[1. CALL TO ORDER]
[a. Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Property Rights Element]
[00:01:46]
STANDING BY FOR FORT PIERCE MEETING.
>> ALL RIGHT. SIR. AGAIN, GOOD MORNING, REBECA GUERRA, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. BEFORE US IS A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, IT'S A TEXT AMENDMENT. INTRODUCING THE PROPERTY RIGHTS ELEMENT WITHIN THE PLAN. BEFORE WE MOVE TO THE NEXT STAGE, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT IS HAVING A 12TH ELEMENT. THESE ELEMENTS ARE THINGS OF HOW THE IT CITY DEVELOPS. THERE'S A ELEMENT THAT HAS TO DO WITH TRANSPORTATION, THERE'S AN ELEMENT WITH ENVIRONMENTAL AND HOUSING. Y'ALL ARE MOST FAMILIAR WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT. WHICH HAS DINGS LIKE LOW DENSE SIT RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, THOSE ARE THE ONES THIS BOARD IS GENERALLY FAMILIAR WITH. NOW, BY STATE STATUTE, WE HAVE TO INTRODUCE THE PUBLIC RIGHT'S ELEMENT. PASSED DURING THE 2021 FLORIDA LEGISLATION, THE GOVERNOR SIGNED IT INTO LAW, THAT IS HE APPROVED THE BILL.
ONCE IT PASSED BOTH HOUSES. IN LATE JUNE. IT REQUIRES THAT A LOCAL GOVERNMENT ADOPT AND INCLUDE A PROPERTY RIGHT'S ELEMENT INTO IT'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ANY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT THAT'S REACHED THIS LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY AND YOU'VE MADE A RECOMMENDATION AND MOVED ONTO CITY COMMISSION, THAT ONE CAN CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD TO THE STATE FOR REVIEW. BUT ANYTHING THAT WAS PROPOSED, OR THAT YOU HAVEN'T HEARD AFTER JULY 1ST, CANNOT MOVE FORWARD TO THE STATE. IT CAN GO TO THE CITY COMMISSION BUT IT CANNOT IT GO TO THE STATE FOR REVIEW UNTIL THIS PROPERTY RIGHT'S ELEMENT HAS BEEN ADOPTED BY THE CITY COMMISSION. IT'S IMPORTANT THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THAT DISTINCTION AND WHY THIS SPECIAL MEETING'S TAKING PLACE. WE'RE ONE OF THE FEW MUNICIPALITIES IN ST. LUCY COUNTY THAT HAS MOVED SO QUICKLY ON THEIR PROPERTY RIGHT'S ELEMENT TO HAVE IT REVIEWED BY THE STATE. EVERYONE RIGHT NOW IS TRYING TO DRAFT THE LANGUAGE AND MOVE IT THROUGH THRESPECTIV BOARDS. WE WANT IT TRANSMITTED TO THE STATE AND HOPEFULLY IT WILL BE A QUICK TURN AROUND BECAUSE WE'RE MIMICKNG THE LANGUAGE DIRECTLY FROM STATE STATUE. THE PROPOSED TEXT AS I STATED PREVIOUSLY, IS COPIED VERBATIM FROM STATE STATUE, RIGHT, WE HAVEN'T ADDED A I THINK A SINGLE WORD THAT'S NOT BEEN CODIFIED IN 1633177. THIS WAS BROUGHT BEFORE THE COMMITTEE AND THEY HAD NO OBJECTIONS. THE CITY SHALL ENSURE THAT THE FOLLOWING PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE CONSIDERED IN THEIR LOCAL DECISION MAKING PROCESS. WHAT
[00:05:03]
THAT MEANS IS, RIGHT, IT DOESN'T -- A DEPARTMENT HAS TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING WHEN THEY'RE MAKING THEIR DECISIONS, BUT THE STATE NOR THE STATUE MAKES ANY SPECIFIC LANGUAGE AS TO HOW THAT CONSIDERATION HAPPENS. EACH DEPARTMENT WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR INTERPRETING THAT CONSIDERATION WITHIN THEIR OWN REGULAR SOPS, RIGHT? WITHIN THEIR OWN PERIMETERS OF HOW THEY MAKE DECISIONS. STAT STATUE SAYS THE FOLLOWING FOUR THINGS SHALL BE CONSIDERED. THOSE DEPARTMENTS CAN INCLUDE, PUBLIC