Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

little red button right there that'll turn you on and off. They are directional. So, if you do not speak into them or like away from them, they cannot hear you. So, just so that you're aware that's there. Um, and I think I think that should be it. Can you do me a big favor? Perfect.

Yep. It is now 6:03 p.m. on the 26th of January 2, 2026. And I call this meeting of the planning commission to order. May I please have a roll call. David D here. Dean Havoc here. Nicholas Andrews here. Andrew Filer or Matthew Filer here. Justin Henderson here. John Lenus

here. All right. Are there any changes or corrections to the minutes dated 8 December 2025? Noted by any member. If not, may I have a motion to approve the minutes? Motion to approve minutes. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. I. I. I. Second on that motion. Second. Apologies. So, since we now have a second, I was moving a little fast there. Um, all those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. I. I.

I. I. Okay. Um, since we don't have anybody saying nay. I'm not going to call for those. And motion to approve the minutes from 8th December 2025 is approved. Is there any correspondence for any item on the agenda? No correspondence. Do we have any old business? No old business. Okay, let's move on to new business.

Uh your first item uh as required by your bylaws, you have to have a uh organizational meeting once a year. Um in the bylaws now, you guys basically vote on when you want to have that meeting. Um the historic way of doing it is we basically chose the first meeting of the year and that ended up being problematic. So this way we're making sure that you guys can at least have a majority here for uh conducting your business which includes uh voting on your chair and vice chair for the year. Uh I am about 80% sure we're going to have a meeting um February 9th. So that is an option. Um but beyond that I don't have any pending applications that I'm aware of. So, uh, at least as far out as the end of February, um, that may be the only meeting that we have other than to conduct this hear if you guys want to hold a meeting just for that.

I would personally, if we could push it past February 9th, that'd be great. I'm out of town on February 9th, so should be here after that. Okay. So, uh, Christian, if I heard you correctly, we are going to have a meeting on the 9th of February, but then the second meeting in February is vacant at this point as far as any applications. So, if we could do this, could we use that second meeting as our organizational meeting? Yeah, absolutely. Uh, anybody opposed to that?

What date would that be? Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. All right. So, can we uh plan our organizational meeting then for the 23rd? Okay. And nothing on the 9th. Uh we do have we're going to have an agenda item. We have an item for the 9th. I'm I'm just trying

mostly sure it's going to go forward. We've sent out letters advertised. So, I'm just trying to find a a vacant meeting so that we're not listening to um potential um agenda item and then talking about organizational stuff. Okay. So, 20 uh February 23rd, we'll um put that on the calendar as our organizational meeting for the um planning commission for 2026. Um and then uh that will be where we vote for chair and vice chair. Correct? Yes.

Okay. So then I believe the next thing we have is discussion of the planning commission meeting calendar. So this was just an item that was sort of hanging out there. Um basically on the uh first meeting in November we had discussed the calendar coming out for the year and that there are always two meetings for you guys is right around the holidays. Um, and you had asked, you know, if there were other days that were available, uh, or times. And so, we went looked at the calendars with the clerk's office, and there really isn't much else, um, that would fall into, uh, like a regular meeting time. Uh, like the evenings are basically booked for other things that are going on or, um, the room is being used or we don't have staff available. Um there were a number of reasons, but um the conclusion was basically uh if you want to hold those meetings on those days, you can. If you don't, you're welcome not to. We can schedule business around those not being on the calendar. Um but we don't really have a good alternate place to move the meeting to where we can record and have ADA access and all those good things.

Thank you. Um let's bring back to the members for um discussion here. But uh I personally am in favor of just deleting Monday, November 23rd and Monday, December 28th from the calendar. Um since I believe we can schedule things around it to be uh uh moved to our other uh meetings that Okay. Thursday, November 9th is the one Thursday meeting. Correct. I'm looking at Thursday, November 9th on this schedule. You know, here is that actually a Thursday or is that a misprint?

That's Monday. Okay. So, [snorts] um my thought here is that we can um schedule the meetings for Monday uh November 9th and then um Monday, December 14th, which is the two meetings we have around the holidays. And as the planning staff has said, we can still um address everything on this. I mean, that that time of year, do we feel a meeting, one meeting in November, one meeting in December should cover anything we're going to have come up for the most part? And then if not, it can get pushed to that first meeting of the new year. Yeah. I mean, honestly, based on the workload you guys have had, I I don't, you know, it's been pretty uh slow. So, we can definitely move things around as they come in. Got four meetings, make it two meetings and move on.

