e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e absolutely okay all right all right so Marne can you call the role please council member Mark Greg here council member Elizabeth Jolan here council member Henry rosenal yes vice mayor Sharon Mahoney here and mayor buddy Pender we have a Corum hie did you see hie all right uh we're going to say the Pledge and we'll have a quick prayer we'll get rolling here I to the of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liy and justice for all all right have a quick prayer and we'll get rolling here thank you Lord for this awesome day today we just ask your blessing over this meeting tonight we ask that you would uh bless all that are in attendance all that those that are watching on zoom and and uh please Lord lead and guide and direct each of us uh council members uh to do the best we can do for our community and we thank you again for this beautiful day and we ask all all this in your precious name amen amen all right Council any uh additions requests or emergency uh deletions I have one okay um because Elizabeth hi Elizabeth is in here tonight I would like and I talk to John and Kimberly about moving the Quasi judicial until she was here so the five of us could all weigh in in on something extremely important and uh and wait till she's back and I have their blessing but I need you guys to say okay as well um hey John she okay Elizabeth can't vote on Zoom quasi right correct she could vote on a motion to continue which is what I understand this to be uh but she would not be under our our rules anyone who's attending remotely is not able to uh participate in quasi judicial items okay okay is that is that reserved just for the Quasi correct so if it's the non- quas judicial items anyone attending remotely can participate and vote fully yes as long as we have a physical Quorum present uh for the council meeting right you okay Henry yes okay Mark are you okay with that um I'm fine with it however um uh this is kind of a surprise I learned about this couple hours a few hours ago and the applicant is here so I think as a courtesy to the applicant we should find out if we're going to move this um number one if there's an advertising requirement that should be borne by the village and not the applicant uh to you know a read vertising requirement and then we should check and see if uh the applicant's available uh at whatever meeting this is going to come at I just think that's a a courtesy that's all okay and and I would say we can figure out if we figure out the date time the date that we're going to um move it to we can announce the date time and Loc location um and I'm fairly certain that will cover the advertising issues um but I think that it would be prudent as part of the motion that we specify date time and location uh of what the council meeting would be what about the April meeting what's the April meeting it would be a it will be it would be moved to the a the meeting on April 11th at 5:30 here at the um uh Community Center at Founders Park is that the a Thursday that's the Thursday meeting yes very good I want to see if the applicant's okay with that Mark do you want you're missing this that might be why you're it was gone when I walked in uh I'm gonna have to go oh thought I was going there for a while yes okay oh pardon me there were okay but we're not you said you're not voting on any of them these are tabs I think you're talking about tabs e the May one one e through yeah yeah it's just e through H you're fine okay all right thank you hey Elizabeth are you okay with what we're doing here yeah yeah thank thank you that's fine okay I want to make sure I guess I'm the only quas judicial one um yeah April 8th will work for me it was the 11th April 11th all right right um yeah I guess that works if that's what needs to be done thank you could we possibly do it on the 9th let's I mean we have a meeting on the 9th and the 11th right yeah I mean we usually do land you stuff on on dates certain on 11th but if you all prefer to move it to the ninth we could do it the ninth as well it doesn't matter in favor of the ninth myself okay okay are you okay with that joshin the ninth sooner the better inad of a Thursday yes that would work great for me thank you and lastly the advertising requ requirment how would we address that yeah I I think that by doing it this way under the state statute it would it would cover the need to read vertise um I will reconfirm um but if you if if you would like just in in in the event that it doesn't I would recommend that if you you all want the village to cover it we make that as part of the motion and then that way if there's no need to re-advertise it it it wouldn't matter can we can we just also confirm that includes posting and mailing um notices thank you so uh do we need to vote John do we need to just take a quick vote get Marne call the roll and take a vote yeah and and probably for for since we've had some discussion might be best to have a a clean motion on it okay um uh so I don't know Jaren if you wanted to make that motion for tabs e through H okay tabs I make a motion tabs e through H we move it till April the 9th meeting and the fees be covered what oh at 5:30 here in this building and the fees be covered by us correct that's correct motion I'll second it okay so Marne we have a motion in a second could you call the role please vice mayor Sharon Mahoney yes council member Henry Rosenthal yes council member Mark Greg yes council member Elizabeth Jolan yes and mayor buddy Pender yes okay that motion passes five to zero just to make sure that the Public's aware so tabs um e through H will now be have been continued to the April 9th meeting uh which is scheduled start at 5:30 here at the community center and Founders Park okay and Jennifer is it okay I mean can we could we put this in the beginning of the agenda so it we can get it done um it's your agenda so you can reorder it any way you'd like I I have to put it under quasi judicial items but if you'd like to move those up we're happy to do that okay all right okay we'll talk about it we got a while so um okay all right have a good night guys thanks okay thank you joshlyn okay uh so we're gonna move anything else Mark Henry anything else okay so we're going to move on to reports and presentations and announcements and uh Deb is going to come on up and give us a report on the LPA good evening I have uh I'm Depp Gillis I'm chair of the LPA and I have kind of two reports but I'm going to roll it all into one uh I think you've been uh sent the information for both but I'm kind of rolling this into one so we had uh in January on January the 8th we had all seven members present we had about 10 items on our agenda uh the first item was an administrative procedure adding a new sub subsection for review for imposed development conditions this would allow uh an applicant to challenge the conditions that were imposed if they believe believe the conditions were not an Nexus to legitimate public use or if they were not proportional proportional sorry to the impact on their development this was approved by the LPA 7 to1 or 7 to zero as presented the second item on our agenda was an allocation of bpas awards that have expired the code addresses the allocations of I'm sorry the code addresses if allocation permits are not picked up that it reverts back to the Village the current code does not address is if an allocation permit is picked up and paid for and then it it was allowed to expire by no uh development continuing on this ordinance would take back that permit allocation when it expires this affected we we asked the comp questions this affected five properties between uh um 2017 to 2022 the LPA would re recommend that this I ordinance not be retroactive and it would start with any new permits allocations issued and that a statement be provided um that eventually if the permit is allowed to expire that the village would capture it back in addition we would recommend that if this goes forward that a concentrated effort be made to reach out to the five allocations that are in that category and determine the reason why they were allowed to uh expire and maybe offer them a vested determination they would also have to comply to any new building codes um that had been put in place since all that happened those fives would also be taken back by the vill if they were not renewed that was a approved by the uh LPA on a 6 to1 vote with the recommendations the remainder of the items that we had that night were postponed and mov to our March 8th meeting due to advertising error so I'll cover that now that's our second meeting I'm not going to finish out that first report that you got excuse me so at the second meeting on March the 8th we also had seven members present and once again we had about 10 items in front of us uh the first item on the agenda most of these are are double items there are two so the the first two items were that were on our agenda was a hvs 82 request for a flume and a zone change there was a request to change The Flume status from residential conservation to mixed use and from native residential to Highway commercial zoning the property was zoned at the county as suburban residential which would allow some commercial use there was a commercial building built which was a greenhouse uh when the village Incorporated it was assigned a flume of res residential conservation and a zoning of Navy native residential which made the building legal but non conforming we as the LPA recommend that this be changed to a conforming Flume of mixed use and Highway commercial zoning there is a restrictive covenants on the property uh that protects the hammock uh that was approved The Flume and the mixed use was approved to those I'm sorry The Flume was approved to mixed use and the zoning was approved to Highway commercial in a 52 vote as presented next items uh our third and fourth items was the soldier South property which also requested a flume and a zoning change these items were tabled due to another advertising error and we will hear them in April uh items five and six was the island Community Church Flume and Zoning change applicant requested a flume change from public service to mix use and a zoning change from public use to Highway commercial uh the property is historically was a theater The Flume and the Zone was changed when the village Incorporated this is an up zoning but the property is fully developed and was considered to be commercial when it was at the county before our incorporation the current property owner was never made aware of the fling Flume and Zoning changes um personally directly ly uh the LPA approved The Flume to mixed use and the zoning to Highway commercial in a six zero with one abstaining then we had uh four items um on our agenda that there there was two they're they're identical so we took all four items at the same so it was our s eight n and 10 actually it's your I forget the letters number it's the ones that you just e to which e e to H it's those items uh the applicant has is requesting a flume change from residential medium to mixed use windley key mixed use area 2 for two homes that are side by side uh next to Hog Heaven this sub area Flume allows only to use a vacation rental and not any of the other upzoning that would come with mixed use the current zoning of residential single family District the applicant is requesting to Highway commercial they are not inside a residential zoning committee uh Community um the LPA app approved The Flume for both properties the windley cove and the windley aisle to the windley key mixed juice area two and uh the LPA also approved the Zoning for both properties of the windley cove and the wind windley Isles to Highway commercial both of those were in a 52 vote is there any questions no all right I'll be here if you have questions thank you Deb okay I think we're going to move on to public comment Marne do we have anybody signed up for public comment yes we do we have uh Joe wishme Ben Caden head and Deb Gillis okay and this is general public comment all right correct yes Joe wishm Plantation key Mr Mayor and Council I wanted to speak on this item on Tuesday but somehow it mysteriously got moved to a consent agenda from the regular agenda at the last minute it was amendment