Aug 17, 2020 City Commission Regular Meeting

>> NEXT WE HAVE THE 3RD QUARTER FINANCIAL REPORT.

[a. Third Quarter Financial Report]

>> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS.

YOU'VE RECEIVED THE FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE 3RD QUARTER STARTING JUNE 30TH. AS ALWAYS I'LL START WITH OUR FUND EVALUATION REPORT AND THERE IS QUITE A BIT OF YELLOW THAT YOU'LL SEE. FIRST WE'LL START WITH OUR SOLID WASTE FUND. OUR REVENUES WERE NOT ON TARGET FOR THE SOLID WASTE FUND AND IT RESULTED IN A NEGATIVE NET OPERATING INCOME FOR THE END OF THE 3RD QUARTER.

I WILL EXPLAIN THAT THAT IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE COMMERCIAL REVENUE ON THE SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS.

IT WAS DOWN BY THE AMOUNT THAT SOLID WASTE IS NEGATIVE FOR THE QUARTER. WE WERE EXPECTING THAT SOME WITH ELECTRICITY BILLS NOT BEING RECEIVED AND WE DO RECEIVE THAT REVENUE THROUGH THE BILLING ON THE ELECTRICAL SIDE.

>> DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH COVID?

>> YES. YES, IT'S A RESULT OF BUSINESSES, YOU KNOW THE COMMERCIAL USE DOWN, SO THE COLLECTION IS LAGGING ON THAT PART WITH SOLID WASTE.

HOWEVER THE FUND IS POSITIVE BECAUSE THERE IS ENOUGH RETAINED EARNINGS IN THE FUND TO COVER IT BUT THE NET POSITIVE, IT DOES NOT HAVE A POSITIVE OPERATING INCOME.

AND I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT IT BUT I HAVE TO REPORT TO YOU WHERE WE WERE AT THE END OF THE QUARTER. GOLF COURSE AGAIN NOT AS BAD AS IT HAS BEEN BUT THERE IS SOME LAG IN THAT AS WELL.

AND THE REVENUE IS ON TARGET HOWEVER SOME OF THE EXPENSES, SOMETIMES THEY'RE DOING GREAT AND HAVE HAD A GREAT YEAR THUS FAR WITH REVENUE. BUT BECAUSE OF SOME OF THE EXPENSES AND THE TIMING OF THOSE EXPENSES, IT'S COMING UP AND SHOWING THAT THE FUND IS NOT POSITIVE.

AND THERE IS NOT POSITIVE CASH, SO I HAVE TO REPORT THAT TO YOU AS WELL. SO THOUGH THE YEAR HAS BEEN BETTER, THE FUND STILL REMAINS AS IT IS IN A NEGATIVE STATE.

>> EXCUSE ME. >> YES, SIR?

>> WHEN YOU SAY EXPENSES THAT GOT US TO THIS POINT AS FAR AS THE GOLF COURSE IS CONCERNED UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES WE WOULDN'T SEE THIS. COULD YOU EXPAND ON WHAT THAT

EXPENSE IS? >> IT'S A COMBINATION OF EXPENSE. ONE OF THE MAIN ONE IS THE CONTRACTUAL SERVICES FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF IT, THAT HITS AT A CERTAIN POINT IN THE YEAR. AND THE TIMING AS TO PAYMENT OF THAT EXPENSE. SO THAT IS ONE OF THE MAIN EXPENSES. WE GOT RID OF ALL OF THE STAFF, WENT INTO A CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT, WHEN THE TIMING OF PAYMENT AS A CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT HITS THE EXPENSE COINCIDES WITH THAT. NOW THEN SOME OF THE OTHER EXPENSE WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE MANAGER HAD STARTED DOING WAS CARRYING GOLF CLUBS AND THINGS AS FAR AS GOODS IN THE RETAIL PORTION OF IT. AND IT MIGHT BE THE ORDERING OF THE RETAIL PORTION AND WHEN PAYMENT OF THAT IS DUE AS WELL.

SO IT'S JUST THE TIMING AS TO WHEN WE HAVE TO PAY FOR IT BASED

ON THAT PART OF THE YEAR. >> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.

>> AND YOU'RE NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THIS DEPARTMENT, RIGHT?

>> WELL -- >> I HEARD IT THE LAST TIME, I

DIDN'T HEAR IT THIS TIME. >> YOU DIDN'T HEAR IT THIS TIME.

>> TALK TO US NOW, TELL US WHERE WE'RE AT.

>> WE'RE WATCHING. WE'RE WATCHING IT.

I WILL SAY THE PROJECTION FOR END OF THE YEAR IS NOT TO BE AS PROJECTED AS IT HAS BEEN IN THE PAST.

BUT WE'LL SEE HOW THAT FAIRS OUT WITH REVENUE AS FAR AS EXPENSES IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS. WE HAVE THREE MORE MONTHS TO GO.

SO WE'RE MONITORING IT TO SEE WHERE WE'LL FALL WITHIN THAT.

SURPRISINGLY THE REVENUE AND EXPENSE PROJECTIONS THEY HAD A MID-OPERATING INCOME AT THE END OF THE QUARTER.

HOWEVER THE FUND STILL DOES NOT REMAIN POSITIVE BECAUSE OF THE

[00:15:02]

BALANCE THAT'S THERE AND IT'S NOT STABLE.

AS FAR AS AT THE END OF THE QUARTER THEY WERE POSITIVE.

OUR BUILDING DEPARTMENT WHICH IS A FIRST BUT I'M NOT ALARMED, I JUST NEED TO EXPLAIN. THE EXPENSE BUDGET IS NOT ON TARGET AND THAT'S A RESULT OF THE BUILD OUT.

THERE WERE SOME ADDITIONALS THAT WEREN'T INCLUDED OR THAT WAS OVER AND BEYOND. YOU KNOW ANY TIME YOU HAVE A CONSTRUCTION PROJECT YOU HAVE SOME UNFORESEENS.

HOWEVER THEY HD MORE THAN ENOUGH IN RETAINER TO COVER IT.

IT JUST SHOWS UP AS A NEGATIVE NUMBER FOR THE QUARTER.

OUR REVENUE IN SHORTAGE AND OVERAGES I'M REPORTING HERE, I JUST WANTED TO LET IT BE KNOWN WHERE WE CURRENTLY ARE.

I KNOW ONCE WE STARTED MARCH GOING INTO OUR COVID, THE SHUTDOWN AS A RESULT OF COVID. WE KNEW THAT OUR REVENUE AND EXPENSES WERE GOING TO BE SOMEWHAT EFFECTED.

I'M LOOKING AT THE 3RD QUARTER AND TO LOOK AT OUR CURRENT AD VALOREM, THAT'S TO BE EXPECTED WITH THE SHUTDOWN AND ALL.

SO WE'RE HOPING WE'RE GOING TO MAKE IT UP BY THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR, SEPTEMBER 30TH. BUT THAT'S WHERE WE CURRENTLY ARE. WE'RE ABOUT $80,000 SHORT.

BUT TO OFFSET THAT, OUR DELINQUENT AD VALORUM WE RECEIVED ABOUT $130,000 ABOVE WHAT WE BUDGETED.

OUR GAS TAX WE'RE ABOUT $55,000 SHORT.

BUT THESE WERE THE TAXES THAT WE KNEW THAT THE STATE TOLD US WE WOULD RECEIVE, WE CAN EXPECT ABOUT 50,000, I MEAN 50% LESS THAN WHAT WE WERE ACTUALLY COLLECTING.

SO WE KNEW THAT WE WERE GOING TO HAVE SOME LAG IN THAT.

THE MAIN ONE I WAS LOOKING AT IN OUR UTILITY TAXES WAS OUR PUBLIC SERVICE WATER RECEIPTS AND THAT'S ABOUT $122,000 SHORT

AND A LOT OF IT I THINK IS JUST IN RECEIPT.

MOST OF OUR FACILITIES HAVE BEEN DOWN FROM MARCH TO MAY.

SO IT'S GOING TO BE SOMEWHAT OF A LAG.

>> IT TAKES A WHILE TO CATCH UP. >> YEAH.

TO BE NOTED ALSO IN OUR FEMA REIMBURSEMENTS WE DID GET ABOUT $534,000 IN OUR FEMA REIMBURSEMENTS FROM MATTHEW.

SO WE GOT THAT $534,000, THAT WAS UNEXPECTED.

SO I'M PROJECTING RIGHT NOW THE END OF THE 3RD QUARTER WE HAVE ABOUT $804,000 IN ADDITIONAL REVENUE.

HOWEVER WHEN WE LOOK AT THE REPORT AND WE'RE PROJECTING TO THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR WE'RE ABOUT, WE HAVE ABOUT 2.9 MILLION IN UNREALIZED REVENUE THAT WE STILL HAVE TO AND WE'RE HOPING TO COLLECT BETWEEN JULY AND SEPTEMBER.

WE'RE HOPING. >> AND DO YOU HAVE A PLACE WHERE

YOU'RE HOPING TO GET IT FROM? >> WELL WE HAVE, IF YOU CAN REMEMBER WE DID CUT OUR EXPENSES BY 2.5% WHICH WAS ABOUT A LITTLE OVER $1 MILLION. SO WE DO HAVE THAT.

AND ANYTHING OVER AND ABOVE THAT WE DO HAVE FUND BALANCE THAT WE CAN PULL FROM TO HELP OFFSET THAT.

OUR EXPENSES AT THE END WE'RE ABOUT 1.4 MILLION OVER WE'RE PROJECTING IN OUR EXPENSES. AND THE SALARY AND BENEFITS MOST OF THAT IS A RESULT OF OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT.

SOME OF IT IS THE INCENTIVE PAY AND THE OVERTIME.

AS A RESULT OF COVID RIGHT NOW THEY ARE RIGHT NOW DOING A LOT OF OVERTIME TO ADJUST FOR THAT. SO THAT'S IN THEIR SALARY AND BENEFITS BUT MOST OF IT IS OVERTIME AND INCENTIVE PAY AS OF

THAT $317,000. >> HOW DOES THE CARES ACT COME INTO PLAY FOR US IN MAKING AN APPLICATION? BECAUSE THE COUNTY WAS GRANTED 14 MILLION UP FRONT, 50 PLUS

MILLION OVERALL. >> WE ARE HOPING FOR REIMBURSEMENT. WE ARE SUBMITTING FOR REIMBURSEMENT. SO HOPEFULLY WE WILL GET THE REIMBURSEMENT. WE DON'T SEE WHY WE SHOULDN'T MEET ALL OF THE QUALIFICATIONS TO GET THE REIMBURSEMENT FOR IT.

WE HAVE MADE APPLICATION IF I'M CORRECT.

>> WE ARE LISTED AS A RECIPIENT OF THE CARES ACT FROM ST. LUCIE

[00:20:05]

COUNTY. OUR DEPUTY CHIEF IS GOING TO BE SUBMITTING OUR REIMBURSEMENT REQUEST.

I BELIEVE ABOUT HALF A MILLION DOLLARS WILL BE ELIGIBLE TO COME BACK TO THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE BASED ON OUR EXPENDITURES.

>> THAT WILL INCLUDE THINGS LIKE THE NEW SHIELDS THAT ARE OUT FRONT AT THE LOBBY, ALL OF THE MATERIALS --

>> YES, SIR. >> VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU. >> AND SOME OF THAT IS A RESULT, YOU'RE SEEING THAT IN OUR EXPENDITURE AND CAPITAL LINE ITEMS AS WELL. SOME OF THE THINGS WE HAD TO PURCHASE, SOME I.T. PURCHASES, PUBLIC WORKS PURCHASES, AND OUR EXPENDITURES AND CAPITALS AS A RESULT OF COVID AS WELL.

THAT'S WHY SOME OF THOSE LINE ITEMS, YOU'RE SEEING THE INCREASE IN THOSE AS WELL. SO RIGHT NOW AT THE END OF THE 3RD QUARTER, MY PROJECTED REVENUE SHORTAGE IS ABOUT

642,000. >> MS. MORRIS, WHEN YOU GET A FEMA REIMBURSEMENT LIKE FOR HURRICANE MATTHEW AND THAT WAS SEVERAL YEARS AGO AND WE WERE OUT THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY, SO DOES IT JUST GO BACK INTO THE GENERAL FUND --

>> THIS GOES BACK INTO THE GENERAL FUND BECAUSE WE KEEP THE RECEIVABLE ON THE BOOKS ONLY FOR SO LONG.

AND THEN THE AUDITORS DO A WRITE OFF.

BECAUSE WE NEVER KNOW WHEN WE CAN RECEIVE IT.

>> OR IF. >> EXACTLY.

IT COULD BE LIKE WE JUST DID WITH THE JEAN REIMBURSEMENT WE JUST GOT FROM TEN YEARS AGO, WE JUST GOT IT LAST YEAR.

WE KEEP IT ON THE BOOKS FOR 3 OR 4 YEARS AS A RECEIVABLE AND THEN AFTER THAT WE CAN WRITE IT OFF. AND WHEN WE GET IT WE JUST PUT IT INTO THE GENERAL FUND. AS WE LOOK AT OUR FPRA FOR THE 3RD QUARTER, YOU SEE THAT THE REVENUE RECEIPT WAS ABOUT 7.4 MILLION AND THE EXPENDITURES ARE 6 MILLION.

AND THE CURRENT AVAILABLE RESOURCES WERE ABOUT 2.8 MILLION. UNREALIZED REVENUE OF ABOUT 65,000 AND THE EXPENDITURES REMAINING THAT WE MAY OR MAY NOT SPEND ALL OF IS ABOUT 876,000 AND SO AT THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR I'M PROJECTING AN OVERAGE OF ABOUT $1.4 MILLION IN OUR FPRA FUND. AND HERE IS WHAT'S OWED OR WHAT'S ON THE BOOKS AS TO WHAT'S BEEN EXPENDED TO FPRA FOR GENERAL FUND. YOU WILL SEE THE TRANSFER TO GENERAL, THE MILLION DOLLARS, THAT'S THE 600,000 THAT WAS APPROVED, YOU ALL APPROVED TO BE USED FOR ROADS AND BRIDGES FOR THE SALE OF THE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY AND THEN THE 400,000 THAT WAS BUDGETED TO BE TRANSFERRED TO GENERAL THIS SCHOOL YEAR.

SO IT'S A MILLION DOLLARS. SO FROM THE 9.7 IT'S DOWN TO 8 MILLION. AND THE FUND POSITION AND RESOURCE USES, YOU'LL SEE THE NET POSITION AND THE TOTAL AVAILABLE RESOURCES. AGAIN YOU'LL SEE IN SOLID WASTE THEY ARE ABOUT 104,000 SHORT FOR THE QUARTER.

GOLF COURSE ABOUT 65,000. SUNRISE IS 71 POSITIVE.

AND BUILDING IS ABOUT 34,000. AND ALL OF OUR FUNDS AGAIN ARE SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS OR HAVE AVAILABLE RESOURCE OR POSITIVE AVAILABLE RESOURCES AND WILL CONTINUE TO OPERATE.

> ANY QUESTIONS? >> CARES ACT THAT YOU ALL MENTIONED EARLIER WITH REGARDS TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF OUR DEPARTMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN IMPACTED BY COVID-19. WHAT'S THE FACTOR THAT DETERMINES WHAT WOULD QUALIFY VERSUS WHAT WOULD NOT QUALIFY? I MEAN EVEN WITH THE SUNRISE AND I MAY BE RUCHINGS, BUT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW DOES IT WORK AND WHAT'S THE QUALIFYING FACTOR. CAN WE OBTAIN FUNDS FROM THE CARES ACT TO REIMBURSE US FOR THE LOSSES.

>> SHARON HAS REACHED OUT TO MY OFFICE AND IN TURN WE'RE WORKING WITH THE GRANTS ADMINISTRATOR DIVISION TO HOPEFULLY IDENTIFY SOME LOST I GUESS REVENUES OR EXPENDITURES THAT ARE DIRECTLY

[00:25:08]

ASSOCIATED TO THIS DECLARATION OF EMERGENCY THAT WE HAVE EXPERIENCED FOR THE LAST SIX MONTHS.

AS YOU KNOW THE SUNRISE IS NOT GOING TO HAVE ANY SHOWS IN THE LARGE PERFORMING THEATER UNTIL POSSIBLY NOVEMBER.

SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW.

SO WE'RE RESEARCHING THAT AND IF DEEMED TO BE ACCEPTABLE, WE'RE DEFINITELY GOING TO MAKE THAT APPLICATION, SIR.

>> I JUST HOPE THAT WE'RE VERY, VERY I CAN'T SAY EAGER BUT AGGRESSIVE IN TERMS OF BEING ABLE TO REMOTELY CONNECT WHATEVER THE CRITERIA IS AS FAR AS THE CARES ACT IS CONCERNED IN ORDER TO OFFSET SOME OF THESE THINGS THAT HAVE COME UP AS A

RESULT OF THE COVID-19. >> YES.

WE ARE DILIGENTLY WORKING TOWARD THAT.

WE CREATED AN EXPENSE CODE AND ANY EXPENSE THAT'S RELATED TO IT, IF THE DEPARTMENT BUYS LYSOL OR CLOROX OR ANYTHING RELATED TO COVID WE MAKE SURE WE PULL THE REPORT SO ANY EXPENSE NO MATTER HOW SMALL IT IS IS ATTRIBUTED TO THAT SO THAT WE CAN BE

REIMBURSED FOR THAT. >> OKAY.

THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER PERONA.

>> I THINK ALL OF US RECEIVED AN EMAIL THIS MORNING FROM ONE OF OUR MEMBERS OF THE POLICE ADVISORY BOARD.

I GUESS THERE WAS A GRANT OUT THERE AT ONE POINT $7 MILLION FOR TEN OFFICERS AND I UNDERSTAND THE CHIEF SHOWED UP AT THE ADVISORY AND SAID THAT WE PASSED ON THAT AND I'M SUSPECTING THAT IT'S A FINANCIAL DECISION.

I KNOW THAT WE'RE HAVING A PROBLEM EVEN FINDING OFFICERS RIGHT NOW. CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT ISSUE A LITTLE BIT SO WE GET SOME CLARITY ON THAT?

>> SURE. THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WAS AWARDED THE COPS HIRING GRANT. AND IT WAS FOR $1.25 MILLION.

AND IF YOU CAN REMEMBER A COUPLE YEARS BACK AROUND '06 THE CITY ENTERED INTO THE SAME GRANTS FOR THE OFFICERS.

AND THE PROBLEM BECOMES, THE GRANT PAYS 75% OF THE SALARY.

THE CITY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING 25%, THE REMAINING 25%.

AND THEN IT'S BEAUTIFUL ON THE UPSIDE BECAUSE YOU GET THE TEN OFFICERS. HOWEVER ONE OF THE STIPULATIONS OF THE GRANT IS AT THE END OF THE GRANT YOU HAVE TO HIRE AND KEEP THESE OFFICERS ON FOR AT LEAST A YEAR.

SO IF YOU DO THE THREE YEARS THAT'S A THREE YEAR ROLLBACK.

AND AS A RESULT OF IN '08, '09 WHEN WE HAD THE BIG RECESSION WE HAD THIS GRANT AND WE HAD TO BRING THESE OFFICERS ON PERMANENTLY DURING A TIME WHEN WE COULD NOT AFFORD IT.

AND YOU CANNOT DECREASE THE COMPLEMENT THAT YOU HAVE AT ALL.

SO IF YOU HAVE 100 OFFICERS NOW, NO MATTER WHAT STATE YOU'RE IN, YOU HAVE TO BRING THESE TEN OFFICERS IN AND INCREASE YOUR COMPLEMENT TO 110 AND PAY FOR THEM MOVING FORWARD FOR AT LEAST THE THREE YEARS FOR EVERY ONE YEAR THAT YOU KEEP THE OFFICERS ON. LOOKING AT WHERE WE ARE WITH ALL OF THE UNCERTAINTY THAT'S GOING ON RIGHT NOW AND WE LOOKED AT IT, DID AN EVALUATION TO SEE THAT RIGHT NOW WE ARE NOT AT FULL CAPACITY, HAVE NOT BEEN AT FULL CAPACITY YET WE STILL HAVE TO CONTINUE FUNDING THESE POSITIONS KNOWING THAT WE ARE NOT FILLING THEM EVERY YEAR. SO WE'RE ALREADY TAKING UP REVENUE AND THEN NOT WANTING TO PUT US IN A PREDICAMENT TO WHERE AT THE END OF THE THIRD YEAR WE ARE FORCED WITH TRYING TO FIND MONEY THAT WE MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE.

IF WE WERE IN A BETTER CLIMATE AND WE KNEW THINGS WERE PROGRESSING WELL. BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FINANCIAL FALLOUT IS GOING TO BE AS TO WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW.

AND I ALWAYS HEAR MY MOTHER SAY BEFORE YOU BUILD A HOUSE, YOU COULD WANT UP THE COST. SO I LOOKED OUT LONG TERM AND SAID THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO AFFORD. WE'RE RIGHT NOW SEARCHING AND SEARCHING TRYING TO MAKE OUR POLICE OFFICERS COMPARABLE IN PAY. SO TO TAKE ON AN ADDITIONAL EXPENSE AND IT WOULD BE ABOUT IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A STARTING OFFICER WITH BENEFITS, THAT'S ABOUT BETWEEN 167 TO $177,000 ANNUALLY JUST FOR THE 25% THAT WE'RE HAVING TO PAY.

SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT INCREASING THE COMPLEMENT OF COSTS THAT MUCH AND IT'S JUST NOT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN REALLY

AFFORD RIGHT NOW. >> IS THIS A RECURRING GRANT THAT HAPPENS THAT MAYBE WE'LL HAVE ANOTHER SHOT AT IT THIS

[00:30:03]

YEAR OR IS THIS JUST A ONE TIME OPPORTUNITY?

>> I THINK THIS ONE GRANT WAS AWARDED FOR A THREE YEAR SPAN AND I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE GOING TO DO IT EVERY YEAR OR NOT. IT WAS JUST AN AWARD FOR EVERY THREE YEARS. SO I DON'T KNOW IF NEXT YEAR THEY'RE GOING TO OFFER IT FOR AN ADDITIONAL THREE YEARS OR NOT, BUT IT IS REOCCURRING, THEY HAVE DONE IT IN THE PAST.

AND SO IF OPPORTUNITY ARISES AND THEY'RE DOING IT NEXT YEAR AND WE CAN AFFORD IT, THEN IT GIVES US AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAYBE

POSSIBLY THEN. >> OKAY, THANK YOU.

>> AND I GOT THE SAME EMAIL I THINK.

IT WAS POINTED OUT WITH THE ANNEXATIONS THAT WE'RE PLANNING WHICH ARE GOING TO BE OVER TIME, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO ALL HAPPEN AT ONCE. THEY'RE GOING TO BE OVER TIME, WE ARE GOING TO NEED MORE POLICE OFFICERS, A BIGGER COMPLEMENT.

