Town Council - Regular Meeting

Okay, good morning, everyone. We're going to call this meeting to order. Today is Monday, June 1st, 2026. It is 9 a.m. All council members are present, including the town manager, deputy town manager, town attorney, and town clerk. If you'll please rise for the invocation, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.

As we gather today here on this first day of hurricane season, let us remember both the beauty and vulnerability of our island home and keep our residents, visitors, first responders, and all who care for this island safe. May we come together not just as neighbors, but as a family supporting one another with kindness, strength, and unity through every challenge we may face. And may the discussions and decisions made here today be guided by wisdom, respect, and a shared commitment to the well-being of Fort Myers Beach and everyone who calls it home. Amen.

Amy, I think what you meant to say is just the first day of June. I'm just teasing. There you go.

My anniversary.

Next is the approval of the final agenda. Is there a motion to approve the agenda or any changes?

Move is printed.

A motion by Councillor King.

Second.

Second by Councillor McLean. Any further discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Hearing none, that motion carries unanimously. Next is public comment.

I have nobody signed up.

Is there anyone like to speak in public comment? Seeing none, we will close public comment. First thing we have is a presentation. It's a 2025 consumer confidence report for the water. Mr. Town Manager, who's leading that?

Vanessa is going to come up and give us that update.

Good morning, my name is Vanessa. I'm the Utilities Compliance Coordinator here at the town. And today I'm going to briefly discuss the 2025 Consumer Confidence Report. This report is an annual report that all community water systems have to send out to the residents every year. And a community water system serves at least 15 service connections used by at least 25 year-round residents, which we have here. Next slide, please. So we're going to talk about where our water is sourced, some background information, test results, and some additional health information. Next slide. So where we get our water, we get our water from Lee County Utilities. Next slide, please. Our water is purchased mostly from the Green Meadows plant. The Green Meadows plant treats groundwater obtained from the sandstone, surficial, and lower Hawthorne aquifers. It is taken from the wells, treated with reverse osmosis and ionic exchange. The water is then blended with the coarse-grew water plant. They get their water as well from the sandstone, surficial, and lower Hawthorne aquifers. This water is lime softened, chlorinated, and disinfected, and then blended with the Green Meadows treatment. RO systems are pressure-driven filtration processes. Ion exchange removes unwanted ions and replaces them with desirable ions, so it softens the water. And lime softening removes hardness by dissolving calcium and magnesium ions. Next slide, please. Some background information. Next slide, please. If you have any questions concerning this report, you can always just give us a call or email us. We'll be happy to give you any information that we have. We routinely monitor for contaminants in the drinking water according to federal and state laws, rules, and regulations. In this report, the data is from January 1st to December 31st of 2025. And some of the data is a little old, but it is the closest testing we have. Not everything is required to be tested every year. Lee County participates in the SWAP program, which is Source Water Assessment. It basically just tests all their wells. The link below, you can click on that and you can look at every well that they have and what they scale from low to moderate concern. Most of their wells are on the low concern side. And then if you have any questions, you can reach out to Andrea. She works for the county. Next slide, please. Sources of drinking water, rivers, lakes, streams, ponds, reservoirs, springs, and wells. As water travels down through the ground over the surface, it dissolves naturally occurring minerals and can pick up substances from animals and humans. These can be inorganic contaminants such as salts and metals. It could be pesticides and herbicides from agriculture and urban storm water. Organic chemicals and some radioactive contaminants can be naturally occurring.

Next slide.

And now we'll talk about some of the test results. Next slide, please. First, we'll talk about radioactive contaminants, or RADs. These are in the water from erosion of natural deposits. Corkscrew and Green Meadows tested for these, so Lee County tested for these. We have alpha emitters in radium 226 and 228. Both plants were under the NCL, which is the maximum containment level, which is very good. Next slide, please. We have our international before you move on.

Just quick question about that. It says that the testing date was from six years ago. Is there any newer data than that?

Yes. For rads, you can certain utilities and community systems can do waivers. So where if their testing is low enough, they can skip, usually it's a three year cycle. So they're on a six year cycle. So they're probably testing for it this year. The 2025 report is, we can only test from last year since we're still in 2026. So they probably have a waiver for RADS.

Okay.

Any other questions? Okay. We have inorganic contaminants. This is split into two, so this one shows arsenic, barium, and cyanide. Again, these are from 2023. This is the most recent testing we have. They'll test in 2026, so this year they'll test again. All three of these are below the MCL, and two of them had no results, which is great. Next slide, please. We have fluoride, nitrate, nitrite, selenium, and sodium. Nitrate and nitrite are tested annually, so these are the most recent data we have for 2025. And these are also under the MCL. Nitrate we had .014, and nitrate we had .013. And the MCL was 10 and 1, so very, very low results. Next slide please. Stage one disinfectant byproducts, this is chlorine. So we do the chlorine testing here on the beach. Our minimum is .6 and our max is .4 to DEP ruling. Our range of results was .9 to 4.2 so we are right in that spot which is what we need to be. Next slide please. are stage two disinfectant byproducts. These are TTHMs and HA5s. We test for these quarterly ourselves. HAA5s are a group of five disinfectant byproducts. These occur when chlorine is used to disinfect drinking water. It reacts naturally with organic matter. They are colorless and evaporate out of the water into the air. Same for TTHMs, these are just one group, and they're the same, they occur naturally with organic matter. Like I said, we test quarterly, so our range of results here for HAA5s was 10 to 20.2, the max is 60, and then for TTHMs, our range was 16 to 23.7, and the max is 80. Next slide, please. Lead and copper, we sample for lead and copper every three years. The last time we tested was in 2024. We sampled 44 sites here on the island. We had two hits of lead that were just in the 90th percentile. None of them were above the action level. Both houses were older than 1969, and lead solder was banned in 1986, so it was probably just internal plumbing in their houses.

So you're doing a good job, thank you. So we're actually, these two test sites were actual people's homes.

One of them was the Mound House, which we have, so there's three levels when we do lead and copper. We have to find the oldest houses or property in our system. So that would be tier three. So Mound House, every time we test lead and copper, is a site that we have to test because it's one of the oldest we have here on the island. And then the other house, like I said, that was built before, or built in 1969, so it was before the lead solder was banned. so that's probably why it

But it doesn't impact the facility as a whole, the water supply as a whole. It's just in those.

Yes. So we drop the jugs off with instructions. Every time we do lead and copper, they take it into their house. There's instructions on how to sample. So all the sampling we do for lead and copper is internal inside that resident's house. And then we pick up those samples the next day and take them to the lab. So it has nothing to do with our distribution system. It's always inside.

ART QUALITIES FIND THAT. THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? UCMR4, Lee County did this. It's a regulation by EPA that requires monitoring for 30 chemical contaminants. These contaminants include metals, pesticides, and other substances that do not have existing regulatory standards. They just told us we have to put this on a report, so they tested for it, and we have to let our residents know as well. Next slide, please. And then I'll quickly talk about some additional health information. Next slide, please. Okay, so the lead in the drinking water is primarily from minerals and components associated with service lines and home plumbing. We are responsible for providing the highest quality drinking water and removing lead pipes, but cannot control the variety of materials used in your home. If you have any concerns about lead in your house, you can always just give us a call. We'll be happy to do some more testing to minimize your exposure. Drinking water, including bottled water, may reasonably be expected to contain at least some amounts of small contaminants. These presence of contaminants does not necessarily indicate that the water poses a health risk. The EPA has a drinking water hotline that you can call. I have the number there on the report. You can call them if you have any questions. And then if you, please do not flush your unused or unwanted medications down the toilet. That is a big no-no. There is a link that we are required to give out to residents, and that's also included on the report as well. Next slide, please. Thank you, and do you have any questions?

Councilor McLean, any questions for Vanessa?

No, thank you very much. explanation of why lead was found in strictly a couple of the oldest homes was really really helpful and I think it alleviated a concern I had which was where is the testing done and the fact that it's being done in the house and it's not the source of the water but it's actually picking up the contamination as it travels in through the residence plumbing uh was very helpful and I appreciate it thank you thank you council link

Yes, no. The only thing I was looking out for was fluoride had changed this past year or two. So it looks like it's not an issue, though. So that should be comforting.

Yes, I think they took it out in 2025, I believe. So that would be reflected in these latest results.

So that was good to see.

Yes. That's it, Vanessa. Thank you. Thank you.

Yeah, that was my question. So they've now taken fluoride out of the water.

Yes, Lee County has taken fluoride completely out of their drinking water. Okay, thank you.

That's all I had.

Thank you.

Councillor King?

No further questions. You did a good job. Thank you so much.

Yes, thank you, Vanessa.

Thank you.

And this will be posted for residents to see? Yes, Mr. Mayor, it will. Okay, perfect. Thank you. Thank you. All right, next we have local achievements and recognitions. The first thing we have is a proclamation for Court Enforcement Officers Week. top four mars beach proclamation whereas code enforcement officers provide for the safety health and welfare of citizens of their communities through the enforcement of building zoning housing fire safety environmental and other codes and ordinances and whereas code enforcement officers play a vital role in protecting lives involving neighborhood improving neighborhoods and enhancing the quality of life within the community and whereas assisted by support and program staff code enforcement officers strive each day to provide quality customer service and achieve compliance for a betterment of the community. And whereas code enforcement officers are dedicated to highly trained public servants who take pride in serving their department and local government. And whereas the town of Fort Myers Beach emergency service services divisions code enforcement officers are committed to elevating the quality of life for our neighborhoods by enforcing non criminal town ordinances. codes, and regulations, and whereas the Florida Association of Code Enforcement, FACE, annually designates the first week of June as Court Enforcement Officer Week to recognize the valuable contributions of court enforcement officers throughout the state of Florida. Now, therefore, be it be proclaimed by the town council or the town of Fort Myer Beach, Florida, that the week of June 1st through June 7th, 2026 is hereby recognized as Code Enforcement Officers Week, given under my hand in the seal of the office of mayor this 1st of June, 2026. Come on up. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Mayor, while they're coming up, can I just make a comment or two? I get the pleasure of working with these staff members. And I will tell you that they are dedicated. They do get some grief from residents who are not in compliance, but they also get a little bit of grief from me. But over the course of time that I've worked with them, there has just been phenomenal improvements. And I did want to take this opportunity to recognize them and appreciate the work that they do and working with me.

Thank you, Nancy. I also want to say it's a pleasure to work with these great code officers and Michael Hauserman, our code manager, every day. I agree with Nancy. They've done a tremendous job and really come a long way over the last months to improve operations. And really, they're here for public safety. They're really to help our property owners and our residents come into compliance. And the reason is for public safety. I've seen them on numerous occasions help our property owners and residents come into compliance. They do that much more than they enforce code. They're really a benefit to the town. Michael, did you have anything you wanted to say? If so, please step to the mic.

I first want to thank the council for recognizing my staff and code enforcement as well as management team. My staff goes above and beyond every day to protect the town and its residents and visitors and overall the safety of the community. So thank you for your appreciation and thank you for this proclamation. Come on up.

Let's take a photo with council, everybody. Up on the dais, you guys.

Not you, Scott. Look at you guys. Perfect. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Thank you, guys. Thank you.

All right. Councilor King, we'll start with you.

Well... They probably don't want to hear about it, but I want to recognize Dawn and Mike Miller, just two amazing people for all they do for this island. And then with their recent acquisition of the church across from the beach school, their investment in this island is just overwhelming at times to me, but very much sincere and heartfelt thank you to them.

Oh, he's stealing my thunder. Yes, kudos to the Millers. Joe Bufest was fantastic, and knock on wood, it's going to work this year again. So I want to thank them for all they do for the community. It's amazing what they do.

Council Link?

Yes. So I wrote a little something. I want to make sure I say this properly. So I want to recognize the town staff. the turtle time volunteers, the contractors, and the residents who continue working together as we balance our restoration and our environmental protection. The timing isn't always perfect, but there are some concerns to address. But what I appreciate is everybody's working together for the things that we all love. So everyone's advocating, but they're also working together. And I want to thank everyone for that. That's it.

Councillor McLean.

I just want to jump on what everybody was saying about the Millers and their contribution to this island. It's really quite amazing to see. I'm looking forward to the fireworks. I had a great time at Jobu Fest, and here's to the sacrifice of rum working once more. Thanks again.

Yeah, I piggyback on everybody's comments about the Millers and Joe Bufest, unfortunately last minute. My life changed and I had to go do what I have to do, so I wasn't able to make it, but it sounds like it was a great event. I also want to thank Representative Botana, Tom and Mary Torgerson, Brian and Don Thomas and TPI Group for hosting a legislative information this last week with Very busy. Representative Botana, who's obviously back up in Tallahassee with the property tax reform. It was enlightening. There was a lot of good questions, a lot of hard questions, but he's always been an advocate for ours. He's brought a lot of money to our community, specifically the town of Fort Myers Beach over the last four years. So thank him for taking the time to do that. Other than that, I have nothing else. Next, we have advisory committee items, reports, and appointments. Jim, are you here on behalf of anyone to...

No, I'm just trying to make sure it slows down.