to keep Kimberly Matthews for one more month to act as adviser to council and new manager really with all the years of experience on this Council I am sure that none of you need an advisor Council voted 5 to Zer to hire our new manager Robert Cole Council wanted a unanimous vote to show confidence in your choice by keeping an interim manager/ advisor for another month at over $20,000 would not demonstrate confidence in your choice by the way Miss Matthews has only worked here for two months in the history of the village I don't ever remember having an adviser for a new manager and we've certainly had plenty of those if Mr Cole had any questions he should consult Village staff or the attorney that's what they're there for to Simply to supply useful information do not undermine our new manager by creating controversy with an ex-manager looking over his shoulder show confidence and let Mr Cole do the job you hired him for unencumbered addressing Mr Horton's claim the other night that Modular Homes at the sun Outdoors should remain tax-free is unconscionable Florida statue 553 382 which he pointed out its purpose was stated to expand the availability of affordable housing in the state Legoland is not affordable housing if Mr Horton would have continued to do more research he would have found Florida statute 320-15 States any prefabbed or modular housing unit or portion thereof not manufactured upon an intrical chassis or undercarriage for travel over the highways shall be taxed as real property once it is permanently a fix to real property the school district law enforcement mosquito control fire stations general fund and Village overall just to name a few are not getting their fair share of tax dollars as a taxpayer I'm appalled I resent being referred to as a Mal content just because I am trying to do the right thing for our schools and our village again if you wanted to look that up that would be Florida statute 32015 thank you okay 32.0 15 okay 32015 okay all right thank you who any anybody else Marne yes van Caden head is next followed by Deb Gillis okay van come on we want to go home it's a short time well I was trying to be polite and let the lady go first but that's okay I'm I'm ready um I'm surprised you didn't wear green today man it's not St Patrick's Day yet okay go ahead V uh I'd like to uh welcome for the first night in the chair Mr Cole and uh strangely enough I want to talk about the last night in the chair from the one that sat in that chair before Mr Yates now in July we had a meeting in this room uh that was a a 3-2 vote that voted not to continue Mr Yates in his management position uh I was happy with it and a lot of the people in the village were happy with it because I don't think Mr Yates was doing this very much good he was doing some people a lot of good and Uh I that that really bothers me and I want to point out that at that meeting uh we had 27 on on uh Marty mcgraph stationary from The Village at Village expense 27 emails Pro Ted's team uh that were presented and laid up on the table here there were zero against Ted there was Zero uh representation which is led me to say that it was bias on the dis and I certainly believe that that was the case whereas there were three people up there on the council uh the two ladies and uh Mr Rosenthal that voted against those 27 emails although they were overwhelmingly in favor of Ted's team and uh I would say that those people who wrote those 27 emails uh there's a list of them and they can be found and I think they should be researched by the voters of Isa marada to see exactly who those 27 people were that sent in those proted emails because those people were were uh not backing up um the the three Council people that voted against him and uh there is a a lawsuit against Ted Yates at this particular time uh by Dan galizio and also certain members of the of the village here that uh showed that he was not working in the in the best faith of the people of Isam marada so I think the people before they vote they should find out who those 27 people were and what 27 organizations and and just real quick one of them was the Chamber of Commerce one of them was the TDC and the other one was the rotary okay they were all pro Ted and Ted was all wrong and Ted has been proven to be all wrong and the fact that these people yeah okay yeah I'm I'm rapid let me let me wrap it up will you please okay so I I'm just asking the people of Isam marada in this Council to recognize that uh those 27 emails do not represent Isa marada the citizens of Isa marada were unrepresented except by the three people that voted to get rid of him so thank you very much thank you van who's next Marty oh Deb Gillis Deb Gillis Deb Gillis Isam marada I just I just wanted to welcome Mr Cole to his first night on the job and we're a contentious little Community but we're very nice little community at the same time thank you sir uh Marty we have any other public comment no sir that's it okay P all right with that being said public comment is now closed uh Council you know we we all have already I've already welcomed Mr Cole here today today uh and uh he got to see some nice part of town today very relaxing and you know we had a very good time so um anyways um we're he's ready to get rolling and uh ready to go to work got his sleeves rolled up and he even said he'd go walk with me at 6 o'clock in the morning if I wanted you to so go do 20,000 steps in the morning so um anyways we're going to move on then real quick uh to mayor council Communications I anybody have anything we don't have anything scheduled well I I have something I just it it came up uh yesterday the day before if this is an inappropriate time to say this I'll do it a different time but we're coming up on the annual anniversary where we review or or vote on our LPA members okay believe that's coming in May if that sounds right and so I was looking at that and I wanted to see who was on the LPA and I'd called The Village clerk uh and I spoke with um uh Stephanie there and I'd ask you know how who's you know who appointed who and all that sort of a thing she couldn't tell me and she said that you know as of last may we had kind of had that all sorted out but we changed things afterwards and I I remember doing it but I don't remember how what we concluded on but based upon the changes that were made they were unable to tell us uh you know is there are there um staggered terms or who appointed who or you know when someone's term would expire so that's coming up uh that would be May so we have some time to look at it so if it's appropriate now I'd just like to see if there's some consent with the council here to ask the staff to see what the story is with the clerk's office and I mean I'm not saying with the clerk's office but with the um LPA um status you know who's who appointed who or who's who's coming up for a reappointment or whose term is there so that we can uh act accordingly when that event occurs in May okay I'll answer that for you if you don't remember um they applied and it's supposed to be every year they reapply and it is voted on we vote for five or seven five of us voted the five of us voted for seven and the Seven top people got on the LPA well when you go to the section of the code that uh authorizes the LPA and you read you know what their powers are and how they govern themselves it says that they're two-year terms and they're staggered so uh maybe that is in well it's maybe that's been superceded but um if it hasn't it's in conflict with what we did and that's where I got confused and I I'm I think that's the same issue that the staff has they there seemed to be something that was difficult for them to sort it out out so I may be part of that could be an age related error that's a lot of those in my life these days so um if I could find out from the staff where we're at on that and confirm the status of things as far as what our responsibility is going to be if any in May Mr Quick can you help us out with that yeah I mean I'll work with staff I mean um as you all recall we we revamped the way that um uh boards were appointed so there wouldn't be any any each individual on the LPA there there wouldn't be a delineation as to who appointed who it was appointed by the majority of the council um council member Greg though is correct about the the that it reads it's a two-year term that are staggered so um I'm not sure we'll have to look back at the paperwork as to which ones received one-year terms which one received twoyear uh I'm just not sure uh about that process but we'll work with uh obviously we'll I'll work with Rob and we'll we'll figure out exactly which ones are coming up um because obvious there had to be some of them got one year to begin with to in order to start the Staggering um so I'll work with Rob and we will uh we'll confirm and we will uh come back thank you thank you and I I'm just going to say something this is really I know I don't have anything on here but I want to say that I want to thank Kimberly for coming and helping us and and just so the public knows she has 32 years of public exp uh service she used to be the head of Miami Dade County's whole entire Library System I don't know how many employees they have but I've been to some of the things in Miami with the school board and Things by some of my other mayor friends that invited me to some different uh Coastal resiliency things but I'd also like to say that she is the let the public know that she is the head strategic planner for Monroe County currently right now so we were highly blessed for for Roman and the and the and the Five County commiss commers to even share her with us for a time that we had a need so Kimber I want to personally thank you uh for your time okay um and if anybody else I mean if you want have anything you want to say go I would just wait and thank you for getting us to this point so that Mr Cole can step up and you can step down and thank you for enduring us and all of our challenges and I'll just leave it at that and um uh I don't know how we would have gotten through that without you so you you thank you for getting us here appreciate that ditto yeah and and I want to say thanks to Mr Cole because Kimberly was M with Mr Cole so was John quick today when I was with him and we had a great meeting and you know for Mr Cole she she's here she knows stuff she knows many different things and it was very good to have you there and I think Mr Cole appreciated that that he's uh we're trying to get him acclimated and up to speed quickly and uh you know help him in any way that we can so thank you so well thank you all very much you have all been so incredibly gracious while I've been here I really it's been my pleasure and to answer your question 600 plus people in Miami Dade and a 70 70 plus million budget so that for that and and uh but it has really been my pleasure you are so fabulous you really you have such amazing things going on here and I think Mr Cole is going to just take it and run with it so I wish you all the best and on behalf of myself and Monroe County we've tried to be as Roman always says we're we're a family and so we were here to help out and I'm glad to have been a part of that so thank you Mr Mayor I I think we also owe a debt of gratitude to the entire Monroe County Commission and to and to Roman they they put this together they brought it to us they invented this they they kind of shephered us along you know well I was going to say one more thing and I'd like for you to talk Mr Cole if you would but uh I'd like to say that it's already been extended if Mr Cole needs any help that they are there if he has any questions about things that there he is more than welcome to talk to any of the five Commissioners or Rome or Kimberly you know they're they're here to help us so would you like to say few things sure mayor uh briefly I'd like to recognize the county in particular for the level of collaboration and support that they've displayed with one of their member communities uh in my 30 or so years a little bit less than 30 of Municipal experience it's highly unusual for a County government to extend uh that kind of support and I think it's really helped the village in terms of bridging that Gap and I appreciate that uh we've had such a a highly professional person