Village Council - Regular Meeting

here present order of business are there any additions deletions or deferral at this moment for this agenda hearing is that there are none madam clerk

Well, looks like we have a great turnout here, as we did for most of the session that we had. Another big success. Feedback so far has been great. Thank you so much, guys, for coming out tonight and helping to show everybody what a good program it is, and we'd like to see it continue with the support that it had. But really, we've got to give a lot of credit to the staff who put all the extra work in, especially the manager here, Mrs. Alou. Fantastic stuff. Unfortunately, I don't have any food for you tonight. Andre and Ashley. Oh, yeah, Andre and Ashley. Where are they? So I don't know what you guys have in mind. Mr. Scott, you want me to –

At your service, sir, what would you like me to do?

All right, maybe I'll go over there. I'm being called upon to take a picture as well. Yeah, I think so. We should all get a nice picture. Hello?

Okay, very good.

Okay, cool.

Okay, Michael Bell. No stranger to local government. John Bolton.

Okay, not here. Ryan Daniels.

Ed Goodall. Jeffrey Goldberg. Jeff Hahn. Sylvia Kang. Barbara Lawless. Dan O'Rourke. This is a great group. Rich Robinson. Sharon Smith.

Michael Stock. Veronica Sutherland.

Natalia Trushin.

This guy's blocking me.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Madam Clerk. Good afternoon, everyone. I'm David Gold, your Chief of Police.

I just want to recognize I have some of my command staff here, Commander Leanne Johnchuck, Captain Christine Herbert. Sergeant Evan Green is here and Officer Nick Giraldo. But I always like coming here to present these awards to our personnel who do a really great job for us and for the community. And tonight I am very proud to present to you the Officer of the Year. Zach, you want to come up?

Come on.

No? Okay. His wife does not want to come up here with him, but I want to present to you Officer Zachary Bakewell. He is the 2025 Officer of the Year for the Miami Shores Police Department. And let me just read you... a brief narrative on why he's receiving this award. Officer Zachary Bakewell has consistently exemplified the core values of the Miami Shores Police Department through his professionalism, work ethic, and commitment to serving the community. Throughout the year, he has set a strong example through his initiative and leadership, benefiting both the department and the community. Officer Bakewell has demonstrated his leadership capabilities serving as an acting supervisor. He provided sound decision-making and dependable leadership to fellow officers. Officer Bakewell's willingness to step forward, combined with his consistent performance and dedication to excellence, reflects great credit upon himself and the Miami Shores Police Department. His reliability and leadership make him a truly deserving recipient of the Officer of the Year Award for 2025. Congratulations, Dr. Lee. Can we have that? And we want to present you with that. Do we want to maybe do a photo? Yes. And some of you, hopefully not many of you, may recognize that because he's one of our traffic officers that's out there running laser every day out on the streets and helping to keep our streets safe. He gets to work a day with pay. All right, now, Jovan, where are you? You want to bring your mom up? Okay. This is our communications supervisor, Jovan Lafitte, and I'll read a narrative about him as well. For outstanding initiative, leadership, and unwavering dedication to the Miami Shores Police Department, throughout the year, Communications Supervisor Lafitte has demonstrated a steadfast commitment to operational excellence within the Communications Division. His oversight of the FCIC-NCIC compliance efforts enhanced accuracy, accountability, and system integrity, ensuring adherence to state and federal regulations. He has demonstrated strong dedication to professional development by expanding training opportunities for communications personnel through the APCO training platform and the Police Legal Sciences program. These efforts have strengthened employee knowledge, reinforced best practices, and contributed to a more skilled and prepared communications team. Supervisor Lafitte has further distinguished himself through continued professional growth, including advanced communication and leadership training, earning a dispatch administrative certification through Motorola, and active participation in the National Association of Professional Staff in Public Safety. Through his commitment to excellence, attention to detail, and exceptional leadership, Supervisor Lafitte has made a lasting and meaningful impact on the Communications Division and the Police Department. His contributions make him highly deserving of the 2025 Civilian of the Year Award. Let's take some photos, yes. That is all I have this evening. Thank you very much.

