Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:09]

OPENING OF THE PLANNING BOARD MEETING, SEPTEMBER 8, 2020. BEFORE WE GO TO PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. I WANTED TO MAKE NOTE THIS WAS IN REMEMBRANCE OF THE 75TH ANNIVERSARY OF D DAY THIS YEAR, AND ALSO C C ROSE, I LEARNED IT A LITTLE WHILE AGO.

HOW DO WE SAY HER LAST NAME? . >> LAY LEE. >> OK.

I WANT TO MAKE NOTE OF THIS YOUNG LADY TOO, BECAUSE SHE WAS ON FLIGHT 93 ON 911.

AND WAS HER FIRST FIRST ASSIGNMENT AS AN YOU ARE ALL STEWARDESS.

PRIOR TO THAT SHE SPENT SIX YEARSES WITH THE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT.

AND HER FIRST ASSIGNMENT WAS FLIGHT 93 IN 2011 AND SHE WENT DOWN WITH THE PLANE, OBVIOUSLY.

AND WHEN WE SAY PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE I LIKE TO THINK OF ALL HEROS THAT SERVED OUR COUNTRY AND THINK OF THIS YOUNG LADY ALSO. (PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IS

STATED). >>> AND WE DON'T REALLY HAVE ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE TODAY.

SO I GUESS ALL THE STAFF AND BOARD HAVE THE PHONES SHUT OFF. I THINK I DO.

YES. ROLE CALL, PLEASE. >> MS. BAKER.

>> HERE. >> MR. BUNCH. >> YES, MA'AM.

>> MS. JOHNSON SCOTT. MR. BROED RICK, MR. LEE, MS. DIAZ, CHAIRMAN CRAFTMAN, YES,

MA'AM. >>> WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING MS. BAKER HERE A LITTLE BIT.

SHE'S WITH US AFTER A COUPLE OF YEARS OF RETIREMENT. AND I LEARNED A MOMENT AGO THAT MS. BAKER SPENT ALMOST NINE YEARS ON THIS BOARD PREVIOUSLY AND IT'S GOOD TO HAVE YOU BACK.

>> THANK YOU. I THINK EVERYBODY MS. BAKER THAT'S ON THE BOARD, WE DISCUSSED THAT. BUT YOU'LL BRING A LOT BACK TO US AND I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO

YOUR INPUT. >> THANK YOU. >> APPROVAL OF MINUTES, PLEASE.

[a. Minutes from the August 11, 2020 meeting]

>> MOTION APPROVED. >> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND

CALL THE ROLE, PLEASE. >> MR. BUNCH, MR. JOHNSON SCOTT, MR. BROED RICK, MR. LEE, MS. BAKER, MS. DIAZ, CHAIRMAN CRAFT NOY. YES, MA'AM.

[a. Conditional Use - Barsotti Dwelling Rental - 1040 Windward Drive, Unit 3402]

>>> UNDER NEW BUSINESS, MR. GILL UM WILL BE PRESENTING, CONDITIONAL USE ON THE BAR SETI DEVELOPING RENTAL UP 4040 UNIT 3502. THIS IS A CONDITIONAL USE, NO NEW CONSTRUCTION FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AT 1040 WIND WARD DRIVE.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN OCEAN VILLAGE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SOUTH OCEAN DRIVE. AND BLUE HERRING BOULEVARD. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS A FUTURE LAND USE OF HIR, WHICH IS HITCH IN SON ISLAND RESIDENTIAL. WITH A ZONING OF R48, WHICH IS A HUDSON ISLAND MEDIUM DENSESY ZONE. ASKING FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO FIVE CONDITION, HERE'S A SYNOPSIS, THE CITY OF FORT FORT PIERCE, ORDINANCE K 114, PASSED IN 2001. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ADDED TO PROTECT THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. JUDICIAL HEARING. THERE'S NO CURRENT CODE ENFORCEMENT OR POLICE DEPARTMENT VIOLATIONS. FLORIDA LEGISLATION PASSED IN 2011 A LOCAL LAW ORDINANCE FOR REGULATION MAY NOT PROHIBIT VACATION RENTALS OR REGULARITY THE DURATION OR FREQUENCY OF RENTAL OF VACATION RENTALS. THIS PARAGRAPH DOES NOT APPLY TO LOCAL LAW ORDINANCE OR REGULATION ADOPTED OVEN OR BEFORE JUNE 1ST, 2011.

[00:05:02]

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO FIVE CONDITIONS, PROPERTY MANAGER FOR THE VACATION RAN TALL SHAG AVAILABLE TO RESOLVE VIOLATIONS. SHE DID SAID MANAGER SHALL BE REGISTERED WITH THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE. CODE ENFORCEMENT SHALL BE PROVIDED TO RENTERS REGARDING LOCAL RULES AND PUBLICS SERVICE RESOURCES TO MINIMIZE CONFLICTS.

APPLICANT SHALL FILE FOR THE COUNTY CITY OF FORT PIERCE BUSINESS TAX LICENSE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF ISSUANCE, FROM THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION FOR THERE SHALL BE A LIMITATION OF NO MORE THAN TWO VEHICLES AT THE SITE IN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE BUSINESS TAX LICENSE NUMBER SHALL BE INCLUDED ON ALL ADVERTISING.

>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. GILMORE? >> MR. CHAIR, AT OUR LAST PLANNING BOARD MEETING, WE HAD SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS TO THE VACATION RENTAL RECOMMENDATIONS.

THOSE ARE ACTUALLY BEING PROPOSED TO CITY COMMISSION THIS COMING MONDAY.

IN LIGHT OF THAT FACT, SINCE THIS BODY HAS ALREADY APPROVED THEM, WOULD IT BE THE LOGICAL PROGRESSION FOR US TO ATTACH THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THIS APPROVAL MOVING FORWARD AS THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION? BECAUSE IT DID COME OUT OF THE PLANNING BOARD WITH THE SUPPORT

OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO LAST MEETING. >> MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, WE CAN DO THAT, WHAT WILL HAPPEN ALL THOSE THAT, IF THOSE CONDITIONS ARE APPROVED BY OUR CITY COMMISSION, ALL OF OUR CURRENT VACATION RENTALS WOULD BE REQUIRED TO ABIDE BY THOSE CONDITIONS ALSO. SO THERE WOULD BE A LETTER THAT WOULD GO OUT TO OUR LIST OF VACATION RENTALS. IF YOU WANT TO ATTACH THAT NOW, THAT'S UP TO THE BOARD'S

PLEASURE. >> JUST BE CLEAR ON THAT THEN. DID THE UPDATED RECOMMENDATIONS

BECOME RET TRO ACTIVE. >> YES, THEY DO. >> I WAS NO THE AWARE.

THAT'S A GOOD PIECE OF INFORMATION TO HAVE, IT'S ALMOST AS IF THE NECESSITY OF ATTACHING THEM CURRENT WITHOUT THE CITY COMMISSION WITHOUT HAVING GONE THROUGH THIS WOULD MAYBE BE

PREMATURE. >> IT MAY BE, WE HAVE TWO ITEMS COMING RIGHT AFTER THE ONE THAT IN R GILMORE IS PRESENTING THAT ARE WITHIN AN APARTMENT COMPLEX THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED VACATION RENTALS. SO FOR FAIRNESS, IT WOULD BE LOGICAL TO HAVE THOSE YOU KNOW.

>> WE WOULD INITIATE IT NOW, IN ESSENCE BE AND IF CITY COMMISSION DOES NOT TAKE IT PROACTIVE ACTION ON IT. THEN THEY WOULD BE NULL AND VOID.

>> CORRECT. OR IF APPROVED SOME CONDITIONS NOT ALL OF THEM, THEN THERE MAY BE MODIFICATIONS. THAT WOULD BE UP TO THE COMMISSION.

>> I WAS REALLY -- IS THERE ANY LOGICAL REASON THAT YOU COULD SUGGEST THAT WE WOULD NOT INCORPORATE OR INCLUDE THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS STARTING WITH THIS MEETING?

>> WE HAVE THREE ITEMS ON THERE RIGHT NOW. IT'S JUST WE HAVE NOT HAD THE PRESENTATION YET. WE HAVEN'T HAD THAT DISCUSSION WITH THE COMMISSION.

IT MAY BE CONFUSING. AND SINCE THEY WOULD BE -- IT WOULD BE RETROACTIVE AND THE

CONDITIONS MAY CHANGE, THE MAY BE WISE TO HOLD OFF. >> SEE WHAT EVERYBODY ELSE THEIR

SENSE IS ABOUT. >> BECAUSE THE COMMISSION WILL NOT BE VOTING ON THEM AT THE CONFERENCE AGENDA, THEY'D BE VOTING ON THEM AT ANOTHER TIME AT A COMMISSION HEARING.

>> CONSIDERING THE COMMISSION COULD POSSIBLY MAKE A CHANGE TO OUR RECOMMENDATIONS, NOT KNOWING WHAT THOSE CHANGES WOULD BE, I THINK THAT -- AND BEING THAT IT WOULD BE RETROACTIVE TO ALL VACATION RENTAL, ONCE IT WAS CONFIRMED THROUGH THE COMMISSION, I THINK THAT LEAVING THESE IN PLACE FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE.