Got it. There's no one else? Next is the approval of the minutes. Is there a motion to approve the minutes? I don't think we have any minutes, so there's nothing to approve. Next is the consent agenda. We have one, two... Three state of emergencies. First is resolution 26-107 through 26-111 for the extension of local emergency tropical storm Debbie. Next is resolutions 26-112 through 26-116 for the extension of local emergency for Hurricane Helene. And last is resolutions 26-117 through 26-121 for the extension of local emergency for Hurricane Milton. Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda? So moved. Second. Good motion by Councillor King, seconded by Councillor Link. Any further discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Hearing none, that motion carries unanimously. Next, there's nothing been removed from the consent agenda, which brings us to our public hearings. The first is a resolution, is resolution 26-094 for variance VAR20260011. for 1161 and 1165 Estero Boulevard. This is a resolution of the town council of the town of Fort Myers Beach approving with conditions denying variance 202-60011, requesting for a variance from LDC section 34-676A to multiply the parking requirements by 0% and allow 100% reduction in parking requirements where a maximum percentage of 67% is multiplied with... PARKING REQUIREMENTS TO ALLOW A 33% PARKING REDUCTION BY RIGHT FROM PROPERTIES IN THE DOWNTOWN ZONING. FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1161 AND 1165 ESTERO BOULEVARD, GENERALLY REFERRED TO AS STRAP NUMBERS 19-46-24-W4-0150E.0010 IN FORT MYERS BEACH, AND PROVIDING FOR OTHER CLARIFICATIONS AS NECESSARY, PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS OF LOSS, SCRIVENERS, ERRORS, SEVERABILITY, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

As council members are aware, the variance is quasi-judicial in nature, and this requires that this part of our public hearing today comply with procedural requirements that have been established in Florida law and in our land development code. So our quasi-judicial proceeding will be less formal than a proceeding before circuit court, but it will be a little more formal than the remainder of our meeting. And we're going to follow basic standards of due process that requires... Certain notices the application of the correct standards and that your decision be made on competent substantial evidence Presented to you today either in written documents or through oral testimony your responsibility today is to evaluate the testimony and the information for this item and draw a conclusion regarding whether the criteria in your land development code or state law has been satisfied so speculation or mere opinion that is not based on competent facts cannot legally be considered by you in evaluating this agenda item. Testimony by professionals who have been qualified as experts in a particular area has been considered competent evidence by Florida courts, as well as testimony by neighbors and residents who have fact-based information, such as minutes, surveys, engineering reports, or testimony that is based on their personal information. Your decision is final. If a decision of approval is not obtained or the tie vote, there is the opportunity for an alternative motion to be made. With that said, if you intend to speak, anyone who's in the audience, please keep my comments in mind. And when you come forward, please state your name clearly for the record, whether or not you have been sworn in and your qualifications. or interest in this matter. So for purposes of efficiency, I'd like to go ahead and ask the town clerk, has this agenda item been properly noticed? Yes, it has been. And is there any council member who has a conflict of interest that would prohibit them from voting on this agenda item?

Mr. McClain? No conflict. Mrs. Link?

No conflict. Vice Mayor Safford?

I do have a conflict. I've filled out the form 8B. Okay, thank you. For the record. I manage the rental properties at 1165, so this decision may affect my business in one way or the other. And I'm just going to recuse myself from this vote.

Thank you for that disclosure. So at this time, if there's anyone present. Hold on.

Councilor King, any conflicts?

The chapel over at the end has no conflicts. Well, I'm right on the same plate. I do not either.

Okay. So we do have four people voting on this, just so you know. Yes. Okay, so at this time, if there's anyone present, including the applicant who intends to provide testimony regarding this matter, if you would please stand at this time, raise your right hand, and be sworn in by the town clerk.

Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I test.

Ex parte.

All right. If any town council member has had any ex parte communication to disclose, please let us know the subject discussed and the identity of the person, group, or entity with whom this communication took place, any correspondence that you received, or observations made of the site. Councillor Kane? Nothing. Councillor Link?

I have one question about observations of the site, and just for clarification, it says 1161 and 1165. It could be Google, but when you Google 1161, it is across the street. Is there an error there, or maybe Google's made a mistake?

So I don't know that I can answer that fully as to whether or not Google is wrong. It wouldn't be the first time.

Come on, you're qualified.

The data that we have and the data that we hew to largely comes from Lee Property Appraiser. We use that as our sort of lodestone for what data is available out there. 1161 and 1165 on LEPA are associated just with this corner lot.

Thank you for that clarification.

Very well. Councilor McLean. I had a brief conversation with Mr. Richard. I don't remember what day it was a couple days ago, but it was basically just informing me that it was due to public safety as to why he's requesting this variance. So it was very brief, but I don't remember the exact date, but that was the extent of the conversation. Uh, Jason Smalley has been qualified as an expert already by this town council and based on his education and experience has been accepted as an expert in the field of land use planning and development in the town of Fort Myers beach. Are there any other individuals who would like to be qualified as an expert witness on behalf of the applicant at this time, which care you've already been qualified. So unless you want to be qualified again, okay. Has the property owner applicant seen a copy of the agenda backup materials from the staff? Yes, they have. Okay. Go ahead, Jason.

Good morning. My name is Jason Smalley. I'm the senior planner here with community development for the town. Before you today is a variance request for 1161, 1165 Estero Boulevard. The request, they are asking to reduce the minimum parking. Currently they are eligible for a 67% parking, and they're looking to reduce that down to zero requirement. So that's the thrust of what their variance request is today. Before you is the request for the building, which is an existing building. It did exist pre-storm. The building itself is approximately 5,400 square feet. It's mixed use, so you've got rental units on the upper floors and you've got retail and office use down on the lower floor. I believe currently it's being used as a contractor's office. The discussion before LPA, I think from staff's perspective, also largely had to do with our concerns about backing up into Estero, which is the current way that you would leave those parking spaces that are on the site. It's the way that the design has been for as long as I've been here and going back seemingly since the construction of the building itself. They do currently have parking elsewhere to satisfy their minimum parking requirements which I believe was mentioned previously to be eight parking spaces. So they do provide the parking spaces on site including one ADA space and the rest of the spaces I believe are being provided out of a secondary lot And so they're split up, but that is allowed to happen because those parking spaces are within 750 feet of each other. Under today's code, that would be one of the minimum requirements. So as far as staff is concerned, the building is working seemingly as intended. Our recommendation for the request for variance was for denial, simply based on the fact that We cannot really determine whether this is the minimum necessary to accomplish what they're trying to do. Again, staff's perspective on this is that while we don't necessarily like the back out of the spaces onto Estero, as people are forced to do right now, that the building seems to work with what exists. The recommendation from LPA, they recommended denial. That was on a 5-0 vote. If there's any questions for staff, I'm here to answer those, and the applicant and their representative are here for any questions as well.

Council McCoy, any questions currently for Mr. Smalley?

Has anything materially changed between the LPA and it being presented here?

I can say that I have not seen any additional applications for the use of that building since, so at this point I don't think anything material has changed, but I'll defer to the applicant if they've done something I'm not aware of. Okay, thank you.

Councillor Link?

Not at this time, Mayor. Councillor King?

You did not really then address the safety concerns other than it seems to be working?

So there are a few buildings on the island that we've been trying to get compliance of when the opportunity presents itself. I think in the future if this site is redeveloped, absolutely staff is going to push very hard to make sure that those spaces are redesigned in such a way that they don't take direct access onto Estero while backing out. So the building itself, we have not been notified that anybody has found it to be extremely difficult, cannot enter it, that it is a danger, but we can visibly see that during the season when people need to exit that site, they're waiting for somebody to open up the lane onto a stereo, so you've got vehicles that are halfway out of the parking lot coming over the sidewalk in many instances waiting to be able to back out. I'm not a parking expert. I'm not an expert on how vehicles interact with human beings, but I can visually see... Usually not well. Usually not well at that intersection. There's a lot of business going on there, a lot of people trying to come in and out of businesses there. So I would say personally I do have a fear that there are problems with the safety of that, but I've not been told anything in particular where it has become a specific issue. Nobody has been hit as far as I know. Bicycles haven't been run off of the sidewalk as far as I know. But that was the perspective of staff was one of what does the code ask us for a variance and the variance we cannot determine whether that's the minimum necessary to accomplish what they're trying to do. And our point from staff is that the lower area businesses seem to be working. I see a business truck down there quite a bit, so I know that the lower area is open and available for customers. And seemingly the upper units are being rented, so those seemingly are working as intended right now. I will defer to the applicant if they've got some more context about problems that they're running into in their business. But just from staff's perspective, our recommendation was largely based on the fact that we just can't tell whether this is the minimum necessary to accomplish the job.

Okay, thank you. So, Jason, staff has obviously got concern, as well as the applicant, it sounds like, at least in my conversation with him about the public safety. We've all seen cars trying to back out of that location over the years, and with the sidewalk being there, it obviously is. But that doesn't outweigh what your requirements are to make recommendation through the LDC.

That is absolutely correct.

Okay. I'll save my other questions until after the applicant. Thanks, Jason. Okay.

Kara?

Good morning, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council, and staff. My name is Kara Stewart, and I am here on behalf of John Richard of 1161-1165 Estero Boulevard. The request is requesting a multiplier of zero. We currently have a multiplier of .67. The location is located within a tenth of a mile to your downtown Times Square district, which has that zero multiplier. The location has historically been retail, restaurant, and the dwelling units that exist today. The building has been there since 1967. Mr. Richard purchased the property in 2015, subsequently renovated it, upgraded it, changed the roof line, left the existing envelope of the building in the same configuration. During that permit process, parking came up and there was no change of use. The use has always been there, but just as staff is saying, and we all know, when we do a renovation, we try to get as much compliance as we can. Because of the lack of parking, they required Mr. Richard to get a joint parking use agreement at one of his other parking lots. And basically what that's doing is encumbering both properties. It encumbers the property with the use, and it encumbers the property that you're providing the parking at. That's what the joint use parking agreement does. This property and one other property on the island that I know of are the only ones that have this agreement. What has been happening subsequent to that is just like an agreement with what your comp plan is saying, we want to have in that area shared use parking. I apologize for not being at the LPA. I may have been able to answer some of the questions that came up. One of the issues was what is our alternate parking plan? Our alternate parking plan is just what your comp plan says. It tells me to do shared parking in this district. This property is now going to be in the Times Square district in your comp plan. IT DOESN'T CHANGE WHAT YOU HAVE IN YOUR LDC, BUT IT IS INCLUDING THIS PROPERTY IN THIS TIMES SQUARE DISTRICT KIND OF OVERLAY. IN THERE, SPECIFICALLY, YOU HAVE GOT POLICY T1, F1, ENCOURAGE SHARED PARKING LOTS. YOU HAVE POLICY T1, F2, AND THIS IS IN YOUR NEW COMP PLAN, THE 2025 COMP PLAN.

IF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS ACCURATE, AND I KNOW IT IS, What is the need for the variance then if they're in the Times Square zoning district currently you can have zero percent parking? What is the need to request a variance now?

Okay, the difference here is you've in your comp plan. You have just changed your comp plan in that comp plan We're now in this what's called the Times Square district overlay which those those? policies are in effect and The LDC, when you go to your LDC, your LDC has the section that says, right, depending on where you are, you get a different multiplier. And I'm sure Jason will agree with me, that's the difference. So it's a little confusing, because in one breath, we have our vision, right, which is our comp plan, and we're saying, hey, we want all this walkability,

So essentially the LDC hasn't caught up to the comp plan changes yet, is what I'm hearing.

Possibly. Possibly. I would encourage you to take a look at that, let me put it that way.

Well, there's many things in the queue, yes.

Sure. Now, the property, like I mentioned, has been here since 1967 in the same location. Looking back at Ariel's doing a bunch of research, the uses have historically been retail, like I said, restaurant, and the dwelling units. As we mentioned, or someone mentioned just recently, there's a contractor's vehicle there. Post-Ian, that tenant thought it would be a great idea to have a contractor's office, showroom, display center. Didn't really work out. I don't know why, but I can tell you the parking is very difficult. That particular location doesn't necessarily support a business as well as it would support the restaurant or the retail. The other section in your code that encourages where things are constructed to, we know in this district we're supposed to be constructed to the sidewalk. Obviously we can't do that, but if we can remove the parking requirement on the front, that would enable us to have outdoor seating or outdoor display. That brings us to the comments at LPA in relationship to the ADA parking spaces that are on site. I reconfirmed in the Americans with Disability Act, in the building code, we only need to provide a handicap parking space if we are providing parking. So that when you do not provide parking, just like many of the other projects you have approved, we don't need to put in a handicap parking space. We can eliminate it altogether. We're just trying to treat the Americans with Disability equal with the rest of the folks. There's one space right now, but that would go away.

Does that count under the joint use parking that you spoke of earlier? So if you have a joint use agreement with another parking location that is owned by the same applicant, does that include the same ADA requirements that you were just talking about?