AND I GUESS WHAT I WANT TO KNOW IS IF COVID HADN'T HAPPENED WE MIGHT BE IN A BETTER POSITION TO ACCEPT THIS GRANT, WOULD THAT BE, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT IS LEGITIMATE TO SAY?

>> WE WOULD DEFINITELY BE IN A BETTER POSITION IF YOU CAN REMEMBER DURING BUDGET TIME WE HAD TO CUT A LOT OF OUR REVENUE PROJECTIONS BECAUSE WE KNOW WE'RE NOT GOING TO POSSIBLY GET THE REVENUE THAT WE HAD. AND SO WE DEFINITELY WOULD HAVE BEEN IN A MUCH BETTER POSITION TO ADDRESS IT AND IF IT'S TIED TO ANNEXATION ONCE WE KNOW THAT WE'RE ANNEXING AND GOING TO RECEIVE THE REVENUE TO OFFSET THE EXPENSE, WE CAN TAKE IN MORE AND SAY OKAY, IF WE'RE ANNEXING THESE PROPERTIES AND THE REVENUE THAT WE'RE PROJECTING TO RECEIVE IN AD VALOREM IS GOING TO TAKE THIS, WE CAN BRING ON ADDITIONAL OFFICERS AND THAT OFFSETS THAT

COST. >> RIGHT, RIGHT.

AND PLUS DEVELOPMENT. SO WE WERE ON THAT COURSE AND WE'RE STILL ON THAT COURSE, THAT HASN'T STOPPED.

SO ALSO WE ARE IN OUR BUDGET NEXT YEAR WE'RE PUTTING IN HALF A MILLION DOLLARS EXTRA INTO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR SOME WAGES TO KEEP OUR POLICE OFFICERS AND KEEP THEM FROM LEAVING OUR AGENCY. YES, SIR?

>> SO WHAT IS THE STAFFING LEVEL OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT NOW? WHAT IS THEIR PERCENT FULL IF YOU WANT TO CALL IT THAT?

>> I DID NOT CHECK TO SEE WHAT THEIR CAPACITY, WHERE THEY ARE IN TERMS OF STAFFING LEVEL RIGHT NOW, CAPACITY.

BUT I KNOW IT'S NOT AT 100%. MR. MIMS, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE GOTTEN A CHANCE TO, BECAUSE WE DID DISCUSS IT.

>> I DON'T KNOW OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.

WE HAVE OUR DEPUTY CHIEF IN THE AUDIENCE RIGHT NOW.

IF YOU KNOW COME ON UP TO THE PODIUM.

HE LOOKS LIKE HE KNOWS. >> THE EASY QUESTION IS HOW MANY VACANCIES ARE THERE. IT'S ALWAYS BETTER TO SPIN IT ON THE POSITIVE SIDE BY THE VACANCIES IS THE KEY NUMBER.

>> PUTTING ME ON THE SPOT. RIGHT NOW, THE CAPACITY IS 116 OFFICERS. I THINK THE TOTALITY WE SHOULD

BE AT 121 OR 122 OFFICERS. >> YOU THINK YOU'RE AT WHAT

NUMBER ON THE FORCE RIGHT NOW? >> I DON'T WANT TO SAY FOR SURE.

>> I THINK HE SAID 116. >> WE MIGHT BE AROUND 116 RIGHT

NOW. >> I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE

THAT THAT'S THE NUMBER I HEARD. >> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. >> I HAVE A QUESTION IF I COULD.

>> SURE, PLEASE. >> YOU SAID THE EXPENSE IF WE WERE TO ACCEPT THE GRANT WOULD BE ABOUT 160 PER YEAR.

>> IT'S ABOUT 167, BASICALLY 170,000.

THE 25%. >> THAT'S WAGES AND BENEFITS.

YEAH ON THE WAGES AND THE BENEFIT PORTION AND IT'S JUST NOW, WHAT THE GRANT WHEN I WAS LOOKING AT IT THAT'S JUST THE PRIMARY BENEFIT. IF THERE'S ANY OVERTIME CHARGES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, WE'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR IT.

IT'S JUST THE PRIMARY COSTS OF EVERYTHING.

IT'S ALL JUST BASE. ANYTHING OVER AND ABOVE THAT THAT'S ADDITIONAL COST TO US TOO.

SO IF THE OFFICER DOES ANY OVERTIME OR SPECIAL INCENTIVE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT WE'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING THAT.

>> SO FROM MY PERSPECTIVE WE HAVE TO CONTINUE TO LOOK AT THIS GRANT AND CONTINUE TO IMPLEMENT BETTER ANNEXATION POLICIES THAT WILL ALLOW US THAT GROWTH AND OPPORTUNITY.

AND WE'RE DOING THAT WITH THE NEW INFORMATION AND STAFF WORKING ON THAT THE LAST 12 MONTHS OR SO.

SO THAT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT IS A FORECAST OF, YOU SAID IT'S A THREE YEAR OPPORTUNITY. AND PROBABLY IN A YEAR OR TWO YEARS WE'RE GOING TO BE AT THAT POINT WHERE WE'RE READY TO DO IT AGAIN AND WE'RE GOING TO NEED THOSE EXTRA TEN OFFICERS.

THANK YOU. >> I HAVE A QUESTION.

[00:35:03]

>> YES, SIR. MR. SESSIONS.

>> TEN OFFICERS FOR THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE WOULD BE WORTH MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO US ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE SHORTAGES AND WHERE WE ARE IN TERMS OF STAFF AND HOW THAT WOULD HELP US OUT TREMENDOUSLY IN TERMS OF COMBATTING CRIME.

AND WHEN I HEAR $167,000 ONGOING FIGURE, POTENTIALLY $200,000, I DON'T THINK THAT'S REACHING OUT TOO FAR WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE ACTUAL BENEFIT IN LIGHT OF THE POTENTIAL LOSS WITH TEN OFFICERS. NOW IF YOU HAD SAID 2 OR 3 THAT WOULD BE ONE THING, BUT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT TEN POLICE OFFICERS AND THERE'S A BIT OF A RELUCTANCE AS A RESULT OF ANTICIPATED COSTS OF $200,000 IN THE UPCOMING YEARS, I TEND TO BELIEVE THAT, I HAVE MORE CONFIDENCE IN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE THAN THAT TO LOSE POTENTIALLY TEN OFFICERS, FEDERALLY FUNDED AND THAT'S ALL WE'RE LOOKING AT A POTENTIAL $200,000, $167,000 ONGOING COSTS.

AND ANOTHER THING THAT COMES TO MIND IS WORST CASE SCENARIO WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF WE GOT THESE OFFICERS AND WE COULDN'T DO IT, IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE GOING TO LOSE OUR CERTIFICATION OR ANYTHING, ARE WE PENALIZED FROM BEING ABLE TO GO BACK AND APPLY FOR THE GRANT, WHAT ARE THE ACTUAL POTENTIAL PENALTIES, IT'S JUST THAT WORD TEN OFFICERS STANDS OUT IN MY MIND FOR THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, WE JUST CAN'T ALLOW SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO PASS US BY WITHOUT ENDEAVORING OR AT LEAST ANTICIPATING THAT WE COULD BE ABLE TO COVER THAT ONGOING COST.

>> COMMISSIONER SESSIONS, IT'S TEN OFFICERS AT THAT COST NOW.

>> RIGHT. >> AT THE END OF IN THREE YEARS, THIS IS GOING TO COST US $667,000.

SO KNOWING THAT WE MAY NOT HAVE PRETTY MUCH HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO FUND IT, WE ARE NOT GOING TO ANTICIPATE RAISING TAXES TO HELP PAY FOR IT SO WE'VE GOT TO HAVE AN IDENTIFIED REVENUE SOURCE IN ORDER TO COMPLEMENT AND PAY FOR IT.

RIGHT NOW WE DON'T HAVE A REVENUE SOURCE THAT'S GOING TO BE ABLE TO PAY FOR THIS. SO SURE, I CAN SAY WE TAKE IT ON NOW AND THEN COME TO YOU IN THREE YEARS OR YEAR TWO AND SAY WE DON'T HAVE THE FUNDING FOR THIS, HOW DO WE GO ABOUT IT AND THEN I DON'T THINK IT'S PRUDENT OF US TO ACCEPT SOMETHING KNOWING WE CAN'T FUND IT AND THEN AT THE END OF THE TERM --

>> TELL ME THIS, AND I TAKE THAT ADVICE.

WHAT'S MY POTENTIAL PENALTY IF I CAN'T IS MY QUESTION TO YOU?

>> WELL I THINK IT ELIMINATES US FROM FUTURE GRANT FUNDING TO ACCEPT IT GOING INTO THAT TO SAY WE'RE GOING TO PENALIZE OURSELVES FOR FUTURE GRANT FUNDING.

I DON'T THINK IT'S PRUDENT PRACTICE.

>> I AGREE WITH YOU, BUT I JUST DIDN'T KNOW THAT'S WHY I ASKED.

I DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS AS SEVERE AS BEING POTENTIALLY LOSING THE ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO APPLY IN THE FUTURE.

BUT AGAIN IT DESERVES SOME CONSIDERATION.

IT JUST SEEMS LIKE WE COULD HAVE GONE IN THE BACK ROOM AND PUT OUR HEADS TOGETHER BECAUSE AGAIN TEN OFFICERS FOR THE CITY OF

FORT PIERCE. >> AND WE DID WEIGH THAT.

WE LOOKED AT IT DURING THE PROCESS AND I WOULD SAY EXPERIENCE IS THE BEST TEACHER. HAVING GONE THROUGH WHAT WE WENT THROUGH DURING THE '08, '09 RECESSION TIME BRINGING ON THESE OFFICERS AND HAVING TO FUND THEM AND WE DIDN'T HAVE THE MONEY, WE HAD TO DO A VOLUNTARY SEPARATION AND THE FURLOUGHS AND ALL BECAUSE WE KNEW WE HAD THIS, WE HAD TO FUND IT, WE HAD TO BRING THESE OFFICERS ON TO THE GENERAL FUND AND WE COULDN'T AFFORD IT.

SO NOT TO PUT OURSELVES BACK IN A POSITION WHERE THIS IS WHERE WE'RE GOING TO END UP THE RECOMMENDATION WAS WE FOREGO THIS RIGHT NOW AND ESPECIALLY WITH IT BEING A PROCESS OF SOMETHING THEY AWARD YEAR OVER YEAR.

OKAY, THIS YEAR IT MIGHT NOT BE GOOD FOR US.

NEXT YEAR OR YEAR TWO IT MAY BE GOOD FOR US.

BUT FOR RIGHT NOW TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT INTO THIS I DON'T

THINK WOULD BE VERY WISE OF US. >> I REMEMBER THAT TIME BECAUSE

[00:40:06]

WE HAD A CITIZENS BUDGET ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND I WAS ON IT AND THAT WAS A VERY PAINFUL TIME.

I REMEMBER THAT. >> I DO HAVE TO ECHO WHAT THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE SAYS BECAUSE IT WAS US AT THAT TIME SITTING AT THE TABLE WONDERING HOW IN THE HECK DID WE GET IN THIS POSITION. BECAUSE AT THAT TIME I THINK WE HAD ABOUT FIVE OFFICERS THAT CAME TO THE GENERAL FUND FROM THE GRANT CYCLE AND AT THE SAME TIME WE WERE IN THE MIDST OF A RECESSION. SO WE HAD TO CUT BASICALLY CUT EVERYTHING. I THINK WE WERE INSTITUTING

FURLOUGHS. >> YEAH.

>> I THINK WE HAD SOME SIGNIFICANT BUDGET REDUCTION STRATEGIES AND WE HAD TO BRING ON FIVE NEW WARM BODIES TO OUR GENERAL FUND AS WELL. SO I THINK FROM THAT EXPERIENCE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO BE AS CONSERVATIVE AS POSSIBLE RIGHT NOW BECAUSE OF THE UNCERTAINTY OF OUR FINANCIAL CLIMB. DOES THE GRANT HAVE TO BE TEN,

COULD IT BE LESS THAN TEN? >> I THINK IT'S UP TO TEN.

>> MAYBE IF WE GET PAST COVID AND THINGS ARE STARTING TO HUM AGAIN MAYBE WE CAN LOOK AT IT AND WE DON'T HAVE TO DO ALL TEN, MAYBE WE CAN DO IT GRADUALLY. ANYTHING ELSE?

>> JUST HATE TO SEE THAT PASS US BY.

BUT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THAT WOULD MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE

ON THE STREETS OF FORT PIERCE. >> THE FEDS USUALLY DO THAT.

MY UNDERSTANDING IF YOU GET A FEDERAL GRANT AND THEN YOU'RE AUDITED OR IN ANY WAY YOU DON'T LIVE UP TO IT THEN YOU'RE BLACKLISTED AND YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO --

>> AND THE THING ABOUT IT IT DOES NOT AFFECT JUST THE FEDERAL FUNDS FOR THAT GRANT, IT EFFECTS ALL FEDERAL FUNDS AND FUNDING.

>> YOU BECOME KNOWN AS A BAD ACTOR.

>> EXACTLY. >> OKAY.

[11. CONSENT AGENDA]

THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> NEXT WE HAVE THE CONSENT

AGENDA. >> MOVE FOR THE APPROVAL.

>> IS THERE A SECOND? CALL THE ROLL PLEASE.

>> COMMISSION PERONA. >> YES, MA'AM.

>> WE MOVE ON TO THE PUBLIC HEARINGS AND THE FIRST IS PRESENTATION AND PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE 2019-2020 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM WITH CARES ACT AMENDMENT.

[a. Presentation and Public Hearing for the 2019-2020 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program with CARES Act (CV) Amendment]

>> YES, THIS IS ANOTHER DIVISION OF THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT OUR GRANTS AND ADMINISTRATION DIVISION.

MS. SCOTT IS GOING TO GIVE US A PRESENTATION AS TO THE AMENDMENT

UTILIZING CARES ACT FUNDS. >> OKAY, THANK YOU.

>> WE'RE HERE TONIGHT FOR THE CARES ACT AMENDMENT OF OUR 2019 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN. THIS IS THE FOURTH YEAR, THE 2019 YEAR IS THE FOURTH YEAR AND THE FIVE YEARS OF OUR CONSOLIDATED PLAN. AND WE HAD TO AMEND IT TO INCLUDE THE $335,000. IT WAS RECOMMENDED TO GO AHEAD AND DO IT WITH THE 2019 YEAR INSTEAD OF WITH FUTURE AMENDMENTS. HOW THE COMMUNITY IS INFORMED, THERE ARE PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS, PUBLIC HEARINGS, PRINT ADVERTISING IN ENGLISH, SPANISH, AND CREOLE.

PUBLIC ACCESS TV AND ON OUR CITY OF FORT PIERCE WEBSITE AND SOCIAL MEDIA. THERE IS NORMALLY A 30 DAY ADVERTISING REQUIREMENT, HOWEVER THE CARES ACT IT'S ONLY FIVE DAYS. AND THAT'S FIVE CALENDAR DAYS THAT CAN RUN CONCURRENTLY TO THIS HEARING.

JUST A QUICK OVERVIEW OF WHAT WE ORIGINALLY SAID WE WERE GOING TO DO, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC SERVICES, PUBLIC FACILITIES, UNOCCUPIED REHAB ASSISTANCE, THOSE ARE OUR STANDARD ACTIVITIES WHICH HAVE BEEN APPROVED IN THE FIVE YEAR CONSOLIDATED PLAN. OH, SORRY, I DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS GOING TO DO THAT. SO THE $335,000, EXCUSE ME, FOR THE CARES ACT FUNDING. WE WERE HERE A FEW MONTHS AGO WITH A VERY LARGE PLAN THAT ENCOMPASSED ABOUT 400 TO $500,000 FOR BUSINESS GRANTS. HOWEVER THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF

[00:45:02]

CHANGES SINCE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN CHANGING A LOT SINCE THIS ALL STARTED AND THE STATE HAS ADMINISTERED FUNDING TO THE COUNTY. SO THAT HAS ALLOWED US SO THAT WE DO NOT DUPLICATE ANY BENEFITS FOR ANY OF OUR CITIZENS.

WE ALLOWED THE COUNTY TO KIND OF TAKE THE REINS ON THAT GRANT PROGRAM WITH THEIR NOW 14 MILLION AND SOON TO BE 55 MILLION. SO WHAT WE SAID WE COULD DO WITH THAT SAME 335 IS SPEND IT ON WHAT WE SAID WE WERE GOING TO DO INITIALLY AND KIND OF EXPAND IT. WHAT WE'VE DECIDED TO DO AND I HIGHLIGHTED THE CARES ACT IN RED FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

105,000 TO OUR SMALL BUSINESS GRANTS.

THOSE ARE SAUL JUST ABOUT ALL BEEN EXPENDED.

THE PUBLIC SERVICES, $100,000 TO NONPROFIT AGENCY SUPPORT TO ASSIST WITH OUR COVID DISTRIBUTIONS FOR BACK TO SCHOOL GIVE AWAYS SUPPLIES, MASK GIVE AWAYS.

AND ALSO FOR COVID TESTING. THE CITY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENT WENT CRAZY AND WE HAD LOTS OF TESTING AND LOTS OF FOOD DISTRIBUTION SO THIS IS A WAY THAT OUR CARES ACT CAN TAKE CARE OF FUNDING THAT. THERE WILL BE MORE EXPENSES COMING THAT WE CAN ASK THE COUNTY FOR.

BUT FOR OUR CARES FUNDS THE 335 WE'RE GOING TO ALLOCATE THIS, WE HAVE 20,000 FOR EMERGENCY HOUSING ASSISTANCE.

WE'VE HAD A COUPLE OF PEOPLE CALL THAT SOMEONE WHO WAS WORKING WASN'T WORKING ANYMORE. AND THEY WERE IN THE MIDDLE OF FIXING A ROOF AND DURING THIS TIME THEIR PAIN WENT AWAY WE CAN ASSIST THEM OF THAT. WE HAVE SOME EMERGENCY CASES WE CAN ASSIST. AND THEN THE REIMBURSEMENT FOR $20,000 WE HAVE THAT SET ASIDE. AND I BELIEVE THERE'S A CHUNK OF THAT THAT'S ALREADY GONE BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN WORKING THIS COVID THING SINCE IT STARTED. SO THIS IS KIND OF AN OPPORTUNITY, WE TOOK AN OPPORTUNITY TO PAUSE AND SAY OKAY WHAT DID WE ACTUALLY DO SO FAR AND LET'S GO AHEAD AND ALLOCATE IT SO THAT WE CAN GO AHEAD AND GET IT REIMBURSED FROM HUD. AS SOON AS THIS HEARING IS OVER I PLAN TO HIT THE BUTTON AND THEN WE CAN GET OUR REIMBURSEMENT. THAT IS ALL WITH THIS CARES ACT AMENDMENT. ALL WE HAD TO DO WAS TAKE THE ORIGINAL PLAN FOR THE 557 AND ADD WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO WITH THE 335. THERE WAS SOME ADJUSTMENT TO SOME OF THE OTHER PROGRAMS. NOTHING TOO SIGNIFICANT.

WE REDUCED THE AMOUNT OF OUR PAY OUR TOWN PROGRAM BECAUSE THAT WAS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. WE ENDED UP HAVING A LITTLE BIT OF A WORLD CHANGERS LIGHT PROGRAM HAPPEN THIS YEAR AT A MUCH REDUCED COST. SO WE WERE ABLE TO FINAGLE SOME OF THE DOLLARS. BUT THIS AMENDMENT TAKES CARE OF JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING WE'VE DONE SO FAR.

THAT'S ALL WE'VE GOT. >> ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. ANYONE WISHING TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE PLEASE COME FORWARD. SEEING NO ONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND SAY THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU. >> NEXT WE HAVE QUASI-JUDICIAL

[b. Quasi-Judicial Hearing for a Conditional Use Approval for an elevated dune crossover seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) at 618 S Ocean Drive for private beach access.]

HEARING FOR CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR AN ELEVATED DUNE CROSSOVER SEA WARD OF THE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL

LINE FOR PRIVATE BEACH ACCESS. >> WHEN ACTING AS A LEGISLATIVE BODY THE COMMISSION ENGAGES IN LAW MAKING ACTIVITY BY ESTABLISHING LAWS AND POLICIES. THE COMMISSION APPLIES THOSE LIES OR -- LAWS OR POLICIES. QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS ARE LESS FORMAL THAN THOSE BEFORE A CIRCUIT COURT BUT ARE MORE FORMAL THAN THE FORMAL COMMISSION MEETING.

THEY MUST FOLLOW DUE PROCESS AND BE BASED ON COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. THAT IS WHY THE COMMISSION HAS ESTABLISHED THE UNIFORM PROCEDURES FOR QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARINGS THAT WILL BE FOLLOWED THIS EVENING.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MADAME CLERK, HAVE THE ADVERTISING REQUIREMENTS BEEN MET?

>> YES, MA'AM. >> IT'S NOW TIME TO ASK THE COMMISSIONERS IF WE'VE HAD ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS.

>> COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER HAVE YOU HAD ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS ON 618 SOUTH OCEAN DRIVE?

>> NO. >> COMMISSIONER JOHNSON.

>> NO, MA'AM. >> DID YOU SAY NO?

>> NO, MA'AM. >> COMMISSIONER PERONA.

>> NO, MA'AM. >> COMMISSIONER SESSIONS.

[00:50:01]

>> NO, MA'AM. >> MAYOR HUDSON.

>> NO, MA'AM. SO WE WILL NOW PROCEED TO THE HEARING ON THIS MATTER. AND WOULD YOU LIKE TO SWEAR IN

ANY WITNESSES? >> WOULD ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM PLEASE STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND? DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? THANK YOU.

>> PROCEED. >> GOOD EVENING MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSIONS. I'M BEFORE YOU FOR A DUNE CROSSOVER LOCATED AT 618 SOUTH OCEAN DRIVE.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS A FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION AND A COMPATIBLE ZONING DISTRICT DESIGNATION OF MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. THE SITE PLAN BEFORE YOU DOES SHOW THE EXISTING TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT.

LAST YEAR THERE WAS AN APPROVAL FOR A DUNE CROSSOVER AT THE ADJACENT CONDOMINIUM AT 620. THE SUBJECT PETITION IS A SIMILAR TYPE OF DESIGN AS THAT DUNE CROSSOVER THAT WAS APPROVED LAST YEAR. WITH DUNE CROSSOVERS THAT ARE SEAWARD AT THE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE THEY ARE REGULATED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION.

THEY ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE COMPLETE AND GO THROUGH A CRITERIA SELECTION OF CERTAIN DESIGN STANDARDS.