Exactly. If uh go ahead if if we needed to call a meeting ad hoc during that time because there was you know a flood of pressing business is that something that we could do? Um so with notice it would yeah I would say it would just depend on what the issue was. I mean you guys can you know have meetings as long as they're duly noticed but a lot of the applications that you hear have uh sort of longer horizons for notification publication letters that go out. So, um, usually that's around 30 days depending on what it is. So, uh, it may be possible to schedule that meeting if need be, but it probably is something you can like just call to have happen. Right. So, we'd probably see it coming though where we we might

Yeah. that we need to schedule an extra meeting if the workload was Yeah. I mean, if there was something that was administrative or city specific that needed to be called, you guys technically only need to have a notice for 24 hours for the meeting itself. So, that could be, but I've never encountered that since I've been here. So, all right. Copy. Uh, is there any other questions or concerns about this, John? No. Anybody? All right. So, do we have to do a motion for this one, Christian? I would. Yeah, because it's formally on the calendar. All right. So, can I get a motion? Motion to approve. Moving to two or one meeting per November, one meeting per December.

I second that. Can I get a roll call vote? David Doll, yes. Dean had yes. Matthew Filer. Yes. Justin Henderson. Yes. Nicholas Andrews. Yes.

Yes. Actually, [laughter] that's correct. for changes to the bylaws or schedules or anything like that. It's um includes the alternates now. I'm so sorry, John. Lionus. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Um if I'm reading this right, that can finishes our new business. Is that correct? Yes. Can I get the planning department report? Uh the only thing I had was um at the December 8th meeting, you guys had some questions about the um reasonable accommodation and the process, the timelines of it coming before you guys and had basically requested if you could have the attorney come and talk to you about it. So here's your attorney. Thank you.

Good evening everyone. David Mig, city attorney. Uh, as Christian just mentioned, based on the um, write up that Christian had provided to me after your December 8th uh, meeting, you all had requested that I come back before you in January to talk more and answer any questions about the certified recovery residences ordinance, which was uh, just passed six days ago by city council. um under state law, a state law that was just passed last year, there was a very short time frame in which to uh approve such an ordinance. So, we were moving quickly. I know quicker than you would have liked, quicker than I would have liked. Um but nonetheless, I am happy to if there are any questions about this matter, I'm happy to answer any of them or give you any more background information on it. Thank you.

Questions? So, in a situation like that where it's a state regulated came back from the state. Yes, it did. When that happens, they short period of time turn that around. They're basically, lack of better term, shoving it down your throat to say go approve this in your cities. Are we the are all cities approving this in the state of Florida?

I've talked to several se several meaning more than five I've personally talked to and they were quickly expedite expediting it. I didn't check if every city's complying with it. I am on on a a list serve of other local government attorneys around the state and this got everyone's attention around September or October I want to say where everyone was in a mad scramble saying well we we don't want to disobey the law whether we agree with it or not we need to as the attorneys we need to follow the law um so I know several cities um through personal discussions and then just reading it have passed similar ordinances I I can't give you an exact number though but there is a general trend of everyone moving quickly to try to comply with this new state law. Why?

It's a civics matter that, you know, the state legislature passes a law and in this case, you know, um if you give me just a second, I'll read you the specific language. I be more generalities than the actual specific one.

So, let me give you a big picture. Um, my my research indicates that this was an issue that was um causing problems, for lack of a better term, down in South Florida. I think predominantly Palm Beach County, but I could be mistaken on that. Sometimes in the state legislature, um, someone tries to do a fix through the legislative process when it's it's not really necessarily a problem statewide, uh, but they find, you know, a local legislature will try to bring forward a state bill. that that's my understanding of of what's happened here and and the you know a bill was passed by both chambers and the governor signed it. So one of the requirements was that was of that bill was for every city and county to pass an ordinance setting up a process for someone who wants a wants to um apply for certified recovery residence a process where they could you know try to get it done notwithstanding general land use conditions. Now, let me um this is a good segue for me to update you on the changes that came through since you since you first saw it. As and you know, as you all know, we were moving this as quickly as we can trying to comply with the law. But as I continued to research the matter in the short very short period of time that I had [clears throat] and speaking with some of those other cities I alluded to, we added seven additional um requirements um that if someone wants to apply for a certified recovery residence, um it would generally be allowed it would have to meet the the the zoning. Um, let me just summarize them for you. Um, it can't have more than 14 residents and if it's going to have more than six, so between seven to 14, uh, it would require a condition conditional use approval. So any proposed certified