The parking lot itself does, if that's what you're asking me. The parking lot on Crescent Street has its own ADA compliance requirement because it is a parking lot. And I believe the ratio is one to 25 parking spaces. You have to have one handicap and then so on and so forth it goes up. So the Crescent Street has a handicap parking space. Now, bringing up Crescent Street, one of the other driving factors for our request is in your comp plan again, you are talking about improvements along Crescent Street for the walkability for the pedestrian thoroughfare. So again, we're going to be encouraging the pedestrian walkway. there have been multiple changes at this intersection. So when we talk about safety and we look back at the aerials and the history, to the best of what I could see on the aerials, we went from having one defined crosshatch walkway to two crosshatch walkways for the public. We now have three. We have three clearly defined walkways in this intersection. In addition to that, a traffic light. So the configuration of this property has drastically changed since the inception of the property. The uses, we would forecast them being restaurant or retail. Quite frankly, we don't have a tenant right now. It keeps coming up that the parking is an issue and what is someone going to do? We feel with the close proximity, to the multiple joint use parking lots that we have, shared permanent parking lots, that we have more than adequate parking. I went and I looked up multiple resolutions on those parking lots to confirm that I have the ability to stand here and say there is overnight parking in a legal parking lot. There are multiple parking lots that you have in the downtown area that allow overnight parking. Some do not. I believe a member of the LPA had asked if the one on Crescent Street allows overnight parking. The answer is no. That one is limited to the hours of operation. And so are some other parking lots that we have. There are a number of them on Old San Carlos that allow overnight parking. So I feel like as an alternate plan, if someone wanted to come into this location and wanted to rent it as Mr. Safford is handling, there are multiple avenues for them to find overnight parking if they so chose. Now, it's interesting because in my research too.

Hold on, Kara. I just want to keep jumping in. That's okay. So is there a reason why the parking lot that's closest to this right behind there is not overnight parking? Is that by choice or is that by code?

That was during that, the public in that area during those hearings for that special exception had a concern about the headlights going across the canal. There was specific entities across the canal that had an issue and concern. Henceforth, that was partly one of the compromises, to limit the hours. And they were just concerned that it was too much in the neighborhood, but it's okay. It's been there, fine. Did that answer your question?

Well, it created another, but yes.

Okay.

Okay.

Another, just a food for thought and just from a total random comment that I just wanted to share with everyone in relationship to the shared parking and how this location is working and working effectively. There is a, what do you call it, when you make a, you post something about a piece of property that you've been to. There's a tenant that rented a property, the property one of the units, and I'm going to quote, this property was definitely centrally located with many restaurants and beach access points within walking distance. It was about 40 minutes from RSW, but the round trip Uber from the airport was less than renting a vehicle. you cheaper than renting a car for the length of your stay, and you truly do not need a car rental if you plan to stay local. I think that reiterates what we're trying to accomplish with our comp plan. I think that helps support that this location will work. This is unsolicited. I just found it online. that it will help this area tremendously. The security or the safety concern is real. It's real. I mean, if you go there during the season, it's very difficult. The use of the property is better used for, I mean, if we just envision an outdoor seating area, an outdoor retail, which we're allowed to by right, We would have to somebody we or the tenant would have to come forward to you if they were to do outdoor Alcohol with a special exception for the patio So that would be something you would have a right to Have a comment or whatever condition if you so chose if we were successful here today to remove the parking requirement totally Here, where do you direct your guests now that are staying there through the Airbnb's?

Where do you where do you tell them to park if they ask?

I truly don't know that answer, so I looked on, I went on the rental site to see what was put there, and all it says was that one parking space. I don't know how that's, I don't, I personally don't know. I just went and looked up everything.

I'm assuming it's not, I'm assuming, well, I don't want to put Scott, because he recused himself.

Mr. Richard might know something. I don't know. I don't know.

I'm sure John, I'm sure Mr. Richard would know. I'm just curious as to where they park now. Do they use these front parking spaces when they park there?

For the record, I believe Scott could answer that the best if he can speak.

You can speak. You can't vote. And you can't try to sway them.

We have not allowed parking on that premise for the last five, six years just because of the safety concern. They park at another... Airbnb rental that I have. We give them parking passes. We encourage them not, you know, we encourage them to take Ubers, not bring cars. But I have another Airbnb that they can park at.

Okay. That's all I was curious about.

And I can add that I don't even let my cleaners park there. It is just way too crazy. It's right at that intersection that Cara said has changed tremendously. So now there's three crosswalks. There's people not paying attention. Scott, I don't want you to go too far. I don't want you to... Yeah, but...

Yeah, I don't want you advocating one way or another.

I have one more, another just little section I wanted to bring to your attention in your new complaint. It's policy CD1E1, adaptive reuse. What that says is encourage the adaptive reuse of existing structures located within mixed use and commercial land use designations. That is what we're in, a mixed use. particularly those that were originally established as motels or vacation rentals, or are over 50 years old. This building is 1967, so we're over 50 years old. By providing incentives, so we're telling the public you're going to provide some incentives, such as relief in the Land Development Code. This is our request for that incentive, to reuse the existing building. I'm here to answer any questions that you may or may not have.

Councilor McLean, you have any questions? I have a couple more, but I'm going to wait until then.

I'm just interested to understand why you wouldn't add the additional lots and shift them to the Crescent Street location.

Again, it creates an encumbrance on a property. Both properties now are encumbered because those are public record documents that get recorded that says this property has four parking spaces designated. There are no other parking lots that have that encumbrance on them. That's part of the driving factor. The fact that the building has been here, the uses have been in existence. To our knowledge, we don't know of any code complaints coming into the town that we have a parking problem. We have not heard from the sheriff that there's been an issue for parking at that location. So it's really a matter of cleaning it up. I will say that I went through Salty Crab's request as well to see if there was any parallel, anything. And there really isn't. They're a new building. They brought up the 800 available parking spaces within a quarter mile. I went and I looked at the aerials. I didn't count them, but I went just to reconfirm that we have multiple parking available. So really, it's a matter of removing it from the front, being able to allow us to use that property to become more compliant with your comp plan, to move some maybe area out there. We are not looking to expand the building. I think that was maybe a concern. We're not looking to do an addition on the building. We're not looking to go higher in the building. The building is what the building is.

Yeah, I guess my other question is it would be clearer to me if there were also some plans of the use of it going forward. For example, if there were some improvements that were going to occur at the front of the building and change those parking spots to patio or whatever it may be but I don't see any evidence of that in the material that were provided to just the removal of the lots so I is there any thing that you can tell us about the future plans of the property that may help us understand if it's a better use

Sure. I will probably have to ask the owner to address that a little bit. However, when we talk about your regulations and your comp plan, the vision, and the buildings in the downtown district, or the New Times Square, this is the New Times Square district, we are encouraging expansion to the front. That's why I'm making this statement, that this is not to expand the construction of the building, but to allow for a future tenant. With retail, they would not have to come forward and say, hey, I want to put outdoor display. We don't have to come back to you. We do have to come back to you if they want to serve, or they would have to come back to you if they want to serve alcohol. expand their COP, say it was a restaurant and they went out, they would have to come and discuss that with you. We're not being vague for any other reason except that we don't have the tenant. This is based on the feedback we're getting trying to put either a tenant in there and to try to really understand what is the best use. And the best use, I mean, it's pretty obvious, like to be something downtown, walk away.

So to kind of piggyback on Councilor McClain is saying, would the applicant be okay, should this get approved to add a condition to say something along the lines of as long as the footprint of the building does not change? You had mentioned that, I mean, so you're not going to come back and add something on that this would be condition if approved to the existing footprint that exists today?

as long as there's an existing footprint of the structure, but we can still have the opportunity to come back if they wanted to expand their restaurant, wanted to serve beer and wine. But not the building itself, just the outside area. The face of the building would stay. The four walls are going to remain. We're really not here trying to sneak something in. The building is the building. The building is the building.

I think I'm fine now. Thank you.

So I have a couple questions. Does the applicant also own the parking on Crescent Street?

The parking lot?

Yes. Okay. Then overnight guests. So we heard that you haven't used that parking lot for years. You don't let people park there. But there is an arrangement with another rental property. What if that arrangement goes away? Then perhaps the parking option could go away.

That's the, that would be resolved with the multiple parking lots on old San Carlos that allow overnight parking. So if someone like no different than if I, if I go into, I'm going to say New York city. I understand that.

I understand that. Um, so overnight parking is charged is a fee. overnight park okay so the people who rent there would also be required to find a parking space somewhere else and pay an addition I understand that the person who wrote that beautiful review said this is great this is walkable if you could also see on the other side I needed a car for whatever reason I was going to baseball games or something and I had to pay an additional whatever to park and down the road. So there's both sides of that. So I'm thinking of those things. Why have you not been using that parking? I heard comments that we don't allow people to park there. Is that accurate?

I'm not aware of Or could it be just the renters? You don't allow people to park there? In the front parking lot?

John Richard, for the record. Thank you. In the front? Yes. It's the tenant space that can park there. It's not for the upstairs people.

It's not for the renters.

It's not for residents. Residents have overnight parking. You can park in Margaritaville overnight, even if you're not staying there.

So you're saying you do not allow the tenants to park there?

No. The tenants, like any city, you go anywhere, they have to go to another place to come. So they could go to Old San Carlos. You're allowed to have .

I understand that. I'm just saying they cannot park there. Correct. Cannot. Correct. OK. Correct.

They don't allow the dwelling units, I think is what you're referring to, the dwelling units up top to park out front. They don't allow them to do that because the tenant downstairs.

Got you. Thank you. Those are my questions. Thanks.

Councillor Kane. In addition to the condition the mayor described, do you have any other problems with the staff recommendation for conditions?

I don't think I did.

Let me look real quick, though.

I don't think I did. I think they were pretty consistently standard conditions. There is what one of the conditions, one of the conditions, and I will, let's just discuss it maybe here. All existing on-site parking with backing movements into Estero and Crescent shall be permanently eliminated. So staff is recommending that with an approval that we put this condition on there and not allow any parking in that area. I think we could live with that. So I think we're okay. That is the request. All existing shall be converted, pedestrian oriented, enhanced landscaping, building edge planting and perimeter landscaping shall be provided along Estero Boulevard. I'm not sure that that's something that you want us to do. I'm not sure that that would be something that would be applicable.

Well, I think it's 100% applicable. That's the whole reason you're saying it's not safe to back onto Astero Boulevard. So why would you want vehicular access from Astero Boulevard?

No, no, no, no. No, what I'm saying is the enhanced landscaping. Condition number three, enhanced landscaping, including building edge. So if you want some building edge planter and perimeter landscaping shall be provided along Astero. I'm not sure where that location is that you would have that ability.

Yeah, it's very broad. I get what you're saying.

Yeah, that's kind of a broad statement.

Well, again, if this is approved, does that ramp that goes up there go away and become a retaining wall or something? I don't know if that's what staff is trying to get at. I don't want to speak for Jason. I don't know. I think what you're trying to get at is what's going to prevent people from pulling into park in there anyway.

I think that's exactly it, and the idea here is that should now become a pedestrian-oriented area, and so we're asking them to delineate that from what we're going to hope is a lot of people down in downtown around that area. So this is for them as much as it is for the town to just provide that visual delineation, and they're going to do that to show that this is no longer a parking space. This is pedestrian-oriented space.

So maybe it's that number three condition again, if this was to get approved, it should read a little bit different. instead of saying enhance landscape, to me that's a very broad what does that mean, whereas a clear delineation between parking and pedestrian traffic.

I think staff would encourage any input on if this is a good idea, town council putting some guardrails on there or things that they would like to see. I think these are just sort of the initial idea for you guys to, uses a seed, is this something that you'd like to see? Is it something you'd like to mandate be done if you approve the removal of the spaces? This was just staff kind of looking at it and saying, how do we essentially get away from this back out parking area if you're getting rid of them? then let's turn it into something that is actually in line with the rest of the area, with the comp plan, which is asking to beautify the areas adjacent to Estero and make it a pedestrian-friendly area.

Okay. And I just reread your number five. It actually is better than what my suggestion was. I was talking about the footprint of the building, but you're talking about intensity. That also protects elevation versus just out. Exactly.

I have some other comments.

Go ahead, John. I'm sorry. No, no, and you brought up a good point, because that's kind of where I was going, is if this day and age, if folks see an open spot, somebody's going to pull in.

We don't have any problem doing that, making some kind of buffer and whatnot, make it beautiful. We're looking to encourage the pedestrian, so that is not an issue. But I am going to say something about number five now. Any future change in use? I don't know that we've defined a use yet, unless we can maybe clarify that. Anything other than restaurant, retail? Current use, maybe? Right now, downstairs, it's an office, so I don't want to have to be back here for a restaurant or a retail. I think if we want to, and I'll reconfirm with John, maybe we can expound that and use those words, retail, restaurant, for the existing uses that have been historically used there other than that office.

Well, that's why I guess I'm a little confused. If it's currently existing that you can use those, what's the change in the future use of current, a change in the current use?

I think what maybe, and I can't speak for staff, I think what they were trying to do is if the use would become more intense. I'm thinking, I'm not sure, because the change in use, the downtown district allows a lot of uses. So if we want to maybe say the uses that are allowed in the downtown district.

Within the comp plan zone.

And just still, right, and consistent with those uses, we're okay. And quite frankly, we're really just looking for restaurant retail and the units up top. So if we wanted to make that the condition, the existing previous uses, something like that, to tie it in together, that's fine too. That's... But I want to be a little careful that we don't say change of use, because right now, today, the certificate of occupancy is for an office, and then I don't want somebody to say no.

No, I see. You're expanding that condition again if it was approved to be more specific as to not just a broad paintbrush. Correct.