IT IS A REGULATORY REVIEW. DUNE CROSSOVERS ARE PERMITTED SEAWARD OF THE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE SO IT'S NOT A SETBACK BUT JUST REGULATORY.

THE DEP HAS APPROVED THIS SEAWARD CONSTRUCTION.

STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL SUBJECT TO ONE STANDARD RECOMMENDATION AND THAT IS TO OBTAIN, MAINTAIN THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FOR SEAWARD AT THE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE AND THAT WILL HAVE TO BE MAINTAINED AT THE TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT.

AT OUR PLANNING BOARD MEETING THE SUBJECT PETITION DID RECEIVE A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AT A 7-0 VOTE BY OUR PLANNING BOARD. THERE WERE NOTICES AS REQUIRED FOR CONDITIONAL USES TO BE SENT OUT TO A 500-FOOT RADIUS MILE.

FOUR OF THOSE WE RECEIVED RESPONSES, FOUR WERE IN FAVOR AND FOUR WERE IN OPPOSITION TO THE DUNE CROSSOVER.

HE CITY COMMISSION ACTION IS TO APPROVE WITH SUBJECT TO ONE CONDITION OF APPROVAL. TO APPROVE WITH CHANGES TO THE CONDITION OR TO DISAPPROVE THE PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE.

AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? >> QUICK QUESTION.

DID WE PREVIOUSLY SEE AN APPLICATION OR APPROVE AN APPLICATION TO THE RESIDENTS TO THE SOUTH OR ADJACENT TO THIS?

>> YES, SIR. >> WE DID.

OKAY I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE WERE DOING THE SAME ONE.

>> IT'S RIGHT NEXT DOOR. >> OKAY.

THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHTY, ANYTHING ELSE? OKAY I ASK THE APPLICANT, IS THE APPLICANT HERE? PLEASE COME FORWARD. IF YOU'D SIGN IN PLEASE AND THEN STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, YOUR TIME DOESN'T START UNTIL

THEN. >> THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. I'M LOIS EDWARDS.

WE HAVE AN OFFICE HERE IN DOWNTOWN FORT PIERCE IN THE RENAISSANCE BUILDING. I ALSO PERMITTED THE JULLIARD SITE WHICH IS IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF HERE.

PREDOMINANTLY WHAT HAPPENS AT BOTH OF THESE SITES, ONCE THEY GO OUT THE BACK DOOR THEY HAVE PAVERS ON COMPACTED SAND AND THEY HAVE A LITTLE SITTING AREA. THE DOCTOR AND HIS WIFE HAVE A RAMP GOING UP TO THE OVER WALK. IT IS NO FURTHER SEAWARD THAN ANY OTHER OVER WALK STRUCTURE. AND THEN THE RAMP GOES DOWN TO A FOOTPATH TO THE BEACH. I SUBMITTED THE DEP APPLICATION ON JULY 15TH. THE APPLICATION WAS CONSIDERED COMPLETE AND THE ONLY THING I'M LOOKING FOR IS THE LOCAL LETTER WHICH SHOULD COME ABOUT AS A RESULT OF THIS WHICH BASICALLY SAYS THAT THE PROJECT DOES NOT CONTRAVENE LOCAL SETBACK CODES

OR ZONING. >> ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? ANY QUESTIONS?

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> YOU WERE SWORN IN, CORRECT?

THANK YOU. >> SEEING NO ONE I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE'LL DISCUSS OR ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

[00:55:01]

>> MOVE TO APPROVE. >> SECOND.

>> YES, MA'AM. >> NEXT WE HAVE ANOTHER QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING FOR CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL WITH NO NEW CONSTRUCTION FOR A VACATION RENTAL LOCATED AT 1361BINNEY DRIVE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT, MICHELLE LONGARZO FOR

[c. Quasi-Judicial Hearing for a Conditional Use Approval with no new construction for a Vacation Rental located at 1361 Binney Drive submitted by the applicant, Michelle Longarzo, for the property owner, Dana France. ]

THE PROPERTY OWNER DANA FRANCE. >> ALL RIGHTY.

SO MR. SWEENY HAS ALREADY READ THE GROUND RULES.

HAVE WE MET THE ADVERTISING REQUIREMENTS?

>> HAVE WE MET THE ADVERTISING REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS PROPERTY?

>> AND POLL THE COMMISSIONERS. >> COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER HAVE YOU HAD EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS WITH REGARDS TO THIS

APPLICATION? >> NO.

>> COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? >> NO, MA'AM.

>> COMMISSIONER PERONA? >> I HAVE A GENERAL DISCUSSION WITH MS. LONGARZO WHO IS AN EXPERT IN THIS FIELD BUT NOT

SPECIFIC. >> COMMISSIONER SESSIONS.

>> I DON'T RECALL, NO. >> AND MAYOR HUDSON.

>> NO, MA'AM. SO NOW WE WOULD LIKE TO SWEAR IN

THE WITNESSES? >> ANYBODY WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, ANYBODY IN THE PUBLIC PLEASE STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH?

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

PROCEED. >> MAYOR, CITY COMMISSIONERS, BEFORE YOU IS A CONDITIONAL USE WITH NO NEW CONSTRUCTION FOR A VACATION RENTAL. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1361BINNEY DRIVE. AS A FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION OF HUTCHINSON ISLAND OF MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL OR R4A.

VACATION RENTALS ARE REGULATED BY THE CITY AS A CONDITIONAL USE. THIS WAS PASSED IN 2001 BY ORDINANCE K114. WITH A CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION THE COMMISSION CAN GRANT THESE APPROVALS SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND THESE HAVE BEEN ADDED TO PROTECT THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF A NEIGHBORHOOD.

THESE ITEMS BEFORE YOU ARE QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARINGS AND WE MAKE SURE THAT THERE ARE NO CODE ENFORCEMENT OR POLICE DEPARTMENT VIOLATIONS PRIOR TO TO SCHEDULING THESE ITEMS FOR PUBLIC HEARING. PASSED IN 2011 IS THE STATE LEGISLATION. AND THIS PREEMPTED SOME OF OUR LOCAL LAND USE ZONING REGULATIONS.

AS STATED OUR LOCAL LAW ORDINANCE OR REGULATION MAY NOT PROHIBIT RENTALS. THIS PARAGRAPH DOES NOT APPLY TO ANY LOCAL LAW, ORDINANCE, OR REGULATION ADOPTED ON OR BEFORE JUNE 1, 2011. FOR THE FRANCE VACATION RENTAL CONSIDERATION OF THIS CONDITIONAL USE WITH NO NEW CONSTRUCTION STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL FOR A MINIMUM RENTAL PERIOD AS IDENTIFIED FOR TWO DAYS SUBJECT TO SIX CONDITIONS. THE FIRST FIVE YOU HAVE OUR STANDARD CONDITIONS WITH REGARD TO A PROPERTY MANAGER, GUIDE BOOKLETS, THE APPLICANT HAS TO FILE AND OBTAIN CITY OF FORT PIERCE AND THE COUNTY LICENSE TAX WITHIN 30 DAYS OF ISSUANCE OF LICENSE FROM OUR STATE. WE REGULATE PARKING FOR TWO VEHICLES PER UNIT AND THAT THE BUSINESS TAX NUMBER HAS TO BE INCLUDED ON ALL ADVERTISING. FOR THIS APPLICATION THERE IS AN ADDITIONAL CONDITION OF APPROVAL WHICH IS RELATED TO THE SIDEWALKS AS THERE ARE NO SIDEWALKS ON THIS SIDE OF THE ROAD AND IT IS REGULATED THAT THEY MUST PROVIDE SIDEWALKS OR PAY A PAYMENT IN LIEU. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDED 7-0 APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION. AGAIN WITH THE 500-FOOT RADIUS MAP 130 NOTIFICATIONS WERE SENT OUT.

TWO CAME BACK IN FAVOR, 15 IN OPPOSITION.

CITY COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE.

APPROVAL WITHIATIONS OR CHANGES TO THOSE CONDITIONS OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED RECOMMENDED USE.

I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> QUESTIONS OF STAFF? >> COMMISSIONER PERONA.

>> CAN YOU GIVE US AN IDEA WHAT THE 15 WHO SAID THEY WERE NOT IN FAVOR OF THE PROJECT? GIVE US AN IDEA --

[01:00:01]

>> I DO HAVE THEM. MOST OF THEM WERE THEY WOULD CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

>> OKAY. >> THIS WOULD BE THE 1 ON BINNEY DRIVE OF A VACATION RENTAL. OTHERS IN SUPPORT LIKED THE IDEA OF HAVING VACATION RENTALS IN THE AREA, BRING IN MORE TAX BASE AND VISITORS. BUT MOST OF THOSE THAT WERE AGAINST IT WAS JUST A PERCEIVED FEAR OF A CHANGE TO THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND THAT AGAIN IS WHAT I HAVE INDICATED TO THE MAYOR AND THE COMMISSION WHERE WE HAVE THESE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. LAST MONTH WE DID HAVE A WORKSHOP WITH OUR PLANNING BOARD.

THERE WERE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS THAT HAVE RECOMMENDED AND THEY WILL BE SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER TO COME BEFORE YOU AND SPEAK TO YOU ALL FOR CONSIDERATION OF THOSE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS WHICH COULD IF APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION COULD GO INTO EFFECT FOR ALL OF THE VACATION RENTALS THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE.

>> IN OUR LETTER THAT WE SEND OUT ARE WE INSTRUCTING FOLKS THAT IF THEY ARE WANTING A DISAPPROVAL THEY HAVE TO SAY THE REASON WHY IT COULD BE COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL INFORMATION THAT CAN

HELP US IN OUR DELIBERATION? >> MAYOR HUDSON, COMMISSIONER PERONA, IT'S INTERESTING THAT YOU BRING THAT UP.

BECAUSE THERE WAS A TIME WHEN THE VOTE FOR RESIDENTS WERE IF THERE WAS A PERCENTAGE GREATER, 20% THEN IT WOULD REQUIRE THE SUPER MAJORITY VOTE OF APPROVAL. I HAVE SPOKEN WITH THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY ABOUT MODIFYING THESE LETTERS BECAUSE THEY TEND TO BE A LITTLE MISLEADING THAT PERHAPS WE SHOULD JUST WRITE IF THERE'S A PLACE FOR COMMENT OR WHATNOT.

BUT RIGHT NOW THE WAY THAT THESE LETTERS ARE WRITTEN MAKES IT SEEM AS THOUGH BECAUSE OF THEIR VOTE SOMETHING WOULD THEN AFFECT CHANGE FOR THE VOTING MECHANISM FOR CITY COMMISSION.

>> WE'RE HELD TO A CERTAIN STANDARD AND MR. SWEENY OVER THERE WILL JUMP OUT OF HIS CHAIR IF WE GET OUT OF WHACK HERE.

THAT'S WHY WE'RE ALL LOOKING FOR THIS, HOPEFULLY SOME OF THOSE 15 ARE HERE TONIGHT AND CAN COME UP WITH IF THEY REALLY WANT US TO LOOK AT THIS NEGATIVELY THAT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO DELIVER SOME FORM OF SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO BRING US TO THAT CONCLUSION. IF NOT, IT'S REALLY HARD FOR US

TO DO ANYTHING BUT. >> I AGREE WITH YOU.

I COULD READ SOME OF THEM IF YOU'D LIKE.

>> NO, I DON'T THINK SO. I THINK WE HAVE TO RELY MOSTLY ON THE VERBAL. WE HAVE TO HAVE EVIDENCE.

EVIDENCE IS NOT HEARSAY, IS THAT RIGHT, MR. SWEENY?

>> I NO LONGER HAVE A JOB. >> WELL --

>> YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT. COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS OF THE LIKE THAT A REASONABLE PERSON WOULD RELY ON IN A COURT OF LAW. AND IT IS BEYOND DISPUTE THAT SPECULATION MAYBE EVEN RATIONAL SPECULATION, BUT STILL SPECULATION DOES NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND WOULD BE OVERTURNED.

AND THAT'S WHY IN THE PAST WHEN IT'S BEEN BEFORE THIS COMMISSION YOU'VE SEEN DOCUMENTATION OF CODE IF THERE IS CODE ISSUES, IF THERE HAVE BEEN POLICE ISSUES, THAT'S WHY STAFF NOW PRESENTS THAT AS PART OF THEIR PACKAGE. I SHOULD ALSO REMIND THIS COMMISSION THAT PRUDENT TO A CONDITIONAL USE, A CONDITIONAL USE IS NOT SUDDENLY A GOLDEN TICKET FOREVER.

IT IS A CONDITIONAL USE AND THERE ARE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND SHOULD THOSE CONDITIONS NOT BE ADHERED TO OR ANY OTHER TYPE OF FAILURE TO BE A REASONABLE NEIGHBOR QUITE FRANKLY, IT COULD BE REVOKED. THAT'S CLEARLY ALLOWED WITHIN OUR CODE. SO THERE IS ALWAYS A CHANCE FOR REDRAFTS JUST LIKE ANY OTHER INDISCRETION IN THE U.S. JUSTICE

SYSTEM. >> I MEAN WE HAVE 15 VOICES TELLING US THAT THEY'RE DISAPPROVAL OF THE SITUATION.

BUT THE VOICES THAT WE CAN HEAR ARE NOT CHECK MARKS ON A PAGE SO WE HAVE SOMEWHAT OF A DISCONNECT THERE.

AND WE INVITE FOLKS TO COME AND SPEAK TO US WHEN THESE ISSUES COME FORWARD. THAT'S PROBABLY THE BEST WAY TO HAVE YOUR VOICE HEARD AND HAVE YOUR CONSIDERATION BY THIS

COMMITTEE RIGHT HERE. >> AND IF I MAY, MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS, IN DRAFTING A NEW LETTER THAT WOULD GO OUT FOR THESE CONDITIONAL USES FOR VACATION RENTALS PERHAPS I SHOULD STATE SO THAT THIS LANGUAGE FOR QUASI-JUDICIAL SO THAT THEY UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN THEY'RE MAKING THEIR RECOMMENDATION OR THEIR VOICE BEING HEARD THAT IT'S BASED ON

COMPETENT EVIDENCE. >> THEY SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE ACTUAL DISCUSSION AND DECISION.

>> I DO BELIEVE THAT'S SOME OF THE REASON FOR THAT LACK OF PARTICIPATION OR COMING HERE IS DUE TO OUR CURRENT CORONAVIRUS

[01:05:03]

FEARS. SO MANY PEOPLE WHO HAVE CALLED ME ARE SAYING THAT THEY'RE STAYING HOME.

>> FINAL QUESTION THEN TO LEGAL, IN THE SITUATION IF WE HAVE SOMEONE THAT HAS COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND DOES NOT WANT TO ATTEND AND WILL PUT IT IN WRITING AND SIGN IT AND SUPPORT IT WITH ANY EVIDENCE THEY CAN, CAN THAT BE CONSIDERED

FOR THIS ISSUE? >> IT CAN AND WE HAVE ACCOMMODATED THAT PROCESS. IN FACT THE CLERK HAS NOW NOT ONLY INCLUDED THAT AT THE TOP OF YOUR AGENDA, IF YOU'LL LOOK AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF YOUR AGENDA YOU'LL SEE THAT THEY HAVE TO BE SUBMITTED AND THERE'S A SPECIFIC FORM THAT I BELIEVE MS. COX HAS MADE EVERYBODY EVEN IF THEY'VE SUBMITTED IT ON THE WRONG FORM MADE THEM AWARE OF WHAT THEY HAVE TO DO WHICH

REQUIRES ATTESTATION. >> COMMISSIONER.

>> THANK YOU, MA'AM. THIS IS OUR R4A DISTRICT, RIGHT? SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE TALK ABOUT THAT AND WE'RE CONSISTENT ACROSS THE DISTRICTS AT THIS POINT.

SO IN PREVIOUS APPLICATIONS, I'M LOOKING AT THIS PICTURE HERE.

I ACTUALLY BROUGHT UP GOOGLE MAPS.

HAS THERE BEEN ANY DISCUSSION ON THE DRIVEWAY CONNECTION TO BINNEY DRIVE BECAUSE IT'S MISSING A SEGMENT?

>> I HAVE NOTICED AND IT WAS NOT RECOGNIZED AT FRONT BUT THERE SHOULD BE IN THAT SWIRL AREA YOU'RE REFERRING TO?

>> FOR A VEHICLE TO EXIT BINNEY DRIVE AND THIS PAVED PORTION OF

THE COMPLEX -- >> THE APRON AREA.

>> THE APRON AREA WITHIN THE CITY'S RIGHT OF WAY.

SO I'M GOING TO ASK A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS, I MIGHT HAVE TO DEFER TO MR. MIMS UNLESS YOU KNOW, IN OUR BUILDING CODE OR OUR DESIGN DEVELOPMENT CODE, ARE DRIVEWAY APRONS REQUIRED? IF YOU WERE TO CONSTRUCT A NEW RESIDENCE ARE DRIVEWAY APRONS

REQUIRED? >> DRIVEWAYS ARE REQUIRED, YES, THEY HAVE TO MEET THE STANDARD CONDITIONS OF ENGINEERING AND I COULD HAVE ENGINEERING, YOU COULD PROPOSE A CONDITION THAT ENSURES THAT IT MEETS THE CITY ENGINEER'S DESIGN STANDARDS.

>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR STANDARDS ARE, I LOVE THE APPLICATION I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE CONSISTENTLY PROCESSING ALL APPLICANTS. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS ARE BEING MET WITH APRONS. BECAUSE HERE'S MY CONCERN.

I DRIVE THE ROAD FREQUENTLY. BINNEY DRIVE JUST GOT REPAVED NOT TOO LONG BECAUSE THEY WERE DOING A CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, THERE WAS A LOT OF CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC SO THEN IT GOT REPAVED.

AND SO NOW WE HAVE A NEWER ROAD WHERE IF YOU HAVE AN UNIMPROVED DRIVEWAY APRON THEN YOU ARE CONTRIBUTING TO THE FAILURE OF BINNEY ROAD OVER TIME WITH TRAFFIC.

WHETHER IT'S A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, A BUSINESS, A RENTAL UNIT, WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE THERE'S STILL DEGRADATION OF THE ROADWAY AND THE SHOULDER OF THE ROAD WHICH WE'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR AS TAXPAYERS. SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE MEETING OUR OWN STANDARDS AND I APPRECIATE YOU OFFERING THAT INFORMATION. BUT I DIDN'T NOTICE ANY COMMENTS, I HAVEN'T NOTICED ANY VERBAGE TALKING ABOUT THAT.

MR. MIMS, IS THAT IN OUR DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, IT IS,

RIGHT? >> IT IS.

IF THERE'S ANY TYPE OF NEW CONSTRUCTION THAT WOULD NECESSITATE A CONNECTION TO THE EXISTING ROADWAY.

IF SO, THE DRIVEWAY CONSTRUCTION WILL NEED TO BE APPROVED BY A

CITY ENGINEER. >> WE HAD AN APPLICANT I THINK LAST MEETING OR TWO MEETINGS AGO WHERE YOU CAN ACTUALLY BUILD A DRIVEWAY APRON BUT YOU CAN HAVE A DIFFERENT STYLE OF DRIVEWAY WHETHER IT'S THE WHEEL RUT PATTERN OR A BRICK PAVER PATTERN, YOU CAN HAVE A DIFFERENT STYLE, BUT IT'S THE APRON THAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT BECAUSE WE AS A TAXING BODY AND AS A CITY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT PORTION OF THE RIGHT OF

WAY, CORRECT? >> NO, SIR.

>> WE'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RIGHT OF WAY?

>> WE'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RIGHT OF WAY IF A PROPERTY OWNER DOES HAVE A CONNECTION TO A CITY STREET OR AN IMPROVED SURFACE THEN THEY ARE THE MAINTAINING ENTITY FOR THAT DRIVEWAY APRON.

>> YOU'RE RIGHT. I MISSPOKE ON THAT.

I WASN'T CLEAR. THEY'RE RESPONSIBLE BECAUSE THE PUBLIC HAS NO BENEFIT FOR THEIR DRIVEWAY, THEIR DRIVEWAY IS THEIR CONNECTION TO THEIR RESIDENCE AND TO THEIR BUSINESS

WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE? >> YES, SIR.

>> OKAY. SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CONSISTENT HERE. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT BINNEY DRIVE IS PROPERLY MAINTAINED AND/OR CONNECTED TO.

AND HERE'S WHAT I'LL EQUATE IT TO, THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE IF YOU WERE TO COME IN AND MAKE A SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE TO ANY STRUCTURE, WHEN YOU CHANGE THE USE OF A STRUCTURE, YOU ARE THEN REQUIRED TO REEVALUATE THINGS LIKE HURRICANE PROTECTION, FACTORS BY THE STATE OF FLORIDA ARE INACTIVE BECAUSE YOU CHANGED

[01:10:07]

THE USE. IN MY OPINION YOU'RE CHANGING THE USE. LOOK AT THE HEADING IS

CONDITIONAL USE. >> AND IF I MAY REPLY, I DO BELIEVE THIS WAS A STAFF OVERSIGHT BECAUSE THERE WAS ANOTHER VACATION RENTAL WHERE THE DRIVEWAY WAS NOT THERE, WAS NOT PRESENT AT ALL, IT WAS JUST VERY LITTLE.

AND IT WAS A STANDARD CONDITION FOR THAT VACATION RENTAL.

AND IF IT'S AT THE COMMISSION'S PLEASURE I WOULD SUGGEST MAKING A CONDITION SIMILAR TO WHAT I HAD ON THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION, I CAN MAKE IT JUST AS STANDARD AS THAT PREVIOUS APPLICATION TO MAKE SURE AGAIN THAT WE'RE CONSISTENT.

AND IT'S ALL FOR THE CITY ENGINEER'S APPROVAL.

BECAUSE AS THE CODE STATES IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE CONCRETE, IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE ASPHALT, IT HAS TO MEET THE CITY ENGINEER'S

STANDARD FOR DRIVEWAYS. >> AND I'LL BRING UP SOME OTHER CONDITIONS OF WHY I BRING THIS FORWARD.

AND IT'S NOT TO DEMOTE THE APPLICATION OR ANYTHING ELSE.

BUT GOOGLE MAPS IS A WONDERFUL THING, I USE IT ALL THE TIME.

THERE'S WATER SERVICE TO THE FACILITY.

THERE'S A SEWER CLEAN OUT THAT'S RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE THERE'S MARKS ON THE PICTURE THAT I'M LOOKING AT THAT ARE SET IN STONE UNTIL GOOGLE CHANGES THEM. THE REASON I SAY THAT IS TO THE OWNER'S BENEFIT TO HAVE THAT SECTION OF RIGHT OF WAY IN THE GRASS AREA IMPROVED SO THAT THOSE FACILITIES ARE NOT DAMAGED. IT COULD BE ANYTHING THAT HAPPENS CREATING AN ISSUE FOR THE RESIDENTS OR THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTIES. THERE'S A LOT OF REASONS TO APPROVE, I GUESS IF WE NEED AN AMENDMENT AT THIS POINT IF WE

NEED TO. >> I'D LIKE FOR THE APPLICANT TO

COME FORWARD, PLEASE. >> MICHELLE LONGARZO.