ANYONE ELSE WANT TO COMMENT ON THAT? >> YES.

I HAD SENT A SUGGESTION TO ADD TO THE REQUIREMENTS THAT LIABILITY INSURANCE BE A CONDITION OF PERMITTING. THE LIABILITY INSURANCE BUSINESS LIABILITY INSURANCE WOULD PROTECT THE INTEREST OF NEIGHBORS ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC.

REGULAR HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE OR CONDO INSURANCE DOES NOT INCLUDE BUSINESS USE.

THEREFORE, IF SOMEBODY HAS A VACATION RENTAL AND ONE OF THEIR GUESTS HAS, FOR INSTANCE, A DOG THAT BITES SOMEBODY ELSE, IF IT WERE UNDER A HOMEOWNERS POLICY, THEY COULD -- THEY WOULD BE LIABLE. BUT UNDER SINCE IT'S A BUSINESS USE, THEIR INSURANCE WOULDN'T COVER IT. IN ADDITION, IF A TENANT -- IF A GUEST CAUSES DAMAGE TO SOMEBODY

[00:10:03]

ELSE'S PROPERTY, TO AN ADJOINING PROPERTY OR AN ADJACENT PROPERTY IN A CONDO, OR THE -- IF IT'S A TWO-FLOOR BUILDING AND IF THEY CAUSE A FLOOD AND THE UNIT DOWNSTAIRS, THEIR CURRENT HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE DOESN'T COVER IT, BUT A BUSINESS LIABILITY INSURANCE, WHICH MOST OF THE AIRBNB AND PLACES LIKE THAT, DO HAVE AVAILABLE. HOWEVER, I THINK THAT A, TO PROTECT THE GENERAL PUBLIC, AND THE NEIGHBORS AND ALL VACATION RENTALS, THE REQUIREMENT FOR BUSINESS THIRD PARTY LIABILITY INSURANCE BE INCLUDED IN THE SUGGESTIONS FOR ADDING TO THE

REQUIREMENTS. >> IN REGARDS TO THE FIRST COMMENT MADE, BECAUSE WE MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COMMISSION AND THEY WILL VOTE ON THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS, I THINK WE SHOULD WAIT UNTIL THEY HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND VOTE ON THEM

BEFORE WE ADD THEM TO THE LIST. >> MR. CHAIR? I WOULD AGREE WITH MS. BAKER IN REGARDS TO COMMERCIAL OR BUSINESS LIABILITY INSURANCE BE PART OF THE REQUIREMENTS THAT THE PERSON WHO'S RENTING THE APARTMENTS ON A SHORT TERM RENTAL OR A LONG-TERM RENTAL, LIKE AN AIRBNB, THAT THE CITY REQUIRE THAT THAT HAPPEN. AND I BELIEVE THAT WE CAN PLACE THAT HERE AT THE PLANNING BOARD AS A CONDITION. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO GO TO CITY COMMISSION FOR THAT. BECAUSE THAT WOULD SIMPLY BE A CONDITION OF CONDITIONAL USE.

AND I BELIEVE WE CAN DO THAT. THIS AFTERNOON. OTHER THINGS AS FAR AS THE -- THAT ARE GOING TO BE PRESENTED BEFORE THE BOARD, THAT WOULD BE AS BEEN POINTED OUT RETROACTIVE, PROBABLY NOT NECESSARY FOR US TO INCLUDE THEM IN IN TONIGHT'S OR THIS AFTERNOON'S MOTION.

BUT I WOULD WHOLE HEARTEDLY SUPPORT MS. BAKER'S SUSPECT OF HAVING THIS AND WE MIGHT AS WELL MAKE IN IT THE ASPECT, EVEN THOUGH WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT, BUT IT WOULD BECOME PART OF OUR MOTIONS THAT ARE BEING MADE THAT THE -- THAT THE PROPERTIES BE INSURED AS A BUSINESS, NOT AS A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY ANYMORE. AND THE -- THE PERSON WHO'S RENTING IT WOULD HAVE TO MAKE THAT ADJUSTMENT IN SOMEBODY FROM THE CITY WE DON'T HAVE TO INSURE THAT THAT ADJUSTMENT WAS MADE.

I THINK FOR WHEN MS. BAKER INDICATED FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND ALSO FOR THE -- OTHER LAND OWNERS OR CONDOMINIUM OWNERS ADJACENT TO THESE PARTICULAR PROPERTIES TO PROTECT, I BELIEVE THAT'S PART OF OUR DUTIES TO PROTECT THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY.

>>> MS. DIAZ LOOKED LIKE YOU HAD HAD SOMETHING YOU WANTED TO ADD. >> JUST THOUGHT THAT THE SUGGESTION BY MS. BAKER WAS IS EXCELLENT. SOMETHING I HAD NOT THOUGHT OF.

>> A MYRIAD OF OTHER SITUATIONS CAME UP THAT WOULD IMPACT THE SAFETY'S WILLFUL OF OTHER PEOPLE

ADJACENT TO THE VACATION RENTAL. I BELIEVE IT'S A GREAT IDEA. >> MR. CHAIR, ONE COMMENT AS WELL. I AGREE WITH THE -- THE SUGGESTION ON THE BUSINESS OWNER'S POLICY VERSUS A HOMEOWNERS POLICY, THERE'S DEFINITIVELY A SEPARATION BETWEEN THOSE TWO. ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF THIS TYPE OF A BUSINESS OPERATION.

THE QUESTION I WOULD ADD TO THAT THEN THE, OWN IN HIS ON THIS BOARD TO SET UP COVERAGE LIMITATIONS AND THINGS OF THIS NATURE MOVING FORWARD OR A BLANKET SUGGESTION OF HAVING A BUSINESS OWNERS'S POLICY IN PLACE, AS YOU'RE AWARE, YOU CAN HAVE EXTENSIVE DIFFERENCES IN COVERAGE AMOUNTS INCOME COVERAGE AMOUNTS, LIABILITY COVERAGE AMOUNTS, YOU DEDUCTIBLES AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. I'M JUST THROWING IT OUT THERE IN ADDITION TO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS DO WE THEN COME UP WITH A SET STANDARD THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED.

>> THE STANDARD BUSINESS INSURANCE FOR THIS TYPE OF PROPERTY HAS A STANDARD FORM, AND PEOPLE CAN -- PEOPLE CAN CHOOSE WHAT THE DEDUCTIBLE ONES ARE BUT THE STANDARD ONE WITH AIRBNB THAT THEY OFFER HAVE A STANDARDIZED MILLION DOLLAR LIMIT ON LIABILITY AND IT ALSO

[00:15:05]

PROTECTS THE PROPERTY OWNER, WHO IS -- WHO IS OPERATING THE BUSINESS FROM BEING SUED BY FOR ANY OF THEIR LIABILITY, S - WHICH IS NOT PART OF OUR RESPONSIBILITY, OUR RESPONSIBILITY IS TO PROTECT THE NEIGHBORS -- THE GENERAL PUBLIC. AND A STANDARD BUSINESS INSURANCE, WHICH IS AVAILABLE AT A VERY, MINIMAL COST, WITH MOST OF THE ONLINE RENTAL SITES

SHOULD BE REQUIRED. >> DO YOU HAVE COMMENTS ON THIS ISSUE AND HOW WE MIGHT MOVE FORWARD IF WE WANT TO ADOPT THIS INTO THE PRESENT RECOMMENDATIONS AND WE'RE GETTING AWAY FROM THE CASE HERE FOR A MOMENT AND PERHAPS WE NEED TO SET THIS ASIDE, THIS DISCUSSION ASIDE AND

COME BACK TO IT AFTER WE'RE FINISHED OUR. >> WELL, HAVING SAID THAT, CHAIR, RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE THESE FIVE STANDARD CONDITIONS. SO WITH AN ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS BECAUSE A LOT OF THESE CONDITIONS CAME THROUGH THE PLANNING BOARD AND NOT COMMISSION. AND SO THEY HAVE BECOME OUR STANDARD CONDITIONS.

THIS NUMBER SIX WILL NOT BE REFLECTED IN SOME OF THE PREVIOUS APPLICATIONS THAT HAVE COME BEFORE IT BECAUSE WE'VE HAD A LOT OF DEVELOP RENTAL APPLICATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL BY THIS COMMISSION, HAVING SAID THAT, WHEN THE PRESENTATION IS MADE, PERHAPS THIS NEXT CONFERENCE AGENDA, THAT SHOULD BE NOTED. THAT IN ADDITION TO THESE OTHER CONDITIONS, THAT WE NEED THAT DISCUSSION WHEN IT COMES TO SIGNAGE AND WHAT HAVE YOU, SOME OTHER AMENDMENTS. THAT THIS BE NOTED THAT THIS IS ANOTHER CONDITION THAT WOULD

ALSO BE RETROACTIVELY IMPOSED UPON CURRENT VACATION RENTALS. >> AS MR. BIRCH SAID WE CAN

APPROVE THIS AS AN ADDITIONAL CONDITION, AND THE OTHER ONES. >> I AGREE.