step in and really help keep things moving while the village uh continued it search for a village manager so uh thank you very much Kimberly thank you Roman if you're out there listening somewhere and thank you County commission for displaying a model example of how counties and municipalities uh can help one another in particularly their times of need okay hey I have one other question I just want to ask about your your better half is how is she getting acclimated she loves it here right oh absolutely uh my wife her name is Olga and uh she's really enjoying the keys one of the things that we thought she'd do here uh during our initial period was just explore get out and walk and and see the community and then she'll be looking probably for volunteer opportunities and such um but she texted me yesterday a a picture of a a stingray that she saw in her walk she had all kinds of both native and non-native lizard she was taking pictures of and flowers you know orchids so these are all things that are unusual for us in our life experience for the most part despite us having spent some time in advance of the hiring process a month plus here in in kilargo and Isa marada and places like that so again uh she's loving it thank you for asking thank you all right thank you okay so let's move on to then Village attorney Village manager Communications it's we don't have anything scheduled and uh Mr Cole Mr Quick nothing for me other than to to welcome Rob and you know that I I look forward to working with him and and thank Kimberly as well and and everybody at the county it's been it's been wonderful working with everybody and um you know just want to share the sen sentiments that uh the council has shared as well thank you Rob I don't have any additional manager comments tonight on our regular meetings on a moving forward basis I'm going to be trying to collect information from our department heads share important updates with the community that we believe are are helpful and useful to them in the conduct of their daily activities as well as other you know highlights that are are worthy of sharing with the council so I look forward to doing that cool thank you okay so let's move on to uh resolutions here so we're on Tab a uh tab B tab B I'm sorry okay tab tab B I'm sorry I looked at a it's a and then it is tab B okay John it's a resolution of the Village Council V Vi Village of violence Florida approving residential building permit allocation system rankings and awarding affordable residential building permit allocations for quarter 4 of 2023 and providing for an effective date Jennifer thank you Council Jennifer debrian planning director here this evening for your fourth quarter 2023 affordable building permit allocation award pursuant to section 30- 475 of the village code The Village Council of Isa marada is required to take action after reviewing building permit allocation system evaluation report pursuant to resolution 22-11-10 adopted on November 17th 2022 eight affordable locations were made available for 2023 through the village B pass pursuant to resolution 23- 01-04 and adopted on January 19th 2023 by The Village Council they approved one affordable residential allocation for quarter 4 of 2022 effectively reducing the available allocations for 23 to7 resolution 23- 04-343 by Village Council approved three avoidable residential allocations for quarter 123 resolution 23-11 d134 adopted on November 9th 23 by Village Council approved one affordable res residential allocation for quarter three of 2023 effectively reducing the available allocations for 23 to2 at the close of quarter 2024 there were two applications consisting of 10 allocations for affordable residential bass allocations in the queue awaiting award the affordable residential applications have been evaluated scored and ranked according to the criteria outlined in the village code section 30-47 the application recommended for approval is listed below permit number psf a2021 011 94 with 14 points submitted by Mark Greg on December 29th 2023 at 8:29 a.m. for parcel ID 00411 89- 0000000000 the proposed Construction requires two affordable allocations if the proov is recommended there is no additional impact to the budget other than it would increase the villages ADV Val adum tax revenue and future fiscal years and staff impact would be limited to processing the associated development permit this time staff recommends that the Village Council adopt the proposed resolution thereby approving the residential bass award ranking ranking and awarding two affordable residential permits for quarters 4 of 2023 avail a to answer any questions if you have any Council any questions Mr Mayor um obviously this affects me personally it is a conflict of interest for me to vote on that so I am not going to participate in the vote I may uh like to be on standby to uh participate in the discussion which I'm allowed to and of course available for any questions and I have my conflict form that I'll give to the clerk uh before we leave tonight okay thank you sh Henry I'm listening okay all right guess it falls on me huh um oh I forget she's behind me um I would like to know um the definition of where affordables can be built in our village where they are allowed and where they're not allowed in a short synopsis you don't have to um well that's a larger question I think then a short synopsis I can tell you in this residential zoning District multif family attached or detached single family deed restricted affordable housing of up to four dwelling units are allowed on Lots fronting on us one okay that brings me to my next question um what is your definition of non-conforming you know yeah well I've I've done some homework on non-conform uh commercial non-conforming uh duplexes we're pretty much the only people who use the term non-conforming a lot of people don't recognize it but when you say something is nonconforming to me that means you're accepting what they are but you're saying they're not in compliance with what there is now is that sort of a good way to say it say that again I think I'm well when you say something's non-conforming but you recognize well well let's take a piece of property that was Zone non-conforming commercial and uh you're acknowledging it's commercial correct but you're saying it doesn't conform with the zoning nowadays is that right I I guess I'm I'm guess I'm not sure I can guess I tell you what I understand non-conforming to be and maybe that will answer your question better okay yes so non-conforming is and just it may not be used in other areas in Florida but non-conforming is a term used Nationwide in land use and planning applications just for clarity but um non-conforming is a term used when something does not conform to the current code or ordinances as approved in the jurisdiction in which you live so if something is is a pre-existing non-conforming use or structure would be something that existed prior to the adoption of the code or ordinance and it's allowed to continue to exist because it pre-existed the code or ordinance and it's non-conforming just non-conforming by itself is something that does not conform to the existing code and ordinance well I guess the way I worded it didn't come out properly from and what I'm trying to convey is that if something is deemed nonconforming and then you have the ability to go back down the road and say I was this so I can get my zoning back is that right I guess I'm confused I I have a question why our humble councilman here has an application in for a non-conforming duplex in 2021 or 2021 that is still on the portal now would you like me to answer that yes um it's a long story so I'm going to try to keep it short uh it may leave out something unintentionally um and Buddy can weigh in on this too this is next door to Buddy's house and Buddy knows as much if not more about the history of this property as I do um when I purchased the property in 2015 uh it was set up as a duplex there are two units I see you shaking your head I don't think you've ever been in there so yes I have I almost bought it for our clinic for our Rescue of that house well it it has two kitchens two bathrooms and two living areas and that in short terms is a definition of a duplex and so I wanted to remodel that I had my father living in there when he was alive my brother was taking care of him and he lived in the other section and so I in 2016 I applied to the village for confirmation I was turned down I came to the Village Council on an appeal uh I I was turned down because the aerial photograph that I used did not show how many units were inside of the building and I tried to explain that aerial photographs do not not show a three-dimensional interior view and so uh I I decided not to appeal that further and then later on the county came in and changed their description of the property from single family to duplex and it still shows that way on the property record card today on the drawing for the property after that I applied for permits to uh put in the the connect to the sewer and then my fence blew down in the hurricane so I applied for a permit to put it back and when I did so I put on there that it was a duplex as it was shown on the property record card and I received a permit from the village to put up a fence on a duplex so uh that is kind of how that got to where it's at today so I came back um on on this is on this property it relates to another property I came back later for remodeling permit because the house is or the property was built in 1957 and it is almost all original it is in terrible condition so I wanted to remodel the interior under our code the definition of development does not include interior Renovations that don't change uh the use of the property so that means in my way of thinking that it did not require planning review and it was a non-conforming use so uh I got into a dispute with the planning director at that time and uh we we went around and around and around on that but prior to that I had filed an application uh for a pre pre-application conference letter with the village uh to see if if it was fronting on US1 and I received a positive answer yes it was so based upon that I I don't know I see you doubting that but have it if you'd like to see it well how can you make the old road us one well it's a gray area I I grant you that but the way that I did it is I went before the Village Council and I asked them about it when I had an appeal on a different property and that was unwind key so you're saying you set a precedence that because you got it done on one property it should be done when you go to another property well I'm saying that the Village Council made the determination that in that case on windley key which is situated nearly exactly like this one that those properties like this one are fronting on US1 I I don't agree I have the resolution I have the resolution with me I you have the resolution I'm happy to show it to you and read it to you I'm not trying to dispute anything what this Village has suffered from for years is people skimming just on the surface of what's right and what's wrong and I have a problem that listen I'd like to say I'm 25 years old a cute little blonde but I'm not and that is not us one it's the old road and I have a problem with that well you you will have to take that up with the council that voted five to zero to approve but it's not in our code how can you do one piece of property that's not this piece of property and say carries over to this property that's what I having a problem the conditions are the same according to who the Village Council what Village Council not this one one that voted on but that did that was on a different piece of property let me quote Jennifer we treat each piece piece of property differently you're talking about a piece of property that where I heard you brought in a map that showed where the old road ends and you're talking about the buildings that were yours that are now joshan's and that that was us one well where this is right here is clearly the old road it's not the same and I'm I'm sorry I think it should be in our code and I think we should have a say in this because when you set a precedence it should cover all kinds of stuff not just pick and choose what carries on I have an issue with