recovery residence with seven to 14 people would come before this this board under conditional use application. Um, secondly, it was probably goes without saying, but I wanted to put it in and put the language in there anyhow. Uh, it has to conform with all setback and height regulations for the applicable zoning district. Uh, and then the next four are all distance requirements as as most of you are aware, sometimes we put distance requirements in when we feel it's necessary to protect the health, safety, welfare, and as well as the character of the neighborhood. So, they can't be located within a thousand feet of another existing certified recovery residence. They can't be located within 1,000 feet of a medical marijuana treatment center dispensing facility. They can't be allowed within,000 ft of an alcoholic beverage establishment. And they cannot be allowed within,000 ft of an establishment providing child daycare services. Uh and and then last uh we put another general clause in there to try try to have have some teeth if we get some issues if you will. Um and that section says nothing in this in this section shall permit persons to occupy a certified recovery residence who would constitute a direct threat to the health and safety of other persons or whose residency would result in substantial physical damage to the property of others. And let let me take one more further step back and just um inform you or remind you if you were already aware of this. Um I apologize because of the rush of this I wasn't able to make the December meeting when which was the only opportunity to bring it before you all. But part of the issue is um there's case law, there's federal law, the Fair Housing Act, and the American with Disabilities Act as it's been interpreted by the courts. um when cities and counties completely restrict or or prevent or abolish uh residences like this from being allowed citywide. Um courts have ruled that that violates

the ADA and the Fair Housing Act. So, so we need to allow them certain to we can't just outright ban them. So, we put these extra protections in. We can't throw um for lack of a better phrase, we can't throw a hundred rules and regulations out there and expect them to comply with all of them. We have to do what's called narrowly tailor our restrictions um to make it as least burdensome as we can to carry out our responsibilities to protect the health, safety, and welfare overall. So, that's what we've attempted to do. I know a lot of my description has been legal lease. I'm sorry. that's how I've been trained over the years, but I'd be glad to specify um or further explain any of the points I just raised.

Um two things. First, getting into specifics of that are is any of those regulations will they be on any of the existing uh units that are out there already?

Um yes, we have some facilities. I don't know if they fall within the specific boundaries of this definition, but we do have facilities that probably do. Yes, I can think of one off the top of my head that's well within 1,000 ft of a child daycare center and an alcohol service center.

So, so it would not because the language in in the ordinance is approval of establishing a certified recovery residence. Now, not the question asked, but there are likely other mechanisms and code enforcement and and safety measures. If if there be do be if there if issues do arise with already existing units, um we could avail ourselves of code enforcement or other applicable laws. But this new ordinance would not affect um any of those any existing recovery residences. So, if they're already within, you know, a thousand feet of an alcohol establishment, this new ordinance doesn't change anything.

Uh, to be clear though, if they disestablish their certified recovery and they want or change of ownership where would they have to come for us for conditional use or location or anything? So, normally if ownership changes and somebody's in a conditional use um situation, and I don't know, Christian, do you know off the top of your head if any of these um existing uh recovery centers are in conditional use or no?

Um [clears throat] I believe there's a few of them. Uh the only one that jumps to mind is actually in um it's either commercial 2 or uh CS, but it's basically South Beach Boulevard. I'm not Okay. So, uh, basically what I'm just trying to get at here is that, so it's not retroactively applied to existing, um, certified recovery, uh, places, but if there is some triggering event, then they would be subject to that.

So, I don't have a definitive answer, but here's what I think. I think an ownership change likely would would not affect that, but a location change would because that's more closely related to to the zoning aspect on the correct me if I'm wrong, but when it came forth back in was it December we looked at this the there was there not a clause on there that said they didn't even have to apply. It was basically just they can go do whatever they want. No application was even needed to set up a residence of this type. So, they do have to apply, but it doesn't have to be in writing because of the state statute. The state statute talks about how we it's probably better if I find the language for you because we were just trying to follow this, you know, this the state law.