I THINK THAT IT'S WARRANTED AND AS I'M SITTING HERE KIND OF DIGESTING CONCEPT MORE, I'M RECOLLECTING ON SHORT TERM RENTALS THAT OUR FIRM IS INVOLVED WITH THAT THE -- THERE IS A DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN A STANDARD HOMEOWNERS POLICY, AND QUESTION IS ASKED AT THE RENEWAL TIME IS THIS PROPERTY RENTED? IF IT IS RENTED, WHAT ARE THE DURATIONS OF RENTAL? YOU KNOW, 31 DAYS OR MORE? 12 MONTHS OR MORE? TWO DAYS OR MORE? OK. SO THAT'S GOING TO COME INTO THE DISCUSSION WHEN THEY GO TO SET THAT POLICY, BECAUSE THE POLICY BEING MISIDENTIFIED AS A RESIDENTIAL POLICY AND I BELIEVE THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU WERE DRIVING AT, THEN THAT POLICY IS GOING TO HAVE AN EXCLUSION FOR THIS TYPE OF TRANSIENT HOUSING RENTAL. THAT IN CASE IN POINT, THE PERSON THAT GETS BIT BY THE RENTER'S DOG, THERE IS NO INSURANCE TO GO AFTER POTENTIALLY. SO I BELIEVE YOU HIT ON SOMETHING THAT'S A LITTLE BIT OF

A DEEPER TOPIC BUT I BELIEVE YOU'RE CORRECT. >> IF I MAY, CHAIR MEMBERS JUST TO ADD SOMETHING ELSE TO CONSIDER. THE CONDITIONS THAT WE ARE TOSSING AROUND THAT WE'LL ON MONDAY ARE RATHER YOU ARE, WERE THEY AFFECTED THE COST, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS AN ADDITIONAL COST ASSOCIATED AND THAT'S WHY. THAT'S ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS WHY WE WANT TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION WITH OUR COMMISSION. WITH THE CONDITIONS OF FIVE STANDARDS THAT WE HAVE HERE, THESE ARE JUST STANDARD THAT -- IN ORDER TO OPERATE ANY BUSINESS YOU HAVE TO HAVE A BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT AND HAS TO BE REGISTERED WITH THE STATE THEY'RE THE REGULATORY FOR RENTALS, WITH THIS, GOING FROM A RESIDENTIAL INSURANCE TO A BUSINESS, I'M SURE THERE IS FOR $1 MILLION, I'M SURE THERE'S MORE OF A COST ASSOCIATED WITH THAT.

AND SO THAT MAY BE SOMETHING ELSE YOU MAY WANT TO DISCUSS. WHETHER THAT IS A DECISION THAT WE MAKE HERE OR THAT WE MAKE AT A RECOMMENDATION FOR OUR COMMISSION.

>> I DO HAVE A QUESTION. MAYBE TWO QUESTIONS. IT WAS MENTIONED THAT THE BUSINESS POLICIES ARE NOMINAL, SO TO SPEAK. CAN SOMEBODY GIVE ME A BALLPARK FIGURE OF WHAT POLICY WOULD COST? AND ALSO, WITH THAT, ARE WE LIMITING NOW PERSONS WHO WOULD BE ABLE TO OFFER THEIR PROPERTIES AS VACATION RENTALS?

>> WELL, I CAN TOUCH ON A COUPLE OF ASPECTS OF THAT. FIRST, IF YOU ACTUALLY OWN YOUR PROPERTY OUTRIGHT, YOU DON'T HAVE A LEARNED ON IT, YOU DON'T HAVE ANY REQUIREMENT TO CARRY INSURANCE, SO IN ALL LIKELIHOOD, THERE ARE MANY PROPERTY OWNERS IN CITY OF FORT APPEARS THAT

[00:20:02]

HAVE NO INSURANCE AT ALL. PROPERTY COVERAGE, LIABILITY COVERAGE, ET CETERA.

IF YOU HAVE A LENDER AND IT'S AN INSURANCE THRESHOLD THAT NEEDS TO BE MET THROUGH THE SO SATISFY THE MORTGAGE HOLDER. HAVING SAID THAT, I THINK THE PRIMARY -- I'M NOT AN INSURANCE PERSON, I'M JUST SPEAKING FROM EXPERIENCE ON THE REAL ESTATE SIDE, IS THAT YOU HAVE, THERE'S A SEPARATION BETWEEN A HOMEOWNER'S POLICY AND STATES RIGHT ON THE COVER SHEET OF THE POLICY WHAT IS THE PROPERTY USED FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNIT OR I WOULD DEFINE OWNER-OCCUPIED. IF IT'S NOT THERE WILL BE A DIFFERENT DEFINITION OF WHAT THE PROPERTY IS USED FOR, EITHER LONG-TERM RENTAL, SHORT TERM RENTAL.

WE PUT OUR UNITS INTO THE AGENCIES FOR INSURANCE QUOTES, I DO KNOW THAT THE RATES ARE MORE MONEY, BUT I CANNOT DEFINITIVELY SAY HOW MUCH MORE THEY ARE. BUT WE SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED THE ACTUAL USE OF THE PROPERTY. SO IN EVENT THERE WERE TO BE A CLAIM, I CAN'T SIT HERE AND SAY, CHAPTER AND VERSE HOW MANY ARE DOING THAT, BY STIPULATING A REQUIREMENT, YOU'RE PUTTING IN THE BASELINE NEED FOR IT. I THINK IT MAKE SENSE BUT I DON'T KNOW THE COST

DIFFERENTIAL. >> IF I MAY, THE TYPICAL BUSINESS PROPERTY INSURANCE IS NOT INSTEAD OF YOUR HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE. IT'S ADDED ON.

AND IT'S USUALLY THROUGH ONE OF THE RENTAL AGENCIES. THERE'S ANOTHER ISSUE HERE, WHICH I AM AN INSURANCE PERSON, I DON'T WANT TO GET TOO TECHNICAL.

IF YOU HAVE A CONDO AND YOU'RE RENTING IT AS A VACATION RENTAL, AND IT'S ON SECOND FLOOR, HYPOTHETICALLY, AND ONE OF YOUR GUESTS CAUSES DAMAGE TO THE UNIT BELOW BY WHATEVER, THEIR HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE, THEIR CONDO INSURANCE, MAY NOT COVER THEM, BECAUSE PART OF THE APPLICATION FOR POLICY SAYS WHAT IS THE USE OF YOUR ADJACENT PROPERTY.

AND IF YOU HAVE A BUSINESS USE NEXT TO YOU, OR LET'S SAY IN CASE OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE, IF A CARELESS GUEST HAS A BARBECUE AND THEY ACCIDENTLY CATCH THE NEIGHBORS HOUSE ON FIRE, THAT NEIGHBOR'S HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE MAY NOT COVER THEM. BECAUSE THERE'S A BUSINESS USE NEXT DOOR THAT THEY HAVE NOT DIVULGED TO THEIR INSURANCE COMPANY.

SO THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES ARE PROTECTED, AND THAT I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE WE START WITH THE CURRENT APPLICATIONS HERE NOW AND ALSO REQUEST THAT THE CITY COMMISSION ADD THAT TO A -- TO THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS AS A RETROACTIVE

MATTER. . >> IT JUST APPEARS BY ADDING ANOTHER LAYER TO WHAT WE ALREADY ASKING FOR, AND I REMEMBER WHEN I FIRST BECAME A PART OF THE BOARD, MOST OF THE VACATION RENTALS THAT CAME BEFORE THE BOARD WERE PEOPLE IN NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE CITY, NOT ACROSS THE BEACH. AND WHEN WE ADD AN ADDITIONAL FEE TO WHAT WE'RE ASKING THEM TO DO NOW, SEEMS TO ME THAT MAYBE WE'RE GOING TO ELIMINATE SOME PEOPLE FROM THE PROCESS. AND AS WE SAID BEFORE, WE WANT VISITORS TO COME TO THE CITY, WE WANT THEM TO BE PART OF FORT PIERCE. WE WANT THEM TO BOOST THE ECONOMY OF FORT PIERCE. BUT IF WE CONTINUE TO HOLD ON, I THINK TO, IN THE LONG RUN HURT OURSELVES AND WE WE ONLY HAVE PEOPLE COMING HERE USING VACATION RENTALS.

JUST MY OPINION. >> IT'S TRUE, BUT IT'S A BALANCING ACT TO BE CERTAIN THAT WE'RE PROTECTING THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE. AND THE THEORY THAT MS. BAKER IS PRESENTING AND I CAN'T ARGUE WITH IT, IS THAT IF THERE'S A VACATION RENTAL AND IN A CONDOMINIUM THAT DAMAGE AS UNIT BELOW, THERE COULD BE A ISSUE WHO'S COVERAGE WILL COVER THAT DAMAGE. IF I OWN A CONDOMINIUM THAT'S BEING RENTED AND I HAVEN'T DISCLOSED THAT, MY TYPICAL HOMEOWNERS POLICY WOULD PROBABLY NOT COVER ME.

AND IF IT HAPPENED TO BE MS. BAKER'S CONDO THAT WAS FLOODED DUE TO A DRAIN ISSUE IN MY CONDO AT THE TIME IT WAS RENTED, HER POLICY MAY NOT COVER HER. AND I THINK THAT IF A BUSINESS

[00:25:10]

INSURANCE POLICY CAN SATISFY THAT ISSUE, WHETHER THERE'S A COST INVOLVED OR NOT, WE'VE GOT TO LOOK AT THIS, THIS IS A BUSINESS THAT PEOPLE ARE WISHING TO RUN WHEN THEY COME TO US, ASKING FOR CONDITIONAL USE ON A SHORT TERM RENTAL. IT'S A BUSINESS.