WORKS, CODE ENFORCEMENT, THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT OR PLANNING DEPARTMENT, IT COULD BE THE FPRA. IT'S UP TO THOSE DEPARTMENTS TO TAKE THESE THINGS UNDER CONSIDERATION WHEN MAKING THEIR DECISIONS, WHEN IT COMES TO PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS. SO THE, THE FOUR THINGS THAT MUST BE CONSIDERED. THE RIGHT OF A PROPERTY OWNER TO PHYSICALLY POSSESS AND CONTROL IT'S INTERESTING IN THE PROPERTY, THE RIGHT OF A PROPERTY OWNER TO HUGHES MAINTAIN DEVELOP OR IMPROVE HIS OR HER PROPERTY FOR PERSONAL USE OR FOR THE USE OF ANY OTHER PURPOSE SUBJECT TO STATE LAW AND LOCAL ORDINANCES. TO EXCLUDE THE PROPERTY AND TO PROTECT THE PROPERTY OWNER'S POSSESSION. AND THE RIGHT OF THE PROPERTY OWNER TO GIVE HIS OR HER PROPERTY AS A GIFT. THE POSSIBLE ACTION ARE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT WITH NO CHANGES. YOU MAY ALSO RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH CHANGES OR RECOMMEND DISAPPROVAL. THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.>> ANY QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION BY BOARD?
>> I HAVE A QUESTION. CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE OKAY, ITEM 2 SUBJECT TO STATE LAW AND LOCAL ORDINANCE, SHOULDN'T FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ORDINANCES BE INCLUDED IN THAT? FOR INSTANCE, WHATEVER ENVIRONMENTAL FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS?
>> STATE STATUES CANNOT HAVE ANY DICTATE ANY CURRENT LAWS.
THE WAY THEY EVALUATE THAT [INDISCERNIBLE]
>> CAN ONLY CONTROL STATE ORDINANCES AND ULTIMATELY, TO A SMALLER EXTENT, LOCAL ORDINANCES WHEN THEY ARE NOT AS STRICT AS STATE STATUES. AND YOU'LL FIND THAT GENERALLY WITHIN ALL OVERALL STATE STATUES, THEY WILL RARELY MAKE MENTION OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS BECAUSE IT'S INHERENTLY IMPLIED, RIGHT, UNDERSTOOD, THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO APPLY THOSE STANDARDS
REGARDLESS. >> OKAY, MY OTHER QUESTION IS, TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, DOES ITEM TWO IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM INTERFERE WITH ANY ORDINANCES THAT THE CITY HAS
PASSED? >> NOT TO THE BEST OF MY
KNOWLEDGE. NO, MA'AM. >> THANK YOU.
>> AGAIN, IT SAYS THAT A MUNICIPALITY MUST CONSIDER THE OF PROPERTY RIGHTS OF AN INDIVIDUAL, BUT IT DOESN'T DICTATE THE MANNER IN WHICH THAT CONSIDERATION HAPPENS.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION ON NUMBER FOUR. IT SAYS DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY BY EITHER SALE OR GIFT. OKAY. THERE ARE HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATIONS, AND PROPERTY OWNER ASSOCIATIONS PROBABLY CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATIONS THAT REQUIRE THROUGH AT LEAST THEIR THAT A SALE OR GIFT BE REVIEWED BY THOSE BODIES. DOES THAT HAVE ANY INTERFERENCE WITH WHAT'S BEING WRITTEN HERE?
>> NO, SIR. THAT IS A PRIVATE, HOAS AND POAS, ARE PRIVATE ENTITIES WITHIN YOU AS AN OWNER BUY INTO THAT SITUATION. IN THE SAME WAY THAT A CITY CANNOT ENTER NEAR WITH THE COVENANCE, THE STATE CANNOT INTERFERE WITH THE CCNRS. THIS IS ONLY APPLICABLE TO MUNICIPALITIES, A POA OR AN HOA IS NOT A MUNICIPALITY, SO THEY ARE NOT UNDER ANY OF THESE
REQUIREMENTS AS WE WOULD BE. >> ANYTHING ELSE?