I AM THE APPLICANT FOR MRS. FRANCE.

SO I HAVE A COUPLE REBUTTALS REGARDING SOME OF THE STUFF DO YOU WANT ME START WITH REBUTTAL OR PRESENTATION?

>> IT'S YOUR SHOW. >> SO BECAUSE JEREMIAH JOHNSON JUST SPOKE, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND YOU OF THE FOLLOWING. SO I WAS HERE NOT THAT LONG AGO WITH REGARDS TO MIKE ROBINS WHO'S BEEN APPROVED AND MADE QUITE AN ORDEAL ABOUT HIS DRIVEWAY AND THE FACT THAT HE ONLY HAD A PATHWAY. AND HERE YOU'RE SAYING THAT'S LEGAL JUST TO SAY THE PATHWAY AND YOU GUYS ARE INSISTING UPON HIM PUTTING IN A DRIVEWAY. YOU KNOW, IT APPEARS TO ME THAT THE LEVEL OF FRUSTRATION FOR THESE APPLICANTS COMES FROM THE LACK OF CONSISTENCY WHEN IT COMES TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. JENNIFER AND I HAVE MULTIPLE DISAGREEMENTS REGARDING CONSISTENCY AND FAIRNESS WITH REGARDS TO WHAT'S GOOD FOR ONE APPLICATION IS NOT GOOD FOR ANOTHER. AND I HAVE BEEN INSTRUMENTAL IN COMING TO MANY OF YOUR MEETINGS, I THINK I'M THE ONE PERSON THAT HAS BEEN CONSISTENT IN TRYING TO ASSIST THE CITY AND MY FELLOW RESIDENTS BECAUSE THIS IS SO COMPLICATED.

MRS. FRANCE IS FRUSTRATED BECAUSE SHE FEELS THAT SHE COULD NOT DO THIS BY HERSELF. SO IT'S REALLY UNFAIR.

SO WE OBJECT TO THE WHOLE DRIVEWAY THING.

I HAVE SAID IT BEFORE, I OBJECT ON ALL OF THE PROPERTIES I REPRESENT. YOU CANNOT TELL A PROPERTY OWNER WHAT TO DO ON THEIR PROPERTY. YOU JUST CAN'T CONSTITUTIONALLY.

WITH REGARDS TO COMMISSIONER PERONA, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY NEIGHBORS GREAT IDEA EXCEPT THEY'RE NOT QUALIFIED. UNLESS YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE SOMEBODY COME IN THAT'S AN ENGINEER THAT'S GOING TO COME IN WITH SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, I MEAN HOW ARE YOU GOING TO GET THEM TO TESTIFY IF THEY'RE NOT AN ACTUAL PROFESSIONAL JUST BECAUSE THEY THINK IT'S SUBSTANTIAL BECAUSE OF WHATEVER THEIR REASON, I JUST THINK THAT'S, THESE LETTERS ARE

[01:15:04]

RIDICULOUS SENDING THEM OUT TO THE CITY, HAVE NO BEARING OVER WHETHER OR NOT YOU GUYS APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE.

THIS IS MRS. FRANCE'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DO WHAT SHE WANTS. AND I JUST THINK IT'S VERY FRUSTRATING, IT'S COST PROHIBITIVE.

SHE SHOULD NOT BE PAYING OVER $1,000 FOR A CONDITIONAL USE AND PAYING OVER $700 FOR MAILERS. THIS IS NOT NECESSARY.

IF YOU GUYS WANT TO DO IT ON YOUR OWN DIME, GO FOR IT.

BUT MY CLIENT SHOULD NOT BE PAYING FOR LETTERS.

I'VE SAID THAT BEFORE. I'VE WRITTEN YOU GUYS LOTS OF LOVE EMAILS, NOBODY LISTENS. SO WE'LL GET TO THE PRESENTATION. SO WITH REGARDS TO MRS. FRANCE.

I JUST WANT TO REMIND SINCE WE ARE QUASI-JUDICIAL I WOULD LIKE YOU TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF PETITION 179 WHICH WAS A UNANIMOUS DECISION WITH REGARDS TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS.

SO BASICALLY ON MRS. FRANCE'S PROPERTY WE HAVE A LETTER DATED MAY 5TH AND ONE OF THE ISSUES ON THE CONDITIONAL USES IS MRS. FRANCE AND HER SPOUSE BOTH HAVE INDIVIDUAL CARS.

IT'S NOT PICTURED IN THIS ONE, BUT THEY DO HAVE TWO VEHICLES.

WE HAD THIS SAME SITUATION WITH THE ROBINS RESIDENCE.

YOU KNOW SHE'S GOING TO HAVE TWO VEHICLES THERE SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR THAT WHEN THERE IS A RENTAL THERE AND IF SOMEBODY BRINGS TWO CARS THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A PROBLEM IF THERE'S FOUR CARS IN HER DRIVEWAY.

I THINK YOU HAD CHANGED IT TO PER, RIGHT? JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR ON THAT ONE BECAUSE IT'S NOT ON THIS ONE ON THIS OTHER ONE. SO WITH REGARDS TO THE OTHER COMMENTS DOWN AT THE BOTTOM WHERE IT SAYS, YOU HAD MADE MENTION, JEREMIAH REGARDING THE SITUATION WITH SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE OF USE WITH REGARDS TO THESE VACATION RENTALS, ACCORDING, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE READ IT BUT IT'S VERY CRYSTAL CLEAR IN THERE THAT THESE UNITS ARE NOT A CONDITIONAL CHANGE OF USE. IT'S ALREADY IN A BINDING INTERPRETATION FOR THE ENTIRE STATE OF FLORIDA.

SO I ENCOURAGE THE STAFF TO GET VERY FAMILIAR WITH THIS BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO KEEP COMING UP AND UP AND UP EVEN IF I RETIRE FROM THIS WHICH I'VE THREATENED JENNIFER TO RETIRE AND NEVER COME BACK UP HERE AND DO THESE AGAIN, BUT YOU CANNOT HAVE VIOLATION OF THESE RESIDENTS CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS. AND THEN I JUST ALSO WOULD LIKE TO SEE YOU GUYS TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF HALE VERSUS HINKLE.

I'M GOING TO TELL YOU THE SAME THING I TOLD YOU GUYS BEFORE HALE V. HINKLE PROTECTS THE CLIENT FROM HAVING TO DEAL WITH ORDINANCES. IF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT SU SUPERCEDES ALL OF YOUR ORDINANCES, ORDINANCE 543 SAYS BLAH BLAH BLAH, BUT IF THEY HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT ON THEIR PROPERTY RIGHTS, YOU CANNOT VIOLATE THAT WITH SOME ORDINANCE. SO I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT THIS BE COHESIVE BETWEEN DEPARTMENTS AND EVERYBODY SO THAT EVERY APPLICATION IS TREATED WITH THE SAME DIGNITY AND IT'S NOT BEING DONE IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

I HAVE AN ONGOING PROBLEM WITH REGARDS TO THIS AND I THINK IT'S REALLY UNFAIR. I'M REPRESENTING LIKE I DON'T KNOW 6, 7 PEOPLE AT THIS POINT. AND ALL OF THEM ARE SIMILAR.

SOME OF THEM ARE IN THE SAME BUILDING AND IT'S NOT BEING TREATED THE SAME. AGAIN THE LEVEL OF FRUSTRATION IS PRETTY BAD. NOW ALSO I BEG YOU GUYS TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE ALSO OF THE 8079 WITH REGARDS TO CHANGE OF USE AND POSSIBLE SPRINKLERS AS YOU HAVE HEARD ME STATE BEFORE THAT IS NOT A POSSIBLE. ANY OF THESE VACATION RENTALS WHETHER IT BE A DUPLEX, A HOME, OR A CONDOMINIUM YOU CANNOT FORCE THEM TO PUT IN ANYTHING THAT YOU WOULDN'T DO IN NEW CONSTRUCTION. I KNOW WE'VE HAD THAT DISCUSSION BEFORE. SO FOR MRS. FRANCE I'M PUTTING THAT ON THE RECORD. I WANTED TO SEE IF YOU HAD ANY QUESTIONS FOR US WITH REGARDS TO LIKE I SAID WE HAVE THE OBJECTIONS ON THE DRIVEWAY, AND WE HAVE THE, MRS. FRANCE HAS ALREADY TAKEN CARE OF MOST OF THE LICENSING.

AS YOU CAN SEE HER PROPERTY IS BEAUTIFUL.

[01:20:03]

HER AND HER SPOUSE DO AN AMAZING JOB WITH THE LANDSCAPING.

THAT ONE IS NOT EVEN RECENT BECAUSE SHE'S GOT ART AND ALL KINDS OF STUFF THAT'S JUST BEAUTIFYING FORT PIERCE.

THE INSIDE IS JUST AS BEAUTIFUL AS THE OUTSIDE.

BUT WOULD YOU LIKE TO ASK ME ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING HER

PROPERTY? >> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF

THE APPLICANT? >> MADAME MAYOR.

>> YES, SIR. >> YOU'RE AGAINST THE DRIVEWAY

CONNECTION? >> YES.

>> WHY BECAUSE THAT WOULD INCREASE THE PROPERTY VALUE?

>> THAT'S HER CHOICE IF SHE WANTS TO PUT IT IN, IF MRS. FRANCE WANTS TO PUT IT IN BECAUSE SHE'S A PROPERTY OWNER, THAT'S ON HER. BUT SHE HAS THE RIGHT NOT TO DO

IT. >> SO THE PUBLIC ALSO HAS THE RIGHT, ME AS A TAXPAYER HAS A RIGHT TO NOT HAVE TO IMPROVE OR WORRY ABOUT THE DEGRADATION OF BINNEY DRIVE BECAUSE THERE'S NOT AN IMPROVED DRIVEWAY APRON WHICH IS REQUIRED BY CODE.

I WANT TO MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY OF BINNEY DRIVE WHICH WE ALL PAY FOR. HOW DO WE DO THAT KNOWING THERE ARE GOING TO BE VEHICLES COMING OFF THE EDGE OF PAVEMENT WHICH EXTENDS THE EDGE. THAT'S A SCIENTIFIC FACT, HOW DO

WE FIX THAT? >> WELL I MEAN SHE'S GRANDFATHERED IN BECAUSE SHE DOESN'T HAVE NEW CONSTRUCTION SO MAYBE YOU SHOULD LOOK IN YOUR POLICIES AND PROCEDURES WHEN IT COMES TO, YOU KNOW, THESE PROPERTIES WHEN THEY'RE BEING BUILT. I MEAN OBVIOUSLY I DON'T KNOW WHAT AGE THIS IS I'D HAVE TO LOOK AT THE PAPERWORK.

BUT THIS PROPERTY IS NOT NEW. >> I AGREE WITH YOU.

AND SO WE'RE TRYING TO DO SOMETHING, AND THIS IS WHAT WE TALK ABOUT THE CHANGE OF USE. I WAS JUST MAKING A PARALLEL WITH THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE WHEN I SAID THAT.

SEW WE'RE TRYING TO IMPROVE FORT PIERCE, WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE OPPORTUNITY FOR FORT PIERCE. I WANT THIS TO SUCCEED BUT I DON'T WANT TO CREATE AN ISSUE OVER TIME.

I MEAN WHAT ABOUT FOLKS, IF IT'S RAINING THEN WE HAVE A MUD PUDDLE. AND NOW WE HAVE A HEALTH AND SAFETY AND WELFARE CONDITION BECAUSE THE PUBLIC IS POTENTIALLY EXPOSED OR THERE'S AN INFILTRATION OF STORM WATER INTO THE SEWER SYSTEM WHICH CREATES ISSUES AT THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT. SO IT'S A HEALTH HAZARD.

>> YOU DON'T WANT TO BRING THAT UP WITH ME.

>> IT'S THE TRUTH THOUGH. IT'S THE TRUTH.

>> I'M JUST SAYING, I MEAN SERIOUSLY.

COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, I'M GOING TO TELL YOU AGAIN, YOU MAY HAVE THESE CONCERNS AND I UNDERSTAND AND I AGREE WITH YOUR CONCERNS.

BUT I DON'T AGREE WITH THE FACT THAT YOU CANNOT MAKE THESE PEOPLE WHO HAVE EXISTING PROPERTIES THAT ARE NOT DOING A CONDITIONAL USE, YOU CANNOT FORCE THEM TO DO AN IMPROVEMENT.

IT IS A CONDITIONAL USE WITH NO NEW CONSTRUCTION.

WHEN YOU DO A DRIVEWAY YOU HAVE TO PULL PERMIT WITH PAUL THOMAS, RIGHT? THAT'S CONSIDERED CONSTRUCTION.

IT'S A CONDITIONAL USE WITH NO NEW CONSTRUCTION AND YOU'RE ASKING AND PETITIONING THE OWNER TO FILE A PERMIT AND PUT CONSTRUCTION ON THEIR PERMIT THAT THEY JUST SAID IS NO NEW CONSTRUCTION. IT'S AS IS.

IT'S GRANDFATHERED. I DIDN'T COME UP WITH THE GRANDFATHERING LAWS IN FLORIDA, BUT THERE ARE SOME AND YOU KNOW THAT. SO YOU KNOW, MAYBE YOU NEED TO COME UP WITH SOME OTHER SOLUTION.

BUT I DON'T THINK THIS IS APPROPRIATE TO REQUIRE THAT.

>> THANK YOU. >> OKAY.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE? IT'S BEEN SWORN IN.

ANYONE ELSE? >> MRS. FRANCE WOULD LIKE TO

SPEAK. >> IF YOU COULD SIGN IN FOR ME, PLEASE, AND THEN STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

YOU WERE SWORN IN CORRECT? THANK YOU.

DON'T BE NERVOUS. JUST STATE YOUR NAME.

>> MY NAME IS DANA FRANCE. I CLOSED ON THIS HOUSE A LITTLE OVER TWO YEARS AGO AND I WAS TOLD A LOT OF THINGS ABOUT HOW TO GO ABOUT GETTING PERMITTED FOR A VACATION RENTAL.

THE FIRST OF WHICH WAS FROM LOCALS WHO LIVE HERE TELLING ME JUST GIVE UP. THE CITY MAKES IT REALLY DIFFICULT AND DAUNTING AND I WOULDN'T BE HERE RIGHT NOW IF IT WASN'T FOR HER. I'M FROM FORT PIERCE, I WAS BORN

[01:25:02]

HERE IN 1974. AND I ACTUALLY HAD MY FIRST BIRTHDAY ON BINNEY DRIVE. MY FAMILY CAME HERE IN THE '50S.

MY LAST NAME IS ASHTON SO WE DID A LOT OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, ASHTON SEPTIC AND ASHTON MAINTENANCE.

MY GRANDMOTHER OWNED MANY RESTAURANTS HERE.

SO MY WHOLE FAMILY HAS PRETTY MUCH GROWN UP HERE.

AFTER GETTING DIVORCED I DECIDED TO TAKE WHAT MONEY I HAD TO INVEST HERE IN MY HOMETOWN. WHEN I FIRST BOUGHT THIS DUPLEX I KIND OF WALKED IN ON A LITTLE BIT OF A NIGHTMARE.

IN FACT WHEN THE TWO PEOPLE THAT WERE RENTING, THEY WERE PAYING HARDLY ANYTHING, $550 I THINK A MONTH FOR EACH SIDE.

AND THEY LEFT THE PLACE A WRECK. THEY HAD THREE GIANT BULLDOGS, ALL OF THE DOORKNOBS WERE CHEWED UP, THEY LEFT THE COUCH CHEWED AND TATTERED. THE BED IT WAS A BIG CLEAN UP PROJECT TO SAY THE LEAST. THE PEOPLE ACROSS THE STREET I FEEL HAVE A VERY SIMILAR LIVING SITUATION AS DOES THE SANDY SHORES AREA IS KIND OF A LITTLE BIT ROUGH COMPARED TO WHERE I CAME FROM WHICH IS IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE ON FIVE ACRES.

SO IT'S BEEN A LITTLE BIT OF AN ADJUSTMENT.

WE'VE PUT ALL OF OUR $60,000 IN THIS PLACE.

I DID NOT THINK I WAS GOING TO BE HERE TODAY OR EVEN I DIDN'T THINK THAT -- I'M SORRY -- I MEAN WE'RE CLOSE TO BEING HERE AND THE THOUGHT OF RENTING IT OUT WOULD TURN TO PEOPLE WHO ARE JUST GOING TO DESTROY IT REALLY IS HEART BREAKING.

WHEN I FIRST MOVED OUT AND MOVED TO VERO I WAS PAYING $1,350 A MONTH IN A LOW INCOME NEIGHBORHOOD IN VERO.

WHEN I LEARNED WHAT THE RENT WAS ON SOUTH HUTCHINSON ISLAND, $550, $900 MONTHLY RENTALS, I DON'T KNOW I JUST FELT SAD THAT FORT PIERCE SAYS THAT THEY WANT TO BRING PEOPLE HERE TO VACATION AND BRING MORE MONEY TO THIS AREA BUT WHEN PEOPLE LIKE ME PUT EVERYTHING THEY HAVE INTO MAKING THINGS BETTER IT SEEMS LIKE SO HARD AND SUCH A STRUGGLE. SO I JUST WANT YOU GUYS TO KNOW THAT I'M ON BOARD WITH MAKING FORT PIERCE BEAUTIFUL AND SHOWING PEOPLE HERE HOW BEAUTIFUL IT IS.

BUT I WISH YOU GUYS WOULD HELP US A LITTLE BIT MORE.

BECAUSE I'M JUST A DUMB PERSON THAT IS TRYING MY BEST.

SO THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY AND I'M REALLY SORRY THAT I COULDN'T KEEP IT TOGETHER UP HERE. BUT THANK YOU FOR LISTENING.

>> THANK YOU, MA'AM. ANYONE ELSE?

-- >> I HAVE A SIDEWALK ACROSS THE STREET, THE REASON, I'M A BIG BELIEVER IN NATURE AND NOT HAVING SO MUCH CONCRETE. SO I DIDN'T FEEL LIKE THAT APRON THING IT WAS SOMETHING NECESSARILY THAT I WANTED TO DO, BUILD MORE CONCRETE THERE. AND I HAVE A WELL AND TO HAVE A WELL I FEEL LIKE IS SUCH A BLESSING ESPECIALLY IF YOU ALL YOU HAVE IS A GENERATOR AND NOBODY ELSE HAS GOT WATER DURING A HURRICANE, I FEEL LIKE PUTTING MORE CONCRETE AT THAT APRON IS NOT VERY WHAT'S THE WORD, ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY.

SO I MEAN I'LL DO WHATEVER YOU GUYS NEED ME TO DO, BUT I'M NOT

REALLY FOR THAT. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE? ANYONE ELSE? ANYONE ELSE? ALL RIGHTY. WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING

AND ENTERTAIN A DISCUSSION. >> MADAME MAYOR.

>> YES. >> I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS AND I'LL SAY THIS, DANA, THANK YOU FOR COMING AND SPEAKING AND WE APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'VE DONE TO THE RESIDENCE SO FAR. YOU'RE MAKING AN IMPROVEMENT AND IT'S VISIBLE AND IT'S SEEN. AND THE CITY IS WORKING HARD ON THIS ENTIRE PROCESS. IT'S AN EVOLVING PROCESS SO

[01:30:05]

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING AND TALKING TO US.

BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CONSISTENT COMMISSIONERS AND ALSO IF WE MISSED IT, LET'S JUST SAY THAT WE MISSED AND THAT'S FINE. IF WE WANT TO PUT IT IN, LET'S PUT IT IN. IF WE DON'T THAT'S OKAY TOO.

BUT I HAVE MY OBJECTIONS AND REASONS FOR IT AND IT'S TECHNICAL DATA BUT THAT'S WHERE I AM.

THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER PERONA.

>> OBVIOUSLY AUTHORITY WAS QUESTIONED.

I JUST WANT TO HEAR FROM LEGAL. DO WE ABSOLUTELY HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO BE ABLE TO ADD THESE PROVISIONS ON THIS ISSUE

FOR THIS CONDITIONAL USE? >> GENERALLY SPEAKING THERE'S A CATCH ALL PROVISION THAT SAYS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE COMMUNITY ANY CONDITION AS LONG AS IT'S REASONABLY TAILORED TO WHAT THE CONDITIONAL USE IS IS DEFENSIBLE.

OBVIOUSLY THE FARTHER AWAY YOU GET FROM THE CONDITIONAL USE PURPOSE IS THE MORE PROBLEMATIC A CONDITION WOULD BE.

OFF SITE PLANTING OF TREES OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT IF THERE'S NO TREES BEING REMOVED, THAT OBVIOUSLY WOULD NOT BE RELATED ENOUGH. IN THIS CASE I THINK YOU'VE HEARD DISCUSSION FROM YOUR COLLEAGUES IN A VERY TECHNICAL SENSE ABOUT HOW IT'S APPROPRIATO AND THERE'S A PATTERN IN PRACTICE THAT WE HAVE BEEN CONSISTENTLY DOING THIS.

>> IF I MAY ALSO JUST COMMENT ABOUT THERE IS A DRIVEWAY PROVISION AND THIS IS A CONDITIONAL USE, IT'S NOT PERMITTED BY RIGHT. SO THERE IS THAT OPPORTUNITY WHEN CONDITIONAL USES COME IN TO WHERE YOU CAN LOOK AT THE SITE.

IT'S CALLED A CONDITIONAL USE WITH NO NEW CONSTRUCTION BECAUSE WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT AND PROVING IS A VACATION RENTAL.

WE'RE NOT BUILDING A VACATION RENTAL, WE'RE CONVERTING, WE'RE ALLOWING THIS OWNER TO USE THEIR HOME FOR A VACATION RENTAL.

SO THAT'S WHERE YOU GET THE NO NEW CONSTRUCTION.

WITH REGARD TO THE DRIVEWAY, WE DO HAVE A STANDARD.

IT DOES REQUIRE ENGINEERING APPROVAL.

SO ENGINEERING, THE HOME THAT MS. LONGARZO WAS SPEAKING TO IN OUR PRIOR PUBLIC HEARING, IT DID NOT MEET THE DESIGN STANDARDS AND THAT WAS CAUGHT BY BOTH PLANNING AND ENGINEERING.