THEY'RE ONLY DOING IT FOR ONE REASON, TO MAKE PROFIT. IT'S NOT A MATTER OF MAKING A MORTGAGE PAYMENT. IT'S MAKING PROFIT. IN ALL BUSINESSES, THERE'S A COST OF OPERATION ASSOCIATED TO THAT. WHETHER IT BE A FIXED COST OR A VERIBLE COST. THERE'S A COST ASSOCIATED. INSURANCE SHOULD BE ONE OF THOSE COSTS AND I'VE NEVER STOPPED TO CONSIDER IT AND I DID SEE YOUR, YOUR NOTE TO US CONCERNING THAT, AND SOMEHOW, IT WENT RIGHT BY ME. BUT I NEVER REALLY STOPPED TO CONSIDER THE INSURANCE ASPECTS OF THIS. NORMALLY I'M THE GUY IN THE ROOM THAT GENERALLY BRINGS UP THE POTENTIAL LIABILITY. EVERYTHING I DID IN BUSINESS, I WEIGHED IT AGAINST A POSSIBLE LIABILITY TO MY CORPORATION. I'M EMBARRASSED THAT I DIDN'T TOP ON THIS SOONER. BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW TO MOVE FORWARD BECAUSE I THINK THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO ESTABLISH A REGULATION RULE THAT REQUIRES BUSINESS INSURANCE, IF WE WILL, THEN WE SHOULD ALSO THEN REQUIRE LIMITATIONS OF THAT BUSINESS INSURANCE.

NO? >> THERE'S STANDARD. >> THE SMALLEST COMPANY I EVER HAD, I HAD $1 MILLION, $3 MILLION POLICY WITH $1 MILLION UMBRELLA OR SOMETHING ON IT.

AND IT WAS PRETTY COMMON, PRETTY SIMPLE INSURANCE. >> THEY'RE GENERALLY STANDARD BASED ON AND THE RISK. THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RENTING A ONE BEDROOM CONDO AND

SIX BEDROOM SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE. >> THE RISKS GOES UP, THE INSURANCE GOES UP, HE HAVE

REVENUE GOES UP, INSURANCE GOES UP. >> I'M NOT OPPOSED TO ADDING IT TO THIS AND NOT OPPOSED TO LOOKING AT HOW WE CAN TAG IT ON IN SOME WAY TO WHAT WE'RE READY

TO PRESENT FROM MONDAY. SO. >> MR. CHAIR?

I'M WILLING TO MAKE A MOTION. >> I'M WILLING TO ENTERTAIN A MOWING.

>> MOTION THAT WE APPROVE ITEM 6 ARC WITH THE FIVE CONDITIONS THAT THE STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED AND ADDITIONAL -- AN ADDITIONAL CONDITION OF THAT THE APPLICANT SHOULD SECURE BUSINESS INSURANCE -- SHOULD INSURE A BUSINESS INSURANCE POLICY FOR THE PROPERTY THAT'S BEING RENTED.

>> CALL THE ROLE, PLEASE, MS. JOHNSON. >> NO.

>> MR. BROED RICK. >> YES. >> MR. LEE.

>> YES, MS. BAKER, YES, MS. DIAZ YYES. >> MR. BIRCH.

>> YES, MR. CHAIRMAN. >> YES, MA'AM. >> THIS IS KIND OF A HOUSE KEEPING THING, WE'LL HAVE TO BRING THIS BACK UP AT THE BOARD COMMENTS AT THE END OF THE MEETING THAT WE'RE GOING TO IN THIS CASE PART OF THE RECOMMENDATION OF ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION WE'LL DEAL WITH WITH THE CITY COMMISSION ON MONDAY, BECAUSE I THINK THIS

BOARD WILL HAVE TO VOTE ON THAT. >> I'D LIKE TO DO THAT. JUST FOR COMMENT, BECAUSE IT'S BEEN BROUGHT UP ALREADY. MR. BIRCH -- MR. BROAD RICK WILL DO THE PRESENTATION AT THE COMMISSIONER MEETING. AND I CHOSE TO DO THAT BECAUSE HE'S REALLY GOT THE EXPERTISE TO BE ABLE TO HANDLE THAT DISCUSSION. HE'S DONE AN AWFUL LOT OF WORK ON THIS VACATION RENTAL THING OVER THE YEARS AND I'VE GOT REAMS OF PAPER HERE TO SHOW THE

[b. Conditional Use - Ballantyne Dwelling Rental - 715 S. Ocean Drive, Unit B]

WORK HE'S DONE. WE'LL MOVE TO ITEM B. ARE YOU PRESENTING OR.

>> I'M PRESENTING IT. >> MS. MEISTER WILL PRESENT CONDITIONAL USE OF DEVELOPING

RENTAL 2015 SOUTH OCEAN DRIVE UNIT B. >> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.

MEMBERS BOARD. NEXT TWO ITEMS BEFORE YOU ARE WITHIN THE SAME CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX. THE FIRST ITEM BEFORE YOU IS THE BOUND HEIM DWELLING RENTAL, THIS IS UNIT B OF 715 SOUTH OCEAN DRIVE. AND THE UNIT IS WITHIN THE 11 UNIT BUILDING. THE ENTIRE SITE HAS A FUTURE LAND USE AND ZONING MAP

[00:30:08]

DESIGNATION OF HUTCHINSON ISLAND RESIDENTIAL WITH HUTCHINSON ISLAND MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL.

AS POINTED OUT THE CITY PASSED AN ORDINANCE IN 2001 WHICH DEVELOPED CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL HAVE BEEN ADDED AND I WOULD -- THE NEXT TWO APPLICATIONS I ACTUALLY PUT VERBATIM AS TO HOW OUR CONDITIONAL USE READS.

IN OUR CODE AS STATED HERE, ADDED TO ALLOW WHEN DESIRABLE USE THES THAT WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE GENERALLY OR THAT RESTRICTION THROUGH ANY PARTICULAR ZONING DISTRICT.

WHICH IF CONTROLLED AS TO NUMBER, AREA, LOCATION IN RELATION TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, COMFORT, GOOD ORDER, APPEARANCE, CONVENIENCE AND GENERAL WELFARE. WHEN WE LOOK AT THESE DWELLING RENTALS BEFORE STAFF WE MAKE SURE THERE'S NO CODE ENFORCEMENT OR POLICE DEPARTMENT VIOLATIONS AND AGAIN, AS MR. GILMORE POINTED OUT, THAT IN 2011, SUBSEQUENT TO OUR APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPING RENTALS THE STATE CREATED A LAW THAT REGULATES VACATION RENTALS AND ACTUALLY THE REGULATORY AGENCY IS OUR STATE BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATIONS DEPARTMENT. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL WITH THE FIVE STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. AND I'M SURE THE NUMBER SIX WILL ALSO BE ADDED AT THE END OF THIS PRESENTATION. ALL POSSIBLE ACTIONS BY THE BOARD IS TO APPROVE THE PRESENT IT, OR TO APPROVE WITH CHANGES TO THE CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OR TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE. I'M HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.

>> WE HAVE HAD TWO CONDITIONAL USE FOR SHORT TERM RENTALS COME TO US IN THIS BUILDING

PREVIOUSLY. IF MY MEMORY SERVES ME RIGHT. >> ACTUALLY THREE.

>> THERE ARE THREE UNITS APPROVED NOW. AND WE GOT TWO UNITS IN FRONT OF US, WE'RE LOOKING AT ONE OF THOSE TWO UNITS PRESENTLY. SO THAT WOULD BE A TOTAL OF FIVE. I WAS OUT THERE TODAY, AND THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF WORK ON THAT BUILDING. AND THE PARKING LOT HAS BEEN CODED AND RESEALED AND THAT ALWAYS LOOKS NICE FOR A LITTLE WHILE UNTIL THE SEALER STARTS TO WEAR OFF, BUT THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF WORK AROUND THAT BUILDING. AND I APPRECIATED THAT. IT'S GONE FROM A BUILDING THAT LOOKED LIKE IT WAS GETTING CLOSE TO BEING ON ITS LAST LEG, IF SOMEBODY DIDN'T DO SOMETHING FAST, TO A BUILDING NOW THAT IS RATHER ATTRACTIVE THERE ON THE ISLAND.

BUT ALSO NOTICED THAT THEY'RE PRESENTLY NOW AT ONE TIME, I WAS OUT THERE AND I COUNTED FOUR PARKING SPACES. IF MY MEMORY SERVES ME RIGHT, THAT WERE GUEST SPACES, NOW THERE ARE SEVEN. I BRING THAT UP ONLY BECAUSE IF WE GOT THREE UNITS THAT ARE RENTED NOW, AND WE'VE GOT TWO SITTING IN FRONT OF US, THAT WOULD UTILIZE SIX OF THOSE SEVEN

SPACES AND WE REQUIRE TWO SPACES. >> A MAXIMUM OF TWO SPACES.