when there's when there's a term in the code that's not defined it requires interpretation and we're back to that skirt the truth so I asked the planning staff to to initially to interpret that and it came back negative I didn't like that so I appealed that and the council agreed with me five to zero that it goes for everything not just it didn't say that I didn't say that either it said well I'm going to read it to you and you can put your own spin on it or not bear with me one moment so here's the resolution granting my appeal I'm not going to read the whole thing the issue in this case was whether the parcel in question to be fronting on US1 for affordable housing uh on the appellant's property and they list the addresses legally described as and then they give the legal description when they got to the section about finding of facts it says the director meaning the planning director's interpretation of the code is not supported by the facts presented and it went on to say that in the findings of fact um that the um it was uh the appeal has been uh processed in accordance with the law and it was granted in my favor and that's the other piece of property and so you're opening up a can of worms where everybody who has something on the old road but nothing built in front of them can now do the same thing am I correct here or am I I don't know uh that that is not correct it's it's done on a caseby casee basis well you're just limping yours in with the one down in windley key aren't you but Mark was that one that you did down there wasn't that because I remember that but it was eight affordable units right wait a minute wait a minute wait a minute this is this got all mixed up by van at the LPA on Monday night okay those two lots are today and we're then zoned single family you know R1 and I thought that because they were if they were to be considered fronting on US1 then they were okay to be used for affordable housing in accordance with the provision that Jennifer read to you a few moments ago so I wanted to do an afford this was I started in 2017 so I wanted to do affordable housing project to put eight one-bedroom apartments between the two lots and so that's when I went to do that by the time I got finished with all of that and I was able to get the cost down and some plans together the cost of that had gone up so high that I would have been upside down on my investment I would need a subsidy from the government or a loan or a gift or something in other words it was not financially feasible and so after that I just kind of threw up my hands and said well I guess I'll just get a permit for a single family there when I went in to clear the ex invasive Exotics on the property because it had a jungle there were two old house foundations one on each property that in my research indicated that they were destroyed probably in Hurricane Donna in 1960 I asked the staff to evaluate that as a legal established legally established dwelling unit they denied that um I appealed that but before it went to a hearing I had meetings with them and I agreed with their position and I withdrew that I later went back in on each lot and I filed an application for a bass for a single family unit and I got those and it took a quite a long time to do that and so at that point the cost for construction of a single family had also gone up and I didn't want to go through that process I not getting a bank loan so I sold them to Joselyn and that's how we got to where we're at today but in the process of that we had that appeal and that's where the determination from The Village Council was made that those properties were fronting on US1 they had the road that you would call The Old Road in front of it it has a street address of of uh well the street address thing is a bit of a misnomer because that's assigned by Sheila in the building department for purposes of 911 calls and things of that nature uh the village doesn't own it I can tell you that uh but that that doesn't necess I have to say that doesn't necessarily make it US1 or Old Highway on either any of those roads that's that's really a safety function and not an ownership of the road function so I don't know if I answered all of the questions uh but all I'm trying to do I mean we're kind of getting off in the weeds I I I have a strong sense that this is all about me and not about the project and that's okay I'm kind of used to that by now that that's not fair Mark I'm not saying that to you that's about about you it's about finally trying to fix what has been so wrong in this Village and that's the little loopholes that keep being found here and I'm tired there was no loophole to be found to me there is because that is the old road well I think you should understand the what the Village Council does they inter Council for that piece of property they interpreted the law on the term and they made that call all right let somebody else talk yeah let's Elizabeth you want to talk chime in yeah yeah I just want to thank you for um sorry letting me chime in this Zoom situation um so so is it I think I think your concern Sharon is that to to take the determination from the the two properties that that Jin was just you know is has built on and and and take that determination and put it on use it as a blanket determination for any property that's printing US1 to do whatever anyone wants is is concerning so um is it a stretch mark to um well I guess maybe it's Jennifer to to bring that component back to have a decision um made on this particular property and separate it from from the fact that then then you know yes yes let's determine that this is that we are in agreement that on this particular property in this case um we would acknowledge this as a um facing US1 and therefore we can allow this um affordable housing to be built because I I I um understand your concerns Sharon um I understand your concern I just wanted to point out firstly Jennifer did not make this determination so what happened is I had asked uh for a uh pre-application conference letter and I received a letter back from the the planning director at that time that agreed that this property was fronting on US1 and I could apply for affordable housing on this property exactly the way that General read that she was merely following a decision if if if there if there's going to be some I and I remember being in that meeting at actually oddly um when that decision was made but and but that determination went with that property if I'm not if I'm not mistaken it it didn't mean that we're now referring to that decision for for for any other property that um that um that that is that is fronting US1 in this scenario so I I mean for for um uh what is I don't know transparency purposes it is there any would that make everyone feel better if we had that conversation again don't know how much more transparent housing I I I went by all the rules I filed every application I got it all in writing I had it approved by the Village Council and by the planning director twice I I don't know what else I'm supposed to do you know everybody says I find loopholes and edges in the law I follow what it says and when it comes back my way if you don't like it take it up with the council ju so just one just one quick comment um that determination was made site it was a site specific determination if I'm not am I correct on that well I think every application is every application is a site specific one but it gave a general interpretation of a defined or of an undefined term in the code the word fronting and it was applied to that property as it is being applied to this property and because the conditions the physical layout the situation the two roads if you want to say that are AB budding and my my front yard there's nothing in between my front property line and the asphalt edge of US1 so I'm fronting on us the same noise the same wind the same traffic impacts the same smoke if that's not fronting on US1 I don't know what is you're on the old so just and and I'm going to stop for a second here but I understand that Mark and I I um if I were if I were asked to to um make a site specific determination um I would probably agree with that I mean it it it's clear but but I don't want but I don't want every other um every every other property owner who who has a similar situation to um uh to think that that that that's in a code because it isn't in the code so either let's get this into the code and then move forward or let's have that conversation along with you know separate pulled out from this um the the the um Award of the the allocation and this is not an any kind of accusation has nothing to do with you it has to it has to do with um with bringing forward these spite site specific intricacies in a in in bringing bringing that forward into the public conversation nothing to do with you okay you know what I mean are you done Elizabeth yep okay hey Jennifer didn't you you told me if those like this specific property if this property was up the road a mile and it's fronts the highway they could put four units on that property is that what you you yes any any property that fronts us one can put up to four let me read it again because I don't want to missp speak and anyone up to four dwelling units of deed restricted affordable housing on Lots fronting us one so it can be up to four but but and and there's there's um lot uh restrictions as far as size of the Lots so it depends on how big your lot is and how many units you can get so if you're for E for um 6,000 square ft for two attached or detached derestricted affordable housing dwelling units 9,000 squ ft for three or 12,000 Square F feet for four okay so there is a a Siz or Str correct that's what I wasn't sure about okay so let's take a minute and open public comment Marne do we have any huh oh Henry well we can we can still if you want public comment I'll wait for a public comment okay let's uh Marty we have any public comment yes we have Sue Miller signed up for this okay we have anybody after Sue no sir okay I think Vans mayor I'd like to represent the alamada Community Alliance I am on the board there here okay Council okay all right so um first of all Sue Miller low mataki I decided I'd heard all of this discussion about what is fronting US1 so I decided oh I'll just do a Google search on what the word fronting means and I sort of was amused that it said fronting is a powerful linguistic tool that can add emphasis and creativity and this case it sure has created a lot of creativity I think that um it is clear to me that the hearing that was held on windley key was to change an address of two properties site specific and so if you're saying that that site specific approval of the Village Council should apply we're going to have a whole whole lot of addresses at 85301 Overseas Highway and I think the post office will be really confused the um the idea that it was applied for as a duplex is concerning because the um property owner had already been told that it was not being recognized as a duplex and so I don't know why he then after he was told specifically through a public hearing that it was not identified as a public as a a um duplex that he went ahead and applied to change the duplex from market rate to Affordable that was Troublesome to me the the fact that you're defining something because there's nothing in front of it that it changes the frontage I live on the the ocean I have nothing in front of me until I get to Morocco does that mean that I um now front on Morocco I don't think so I think that that that argument is just incredibly crazy I can't even believe that someone would argue that I think that that the fact that this previous Council thought that there were going to be eight affordable homes on those those two lots made it sound very uh advisable to say okay we'll change your address we're not changing the frontage of your property we're changing your address and um and so I have a couple other issues about this application it's confusing to me you always um approve a resolution before each calendar year to determine how you're going to allocate Bass applications for non-residential residential affordable whatever and um and and I I went back to all the resolutions that are in our website um and I went back as far is 2019 which is all that's in the