At this time, the meeting is open for public comments. Three minutes at the podium. State your name and address.

Ed Padal, 37 Northeast 100th Street. Tonight, we're going to pass, what is it, 9A? Before you can tear down a house, you need approved plans. Is that what we're doing today? going to be approved or just discussion this is public comment the council can't respond back at this point in time it's just the three minutes to state your comments to the council all right well my only concern with what i've seen in the past and that's current right now is the fact that we're getting too many contractors buying up our properties here and building huge houses. And unfortunately, a lot of those houses haven't been sold. Perfect example is across the street from the rec center. I mean not the rec center, the field house. If that doesn't sell this year, it's three years on the market. If you go down to 100th Street between 1st Avenue, there's two houses under construction, teardowns. If you go on 99th Street, there's four. I believe two of them are owners that tore the house down and expanded. You're getting such a large inventory of homes that have come up on the market, and if you don't sell them, This impacts the community. It impacts our property values and everything else. So my suggestion is probably put a, I'd love to see a five-year moratorium on tear-downs. That's my suggestion.

Thank you.

You all got me in a suit, so I'll say something.

My name is Rich Robinson. I live at 341 Northeast 104th Street. Councilman Devaney, I went to school with Kathleen. Nice to see you, your sister. I just wanted to say thank you to Councilman Valensky for the program, a really, really neat program. I didn't really know what to expect about it. I know a lot of our fellow people that were in it didn't know what to expect about it, but I was really impressed by just how transparent everybody was and open and how professional the staff was and willing to answer any questions. I mean, they probably didn't have to do any of that, but that was very, very impressive. So I think that's a testament to the council and to the village that that exists. That's a pretty cool thing. that came up during the process was this sort of potential ticking time bomb of what could happen out of Tallahassee with not just Miami Shores but across the state of Florida in terms of property taxes. And everybody kind of knows that could be a real problem for Miami Shores municipally, but not necessarily specifically. And so one thing I think might be of interest to the taxpayers of Miami Shores and the voters of Miami Shores is if, not to put any work on the staff, but if the staff were to prepare contingency plans transparently and put it out and say, hey, look, if there was a 30% cut, this is what it would look like. These are the departments that would probably be impacted. or this is the services that would have to be paid for by you. And so that way the voters can at least know ahead of time, if a vote does come, what they're getting. And they can make a cost-benefit analysis, whether that makes sense for them. You know, of course, this affects everybody across the state equally, but we live here in the shores, and I'd like to know. I'd like to know, yeah, I get a tax cut, and that's great, but I'm going to have to pay X amount more for my trash pickup, for example, all these different hidden costs. So something to consider so that way the voters can be fully informed about what decisions they may have in the future. But, again, thank you very much for having this program, and very impressive. So thanks.

Thank you. Madam Clerk, are there any e-comments? Okay. So the one that's – oh, I see. But it's just in the wrong spot electronically? Okay. Thank you.

Next item is the consent agenda.

Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda?

There's a motion. Second. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor, signal by saying aye. Aye. Motion carries. Madam Clerk? Thank you. Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor, Council Members, Mr. Manager. During the April 21st Village Council meeting, this item was deferred to the May 5th Council meeting, which is tonight. And it was asked to do so in order to allow staff an additional time to, number one, evaluate potential conflicts with the recently adopted Florida statutes, and number two, provide a greater clarity through proposed text amendments to the historic preservation chapter 11 of the court of ordinances these amendments will further distinguish and clarify classification procedures for historically designated properties as well as for properties determined to have historic significance within the village so that item is on this agenda it's 10 a that would be considered for first reading and then the item before you tonight is second reading and Obviously staff is recommending approval and we're here to answer any questions you may have Any questions

Are there any public comments on this item? Are there any e-comments on this item?