>> SO IT'S NOT A MATTER OF WHAT HAPPENS IF WE -- ONCE WE GET ANOTHER ONE COME TO VISIT, WE WILL -- IT APPEARS -- AND THAT'S THE 7TH SPACE, WHAT HAPPENS TO UNIT EIGHT IF WE ASK FOR TWO

SPACE. >> ONLY THING I WOULD LIKE TO RAISE WHEN IT COMES TO THIS BUILDING, IT IS A CONDOMINIUM AND THEY HAVE THEIR REGULATIONS. EACH OF THE UNIT OWNERS HAVE BEEN -- HAVE DESIGNATED ONE PARKING SPACE PER EACH UNIT. AND THEN THERE'S A SERIES OF GUEST SPACES. AND IT'S BASED ON A FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED FOR THE GUEST SPACES AS MANY CONDOMINIUMS OPERATE. YOU KNOW, THEY ARE LIMITED IN WHERE THEY CAN PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACE. THEY'RE LIMITED IN THAT REGARD.

SO YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW HOW WE CAN IMPOSE THEM PUTTING IN ANOTHER PARKING AREA FOR THESE VACATION RENTALS, YOU KNOW, IF THEY PARK SOMEWHERE THAT'S ILLEGAL, THEY -- THEY WILL, YOU KNOW, BE TICKETED OR TOWED. SO RIGHT NOW, WE'RE REGULATING THEM SIMPLY BASED ON -- THERE ARE ONE BEDROOM UNITS THAT ARE GOING FOR THESE VACATION RENTALS.

SO MORE THAN LIKELY THERE'S ONLY ONE AUTOMOBILE. >> MOST ARE ONE BEDROOM, IF

MEMORY SERVES ME. >> THE NEXT APPLICATION BEFORE YOU IS A TWO BEDROOM, BUT THAT'S

[00:35:04]

IN A SEPARATE BUILDING TO THIS. PART OF THE SAME COMPLEX. >> OK.

MR. CHAIR? >> IN REGARDS TO THE PARKING QUESTION THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO ANSWER. IF IT GETS TO A POINT WHERE STAFF REALIZES THAT THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO MEET CODE OR THE CONDITIONS, THEN SOMEWHERE, I BELIEVE, WOULDN'T STAFF BRING THAT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE APPLICANT AND SAY, LISTEN, YOU DON'T MEET THE REQUIREMENT BECAUSE YOU CAN'T PROVIDE ENOUGH PARKING SPACES FOR THE SPOT THAT YOU'RE ASKING US TO APPROVE AS CONDITIONAL USE. AND THAT WILL BE A PART OF CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS.

SO YOU DON'T MEET THE CONDITIONAL USES NECESSITY OF THE NUMBER OF PARKING IS SPACES AVAILABLE. SO THE STAFF, STAFF WOULD DENY THAT AND STAFF LEVEL INSTEAD OF BRINGING IT TO US. WOULDN'T YOU? BECAUSE THEY DON'T MEET CODE.

>> THIS IS -- THAT IS A GOOD QUESTION. WHEN IT COMES TO THIS SITE THOUGH, THIS PROPERTY, HAS BEEN APPROVED THIS WAY. AND I KNOW THAT NOW WE'RE CHANGING TO OPERATING AS A BUSINESS. BUT THE SITE HAS -- WAS BUILT A LONG TIME AGO, AND THIS IS THE PARKING THAT HAS FUNCTIONED ON THIS SITE.

AND TYPICALLY, WHEN WE HAVE CODE VIOLATIONS FOR PARKING, I MEAN, WHEN IT'S BROUGHT TO STAFF'S ATTENTION IT'S THROUGH THE CODE VIOLATION PROCESS. THERE HAS NOT BEEN PARKING ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION THUS FAR, BUT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE DEFINITELY

SHOULD LOOK AT AND EXAMINE, MR. BIRCH, I AGREE, CHAIRMAN. >> YOU'VE INDICATED TO US THAT BASICALLY ALL THE PARKING ALMOST TO THIS POINT WILL HAVE BEEN ALLOCATED IN SOME WAY AND SOME FASHION OR FORM FOR THE CURRENT APARTMENTS THERE AND FOR THE ADDITIONAL ONES WE'VE ASKED NO MORE THAN TWO PARKING SPACES. SO THEY'RE -- THE APPLICANTS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO BE SCRAMBLING FOR THE PARKING SPACES NOT THE CITY, BECAUSE THEY WOULD NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF CITY'S

CODE. >> CURRENTLY, AS THEY WERE APPROVED, THEY WERE APPROVED BASED ON PARKING REQUIREMENTS AS THESE WERE -- THEY WERE NOT CONSIDERED HOTEL MOTEL USES.

>> RIGHT. >> SO THE PARKING REQUIREMENT WHEN IT WAS DEVELOPED WAS

DIFFERENT THAN IT IS TODAY. >> FROM THIS POINT FORWARD, IF ANOTHER ONE WAS TO COME IN AND I THINK THAT WE EVEN MADE NOTE OF THAT OR THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ON, THAT MAYBE IT WAS THIS BUILDING OR ANOTHER BUILDING THAT IT APPEAR THAT IS ALL THE UNITS IN THERE WERE GOING TO BE COMING IN AND ASKING FOR EARLY -- FOR SHORT TERM VACATION RENTALS, AND THERE WOULDN'T BE ENOUGH PARKING FOR ALL OF THOSE UNITS, I THINK, I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS THIS AN OR A DIFFERENT UNIT ON SOUTH BEACH BUT SOMEWHERE AND APPEARS WE'RE ALMOST AT THE LIMIT OF THE AMOUNT OF PARKING THAT -- THAT'S AVAILABLE FOR THE UNITS THAT ARE ASKING TO BE SHORT TERM RENTALS.

>> IF I MAY, CHAIRMAN, THIS BUILDING WILL BE RESTRICTED TO ADDITIONAL VACATION RENTALS BASED ON STATE. AND THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN MADE AWARE OF THAT.

SO WE DON'T FORESEE ANY MORE VACATION RENTALS COMING BECAUSE THIS ONE MAY HAVE ACTUALLY TRIGGERED THE 25%. APPLICANT IS AWARE OF THAT THAT WILL BE SOMETHING THAT APPLICANT WILL HAVE TO SECURE WHEN IT COMES TO STATE IN ORDER TO GET A BUSINESS LICENSE WITH THE CITY.

SO WE DO FORESEE ANY MORE VACATION RENTALS BEING ABLE TO COME TO THIS BUILDING UNLESS THEY DO THE CHANGE OF USE, AND SECURE FIRE SPRINKLES IN BUILDING.

>> ALSO, WHEN THE, ADA REQUIREMENTS ALSO COME INTO PLAY.

>> IT COULD BE PROHIBITIVE. >> WE'RE AT 25% WITH THESE TWO? >> AND IF I MAY, I'M NOT THE EXPERT, BUT THERE IS INCONSISTENCIES WITH THE FLORIDA STATUTE AND A BROCHURE THAT STATE DEPARTMENT PUT OUT WITH REGARD TO VACATION RENTALS, THIS IS SOMETHING THE APPLICANT IS GOING TO GET CLARIFICATION ON WE ADVISED HER TO CONTACT THE ATTORNEY THAT REPRESENTS THE BUILDING COMMISSION AND THAT'S WHAT SHE'S DOING FOR THE DECISION BEING BROUGHT BEFORE THE BOARD TODAY, IT IS STRICTLY ON PLANNING ISSUES BUT THIS WILL HAVE TO BE SOMETHING THAT THE

APPLICANT SECURES BEFORE SHE CAN GO FURTHER WITH VACATION RENTAL. >> SO I UNDERSTAND THAT PROCESS AND I UNDERSTAND THAT'S NOT THE TOPIC IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD TODAY.

HOWEVER, I BELIEVE THAT THE DISCUSSION IS A LITTLE BIT MORE GENERALIZED FROM A PERSPECTIVE THAT IF THIS PARTICULAR UNIT TRIGGERS THE -- IF THE 25% RULE IS WHAT IS REALLY IN EFFECT

[00:40:05]

HERE, AND IT TRIGGERS THIS TRANSITIONAL TYPE HOUSING COMPLEX, WHICH IS NOW UNDER STATE REGULATION FOR SPRINKLERS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. BECAUSE THIS IS A CHANGE OF USE, THIS IS GET BACK TO MR. BIRCH'S COMMENT ON THE PARKING, SINCE IT'S A CHANGE OF USE, DOES THAT THEN TRIGGER A NEED FOR AN UPDATED ON-SITE PARKING TO ACCOMMODATE ALL THE PARK.

>> IT'S NOT ASSOCIATED WITH THE PARKING, IT'S ASSOCIATED WITH THE LAST PERSON IN IS THEN

RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING FIRE SPRINKLERS IN EACH UNIT. >> SO I GET IT CLEAR.