the website currently and every time every year the fourth quarter allocation is done done in December in 2019 it was done December 12th and 2020 it was December 17th and 21 it was December 16th this application what what is the the ending date to apply for bass for the fourth quarter why was was did we award in the past always award in the middle of December for the fourth quarter and here we are in March approving a fourth quarter allocation for last year that wasn't applied till till the very end of December so I don't know why this is a fourth quarter of 2023 award at all and and then um why wasn't the fourth quarter even in the annual um resolution telling how many how many allocations would be awarded each each quarter I think there is a solution to this problem um I think that the um the the as I read the code if if you're going to allocate residential allocations for a property you you can't exceed the density that's allowed for the property being awarded in the case of this property ignore the fact that it whether or not it is affronting US1 I I think we can all agree it's not fronting us one um therefore you're you're allowed one home there is a home there how can you allocate more thank you okay Marne I think van said he I just want to clarify a couple things um we do have a definition of Frontage in our in our code it's very clear what it is also um there was a resolution I'm trying to find out right now in December of 2023 for the allocation of the awards um the end of uh fourth quarter 2023 the last day was December 29th of 2023 okay okay van when this was approved the I'm talking about the windley key um properties um it was approved for affordable housing it was approved for affable housing by Ty Harris who was the planning director at the time who's the one that okayed this and I think that was an error I said it was I was sitting on the LPA at the time and I said I thought it was an error because it wasn't fronting us one it was fronting The Old Road and and uh you know fronting uh you can be as creative as you want to but it's not on the highway it's not on US1 it's just it's it's plain as the nose on your face it's just not on US1 it should never have been done to begin with and the fact that that uh Mr Greg went back to a house uh two slabs that were there from 1940 that were blown away in Hurricane Donna and use this as a basis to get his zoning and flum uh changed uh is is is ridiculous I mean but that's that's how we've been doing the the code and that's how we've been doing the ldrs and and I want to point out again that at one time not too long ago we had a a planning and developmental Services director named Dan galizio who was changing the code who was who was uh taking out the gray areas in the ldrs and was doing a very good job at it where some people on the council and in the building development community of alam marada did not like that they liked it the way it was where they could slip and slide uh through the the um code which which had you know loopholes and then and you can find loopholes you can make loopholes loopholes are being made right now because you're you're trying to say that that it's uh uh fronting on US1 it's not fronting on US1 one and the one that's over by Buddy I'd like to hear what buddy has to say cuz buddy has a history of of observing that duplex quote unquote and and I've heard him testify in in this room that it was never it's never been a duplex I mean two sets of families might live in there but that doesn't necessarily make it a duplex and and it's you know it's it's being changed for the for the financial Benefit of Mr Greg and I just don't think that that's what uh sitting in in a council chamber chair as as a councilman should represent I think he should be wanting to uphold the code uphold the Land Development regulations and support the law thank you all right Marty any other public comment no sir okay public comment is now closed Mr Mayor would I have an opportunity to address some of the statements made at the public comment would you would you entertain that um one thing that Sue Miller said was that if I heard her right in essence that this property's um density is a single family if I remember right in the comp plan for residential medium Flume it's one or two so it does allow duplexes and we can verify that for if that's important for you secondly um I don't think van would stand up there and purposely lie about things but uh he's a little older than me and my memory is bad so his his couldn't be much better and uh as I get older I I tend to remember things differently sometimes I can remember things that haven't even happened yet so what I can tell you in my way I remember it is I never brought this in front of the LPA I'm not quite sure what he was referring to and Tai Harris did not approve that I think he initially denied that and that's why I had to have the appeal he may be confusing this with something else I've done cuz I've allegedly I've done a lot so I I think it's important to you know if we're going to take his word for things to trust but verify um so uh I I don't know why I am always the Target and the bullseye for these things I think the real question is for the council is do you want to have more affordable housing or not and I mean for me apparently not and that's okay but there's an opportunity to have that here I discovered a way I can do this financially by using an existing building that is the there's no other way to build affordable housing that makes sense financially unless you get money from someone else or a gift or a grant or some other you know a little trick so this is my little trick is to take an old building and make it a new one same footprint it's in essence if you look at the plans that I submitted for the remodel that the vice mayor referenced earlier and the plans that I submitted for this they're nearly identical so that's how I got to this point so I I don't know what else I can say I I I I can you know I'm not going to keep rowing Upstream but um this is not shouldn't be about me this should be about affordable housing I would like to ask the village attorney if he happens to have an opinion and could weigh in on this that could one way or the other guide the council Guide Me Guide the public on you know fronting the fronting issue because it is an undefined term in our code uh there is another word that uses fronting it's a it's a frontedge I think is what it says um is in the code but fronting is not um and this is a thing that judges and lawyers deal with every day if it's not exactly defined you have to find ways to to figure that out and so I went to the council and got an answer I would like to remind you of other thing you you were with us that night buddy you and I were sitting in that audience duking it out as neighbors and we're still friends and I'm proud of that but uh Carl Bersa was the uh planning officer or planning technician whatever his title was planner that presented the case to the council that resulted in my denial and after the hurricane he's the one I applied to to put the fence back up and I showed him the property record card from the Property Appraiser's office that called it a duplex and he's the one that approved the permit that said duplex on there he agreed to that so I think I've asked as many times as I can to get this sorted out this there this is about as transparent as I can think of making it I don't think anyone else but me would have to go through this level these levels of scrutiny and and under the microscope and with an attitude that what is he doing what is he sneaking in there this time I followed everything by the law I've paid thousands of dollars in fees to go through the process and applications and it's done to the tea every time and anyone can ask for it and read it I have most of it right here under my elbow if you want to take a look at it now so I'm done thanks for listening so Mark just to clarify real quick uh when van brought that up about the one by Hog Heaven you you got two B passes had to go so I withdrew my uh claim that there were two house foundations there that would support that I I I I you know I talked to the to to the staff I mean they they pointed out some things to me that I had not seen until we got close to the hearing and I said okay you're right I'm out I I I'll pull that out but the other part about fronting on US1 I left in there and so that was what the council approved paradoxically when I finally did receive my bass allocations one for each lot at different meetings I I got my building permit I went in to pay my fees paradoxically they gave me a credit for the square footage that I demolished on those old foundations so they considered that to be existing square footage that I didn't have to pay any impact fees for that so in one sense they they recognized them but in the other they didn't I keep getting screwed around and and and scrutinized and denied simply because I follow the rules and I've had it I'm done okay well I'll say my piece real quick joh okay okay okay John okay go ahead okay go ahead John yeah well I think there's there were two questions one is about the definition uh of fronting um the definition in our code is a frontage um so it's a similar word but it's not it's not in terms of asking if there is a definition of fronting in the code no it's a frontage uh in terms of the interpretation uh of that provision that's actually that lies with the planning director it's uh the planning director's interpretation Authority has given to her um and I think you know she's prepared obviously a memorandum for Council uh laying that out but that that Authority really really rests with the um the planning director in terms of the interpretation of that okay okay all right so Mark just just as you just brought up I I came here to the meeting I was asked by two Council people to come to the meeting that night it was uh January 26th of 2017 and uh I did say that you and Linda were a friend of mine I came here you had Don Horton represent you and uh I I just spoke of what I knew Mr cotton you know owning that and at that point I mean it it he it it wasn't ever a duplex until cotton you know bought it and he made that room for his his workers to sleep in because Chris anante even you know said to me when he came later to the co-op uh for an aqueduct board meeting he says I called Jackie hamson and she said uh she told him exactly what I had said at the podium that night so and I do remember that that night Vivid you know extremely well that it was they they did turn you down that night it was Jim Mooney voted against it cherol me did and uh Mike Forester and uh so they determined it wasn't uh cuz I remember explicitly that uh mayor or Chris Sante wanted to give you two affordables and two Market rates and Ro spoke up Village attorney at the time and said this isn't about whether it's uh whether you get any you know Market rates or affordables it was about whether it was a duplex or not so anyways yeah I'm just giving the public that uh because I have lived there since 1961 our families own the house since ' 61 and um I mean I remember Joe gets and living with his two kids there in the very back uh Billy and Bobby and uh but uh anyways I've I've called as as the code requires and each time I've applied for things I've called uh to have the then sitting building official come over and make an inspection and render an opinion about it was what it is and the first one was Jerry Albertson I think and he there is an email letter in the file that says it's a duplex he said it was a duplex I had Sheila come over and look at it and she said it's a duplex so when I go to apply for a building permit I need to know am I applying for a single family or for a duplex but each time I ask here I get conflicting responses so all I want is to be treated fairly and I'm not getting that warm fuzzy uh so far on this and if the village wants affordable housing I'm prepared to go forward with that and if you don't I'm fine I'll go get a boat or something I I didn't know that the village that both of them but if it's you put on that permit to get your fence put up I have a permit that says that's a duplex okay from the village after that appeal okay that's right because Irma was after that's right from the