UNFORTUNATELY I DON'T THINK THIS WAS CAUGHT BECAUSE THE DRIVEWAY WAS JUST APPROVED BUT THIS PART AND I THINK THAT WAS AN ERROR ON OUR PART. ENGINEERING SHOULD DEFINITELY LOOK AT THIS DRIVE RIGHT AND IF AN APRON IS REQUIRED WHICH I BELIEVE IT IS, IT SHOULD BE INSTALLED AND IT SHOULD MATCH THAT. WHEN IT COMES TO SIDEWALKS, ANYTHING OTHER THAN A SINGLE FAMILY HOME THAT COMES IN FOR CONDITIONAL USE IS REQUIRED TO PUT IN A SIDEWALK.

IT'S UP TO THE PLANNING DIRECTOR TO SAY WHETHER THAT'S APPROPRIATE OR A PAYMENT IN LIEU OPTION IS THERE.

THAT'S MY ONLY CHOICE IS PAYMENT IN LIEU OPTION.

IN THIS CASE THAT IS WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND BECAUSE THE OWNER IS RIGHT, MS. FRANCE, THAT THERE IS SIDEWALK ON THE OTHER SIDE. OUR CODE DOES NOT CALL OUT IF THERE'S SIDEWALK ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET YOU DON'T HAVE TO PROVIDE A SIDEWALK. IT GIVES YOU THE PAYMENT IN LIEU OPTION IF IT IS DEEMED NOT APPROPRIATE TO PUT A SIDEWALK IN

THAT LOCATION. >> OKAY.

SO STATE LEGISLATION HAS COME IN THERE AND HAS DETERMINED FOR COMMUNITIES LIKE OURS AD VALOREM REGULATIONS FOR SHORT TERM RENTALS. BUT WE ARE PROTECTED BY GRANDFATHERING PRIOR TO 2012, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> 2011. >> THAT'S A LONG TIME AGO.

2011 SO BASICALLY MOST OF THAT DOESN'T EVEN COME INTO, IS NOT EVEN A REALISTIC FORMAT FOR US TO FOLLOW BECAUSE WE ARE EXCLUDED FROM THAT ORDINANCE AND WE CAN OPERATE WITHIN OUR OWN

HOME RULE, IS THAT RIGHT? >> THE STATE REGULATES AND YOU CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG BUT IT'S FOR THE DURATION AND

LOCATION OF VACATION RENTALS. >> WE CAN'T REGULATE THAT.

>> SO OUR CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS THAT WE HAD AND WHAT WE HAVE GRANDFATHERED IN THE FACT THAT WE CAN ESTABLISH OR PUT STANDARDS ON THOSE APPROVALS THAT ARE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY.

AND THAT IS WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO STANDARDIZE.

AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THESE FIVE STANDARD CONDITIONS.

WE'VE HAD PLANNING BOARD LOOK AT IT, LOOK FURTHER INTO THESE CONDITIONS TO SEE HOW WE CAN GO ONE STEP FURTHER INTO THE PROTECTION OR THE PERCEIVED PROTECTION IS WHAT I OFTEN SAY ALSO. BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A HISTORY OF BAD THINGS HAPPENING AT THESE VACATION RENTALS.

AND SO MAYBE IT IS WITH THESE CONDITIONS THAT WE'RE COMING UP WITH AND THAT WE DO REGULATE THEM AND THAT THEY'VE HAD TO COME IN FOR A BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT.

[01:35:02]

BUT THE STATE REALLY IS THE AUTHORITY ON VACATION RENTALS.

YOU'RE LIMITED TO WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW AS A CONDITIONAL USE AND WHAT THOSE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WERE

PUTTING ON THE APPLICANT. >> I KNOW WE'VE ONLY HAD I WANT TO SAY A LITTLE BIT MORE OF THAN A HANDFUL OF THESE SHORT TERM VACATION RENTALS COME THROUGH. AND YOU HEARD FROM AN OWNER TODAY THAT'S UPSET WITH THE SYSTEM AND EVERYTHING ELSE LIKE THAT. HOPEFULLY WE ARE TO A POINT ESPECIALLY THROUGH YOUR WORKSHOP AND YOUR COORDINATION WITH STAFF THAT WE'RE GETTING A LITTLE BIT MORE QUICK AND SLIM LINED ON THIS WHOLE ISSUE TO BE ABLE TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS.

OBVIOUSLY I'M HOPING THAT WE'RE THERE BECAUSE ANYBODY THAT'S FEARFUL TO COME TO THE CITY THINKING WHY EVEN TRY, I'M GOING TO GET SHOT DOWN, THAT'S A BLACK MRK THAT ALL OF US HAVE TO CARRY WITH IT. AND IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT I WOULD EXPECT OUT OF MY STAFF AND I'M SURE THAT WE'RE WORKING TOWARDS MAKING THAT REAL EASY AND SMOOTH TO BE ABLE TO GET THROUGH IT. AS LONG AS THE REQUIREMENTS ARE MET, AS LONG AS ALL OF THE ISSUES ARE INCLUDED.

THE OTHER POINT OF IT IS TOO IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US JUST TO SAY THAT YOU'RE AN OWNER OF A PIECE OF PROPERTY DOES NOT MEAN TO SAY THAT YOU HAVE ALL OF THE RIGHTS IN A WORLD.

YOU'RE PART OF A NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU'RE PART OF A COMMUNITY, YOU'RE PART OF A TOWN, YOU'RE A PART OF ANY ASSOCIATIONS, AND YOU AFFECT EVERYBODY. AND A LOT OF TIMES WE'RE HERE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WANT YOU TO BE ABLE TO DO EVERYTHING YOU POSSIBLY CAN. BUT THE IMPACT TO THE PEOPLE NEXT DOOR CAN'T BE TO THE POINT WHERE IT CAUSES THEM A LOSS OR THEY LOST SOME OF THEIR FREEDOM, THEIR PROPERTY VALUE, WHATEVER ELSE IT IS. WE HAVE TO BE ENCOURAGING THAT THAT NEIGHBORHOOD ALWAYS MOVES FORWARD.

AND IT'S NOT EASY TO DO, IT'S A TOUGH BALANCE SOMETIMES AND WE

ALWAYS HAVE TO DO THAT. >> AND WE HAVE COMPETING INTEREST AND COMPETING PROPERTY OWNERS BECAUSE SOME PROPERTY OWNERS DON'T WANT TRANSIENTS IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND THEY JUST DON'T WANT IT, THEY THINK IT'S GOING TO CHANGE THE NEIGHBORHOOD. OTHER PEOPLE THINK WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL? AND ALSO THERE'S THE WHOLE ASPECT OF WHEN YOU HAVE SHORT TERM, THE TWO DAY RENTALS THAT'S HOTEL LIKE AND THEN YOU HAVE A LOT OF THINGS THAT GO INTO PLAY THAT YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE RENTING AND THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS TO PUT INTO EFFECT.

SO THERE'S SO MANY COMPETING INTERESTS AND THE LEGISLATURE HASN'T WORKED THIS OUT EITHER. I MEAN RIGHT NOW THEY DEAL WITH THIS EVERY SINGLE LEGISLATIVE SESSION.

EVERY SESSION IS A BATTLE. SO THIS IS A BATTLE ESPECIALLY IN A STATE LIKE FLORIDA WHERE WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE YEAR ROUND AND WE HAVE ORDINARY LIVES AND GO TO WORK EVERY DAY AND DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THEY SHOULD LIVE IN A HOTEL LIKE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THEN WE HAVE OTHER PEOPLE WHO AND I HAVE TO SAY SOME REALTORS ENCOURAGE THEM BUY THIS HOUSE, YOU CAN MAKE AN INVESTMENT, YOU CAN RENT IT OUT, YOU CAN MAKE SOME MONEY AND THEY DON'T COME AND SAY HOW DOES THIS WORK IN THIS CITY.

BECAUSE IN EVERY CITY, 412 CITIES IN FLORIDA, EVERY CITY IT'S DIFFERENT. EVERY CITY IT'S DIFFERENT.

SO IT REQUIRES THEM TO DO A LITTLE HOMEWORK BEFORE THEY BUY PROPERTY IF THAT'S WHAT THEY'VE GOT IN MIND.

AND IT ALSO WOULD BEHOOVE REALTORS TO NOT MISLEAD PEOPLE INTO BUYING PROPERTY TO SAY THIS IS AN INVESTMENT, NO PROBLEM, YOU CAN RENT IT OUT OR PUT IT ON AIRBNB.

AND THEN THEY RUN INTO OUR CONDITIONAL USE WHICH HAPPENS TO BE GRANDFATHERED IN BEFORE THE STATE LEGISLATURE PASSED THE

2011 LEGISLATION. >> WITH REGARD TO STAFF WORKING WITH PETITIONERS, WE ARE TRYING OUR BEST.

WE ALWAYS RECOMMEND APPROVAL. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.

AND IN FACT WE GOT AN ITEM THAT WAS DENIED LAST YEAR APPROVED LAST MONTH. SO WE ARE NOT, I APOLOGIZE IF ANYONE THINKS WE ARE BEING DIFFICULT, BUT WE ARE NOT.

WE'RE TRYING TO STANDARDIZE IT AND MAKE IT AS EASY AS POSSIBLE.

AND WE HAVE A PROCESS IN PLACE THAT WE HAVE TO FOLLOW.

>> YES AND I LOOK FORWARD TO THE PLANNING BOARD BRINGING TO US WHAT THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS ARE BECAUSE WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THIS NOT NECESSARILY EASIER FOR PEOPLE TO BE IN THIS BUSINESS BUT AT LEAST EVERYBODY IS CLEAR ON WHAT'S REQUIRED AND EVERYBODY IS TREATED THE SAME. YES, SIR?

>> A FEW MORE COMMENTS IF I COULD.

THIS PROPERTY IS UNIQUE IN MANY WAYS BECAUSE AS I START TO

[01:40:05]

DIGEST ALL OF THE FEATURES THAT ARE AROUND IT, THERE'S A THREE WAY STOP INTERSECTION ADJACENT TO IT.

AND THE DRIVEWAY AS IT'S CONFIGURED MAY OR MAY NOT BE APPROVED AS IT WERE TO COME IN AS A BRAND NEW DUPLEX OR SINGLE FAMILY HOME THE WAY IT'S CONFIGURED TODAY.

I'M GIVING A HYPOTHETICAL. AND THE REASON I'M SETTING THAT UP IS TO SAY THIS, ITEM NUMBER SIX IF YOU LOOK AT YOUR CONDITIONS TALKS ABOUT THE SIDEWALKS.

THERE WAS COMMENT FROM THE APPLICANT OR THE REPRESENTATIVE ABOUT THE SIDEWALK. THERE IT IS.

SO HERE'S WHY WE TALK ABOUT ALL OF THESE FUNCTIONS.

PROPERTY RIGHTS, I AGREE WITH IT.

I'M A PROPERTY RIGHTS PERSON ACTUALLY.

HOWEVER WHAT I DON'T WANT TO DO IS IT IMPACT THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. BUT IF YOU START LOOKING AT BINNEY DRIVE WHICH WE'RE VERY FAMILIAR WITH.

THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SIDEWALK ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD WHICH THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED IS NOT FEASIBLE BECAUSE OF OVERHEAD UTILITIES, THERE'S OTHER ISSUES, THERE'S EDGE OF PAVEMENT ISSUES.

MAYBE THE RIGHT OF WAY IS TOO SMALL UNLESS WE DEVELOP IT AS A CURB AND GUTTER SYSTEM WHICH MEANS NEW DRAINAGE, NEW INFRASTRUCTURE, NEW SIDEWALKS. AND HERE'S WHERE I'M GOING WITH ALL OF THAT, IF WE HAVE A SIDEWALK ACROSS THE STREET, I'M NOT TRYING TO BE INCONSISTENT HOWEVER DOES IT MAKE SENSE FOR THIS CONDITION IN THE CASE WHERE A SIDEWALK WOULD NEVER BE CONSTRUCTED UNLESS WE REVAMP ALL OF BINNEY DRIVE, WE WOULD HAVE TO REDESIGN, REBUILD JUST LIKE THE CITY STANDARDS CURB AND GUTTER EVERYTHING, CITY STANDARDS.

HERE I BROUGHT UP THE CONNECTION OF THE DRIVEWAY, MAYBE IT'S AN OPTION HERE TO SAY WITH THE AMOUNT OF CONCRETE IF YOU WERE TO BUILD A SIDEWALK WOULD BE COMPARABLE FROM PROPERTY LINE TO PROPERTY LINE WOULD BE COMPARABLE TO A DRIVEWAY PROTECTION THAT WAY WE'RE PROTECTING THE INFRASTRUCTURE, WE'RE CREATING THE SAME PROTECTIVE MEASURES.

IT'S A BENEFIT TO THE PUBLIC OR IT'S NOT A DETRIMENT TO THE PUBLIC, IT'S A BENEFIT TO THE PROPERTY OWNER IN THIS CASE.

AND THAT'S MY IDEA THAT THIS PAYMENT IN LIEU OF, I AGREE WITH ALL OF THAT, HOWEVER WE HAVE INFRASTRUCTURE ON THE STREET NOW AND NOW WE'VE IDENTIFIED OR AT LEAST A SAW THE PICTURE HERE THAT SAYS WOW, WE PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE A DRIVEWAY CONNECTION. THAT'S WHERE I AM.

I'M AT THE POINT OF -- >> DRIVEWAY AND NOT SIDEWALK?

>> I TRULY AM. AND AT THE END OF THE DAY I GUARANTEE YOU IT'S PROBABLY A WASH AS FAR AS CONCRETE COSTS.

AND I CAN TELL YOU NOW THAT MR. CARL ACTION WAS ONE OF MY LONG TIME FRIENDS AND A MENTOR AND HE WOULD PROBABLY SAY THE SAME THING. AND I KNOW THAT YOUNG LADY OUT THERE, THAT WAS A SPECIAL PERSON TO HER.

JUST THINKING OF IT FROM A CONSTRUCTION PERSPECTIVE, THAT'S WHERE I AM. SO THANK YOU.

>> SO WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION?

>> SURE, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH THE FIVE CONDITIONS, WITH SIX CONDITIONS, HOWEVER THE SIXTH CONDITION WILL BE CHANGED FROM A SIDEWALK CONDITION TO THAT THE APPLICANT WILL BE REQUIRED TO CONSTRUCT A DRIVEWAY APRON.

>> MADAME MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS, I HAVE THAT STANDARD LANGUAGE FOR DRIVEWAYS I HAVE USED IN PREVIOUS APPLICATIONS SO I CAN JUST SWITCH THEM OUT SO THERE'S CONSISTENCY.

>> IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND WITH A QUESTION.

QUESTION IS THE DRAINAGE RIGHT THERE IS IT A CULVERT OR IS IT JUST A SWELL AND DOES IT PARK RIGHT THERE? IS THERE A CULVERT UNDERNEATH THERE?

>> NOBODY KNOWS. >> WE'VE BEEN GOING THROUGH AND CHANGING THESE OUT. I'VE BEEN SAYING IF IT IS PLEASE COORDINATE WITH ENGINEERING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT PUTTING AN APRON DOWN AND THEN PUTTING A CULVERT UNDERNEATH IT.

>> I THINK PART OF THE PROCESS IS THEIR DRIVEWAY WHAT THEY CALL INVERT WHICH IS THE LOWEST POINT OF THE DRIVEWAY OR HIGHEST POINT. AND FROM EXPERIENCE I DO KNOW THAT THERE IS AN INLET BOX ACROSS THE STREET OF THAT THREE WAY INTERSECTION THAT USUALLY IT HAS GRASS GROWING IN IT AND IT'S GROWING OVER A LITTLE BIT BUT IT DOES DO ITS JOB.

>> YOU WOULD NOTICE ALL OF THAT STUFF.

ALL RIGHTY, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT. CALL ROLL PLEASE.

>> NO, MA'AM. NO, MA'AM.

>> I HAVE THE RIGHT TO REBUT. >> NO, MA'AM.

>> MADAME MAYOR, WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO ADDRESS MY COMMISSION?

>> YES, PLEASE. >> THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AND NO REQUESTS FOR REBUTTAL OR CLOSING STATEMENT WAS MADE.

[01:45:05]

THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED, YOU THEN ENTERTAINED DISCUSSION, HAVE HAD NOW DISCUSSION AMONGST YOURSELVES.

THERE'S A MOTION ON THE FLOOR WITH A SECOND.

SO SHORT OF THE MOTION MAKER AS WELL AS THE SECOND, YOU'RE RESCINDING THAT AND MOVING BACK INTO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING, I BELIEVE THAT'S ALREADY HAPPENED. THE DUE PROCESS HAS BEEN AFFORDED TO BOTH THE APPLICANTS REPRESENTING AND ACTUALLY THE OWNER AND THAT HAS BEEN WAIVED AT THIS POINT.

>> NO, MA'AM. NO, MA'AM.

PLEASE SIT DOWN. WE'RE GOING TO VOTE RIGHT NOW.

CALL THE ROLL PLEASE. >> ALEXANDER.

>> NO. >> COMMISSIONER JOHNSON.

COMMISSIONER PERONA. >> YES, MA'AM.

>> COMMISSION SESSIONS. >> NO, MA'AM.

>> THANK YOU. SO NOW WE HAVE QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING FOR CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL WITH NO NEW CONSTRUCTION FOR A VACATION RENTAL LOCATED AT 1218 SOUTH 11TH STREET SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT MICHELLE LONGARZO FOR

[d. Quasi-Judicial Hearing for a Conditional Use Approval with no new construction for a Vacation Rental located at 1218 S. 11th Street submitted by the applicant, Michelle Longarzo, for the property owner, Raul Arenas. ]

PROPERTY OWNER RAUL ARENAS. >> SO WE HAVE HEARD THE RULES FOR QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARINGS. HAS THE ADVERTISING BEEN MET?

>> THE ADVERTISING HAS BEEN MET FOR THIS ITEM?

>> IS THERE ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS FROM

COMMISSIONERS? >> COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER HAVE YOU HAD EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS ON 1218 SOUTH 11TH STREET?

>> IS THIS THE PROPERTY THAT CAME UP BEFORE OR --

>> YES, SIR. THIS HAS BEEN, YES.

>> I DON'T RECALL. >> COMMISSIONER JOHNSON.

>> NO, MA'AM. >> COMMISSIONER PERONA.

>> AGAIN GENERAL DISCUSSION WITH MS. LONGARZO ON VACATION RENTALS

AND SHORT TERM RENTALS. >> COMMISSIONER SESSIONS.

>> NO, I DON'T RECALL. >> MAYOR HUDSON.

>> I HAD AN EMAIL THIS AFTERNOON.

SO NOW WE ARE GOING TO SWEAR IN THE WITNESSES.

>> YES. WILL ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM PLEASE STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? THANK YOU.

>> OLD FACES BRING BACK MEMORIES MORE SO THAN MINDS AND MEMORIES.

BUT YES, I HAD CONVERSATIONS. I DON'T RECALL NAMES BUT YEAH.

>> I'LL MAKE THE NOTE. >> MADAME MAYOR, I'M GOING THROUGH AN EMAIL RIGHT NOW AND I SEE AN EMAIL FROM THE PUBLIC.

>> YEAH. >> THANK YOU.

>> PLEASE PROCEED. >> COMMISSION, ITEM BEFORE YOU IS A CONDITIONAL USE WITH NO NEW CONSTRUCTION FOR A VACATION RENTAL. LOCATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS 1218 SOUTH 11TH STREET. THE PROPERTY HAS A FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION OF RESIDENTIAL LOW WITH COMPATIBLE ZONING MAP CLASSIFICATION SINGLE PFAMILY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL OR R1. AGAIN I'M GOING OVER THE SYNOPSIS FOR RECOMMENDATION FOR VACATION RENTALS.

IT'S BASED UPON OUR LEGISLATION IN A WE PASSED IN 2001 THAT ESTABLISHES VACATION RENTALS OR DWELLING RENTALS IN OUR CODE AS CONDITIONAL USES TO CERTAIN ZONING DISTRICTS.

IT CALLS FOR A QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING AND IT REQUIRES STAFF TO REVIEW TO MAKE SURE THERE'S NO CODE ENFORCEMENT OR POLICE DEPARTMENT VIOLATIONS PRIOR TO SCHEDULING THE ITEM FOR PUBLIC HEARING. LEGISLATION PASSED IN FLORIDA IN 2011 WHICH STATES THAT LOCAL LAW ORDINANCE AND REGULATION MAY NOT PROHIBIT VACATION RENTALS OR REGULATE THE LOCATION AND FREQUENCY OF VACATION RENTALS. THE ARENAS VACATION RENTAL, THIS WAS AN ITEM FOR DISCUSSION LAST YEAR.

IT DID GO TO PLANNING BOARD AND CITY COMMISSION, STAFF DID RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS BUT THE CITY COMMISSION DID RECOMMEND DENIAL ON THAT APPLICATION.

IT WAS REQUIRED TO WAIT SIX MONTHS BEFORE A RESUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICATION WHICH THEY HAVE DONE.

CONSIDERATION BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING IS A CONDITIONAL USE WITH A MINIMUM RENTAL PERIOD OF TWO DAYS.

AND STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE FIVE STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THAT I HAVE LISTED HERE.

IF YOU'D LIKE ME TO GO THROUGH THEM I CAN.

>> THOSE ARE THE STANDARDS? >> PLANNING BOARD REVIEWED THIS ITEM ON THEIR JULY 14TH PLANNING BOARD MEETING AND RECOMMENDED UNANIMOUSLY TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL.

THERE WERE NOTICES, 65 NOTIFICATIONS THAT WERE SENT

[01:50:01]

OUT. THERE WERE WHAT CAME BACK WAS ONE IN OPPOSITION. I DIDN'T RECEIVE AN EMAIL TODAY AND I SUBMITTED THE FORM THAT THEY NEEDED TO COMPLETE BY NOON TODAY. I HAD TO GET THAT FROM OUR CITY CLERK. SUBSEQUENT CONVERSATION WITH THE RESIDENT SAID THAT THEY WERE NOT GOING TO BE SUBMITTING ANYTHING AT THIS TIME. BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE NOTE THAT THERE WAS THAT COMMUNICATION.

AND THAT WAS IN OPPOSITION. CITY COMMISSION ACTION IS YOU CAN APPROVE SUBJECT TO THE FIVE CONDITIONS AS PRESENTED, APPROVE WITH CHANGES TO THOSE CONDITIONS, OR DISAPPROVE THE PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE. I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY

QUESTIONS. >> ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? ALL RIGHTY.

I'D LIKE FOR THE APPLICANT TO COME FORWARD, PLEASE.

>> MAYOR, IF I MAY JUST BRIEFLY AS A REMINDER, IF THE APPLICANT HAS ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AT THIS TIME IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE AND THEN STAFF WOULD BE EXCUSED FOLLOWING THAT.

>> DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?

>> CAN YOU REPEAT, I'M JUST GETTING READY.