Yes. The first comment is from Cynthia Hurst. I'm very much in support of the proposed amendment for site plan approval prior to demolition permits being issued along with a review process is known for its beauty, its character, its tree canopy, and its history. We should not be so quick to throw away our history, our legacy, but instead look to embrace and preserve that which has made us distinct because once it's gone, it's gone. Next speaker is Maria McGinnis. Please approve the proposed ordinance regarding demolition permits involving historically significant homes. It is consistent with the increased protections afforded by policy. Please adopt 10A ordinance regarding the historic preservation for the inventory list. This concludes the comments for this item. Actually, no, there's one more. Patricia Bonavuce. Dear members of the Miami Shores Village Council, I'm writing to express my support for the proposed code amendment requiring a review process. Prior to the demolition of non-designated but very significant historic structures, this amendment represents a thoughtful and balanced approach to preservation. before there is their preservation board, the village ensures that historically meaningful properties are at least considered before they are permanently lost. Too often structures with architectural, cultural, or community value are demolished without a full understanding of their significance. This measure simply introduces an opportunity to evaluate, collaborate, and where possible, explore preservation alternatives. It respects property rights while also safeguarding the character and heritage that Manny Shores is unique. I respectfully urge the council to approve this code amendment. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. Are there any council comments on this item?

I have a few.

Okay.

First would be that at the Last council meeting, I may have misunderstood this, but I thought it was said that land banking was illegal and that we already had a law or a resolution that stated that an empty lot had to have a house on it. I asked Isabella to look that up and that is not in fact the case. The why would a person not want to be designated as historic? Well, first of all, your taxes are higher if you have a house on a lot than if you have just the empty lot. Your maintenance is higher in that you've got to maintain a home that you don't want to keep. But the big bugaboo is going to be the cost of hiring an architect to design a house that you do not intend to build. And so if you're going to build a million dollar home, that's $150,000. If you're going to build a $200,000 home, it's about $15,000 or $20,000. And so we've taken an item that basically at the current time is costing our residents nothing or You can tell me how much it is, but basically having a demolition permit at the current time is fairly inexpensive, and we're getting ready to raise that fee from anywhere from $30,000 to $150,000 to get the same permit. Is this not in opposition to Senate Bill 180, where we stated we weren't going to pass any new laws that were going to affect cost to residents. And the interesting thing about this ordinance is it requires an approved home from the Planning and Zoning Board, but it does not require that that home be built. And so in essence, it's perfectly legal to apply for this permit knock the house down, and leave the land empty. I've got a friend of mine that's a judge. I sent him an email. This is short. I wish you would listen to it. A city or municipality typically has some zoning and property maintenance rules. They can mandate things like upkeep or preventing blight. But for a city forcing someone to actually build a house on an empty lot, that's extremely unlikely to be legal. Property rights as well as constitutional protections generally prevent governments from compelling someone develop a lot they can require permits or any building or set of conditions for development but outright forcing construction is a no-go now that's one judge's opinion that doesn't mean that someone else would agree with that but I I just wish you all would think about this some more. If we're going to start charging our residents these type of fees in order to get a demolition permit, it is a drastic change from where we are right now. The second part of this ordinance is on the historic board, and I respect Patricia, and I think she did a tremendous job in creating these two particular lists. But I have a problem that the people that are on this new list, that her group has decided are historic homes, were never informed of it. And because they were not informed, they may in fact you know maybe they don't want to be on the historic list I think we ought to have some way for people that are not interested in that and I have several neighbors or not several but I've got two that are on it they didn't know they were on it and they do not wish to be on it I admit that her committee has their reasons for putting them on it you know when Stacy Stovick ran this historic board in 1950. There were 47 historic homes. At the last council meeting, someone said that that number is up to 53. But now we are adding 286 or 68. I may have my numbers backwards. And why does this become important? Metal roofs work better in a hurricane. Hurricane doors and windows work better in a hurricane. FEMA says right now that the lowest living floor has got to be eleven and a half feet above mean sea level. You can't do that with most, well, you can't do it with a historic home because you can't change it in any way from what a person would see from the street. So, I don't know. I'm a person that likes to look to the future and the future says to me that we are going to have more hurricanes, more severe weather, a higher groundwater level table, and I do I respect the people that wish to live in a historic home I do not want to tell people to tell me what I can do with my own thank you the chair I I'm happy that what we're going to be looking at tonight is going to clarify

