to the citizens they should be alerted to the fact I've got neighbors who were not even aware that they've been written that there's been a code violation put in place for their property they're not even aware of it there's some 30 of them that I'm aware of that City says there are no responsive records when I ask for public records request on what's being done with those so there it's City doesn't have an inventory of all of these legally subdivided lots that I'm aware of I mean it has some information and it's rather extensive because Avon by by the sea is Right everyone knows Avon by the Sea it's an historic subdivision that you know all of those small small Lots right I mean they're they're they're impacted um as well as the 32 lots that are in Mr Campbell's neighborhood that have already been identified other than that David I don't think you have an inventory of any other what this ordinance is attempting to do is that when these situations if they if there are any more that up in the future they have to meet I mean they have to meet the requirement it's it's so important and I'll emphasize it six ways to Sunday that this there has to be an existing single family dwelling on that lot or a duplex in the city had to have issued a building permit I think if you made it that clear you know I would be standing here that's well I mean listen um it's English language and I think it's clear I mean you know it's all you can always modify language but I mean we could make some adjustments to it if it's not clear but that's what it's attempting to do well I think I think to make it clear it's very easy to say that there has to already build build a stru there there has to be a structure there already uh you know it can't be a vacant piece of property there and I'm all for that I think if if there's a home on it okay done deal you know they got what they got I just want to make it clear that it doesn't apply to places that there are not can you take that mullet over and uh work I could add I could listen I can add language and sub paragraph B to clarify and um like if you added language like said parel of land shall here be hereby deemed you know single lot of record improved by the city I mean I can I guess I could I could wormith that a little bit to to make it like overly clear that we're not talking about vacant overly clear is good go ahead overly clear is good uh Mr campell's position I hope I'm right is it just has to be a building on the property to make this work if it's a if it's an empty property empty lot it doesn't work right that's what was intended by upon which an existing single family dwelling a duplex yeah yeah yeah I get that yeah so I mean I could add something in there existing building underline it's already there yeah I I'm I'm not if there's a if there's a building there already that's a done deal you know I mean just bless it and move on but if there's not the way this reads to me because it says the intent is it says that you can do it whether there's a a building there or not just needs to be clear okay I can add language yeah okay like on any and insert the word developed parcel of land that does not constitute a lot of record but upon which an existing single family dwelling a duplex was issued I had the had the language and we'll we'll move on from there okay I mean I can add something in there and because I don't want this as the city's attorney in the direction that I was given and I do not want this to apply to these these sanctioning of these illegal subdivision of land Lots not to not to apply unless there's a building permit that was issued and unless there's an existing single family house or duplex on the property to it's intended to protect residents of Cape canaval that are residing in these structures that may need to be repaired altered adjusted or whatever in the future without having a hiccup with the building department because they're not on a lot of record okay fix it it shall be done yeah I still think there should be some specificity put in so so citizens can understand what what this is really talking to what Parcels they are and who the owners are um and certainly my neighbors for the 32 33 I don't know how many code violation notations on their property they certainly should understand what this does for them and what I'm hearing is what it does for them is they're finished it's it's good code goes away everything's fine because they have property they have a home already built on it well we think this ordinance change helps them not hurts them yeah if if if it is how we just described it it it helps them because now they are conforming a lot and they don't have this thing hanging over them about it being a code violation so I think uh you know if from what what the City attorney has described to me if it doesn't apply to these vacant Lots if it only applies if there's an existing home on it yeah I think that's the right thing to do he's going to put that language in to make it clear it's has to be a law something already built on it anything else no that's it thank you for the time thanks Pat thank you okay we can do this two ways Anthony we can wait till you uh submit your um change or we could uh recommend it to counil subject to the changes discussed uh what do you think board doesn't have any questions I mean the only I mean the only word smithing is to make it clear it doesn't apply to vacant property right um Mr chairman I would I would ask the board to take action on it this evening um based on the consensus of the board um and staff's and the city attorney's understanding of what the what the consensus and the will of the board is this evening that that's our that's our inclination we'd like to act on it tonight or we'll just uh put some words in the motion that includes uh a small change by the city council or by the City attorney I'm sorry how should we word the motion have us with the motion Anthony we want to submit this ordinance yeah I would that's written with a an amendment from the city con attorney that says I would um yes to modify um subparagraphs new subparagraphs B and C in the proposed ordinance on page three to add clarifying language that it would it only pertains to um developed Parcels of land um to be um you know to be recognized as um you know single uh lots of record even though they have not been um subdivided in compliance with the city subdivision regulations so and the only reason why I want to make that Mr chairman one other