WHAT DID YOU SAY? I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT HE SAID.

HE MADE A COMMENT. >> THE PROCEDURE IS NORMALLY WHEN THE APPLICANT COMES UP I ASK THE APPLICANT IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AND THEN IF YOU DON'T THEN I ASK THE STAFF TO BE EXCUSED. AND I FAILED TO DO THAT LAST TIME. SO DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF

STAFF? >> FOR WHAT, JENNIFER?

>> YES. >> CAN SHE BE BROUGHT UP AT A

LATER TIME? >> NO, MA'AM.

WHEN SHE LEAVES THE TABLE SHE LEAVES THE TABLE.

>>JUST HOLD ON ONE SECOND. LET ME JUST GET MY BEARINGS.

CAN YOU PLEASE PULL UP THE CONDITIONS.

>> STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.

>> MICHELLE LONGARZO. I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE SAME ISSUE WITH THE VEHICLES ON THIS SITE.

>> SO CAN I ASK -- >> WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE SAME ISSUE WITH THE VEHICLES, THE TWO VEHICLES, THERE'S AN OBJECTION ON THE VEHICLES BECAUSE SAME SITUATION.

>> IF I MAY RESPOND. >> GO AHEAD.

>> SO THIS LIMITATION OF VEHICLES WAS A CONDITION THAT CAME ABOUT LAST YEAR. SOMETHING THAT WAS RECOMMENDED BY PLANNING BOARD AND COMMISSION SUPPORT TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF VEHICLES SO THAT THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME WOULD LOOK SIMILAR TO OTHER HOMES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

IN CONTRAST TO THE OTHER APPLICATION THAT WAS FOR TWO UNITS. SO THEY BOTH WOULD HAVE VACATION RENTAL OCCUPANTS. THIS IS ONE DWELLING RENTAL SO THAT'S WHY WE ARE LIMITING IT TO TWO UNITS ON SITE BECAUSE IT'S A DWELLING RENTAL. BUT IT'S UP TO THE COMMISSION'S PLEASURE WHETHER YOU WANT IT MODIFIED.

>> THAT'S BEEN STANDARD FOR WHAT WE'VE DONE SO FAR.

>> YES. >> IT'S A MULTIFAMILY SO THERE SHOULD BE NO LIMITATION AS FAR AS THE TWO VEHICLES BECAUSE THERE COULD BE MULTIPLE FAMILIES COMING WITH REGARDS TO THIS VACATION RENTAL. SO YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO

LIMIT TO TWO VEHICLES -- >> IF SHE HAS QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESS THIS WOULD BE THE TIME FOR STAFF TO HAVE A QUESTION IF SHE'S STARTING HER PRESENTATION THEN IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO

EXCUSE STAFF. >> I THINK --

>> THERE'S TWO VEHICLES. WHAT'S THE ORDINANCE NUMBER?

>> THERE IS NO ORDINANCE NUMBER, THAT WAS A CONDITION AS THIS IS A CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL. SO CITY COMMISSION CAN IMPOSE CONDITIONS IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE

OF THE COMMUNITY. >> AND WHAT IS --

>> I GUESS THE ORDINANCE NUMBER WOULD BE YOUR CONDITIONAL USE

[01:55:01]

SECTION. >> YES, SIR, MR. COMMISSIONER?

>> I THINK IT'S FOUR. >> I DON'T KNOW.

>> I HAVE TO LOOK AT THE PLAN. >> COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER, IT'S EITHER 2 OR 4. WE'RE CHECKING.

>> WELL MY QUESTION IS, I'VE BEEN IN VACATION RENTAL HOUSES IN EVERY CITY AND LIKE MICHELLE SAID IF YOU GOT FAMILY MEMBERS COMING FROM JACKSONVILLE AND TAMPA AND MIAMI, HOW CAN YOU EXPECT THEM TO TRAVEL IN TWO CARS.

IF THIS IS A FOUR BEDROOM HOUSE, WHY WOULDN'T WE --

>> IT'S TWO. IT'S TWO BEDROOM.

>> IT'S MORE THAN TWO. >> ACCORDING TO THE PROPERTY APPRAISER IT IS A TWO BEDROOM TWO BATH WITH APPROXIMATELY 1883

GROSS SQUARE FEET. >> ALL RIGHT.

THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION. >> OKAY.

>> IT'S MORE THAN TWO. HANG ON.

DO YOU HAVE THE FLOOR PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED?

>> ACCORDING TO THE PROPERTY APPRAISER IT'S TWO BEDROOM.

BUT THE APPLICANT IS QUESTIONING THAT.

>> THERE'S THREE. >> SO WE DON'T HAVE ANYBODY THERE FROM THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT? OKAY. WELL IF IT'S ONLY TWO BEDROOMS THEN I CAN SEE THAT. BUT I DO QUESTION THAT FOR THE FUTURE REFERENCES. IF IT'S A FIVE BEDROOM HOME HOW WOULD YOU EXPECT THERE TO BE TWO VEHICLES VISIBLE.

I JUST PUT THAT IN WITH STAFF TO BE CONSIDERATE ABOUT.

>> MADAME MAYOR. >> YES, SIR.

>> I DON'T WANT TO BREAK PROTOCOL SO I DON'T KNOW IF I'M LOOKING A THE -- AT THE UT - PROPERTY APPRAISER'S PIECE OF PAPER AND IT'S THREE BEDROOM, TWO BATH.

>> THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT, THREE. >> SO I DON'T KNOW IF STAFF IS FINISHED NOW. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE --

>> CORRECT ME BUT ARE WE GOING TO LIMIT FAMILY MEMBERS MOVING IN FROM DIFFERENT CITIES TO OUR CITY LIVING UNDER ONE ROOF? MAYBE THAT'S A QUESTION FOR THE LEGAL.

>> MAYBE WE COUD HAVE THAT DISCUSSION AFTER THE APPLICANT FINISHES HER PRESENTATION, COMMISSIONER, IF THAT'S ALL

RIGHT WITH YOU. >> ISN'T THIS ON HER QUESTION OF

THE TWO VEHICLES? >> YES.

>> KEEP SCROLLING DOWN. >> THIS WAY.

>> KEEP GOING. >> BACK UP.

IT'S RIGHT THERE. >> SORRY.

COMING UP, COMING UP. KEEP GOING.

THERE. >> THERE.

>> THERE'S FOUR BEDROOM IN THAT ONE.

IT'S GROWING. WENT FROM 2 TO 4.

>> SO IT'S A FOUR BEDROOM FOR FOUR DIFFERENT FAMILIES TO COME VISIT UNDER ONE ROOF. I'M JUST ASKING --

>> IT'S A GOOD QUESTION. IT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

WE'RE STILL KIND OF SCROLLING HERE AND LOOKING AT THE, ALL RIGHT, SO HAVE WE ASCERTAINED IT'S FOUR BEDROOM IS THAT WE'VE

-- >> THAT'S WHAT WAS SUBMITTED BY

THE CLIENT. >> MADAME MAYOR.

>> YES, SIR. >> SO THIS SAYS THREE BEDROOM TWO BATH WHICH IS CERTIFIED BY A PROPERTY APPRAISER.

NOW WE HAVE A DOCUMENTATION THAT SAYS FOUR BEDROOM.

I DON'T KNOW IF THESE BEDROOMS HAVE CLOSETS THAT'S FOUR BEDROOM, IF IT DOESN'T HAVE A CLOSET IT'S NOT A BEDROOM.

>> IT'S NOT A BEDROOM. >> THAT DOES LOOK LIKE THERE WOULD BE SOME MODIFICATION TO THE FLOOR PLAN.

>> OKAY. SO THE OTHER QUESTION I'LL HAVE, WHAT IS THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CONCERN WITH REGARDS TO THE DRIVEWAY AND MORE THAN TWO CARS, WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE?

>> WITH REGARD TO THIS ITEM? >> YOU SAID THERE WAS A HEALTH AND SAFETY WELFARE ISSUE TO HAVE MORE THAN TWO CARS IN THE DRIVEWAY, SO WHAT'S THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU HAVE WITH REGARDS TO

[02:00:03]

THAT, WHAT IS THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CONCERN AND WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE, THE PROOF THAT THAT IS SUCH THAT MORE THAN TWO CARS IS

HEALTH AND -- >> MADAME MAYOR AND COMMISSIONERS, I WILL REPEAT THIS IS A STANDARD CONDITION OF APPROVAL IMPOSED BY THE PLANNING BOARD AND SUPPORTED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OVER A YEAR AGO. IF IT IS THE COMMISSION'S PLEASURE TO MODIFY THIS CONDITION, THEN WE MODIFY IT.

THAT IS WHY WE ARE IN THIS CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS AND THAT IS NUMBER TWO ON THE LIST OF ACTIONS THE CITY COMMISSION CAN TAKE. YOU CAN EITHER APPROVE IT AS CONDITIONS STATED OR APPROVE IT WITH CHANGES TO THE CONDITIONS.

IF THIS IS ANOTHER ITEM THAT WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT WITH REGARD TO STANDARDIZED CONDITIONS FOR VACATION RENTALS, I THINK WE SHOULD. BECAUSE IT'S BEEN NOW TWO TIMES THAT WE'VE LOOKED AT THIS. AND BECAUSE STAFF HAS NOW BEEN DIRECTED TO BASE THE PARKING ON THE NUMBER OF BEDROOMS SO THAT WASN'T SOMETHING WE LOOKED AT, PLANNING IS NOT LOOKING AT THAT.

IT'S A STANDARD COMMISSION THAT THE COMMISSION IMPOSED WAS TOLD TO ME SO THAT THERE WERE NOT A NUMBER OF CARS PARKED AT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON A DAILY BASIS.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR

JENNIFER? >> NO THAT'S GOOD.

ONE OTHER QUESTION, WHAT IS THE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE WITH REGARDS TO HEALTH AND SAFETY WELFARE.

DO YOU HAVE ANY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE?

>> AS I JUST SAID IT'S COMPATIBILITY WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO PROTECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THAT'S WHY THE COMMISSION IMPOSED THAT CONDITION.

>> BUT DO YOU HAVE EVIDENCE RIGHT NOW WITH AN ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT OR SOME ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY THAT SAYS THAT IN FACT THAT IT'S A SAFETY OR HEALTH ISSUE TO THE COMMUNITY, DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE, HARD EVIDENCE BESIDES YOUR VERBAL?

>> I THINK IT'S MORE OF A MATTER OF COMPATIBILITY AND APPEARANCE WHEN IT COMES TO A NEIGHBORHOOD, SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD AND HAVING ALL ABUNDANCE OF CARS, I BELIEVE THAT WAS THE COMMISSION'S PLEASURE TO PROPOSE THAT RESTRICTION.

>> IT WAS THE COMMISSION WHO DID THAT NOT --

>> I'M ASKING IF THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THIS THAT -- SO IS THAT A YES OR NO --

>> THAT IS WHAT I JUST SAID, MS. LONGARZO.

>> YES OR NO IS THERE -- >> MS. LONGARZO SHE'S ANSWERED

THE QUESTION. >> I SAID YES OR NO.

>> THERE IS NO REASON TO ASK HER THAT QUESTION.

>> MADAME MAYOR, YOU ARE CORRECT.

MS. LONGARZO IS NOT ENTITLED TO HAVE A DEFINITIVE RULING ON COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. SHE'S ALLOWED TO ASK A QUESTION,

SHE RECEIVED AN ANSWER. >> THANK YOU.

NOW WE'LL HEAR YOUR PRESENTATION.

>> YEAH, I CAN'T WHEEL THIS UP OR DOWN, RIGHT? THIS THAT'S ON HERE? JUST PUT IT ON THE ORIGINAL, PLEASE. ON THE ORIGINAL PRESENTATION.

>> THE POWERPOINT PRESENTATION? >> JUST THE ORIGINAL LIKE THE

CONDITIONS, PLEASE. >> THANK YOU, MA'AM.

>> AGAIN I'M GOING TO STATE ON THE RECORD SINCE MR. PETER SWEENY SAYS YOU GUYS ARE REQUIRED TO AND YOU DIDN'T IN THE LAST APPLICATION ASK WHETHER OR NOT THE CLIENT WAS RAISING QUASI-JUDICIAL I AM NOT NOR HAVE I EVER IN ANY HEARING ON BEHALF OF A CLIENT. SO I AM GOING TO RESERVE REBUTTAL FOR THE COMMENTS OF THE COMMISSIONERS.

I AGAIN AM GOING TO REITERATE THE LEVEL OF AGGRAVATION FOR THESE CLIENTS. MR. ARENAS IS NOT HERE, HE'S NOT PRESENT, HE'S OUT OF THE COUNTRY.

AND I CAN SPEAK ON BEHALF OF MR. ARENAS, I PROBABLY HAVE 55 PHONE CALLS OVER THE PROCESS OF HIS APPLICATION WITH HIS ANXIETY, HIS CONCERNS WITH REGARDS TO WHETHER OR NOT HE'S GOING TO GET APPROVAL JUST LIKE MS. FRANCE.

COULDN'T DO IT BY HIMSELF, THE SITUATION IS VERY DIFFICULT.

YOU GUYS MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE AVERAGE PERSON TO FEEL LIKE THEY HAVE THE CONFIDENCE TO GET THROUGH THIS PROCESS.

AGAIN IT'S COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE.

SO WITH REGARDS TO PROPERTY MANAGEMENT FOR THE DWELLING RENTAL HE HAS THAT UNDER CONTROL, HE WILL BE HAVING ME LOOK OVER THE PROPERTY. I LIVE IN ST. LUCIE COUNTY AS YOU ALL KNOW THE GUIDE BOOKLETS HE HAS.

[02:05:01]

THE APPLICANT IS IN THE PROCESS OF GETTING HIS SALES TAX AND ALL OF THE OTHER ITEMS IN NUMBER THREE.

AS YOU ARE AWARE I OBJECT TO THE SITUATION WITH THE VEHICLES.

HERE'S MY EXPLANATION ON THIS. I OWN CONDOS SO I UNDERSTAND IT.

IF YOU'VE GOT A ONE BEDROOM CONDO, MAYBE IT MIGHT BE ONE, OCCASIONALLY IT'S GOING TO BE TWO CARS, THEY PARK IN THE GUEST SPACE. WHEN YOU GET THESE HOUSE RENTALS WHICH I DO NOT OWN A HOUSE RENTAL, I CAN'T SAY FOR MY OWN PERSONAL BUT I KNOW OTHER PEOPLE THAT HAVE THEM, YOU GET PEOPLE THAT ARE LIKE A BROTHER, A SISTER, AND COUSINS AND THEY COME AND THEY SHARE A RESIDENCE THEY SHARE THE COST SO THEY CAN COME AND HAVE A FAMILY GATHERING.

AND WHEN THEY'RE GOING TO AGAIN SUPPORT THE TOURISM IN THE AREA.

I SHUDDER TO THINK THAT THE COMMISSION AND THE PLANNING BOARD HAS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION HOW MUCH EVERY SINGLE APPLICANT HAS BROUGHT TO THE TABLE FOR FORT PIERCE SO THAT YOU CAN DO THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT YOU WANT TO DO ON BINNEY OR WHEREVER YOU WANT TO DO IT, THE PARKS, ET CETERA.

YOU KNOW. MR. ARENAS ALSO OBJECTED TO ME ABOUT HAVING TO PAY FOR ALL OF THESE LETTERS.

AGAIN THERE'S A LETTER HE EMAILED ME WITH REGARDS TO HIS NEIGHBOR SENT IN AN APPLICATION A LETTER STATING THAT HE WAS IN FAVOR AND IT WASN'T ON THERE. SO I DON'T KNOW WHO'S COUNTING THESE LETTERS BUT YOU KNOW IT'S NOT BEING DONE ACCURATELY.

AND THE LETTERS ARE IRRELEVANT TO WHAT THE PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE.

SO AGAIN I DON'T KNOW WHY THAT'S GOING ON.

HE AGREES TO DO THE BUSINESS TAX LICENSE ON ALL OF THE MARKETING WITH REGARDS TO ONCE HE GETS APPROVAL.

SO I'M GOING TO IN ADDITION FOR THE PRESENTATION I'M GOING TO REMIND YOU THAT AS YOU INDICATED BEFORE WITH REGARDS TO GRANDFATHERING IN THE 2012 ORDINANCE, THAT IS NOT ACCURATE.

AS YOU'RE WELL AWARE TED HOLLANDER SUED THE CITY AND WON.

AND YOU ARE VERY FAMILIAR, ALL OF YOU, WHETHER YOU ADMIT IT OR NOT, THAT YOU GUYS FAILED WHEN YOU TRANSFERRED INFORMATION OVER BY REBECCA AND THAT FAILURE HAS THEN SUBSEQUENTLY MADE YOU GUYS LOSE HOME RULE. I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU GUYS FEEL LIKE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO PUT THESE ORDINANCES.

HALE V.HINKLER CLEARLY STATES THAT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS S SUPERCEDE ANY ORDINANCE. I'M GOING TO READ IT ON THE RECORD. I'D ALSO LIKE THEM TO ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT AS PREVIOUSLY INDICATED BEFORE I READ HALE V.

HINKLE THE 30 DAYS PERMITS ARE TREATED DIFFERENTLY.

YOU HAVE MY CLIENTS PAYING $1,000 FOR THESE FEES.

BUT YOU HAVE THESE MINIMAL FEES FOR PEOPLE WHO PULL THESE PERMITS FOR 30 DAYS. EVEN SO MUCH AS THE TAXES THAT THEY PAY IS SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER.

THIS IS UNFAIR. IT'S AN UNFAIR PROCESS.

YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING RULE OF LAW.

IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE EQUIVALENT. EVERYBODY HAS THE RIGHT TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THE SAME ACCESS AND THAT'S NOT HAPPENING HERE.

IT'S VERY SAD. THE CITY IS SETTING THEMSELVES UP FOR A LAWSUIT WITH REGARDS TO ALL OF THIS ERRONEOUS BEHAVIOR INCLUDING THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IS VERY DISORGANIZED.

>> WOULD YOU READ WHAT YOU NEED TO DO BECAUSE WE NEED TO MOVE ON

HERE. >> I HAVE THE RIGHT TO REPRESENT MY CLIENT, THANK YOU. JUST GIVE ME ONE SECOND.

I WOULD LIKE YOU GUYS TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE BINDING INTERPRETATION 179 AND ALSO THE INFORMAL INTERPRETATION 8079 AS WELL. HALE V.HINKLER STATES THAT WHEN THE UNITED STATES WAS INCORPORATED IT STATES THAT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS SUPERCEDE ALL ORDINANCES THEREFORE MY

[02:10:04]

CLIENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO PROPERTY RIGHTS SUPERCEDES THESE THINGS THAT YOU GUYS ARE STATING.

AND IT'S REALLY UNFORTUNATE THAT YOU GUYS ARE NOT ON THE SAME PAGE AFTER ALL OF THESE SHORT TERM RENTALS THAT I'VE COME UP AND TRIED TO PROTECT THESE RESIDENTS, YOU CONTINUE TO WORRY ABOUT REAL ESTATE PEOPLE PUTTING UP WHETHER OR NOT OTHER PEOPLE WANT WHAT'S GOING ON AROUND THEM.

IT'S NOT RELEVANT. IF YOU PURCHASE A PROPERTY AND YOU ARE LAWFULLY USING IT, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOUR NEIGHBOR THINKS. SO THAT'S THE ISSUE HERE.

AND AISLE GOING TO RESERVE MY RIGHT TO REBUT COMMENTS.

>> YOU ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO REBUT IN THE PUBLIC HEARING, BUT YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO REBUT ANYTHING THAT'S IN THE DISCUSSION AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING JUST SO YOU UNDERSTAND.

>> SO DO YOU GUYS HAVE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS?

>> QUESTIONS? ANY QUESTIONS?

>> A COUPLE QUESTIONS. YOU WERE WORRIED ABOUT THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE. YOU HAD A QUESTION ABOUT IT.

SO WE HAVE A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE THAT HAS THE POTENTIAL

FOR TRANSIENT TRAFFIC, RIGHT? >> YES.

>> DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE MILES PER GALLON OF EVERY VEHICLE THAT'S COMING THERE IS SINCE YOU ARE WORRIED ABOUT THE TWO VEHICLES VERSUS FOUR VEHICLES. I'M TALKING ABOUT THE HEALTH

SAFETY AND WELFARE. >> WHAT ARE YOU REFERRING?

>> FUEL EFFICIENT VEHICLES. DO YOU KNOW HOW LONG THEY'RE GOING TO RUN WHEN THEY'RE SITTING IN THE DRIVEWAY?

>> DO YOU? >> I DON'T.

I'M ASKING YOU A QUESTION. >> OF COURSE NOT.

>> DO THEY LEAK OIL? >> I DON'T KNOW, DOES YOURS?

>> HERE'S MY POINT. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THIS STUFF --

>> DOES THE NEIGHBORS LEAK OIL? >> I DON'T KNOW AND HERE'S WHY I'M TALKING ABOUT IT. THEY'RE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

SO WHEN WE HAVE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, HOTELS AND MOTELS, TRANSIENT TYPE ACTIVITIES, WE HAVE STORMWATER RETAINING FACILITIES ON SITE THAT'S SUPPOSED TO HOLD THE WATER FOR A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF PERIOD BEFORE IT'S RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC SYSTEM. IN A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WE DON'T HAVE THAT. SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TRANSIENT ACTIVITY AND WE'RE POSSIBLY CREATING A CONDITION THAT MAY OR MAY NOT AFFECT THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE

SURROUNDING PUBLIC. >> RIGHT.

>> WOULD YOU AGREE? >> NO.

>> IS THERE POTENTIAL? >> I DON'T KNOW.

DID YOU DO A REPORT? DO YOU HAVE AN ENGINEER REPORT?

>> I'M NOT THE APPLICANT, I'M ASKING YOU.

>> NO. >> ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH

COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION? >> YES.

>> AND YOU'RE OBVIOUSLY FAMILIAR WITH SHORT TERM RENTAL?

>> YES, I AM. >> THAT'S ALL I HAVE, THANK YOU.

>> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. ANYTHING ELSE FOR YOUR PRESENTATION BEFORE I CALL THE REST OF THE PUBLIC UP?

>> I GUESS I'LL BE SPEAKING AS A RESIDENT SINCE YOU'RE LEAVING IT

UP FOR PUBLIC, CORRECT? >> YOU'LL HAVE THE CHANCE TO REBUT AFTER ALL OF THE PUBLIC SPEAKS.

>> OKAY. >> ALL RIGHT.

ANYBODY ELSE WHO WANTS TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE SIGN IN AND

-- >> MAYOR IF I MAY GO AHEAD AND GO FIRST AND READ THE ONE THAT WAS SUBMITTED IN WRITING.