IF THIS TRIGGER THAT IS 25%, SO IT TRIPS THE TRANSATORY -- THE TRANSATORY HOUSING SCENARIO, THEN PRIOR TO THIS PARTICULAR UNIT RECEIVING LICENSING, BTR FROM THE CITY AND THEN DDPR LICENSEING FROM THE STATE, THESE PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS WOULD NEED TO BE COMPLETED IF THAT

RULE IS IN EFFECT. >> YES, SIR. >>> SO THIS IN ESSENCE IS KIND OF IN A HOLD STATS UNTIL ALL THOSE DETERMINATIONS ARE MADE BECAUSE THIS UNIT TRIPS THAT

PERCENTAGE. >> IT IS -- YOU COULD SAY THAT. WE CAN GO THROUGH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY COMMISSION APPROVAL PROCESS. BUT WHEN IT COMES TO ACTUALLY

GETTING THE LICENSE, THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE RESOLVED. >> THANK YOU.

>> ANY FURTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? >> MR. CHAIR, I HAVE A QUESTION, IF I COULD. DO WE HAVE A MUNICIPALITY IN ST. LUCI COUNTY CALLED HUTCHINSON.

>> WE DO NOT HAVE A MUNICIPALITY. >> DOES THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE RECOGNIZE HUTCHISON ISLAND AS A MUNICIPAL OR AN ADDRESS OF RECORD THEY WOULD USE

THAT YOU KNOW OF. >> NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF, SIR. >> THANK YOU.

>> ANYTHING ELSE. >> I'LL ENTERTAIN THE MOTION. >> MR. CHAIR, MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE APPLICATION 6 B WITH THE FIVE CONDITIONS BEING PRESENTED BY STAFF, AND AN DSHL CONDITION THAT BUSINESS INSURANCE POLICY BE OBTAINED BY THE APPLICANT FOR THE PROPERTY

BEING PRESENTED TO US FOR APPROVAL. >> I'LL SECOND THAT.

>> A SECOND? >> MR. BROED RICK, MR. LEE, MS. BAKER, MS. DIAZ, MR. BIRCH, MS.

[c. Conditional Use - Danaluk Dwelling Rental - 715 S. Ocean Drive, Unit L]

JOHNSON SCOTT. CHAIRMAN MILLER. >> YES, MA'AM.

>>> ITEM C. CONDITIONAL USE. RENTAL, DWELLING RENTAL 715

SOUTH OCEAN DRIVE UNIT L. >> MEMBERS BOARD, THIS IS A SECOND DEVELOPING RENTAL IN THIS COMPLEX, AS YOU NOTED HERE OR SHOWN, RATHER, THE SLIDE, YOU WOULD SEE THERE'S A DETACHED TWO-STORY DUPLEX AND UNIT L IS WITHIN THAT. AGAIN, THIS IS -- THIS VACATION RENTAL OR DEVELOPING RENTAL IS OK AT 715 SOUTH OCEAN DRIVE UNIT L.

FUTURE LAND USE IS HITCH IN SON RESIDENTIAL WITH COMPATIBLE ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AS HITCH IN SON ISLAND MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. AGAIN, THE BASIS FOR OUR RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE CITY PASSED ORDINANCE K, 114 IN 2001. WHICH ESTABLISHED DWELLING RENTALS AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS.

THIS WAS PROCEEDED, THE FLORIDA LEGISLATION PASSING THEIR REGULATIONS WITH REGARD TO THE VACATION RENTALS IN 2011. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL, SUBJECT TO THE FIVE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AS LISTED HERE, AND DESCRIBED IN THE PREVIOUS PREVIOUS PRESENTATIONS.

POSSIBLE ACTIONS RECOMMEND APPROVAL, THE PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE AS PRESENTED, RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH CHANGES TO THE PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OR RECOMMEND DENIAL.

I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> QUESTIONS?

>> MR. CHAIR I HAVE ONE QUESTION. THIS PARTICULAR UNIT, EVEN THOUGH IT'S IN THE SAME COMPLEX, BECAUSE IT'S IN A SEPARATE STRUCTURE DOES NOT CONTRIBUTE TO

THE 25% TO THRESHOLD. >> CORRECT. >> SO IT DOESN'T TRIGGER DBPOR

LAUGH SAFETY. >> THEY WILL NOT HAVE TO SPRINKLE AT THIS BUILDING AS IT

IS THE DUPLEX. >> HOWEVER IT CONTRIBUTES TO 50%.

>> IT DOES NOT. 25% IS THE BASIS FROM THE 11 UNITS.

[00:45:01]

>> BUT THE DUPLEX IS TWO UNIT. ONE IS A CONDITIONAL USE THEN THE OTHER ONE CANNOT BE UNDER

THE 25% RULE. >> THE 25% RULE ONLY APPLIES TO THE SPRINKLING OF THIS BUILDING, SO THEY DO NOT, THEY HAD TWO SEPARATE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.

>> FOR THAT PARTICULAR BUILDING. MY POINT IS YOU GOT TWO BUILDINGS.

ONE IS COVERED UNDER THE 25% RULE BASED ON THE NUMBER OF UNITS.

THE SECOND BUILDING MUST ALSO BE COVERED IN THAT SAME RESPECT. NO.

>> IT IS NOT BEING THAT IT IS A DUO PLEX, IT DOES NOT TRIGGER THAT.

. >> TRYING TO CONFIRM. >> THAT'S THAT IS HOW I WAS ADVISED. AGAIN, APPLICANT WILL HAVE TO SECURE RESIDENCE TAX WITH OUR

STATE AND THAT WILL BE DETERMINED AT THAT POINT. >> THE SUBJECT CAME UP ON THE

WOODS DUPLEX. >> I THINK IT DID. >> I BELIEVE THE DETERMINATION AT THAT TIME WAS EVEN THOUGH IT WAS THOUGHT INITIALLY BASED ON ADDITIONAL INTERPRETATION FROM THE STATE, IT WASN'T TRIGGERING. I DON'T KNOW WHY BUT I DO RECOLLECT.

>> I THINK WE HAD THIS DISCUSSION BEFORE. >> YOU MAKE A LOGICAL POINT BECAUSE IF IT'S TWO UNITS VERSUS TEN, THAT'S A VERY INTERESTING QUESTION.

I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT. >> IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING ANYTHING OVER TWO UNITS LIKE A

DUO PLEX. >> MINIMUM. >> THAT YOU STAY WITHIN TWO.

>> CARVED OUT. >> EXACTLY. >> OK.

>> GETTING MORE OF AN OWNER-OCCUPIED WITH A SINGLE RENTAL.

THAT MAKES SENSE, IT WOULD SEEM LOGICAL TO ME. I DON'T KNOW THAT'S.

>> WE'RE ALL GOING TO SCHOOL. >> YES. >> CONTINUE.

I HAVE A FEELING. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. >> THEN I ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> WE APPROVE 6 CWITH THE FIVE CONDITIONS THE STAFF RECOMMENDED AND ADDITIONAL CONDITION 6 THAT BUSINESS INSURANCE POLICY BE OBTAINED FOR THE APPLICANT FOR THE PROPERTY BEING PRESENTED.

>> SECOND. >> AND WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND BY MS. DIAZ CALL THE

ROLE, PLEASE. >> MR. LEE. MS. BAKER.

MR. DIAZ. MR. BIRCH. MS. JOHNSON SCOTT.

MR. BROAD RICK. >> YES. >> CHAIRMAN CRAFT MILLER.

>> YES, MA'AM. I'VE NOT BEEN CALLING FOR ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC BECAUSE WE ONLY HAVE ONE PUBLIC AND I'M ASSUMING THAT MR. CRAY DOESN'T HAVE COMMENTS.

HE'S WAVING ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. SO I'M NOT IN ANY TROUBLE HERE. OK.

[d. Annexation - Jetson - 504 Tumblin Kling Road]

NEXT ITEM IS ITEM D. ANNEXATION, IT'S A JETSON PROPERTY AT 504 TIMBER KING ROAD. GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR MEMBERS BOARD.

BEFORE YOU TODAY IS AN APPLICATION FOR AN HE CAN SAYATION FOR A PROPERTY AT 504 TUMBLING CLAIM ROAD. FUTURE LAND USE ON PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY SAINT LUCI COUNTY COMMERCIAL. ONES ANNEXED IT WILL GIVE US GENERAL COMMERCIAL GC.

THE CURRENT FUTURE LAND -- THE CURRENT ZONING OF SAINT LUCI COUNTY IS CG COMMERCIAL GENERAL.

IT WILL BE GIVEN OUR COMPATIBLE CITIES ZONING OF C-3 GENERAL COMMERCIAL.

AS PROPOSED THE AN HE CAN SAYATION MEETS THE STANDARDS OF THE COMPREHENSION PLAN, 1.11 REGARDING ANNEXATION. PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE PLANNING BOARD FORWARD A RECOMMENDING OF APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE CITY COMMISSION.

OF POSSIBLE ACTIONS BY THE PLANNING BOARD YOU CAN APPROVE THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION OR DISPROVE. I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

THANK YOU. . >> MR. CRAY WOULD YOU BRING UP THE REVIEW OF THAT AGAIN, PLEASE? I JUST WANT TO MAKE A NOTE HERE, I'M GUESSING THAT JEN SON CAME BEFORE THE CITY AND ANNEXED INTO THE CITY QUITE SOME TIME AGO.

THAT IS A RESIDENTIAL AREA. AND THE FRONT AGE ALONG U.S. ONE IS CONSIDERED COMMERCIAL AND WIDELY USED COMMERCIAL PROPERTY ALTHOUGH THERE'S RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES ALONG THAT.