So, how do they apply if not by writing? They just raise their hand and say we're here or

basic. Let me find the statute. So, Christian, while the um city attorney is looking for that, just a question about existing recovery centers that are in a conditional use status that applies would change by ownership would require them to come before us with another conditional use or

um so conditional uses can be transferable, but um and I haven't had this come up with one of these facilities, but typically with things like um alcohol sales, when you change ownership, unless you're buying the license itself, the ownership changes and the license has to go back through state permitting and it's usually triggers a new conditional use requirement. Um so I don't know in this case if it's difficult to switch the license to a new name and if that has to go back through the state process, but um I'm not aware of any that have either ceased and tried to come back or have changed ownership recently. So, so yeah,

it would be at the discretion of the planning director at least under the current LDC of the transferability. So, if it seemed like it was going to be an issue, we probably send it back to you. We don't and I don't need we don't need like a fully adjudicated answer here, I guess, um today. It's just a I'm concerned about us getting into a situation where we have an existing um facility that is in it violates the conditions for new facilities, right? But they would have to come back for us for a conditional use approval, what do we do then, right? I mean, generally speaking, if you have a, you know, legal non-conforming use, which is basically what that would be, um, and you, uh, cease it for any period of time and you have to come back and get approval for it, you're under the new requirements at that point. So, if they ceased for 6 months for some reason, uh, and wanted to come back and get a new conditional use, then they would have to meet all those requirements and that location may not be suitable. current way it is before now they wouldn't even have to apply for conditional use were they they could just

it would depend greatly on the the type of the facility and the amount of people there and what kind of treatment they were offering is okay is there anything currently regulating that uh the state laws basically determine what kind of license you have to have and that's usually based on the type of treatment the level of treatment the amount of staffing any the number of residents that you have so it just depends certain small categories fall under uh basically an exemption and we treat them like a residential property. If it gets to a certain size, then it would trigger a conditional use depending on the zoning. As the city, do you guys keep records of that?

Um, they have to come to us for their uh license approval because we basically the state requires them to demonstrate that they've been approved by the city. So, they would have to come to us to be able to get their license. So, if they operated without a license, then obviously they'd be in a legal facility. So they they would have to go through us, but they don't necessarily need our permission other than to acquire their license. As an example, restaurants that serve alcohol don't have to come to you guys for approval to serve alcohol, but as the well, the planning director has to sign their alcohol application to the state. This would be the same thing. And if I can respond to that last question, the the statute itself does not specifically say you have to take an oral application, but the statute does say um that the ordinance establishing an ordinance does not relieve us from our obligations under the Fair Housing Amendments and the um American with Disabilities Act. And based on our research and consulting with other cities, uh it was determined that a best practice was to allow an oral application if if necessary or allow for an oral application. And the rationale is if it's necessary due to someone having any sort of disability, as unlikely as it is, we don't want to, you know, um we want to comply with the ADA and the FHA. So, um, but there were there are eight specific requirements within the statute such as not charging a fee. Um, I mean, these these are businesses that are running these. These aren't, for lack of a better term, they're not disabled disabled individuals running these. These are actual companies running these things, not individuals that need help. My goal is to make sure we are in compant

I I have a question for Dave too. Dave, I think the first the very first restriction that you talked about when you read your list of restrictions in [clears throat] your in your authored document. Sixth or seventh one sounded almost identical to the first one. I don't care. Uh but you may want to look at that when you're when you're reviewing it. Okay. I'll take a a note make a note of that. All right. Uh, any further questions? I just had one more general question. Legal legal question, I guess. With when the state comes down and says, "Hey, do this, right? Approve this, make this happen like this is," what happens to cities that just say, "No,

I'm cur more curious than anything. I think what what we're what I've seen in the last year or two is the state government will look for any uh authority they could find under state law or other regulation to to hold us accountable if we're not comp complying with the mandates of the state. So there's nothing in this bill itself says what the punishment would be. But um when the state says do something and and you know obviously we vet it, we research it, but the the goal is to comply with the state. So I think they in reality I think they would try to find any sort of mechanism available to them to to penalize us if if we don't comply if it became an issue. Is there going to be 50 cities that don't get around to to this for another six months due to lack of resources? Probably. I don't think they're going to come after anyone immediately. But eventually, if someone defies this or otherwise doesn't comply with it, the state will take whatever action if it if that's the policy direction the state wants to take to to punish them. And so I'm just trying to avoid that. The statute itself though doesn't have specific penalties for not complying. Uh but follow up on that one. Because it's under ADA and FHA, then the city of Jacksonville Beach could be held liable for not following this law under those statutes. Correct. So, uh close to that. Yes. If it this is trying to prevent the statute, I believe is trying to help prevent ADA and FHA violations. um those cause of actions um could come from from the state that could from the come from the federal government. I'm not an expert on ADA law, but in general that there will be penalties that the federal government can enforce, but there could be uh