And again, we have no intention of putting another story on the building for this approval. So if that needed to be in there to address your intensity, that's fine, too.

Okay.

Go ahead.

Okay. So, Karen, I'm going to just come right out and say my concerns. Sure. Okay. And if we can find a way around this, I like a compromise. I am never for giving up parking. I mean, it just pains me. I understand if you're starting over and you are limited and now how do I get all these other great things, maybe we have to give up parking. So that's hard for me. I want to overcome that. okay the second thing i'm concerned about is we do know that that is a confusing area there are a lot of people wandering around my concern is point-blank you serve alcohol there you put the restaurant people are sitting outside having pizza i would be the first one to come there one too many drinks too much intensity and i'm less worried about people backing out than I am people walking across the street from something we agreed they could do when they've had a couple too many in that area. So I'm really concerned. I'm okay if you're not serving alcohol and you're using it as an extra patio. I do know that if you gave up the parking and you had a restaurant, I'd be disappointed because we so often would go to that very spot, the Greek restaurant, the pizza place. We scootered up probably three times a week, got something, scootered back. We will not do that as residents if we have to go find a place to park, maybe park. So I think maybe the parking could be an advantage, depending on what kind of restaurant you want. If people can come and go, we don't have very much takeout. That would be a huge benefit for residents. So I'm just looking at public safety, too many people, drinking, walking across the street, and giving up parking. So that's what I'm weighing, and I'm being very frank with that.

I appreciate that. And just to clarify again, if someone wants to do outdoor consumption, they will be back before you. They have to come back.

I agree.

If that will help at that time to deal with that issue, that specific issue, that would be the time to do that.

Well, then it gets to...

My condition would be that you don't serve alcohol.

Well, as Kara said, if they decide whatever it ends up being if it's approved and they want to do it, they still have to come back before counsel to request to be able to do that.

I agree.

Correct. Would the applicant be open to, because I'm guessing if this ever happens, there's going to be a question about finding dedicated spots for this restaurant. Would the applicant be open to using his own parking lot to provide spaces should that happen or the request or however an approval may happen? I'm not asking you to commit to it. I'm asking you to be open to it because what has happened in the past is people have said, have you worked with somebody else to come up with a shared parking plan to be able to operate the way you want to operate? My question is would the applicant be open to that discussion down the road should that ever come up?

I think open for discussion is operative words. Yes.

Okay.

Yes. And I can understand.

I feel like I want to see the whole picture. I'm only seeing half of it.

There really is nothing more to it. The building will stay. We don't have a tenant. The building is what the building is. We are committing to we will not expand the building up or out. We would like the ability to allow someone to do outdoor display of merchandise, if that's what they so chose to do. If they chose not to do that and they wanted to do outdoor consumption, they will have to come back before this board to get that approved. At which time you would then condition that. That may or may not ever happen. I don't know. I really don't know. So the uses are pretty much, we're looking to CONFINE THE REQUESTS TO THE USES, THE RETAIL, RESTAURANT AND THE DWELLING UNITS. WE ARE OKAY WITH THE SIZE OF THE EXISTING BUILDING, THE FOOTPRINT OF THE BUILDING AND THE HEIGHT, JUST TO CLARIFY THAT TOO. WE'RE NOT LOOKING TO SAY IF WE PUT A SECOND STORY ON IT, NO. WE'RE SAYING THAT WHAT YOU SEE IS WHAT YOU HAVE. I understand it is not a typical request because I'm not standing here with a buyer or with a tenant saying this is specifically what they want to do. but we are willing to agree to those parameters, the uses, the three uses, in any way, shape, or form. Not increased density, just to clarify for that, too. We're not looking to say, hey, we have three dwelling units now, and if the comp plan and zoning don't allow any more dwelling units, then this is off the table. It doesn't matter. If we come back for a comp plan, a CPD, if they come back for a CPD to expand it, This is off the table, so this is really absent a tenant, specific tenant. It's pretty defined, we feel. I'll help clarify it any further I can.

I appreciate you clarifying, but it feels to me chipping away to get to a desired outcome that perhaps is easier once the parking is gone. Again, it's just because I'm trying to fill in the gaps where I don't have information. Of course. So I want to protect parking and public safety, and that's where I think I will come down on this for now.

Will, were you leaning in earlier? I think I had something to say. No?

I just wanted to make sure, Jason, he looked like he had something to say on the uses. Go ahead, Jason. The land use. I thought I saw you leaning in. You know, what is allowed currently.

So I'm a little concerned and I think this may be a legal question I think for Nancy on whether or not this process right here is correct in limiting them to seemingly three uses that could be done in accordance with this considering how wide downtown's use table actually is. Are we saying that the three uses that have been enumerated by the representative of the applicant here are only what's going to be allowed in that building and is that Is this resolution or this ordinance the proper method to essentially limit them to three of what might be a couple dozen uses?

So Jason, your question I think is well taken. However, I think that by using this as a condition, it would apply to the variance. So if they deviate from the uses as the condition in the variance, then their variance is no longer applicable.

Can I ask another question for clarification? If we do put these three specific uses in the approval and they decide to do something else, what is the outcome? Does the variance then become moot for just that use and I have to go back and then validate and say, okay, you're zeroed out for all these other uses, but for this new non-specified use, you need to provide me three more parking spaces.

I think that's correct.

Okay.

Jason, the three uses, just for everyone listening, including myself, are?

I heard restaurant, retail. I want to jump in on that because I don't want to get in the habit of, if we already have uses within a zoning district, why make it more specific? Because it's going to make more work for you. It's going to make more work for the applicant. To try to pigeonhole what those three things are, either you allow them to do it or you don't within the already existing zoning district. Like we had the conversation about the marinas when we were going through the complex. I agree. To me, I'm not going to be a fan of specifically making it because it's going to create, to your point, maybe not this property owner. maybe the next property owner, the property owner after that is going to have to come in and waste more time and more staff to ask for something that's already in the comp plan to allow, but because we restricted it so far into this variance that it's going to just create more time, money, and effort that doesn't need to be recreated.

I think that's absolutely correct. Staff is now responsible to remember that this one individual lot has a limitation of three uses when we look at the wider area. So I agree. I don't know that we should enumerate three specific ones. I think that's a perfect plan to do in furtherance of a CPD where we're rezoning and talking about what the actual uses are. Here under variants, I don't know that it's the best way to go about it. One thing I did want to bring up, though, just for clarification on number five, when we talk about intensity, the way this is written is we're not talking about just physical intensity of the building expanding horizontally or vertically. In planning speak, intensification could be a more intense use. So if you do not want to limit them with number five, if they come in and want to go from office to restaurant, that's an intensification of the use.

But wouldn't that be dictated by the fire department? I mean, wouldn't they set the occupancy load of that? I mean, the town wouldn't set that, right?

Well, we can look at it as a proxy by how much parking spaces they would be required. If you go from an office use, which might only require three or five parking spaces, and you go to a restaurant use with a bar that could have 13 spaces per thousand square feet, I would say that, yes, that is an intensification as far as the jargon that planners use.

Actually, I have a question for Nancy. Nancy, when we talk about the newly adopted comprehensive plan, and there was a comment made about the LDC not catching up to the vision that is outlined in the comprehensive plan, is it correct for us to make DETERMINATIONS THAT ARE BETTER ALIGNED WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN?

YES.

THANK YOU.

THERE IS A CONSISTENCY REQUIREMENT THAT BASICALLY ANY DEVELOPMENT ORDER IS CONSISTENT WITH YOUR COMP PLAN, WHICH WOULD BE A VARIANCE. A VARIANCE WOULD BE IN THE FORM OF A DEVELOPMENT ORDER.

OKAY. SO AS A COMMENT, I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE SAFETY OF THIS SPECIFIC PARKING LOT. I THINK IT'S VERY DIFFICULT. As far as the conditions that the town has put forward. I think we've had a discussion and instead of saying. Perhaps in condition 3, instead of perimeter landscaping, we state something about a delineation and a separation preventing parking in the existing spot. Something along those lines, and then for statement 5. I'm concerned about limiting and further encumbering this property. So I would suggest that instead of increase of intensity or any use, it's just all uses should be as permitted in the Times Square district as defined in the conflict. Whether we even need to state that, I think it may be redundant, but the language that's in here is much more restrictive. And I'm not in favor of that. I'd like to hear my fellow council members' thoughts on that.

Yeah, I think we can. Do you have any more questions, Councillor King?

I think we're still here.

We're still in question, sorry.

I'm good. Thank you. I think we'll go to public comment and then if the applicant wants to.

Go ahead, Jason. Before we transition, I'd like to actually dovetail after Mr. McLean's point here. If all of the uses are allowed that they're asking for here today is just straight zeroed out, no matter what use. So I think number five, if that's where your concern is, is probably the one that needs to be, the words need to be rearranged there. Again, my understanding of intensity is two, it appears in two different places. The second one was the delineation of the space. If we just say delineation, could that be literally just a paint marker on the ground delineating the parking area from their seating area? If you guys do want a physical barrier here, which is what I think staff was sort of envisioning, like a landscape separation. then I think you have to be explicit and state that there needs to be a landscape or something else that's amenable to your vision of what that corner looks like when they're done.

I agree with Jason Smalley's comments. I was going to make those myself. So to have council define more specifically what type of delineation, what appears in the staff report is enhanced landscaping. Planters are another example, so maybe language saying including but not limited to, so there are some examples, so it's not a surprise.

I agree.

What would be some other ones?

Well, I think my question would be, it's solid concrete, right? So you're not going to put, and it's at an elevation, you're not going to put planters there. They're just going to tip over. So my guess is they're going to have to tear out some concrete to be able to do something to delineate, to your point, instead of just having a line that says do not park, which is going to require them to have a permit to be able to do that, which is then going to probably trigger you into having to do YOU KNOW, REVIEW THE LANDSCAPE BUFFERS AND ALL OF THAT. HOW DO WE GET AROUND ALL OF THAT? I THINK IF THIS GETS APPROVED, THE COMMENTS SEEM TO BE THAT THERE'S GOT TO BE SOMETHING THAT DELINEATES THAT BETWEEN PARKING AND NOT PARKING. WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE WITHOUT CREATING MORE WORK FOR STAFF, MORE FINANCIAL BURDEN AND TIME FOR THE APPLICANT TO ACHIEVE THE SAME GOAL?

As well as contending with the site visibility triangle, which is going to complicate some of your material on the front property line anyways. I fully agree. But unfortunately, I think if you want the delineation, you're going to have to specify a physical barrier. Is that no more than 14 inches high so it meets the site visibility triangle, double planting so we at least get five feet of area, or do you want something smaller? I hate to say that we have to be prescriptive about it, but if we intend to provide it, we have to be.

Maybe we should hear from the applicant if they have an idea. In fact, they're nodding their heads. Maybe they have an idea.

While they're coming up, may we ask Will, do you have any concerns from a public safety that...

Just what's already been discussed, it's currently, I think, a public safety issue if there were to be parking allowed in that area. And as everybody on the... here, I think, has expressed. Going forward, I think, to your, maybe if you're asking specifically, Councilor Link, to your comments about if a future use includes a restaurant or a bar, I don't think my concerns would be anything more than we have along Old San Carlos or some of the other areas that are similar. It's, sure, that's always a concern, but I, within the you know, our current way of dealing with those issues. No, I don't have a specific issue. I think you would have to, but I'd have to see in the future, like we're talking, what that use would be. Right now, I think it's just important that we address the parking issue. And I think if Kara does have an idea, I'd love to hear it. Does that answer your question?

It sure does. Thank you. I just wanted to see if you had anything additional.

On the delineation, would it work if we put in something to the effect that we had to install subtype of vertical delineation within conformity to your visibility triangle or some such thing like that? whether, you know, just something that will cover it. When we talk about the planters, in one breath, and I'd have to go out there and go look again, I'm not sure where that drastic incline ends, if maybe up there, you know, if we did a temporary barrier there, that wouldn't require a permit, and we could do that expeditiously, something like that. you know, might help. Like, I don't think we have any true concern about doing something that will satisfy what we need. So whether it be like a, maybe like even a white little picket fence or something or some planter combination. Right, some, you know, mixture of the two maybe and make it look nice. You know, a little low, little white picket thing and then maybe a little planter and then a white picket thing to delineate it. So I don't, we're not opposed to any of that.

All right, well, I'm sure we'll get into that. All right, any other questions for the applicant? All right, public comment. Does anybody here like to speak in public comment? All right, seeing none, we'll close public comment. I'm just curious if the discussion here, and it's not a question, if this would change the mind of any LPA member that was sitting on how they voted. I wasn't there that night. Well, I was just trying to be general. So comments, suggestions, questions, discussions? Councillor King, we'll start with you.

I guess for me it just boils down to a common sense safety issue, and that's a concern. And honestly, I could see myself sitting at that stoplight and somebody wanting to back out right into me. So that's happened to me on numerous occasions. So it is a concern for me. Councillor Link?

I would ask, Jason, is there anything that you would recommend that would make you feel more comfortable that you would then approve?

Well, I wouldn't say approve, but be comfortable with moving forward should it get approved.

That's a great way to say it.