BUT HERE WE'RE LOOKING AT CREATING FURTHER DEPTH INTO RESIDENTIAL BARRIER, AND SUGGESTING THAT WE CHANGE THE ZONING OVER TO COMMERCIAL USE. AND I KNOW THAT PRESENTLY UNDER

[00:50:04]

OUR SYSTEM, THAT WE DON'T NOTIFY ANYONE WITHIN THE COMMUNITY AND I'M SURE THAT WHEN THIS GOES BEFORE THE COMMISSION, THAT WILL BE DONE CORRECTLY. SO I DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS OVER

THAT ISSUE. >> ACTUALLY, BOTH ZONE AND FUTURE LAND USE IS ALREADY COMMERCIAL WITH THE COUNTY. THEY COULD DEVELOP A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY WITHOUT HAVING TO DO ANYTHING SPECIAL. SO THEY'RE JUST BEING ANNEXED INTO THE CITY AND WE HAVE TO GIVE THEM OUR COMPATIBLE ZONING AND FUTURE LESS THAN USE SO WE CAN'T MAKE THEM DOWN ZONE THEIR

PROPERTY. >> IT'S INTERESTING, BECAUSE THERE'S HAD A HOUSE ON THAT

PROPERTY, YOU CAN'T SEE IT. >> THERE IS A HOUSE ON THAT PROPERTY.

IT WAS RESIDENTIAL AT ONE TIME. BUT OK. THAT'S MY ONLY COMMENT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. CRAY. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, IF THAT PROPERTY WAS TO BE DEVELOPED AS A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, PART OF THE -- PART OF THE REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE THAT A FENCING OR SOME SORT OF BARRICADE WOULD BE BETWEEN THE RESIDENTIAL AND THE

COMMERCIAL. IS THAT NOT TRUE. >> THAT WOULD BE CORRECT.

>> SO THERE WOULD BE A BARRIER THAT WOULD BE PLACED THERE BETWEEN THE TWO.

>> AND JUST KIND OF FILL YOU IN A LITTLE BIT, JET SEND'S PLAN FOR THIS PROPERTY IS TO EXPAND THE CURRENT OPERATION, EXTRA STORAGE SPACE FOR INVENTORY, MAYBE ANOTHER SHOWROOM, THEY WILL COME FORWARD WITH A SITE PLAN ONCE EVERYTHING IS COMPLETED WITH THE ANNEXATION.

AND THERE'S A FEW CLEAN-UPS, AS FAR AS FUTURE LAND USE, AS YOU CAN SEE FUTURE LAND USE THEY WOULD NEED TO DO AN AMENDMENT. SO THERE'S A FEW DIFFERENT THINGS NEEDED TO HAPPEN BEFORE

THEY COULD START BUILDING ANYTHING. >> IF I MAY ADD TO WHAT MR. CRAY STATING. WHEN THEY ANNEX INTO THE CITY, WE THEN GOT TO REVIEW THEIR SITE PLAN AND PUT CERTAIN ELEMENTS INTO THAT APPROVAL PROCESS. SO AND YOU ALL WILL BE ABLE TO

SEE IT AND MAKE COMMENT ON IT. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> MOVE FOR APPROVAL. >> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND

CALL ROLE, PLEASE. >> MS. DIAZ. MR. BIRCH.

MS. JOHNSON SCOTT. MR. BROAD RICK. MR. LEE.

MS. BAKER. CHAIRMAN CRAFT MILLER. >> YES, MA'AM.

[7. ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR]

>>> IT'S AMAZING TO ME THAT IT'S ALREADY BEEN A YEAR SINCE WE LAST HAD AN ELECTION.

YOU WERE HERE FOR THE LAST ELECTION. YOU'VE BEEN HERE A YEAR.

>> I JUST PASSED MY YEAR LAST WEEK. >> CONGRATULATIONS.

>> THANK YOU. >> IT JUST DAWNED ON ME. >> IT WAS THE WEEK OF THE

HURRICANE. SO I'LL NEVER FORGET IT. >> YES.

IT WAS. TIME GOES BY WHEN YOU'RE HAVING FUN.

I'LL BET YOU HAD A LOT OF FUN. I'VE HAD FUN HAVING YOU HERE. YOU REALLY ADDED A LOT TO THE --

TO THE DEPARTMENT AND YOU'VE ADDED A LOT JUST IN BEING HERE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> OK. WE HAD TWO ELECTIONS. WE HAVE CHAIRS AND VICE CHAIR

ELECTION, AND I WOULD ACCEPT NOMINATIONS. >> I MOVE TO NOMINEE CURRENT

CHAIR MR. CRAFT MILLER TO SERVE DSHL TERM AS CHAIRMAN. >> SECOND.

>> I NOMINATE MR. BROAD RICK TO SERVE AS CHAIRMAN. >> WE HAVE A NOMINATION AND A SECOND ON MINE, WE HAVE A SECOND ON MR. BROAD RICK OR DO WE? WHERE IS MY CITY ATTORNEY? SHE'S HIDING DOWN THERE. I KNOW YOU'RE HERE. SO HELP ME OUT WITH THIS WHEN WE HAVE A -- A NOMINATION FOR A CHAIR. HOW DO YOU WE HANDLE TWO

NOMINATIONS FOR CHAIR BACK-TO-BACK? >> I BELIEVE WE HAVE A NOMINATION AND A SECOND. SO I THINK THAT THE VOTE SHOULD FOLLOW.

SO I THINK ONE MOTION AT A TIME. >> OK. SO WE FOLLOW THROUGH WITH MR.

BROAD RICK'S. >> THERE WAS A NOMINATION MADE WITH REGARD TO YOU, MR. CHAIR, THAT WAS SECONDED. AND I THINK THAT VOTE SHOULD BE ADDRESSED.

>> OK. SO WE HAVE A NOMINATION. >> MR. CHAIR I'LL MAKE ANOTHER COMMENT. I'M RESPECTFUL OF MR. BIRCH'S PUT MY NAME IN FOR CHAIRMAN, AWFUL AS THOUGH AND NOT TO DISPARAGE MR. BIRCH'S SUPPORT, SIMPLY PUT I FEEL AS THOUGH I AM MORE EFFECTIVE NOT BEING IN THE CHAIR POSITION SIMPLY BECAUSE IT GIVES ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE

[00:55:05]

SOMEWHAT MORE FOCUSED ON A PARTICULAR APPLICATION AT HAND. I LIKE I SAID I'M APPRECIATIVE OF THAT. BUT I THINK THAT MR. CRAFT MILLER HAS DONE AN EXCELLENT JOB IN ADMINISTRATIVING OUR MEETINGS, GIVING THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS THE ABILITY TO SURGICALLY GET INVOLVED WITH APPLICATIONS THAT COME BEFORE THIS BOARD.

SO I ACTUALLY FEEL AS THOUGH I'M MORE EFFECTIVE IN THE VICE CHAIR POSITION IN SUPPORT OF OUR CHAIRMAN. AND I STATE THAT BECAUSE I THINK HE DOES AN OUTSTANDING JOB AT COORDINATING AND RUNNING MEETINGS EFFICIENT'S AND MOVING MATTERS FORWARD, MR. BIRCH I APPRECIATE THAT. I FEEL IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY WITH MR. CRAFT MILLER'S SEASONING IN THE POSITION AND MANY COMPLEX ISSUES I FORESEE THE PLANNING BOARD DEALING WITH COMING UP

OVER SHORT TERM HE WOULD BE BETTER SUITED IN THAT POSITION. >> THANK YOU.

>> WE HAD A MOTION BY MR. BROAD RICK AND A SECOND BY MS. DIAZ. THEN WE CALL THE ROLE, PLEASE.

>> MS. BAKER. MR. DIAZ. MR. BIRCH.

MS. JOHNSON SCOTT. MR. BROAD RICK. MR. LEE.

CHAIRMAN CRAFT MILLER. >> YES, MA'AM. DO I HAVE A MOTION ON VICE

CHAIR. >> I MAKE MOTION THAT MR. BROAD RICK BE ELECTED ADVICE CHAIR.

>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION BAY MS. DIAZ AND A SECOND BY MS. BAKER.

CAWLEY ROLE, PLEASE. >> MR. BIRCH. MS. JOHNSON SCOTT.

MR. BROAD RICK. >> MR. LEE. >> MS. BAKER.

>> MS. DIAZ. >> CHAIRMAN CRAFT MILLER. >> YES, MA'AM.

>> I THANK THE BOARD FOR ELECTING ME AS YOUR CHAIR AGAIN AND I APPRECIATE THE CONFIDENCE

[8. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC Any person who wishes to comment on any subject may be heard at this time. Please limit your comments to three (3) minutes or less, as directed by the Chair, as this section of the Agenda is limited to thirty minutes. The Planning Board will not be able to take any official actions under Comments from the Public. Speakers will address the Board and the Public with respect. Inappropriate language will not be tolerated.]