what I think there's some confusion about. We have two different lists. And I know we decided that it was a little confusing at the last meeting, and that's why. Thank you to staff, by the way, for the quick turnaround on this. Fantastic job. You said we would have it at the next meeting, and we did. But what we're clarifying, or hopefully going to be clarifying tonight, is that there are two lists. One is an actual list of historically designated homes, which You're only getting on that list if you, as the resident, request to be on the list, want to be on the list. There has been no unilateral designations by this council. There's no plans to do so. We've all, as far as I recall on the record, have said that we have no interest in doing that, even though the county law says that we could do so if we wanted to. We're not interested in that. And that's not what this is about. I think a reference was made to us forcing people to build. I don't think that's the intention either. Nobody's saying that. I did reference in our discussion at the last meeting that the original code of Miami Shores, there was a lot coverage minimum. So in other words, if you were going to be buying and building in Miami Shores, you had to cover a certain amount of space. The intent was not that you were going to be buying land just to have land. They wanted to make sure that you were going to build a legit house residence on the land. That's not to imply that we're forcing anybody to build anything or that it's illegal to have an empty lot. It's just saying that that was the intent originally, not to have people just owning empty lots of land. Then this wouldn't be a village, really, if we let everybody do that. So I think it's totally reasonable to have policies, regulations in place to try to mitigate that kind of stuff, even if we're not outright saying a vacant lot is illegal or that you must build something. That's not what we're saying. It's quite different than that. All right, that's all I got for now.

Is there the opportunity to revise the site plan, architectural design, or the timeline upon which the new structure will be built?

Typically with any approval from the board, there are certain thresholds. So I would say anything that has to do with any modification to the square footage would most likely have to come back before a board review. But minor things like, you know, if you want to change your roof type or your awning, those kind of things, we wouldn't do so.

And then as far as the timeline, the code specifies that a site plan would have to be built within a certain amount of time. I think it's 18 months, or is that accurate?

Well, it's like tiers. So essentially you have to have applied for a building permit within a year, and then once you're within the building permit phase, I think it gives you 18 months from the issuance of a permit.

Yes. Awesome. But does that not just... nullify the permit or are you saying that there is some penalty to the individual for not building or starting the house in the 18 months?

The code allows the applicant to apply for administrative extension. Sometimes what happens is they have to get outside agency reviews, Department of Health, Miami-Dade Derm, so they may ask for an extension and they have that.

I'm not asking the question right. Is it a, once the permit has been approved, is there a requirement that that house or some version of it be built? Or could 20 years go by and the person not, in other words, is there something in the permitting process that the village is forcing a person to build that house on the property?

Not necessarily, because the building permit process has its own phasing to it and timing. So there are ways that an applicant can continue calling inspections and making construction progress at their own pace and still keep their permits enabled, let's say.

I'm still not asking the question right. This person I'm describing never does anything. They apply for the permit. And they do not start construction, and they never start construction. Are they at some penalty or risk here from the village, monetary or otherwise, for not doing that?

Well, if they don't completely build what they've been approved by the Planning and Zoning Board, then their site plan becomes null and void.

So their site plan is null and void, but in the meantime, they could have already demolished their house if the original site plan was approved. Is that correct? It's a possibility.

So let me clarify, because I believe the addition of master building permit in this provision was to prevent the scenario that Council Member Burch just referred to. If my recollection serves me correctly, that's why the P&Z Board added this language. So originally, I believe it said prior to the issuance of any demolition permit for a building, an applicant shall first obtain site plan approval from the Planning and Zoning Board. It stopped there. And then the P&Z added. And a master building permit. So the two of them are required before you can actually demo. So in that case, does that shift the answer, Eddie? Or no?

How do you enforce that someone's going to actually build right once they have a permit? I mean, I think the intent is... The applicant is going to have to put forth the resources and the legwork to obtain that permit. So one would think if they've gone that far, they're going to see it all the way through. Permit's not free? Permit's not free. No, sir.