So I think I've said everything in my mind. As long as we are providing for the ADA space, as long as somewhere within a reasonable distance, as long as they can access that site, because I'm thinking about some of the broken sidewalk on that side of the street along Crescent,

But Jason, if the parking goes to zero, they don't have to have a requirement of an ADA space?

No, but realistically, they still got to get their people from whatever parking spaces they have to them, to the space. Again, that doesn't become the town or the code's responsibility at that point. That's on them. just one of my concerns is moving an ADA space from directly in front of it to approximately 300 feet away and then they have to traverse over broken sidewalk panels.

So that would be covered under any potential whatever may or may not go in there.

Yeah, absolutely. Anybody would have that same requirement of how to physically get their people from where they're parking to the space. But that's not the concern of the code here. The request here today just deals with removing the parking spaces. I have a lot of what ifs, and I think I've gone through a lot of them with you. As far as the landscaping, I think we're open to anything. The real concern here is, again, just making sure that it's limited to two feet. So whatever the town council believes would be visually appealing and still provide that break within being no more than 24 inches high. I think that's probably the biggest concern from my code perspective.

Thanks for that.

And that's the 24 inches, then it doesn't interfere with the view triangle. Right.

You're expected to have clear vision in that triangle from two feet to six feet. Okay.

Thanks, Jason. That's it for me. Nope.

Councilor McLean?

I guess I'll restate what I stated before. I think that... I believe that we should be. Embracing the changes that we've made to the comprehensive plan. They are not included increased any of the uses or the intensities or densities and. The marketability of the property if. I've stated this previously about other uses, including restaurants in that district, the parking. Issues that may or may not be there. That's part of the, the ability of the company to, or the owner. To market their property as being parking is an issue here. You know, we suggest you take an Uber or you will have to use an offsite lot. And I don't have any issues with that. Actually. I think that's just fine. So, I would personally, I would. support this removal of the parking requirements because as defined in the Times Square district we're trying to encourage a walkability and use of shared lots and I would change number three instead of inhale I think we could state keep enhanced landscaping but include something remove perimeter landscaping and add something that says a physical barrier to block off the parking no more than twenty five inches high and then number five i would suggest that it either goes away completely because or if not then it should be all uses that are permitted in the times square district and those would be my recommendations yeah i share a lot of the same points that you raised councilor mclean i mean i think

had Kara and the applicant had a chance to answer questions at the LPA that may have changed some of the recommendations. I can't speak for them, but, um, public safety is a big thing. You know, parking to your point, council McLean is a big thing, but that we've all seen it. That is a very dangerous parking lot to back in and out of. And, and Uber is using it lifts, using it to pull up on there for, you know, now the car doors are winging open and people are getting picked up at that corner. Um, I think eliminating that is in the best interest of the community as far as public safety standpoint. The fact that they're not willing to increase the footprint or the density, as spoken by the applicant, is very important. It does meet the criteria of the new downtown district that we've put in place, or the Times Square district, so it would be consistent with that. The fact that they have to come forward TO, IF THEY WANT TO DO A RESTAURANT WITH A BAR, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE THOSE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT PARKING AND SHARED USE. THE APPLICANT OWNS SEVERAL PARKING LOTS IN THAT AREA, AND HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT THEY TRY TO FOLLOW THE RULES OF LAW AS BEST THEY CAN. I MEAN, I HAVEN'T HEARD ANY COMPLAINTS, AND WE ALL KNOW THAT THIS APPLICANT IS VERY good at doing landscaping and delineating between public right-of-ways and public spaces. So I'm going to support this based on the two changes I think that you were talking about. I think that's important that we have. Number three has changed to what Councilor McLean said. Number five, I think we still need to work on that wording a little bit. I think to be consistent with the Times Square zoning district with that cover all of your questions Jason as far as not having to come back to look at what the use is as long as it's a use that's within the Times Square zoning district that that would cover any change in use well then I believe five becomes functionally moot if you're just saying they get everything in downtown they already get everything in downtown but also in the increase of intensity I think it's important to have that there but maybe not to your point. How do we codify what they have said they are not willing to do, the perimeter of the building, the existing height of the building? How can we codify that in this condition to say that if this property were to change hands, that the next person can't just automatically add another story without having to come in and rectify this condition number five?

I'll defer to Kara's expertise here, but I would think that then you could say no increase of the footprint, no increase to the height, and that covers an expansion of the building without touching the available uses, so we don't get hung up on that.

Could we not just say no increase in FAR?

Technically, no, I don't think so, because that's a, I mean, I wouldn't be comfortable with that. Okay, all right. Let's just. FAR changes in a lot of different ways, so I think I take the mayor's point. Yeah, I wouldn't be, I think keeping it simple, to your point, No existing size to the footprint, physical footprint of the building, or increased height of the building would cover those two.

And maybe put primary structures so that we can address Kara's point of if they want to do an outside deck that's accessory without changing the building, they could come out and do that. but it would be the physical increase of the existing foundation of the primary structure. So I think if we add the term primary structure in there, that'll differentiate between if they want to do any decks or things that they've mentioned that they might want to do in that new pedestrian area.

So if they wanted to, they still would have to come in, obviously, to go before staff. If they wanted to extend the upper level deck out, they would have to come before and do all that.

Yeah. Any attached decks would trigger this. To Kara's point, if they want to do a deck, and they're allowed to do it in the pedestrian area now, and they want to do service of alcohol, that would trigger them having to come in and talk to us as well.

Did you get all that, Nancy? For number five, is there some wording that you could suggest that would help clarify it for the record?

We can work on it after the meeting, but I think there's been adequate testimony from both of the experts where that requirement where we could mold something that would be sufficient.

Okay. Do you both feel comfortable with what Nancy said? Oh, Kara's coming back up.

I think there's agreement between you and Jason. I think so, too. I think so, too. I just got a little, I just want to clarify that the outdoor use, I just want to make sure that we're not, we don't lose that. So the outdoor use, we want to maintain that. We want to be able to still do that. No new walls, right? So we're all, like I said, the patio, Got a little lost if he was implying that I have to come back for the patio I don't have to come back to know what he was saying my outdoor any elevated structure above the existing patio, okay But as long as the patio is consistent with the Times Square zoning district, right?

Then that would be encompassed within this condition.

Then that's fine.

That's why I am so any alterations that would otherwise require approval or a permit and You would go through.

Yeah, that's fine. Right. We'll get the permit if we do anything out there, if that's what we're saying, but I don't want to have to come back here unless they're doing outdoor consumption, in which case that would address those issues.

Correct.

Okay.

Wow. Clear as mud. There's nothing in here to say that if this gets approved, how soon is it going to be implemented? You talked about doing something temporary to keep people from parking in that spot. Are you going to try to do something temporary until you come up with whatever the permanent solution is going to be?

Whatever the record. It's up to God and the wind. You know, we're going to take it. We don't have any plans. We're just trying to set it up for the tenant or if I sell it, if I keep it, if I put my own store in there. There's so many things that so that I can't tell you any. There's nothing going to happen right tomorrow.

No, what I'm saying is Cara had mentioned some temporary. So if this gets approved, your parking is not there. I don't want you to be in non-compliance for now parking people there tomorrow, right? That's what I'm trying to get at.

I'm not sure if he was hearing you. The barrier, for lack of a better word, right, is what we're all talking about, the vertical barrier, some vertical barrier. Something to keep people from parking in the parking spots. Right.

No, you need to remove it now.

Because technically you would be in non-compliance. Hello.

What I'd like is I have the tenant that's in there now. What I'd like to be able to, once we have, if I'm going to put the store in, what if we're going to do something? We can block the, because tenant is moving out. once that tenant moves out, it's going to stay vacant until the next thing, so to speak.

No, I understand that, John, but what I'm trying to get at is you're asking to eliminate parking in that today, and if it's approved, parking would be eliminated today.

Correct.

So you could no longer have people parking there or you'd be in noncompliance.

And what I'm asking is if I can put cones up or whatever until I actually get, because I don't know what the timing is going to be,

Yeah, that's what I was asking. As long as nobody's going to be parking there, because I don't want to have to go through the compliance.

So I asked for some relief on that until, you know, I'll put some blocks up there if you want me to.

No, I'm just, there's going to be nobody parking there. That's all I'm trying to get at, if this gets approved today. Could we...

I just heard one thing, though, that concerned me, is I really would rather see... like a concrete planter put down there as opposed to orange cones. We need to move away from being a perpetual construction site unless we're actually constructing. So, John, could you put, I don't know, concrete planters or something that blocks the parking?

I can put some planners in there that would be to block the thing. We're just trying to stop the Ubers and everybody else. I'd ask until October when my tenant is actually leaving. His lease is up in October. So if you can make that effective... October until he vacates.

That's what the mayor is getting at.

I can't do that to my tenant. I still have a tenant there that has a lease until October.

That's why this might not be the best timing to be bringing this, I think.

I can't either.

That's why this may not be the right time to be bringing this to us, because one thing is going to put you in another situation that is difficult.

Or couldn't you dedicate a parking? I'll put the planners up. This is approved right away.

Okay.

Okay, so that would basically block any type of parking once the variance is approved.

That's what I was getting at. I just didn't want to create a noncompliance issue for the applicant starting tomorrow. That's what I was trying to get at. And you could dedicate one spot, if you want, from your other parking lot to that current tenant until October.

Did you want to put any type of time limitation on it, like within 30 days?

Yeah, I don't expect him to do it tomorrow, but I just don't want him to –

I THINK HE NEEDS A REASONABLE TIME.

JOHN WOULD GO RIGHT TO THE PLACE AND PUT PLANNERS UP TO THAT.

30 DAYS? 30 DAYS WOULD BE FABULOUS. 30 DAYS WOULD BE FABULOUS. WE WILL PUT UP A BARRIER. HE WILL HAVE THE TENANT USE HIS OTHER LOT.

SURE.

OKAY.

CAN I JUST SEE CLARITY THAT WE'RE NOT PUTTING OUT CONES BECAUSE THOSE ARE MOVABLE BY ANYONE.

CORRECT.

THANK YOU.

Okay, I'm going to ask one last question. Sure. If, let's say, the next person who comes there, who rents or purchases, says, I really want takeout pizza, and so we'd like golf carts to come in, and you just took it away. Can you add the parking back? Is there any reason they could not come back?

They have to go through a process.

They have to come back to you.

But it could be something we decided? If it's the right thing to do, yes. If it is. Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

All right. Any other discussion? Or is there a motion for Resolution 26-094 for Variants 202, 60011 for 1161 and 1165 Estero Boulevard? Mr. Mayor, I'd like to move approval with the conditions

as modified through our discussion here today, including the putting up a physical barrier within the next 30 days that will include planters and not movable plastic cones and taking away condition five because it's moot if we allow all uses that are available within the Times Square district.

I'll second that.

So for purposes of the record, I wanted to go ahead and state that the conditions that have been referred to are on page 98. And condition number C is the enhanced landscaping. And that's the one that's going to have the additional time, the 30 days. And then the motion is to remove condition E in its entirety. Correct?

Correct. Thank you. Well, I have the conditions on 113 and 114 in my packet, but.

I'm looking at the resolution.

I'm looking at the staff recommendation.

We're in a staff which has one through five as opposed to, they're the same ones. Yeah, they're the same ones.

They're the same ones. It's just that when we go back and amend the resolution, I want to make sure that staff and I, we're all on the same page.

I don't think there was an elimination of five or E, whichever.

I think that was part of your motion.

I just did in that I believe... Mr. Smalley said that it was moot if it allowed the uses that were available in...

But I thought it was important to have in there that the footprint of the building...

If I can make a, yeah, differentiation between that. Ah, yes. So the use, the change in uses or intensification of the uses would not trigger this. Okay, right. But the intensification or the increase of the footprint of the building or the height of the building would then trigger this.

Thank you for that. I missed that. Excuse me. So I would like to amend... And I would like to amend to include five to be there will not be no increase in either the footprint or the height of the building will be allowed.

And the second?

I'll amend it. All right. We've got an amended motion and an amended second. Any further discussion? Councillor McLean? Aye. Councillor King?

Aye.

Councillor Link?

Aye.

And I'm an aye as well. The motion carries 4-0 with Vice Mayor Safford abstaining.

Thank you for that discussion.

Next is item B. This is ordinance 26-09, FPNL meter installation above FEMA required flood elevation. THIS IS A LEGISLATIVE AGENDA ITEM AND FIRST READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED ORDINANCE 26-09. IF APPROVED AT FIRST READING, A SECOND READING AND FINAL ADOPTION HEARING WILL BE SCHEDULED FOR JUNE 15, 2026 AT 9 A.M. OR AT ANY TIME, ANOTHER TIME IDENTIFIED BY TOWN COUNCIL. This is an ordinance of the town of Fort Myers Beach, Florida, amending Article 3, Division 3, Section 34-638 of the Land Development Code, creating a new exception to minimum setback requirements, reducing minimum setbacks to accommodate new Florida power and light requirements for platforms to locate and provide service to elevated electric meters, providing criteria and conditions for the permitted electric meter equipment and associated platform, access stairways and related structures, providing for clarifications as necessary, providing for conflicts of law, scrivener's errors, severability, and providing for an effective date. Jason?