man who prosecuted that case during the appeal that's what I'm telling you the same guy that presented the case against against me in the appeal later agreed that it was a duplex and gave me a permit saying so Ro right is that no Carl baa oh Carl Carl from The he was the senior planner okay so if that's wrong I don't know what's right Henry do you want to say anything yeah first of all how important is it to confront The Old Road versus US1 is this problem hinging on that allocation Yeah the code to have um uh well you know I'll let Jennifer chime in she's the interpreter but the answer is yes in order to get the affordable allocations the property has to front on us one so the answer is yes okay you know the legality of the old road do I specifically is it recognized by the by the I believe it's a v i no I believe it's a is it recognized by the state The Old Road no I do believe it's not well like I believe it's a state uh a village road a village owned Road okay well you stand corrected Okay I accept that and I tell you why I draw that conclusion the old road is a Boundary Road recognized by the state of Florida and the idea of the conf whether this property is confronted with the old road versus US1 us one is not a part of this us one could have been a quarter of a mile away from the old road in that particular case we would be talking about the old road now how does that Old Road get involved with this particular situation what is the legality of that has has it ever appeared when a property owner has to exceed his property line and go across the old road to a say you one or another road or whatever in many cases that's prohibited the old road is a Boundary Road recognized by the state of Florida and whatever comes on the other side is IMM material it's not part of the conclusion and I'll tell you why and how if you have a liquor license confronting the old road you cannot cross that road and still have that liquor license in effect it's been proven time and time over in Monroe County and I'll give you some examples one example is what is called the kargo Inn in kargo the license was on one side of the road and then there was a building on the other side of the road the state came and prosecuted that particular Hotel more in here that you recognize Indies not Indies in what's the property owned by Victor suns in sunset in thank you sunset in originally that property included the island on the bay on on the bay legally that license could not be used on that island and it was used many many times for specific events that is crossing the old secondary Road you couldn't do that one just two examples there was a third my mind but right now it doesn't come up so my position at this particular point is the US one doesn't enter into my decision it stops at the old road for that particular reason it is recognized by the state of Florida as a Boundary Road in many many cases but the only one that I'm familiar with because I had a lot not a lot of liquor license but I had a few liquor license in the county and I always knew what they obtained for as far as usage so to me the old road it stops there so that's my position and that's that's what it's all about okay thank you so so Jennifer if if one so chooses if we just what Henry just said if we take the old road out of the equation or the highway thing isn't it is it is it legal or I mean isn't does a person that owns a property have a right to to apply for affordable permits to build on a on on a market rate because I'm confused Mark a little bit here you know so do in this zoning district with the property does not front on US1 you cannot build affordable housing oh if it doesn't front on US1 you cannot build affordable housing in the zoning District okay okay go ahead ahead you want to say something yeah this isn't against Mark you Mark and I know you think it is but it this is really has to do about making our codes and our rules for everybody not pick and choose where it goes and if to me maybe we should look at changing where affordable housing can go instead of taking a decision from one piece of property and moving it to another and saying it's the same maybe we should fix where affordable housing can go and that way it would be fair to everybody and not pick and choose well this can move over here and this can move over there that's what I have a problem with it has nothing to do with you you just you know you take things way too personal I mean you do but maybe it's the code itself that maybe we should say there can be look at the the ability to put affordables on the old old Road and that would fix everything and not just cherry pick problems and solutions that's that's how I feel okay so Jennifer help me understand because when I looked at buying that property myself they told me that I Cheryl shafari told me that I could put 12 affordable units where Mark had his key lime trees so I'm confused okay I'm I'm really confused right here and it had nothing to do with the highway um I can't speak to why charl shafari would have told you that I was not here in that situation up to 12 is what she said up to 12 I wasn't here don't have anything from her I can go back and see if we have did you have it in writing from her or no no I I went to do some due diligence before you know cuz I didn't really want it but I would had to buy the whole piece such as Mark did yeah so but on the coral the property that runs the along coral and then there that that I mean first of all my property and the and the where the greenhous is now was Zone Suburban commercial ever since zoning came into existence that property was zoned residential and Mr cotton tried to change it and it got shot down but what I'm just saying is is it was residential and and I was told I could build up to 12 units so and I and and the reason I'm saying that because what Sharon just brought up that it it I don't think this is about Mark I just think that what this is is that it's piece by piece and we're we're letting you know people have different pieces of property and they can do different things so I don't know if I'm making sense or not but yeah we need to fix it and that's what Sharon saying we need to fix that Elizabeth do you have anything else you would like to add please so I I I just think that we're we're all in agreement that we want and need affordable housing great and I think we're also in agreement that that you know here we are with um a need to fix this um understanding of what um you know of what Frontage mean front Frontage means because again you know the old road is a very unique element of our community and and so when if again if we don't pull up pull out this designation and attach it attach this decision to this property you know I I want that opportunity to say yes we understand that this definition of Old Road is because this property actually does just sit in front of dot that that that median nothing's going to be built there I get it yes let's give let's do affordable housing on this piece of property but I want to but I I want something more formalized for um within our code and maybe Jennifer can speak to that I mean you're going to make this decision a hundred times um uh what it what it speaks to is I mean we've all we've all mentioned it what ha I mean we have it's a big there's a bigger issue here that needs to be addressed and Jennifer do you see that are you seeing that in the decisions that you um foresee making and can you help us understand how that can be fixed outside of this this particular decision or actually along with this decision that we're we're being asked to make is your question specific specific to properties fronting us one versus the old old road or just inconsistencies in the code in general well actually I mean I think we we've um given that direction to um I mean you know I think I I think we've given the direction to to take a look at the comp plan I know that has been given I know we've been in a lot of turmoil and I don't think that process has been started but do you antic just on this particular issue do you anticipate this issue um of how are we how are we dealing with um this ambiguity of Frontage um do you anticipate that coming to you again I mean there are a lot of other properties that are in the in this similar situation so are we now saying that are we all are are you now agreeing will you always interpret the code in this way um or does it need to actually be codified like actually be put into our code with real language I'm happy to work with John to come up with some language I think John was just scribbling some potential language that we could put into the code to do that um I'm not sure how many properties this would affect because the the interpretation that that I read and the appeal that was done by the council in I think it was 2019 um I'll speak to the um the the median strip between Old Road and overseas being you know not a buildable piece of property the size of it and so you know that's a very specific you know situation so I think you know I'd have to do more research on how many pieces of property that would affect in the in the whole strip of us one um to give you a more accurate answer and if I see it being a problem um you know that being said you know these are our last two quote regular affordable allocations that we have um the only other allocations we have coming at this time would be the 300 and you know a property like this wouldn't necessarily qualify for those unless you know there was an on-site you know property manager and there were some other things you know that they would have to do to meet our Land Development regulations to qualify for those 300 so um not sure that it's it's a pressing need moving forward because we don't have the allocations to give but John and I are happy to look at some additional language if that's what the council wishes can can I ask a question I'm hearing something that I like to hear things uh in a I don't know in a way that can make everyone happy so this sounds like the beginnings of a conversation where a possibility exists that this matter gets tabled or you can deny it and there's direction to the staff to clarify what Frontage means as it relates to front excuse me thank you what fronting means in this context as it deals with a property that has a piece of the the old highway but no nothing else in between is that if you would like to do that um that would that would be I think fair to me okay I I personally like that idea because it um yeah I like that idea and and I think it's I think it's necessary because this because yes I'll just say that I think it's necessary and and if if if that works for you mark then I would love to table it it it's not I don't think it's a big leap for our planning department to to put that language together either I don't think this delays things too much well I think that would provide the clarity and the certainty that I've heard is lacking or apparently lacking and it would give the staff some time to analyze how many lots that could be affected by this and a spoiler alert it's six and uh some of them are not buildable but um uh I think I mean it's not a it's it's like that other thing we looked at where only five Lots or five permits were there so and this gives an opportunity to refine that uh to a level that's comfortable for the council so can can I ask a question just in terms of for for clarification so um are we we're looking for a potential code change or a a code cleanup uh we might want to call it uh either defining the term fronting or if there's another mechanism to deal with this scenario that we're talking about where you have um something with an Old Road address but you have an unbuildable strip of land between the old road and US1 is that that what you you all are looking for is a a potential code change to come back you guys with I am and and the reason I asked that is because what I would recommend then uh if you all are going to uh table it what I would recommend is that it would be a motion to continue the this item um and I would say probably at least until June uh because obviously we have to bring this to the LPA and we'd have to have two readings before an ordinance uh potential ordinance change and then we'd have to get confirmation from Commerce or approval from Commerce