point the only reason why I want to make that clarifying point is because if there is an existing today an existing vacant lot of record an existing vacant lot lot of record keep in mind that means it's already been approved the lot has been approved by the city even though it doesn't may not conform with existing regulations subdivision regulations like Avon all those Avon by the park if it's um the AV Avon by the parck Avon by the SE uh Lots the existing 110-1 196 already says that you can build a new single family home or duplex on those lots so I just want to make make make it clear that the clarifying language is only related to those IL legally subdivided Parcels of land that have not followed the subdivision regulations you see so that's the clarifying part is that these newly sanctioned lot of records though they didn't comply with the subdivision regulations those sanctioned new lot of Records records must have an existing single family home or a duplex they cannot be vacant today that's the clarifying part I just wanted to make it clear that I'm not clar I would not clarify this language to take away existing rights to people that own Lots in Avon by the Sea which were platted and approved they can build a single family home on there even though they're vacant today this code section already allows them to do that now you know we talked about that last meeting Mr chairman that's some of the adjustments that you all as a board made and recommended to the council quite a while ago deal with that situation adding to it okay now that wasn't part of the motion like this this more of a dialogue and I'm clarifying that I will you know recommend recommend the I would I would recommend to you to recommend the ordinance to the city council um and instruct the City attorney to add clarifying language uh to sub subp paragraph B and C as we discussed okay give me a minute got it you think you got it right try to voice a motion and we'll craft it going to try to do that all right try to try a motion on us and we'll craft it before we second it I uh propose that we uh move forward with this ordinance 18-24 and add clarifying uh verbiage ask the City attorney to uh provide clarifying verbiage to sections B and C as discussed that ensure clarifies that uh this does not uh apply to the I don't know I can't quote illegal lots that are undeveloped right now writing down writing down motions really helps our I said add clarifying to B and C as discussed that was I could just leave it at that often times I have arrived at the meeting with u a thought that if we reach this point in discussion here's the way we ought to move and I'll write it down to have something to Ping off of experence yeah it's a it's an experience thing I get that um we we're just give us a second Anthony we're just working here right we're working to get what we what we mean so we want a motion that goes forward with the existing ordinance language with a clarification from the city attorney that says yeah that clar that clarifies that the parcels of land recognized in sub paragraph B do not apply to vacant Parcels of land I think that covers it okay can you ple please write that down and and submit it to Renee just so we'll have a record we're talking about here motions are hard oh wait a minute we go oh well give me a minute okay so while he's doing that so yeah we've lived with this these Lots as uh they are for all these years and it could be that we ought to breathe deep and not not withstanding what anony is doing here we're going to let him finish it so we can have it written down but maybe we ought to declare declare that area as a historical District some such for uh for lot sizes and and go from there and that way you'd have it you you could make uh now this is really throwing mud against the wall you could make an historic district and then you could determine that all the Lots in the historic district are conforming for that District or some such you got to do some magic with that and then what you'd have is conforming lots of record with all rights and privileges uh for with the well I shouldn't say that conforming lots of records and you'd have two different kinds you'd have historic lots of record and you'd have non-historic lots of record just a thought go away and turn that over in your head because we've we've been walking around with this and walking around it for a lot of years trying to deal with those 50 foot Lots I think the way that the city is addressing it now accommodates for the historical lots and for those crazy Lots the 32 that were subdivided by the you know the tax and not the city I think this takes care of both of those right um and I read this to understand that it was only for existing buildings I honest personally I don't think it needs clarification from my point of view and then I I think this is a great thing to move forward I think there has to be other discussions on those other empty lots and how that to be dealt with I think we tried to do it all together at first and now we're separating it those other empty rots if they lots of record and they meet all the requirements you got to meet to build on them Anthony said you can build on those Mr chairman go ahead I believe we have a motion thank you okay we're waiting uh we're just waiting on clarification language you got it Anthony okay Terry you wanted to read no not necessary uh we we we mold it over long enough we about Beat It To Death uh what we want to do is move forward with this ordinance as submitted with the clarification with the clarifying language as submitted by the City attorney I'm not going to say any more just I'm not going to try to say any more for that so the motion would be and I'll make it I move that we send forward to the council the uh ordinance as submitted with the clarification submitted by City attorney Mr chairman I'd like to second that motion okay um I'm now going to ask for call roll call or roll board member Denny for the motion board member General cor for the motion chairperson Russell for board member stoud for the motion all right we've passed it or recommended approval to pass it and uh that's our work that's our work for tonight uh what else on the agenda anything looking down through the reports we don't have any reports and do we have any open discussion items that are burning burning questions or the moment seeing none then this meeting is adjourned I don't I don't believe in beat no I'm with you when I first