Hello again. My name is Jason Smalley. I'm the senior planner here with the town. So before you today is a minor amendment to the land development code. If I can just provide just a little context about how we got here and what staff has been seeing that sort of spurred this request for the change. So what we had been noticing is since the storm, it started out in drips and drabs, we would hear about it once or twice, but now it's become somewhat regular that in the midst of the development, not at the initial permitting phase, but after applicants have been already given permits and have functionally completed the project, FPNL shows up to install their meters. Well, it used to be that you could have a wall ladder to give access or the people on site coming to read the meters or fix the meters would provide their own access to your meters. Since the storm, what I've been notified is FPNL no longer does that. They expect you to provide access to these meters. And what they've been telling folks in the midst of their inspections, as the building is already up and vertical, is, oh, by the way, you've got to put a set of stairs or some other acceptable access where our meter readers and our technicians can step back, turn around, do the Macarena, whatever it is that they do up there. But what they're saying is that we can no longer provide just a set of climbing ladder to be sufficient. So what we've noticed here is that people are stuck in a bit of limbo. They now need a variance because we don't have code sections that would allow specifically for this type of incursion into particularly a side yard setback. And so they're being forced at the end of their build as they thought everything was coming through to now come in and either get a variance or somehow jump through hoops to satisfy both FP&L and the town's land development code. So staff has presented a alternative here. This is being requested to be put into the section that is buy right carve outs. This is differentiated from things that require you to pay for and apply for an administrative variance. We do have sections that deal with that. But this is in the allowances for any home that runs into this problem. The language is intended to satisfy what FPNL is requesting, which I believe is a minimum of four foot by four foot final platform and set of stairs that are of the width as required by Florida building code. I believe that's 36 inches, but I'll defer to the building official on the Florida building code requirements. The point being This would allow for them, without applying for admin variance or paying the town $750 to solve this issue, to come in and develop this set of stairs that they're being told is required. Staff has put on there some what we think are common sense limitations. We've put in there a limitation on encroaching into easements. you cannot encroach into an easement as of today. So this just reiterates that these particular stairs wouldn't be allowed anything more than normal permitting would allow for. Secondly, what we're saying is that if the stairs do encroach into a required stormwater area, particularly the swales that need to be put on the side of new homes in most cases, that it would be the responsibility of the applicant either during build or after the fact if FPNL has them do it once the house is built, they have to make sure that their stormwater system continues to function and is not cut off from the way that it was initially designed. So what you're seeing in the code language here provided to you is staff's concern that If you take advantage of this and need to use that area that was previously designed to provide stormwater attenuation, you are still responsible to make sure your stormwater system works on that site to the minimum Florida Water Management District standards. It's not a carve-out for that requirement, even though we are being flexible with where the stairs need to be. I feel like I've rambled just a bit there, but if Town Council has any questions about staff's view on this, we're here to answer any of those questions.

I just want to add that other coastal communities that have endured hurricane-related flooding have already adopted similar type ordinances.

Jason, the concern that I, there's a couple, not concerns, but questions I have. You mentioned that FPL you think is four by four, but in here it says minimum clearance of five feet. Would it make more sense to not necessarily say specific footage, but as to comply with required safety requirements of utilities or something along those lines?

I think that's absolutely relevant. We were just a little unsure whether FPNL said they want a five-by-five or a four-by-four.

I think that would just cover any changes down the road since something happened. And the other thing that I don't see in here, I think that's important, is... that these stairs are only accessible to this utility. You can't use them to enter into the house. You can't use them to add an existing deck off the side of your house. They have to be specific to just the utility that it's being built for.

That is correct, and I think that's indicative of how we're seeing people notified about these things. They've already designed their home, and they're being asked to effectively just put a set of stairs in a little corner or right on the side of the house. But that was an attempt to ensure that we're not creating a loophole or an incentive for people to do this and then create a little tiny Florida room or an additional playroom because they think they've been given this additional setback into the side yards. So yes, the language does limit how it can be used, what things it cannot turn into, and really reiterating that this is for service to FPNLs, meters, and nothing else.

OK. I just see it says it's limited to non-habitable structures. But to me, that could be a deck. Yeah. That could be someone could, down the road, take a window out, slider in and build a deck off the side, a sitting deck or something. There's nothing in here that limits that.

In theory, that would be addressed at the review phase when we get into planning because ostensibly they'd be asking to fill in this room inside of a reduced setback. So we're gonna look at this and say, why are you telling us that you're only gonna provide three and a half feet on this enclosed room that you're talking about? Oh, this is your deck that you were allowed to have. Well, you can't enclose that. It says right there in the code you can't do that. I think that would be our check on this.

We're talking about an enclosed space. This is a non-enclosed space. That could be a slider door. You want to walk out and have two chairs on a three-foot deck out there to watch the sunset or sunrise. This, to me, doesn't cover that exception.

So I think we would probably just have to... Well, I think the language does at least talk to that eventuality of this not turning into habitable space.

I guess the question is, do you consider a deck habitable space?

It depends on the circumstances.

See, there we go.

If you're talking about putting a slider and then throwing a table on there, you've got four by four or five by five to work with. I think it's somewhat self-limiting. But I do take your point. If somebody's slider is at the correct seven and a half foot setback, what stops them from putting a slider in there? Mm-hmm. to access this deck. And I think that's where the limits, specifically in the code where it says this shall not turn into, this shall not be made into that type of space, at least gives the staff the ability to say, okay, what's going on here? What's the history of this thing? Why is this deck out here? Why are they saying that this deck is three and a half foot setback when we know the house is seven and a half foot setback? It at least gives us some triggers to say, go and look into this a little bit more.

Councilor King, questions for Jason?

Nothing current. Scott? Nothing current.

Rebecca?

No, but thank you for amending things as you go. I ran into this in my house, and we're talking thousands and thousands of dollars because the electric placement went in before everything else.

Indeed.

The swales were dug, the drainage, thousands. So I think you're probably seeing other things just like this that hopefully will come before us to make it easier for everyone.

My question is, it seems like it's clear to you in your mind that this should not be an expansion of the use for living in the property. But I share the mayor's concerns that it's not restrictive enough of being for utility service, and I'm worried that this becomes the loophole that allows people to expand their decks further than they would be allowed. So I want to make sure that there's some protections in there, and it sounds like you're comfortable with it, but I think we need to... tighten up nonhabitable structures to also not include decks not used for utility purposes or service decks? Because I think where I see this most likely happening is where you will have your air conditioner unit, hopefully your back ground or backup generator and your electrical panel are all sitting there and maybe your pool equipment underneath it or something. I kind of want to limit it to services as opposed to.

Yeah, where I see the loophole happening is in new construction, they're going to build a house and purposely put their utilities where these steps are to access an accessory unit inside the building that's going to be another short-term rental. Gotcha. That's where you're going to see the design happen. That's the loophole I think people would take. I certainly would if I was building a house. knowing that I could get away with it, based on the loophole that's here.

So what I'm hearing from you is everybody would like to see a little bit more tightening up of the language explicitly stating that no new doors, windows, accesses can be made to here to this deck area other than the approved set of stairs to allow access specifically for the utility holders. Something akin to that, make it more explicit. That's what I'm requesting, please, yes. Okay.

Is there any appetite to include the air conditioners?

It's a good point. I think that yes, because a lot of you're seeing a lot of air conditioners now having to be elevated. And I've talked to several people who are going through or having issues with trying to get what was there re permitted as an elevated thing because it's encroaching into the setback. So just trying to replace what was there is now dealing with issues. I think it should expand into any kind of, whether it's an air conditioner, should they choose to want to put it. Some of them don't. They just put them on the pedestal that sits up there and they make them work off a ladder. Right. Dangerously.

So if I can make one comment here about that. Recently within the past year I believe we actually added that carve out to allow for replacement of electrical and mechanical units in the exact same footprint that have to be elevated. Even with noncompliant setbacks you have the ability to get that and that's another carve out. That's not an accessory or excuse me an administrative variance.

From what I've heard, the challenge is trying to prove that a home that was destroyed from Hurricane Ian had that. Unless you have a specific picture showing, staff is saying we have no way of verifying that that existed pre-storm. So you have to go through all the hoops and things that you have to go through to apply to encroaching the setback, even though it was there before. Much like we have to do when we had, remember, after Ian, everybody had to. TRY TO TRACK DOWN THAT IT WAS A HABITAL SPACE BEFORE AND WE HAD TO GO THROUGH THAT WHOLE SCENARIO. I THINK THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO ELIMINATE STAFF'S WORK OF HAVING TO SAY SORRY MR. OR MS. APPLICANT. YOU HAVE NO PROOF SHOWING THAT YOU HAD AN ELEVATED AIR CONDITIONING STRUCTURE BEFORE THE STORM THAT ENCROACHED INTO A SETBACK. YOU NOW HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS TO BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE IT.

Okay, so you're envisioning that the air conditioning units would also now be given allowance to be roughly three and a half feet into these, let's say, seven and a half foot setbacks. That's going to provide for a minimum of four foot separation between your new elevated unit and your property line. Is that an allowance that you're envisioning?

I see where you're going with that. Well, you still have the fire, right? We had an issue in the past where the fire department said you had to have a minimum width of whatever, five and a half feet between setbacks for life safety issues. I think that that would still probably have to come into play for fire review.

Yeah, ostensibly you'd have to offset the units. You'd have to work with both unit owners to put one maybe further back and one unit further forward so that they aren't in line with each other and only three and a half feet of separation between your two AC units. But I'm getting a little bit too deep here. I don't want to talk about the fire code because that's way beyond me.

I get it.

I just want to make sure that everybody understands that currently this would allow for you to be, in most cases, three and a half feet off of the side setbacks. It doesn't account for those areas that are allowed five feet through the through the Cottage codes because those explicitly disallow any other anything other than the primary structure to be reduced in setbacks But in most circumstances we're talking about where either an AC unit or in this case also a set of stairs and a deck would be allowed to be roughly three and a half feet off of the side property line and If we assume that the other neighbor is going to take full advantage of the same thing, we've got roughly seven feet separation between the furthest protrusion, which might be the deck or the AC unit.

I see where you're going with it. We certainly don't want people designing, at least I don't think I would want people designing new houses purposely putting the air conditioners to stick out beside the house. You're seeing a lot of designs where they're including them into, they're recessing them in. So maybe it's current existing structures or something along those lines, not new structures. I'd hate to see people take advantage of something that we put in there. I don't want to create another problem trying to solve one.

I get it, but quite honestly, it's the new structures where we're seeing them pop up. It's folks that are just two-thirds of the way down the build, and FPNL shows up and says, you guys didn't account for my guy being up there on the stairs. So I don't think it's easy enough to just say this is for new homes or existing homes only. Now, we can go that route, but I think you're going to leave a large part of the population sort of out of being able to use this section. Yeah.

John, anything else?

I think to Nancy's question that I would limit it to the electrical meters and not include the AC or generators.

I agree. I think the AC stuff needs some more thought. Okay. Because some people do have doors because it is safer for your AC guy to work right there than do a ladder. So I think there's a little more thinking to do. Okay.

No more questions, we're gonna do public comment. Public comment, anyone like to speak in public comment? Jim, you sure?

Come on, Jim, you've not been quiet this long for as long as I've known you.

All right, we'll close public comment. Discussion or motion for Ordinance 26-09 for the FPL, FPNL meter installation above FEMA required flood elevation. No discussion?

There is one Scribblers there on page one. Actually, there's two on page 118. My name is spelled wrong and her name is really spelled wrong.

We've noticed that. We'll reach out to them and get it changed for the next reading.

Any other discussion? All right. I will make a motion to move Ordinance 26-09 to the second reading. And my screen just went down. Someone help me with what the exact date is. June 15th. June 15th at 9 a.m.?

Yes.

I'll second. All right.

We've got a motion by Mayor Eilert, seconded by Vice Mayor Safford. Any further discussion? Aye. I'm an aye. Vice Mayor Safford? Aye. Councillor Link?

Aye.

Councillor McLean? Aye. And Councillor King? Aye. That motion carries unanimously. Next is item C. This is ordinance 26-08 for charter changes. This is a legislative agenda item in the second reading and final public hearing on proposed ordinance 26-08. This is an ordinance of the town of Fort Myers Beach, Florida, proposing amendments to the Fort Myers Beach Town Charter, proposing charter amendments one, mandating ordinances required disclosure in quasi-judicial hearings and prohibiting unlawful gifts. two, revising the town council compensation process, three, revising the term of the council seats filled by appointment, four, clarifying the service of the interim mayor, five, clarifying the qualifying period for the town council candidates, and six, providing for the use of the Lee County Canvassing Board, providing for a referenda on the proposed charter amendments, providing for ballot titles and ballot summaries for each referenda, providing for direction to town clerk and coordination with the Lee County Supervisor of Elections, providing for filing the revised charter with the Florida Department of State, and providing for findings, conflicts, severability, and an effective date.

Thank you, Mayor. So since the last approval at the last meeting, the only changes that have been made to the draft ordinance is the inclusion of the Spanish translation of the ballot title. Also, there was a question regarding whether or not the language that would actually appear in the charter, if that would be on the ballot. And I researched that and the answer is no. The only thing that would be on the ballot would be the yes or no question, followed by a explanation of what it does, a summary.

Well, Councillor Link, we'll start with you since you seem to have the most questions at the first hearing. We'll start with you.