on that as well uh so that that way it gives it as much time but I just want to make sure that you know we can continue it like I said at least June maybe July but then we that way we can hold this item in abeyance until that time um Jennifer can probably chime in up uh in terms of if that's an okay time period for uh for that yeah I'm okay that as long as you get to legal on the old road okay and and Sharon you're okay with that okay Mark you're okay with that I'm not voting but I I understand as the applicant I'm grateful for you considering that it's fair John here's my thing is there's other properties too that if if if we do this and then you're we're going to have other people coming in saying hey you set a precedence so why aren't you letting me do it so we need to put make our code to be clear and precise that yeah I joted I jotted some some notes down to myself and for myself and and Jenifer and I with Rob will obviously we'll get together and uh we can bring something back with an ie I would think towards April um to get this thing moving I mean assuming we can get it uh get it that quickly but to get this done as quickly as possible to bring it back for your all consideration understanding we have to take the first step of going to the LPA obviously okay okay is everybody we're all in agreement then yeah I I would just ask that there be a motion so there's a formal motion to continue this item to um did you want to do June or July or you want to make that motion okay okay I mean we can um I'm not I'm I'm going to be on vacation for your July meeting so I won't be present so um you want to I guess we'll do june and or we can do August it's either one either either June or August whichever one you're you're comfortable with and if we can't make the June we would obviously have to come back um but uh I would I would just do a motion to continue uh uh this item until and you can specify what what month uh you got you all are comfortable with okay uh Elizabeth do you want to make a motion or Henry or Mr Mayor what excuse me can I can I make a rebuttal of something Mr public comments closed okay yeah this isn't public comment sir this is a rebuttal okay uh Hey van he said public comments closed it's it's I differ the with what he says because it's not public comment he said something about my memory and I'm entitled to rebutt it and if you won't let me do that then that's not uh kosher I'm sorry as far as I'm concerned Mr Quick what is your opinion please I mean the public has specified times to comment which is during public comment um so when public comment is closed it it's closed he named me by name he named me by name he brought out and said that my memory was faulty drop it you well I'm not going to drop it the the obviously there's general public comment is available obviously at you know at any time at the next meeting as well uh so I mean are opportunities to to you know address it for for the public point of order could I ask that the public comment be reopened and for this gentleman make a comment you could make a motion to to do that it would be subject obviously to uh the will of the council I understand that so for the sake of uh form I make that motion can to reopen public comment just for one minute for this gentleman over here okay uh Elizabeth did you hear that what's your opinion I I did hear it and look this this is a business meeting and this is not this this is a what's this is devolving into a personal issues of a personal nature needs to be handled outside of the meeting I respect everyone's opinions but let's I would I would just request that we move the meeting along and the two gentlemen can take the personal issues and and air that outside of this meeting if we could please with with all due respect just like to move the meeting along just to be clear any if you were to reopen it it it would be reopening public comment not for one specific individual but it would be reopening it others could could speak so so so lack of a second the motion failed so we still need a motion on the motion uh on the potential continuance okay this is of uh tab B so I'll move I I'd like to move to continue tab B until after uh the planning department can bring forward a a resolution regarding the nature of the term Frontage as it relates to uh affordable housing okay Froning huh okay do I hear a second I'll second it okay Marne we have a uh Motion in a second John you want to read that to us one more time what we're going to what it is what she just said yeah it was a it was a motion to continue tab tab B until um uh after the um uh the staff has brought forward a potential ordinance change uh or a potential code change by way of ordinance for the council consideration and potential approval okay all right Marne would you call the role please council member Elizabeth Jolan yes vice mayor Sharon Mahoney yes council member Henry Rosenthal yes and mayor buddy Pender yes that motion passes four to zero okay thank you you're you're welcome we're going to move on to tab C tab C is an ordinance of Isam marille violence Florida amending Chapter 30 Land Development regulations Article 4 administrative procedures division 2 development review process section 30-2 one2 of the village code to create a review for the imposition of certain conditions providing for severability providing for inclusion in the code and providing for an effective date Jenifer actually yeah this one this one's for me um for you yeah it's uh uh in when when there are certain types of development uh sometimes there are uh conditions that are are required I I'll use example of if you're if you're going to put in say like a strip mall and you need to uh a requirement is to to have a traffic lane put in um that there are arguments that can be made that if they if a developer believes they're um They don't serve a public purpose or they don't have a Nexus to a legitimate public purpose or they're not proportionate that they can allegedly be exactions um uh that they um would could then have the uh uh right or the ability to to attempt to sue over to try to um alleviate themselves of those exactions or to uh obtain some sort of uh uh monetary judgment related to that uh so in as um I spoke with one of my takings attorneys just to see if there were any uh any ways to try to you know benefit the village or to additional safeguards to provide and one of the um suggestions that she had is to have a a process by which um almost like an appeal process to the Village Council um if they believe that there is a condition that is placed upon uh their development that they they believe um does not is not for further legitimate public purpose or is not proportionate that they could then appeal that to the Village Council uh and present their argument to the to the Village Council as to why they do not believe that it should uh should be there um the reason why I thought that this might be a good idea is number one uh it creates an additional step for any developer or any property owner who who might be thinking about suing the village over over something over a condition it require it provides an additional step for them to go through um and by providing that step it frankly gives us a kind of peak behind the curtain as to what their arguments might be in the litigation um and that way we can um uh consider that in terms of uh whether or not that is a condition that um uh that the village wants to continue to impose or to support um by doing that it it it provides it it potentially provides the village with um uh the benefit of not having to go through litigation which would alleviate some costs in defending a um a condition uh so just looking at ways to try to uh you know best set up the village or in in ways that I think can um Save The Village money save the village time and and give us uh an additional step for a developer to go through um uh if they want to challenge anything that that we might bring forward as a condition so that that's what I uh brought forward for your consideration um it uh it wouldn't change the right of a developer obviously to to sue if if the council decided no we do want to uh continue with this this uh imposed condition um but like I said it will um require a different an additional step to go through um and uh and actually there was some some suggestions that when I kind of thought about it over the weekend um you know there was some suggested language if if the council is interested in this that I would like to include in I think it's already implied in there that if you don't go through this process that you are um uh impliedly conceding to the condition uh but I think it doesn't hurt I mention this to some of you individually it doesn't hurt to include that explicitly in the language so um if the council is interested in something like this I would ask that I I be able to amend that a little bit for second reading to to explicitly state that as well okay Council we I think it's good yeah I think it's Elizabeth yeah I I I know John has tried to explain this to me in a way that that would make it make sense but I do not I I don't like the idea of of this body or the next Council body um being in being in charge of um of uh overruling decisions that are planning department has made or that our that you know the way our I mean we do this all the time I realize but this is sort of codifying the idea that you know that prior to being sued we come to the council and depending on who's sitting on the council and how and what the project is I mean it it it brings in an arbitrary you know somewhat arbitrary decision-making process even though I know we'll be given full directions or you know our Council the next one so I I no I'm going to vote no for this I I don't like it I and you know primarily because at this time I don't I mean with with I think we have a lot of improvement to do with um with um I think well I think we could we we I mean we've talked multiple times about um tightening our comp plan and and sort of um revisit um some of our codee and and and I think we could bring this back after we do that um but I I don't like the idea of the council being an intermediary between our planning department and a developer who's mad or or or a homeowner who's mad about the way our code reads so no I'm gonna say no to this again sorry John if I'm just not catching on to what you're trying to tell me but thank thank you elizab all right so let's open public comment now for this item tab C any public comment Marne just fan signed up at this point okay uh van Caden head uh This underlines what I said before about uh uh cleaning up the code and cleaning up the Land Development regulations because uh we've had the LPA had to cancel an entire meeting because it wasn't advertised properly at the year last meeting we had to pull the sojern property from discussion because the a whole room full of people were here to discuss it but it wasn't advertised properly um I don't think our planning department is ready for prime time and I would really like to give the manager a chance to uh ease into this examine it and make his recommendations on on uh the the state of the ldrs and the code and and allow him to uh put his knowledge of uh municipal government into this because I I fully agree with Elizabeth I mean you're just adding another layer of uh you know John wants to to uh look behind the scenes and see what the argument is going to be for the lawsuit well that's what that's what a lawyer would say of course you do but if you have a clearcut um code and and it uh ldrs are are uh unchallengeable because they're they're set in black and white you won't change them from from case to case which has been the case then then uh uh we don't need this and if if you do feel you do need this I would ask that you would uh Kick the Can down the road and and uh uh allow them to uh examine it on a little closer and see what they can do to shore up the prop problem because uh I don't think this this ordinance uh this resolution is going to be the the solving anything I think it's going to further confuse the issue thank you very much thank you Dan Marney anybody else no sir okay public comment is now closed Council any further discussion I'd like to weigh in on this a little bit and um I I share Elizabeth's concerns