causes of action as well from an individual who has one of those handicaps who feels that that they have been wrong. For example, one of the cases I reviewed and researched this um Jeffrey vers city of Boca Raton from from 2007, the city of Bokeh um barred substance abuse treatment facilities from all residential areas within the city. Um and the the plaintiff um prevailed in that case. I don't know what the monetary judgments were. Um, but the the federal court found this was a federal court case found that uh recovering alcoholics and drug addicts suffered a handicap under the Fair Housing Act based on the Spoker Return ordinance. Uh that that the ordinance violated the Fair Housing Act. Oh, and part um part of the ordinance was occup uh an occupancy li occupancy limitation of three unrelated people in a residence at most. They they found that that violated the Fair Housing Act as well. So, there could be uh federal penalties under um FHA or ADA, but then also a private cause of action if someone with what's called standing. uh in this case it would be someone who um has whatever the criteria is to be an affected person under FHA or ADA could receive monetary damages as well.

That was my understanding. And then um kind of followup for that is um under our criminal code for example we have you know various uh various codes on the books that might prevent like loitering or late night music and you know these kinds of things. anything that might be disruptive to that area. Would hypothetically one of these residencies that were in violation of those code potentially be subject to losing their license to operate under that authority? or what what I'm trying to get at is under what circumstances does the city of Jack Speech have to sort of um let's say let's say something goes sideways to to sanction such an organization that's not you know behaving in in in in the way that one of these organizations would be expected to behave.

We'd have all to tools we otherwise already have. Um, you know, just like when I don't do criminal law, I'm not a state attorney, but when, you know, I assume the police force and the state attorney's office, when something bad, for lack of a better term, happens, they they then research the specifics and see what tools do we have or what laws do we have that we could utilize. Um, same thing on the civil side, what would apply here? I know the noise ordinance would apply to this. Uh, I can't speculate on specifics otherwise because I wouldn't want to research it, but nothing changes in terms of what we could enforce if they're violating other provisions of law.

Got it. Thank you. Um, if I may ask a completely unrelated question. Um, and if you don't know the answer, that's fine. I think this is probably better for followup anyway, but since we have you here, I I can't uh pass on the opportunity. Um when we were going through the LDC code and chair, do you mind me context switching momentarily? We were going through the LDC uh process getting the new code approved. One of the conversations I have, can't remember, it was with um city staff, I believe, um around uh our ability to uh restrict um conditional use uh applications for uh tobacco establishments. Uh I can't remember exactly the context of the question, but it was communicated to me that um our hands are pretty tied when it comes to regulating tobacco related businesses in Jacksonville Beach. I would like to know specifically what restrictions and what limitations we have as a planning commission on that specific subject because it's not something that we've addressed directly in the LDC to any high degree of fidelity but it is a an emergent uh trend of businesses here which I'm very happy with letting the market decide what it wants to do but also think that it'd be useful for this commission to understand what our authority is there. I'd be happy to to work with staff to bring back kind of a a briefing on that for you all information. Now, the laws change over time. I I know about 15 years ago, I wrote an ordinance in St. John's County where uh we mandated that I believe flavored tobacco had to be behind the counter um because there was an issue with with kids and seeing like candy type flavors. Um, and I I vaguely remember having to, you know, walk delicately because of restrictions that you alluded to in

general. Uh, I don't know how that's changed over the last 15 years or so since I worked on that ordinance to the best of my knowledge. Um, best of my recollection. Sorry. You know, I know the law changed two years ago that we we can now uh regulate smoking on the beach. Up until about two years ago, state law preempted us from doing that. Now, I know that's that's more on people already with cigarette smoking and not, you know, relating to businesses selling tobacco. So, it's slightly different from what you're asking, but I'm just trying to show that it's peace meal and I'd be happy to research and work with staff and try to get you guys a more specific um big picture briefing on that. Um,

the chair's discussion and Christian's discussion, I'd like to request that. I think it'd be useful context for us. I think it's a great question and [clears throat] yeah, I would appreciate it, Dave. Um, thank you so much, Dave. That's a that's some information we should have. Are there any more questions for the city attorney? Thanks, Dave. Um, you're still on my list of lawyers I like. You're still on my list of lawyers I like. So, I really do appreciate though, all joking aside, and really appreciate you taking the time to come and explain this stuff to us. It's very valuable. All right. Thank you all. If my plans die overnight because I didn't have time to cover them with this cold snap, I'm blaming all of you. No, there's a freeze warning tonight in case y'all didn't go. Yeah. All right. Have a good night, I think. Okay. Is there anything else? Nothing from us.

All right. If not, may I have a motion to adjurnn? Motion to adjurnn. I have a second. Second. We are adjourned. This