I am okay letting these move on to the residents to vote. I made my case last time, and I don't have anything else to add. I talked to Jim about a few things, so I think we're clear. There was one change. Nancy, I think you changed, I think it was the compensation. There was four years, three years, and that was corrected as well to four.

That is correct. Thank you. So you picked that one up as well.

No new comments, Mayor.

Okay. Councillor McLean?

No, I have no new comments.

Councillor Kane? Just like the new guy, no new comments.

Vice Mayor Safford?

No, I'm perfectly fine with it.

The only comments I've got is I have spoken to some people who have a little bit of hesitation on the appointment part of it, where Not everyone is comfortable, as we talked about at the first meeting. If, God forbid, something were to happen to one of the council members a day or two after they were appointed to this seat, that someone who was not elected by the people would then be sitting in that seat for the remainder of that four years. There's several people who are not comfortable, at least that I've talked to. I've spoken to more who are more uncomfortable with it than comfortable with it. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT THE COUNCIL WANTS TO DISCUSS. I CAN HONESTLY GO EITHER WAY, BUT I SEE THEIR POINT ABOUT, YOU KNOW, IN THAT SCENARIO, YOU WOULD BE SEATED FOR TWO YEARS OR UP TO TWO YEARS VERSUS AN ENTIRE FOUR YEARS. IT'S A LOT OF WHAT IFS. I GET IT. THE POINT OF ELECTIONS IS TO PUT THE PEOPLE IN PLACE THAT YOU WANT, AND THIS, I THINK, EXTENDS THE POWER OF THE COUNCIL AT THE TIME TO BE ABLE TO PUT SOMEONE IN THAT SEAT FOR A MUCH LONGER TIME THAN MAYBE THE ELECTORATE WOULD LIKE TO SEE.

I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH YOU, AS I STATED LAST MEETING.

JOHN, HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT IT? NO NEW COMMENTS.

Let's go with that, yeah.

Okay. So if it's just two of us, then I'm not going to continue down that path. But I just wanted to bring it up that that is an issue.

I don't disagree with you. I think that it's most important that we ensure that we've got the split, that we don't have a full slate that's being up for election. And I think that's what they were trying to do. And the other side of it is the voters will decide. I mean, if they support it, then they support it. If they don't, they don't.

Very true. Very true.

That is question number three. Yeah, correct. That is question three.

And I don't know that the... What I was trying to get at there was... I lost my train of thought. As soon as you said number three, it made my brain go off. That's all right. I don't think that keeping it the way that it is doesn't alter. It would just shift when three and when two get voted on, much like is happening this November. So whether it stays the same or it moves, it's not going to change how that 3-2 vote happens every other year. It just changes. But to your point, it's going to go to the referendum, and people will either vote for it or they won't. And it would just revert back then to what it is now. So that's a very good point.

You want me to make one more attempt? Or are you guys tired? Go ahead. OK, I'll make one more attempt. And this is what I had to weigh, because I can see both sides of this issue. I like trying to eliminate the 4-1 split. I think that is so important. I think it is outweighed, though, having somebody sit there for that long without it being a voter decision, I think trumps that. We never know. I was surprised in the short time I've been here how many people have either retired, chosen to step down, maybe had an illness. It happens, and there's no planning it. It just randomly happens. Any change of your mind there, John?

I think we let the voters decide.

Yeah, I'm a proponent of letting the voters decide. I just wanted it on the record that people are out there and if they decide they don't want it, it's not going to change. But there's no scenario whether it changes or doesn't where it's a four vote for council this time and one vote for another. At least that's the way I interpret it. Is that correct, Nancy? No matter what it ends up being, it's always going to be 3 and 2. It's never going to be a 4 and 1.

That is correct. Unless there's unforeseen circumstances where multiple people. The way it's written right now, it could be 4-1 or 5-0. It could, right. If multiple people, for whatever reason, are no longer able to serve, then yes, you could run into that situation. Typically, that doesn't happen.

Well, technically, you could do it with the way the changes are written. Technically, four of us could have a heart attack tomorrow, and then you would have four people that would be up for a vote under the same circumstances. So you're not solving that issue by changing it. The what-ifs could be what-ifs, but I'm comfortable with keeping it where it's at to let the voters decide. Is there a motion for the Ordinance 26-08 for the charter changes?

Is there public comment?

Oh, public comment. I'm sorry. Thank you, Nancy. Public comment. No questions. All right. We'll close public comment. We'll bring it back to the council.

I'll go ahead and move it.

All right. Got a motion by Councillor King.

I'll second. I also want to thank the Charter Review Committee. Jim, you did a fantastic job being on your team. Thank you. A lot of heavy lifting going on. Now it's up to the voters to decide.

Yep. It should be. All right. If there's no other discussion, Councillor King? Aye. Vice Mayor Safford? Aye. Councilor Link? Aye. Councilor McLean? Aye. And I'm an aye as well. That motion carries unanimously.

Thanks again, Jim. Mayor, Council. Are we decommissioned? Yes, you were decommissioned, I think, on the 7th. They're fired. Jim, thanks. I think I speak for Amy as well. We want to thank the Council and our Chair of the Charter Commission for getting this done in a very timely manner. because there is a very tight timeline to getting this to the supervisor, and we are now on schedule. Love it. Thanks again, Jim.

Thank you. All right. Does anybody need to take a brief break? I would like to fill up my water cup. Okay. We'll take a 10-minute break and reconvene at 1115.

Thank you. Thank you.

All right, we're gonna call the meeting back to order. It is 11.15. Our next agenda item is administrative, and it is the continuation of last discussion of the fiscal year 26-27 budget hearing dates.

Nancy, Amy, Will, who wants to? Well, we had discussion last time trying to select some dates. Everybody get their calendars out. So staff, based on the conflicts that came up last week, we pushed it to this. Our last council meeting pushed it to this one. Now we recommend the first budget hearing on Monday, September 14th, and the second and final budget hearing on Monday, September 28th. I knew you were going to say that. I'm sorry. These are our recommendations. Those would give us the proper 14 day interval, uh, between the two, two proposed hearing dates, both starting at 5 0 1 PM. I'd like to add as well.

I already made plans to be out of town that last week of October, assuming that we would have a meeting or September, I'm sorry, September 28th. Yeah. So I'll be gone that entire week.

So may I interject here? Please do. Um, I think last meeting you all agreed on the 23rd was a good date for you. Yes. Which, because of advertising requirements for the trim, excuse me, the ads and all that, we'd have to maybe go to Wednesday the 2nd of September. I don't know how that works for everyone. Or we.

The 2nd or the 9th? The 9th?

I've got a governor's conference on the 9th.

I'm sorry, that was the main conflict. Oh, that's right. The last three conflicts, I believe. Yeah, there were multiple conflicts with the 9th. I can't think of the 9th. Well, it's the 4th through the 12th.

So I'm hearing the 2nd, maybe? I can do the 2nd. I can do the 2nd.

I can do the 2nd.

Yep. I can do the second.

Is that okay with Joe?

Second it is.

Oh, wait.

Joe is saying the earliest he could do it is the third. But that's the third is Lee County's date? Correct.

We can't do it before Lee County, which is on the second.

Yes. The fourth? Oh, that's right before the holiday.

How about July 31st? or August 31st, sorry, not July.

Yeah, we can't do it before. We can't do it before Lee County or at the same date as Lee County, which is on September 2nd.

What about the 8th?

Once again, I'm going to weigh that in. I'm sorry.

No, we have advertising requirements ten days in there And we know that that you're gone that entire week second week great job I am yeah, I know I Planned that before I could even yeah, I remember I just could remember it was entirely I

The only date it seems it's going to work, unfortunately, is the 4th.

That's what I was just discussing with Tracy. I know it's a long weekend. I know it's a Friday. But it looks like that might be the only day that we are going to have everybody here for that first meeting. I won't be here for the 4th. For the 4th.

Or at least four out of the five. Midnight on the 3rd.

Can we do it with four is going to be my next question.

The first meeting, yes. I believe we can do it with four, right, Amy? It will be the second meeting where, well, I could also, technically could also do it with four at the second meeting, but if there's something that requires a supermajority, I obviously, we wouldn't have enough of a council, so I'd really prefer all five for the second meeting.

But the 4th, the 1st reading, yes, I can, but it will be starting at, like, 1130 at night and then it goes for how many hours.

Yeah, you just lost your 2 days.

I mean, let me put it this way. I will make every attempt. To be able to zoom in if not. I'm confident that. My fellow counselors will be able to hash out what they need and then when I get back, I will absolutely review and speak with staff.

Are you going to be, I guess I should be on record. Are you going to be at a place where you can.

That's what I mean. I don't know.

You don't know because you don't know when you're going to be at your hotel or whatever.

Well, I assume I'll be at my hotel at 1130 at night. Oh, John, we know you come on. That's all I can say is I will make every attempt to be available. Remotely, so can we go back to the 9th and the counselor King can. Actually attend a meeting from a hospital bed. I can attend a meeting from.

from a hotel room set the bar there big coincidentally enough I was at the bar so should we just set it for the ninth and hopefully counselor McClain can make it via or what day fourth would be better the fourth would be better for me because

I know where I'll be on the 4th, and I also know that my children won't all be with me on the 4th and on the 9th. It is the whole family together.

Well, it is what it is.

So are we back to September 4th and then at 5.01 p.m., and then the second meeting being... What day? September 23rd at 5.01 p.m. Do we have all five at September 23rd, 5.01 p.m.?

I will be here for that, yes. I'm here.

I'm here. I'm good. Okay. Thank you.

May I interject one more time? What about your regular meeting for those days? Do you want them at, I think we suggested 1 p.m. those days, not 9 a.m.?

Oh, so you want to move the dates is what you're saying for?

We don't currently have any September dates set other than these two that you just set for budget only.

I mean, it's fine with me.

So from the first, moving it to the fourth for the regular meeting?

Right, we don't have the first scheduled yet. But on the 4th, we'd hold the regular business meeting at 1 p.m. and then go into budget at 5.01 or whenever the meeting is, the first meeting is over, as long as it's after 5.01 p.m. And then on the 23rd, same thing, regular meeting at 1 p.m., budget hearing after at least past 5.01 p.m.

I'm going to ask a question. Will, how many of your staff would have to be here on Friday if we did it on the 4th?

It would require all the directors, myself, the deputy.

So I would like us to weigh asking all those people to be here on a long weekend that may like to go out of town. That's a big ask versus what John had recommended that he is okay if he can make it, maybe not, but he will be fully up to speed for our second one. And that way we're not inconveniencing so many staff on a long weekend. Do you have some thoughts about that, John?

BEFORE I SAY THAT, THAT WOULD BE MY PREFERENCE THAT ALL THE DIRECTORS AND OF COURSE THE FINANCE DIRECTOR AND TWO EXECUTIVE LEADERS BE HERE. like we always do, we'll work with the directors to ensure that their second is ready to speak on those matters if they have a family vacation or something planned. I'm not going to be so hard as to, you know, make them change any plans to be here for that. But the staff will be prepared regardless.

And I appreciate you guys accommodating us. I'm just making sure we're

Okay, you want to reiterate one more time, Amy, of the times of all four meetings, just so everybody...

So if I'm understanding this correctly, on Friday, September 4th, at 1 p.m., we'll have the regular town council meeting, and starting at 5.01 p.m. or later, depending on what time the regular meeting gets over, the first round of budget hearings. Then the second meeting will be on Wednesday, September 23rd, 1 o'clock again for the regular business meeting, and 5.01 or later, depending on what time the regular meeting gets over for the final budget hearings.

Got it.

Got it. Okay.

Thank you all very much.

Do we need a motion? Yes, please.

I will make a motion to approve the said dates and times as laid out by the town clerk previously.

I'll second.

Got a motion and a second. Any further discussions? Aye. Aye. Aye. Vice Mayor Safford? Aye. Councillor Kane? Aye. Councillor Link? Aye. Councillor McLean? Aye. That motion carries unanimously. The next item is a special event. for the Festival of the Arts. This is an approval of a special event for the Fort Myers Beach Festival of Arts to be held on January 23rd and 24th, 2027 at Times Square, Fort Myers Beach from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. as requested by Daniel Lynch of Blue Ribbon Events, including setup, event operations, and breakdown, approximately 40 to 60 artists and vendor booths featuring fine art, handmade goods, artesian art crafts, boutique merchandise, artist demonstrations, possible bottled alcohol sales, and community art activities along with portable restroom facilities and event support amenities subject to further approval by the Fort Myers Beach Fire Control District and Lee County Sheriff's Office.

Hi, for the record, my name is Nora Skipper. I'm the special events coordinator in digital marketing for the town of Fort Myers Beach. It's a pleasure to be with you this Monday. I currently have the applicant on a Zoom call, but we know how technology is, so I'm happy to be available, but I hope to let Danielle Lynch take it from here. Danielle, are you available?

I am available.

Perfect. Thank you so much. Take it away.

Does anybody have any questions?

I have previously been on the island with other events. However, it's been a while since before Hurricane Ian visited. Pretty much going to be doing exactly the same thing that we used to do down in the Lover's Key location. That location is not going to be viable for a while due to the debris removal. So we are looking at bringing back two of the previous events and adding an additional third one to be able to bring handcrafted vine creations to the area. I feel that this could be an added benefit to the resident support landscape. as we are still struggling to have businesses up and running for visitors. Does anybody have any questions on the layout or any of the logistics of the event?