about this in the sense that you know there is an opportunity for whoever's sitting in these chairs to make an adjustment but I think we have to recognize that can C this is allowing it to happen before a lawsuit occurs we do the same thing in a shade session once the lawsuit has already been filed um I have participate well in in the world of real estate permitting and so forth we all hear about the taking and a taking is where somebody claims they can't use their property it's that we've taken away almost all or all beneficial use or economic ability to get economic benefit from it and that happens and that that's one standard that's one legal procedure then Florida is unique and Mr Cole is going to learn how Pro land uh proproperty rights Florida is we have the Bert Harris act and that's a situation where there hasn't been a full-blown taking but there's been a government um um restriction or limitation such that it has a significant impact I think it's a John can maybe help me with with that uh phrase in the uh inordinate burden or something like that is in the the inordinately burdens your reasonable um investment back expectation whatever that means and I don't know if the judges know what that phrase means it's in the statute but it's less than a taking uh they have a right to send over notices and convene you know meetings and force meetings Force us to sit down and talk about it very very much like what this is doing so again I share uh Elizabeth's concern about you know whoever sits here gets to do what they want but they get to do it anyway in a couple of different ways and so with that in mind I I like this for the reason that it does afford US an opportunity before we spend a lot of money on legal fees for one last time to sit down and hash it out and as a former certified mediator you know it's judges love for you to sit down and talk about it they don't want to see you in court in a fight so this I think is very beneficial to the public it's a tax saving it's a it's a legal fee saving thing that only postpones a meeting that can happen later if we don't pass that so that's my take on it okay Henry nothing no no okay so I would move to approve it okay okay so U there's a motion how about a second I'll second it okay Marney call the rooll please council member Mark Greg yes um vice mayor Sharon Mahoney yes council member Elizabeth eleth Jolan no council member Henry Rosenthal yes and mayor buddy Pender yes motion passes 4 to one okay John so we are on to D clide judicial um tabd would normally be a quasi judicial it I mean it is a quasi judicial normally I would read the Quasi judicial statement um but it's actually a request from the planning department be uh because you uh Council tasked the planning department to come back well you know what I don't want to steal Jennifer Thunder again I will TK it over to her J I just I just mentioned I won't read the the normal quasa judicial unless you all decide you want to hear it in full okay Jennifer sure thank you um thank you Council Again Jennifer debri and planning director as you may recall back in September 21st 2023 this item administrative appeal 222 biscan Boulevard was before you for an after Thea uh construction of of a tiki hut within the required 10- foot setback um at that time the council uh continued the item till this evening and asked staff to investigate possible solutions to the issue of the pre-existing non-conforming setback encroachments due to staffing issues over the last 6 months and the amount of work facing our department staff has not been able to do as much research on the issues as we would like um we have had some conversations with the applicants Council um and we have done a little bit of research but we would Contin like to continue that conversation with with them and do more research and come back with a overarching solution for the council as requested um if you would still like to us to proceed in this manner we would ask for about another two to three leaning on the three month side to complete that and provide you with the recommendation okay Council we have any other questions Mr Mayor I didn't read the resolution title if I can just do that for the it's a resolution of the Village Council of is Village Islands Florida considering administrative appeal number plv 20 2383 filed by Joan M Pereira Esquire agent on behalf of Frederick Schmid and Darcy Parker appellant relating to director of planning's notice of intent to deny an administrative variance for the and after the fact Tiki Hut constructed within the required 10-ft setback from mean high water line for property located at 222 biscan Boulevard having real estate number 00 39448 n- 8400 on lower mumi key Isa marada Village of islands Florida as legally described herein and providing for an effective date okay okay looks like here is that would uh the applicant like to speak come on up um oh wait let me if if if we're going to be taking uh uh any discussion from the applicant other than than I I'm going to need we're going to need to read the Quasi judicial uh statement then if it's going to be anything more than just a motion to approve the continuance so let me let me read that statement doing what I'm following yeah well I I would move to approve the continuance if there's a second and then we can let her speak if that shortcuts things uh yeah okay to yeah because then um it's just on the procedural motion as opposed to the quasa judicial exactly okay thank you I move to approve the continuance said second did she yeah Elizabeth second did you say something there something in my ear yeah I second it okay so Mark made a motion and you second Marney call the role please can you sit ma'am can you hold tight wait no it was uh he was going to he was doing that to allow the applicant to speak because it would just be on the continuance motion not on the substance of the uh the resolution or the appeal okay so there they public comment can be permitted on on the continuance motion on if you would like okay doesn't the RO get called first yeah but do we need to call the rooll first and get this over and then let her speak well then the motion will be dealt with if I'm just if you want to hear from her this was a mechanism to do it you would we do we can hold off on on voting there yeah it's just yeah the motion's still pending and and yes you can hear from okay you come on forward all right thank you everyone um I I don't have any issue with the continuance um I would ask though that like our fines start uring as of tomorrow so I would request that we get uh approval from the magistrate to extend it uh there was it was done 6 months the last time we were here they extended it 6 months um and so we would like to extend it again but this time have it be open-ended because every time we do these we incur additional attorneys fees um so we would ask that it be an open-ended until this matter is resolved and to the magistrate um and so one thing I would just like to say since I have my couple minutes up here um I heard that they were going to be if we're going to get into substance I need to read the quasa judicial item and she would need to be sworn in uh because then then you're getting into the quasa judicial record so I I don't know what she's going to say uh but if it's anything more than just talking about the the continuance I we absolutely have to read the quad judicial statement and she would need to be sworn in um so I can do that um if that's what the the applicant would like um but that's I mean this is really a continuance motion and there's not usually public comment on procedural continuances but I understand but this was done for that purpose but if we're going to go beyond that we we need to comply with the quasa judicial rules what would we' like to do what's the favor I I think we understand what the lady's concern is that she needs some more time and she wants us to help her out so she doesn't incur additional attorney fees from based upon our discussions at the last meeting I think we're all like-minded on that uh I would not be in favor of uh hearing this tonight and having a quazi judicial decision because um you know it's it's it's asking for a variance when a variance is not really in the works here and we're going to try a legislative Solution that's beneficial to the Village as a whole so if we could stay on that track and and you know I don't want to cut her off if she wants us to open this up but I don't think it's to her advantage and her lawyer isn't here for that so that's not a good idea so yeah and John if we do that Elizabeth her motion if we go to quide judicial it's not going to yeah well Elizabeth can still second the motion and vote on it cuz it's procedural but if we open up the Quasi judicial it would be opened up not just for her but but obviously we would anybody who might want to speak if they're sworn in but um so but yeah if it's anything beyond what we're talking about we need we need to go into the Quasi judicial mode we have anything else I mean just continuing is what we're we're only going to speak about we know what you want did a lot of work this weekend and I wanted to share that thank you your lawyer isn't here and and he he or she may need to be there for your protection or benefit you never know what's going to happen if you want to open it for the Quai judicial I did tell your attorney that we were going to ask for a continuation I don't know if she let you know that no she didn't but I I mean I remember Elizabeth asking last time how big of a problem is this and and I have again again if we're going to get into any of this we absolutely I I cannot stress it enough we absolutely have to get into the quasa judicial procedures and so if we're getting into anything I need to do that now okay concerned about the magistrate okay I I'm going to just read the qual and we will we will swear everybody in and we will have the full quasa judicial because I I I can't I get I get that they want to speak that they've prepared or or John or John can we just stop now yeah we can stop them I mean can we agree to stop now and just proceed with the procedure can we just stop now okay okay so we have a we have a motion Marne on the floor in a second I just if you want to just amend your motion to address their concerns the the fines don't start occuring until April 18th and that's when the next magistrate hearing is I was planning to bring it before them anyway so if you want to make it at your last motion when you continued it to to this night you ask the magistrate to toll the fines and toll everything until tonight or till the April 18th so we can do that again if you I would amend my motion to add the provision for tolling the uh fines that are ongoing for code enforcement I'm gonna second that super okay so Marne we have a motion in a second would you call the role please council member Mark Greg yes council member Elizabeth Jolan yes council member Henry Rosenthal yes Vice May mayor Sharon Mahoney yes and mayor buddy Pender yes motion passes 5 Z what was the date what was the date uh what I heard you say something April 18th is that right no the date you continued it to huh well I thought you knew I asked for three months so um how much did you ask for three months three months yes that's what I meant mhm let's just can we do it again let's do it again I I move to extend this for or to continue this for three months from tonight and to toll the running of the fines through code enforcement wait wait I second it all right so Marne we have a motion in a second stand by she's calculating the date we're looking at when the June meeting is so they the June meeting is um either June 11th or well the land you stuff is June 13th so so I would continue that to June 13th 5:30 at 5:30 p.m. In This Very Room be here or be square all right Elizabeth do you second that absolutely seconded okay so now can we Marne please uh call the role please council member Mark Greg yes council member Elizabeth Jolan yes council member Henry Rosenthal yes vice mayor Sharon mAh yes and mayor buddy Pender yes the motion passes 5 to zero okay okay John are we uh I think that was it because we're not doing e through H correct so that's everything that's everything Council move to ajour oh sorry Henry I move second second e