>> YEAH. >> SO WE RECEIVED THE SWORN STATEMENT FROM MICHAEL AND PAMELA CULLEY.

AND THEIR COMMENTS ARE AS FOLLOWS.

WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE AIRBNB RENTAL AT 1218 SOUTH 11TH STREET. THIS OWNER HAS PREVIOUSLY BROUGHT THIS BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND IS USING THE PANDEMIC AND HURRICANE SEASON TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE LACK OF RESPONSE FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN OPPOSITION.

THE COMMISSION VOTED NO THE FIRST TIME AND WE FEEL THAT IT SHOULD BE THE RESULT AT THIS TIME AS WELL.

HIBISCUS PARK NEIGHBORHOOD IS FAMILY ORIENTED AND WE BELIEVE THAT A SHORT TERM RENTAL IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING NATURE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND POSES A SAFETY THREAT TO BOTH RESIDENTS AND CHILDREN PASSING THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOODS TO SCHOOL. WE STRONGLY OPPOSE A NO VOTE BY THE COMMISSION AGAIN. AND THEY DID AFFIRM UNDER OATH

THAT THEIR STATEMENT WAS TRUE. >> YOU HAD THE ONE?

>> YES. >> DID YOU SIGN IN FOR ME, SIR?

>> DO I GOT TO TOUCH IT? >> THERE'S SANITIZING WIPES RIGHT THERE, MIKE. ARE YOU SWORN IN?

>> YES. >> AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, SIR, PLEASE.

>> 1211 SOUTH 11TH STREET. ABUTTING NEIGHBOR, ALMOST, TWO DOORS DOWN ACROSS THE STREET. TO GET INTO THE PARKING THING FIRST. IS THERE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THERE COULD BE MORE THAN TWO CARS IN THE GARAGE OR I MEAN IN THE DRIVEWAY BECAUSE IF I PARKED MY TWO VEHICLES THERE, MY

[02:15:02]

BUMPER WOULD BE STICKING OUT ON THE ONE SIDE.

SO THAT COULD BE A HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE ISSUE FOR VEHICLES DRIVING THERE. BUT BESIDES THAT, IN FEBRUARY 2018 WE CAME AS HIBISCUS PARK, I WAS PRESIDENT AT THE TIME. A BUNCH OF NEIGHBORS ALSO CAME TO SHARE THEIR CONCERNS WHICH NOW THEY CAN'T BECAUSE THEY'RE A LOT OLDER AND THEY DON'T WANT TO CHANCE RISKING THEIR HEALTH.

>> EXCUSE ME I'M GOING TO STOP YOU JUST ONE SECOND.

ARE WE TIMING THREE MINUTES, I JUST WANTED TO WARN YOU THAT YOU HAD THREE MINUTES. ALL RIGHT.

>> THERE'S FOUR IDENTIFYING THINGS THAT THE ATTORNEY MENTIONED, CLOSE PROXIMITY BETWEEN THE PROPERTY AND THE SCHOOL AND THE PROBLEMS THAT MIGHT SPRING THERE FROM, LACK OF CONDUCTIVITY TO WEATHER ATTRACTIONS DUE TO LACK OF SIDEWALK. TESTIMONY ABOUT THE ISSUE OF SPEEDING IN THE AREA WHICH THE POLICE HAVE, AND YOU GUYS KNOW BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN UP IN FRONT OF YOU GUYS SEVERAL TIMES ABOUT THAT. NOW THEN I LOOK AT THE STAFF REPORT, SORRY, NOT STAFF REPORT, TRC COMMENTS.

CHANGE OF USE MAY BE REQUIRED IF CONVERTING TO TRANSIENT USE RENTALS WHICH MAY TRIGGER THE REQUIREMENTS FOR FLORIDA ACCESSIBILITY AND OTHER LIFE SAFETY ISSUES.

AND THAT IS PART OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE.

AND AS YOU ALL KNOW I'M PRETTY FAMILIAR WITH THAT.

AND ALSO THE REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIALLY FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS.

NOW ANY HOTELS, MOTELS, OR TRANSIENT LODGING WE'VE DONE HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO BE SPRINKLED AND MEET CERTAIN ADA REQUIREMENTS. AND THERE'S OTHER ISSUES THAT I HAVE. THE DRAWING SHOWS FOUR BEDROOMS, THREE BATHS, ONES A FOUR BY FOUR BATHROOM.

NOT A LEGAL SIZED BATHROOM. IT ALSO SHOWS SMOKE DETECTERS EVERYWHERE IN THE HOUSE, THAT'S NOT ALLOWED BY CODE.

IF THEY'RE INTERCONNECTED THEY WERE DONE WITHOUT A PERMIT BECAUSE YOU CANNOT PUT A SMOKE DETECTOR WITHIN THREE FEET OF A

BATHROOM. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ANYBODY ELSE WANT TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE, PLEASE COME FORWARD.

>> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, CITY COMMISSIONERS, AND EVERYBODY ELSE. MY NAME IS LUKA BRADLEY.

I RESIDE AT 1102 SOUTH 11TH STREET.

YES, I WAS SWORN IN. THANK YOU.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND DUE TO TIME I'LL BE AS QUICK AS POSSIBLE.

SOME OF THE ARGUMENTS BEING MADE AS FAR AS THE CONSTITUTION OF PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AS LONG AS IT'S LEGAL THAT'S BEING STATED, THAT'S FINE. BUT IF I WANTED TO MOVE INTO HIBISCUS PARK AND BUILD A RECYCLING PLANT, I GUESS THERE'S NOTHING STOPPING ME FROM DOING THAT.

IF I WANTED TO LIVE NEXT TO A MOTEL, I WOULD HAVE BOUGHT A PROPERTY NEXT TO A MOTEL. THIS IS A SINGLE FAMILY WELL ESTABLISHED COMMUNITY. THIS IS ALSO CITY RESIDENTIAL AREA AND IF IT WAS ALLOWED FOR COMMERCIAL USE IT WOULD HAVE TO BE LIMITED, LIMITED COMMERCIAL USE NOT ONLY THAT, INTENDED TO SERVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR THE COMMUNITY ITSELF.

THIS IN NO WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM SERVES OUR COMMUNITY.

HIBISCUS PARK IS BEING REVIVED IF YOU HAVE DRIVEN THROUGH IT LATELY, EVERYBODY HAS BEEN POURING TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS INTO THESE PROPERTIES AS WE ARE IMPROVING THESE MID CENTURY HOMES. THE LOCATION OF THIS PROPERTY DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM ST. LUCIE ELEMENTARY ON 13TH STREET AND WE ALSO HAVE THE CREATIVE ARTS ACADEMY ON DELAWARE.

HUNDREDS OF STUDENTS WALK AND UP DOWN THE STREET.

SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PARKING AND THE ISSUES OF THE VEHICLES, THESE PEOPLE THAT MAY COME TO THIS PROPERTY THEY'RE NOT GOING TO KNOW WHAT TIME THE SCHOOLS ARE IN OR OUT.

THERE'S HUNDREDS OF KIDS THAT WALK UP AND DOWN THE STREET.

AND YOU KNOW AS AN EDUCATOR THAT'S VERY DEAR TO ME AS I HAVE SPOKEN ABOUT BEFORE. CODE ISSUES, YOU SAW THE PICTURE ON THE SLIDE. IF YOU WERE TO DRIVE THROUGH THIS PROPERTY TODAY, YOU COULDN'T BELIEVE THEY'RE ACTUALLY TRYING TO PUT IT UP FOR RENT.

[02:20:02]

THE GRASS IS OVERGROWN, THE VEGETATION IS GOING UP AGAINST THE PROPERTY. IT IS A VERY SMALL DRIVEWAY AS MR. MENARD INDICATED WHICH YOU COULDN'T PARK MORE THAN TWO VEHICLES IN. PREVIOUSLY IT WAS DICTATED THAT THE PARKING OF THE VEHICLES WAS AN ISSUE, IT WAS INADEQUATE MANAGEMENT AT THE TIME JUST LIKE MR. ARENAS WAS NOT IN THE COUNTRY LAST TIME JUST LIKE AGAIN.

THIS IS A SINGLE FAMILY ZONE AND THE STUDENT SAFETY, THAT IS A HUGE CONCERN FOR PEOPLE TO BE COMING IN AND OUT OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IN AN AREA THAT HAS NOTHING TO OFFER FOR THAT.

YOU'RE TWO AND A HALF MILES FROM THE NEAREST RESTAURANT AND THAT YOU LIVE RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM A SCHOOL WHICH HAS OPEN BASKETBALL, TENNIS COURTS, AND A TRACK THAT WE ALL GO AND USE.

THERE'S NO SIDEWALKS ON 11TH STREET.

WHO'S GOING TO PAY ATTENTION TO ALL OF THIS, NOT THE PEOPLE COMING IN. IT'S A SEVERE SAFETY HAZARD.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >> THANK YOU, SIR.

ANYONE ELSE LOOKING TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE, PLEASE COME FORWARD.

ANYONE ELSE? >> GOOD EVENING, MADAME MAYOR,

COMMISSIONERS. >> GOOD EVENING.

>> BOTH HAVE COVERED SO MANY POINTS THAT I TOO HAVE BEEN THINKING ABOUT SO GREATLY HERE. I REALLY WANT TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THE FABRIC AND THE CHARACTER OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

WE HAVE TRULY SEEN SUCH GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT, INVESTMENT IN OUR PROPERTIES. IF YOU DRIVE DOWN 11TH STREET ALONE IN THE LAST MONTH I BELIEVE THERE'S BEEN FOUR HOUSES THAT HAVE BEEN PAINTED. WE'VE HAD NEW AIR-CONDITIONING UNITS INSTALLED AT OUR NEIGHBORS.

PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN HIBISCUS PARK ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE CHARACTER AND THE FABRIC OF HAVING A LIVABLE COMMUNITY, A COMMUNITY WHERE WE ARE ACTUALLY NEIGHBORS.

I'M NOT OPPOSED TO SHORT TERM RENTALS.

I THINK THAT SHORT TERM RENTALS ARE WONDERFUL.

I'M A USER OF SHORT TERM RENTALS, I'VE USED THEM IN OTHER CITIES BUT I'VE ALWAYS CAREFULLY SELECTED THEM TO HAVE A USE WHERE THERE IS AMENABLE ACTIVITY FOR ME.

OR ELSE I'M JUST IN A CAR DRIVING AROUND, DRIVING AROUND, DRIVING AROUND. THESE CARS DRIVING AROUND IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD DOES CONCERN ME. THE DRIVEWAY LOCATION AS THEY BOTH HAVE INDICATED IS VERY SHORT.

BUT IT IS VERY, VERY CLOSE TO THE PROXIMITY OF MISSISSIPPI AND 11TH STREET WHICH IS QUITE A BUSY INTERSECTION.

IT'S A THREE WAY STOP. THE DRIVEWAY IS LOCATED VERY CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE TO THE NEIGHBORS.

SO IF CARS, MORE THAN TWO WILL BE VISITING THIS HOUSE, THEY WILL BE PARKING ON THE STREET INHIBITING THE NORTHBOUND TRAFFIC ON 11TH STREET AS THEY'RE CROSSING THROUGH MISSISSIPPI. THAT TO ME IS A GRAVE CONCERN FOR THE HUNDREDS OF STUDENTS THAT WE WATCH WALK DOWN OUR STREET DAILY. KIDS THAT PLAY BASKETBALL IN THE STREET, KIDS THAT PLAY SOCCER IN THE STREET.

MY CONCERN IS ENSURING THAT WE MAINTAIN A FABRIC AND A COMMUNITY WITH CHARACTER THAT SUPPORTS FAMILIES, THAT SUPPORTS LONG TERM INVESTMENT, THAT SUPPORTS SOMETHING THAT WE'RE TRYING TO RECREATE AS A REVIVED COMMUNITY.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION? ANYONE ELSE? SEEING NONE, I WILL ASK THE APPLICANT TO COME BACK UP FOR THREE MINUTES.

>> OKAY. I HEAR THE CONCERNS HOWEVER MR. ARENAS HAS THE RIGHT, I'M GOING TO REMIND THE COMMISSION THAT THE PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, THE RIGHT TO USE AND ENJOY YOUR PROPERTY, THE RIGHT TO EXCLUDE OTHERS FROM YOUR PROPERTY, THE RIGHT TO DISPOSE OF YOUR PROPERTY, THE RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS, THE RIGHT TO JUST COMPENSATION FOR THE PROPERTY TAKEN FOR PUBLIC PURPOSE, THE RIGHT FOR RELIEF OR PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION WHEN LAW, REGULATION, OR ORDINANCE OF THE STATE OR POLITICAL ENTITY UNFAIRLY AFFECTS THE PROPERTY.

MR. ARENAS HAS THE RIGHT TO RENT THIS PROPERTY.

[02:25:01]

MR. ARENAS HAS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT THAT HAS A HISTORY OF HAVING NO ISSUES WHICH IS CURRENT.

SO WHATEVER HAS HAPPENED IN THE PAST IF THESE PEOPLE THAT HAVE CONCERNS, THEY CAN CERTAINLY CONTACT THE NEW PROPERTY MANAGEMENT THAT WILL BE TAKING OVER THE PROPERTY.

AGAIN I REITERATE HALE V. HINKLE, HALE V. HINKLE STATES THAT UNDER 201US43 THEY MUST ABIDE BY ANY OTHER RULES OF ANY OTHER CORPORATION OF THE SUPREME COURT RULES, CODES, STATUTES, ORDINANCES, POLICIES, EXECUTIVE ORDERS ARE NOT LAW, THEY ARE CORPORATE BYLAWS. INSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS THAT ARE BEING VIOLATED BY THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE AND EMPLOYEES CANNOT BE TOLERATED. THIS MAN HAS PROPERTY RIGHTS AND HE HAS THE RIGHT TO DO WHAT HE WANTS, HE HAS THE RIGHT TO EARN INCOME. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT IS SUBSTANTIAL THAT CAN STATE THAT THERE IS A VIABLE DETRIMENT TO THE COMMUNITY, THE CHILDREN. SCHOOL IS NOT EVEN IN RIGHT NOW, EVERYONE IS HOMESCHOOLING IN COVID.

I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE CHILDREN THERE.

BUT WHEN THESE PEOPLE RENT FROM THESE VACATION RENTALS, THEY'RE GIVEN RULES, POLICIES, REGULATIONS, THEY SIGN SHORT TERM RENTAL CONTRACTS. THEY ARE VRBO AND AIRBNB DO BACKGROUND CHECKS WHEN YOU DO YOUR CLIENTS.

SO I MEAN I UNDERSTAND THAT THEY HAVE CONCERNS BUT THEIR CONCERNS DO NOT SUPERCEDE THE RIGHTS THAT MR. ARENAS HAS FOR THIS PROPERTY. IF THERE'S A CODE VIOLATION AND THEY DON'T LIKE THE WAY THAT THE LANDSCAPING IS AND THERE'S AN ACTUAL CODE VIOLATION THEN I ENCOURAGE THEM TO CALL IT IN, OKAY? IF MR. ARENAS IS SMISSING SOMETHING OR THE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT IS MISSING SOMETHING, I ENCOURAGE THEM TO CONTACT THE PROPERTY MANAGER AND SAY THIS IS AN ISSUE. BUT JUST BECAUSE THEY DO NOT FEEL LIKE THAT THIS IS OKAY IN THEIR COMMUNITY IS NOT A REASON TO DENY THIS PETITION. SO THAT'S, THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, MA'AM. SO I'M CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND I ENTERTAIN DISCUSSION.

BUT I WILL SAY THIS, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I DO ON A REGULAR BASIS IS I GO TO DAN MCCARTY SCHOOL BECAUSE THEY INVITED ME AND THE MIDDLE SCHOOL, SEVENTH GRADE THEY HAVE CIVICS AND WHEN THEY STUDY CIVICS THEY STUDY THE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT.

SO THEY WANT TO HEAR WHAT MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT DOES.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THEY DO EACH YEAR IS THEY HAVE AN ISSUE THAT THEY'RE CONCERNED ABOUT.

AND LAST YEAR THEIR ISSUE WAS WALKING DOWN 11TH STREET WITH NO SIDEWALK, AND EVEN THOUGH IT HAD BEEN NICELY PAVED AND IT WAS BROAD THEY WERE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR OWN SAFETY AND THEY ASKED ME TO PUT THEM IN TOUCH, WHAT WE DID WAS WE TALKED ABOUT LAW ENFORCEMENT AND WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED AND WHAT WE NEEDED TO DO AND I THINK OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT SENT A REPRESENTATIVE OVER THERE AFTER I WAS THERE BECAUSE THEY WERE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE CARS THAT WENT UP AND DOWN 11TH STREET AND THEY HAVE TO WALK ON THE STREET. SO I THINK THAT THIS PROPERTY BEING RIGHT NEXT TO DAN MCCARTY'S SCHOOL IS A CONCERN FOR THE CHILDREN'S SAFETY. SO I'LL JUST START OFF WITH THAT AND ENTERTAIN ANY OTHER DISCUSSION.

>> MADAME MAYOR. >> COMMISSIONER PERONA.

>> I AM A LITTLE DISTRESSED ON THE ISSUE THAT THE FLOOR PLAN THAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED IS A FOUR BEDROOM AND ACCORDING TO THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR IT'S A THREE BEDROOM.

I'M GOING TO TELL YOU THAT I'VE BEEN IN A LOT OF HOMES, I'VE BOUGHT A LOT OF HOMES, I'VE BOUGHT A LOT OF RENTAL PROPERTY AND OWNED A LOT OF RENTAL PROPERTY, AND WHEN YOU TAKE A THREE BEDROOM AND TURN IT INTO A FOUR BEDROOM AND IT WAS NOT PERMITTED, IT'S NOT DONE BY PROFESSIONALS, YOU PUT THE INHABITANTS AT RISK. THAT IS A LIFE, SAFETY ISSUE.

I DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE RIGHT HERE BUT I'M FRUSTRATED BY THE FACT THAT THIS IS STILL HANGING OUT THERE.

THAT'S A MAJOR ISSUE FOR ME. YOU HAVE A PROPERTY RIGHT, BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PUTTING THIS, I LOOK AT IT THIS WAY.

IT GOES ON AIRBNB, FOLKS COME TO FORT PIERCE, THEY GO INTO THIS HOUSE THAT WE'VE APPROVED THE USE OF AND LET'S JUST SAY

[02:30:04]

THERE'S AN UNSAFE ISSUE WITH IT BECAUSE IT WAS NOT PERMITTED, THE ELECTRIC ISN'T RIGHT, THE FIRE DETECTION ISN'T RIGHT, ALL OF THE ISSUES ARE NOT THERE EXACTLY THE WAY THEY SHOULD BE, I FEEL SOMEWHAT RESPONSIBLE TO THAT.

SO I'M JUST TELLING YOU THAT'S A REAL BIG ISSUE WITH ME RIGHT NOW. AND IF IT WAS PERMITTED, I WILL ASSUME THAT THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE COMMUNICATES WITH ST.

LUCIE COUNTY AND THAT IS REFLECTED IN THAT.

BUT I HAVEN'T SEEN THAT AND TO THIS POINT IT'S JUST AN ISSUE

THAT I HAVE. >> YES, SIR.

ANYBODY ELSE? ANY OTHER DISCUSSION?

>> MADAME CHAIR. >> YES, COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER.

>> I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER PERONA.

THAT'S WHY I RAISED THE QUESTION.

>> IT WAS A GOOD QUESTION, COMMISSIONER.

>> IF THERE'S GOING TO BE PARKING SPACES FOR A FOUR BEDROOM HOME, THEN THEY'LL BEEN PARKING ON THE STREET, I JUST HAVE SOME CONCERNS OF PUBLIC SAFETY ON THIS PROPERTY AND -- ALSO THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO COME BACK BEFORE US.

BUT OTHER THAN THAT I JUST HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THAT.

AND AGAIN I WOULD LIKE M MR. SWEENY TO REITERATE WHAT -- THAT DICTATES ABOUT RENTAL PROPERTIES.

I HAD TO ASK HIM THAT -- MR. SWEENY, WOULD YOU PLEASE --

>> YES, SIR, COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER, MAYOR, IF I MAY.

AS HAS BEEN ALLUDED TO THROUGHOUT ALL OF THE PRESENTATIONS WHEN IT COMES TO CONDITIONAL USES FOR WHAT I'LL CALL VACATION RENTALS, WE HAVE AN ORDINANCE ON THE BOOKS WHICH IS STILL VALID. DESPITE STATEMENTS TO THE CONTRARY OUR ORDINANCE HAS NOT BEEN DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL OR ILLEGAL. THE CASE IS STILL PENDING AND OTHERWISE I DON'T EVER COMMENT ON CURRENT LITIGATION INCLUDING THAT CASE. WITH THAT SAID --

>> I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT CASES, I'M TALKING ABOUT LEGISLATION --

>> YES, SIR. AND THAT'S THE NEXT PART I WAS GOING TO LEAD TO, COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER, BECAUSE YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT. AND AS THE MAYOR ALLUDED TO, THERE'S A CONSTANT PRESSURE FROM THE STATE LEGISLATIVE BODY TO TAKE AWAY ALL ABILITY TO REGULATE IN THIS AREA.

IT'S BEEN BROUGHT UP IN THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS FOR AT LEAST THE LAST THREE YEARS THAT I'M AWARE OF.

IT HAS GOTTEN CLOSER AND CLOSER TO GETTING A FULL VOTE BY THE

FULL LEGISLATURE. >> IT WILL COME UP AGAIN.

>> I'M POSITIVE IT WILL COME UP AGAIN.

BUT FOR QUITE FRANKLY A TRAGIC PANDEMIC IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH CLOSER TO THE FOREFRONT OF THE GOVERNOR'S PEN AGAIN THIS SESSION. SO WE ARE CONSTANTLY UNDER SCRUTINY THERE. AND SO, COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER, THANK YOU FOR AGAIN ALLUDING TO THAT BECAUSE IT'S NOT GOING AWAY. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION,

SIR? >> NOT GOING AWAY.

BUT YOU STILL HAVEN'T TOLD ME WHAT THAT LEGISLATION IS?

>> WHAT IT PREVENTS US FROM DOING I THINK --

>> WELL YES, RIGHT NOW IT DOESN'T ALLOW US TO REGULATE BASED ON DURATION OR LOCATION. SO IT CAN BE IN ANY ZONING DISTRICT, IT CAN BE ANYWHERE IN THE CITY, AND IT CAN BE FOR ONE DAY OR I GUESS UP TO A YEAR. BUT AGAIN THAT'S AT THE STATE LEVEL ARGUABLY WE CAN STILL DEFEND AGAINST THAT BECAUSE OUR ORDINANCE IS STILL VALID. BUT THAT GOES AWAY IF WE LOSE THAT ABILITY TO BE GRANDFATHERED IN.