>> YEAH, I HAVE ONE KIND OF AN ODD QUESTION, DON'T YOU BELIEVE IT WOULD BE BETTER TO ARE SUBSTITUTE IN ITEM ONE, THE
[00:10:04]
WORDS HIS/HER INTEREST FOR THEIR INTEREST?>> I MEAN, WE'RE HAVING SO MUCH...
>> NONBINARY CONVERSATIONS? >> AS I WAS READING THAT, I WAS THINKING, I LIKE IT. I LIKE THE FACT THAT WE'RE RESPECTING PEOPLE'S RIGHTS IN IDENTIFYING THEMSELVES. I THANK YOU FOR THAT AND I WILL CHANGE THAT OF COURSE WITH THE BOARD AGREEING TO THOSE CHANGES. IT'S UP TO THE BOARD TO DECIDE IF THAT'S
APPROPRIATE. >> I'M OLD AND I BELIEVE IN
BIOLOGY. >> IT WILL BE UP TO THIS BOARD TO DECIDE IF THAT'S THE WAY YOU WANT DO IT.
>> IF IT'S SO DESIRED BY THE BOARD, WHEN YOU MAKE A MOTION, ADD IT TO YOUR MOTION. ANYTHING ELSE?
>> I'LL OPEN TO THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING AND BEING THAT WE HAVE NO ONE FROM THE PUBLIC, UNLESS BRANDON WANTS TO SAY SOMETHING IN PUBLIC, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING. COME BACK TO THE BOARD, ANY FURTHER COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS? >> NOT HEARING ANY, I'LL
ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> CAN YOU RESTATE HOW YOU
WOULD WORD THAT. >> I WOULD LITERALLY CHANGE HIS
OR HER TO THEIR, T-H-E-I-R. >> I APPROVE THE AMENDMENT WITH THE CHANGE OF THE PHRASE HIS OR HER TO THEIR.
>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION BY MISS BAKER AND SECOND BY MS. CLEMMONS. YOU PULLED THIS LANGUAGE SPECIFICALLY FROM THE STATE STATUE, WILL THIS CAUSE ANY DELAY IN THEIR REVIEW OR APPROVAL OF US BY THIS LANGUAGE
CHANGE? >> THAT'S NOT WHAT I CONSIDER A SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE TO THE INTENT OR THE PRIMARY LANGUAGE OF THE
STATE STATUE. >> SO, IT WILL NOT GET BOGGED
>> I'M GOOD. >> ENTERTAINING A VOTE. CALL
THE ROLL, PLEASE. >> MISS BAKER?
>> YES. >> MISS JOHNSON SCOTT?
>> THERE'S NO PUBLIC SO THERE'S NO COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD?
>> WELL, THE DIRECTOR AND I HAD BEEN WORKING ON A LITANY OF TEXT AMENDMENTS AND I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU KNEW WHAT WAS COMING. MUCH OF THESE HAS BEEN DIRECTED BY STATE STATUE THAT WAS PASSED DURING THIS LAST LEGISLATIVE SESSION. AND SO, THINGS LIKE THE HOME OCCUPATION CHANGES WHICH HAVE TAKEN PLACE, WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THIS IN PLACE BECAUSE IT WAS JUST PASSED. AND WHAT THAT WILL MEAN TO 125 AND SPECIFICALLY, THE HOME OCCUPATION SECTION OF THAT CODE.