THAT YOU HAVE IN ME. COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC AND AGAIN, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON

HOW WELL YOUR SON DID, HE'S DONE AN EXCELLENT JOB AND IMPROVING. >> I DO HAVE A COMMENT I'D LIKE TO BRING UP FROM THE PUBLIC. IT WAS BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION AND POSSIBLY YOU COULD GIVE US SOME DIRECTION HERE, THAT COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC AT THE END OF THE MEETING DOES NOT GIVE PEOPLE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO POTENTIAL ISSUES THAT THEY WISH TO SPEAK TO ON THE AGENDA.

IT'S SOMEWHAT IN REVERSE OF HOW THE CITY COMMISSION I BELIEVE HANDLES THEIR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC, PEOPLE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ABOUT SOMETHING THAT'S ON THE AGENDA ON THAT DAY'S MEETING. SO IN OTHER WORDS, TAKE THE COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC AND MOVE IT UP TO THE EARLIER PART OF THE MEETING, I'M JUST BLINKING IT UP BECAUSE IT WAS BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION. OF I HAD NOT THOUGHT OF IT BEFORE.

I THOUGHT IT WAS AN INTERESTING CONTEMPT. AT LEAST WARRANTED A MENTION

HERE AND A DISCUSSION. >> THEY HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO ANY ISSUE ON THE AGENDA

WHEN WE CALL THE PUBLIC COMMENTS. >> THAT'S TRUE.

YOU ANSWERED THE QUESTION. >> I THINK WHAT THE CITY HAVE AN OPEN COMMENT ON ANY.

>> NONAGENDA ITEM. >> ANY NONAGENDA ITEM THAT SOMEONE WANTS US TO BRING FORWARD. LACK OF HIGHWAY PATROL ON OUR STREETS.

FOR TRAFFIC CONTROL SUCH AS THAT. AND IN TERMS OF SPECIFIC COMMENTS, IT'S TO THE AGENDA ITEM. SO I -- I DON'T KNOW THAT WE

NEED TO CONSIDER MOVING THAT. DIRECTOR'S REPORT. >> CHAIRMAN MEMBERS BOARD, I WAS

[9. DIRECTOR'S REPORT]

GOING TO STATE AGAIN, REITERATE YOU'LL BE PRESENTING AT 9:00 IN MORNING NEXT MONDAY ON VACATION RENTALS AND OUR PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE CONDITION OF APPROVAL. HOPEFULLY SOME OF YOU WILL BE

ABLE TO ATTEND OR AT LEAST. >> WE WILL BE PRESENTING. DIDN'T I HEAR YOU SAY WE.

>> YOU WILL BE PRESENTING. I WILL BE FOR SUPPORT. >> I DID MISHEAR THAT.

>> I THINK WE'LL BE GOOD. I INTEND TO GET MR. MEISTER TO JUST READ DER'S DIGEST US, SO WE'LL BE PREPARED TO EXECUTE EXPEDITIOUSLY AT THE MEETING AND THEN ANSWER QUESTIONS.

I'M SURE THERE WILL BE SEVERAL. >> ALREADY STARTING TO JOT DOWN OTHER ONES THAT MAY COME UP.

>> YOU'LL BE IN THE SEAT NEXT TO ME THEN. >> GREAT.

>> ALL RIGHT. >>. >> MR. CHAIR IN REGARD TO THE VACATION RENTAL MEETING THAT MR. BROAD RICK WILL SO CAPABLY ON THE ISSUE OF INSURANCE, THE

[01:00:04]

QUESTION OF THE COST BEING A BURDEN TO SOME PEOPLE, I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT YOU LIMIT THE REQUIREMENT TO THIRD-PARTY LIABILITY BUSINESS INSURANCE. IN OTHER WORDS, THAT WOULD ONLY REQUIRE A PROPERTY OWNER TO SPEND THE LEAST AMOUNT OF MONEY ON INSURANCE IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE INTEREST OF THEIR NEIGHBORS AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC. THEY DON'T NEED TO HAVE BUSINESS INSURANCE FOR THEIR OWN PROPERTY. THEY DON'T NEED TO HAVE PERSONAL LIABILITY INSURANCE. I MEAN, THAT WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE LIABILITY INSURANCE, BUT TO REQUIRE EXPENSIVE, A NEIGHBOR, GENERAL PUBLIC, ADJACENT PROPERTY, THAT WOULD LOWER THEIR COSTS CONSIDERABLY AND WOULD FULFILL OUR OBLIGATION TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC.

. . >> IT'S A STAND ALONE POLICY AVAILABLE IN ADDITION TO A PERSON'S HOMEOWNERS OR CONDO INSURANCE BUT THAT WOULD BE MORE EXPENSIVE. THE STAND ALONE POLICIES ARE USUALLY OFFERED BY THE AIRBNB AND GROUPS LIKE THAT. BUT THE SOME OF THEM ARE GOOD AND SOME OF THEM ARE BAD.

SOME OF THEM DO NOT INCLUDE THIRD PARTY LIABILITY. THEY ONLY INCLUDE PERSONAL LIABILITY. SO THE KEY IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS THIRD PARTY LIABILITY TO PROTECT THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND ADJOINING NEIGHBORS AND SO FORTH.

WE DON'T NEED TO BURDEN PEOPLE WITH ADDITIONAL EXPENSES THAT THEY DO NOT NEED -- A PERSON DOESN'T HAVE INSURANCE AT ALL ON THEIR BUILDING, IF THEY DON'T HAVE A MORTGAGE AND THEY HAVE NO PROPERTY OR LIABILITY INSURANCE, ALL THEY NEED TO DO IS TO GET A THIRD PARTY, GET LIABILITY INSURANCE STAND ALONE POLICY THAT COVERS THIRD PARTY LIABILITY INSURANCE, IT WILL INCLUDE THEIR OWN LIABILITY INSURANCE. NOW, THE ONLY EXTRA EXPENSE WOULD BE IF THEY GO THROUGH A -- AN OUTSIDE COMPANY THAT REQUIRES THINGS LIKE SPRINKLERS OR THINGS LIKE THAT, BUT VERY FEW OF THEM DO THAT. THE AIRBNB INSURANCE POLICY WHICH I'VE LOOKED AT -- IT'S CMPREHENSIVE AND IT WASN'T VERY AND HE DOESN'T TO ADD IT ON, YOU KNOW, TO HER CONTRACT WITH THE AIRBNB, AND THERE'S SEVERAL OTHER ONES THAT ARE AVAILABLE WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS BUT SOME OF THEM DO NOT INCLUDE THIRD PARTY THIRD PARTY LIABILITY AND THAT'S THE ESSENTIAL PART OF THE REQUIREMENT.

>> WE'RE LEARNING AND LEARNING AND LEARNING. VERY GOODLY THANK YOU.

>> WITH THAT, WE HAVE MOVED INTO THE BOARD COMMENTS. SO IF THERE'S ANYONE ELSE THAT

HAS ANY COMMENTS? >> BEFORE YOU MOVE ON, DO WE NEED TO VOTE ON THAT, SINCE WE

VOTED ON THE BUSINESS INSURANCE? IS THIS TO REPLACE THAT? >> THAT WAS -- THE DEFINITION OF THE -- WAS EXACTLY WHAT I WAS THINKING OF WHEN I MADE THAT MOTION.

FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE BOARD MEMBER. >> SHOULD WE MOVE FORWARD ON

THIS MOTION? >> I KIND OF STALLED UNTIL I HAVE MR. BROAD RICK INCLUDED THAT AS A REFRESH MY MEMORY FOR ALL VACATION RENTALS. FOR THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY TO

HAVE THIRD-PARTY LIABILITY INSURANCE. >> YOU WANT TO SECOND THAT MR.

BIRCH. >> GLADLY. >> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. CALL ROLE, PLEASE.

>> MS. JOHNSON SCOTT. >> YOUR MOTION IS REPLACING THE ORIGINAL MOTION.

[01:05:08]

CORRECT? . >> IT IS -- THE INTENT OF THE ORIGINAL MOTIONS WAS TO HAVE THIRD PARTY LIABILITY INSURANCE, NOT GENERAL BUSINESS INSURANCE INCLUDING PROPERTY.

SO IF -- TO EXTENT, IT WHOULD. THEY WOULD NOT HAVE TO HAVE PROPERTY BUSINESS INSURANCE,

JUST LIABILITY. . >> WITH THAT EXPLANATION, I'M

READY TO VOTE YES. >> MR. BROAD RICK. >> YES.

>> MR. LEE. >> YES, MA'AM. >> MS. BAKER.

>> YES, MS. DIAZ. >> YES, MR. BIRCH. >> YES, CHAIRMAN CRAFT MERELY.

>> YES, MA'AM. GOOD CATCH, MS. JOHNSON SCOTT. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS?

[10. BOARD COMMENTS]

MY ONLY COMMENT IS, IN REGARD TO C C, I DON'T REALLY KNOW HOW TO SAY HER THIS YEAR'S SERVICE, IF YOU WILL, IS GOING TO BE VIRTUAL, AS I UNDERSTAND IT. IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A PHYSICAL SERVICE, ALTHOUGH, THE FAMILY MAY BE THERE AT THE MONUMENT. IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, SIR. >> OK. THAT'S KIND OF THE WAY I

UNDERSTOOD IT TOO. >> AND THIS VIRTUAL THING IS ALL BRAND NEW TO ME.

OK. NO FURTHER

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.