Council McLean? I don't have any questions.

Yes, Mayor, I have a couple questions. Hi, Danielle. My question first would be to Will. Are there any lessons learned? Tom Yazzo is not here, but anything that we learned from the markets that we've done in previous years that we might want to make any modifications now would be the time. Danielle, I'm wondering if there would be food and alcohol, possibly, and perhaps we put those in areas where they're not competing with another establishment. You know, try to have happy neighbors. Thoughts around those things and issues that we might be able to negate?

Perfect, perfect. So historically speaking for me, and again, I'm going to come from being a resident. I was a former resident of Portland. I've also had multiple shopfronts in various sizes in areas where I paid rent every single day. I traditionally, in a venue like this, do not bring any food or drink in. Instead, I like to support the local businesses. There are restaurants and things that are right in Times Square that I feel can provide those services. i generally bring in two additional portable bathrooms to facilitate our event patrons and also the artists so that we are not overstressing any of the local municipality services i have discussed with nora if we need to provide for garbage removal daily we will provide services for that as well Historically speaking for me, I'm kind of known for my logistics. I run a very tight, clean ship. My moon in and out are in a very professional, quick manner. Or my participants don't participate with me. That's kind of the way that I sort of run. I have talked to Nora about some with the ongoing improvements that are going down in Times Square, and I believe that her and I have discussed that. Closer to the date, like when I'm there in October, we will come down, look at the venue space, and talk about any changes to the map, or anything to accommodate the new things that are happening in Times Square. I'm known for playing well with others, so anything that I can do to facilitate the businesses around it, that we're not impacting them, I'm more than agreeable.

Perfect, Danielle.

I did notice that one of the council members had talked about closed bottle sales. Nora and I had talked about on the application. I'm not intending on having any open container sales going on for liquor in any way, shape, or form unless I was going to facilitate one of the not-for-profits to be able to generate income for their not-for-profit from that. But again, I'm more than easy to not have that happen. The other thing is when they said closed bottle sales, the way that that happens is I do work with three different small craft distilleries that are in Florida that have special licenses where they are allowed to sell closed bottles. They can't provide any open things or anything like that but they're allowed to sell their closed bottles for consumption off location at their own residence perfect i wanted to clarify that that was that that was allowed with the municipality

Danielle, thank you, and I'm sure you'll work together with Nora closer because things will change between now and then. That's my question.

If I could address your question to me, Council Link, and then just Danielle, this is Will McCann, a town manager. Thank you for working with Nora and the staff. I'd just like to reiterate that if the staff hasn't already asked you to, please definitely work with the business owners in the area where you'll be setting up to make sure that... Your layout is compliant as not to restrict ingress or egress to their businesses. It sounds like you're already planning it that way, but I just want to reiterate that. In advance, thank you for your flexibility. There will be some construction probably beginning, or there's possibly going to be some construction beginning. um around that time if not before in the times square area as well as we have ongoing town projects we will definitely work with you in advance to make sure that you can make the necessary adjustments thank you perfect perfect danielle go ahead i'm sorry i don't know i don't have an ability to raise my hand so i apologize but i did have one other question as far as

The event uses space of Times Square down there. Nora and I have talked about some of my possible frustrations about the amount of events going on there. feeding my three bigger events. Historically, I've spent quite a bit of money on advertising, marketing, and promoting, not only for this event, but also to help out the businesses that are lovely if they're doing specials and things like that, which takes a lot of time, effort, and energy from me. I would really like to consider or propose to the council that possibly the proposal that I am not going to have a conflicting event that would compete with me within two weeks of my event. And so we have that conversation.

Well, I'm assuming you're referring to the farmer's market that goes on there every year.

I'm actually not referring to the farmer's market, per se, because I'm very familiar with that. But I am referring to the, quote, holiday events that she was doing every single weekend in December of last year and in January. Those are direct competition for a larger-scale holiday event. Farmer's markets are set up different than a holiday market.

Well, I'm glad you said that, Danielle, because I'm seeing direct competition with what you're potentially proposing here with alcohol sales and having the breweries in there for the businesses that are already existing. Now, if they're going to be providing the service, that's different for me versus you having another vendor come in and provide a service that the Times Square merchants are already providing. And then the other concern I have is I don't believe this time frame that Lynn Hall Park will be completed at that time. And I don't see anything in here referring to, you talked about your load in and your load out, but I don't see anything in here saying where you're going to have all these people park. Just going to have them find their own spot, they're on their own, or have you worked with the staff to figure out a parking plan, whether it be under the bridge or somewhere else?

Yeah, so I'm going to do all of those blocks, but there are also some private blocks that I know, again, I was a resident and I participated in for many years as a parker. There are a lot that I can go and talk to the owner to facilitate us to park and accept flat rates. Some of these owners have done that for other events. So I would be agreeable to going and doing that and providing my participants a reduced option for them versus parking in the municipality parks.

And if you could also advertise the off-island parking where they can take the bus for, what, 75 cents?

Yeah, they're never going to do that. That would be huge. They've got to drive in and unload all their stuff, and they're never going to use that.

Well, I mean guests.

Oh, guests for sure. Yeah, guests. Okay. Scott, any questions?

Yes, I have no problem with that. The other thing that the comments about the alcohol, I wanted to clarify that. Again, Nora and I had a conversation, and she'll tell you that I'm not doing any open liquor sales unless, as you said, let's put it in our district case, because we want to cover our bases in one meeting. The only alcohol sales that I'm proposing at this point would be closed bottles for off-use consumption so meaning like if there's a liquor store in there i didn't think there was a liquor store in there that would be direct competition these people are not buying bottles to take to their car or to drink it's a cold steel bottle like they would purchase any place and then take it for future consumption it would be like caribbean caribbean distillery is one of them evergreen distillery is another one they're both local but again they're not selling cocktails or anything like that so i would love some clarification on that to make sure we're conforming with what the city

Well, I mean, it's Fort Myers Beach. That sounds good on paper. But we all know people are going to buy, if they can buy a six-pack of beer, they're going to take it out to the beach with them. And to me, that's a direct conflict with the Times Square merchants. So I'm not comfortable with that, but I'm just one vote. That's just my two cents. But Scott, what were you going to say?

I've known Danielle for a number of years, and she does what she says she's going to do, so I'm super comfortable with her.

Well, yeah, for me it's not about comfortability. It's about protecting those that are there 365 days a year, and how would that have an impact on what they're going to do or their business. We've all gotten the calls, and I'm not saying, Danielle, your people would do this, but you can only control so much, and I don't know about anybody else, but I got tired of getting calls saying, hey, they're blocking my business again. They're setting up blocking my business again. And then we've got to send staff down there to be the heavy hand of the law to move them around, and nobody's happy. And again, Daniel, I'm not saying you're going to do that. I'm just saying it's more than likely going to happen because it's happened every single year, and it's nobody's fault. It's just the person thinks they could set up wherever they want. And I just want to make sure that we're cognizant of that. And I won't reiterate my alcohol comments, but... John? Perfect.

And I appreciate that. I know you haven't worked with me before at all, so I'm looking forward to working with you and bringing all of these events back to Fort Lyons Beach. I think it's been a, you know, all of us today, it's been a hell of a five years, and it would be nice to have lots of nice normal days back on the island. And I think that with this starting point for it, I do feel that people are ready and are ready to come in and do some signature events there. We've shown what's there.

So I think we we would have liked to have seen maybe some public comment from some of the local businesses I can think of a couple people that could have come and spoke for others But I think Danielle as long as you're open to future discussions You know, because we may want to hear some things from our businesses that I haven't thought about. So if we do, Nora will take them to you, and cooperation is what it sounds like you're willing to do. John?

Perfect, perfect. And then the other major development, I guess, that I'm not sure everybody there is aware of, but Lee County has signed off on my event. We do have an agreement in place. We will be having a uniformed officer on location and a vehicle from 11 to 3 on both Saturday and Sunday during peak hours to make sure that we're not having any traffic obstacles or any businesses being blocked or anything else, they will be on my payroll from 11 to 3 on both times during the busiest times of all of those events to make sure that everything is running smooth.

I'll try it, John.

Thank you. I guess if I'm understanding correctly, I've got a problem with blocking out a week ahead and a week after if somebody has already been doing that on this island previously. That bothers me, and calling it competition, I think this island would welcome difference from week to week, so I just don't see that as something that I could agree to.

And I can appreciate that. I'm not asking for you to block out a week before or a week after. A week after doesn't do any good. The only thing that I'm asking for is consideration that they're not running a duplicate exact event. You know, again, farmers markets are completely different than an art and craft show. They are structured totally different. They brought different people to them. Historically, farmers markets are supposed to be providing local food and other type things that they can't get in the stores versus more of the handcrafted items. So that's The only clarification, again, is something. I don't, it's unfair to expect me to invest a lot of money in the community if for the two weeks before I'm going to be there for a proposed larger event, there are two other exact same events in some way, shape, or form going on.

That's the consideration. This is Abigail Everhart. I spearhead this process with Nora. We process these applications and these permits in the order they are received. Danielle, yours was received first. However, we are currently processing the other special permit application, and we do not find a conflict. And so we will be moving forward with processing that permit. IN THE ORDER OF FAIRNESS. WE HAVE TO GIVE EVERYONE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE AN EVENT AND AS LONG AS PROCESSES ARE FOLLOWED, WE FEEL COMFORTABLE SUBMITTING AND ALLOWING THAT PERMIT TO MOVE FORWARD. SO THE FARMERS MARKET WILL BE MOVING FORWARD ON FIRE APPROVAL AND THIS COUNCIL'S APPROVAL.

I HAVE A QUESTION IF YOU DON'T MIND, ABIGAIL AND NORA. I'm not sure that it's permitted, but I love the bike parade every year. Do we know what date that's going to occur this coming year?

The bike parade? December 19th. Okay. We do not have an application for that yet. I was talking about the farmer's market just then.

Technically, it doesn't require a permit because it's public road, but we will be filing a permit like we did last year.

So didn't Danielle say that the farmer's market does not compete with her event? So that sounds like we're okay. Danielle, do you agree? Did I hear you right?

Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. I'm not discussing the, quote, farmer's market. What I'm discussing, and Nora can probably back me up on this, I'm discussing the other, quote, holiday arts and crafts that 41 markets or whatever did, in addition to the farmer's market. So there were events that were both Saturday and Sunday and were considered to be an arts and crafts show, not the farmer's one. They were structured different. That's what I'm asking for clarification on.

So in my discussion there were previous events and there has been an application that is currently in processing for the June 15th Council that encompasses a broad scope of events from a Miss Linda Miller. That event is what we've traditionally seen as the events that have been happening in Santini Plaza as well as Times Square. And that is what I believe she is referring to in terms of their request for Occasional Thursdays and Saturdays or Fridays that can sometimes overlap and that application Linda Millie has sent to me There are a couple dates that have overlapped and in order of fairness that's why these 2027 events have been pushed to in front of you today and SO OBVIOUSLY I LEAVE THE DISCRETION TO YOU BUT THAT IS CURRENTLY WHAT I HAVE BEEN SEEING FROM MY END IN TERMS OF THE REQUESTS. TO MAKE IT SIMPLISTIC I HAVE REQUESTED THE APPLICANTS TO PUT ALL OF THEIR REQUESTED EVENTS TO BUNCH THEM TOGETHER SO WE ARE NOT HAVING STAFF TIME AND COUNCIL TIME TO continually approve, so we will be seeing in that blue sheet a larger scope event of Linda Miller's requests from both Santini Plaza as well as the Times Square event. Again, I leave the discretion to you, but that is currently what I'm seeing in terms of a couple conflicts. These events are much more limited in scope than what I've seen from Linda Miller in terms of dates, but that is just what I wanted for your information to put forward.

Thank you.

Of course.

Well, I agree with Abby. It's kind of first come, first serve. You've got to be fair, right? Correct. I'm not a fan of saying, you know, you get a weak buffer. To me, it doesn't... I would hope people would want to do the same. I don't know. They're the same vendors. They're not even the same vendors. I don't know. But I'm not opposed to approving this. And if nobody is against the... If I'm the only one against the booth that's going to sell alcohol, then, you know... I'm the only one, but I just think that's not fair to the businesses that are there, again, every single day selling the exact same thing.

Of course.

So does anybody else have that issue that I have with the box sale? I guess it would be bottled sale, however you worded it here. Possible bottled alcohol.

Yeah, it's possible, excluding, I mean, there is a liquor store there now, not in Times Square, but in the district.

Ain't nobody else? Okay. Then someone make a motion.

Mr. Mayor, I want to clarify here. It's for open container of the entire Times Square. So they could purchase from Buffalo. They could purchase from Las Olas and bring it into Times Square and drink.

That's not what it says.

I think it is. They want open container for all of Times Square.

I don't see anything here that says open container. I see possible bottled alcohol sales.

They ask for open.

They did ask for an open container waiver on their application. In terms of the vendors that are applying to this event, it is just simple bottled sales. I wanted to give maximum flexibility in case for the permit, in case someone decides to open it, if that was what the applicant was requesting, then I wanted to put that forward to you.

We don't imagine they're going to buy it and then hold it and not drink it.