SO, YOU CAN SEE THAT YOU CAN ANTICIPATE HAVING THAT COME BEFORE YOU PROBABLY WITHIN THE NEXT TWO MONTHS. MOVING FORWARD TO THE CITY COMMISSION, WE'RE GOING TO TRY AND EXPEDITE THAT AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN. YOU COULD ALSO EXPECT TO BE SEEING PROPOSED LANGUAGE CHANGES FOR BOARDING HOUSES OR BOARDING
LODGES OR ROOMS. >> ROOMING HOMES, ROOMING
HOUSES. >> SO, YOU COULD EXPECT TO HAVE THAT LANGUAGE. I'M GOING TO PROBABLY TRY TO BRING IT CONCURRENTLY BECAUSE THAT NEEDS TO BE EXPEDITED AS WELL. WE HAVE EXCITING CHANGES COMING FOR CONDITIONAL USE AND CONDITIONAL USE PROCESSES. SO, ANTICIPATE SEEING CHANGES, WE'LL BE MARRYING BOTH PROCESSES TOGETHER. IT WILL SIMPLY BE A CONDITIONAL USE. YOU COULD LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING CRITERIA ASSOCIATED WITH THAT. IT WILL ALLOW THIS BOARD TO HAVE REAL DISCERNIBLE ITEMS TO VOTE FOR OR AGAINST BASED ON THOSE CRITERIA MET. SOME CHANGES TO THE LANDSCAPE CODE AND THE AGRICULTURE SETTLEMENT. WE'RE TRYING TO NEGOTIATE THAT LANGUAGE AND TRYING TO GET OTHER PEOPLE TO AGREE TO SOME PROVISIONS THAT WE HAVE. BUT, THOSE ARE SOME REAL IMPORTANT.
>> AND, THE PORT? >> THAT'S RIGHT, THE PORT
>> SO, THOSE ITEMS I DON'T KNOW IF THE PORT WILL BE READY BEFORE THE END OF THIS YEAR, BUT THE REST OF THE ITEMS, LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING THOSE BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR AND HAVING SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES TO THE CODE. YES, SIR?
[00:15:03]
>> UNDER THE LANDSCAPING EFFORT, I KNOW IN THE PAST WE HAD THINGS ABOUT THE BOND FOR THE LANDSCAPE IF SOMETHING WERE TO HAPPEN, IT WOULD DIE AND THE BOND WOULD TAKE OVER TO REPLACE IT VERSUS THE DEVELOPER. AND I THINK AT ONE TIME WE GOT IT UP TO TWO YEARS, THAT THEY HAD TO HAVE THE BOND FOR TWO YEARS. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT Y'ALL WOULD CONSIDER. AT LEAST AND OR UP
TO. >> WE STILL HAVE THAT BUT NOW WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE REVIEW PERIOD SOONER AND LARGER SIZED TREE SPECIMENS TO ENSURE BETTER, YOU KNOW PLANTING AND LONGEVITY.
AND IT'S GOING TO BE CALLED A VEGETATION CODE AND IT'S EXCITING WE'VE ONE IT BY THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE WHO REVIEWED IT AND THEY HAVE A TECHNICAL TAM AND WE HAD OUR FINAL EDITED WITH THEM ON THURSDAY AND THEY'RE GOING TO PUT A PILOT LANDSCAPE PLAN TOGETHER BASED ON THE NEW CODE TO SEE IF IT ACTUALLY WORKS OR TO SEE IF THERE ARE HICCUPS THAT WOULD CHANGE IT BEFORE WE BRING IT BEFORE YOU ALL.
>> IS THERE A CHANCE WE COULD GET SOME OF THESE CHANGES E-MAILED OUT TO US BEFORE WE SEE THEM?
>> SO, I PROMISED YOU, I GAVE YOU MY WORD.