>> AND COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER, OUR CONDITIONAL USE HAS TO BE BASED ON HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE AND COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. AND SO I THINK THAT'S ALSO WHAT

YOU'RE ALLUDING TO. >> ABSOLUTELY.

>> YEAH. ANYONE ELSE?

YES, SIR. >> A COUPLE OF THINGS.

WE HEARD TONIGHT WHAT I CONSIDERED TO BE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE FROM A PERSON THAT'S A PROFESSIONAL IN THE ARCHITECTURE FIELD, AN EDUCATOR, A RESIDENT THAT LIVES ALMOST DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET OR IN THE AREA.

AND THEY HAVE FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE IN THE INTIMACY OF THE

[02:35:01]

NEIGHBORHOOD, HOW IT FUNCTIONS, HOW IT OPERATES.

THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE ACTUALLY DOESN'T AGREE WITH NUMBER FOUR, WITH THE TWO VEHICLES.

SO I UNDERSTAND ALL OF THOSE FACTORS AND TAKING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, I CAN'T BE SUPPORTIVE OF THE PROJECT AT THIS POINT.

I'LL EVEN GO UNDER WHAT COMMISSIONER PERONA WAS TALKING ABOUT RELATES TO THE WHAT IS THE LAYOUT OF THE BUILDING, EVERYONE HAS A PROPERTY RIGHT BUT THAT SAME PROPERTY OWNER HAS AN OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE A SAFE ENVIRONMENT FOR THOSE THAT ARE COMING. AND THAT'S WHY THE TRANSIENT ACTIVITY HAS REGULATIONS IN THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE AND WHY IT HAS REGULATIONS WITHIN ESPECIALLY WITH OUR PROCESS ADOPTED PRIOR TO 2011. SO THAT'S WHERE I STAND.

THANK YOU. >> ANYONE ELSE?

ANYBODY WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? >> MOVE FOR DENIAL.

>> MOVE FOR DENIAL. WAS THERE A SECOND?

>> I'LL SECOND AS LONG AS MR. SWEENY CAN WEIGH IN AS HE'S HEARD THE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND HE CAN GO AHEAD AND TELL US EXACTLY WHAT HE HEARD TO MAKE SURE IT'S PART OF THE RECORD.

>> MADAME MAYOR, IF I MAY, BASED ON NOT ONLY STATEMENTS MADE, LET ME START AGAIN. AS A RESULT OF THE QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY PRESENTED THEREIN AND HAVING HEARD YOUR DELIBERATION, PLEASE ALLOW ME TO RESTATE WHAT I UNDERSTAND TO BE SOME OF THE REASONS FOR DISAPPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE, ACCEPTING THE APPLICANT'S DOCUMENTS AS TRUE, INCORRECT NUMBER OF ROOMS VERSUS EVIDENCE OF LESSER ROOMS AS INDICATED BY THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISAL. THIS COULD BE A LIFE, HEALTH, AND SAFETY ISSUE WHEN IT COMES TO INGRESS AND EGRESS INTO AND OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING. ACCEPTING THE APPLICANT'S DOCUMENTS AS TRUE. ILLEGAL OWNERSHIP OF FIREARMS AS PROVIDED BY TESTIMONY UNDER OATH.

ACCEPTING THE APPLICANT'S DOCUMENTS AS TRUE AS WELL AS ACCEPTING THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED RENTAL IN PROXIMITY TO DAN MCCARTY MIDDLE SCHOOL. SEVERAL HUNDRED STUDENTS ON A DAILY BASIS WALKING IN CLOSE PROXIMITY WITHOUT SIDEWALKS IN THE AREA AS SUBSTANTIATED BY A LOCAL RESIDENT OBSERVING THOSE STUDENTS ON A REGULAR BASIS VERSUS TRAFFIC.

LIKELY AS THE APPLICANT STATED TO BE FROM OUT OF TOWN INDIVIDUALS POSSIBLY MULTIPLE CARS.

IF THIS DOESN'T ACCURATELY RESTATE WHAT I UNDERSTAND YOUR DELIBERATIONS TO BE, PLEASE LET ME KNOW NOW, THAT'S WHAT I UNDERSTAND TO BE THE COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN PART.

>> I'M GOOD. ALL RIGHTY.

SHALL WE VOTE? >> THE MOTION IS FOR DENIAL.

COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER? >> YES.

>> OKAY, WE MOVE ON TO LEGISLATIVE HEARINGS.

[e. Legislative Hearing - Ordinance 20-016 Establishing the Bent Creek Community Development District. SECOND READING]

THE FIRST OF WHICH IS ORDINANCE 20-016.

AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE BENT CREEK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT PRUDENT TO CHAPTER 190 FLORIDA STATUTES PROVIDING FOR THE NAME, POWERS, AND DUTIES PROVIDING FOR DESCRIPTION AND BOUNDARIES PROVIDING FOR SERVABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE, THIS IS THE SECOND READING.

>> THIS IS THE SECOND READING. ANYONE WISHING TO ADDRESS THIS

ISSUE PLEASE COME FORWARD. >> GOOD EVENING.

>> GOOD EVENING. >> BRIAN NOLAN REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT. WE HAD A LOT OF THOUGHTFUL DISCUSSION AND COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS DURING THE FIRST READING. I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE ISSUES. WE DID SPEAK WITH COMMISSIONER BIRGE AFTER THE MEETING. MR. BIRGE WAS ALSO PRESENT AND SITTING ON HIS CAPACITY IN THE PLANNING BOARD THE OTHER NIGHT WHEN THE PLAT B2 THE FINAL PLAT FOR B2 WAS CONSIDERED AND THE LANDSCAPE WAS ALSO DISCUSSED AS PART OF THAT MEETING ON THE RECORD. I WOULD LET MANY BIRGE STATE IF HE'S SATISFIED OR NOT. BUT IT IS OUR INTENT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE STREET SCAPE FOR THOSE EXISTING PHASES AND

[02:40:07]

FUTURE PHASES. I'VE BEEN SETTING UP A MEETING WITH STAFF TO REVIEW THOSE PLANS AND MOVE FORWARD IMPLEMENTING THOSE. WE INTEND TO DO THAT AS SOON AS WE CAN. I DID REACH OUT TO MR. BENTAM.

I SPOKE TO HIM ON THE PHONE I THINK EARLIER SOMETIME LAST WEEK. HE RAISED A NUMBER OF CONCERNS, A FEW OF WHICH I CAN ADDRESS. HE HAD A CONCERN RELATED TO THE EXISTING HOMEOWNERS BEING ASSESSED TO SUPPORT THE CDD.

SECTIONS A1 AND B1 ARE NOT WITHIN THE CDD BOUNDARIES.

SO HIS AND THE OTHER OWNERS EXISTING OR FUTURE IN THOSE SECTIONS WOULD BE ASSESSED BY THE CDD.

NOR WOULD THE HOA FEES OR ASSESSMENTS IN EXISTING AREAS OF THE SUBDIVISION A1 AND B1 BE AFFECTED EITHER.

MR. BENTON MADE SOME COMMENTS ON THE CDD'S EFFECT ON THE AFFORDABILITY OF HOMES WITHIN THE CDD BOUNDARIES.

I AM NOT A REAL ESTATE PROFESSIONAL, I DON'T WANT TO DELVE INTO MARKETABILITY OR PRICE POINTS OR WHAT CAN BE FEASIBLE OR NOT. I DID PULL SEVERAL TAX BILLS WITHIN BENT CREEK AND WITHIN THE SURROUNDING AREAS.

THERE ARE MULTIPLE VALOREM AND AD VALOREM PROPERTIES, COUNTY PARKS, PUBLIC TRANSIT, CITY OF FORT PIERCE STORMWATER MAINTENANCE. THERE'S ALL KINDS OF ASSESSMENTS THAT GO IN ON THAT. BUT I CAN SAY THAT OUR ASSESSMENT IS ESTIMATED TO BE ROUGHLY $800 A MONTH.

WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHERE THE FIGURE IS GOING TO COME BUT ESTIMATED AT 4.2. $800 A YEAR, SORRY A YEAR.

>> YES, THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.

>> ARE YOU TIMING HIM? I'M SORRY I SHOULD HAVE LET YOU

KNOW. >> HE'S KIND OF THE APPLICANT IN THAT SITUATION IT MAKES SENSE TO LET THEM --

>> THIS IS THE SECOND READING. >> IF THERE WAS ANYBODY ELSE THAT WANTS TO SPEAK OF COURSE THEY HAVE THREE MINUTES.

>> YEAH, I APOLOGIZE. I SHOULD HAVE ALERTED YOU.

ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK? YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES.

ANYONE ELSE? OKAY I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC

HEARING AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> MOVE FOR THE APPROVAL.

>> IS THERE A SECOND? IS THERE A SECOND?

>> SECOND. >> ANY DISCUSSION?

CALL THE ROLL PLEASE. >> COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION, I HAD TO TAKE MYSELF OFF THE MUTE.

DID WE KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT I KNOW IT CAME UP BUT WHAT WAS THE

-- >> THE PETERSON ROAD IS GOING TO BE COMPLETED AND THAT IS PART OF THIS APPLICATION AND THIS

PROJECT. >> MAYOR, IF I CAN JUST VERY -- COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER, CAN YOU HEAR ME?

>> YEAH, I CAN HEAR YOU. SORRY, I HAD TO TAKE MYSELF OFF

MUTE. >> NO PROBLEM.

JUST VERY QUICK CLARIFICATION, MAYOR.

ON THE SEPTEMBER 8TH MEETING I BELIEVE THAT'S OUR NEXT MEETING AFTER LABOR DAY, SEPTEMBER 8TH NOT ONLY WILL THE PLAT FOR THE NEXT SECTION BE COMING UP, BUT THE DEVELOPERS AGREEMENT MODIFICATION AGAIN REFERRING TO PETERSON ROAD WILL ALSO BE COMING UP FOR YOUR APPROVAL. SO YOU'RE GOING TO SEE THAT IN

ABOUT 15 DAYS OR SO. >> OKAY.

>> THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. GOOD QUESTION.

ARE WE READY TO VOTE? >> YES.

>> ALL RIGHT. MADAME CLERK.

>> COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER? >> YES.

>> YOU'RE VOTING YES. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON?

>> NO, MA'AM. >> COMMISSIONER PERONA.

NEXT WE HAVE ORDINANCE 20-019. AN ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF

>> YES, MA'AM. >> OKAY.

[f. Legislative Hearing - Ordinance 20-019 adopting 2020 Fort Pierce Redevelopment Plan Update and providing for an extension of operational timeframe. SECOND READING]

[02:45:04]

FORT PIERCE ADOPTING THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN UPDATE FOR THE FORT PIERCE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PROVIDING FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY'S OPERATIONAL TIME FRAME PRUDENT TO CHAPTER 163 FLORIDA STATUTES PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE, THIS IS THE SECOND READING.

>> THIS IS THE SECOND READING. ANYONE WISHING TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE PLEASE COME FORWARD. SEEING NO ONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> MOVE TO APPROVE. >> SECOND.

>> YES, MA'AM. >> NEXT WE HAVE ORDINANCE 20-008 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA RELATED TO COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO INCLUDE REVISIONS OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT SUBSECTION B COMMERCIAL TO REQUIRE THE USES WITHIN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT TO HAVE MIXED USES WHICH MAY INCLUDE RETAIL COMMERCIAL, ALLOW FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AS PART OF THOSE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS, EXPAND THE RANGE OF OFFICE AND RETAIL USES WHICH MAY BE PERMISSIBLE PROVIDING FOR A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

[g. Legislative Hearing - Ordinance 20-008 amending the City’s Comprehensive Plan to include revisions to the Future Land Use Element Subsection B, Commercial, to require the uses within the Central Business District (CBD) to have mixed-uses which may include commercial / retail, allow for single-family residential as part of those mixed-use developments, expand the range of office and retail uses which may be permissible. SECOND READING]

THIS IS THE SECOND READING. >> THIS IS THE SECOND READING, ANYONE WISHING TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE PLEASE COME FORWARD.

SEEING NO ONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ENTERTAIN A

MOTION. >> MOVE FOR THE APPROVAL.

>> SECOND. >> THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND. CALL THE ROLL PLEASE.

>> COMMISSIONER HUDSON. >> YES, MA'AM.

[h. Legislative Hearing - Ordinance 20-009 changing the home occupation use in the Central Commercial (C-4) zoning district from a prohibited use to a conditional use; permitting mixed uses to be constructed as individual buildings or developments in the Central Commercial (C-4) zoning district, both vertically and horizontally; changing duplex, detached house, and townhouse uses in the Central Commercial (C-4) zoning district from prohibited uses to conditional uses; defining the utilization of home occupations located on parcels within the central business district (CBD) Future Land Use designation. SECOND READING]

>> NEXT WE HAVE ORDINANCE 20-009.

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES IN FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA RELATED TO ZONING DISTRICTS, ALLOWED USES AND SUPP SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS CHANGING FROM A PROHIBITED USE TO A CONDITIONAL USE, PERMITTING MIXED USES TO BE CONSTRUCTED FOR INDIVIDUAL DISTRICTS IN THE COMMERCIAL C-FOUR ZONING DISTRICT BOTH VERTICALLY AND HORIZONTALLY. CHANGING DUPLEX DETACHED HOUSE AND TOWNHOUSE UNITS IN THE COMMERCIAL C-FOUR ZONING USES FROM PROHIBITS USES TO CONDITIONAL USES PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

THIS IS THE SECOND READING. >> THIS IS THE SECOND READING.

ANYONE WISHING TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE PLEASE COME FORWARD.

SEEING NO ONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ENTERTAIN A

MOTION. >> MOVE TO APPROVE.

>> SECOND. >> THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND. CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE.

>> ORDINANCE 20-011. AN ORDINANCE BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT FOR EIGHT PROPERTIES GENERALLY LOCATED AT OR NEAR NORTH 322 NORTH 2ND STRAIGHT -- STREET PROVIDING FOR A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

[i. Legislative Hearing - Ordinance 20-011 seeking a Future Land Use Map Amendment for eight (8) properties generally located at or near 322 North 2nd Street from Industrial (I) to Central Business District (CBD). SECOND READING]

THIS IS THE SECOND READING. >> THIS IS THE SECOND READING.

ANYONE WISHING TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE PLEASE COME FORWARD.

SEEING NO ONE I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ENTERTAIN A

MOTION. >> MOVE TO APPROVE.

>> SECOND. >> THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND. CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE.

>> NEXT WE HAVE ORDINANCE 20-017 AN ORDINANCE BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA ABANDONING ALL CITY RIGHT OF WAY PASSING THROUGH OR LYING WITHIN TWO PARCELS OF LAND BOUND BY A.E. BACKUS AVENUE TO THE NORTH, NORTH INDIAN RIVER DRIVE TO THE EAST, AVENUE B TO THE SOUTH, AND NORTH 2ND STREET TO THE WEST PROVIDING FOR A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ORDINANCES OR PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

[j. Legislative Hearing - Ordinance 20-017 abandoning all City right-of-way passing through or lying within two parcels of land bound By A.E. Backus Avenue to the north, North Indian River Drive to the east, Avenue B to the south, and North 2nd Street to the west. SECOND READING]

THIS IS THE SECOND READING. >> THIS IS THE SECOND READING, ANYONE WISHING TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE PLEASE COME FORWARD.

SEEING NO ONE I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ENTERTAIN A

MOTION. >> MOVE FOR THE APPROVAL.

>> SECOND. >> THERE'S A MOTION AND A

SECOND, CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. >> COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER.

[k. Legislative Hearing - Ordinance 20-018 abandoning a portion of the Avenue B right-of-way, bound by A.E. Backus Avenue to the north, North 2nd Street to the east, Avenue A to the south, and the FEC Railroad to the west. SECOND READING]

>> YES, MA'AM. >> NEXT WE HAVE ORDINANCE 20-018. ABANDONING A PORTION OF THE AVENUE B RIGHT OF WAY BOUND BY A.E. BACKUS AVENUE TO THE NORTH, NORTH 2ND STREET TO THE EAST, AVENUE A TO THE SOUTH, AND FEC RAILROAD TO THE WEST. PROVIDING FOR AN APPEAL OF

[02:50:02]

ORDINANCES OR PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THIS IS THE SECOND READING.

>> THIS IS THE SECOND READING ANYONE WISHING TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE PLEASE COME FORWARD. SEEING NO ONE I'LL CLOSE THE

PUBLIC HEARING. >> MOVE TO APPROVE.

>> SECOND. >> THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND. CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE.

>> ALEXANDER. >> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER SESSION. >> YES, MA'AM.

[l. Legislative Hearing - Ordinance 20-012 rezoning ten (10) properties generally located at or near 322 North 2nd Street from Light Industrial (I-1) for eight (8) parcels and Central Commercial (C-4) for two (2) parcels to Planned Development (PD). SECOND READING]

>> NEXT WE HAVE ORDINANCE 20-012 AN ORDINANCE BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA REZONING TEN PROPERTIES GENERALLY LOCATED AT OR NEAR 322 NORTH 2ND STREET LIGHT INDUSTRIAL FOR EIGHT PARCELS IN CENTRAL COMMERCIAL C-FOUR FOR TWO PARCELS TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.

PROVIDING FOR A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THIS IS THE SECOND READING.

>> THIS IS THE SECOND READING, ANYONE WISHING TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE PLEASE COME FORWARD. SEEING NO ONE I CLOSE THE PUBLIC

HEARING AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> MOTION.

>> SECOND. >> CALL THE ROLL PLEASE.

[m. Legislative Hearing - Ordinance 20-021 - extending the territorial limits of the City of Fort Pierce, to include a 1.50 acre unaddressed parcel abutting 3280 South 25th Street in Fort Pierce, Florida. FIRST READING]

>> NEXT WE HAVE ORDINANCE 20-021 EXTENDING THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF CITY OF FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA TO INCLUDE A 1.5 ACRE UNADDRESSED PARCEL ABUTTING 3280 SOUTH 25TH STREET IN FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA, DIRECTING THE PROPERTY APPRAISER TO PLACE IT ON CITY TAX ROLLS AS OF JANUARY 1, 2021.

DIRECTING THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR TO COLLECT TAXES ON THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PROPERTY DIRECTING FILING OF THE ORDINANCE WITH THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT AND CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY TO BE FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND SUBMITTED TO THE OFFICE OF ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC RESEARCH.

PROVIDING FOR A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES AND CONFLICTS THEREOF AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

THIS IS THE FIRST READING. >> LET'S WAIT UNTIL IT GETS ON

EVERYONE'S SCREENS. >> WE HAVE IT.

>> GOOD EVENING MADAME MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.

BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS AN APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION FOR A PARCEL ATTACHED TO 3280 SOUTH 25TH STREET.

IT IS PART OF THE SUNRISE TABERNACLE CHURCH COMMUNITY.

>> WE KNOW WHAT IT IS. >> THE DRIVEWAY PORTION OF THE PROPERTY UPON ANNEXATION, THE APPLICANT WISHES TO COMBINE WITH THEIR PROPERTY CURRENTLY IN THE CITY LIMITS.

ONCE ANNEXED IT WOULD BE GIVEN OUR FUTURE LAND USE TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING FUTURE LAND USES AND COMPATIBLE WITH WHAT THE COUNTY CURRENTLY HAS IT AS.

THE ZONING ON THE PROPERTY IS SPLIT, HALF OF THE PROPERTY IS RS4, SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS TO THE ACRE.

THE OTHER HALF OF THE PROPERTY IS RF RELIGIOUS FACILITY.

ONCE ANNEXED IT WOULD BE GIVEN ONE ZONING DESIGNATION OF RS TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE COUNTY'S ZONING.

AS PROPOSED THE ANNEXATION MEETS THE STANDARDS OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SPECIFICALLY POLICY SECTION 1.11 REGARDING ANNEXATIONS. STAFF REMEMBER MENDS THE CITY COMMISSION APPROVE THE DESIGNATION ALONG WITH RL AND ZONING OF R-ONE. YOU CAN APPROVE THE ANNEXATION AS PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVE THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION. I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. THANK YOU.

>> ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, ANYONE WISHING TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE PLEASE COME FORWARD.

SEEING NO ONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION OR DISCUSSION.

>> MOVE TO APPROVE. >> IS THERE A SECOND?

>> YES, MA'AM. THANK YOU, SIR.

[a. Resolution No. 20-R38 establishing Community Response Department fees.]

>> THANK YOU. >> NEXT WE HAVE RESOLUTION P20-Y COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA ESTABLISHING ANIMAL CONTROL FEES, TEMPORARY SIGN PERMIT FEES AND CODE ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION FEES AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE

DATE. >> AS I UNDERSTAND IT THERE ARE NO CHANGES. THIS IS JUST TAKING IT OUT OF WHAT IT WAS IN AND PUTTING IT IN THIS FORM, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> YES, MADAME MAYOR. >> IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? SO I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> MOVE FOR THE APPROVAL. >> SECOND.

CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. >> ALEXANDER.

>> YES, MA'AM. >> NEXT WE HAVE RESOLUTION 20-R39 A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE APPOINTMENT OF A MEMBER TO THE CITY PLANNING BOARD AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

[b. Resolution 20-R39 appointing a member to the Planning Board.]

[02:55:02]

AT THIS TIME WE ARE GOING TO BE SELECTING ONE MEMBER TO FILL MR. O'CONNELS AT LARGE APPOINTMENT.

HE IS NOT SEEKING REAPPOINTMENT. COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER, I EMAILED YOU EARLIER TODAY. I HOPE YOU RECEIVED IT.

>> YES, I DID. >> DON'T TELL ME YET.

>> I KNOW. I'LL WAIT FOR THE DISCUSSION.

>> EXTRA HANDOUT. >> I WAS WONDERING WHEN YOU WERE

GOING TO PASS THAT DOWN. >> I KEPT LOOKING AT IT THINKING SHOULD I OR SHOULD I WAIT UNTIL LATER.

>> I THOUGHT YOU WERE GOING TO TAKE IT HOME WITH YOU.

>> THANK YOU. >> OKAY.

COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER, WOULD YOU LIKE TO GIVE ME YOUR

SELECTION. >> OKAY MARTHA BAKER.

>> OKAY SO COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER HAS SELECTED MARCIA BAKER. COMMISSIONER SESSIONS SELECTED MARCIA BAKER. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON SELECTED AL BERNETEY. SO MARCIA BAKER IS THE NEW MEMBER OF OUR FORT PIERCE PLANNING BOARD.

WITH THAT, I'LL NEED A MOTION TO APPROVE THAT RESOLUTION.

>> SO MOVED. >> SECOND.