You're not getting a refund?

No.

OK. From what I could get, Eddie, the average architect charges to the chair. I'm sorry. The average architect charges some 10% to 15%. the construction cost of the home and so for one of our residents now to get this permit that they're going to turn into planning and zoning could be very very expensive is that a correct statement or not it's it's the typical process that we undergo at this point in time okay so are you saying then basically that the city is forcing people to build homes on vacant lots that's the bottom line I don't believe that's the intent of this ordinance. Oh, I didn't say it's the intent, but is it not the outcome from what you just said as far as the, what did you call it, the master permit?

Yeah, so you need to get a site plan approval from the P&Z board and also receive a master building permit. before you can demo the house. That's what the ordinance says.

But as far as forcing to the chair, as far as forcing a person to build a house on a lot that they have a permit for, is this village then saying that they have the legal right to force a person to build that home?

I can just say what the ordinance says, right, which is that before you can demo your property, you'll have to obtain a site plan approval. And obtaining a site plan approval, obviously that means you would have to reconstruct a new building on the property. As far as the legality of this, as explained to you all individually during council briefings as well as several times. You're always going to be at some potential risk with anything that we do. In this particular case, we do have SB 180 at play. Obviously, if we didn't think that we had a sound argument in terms of it not being more burdensome, we wouldn't have brought it forth. But is there exposure in that regard? Yes. So as far as the legality, I think it's legally sufficient, and that's why it's before you today. But as always, you'll have to weigh the risk of that decision, as you are the decision makers and the policy makers here. So you'll have to weigh whether or not the village wants to take the risk of this being subject to some type of legal challenge.

have one question to you for what has been discussed tonight by council on the day as compared to what we have in front of us can we get clarification on what we're actually approving in just layman's terms or do you want me to do it or would it be better if you just explained what this ordinance actually is why it was brought before it or do you want me to do the narrative I work at the pleasure of the council so you can tell me what your preference is I'd like to hear your summation of it because again we have the state having something over this has been more than this is nothing in the language of this other than I think one strike through for this council to change the language of this document we have a local planning and zoning aid agency which are local volunteers that have been working on this for quite some time we have our representative for planning and zoning director that went over this it comes before us we are on second reading of this correct yes right And the residents that live here and the ones that I represent have come to us over the last couple of years of we didn't have something in place for demos. So could you explain just to everybody so the air is clear? Because I think in our last meeting, there was stuff that was conflated. I think even a member of that board was bringing up stuff that this ordinance actually isn't covering. And I think that might be even happening tonight.

So the ordinance, I would break it up into two folds. One is applicable to every property in the village, which is that before anyone, if you have a home in the village that you now want to demolish, you would first have to get a site plan approval and obtain a master building permit before you can actually demolish that home. Currently, you would be able to go in now, obtain a demolition permit, demolish that home, and then come and get a site plan approval, and then come and get your master building permit. So the intent of the first half of the ordinance would be to rearrange the order in terms of what typically would follow so now we're acquiring two steps before the demolition versus you know you're just changing the order in which new steps not new steps we're rearranging the order that you initially would come in for that permit and then secondarily This is now specific to certain properties that are deemed historic significance. The separate and companion item to this explains what that list looks like and what those properties are. Attached to this ordinance as an exhibit lists the number of properties that the Historic Preservation Board has deemed to be of historic significance. This inventorying system that they have relied on is something, a charge that they've already been charged with in the Historic Preservation Board code. Now, this ordinance would basically require that if you are one of those properties on that particular list, and on the next ordinance, I'm going to read those definitions out loud because I think that's also important. But if you are one of those properties, then in addition to what I said the first time where you would have to get a site plan approval, you also have to appear before the Historic Preservation Board. In your appearance before the Historic Preservation Board, you won't be required to get any approval from the Historic Preservation Board. Rather, there'll be some commenting and some review of the proposal. You don't even have to bring a site plan approval with you at the Historic Preservation Board meeting itself. I think it serves more as a notification tool. Now, how this can be notified, one of two ways. We could have just notified the board by some type of alert or something through the staff process, or we can alert them through the nature of making the applicant go before the board. The P&Z board chose for the applicant to go before the board. So the version that you're seeing before you requires that person to appear before the Historic Preservation Board. So that's what these two ordinances do in terms of the main provisions. There are two exceptions to this requirement. One of those exceptions is if this this structure presents to be some type of danger or it's a violation of the building code, something along those lines, then that person obviously would not have to go through this process. In addition to that, if your intent is just to unify your parcels of land where you can have a bigger space, there's an exception to that as well. I'm summarizing that. So obviously, I think there's some adjacency requirements in terms of that but that's generally what this ordinance does and so you as a legislative body who are now smile making a decision you can choose to leave this as is you can choose to amend it based off of what you've heard um but that is typically that's not as tick that is the summary of what this ordinance does