>> WILL YOU HAVE THEM READY TOMORROW MORNING FOR NEXT MONTHS
MEETING? >> TO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE WE'LL TRY TO GET THEM OUT EARLIER RATHER THAN THE NORMAL TIME YOU RECEIVE YOUR PROJECTS. SO, THIS ELEMENT WAS AN ANOMALY, MISS ALICIA WAS EXTRAORDINARY IN GETTING THIS INFORMATION OUT AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. I KNOW YOU WANTED TO GET THE LANGUAGE OUT SO, I TRIED TO EXPEDITE IT AS QUICKLY AS I COULD, AND MISS ALICIA GOT TO OUT TO YOU FASTER THAN ANYTHING PLACED ON YOUR SCHEDULE BEFORE. THE HOME OCCUPATION ONE WILL BE A LENGTHY ONE. QUITE FRANKLY, ALL OF THEM WILL BE LENGTHY, SO, TO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE WE'LL GET IT TO YOU AS EARLY AS
POSSIBLE. >> I HAVE A QUESTION REGARDING THE NEW VACATION HOME RENTAL ORDINANCES THAT WERE PASSED. IS THERE GOING TO BE ONLINE, SOMEWHERE, A LIST OF SUCCESSFUL
APPLICANTS? >> YOU'LL HAVE TO ASK THAT OF MISS COX, WHO IS NOW IN CHARGE OF THAT PROGRAM BETWEEN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT AND THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE, THEY WILL BE RUNNING THAT PROGRAM. THAT'S A GREAT IDEA TO RUN BY HER SO THAT OTHER FOLKS CAN BE INSPIRED BY THAT LIST, RIGHT? YEAH, I WOULD CAN MS. LINDA COX AND HER OFFICE FOR THAT.
>> WE HAD A GOOD DISCUSSION, QUITE FRANKLY, A COUPLE OF THEM THIS LAST MEETING. ONE OF THEM INVOLVING PAUL THOMPSON WHERE WE TOUCHED ON ELEVATIONS AND WHERE ELEVATION ARE MEASURED FROM.
AND BRANDON DID SOME WORK ON THIS ALSO AND HAD GIVEN US INFORMATION, OH, A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO, I BELIEVE. IS THERE SOME WAY THAT WE CAN ARRANGE TO HAVE A FEW MOMENTS IN ONE OF OUR MEETINGS ON THE AGENDA AND GET PAUL THOMAS BACK AND DIVE INTO
THAT IN MORE DETAIL? >> IN THE HEIGHT?
>> YEAH, PARTICULARLY HOW IT IMPACTS WITH THE SOUTH ISLAND,
WHAT'S IT CALLED? >> THE SOUTH BEACH OVERLAY?
>> I BELIEVE THAT WOULD BE MORE OF A PLANNING FUNCTION THAN MR. THOMAS' ROLE. WE COULD DO THAT. BECAUSE IT EFFECTS THE ELEVATIONS AND WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT HOW WE REGULATE, YOU KNOW, ON THE BEACH, WITH FEMA THAT MR. THOMAS WAS SAYING THAT THE DEP, THERE'S THE STANDARD WHERE THEY SET IT. SO, WE WERE GOING TO LOOK AND SEE IF THERE'S ANY VARIATION.
>> COMPARE? >> YES. BECAUSE WE SHOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE STATE IS MANDATING.
>> THAT'S WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR TO GET THAT TYPE OF INFORMATION
AND GET IT BEFORE THE BOARD. >> WE COULD GET THAT INFORMATION AND I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING THE PLANNING
DEPARTMENT CAN DO. >> I BELIEVE WE'LL STILL SEE THAT CONSTRUCTION BEFORE IT HAPPENS IN MOST CASES, IS THAT
CORRECT? >> WELL, THAT IS FOR THE CCNL, IF YOU ARE BUILDING EASTWARD OF THE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION LINE.
>> UNLESS THEY'RE ASKING FOR AN INCREASE IN HEIGHT.
>> AND THAT'S WHERE I'M GOING WITH THIS, IF SOMEONE'S COMING IN AND ASKING FOR A HEIGHT CHANGE YOU PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE
[00:20:05]
A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING WHERE THAT HEIGHT BEGINS SO THAT WE COULD HAVE THAT DISCUSSION. AND I THINK WE'VE BEEN LACKING SOME OF THAT INFORMATION, I KIND OF FEEL LIKE.>> I THINK THIS EVERY TIME IT COMES UP, THERE'S A QUESTION, IT GOES BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN WHOEVER IS PRESENTING. AND I THINK CLEARLY WE NEED A SPECIFIC UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT, A TYPICAL EXAMPLE IS THE HOUSE THAT'S UNDER CONSTRUCTION ON THE ISLAND RIGHT NOW. IT APPEARS TO ME IT IS THAT THEIR FLOOD CAPABILITY IS HIGH, SO THEY HAD TO RAISE THE BUILDING UP. AND THE FIRST
FLOOR STARTS AT 10-12 FEET. >> THAT WOULD NOT SURPRISE ME.
>> SO, NOW THE HOUSE LOOKS MASSIVE BECAUSE OF THAT ELEVATION. AND BRANDON AND I TOUCHED ON THIS BRIEFLY AFTER THE OTHER MEETING. IF WE COULD GILT THE ZONING REQUIREMENT U AND THE SOUTH BEACH OVERLAY AND HOW THEY MIX WITH ONE ANOTHER, AT LEAST FROM MY PERSPECTIVE WE'LL MAKE IT CLEAR AS TO WHERE DOES THE HEIGHT START AND WHERE DOES IT END. BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT THAT STRUCTURE, IT'S LIKE, JEEZ, I KNOW WE APPROVED
IT, BUT IT LOOKS MASSIVE. >> MOST FOLKS DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN THESE PROJECTS COME IN, THE MAJORIT OF THESE FIRST FLOORS ARE DEEMED NONHABITABLE, SO IF THEY DO FLOOD LIVING SPACES ARE IMPACTED. WHEN YOU START ADDING TO THAT, RIGHT, AND START LIMITING THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ON THE LOT OR THE LOT COVERAGE OR HOW MUCH YOU EXTEND TO A FLOOD PLANE OR THE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION LINE OR WHATEVER PERIMETERS ON THAT SITE,
>> IF YOU GO TO THE BOTTOM OF THE BOTTOM FLOOR, AND THAT'S THE QUESTION I HAVE OVER AND OVER AGAIN, WHAT CONSTITUTES THE
START POINT? >> WHERE DOES THAT MEASUREMENT
START? >> I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO BE ABLE TO VENT THAT IN FRONT OF THE PUBLIC SO THAT THEY HAVE A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING. I LIVE ACROSS THE STREET FROM THIS LOT AND ALL OF A SUDDEN THIS THING'S BEEN APPROVED FOR 36-37 FEET, WHATEVER IT WAS, AND NOW IT'S STANDING AT 49 FEET. HOW
DID THIS HAPPEN? >> AS TIME GOES ON.
>> IT'S AT 49 FEET, MEAN? BECAUSE 49 FEET TO YOU AND I WHEN WE'RE STANDING IN THE STREET, THAT'S 49 FEET, THAT'S
BECAUSE IT STARTS HERE NOT HERE. >> THAT'S MY POINT. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW MORE ABOUT SOME OF THIS, AS A BOARD, A, WE COULD DO A BETTER JOB. BUT B, WE COULD DO A BETTER JOB OF MAKING KNOWN TO THE PUBLIC WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
>> THE OTHER CONCERN THAT I HAVE WITH THAT, JUST TO DRILL INTO IT FURTHER, IS THAT, THE SOUTH BEACH OVERLAY, IS THE LANGUAGE SUFFICIENTLY CORRECT TO INDICATE THAT HEIGHT RESTRICTION DOES NOT INCLUDE THAT SUB-LEVEL. IT SAYS A MAXIMUM OF, OR
SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT. >> THE CODE FOR THE ZONING DESIGNATION FOR R 4 A IS HAS A HEIGHT. BUT THE SOUTH BEACH OVERLAY THAT HAS DIFFERENT LANGUAGE THAT TALKS ABOUT THE
FEMA. FLOOD LINE ELEVATION. >> SO, YOU'RE RIGHT, IT HAS TWO DIFFERENT LANGUAGES ON IT, BUT IT'S HARD TO DISCERN WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BOTH, RIGHT? WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
PRACTICALLY SPEAKING? >> THAT'S WHERE I'M COMING FROM, LAY THE WHOLE THING OUT Z ALL RIGHT. IF WE COULD CONSIDER DOG THAT AT SOME POINT, LET ME KNOW WHEN THAT'S GOING TO BE.
ALTHOUGH OUR BOARD DOES RESPOND VERY WELL TO ALL OF OUR MEETINGS, AND I WANT TO THANK ALL OF YOU FOR THAT. IF THERE'S
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.