I've got to ask this one more time because I may be confused. We're saying that we're not changing anything. I think we're changing something that's very significant and dramatic. By requiring the Planning and Zoning Board approval of a set of plans, which currently we do not, before demolition, by requiring those ahead of time, then the mere fact that this person receives a permit, you're saying that the village is saying they must build that home. They may get extensions, they may get revisions, but in essence, the village is forcing a person by doing it this way that demolishes a home to build a new home on that property.

Well, an applicant has to know what they're going to do with a lot if they're going to propose a site plan. So that's already a process that's in place.

But they don't have to do that first anymore. That's in place now if they want a demolition?

If they want to build, they have to present a site plan. That's in place right now. So what we're saying is that the sequencing, the demolition, must occur afterwards as opposed to before.

Okay, but if it occurs afterwards, the house is already demolished. That's the situation that we have at this point in time. Is that correct?

Yes.

Okay, and so we are changing it, and we're changing it very significantly in that we are now requiring that ahead of time. So in essence, the village is saying to a resident, you must build this house on this property.

To present your site plan, you have to know what you're going to build. So yes, you have to.

We're going to be in court on this one.

But this is the thing we're trying to do, the chair. I'm sorry. This is the thing that we're trying to solve. We don't want people buying properties and knocking down houses just to demolish the house and not have a house be there. We're not saying you're not allowed to have a vacant lot. If I find a vacant lot, which there are in Miami Shores right now, and I go and buy one, this is not going to make me build something on that vacant lot. It's going to just say that if I have a house on the lot already, I can't knock it down without plans to do the next thing. So, I won't.

Well, to go on top of that, I mean, for residents that I'm speaking to, if you look at present day and what developers are doing, and they're developers. You're going the individual householder. What you see in Northeast State is developers or LLCs. Your scenario, if we don't have something, somebody could come in and pick a block, and there's other stuff, there's other statutes out there and other laws. Just go one house at a time, knock it down, knock it down, knock it down. A whole city block now is empty. Then they go to the county, they converge all the lots into one thing. We're actually trying to anticipate what's happening, what's happened to us over the last five years, and we're trying to make an ordinance that fits in. We're trying to land a big, heavy plan on a short runway because of what the state has, and we're trying to write an ordinance that doesn't interfere and put it out there. Yes, and to our attorney's point, we've done this before, and if there's a pushback from it, then there's a pushback from it. But the consensus for the people that I represent don't understand how that home got knocked down and they had no say in it and at least this mechanism there is going to be some meeting whether it's the public planning and zoning meeting or I mean depends how this is written or at a historic board meeting and identifying what the residents feel is historically significant here the reason it was switched from the year or my point of view on that was The pink house is a historic house. It's one of the first residential homes that art tectonica had done in South Florida that was built in the late seventies, early eighties. So we're trying to do is there people that live here identify that is not your Mediterranean house. That one is actually what people would call a sugar cube house. So we are broad and that's a new development too. So I think what we're trying to do and what I think they spent hours at the planning and zoning board. And I've sat up here that I've heard from this council. that the resident experts that are on those other boards have more knowledge than we do, and they're the ones who determined this. They wrote this. We did not write this. We changed what's built prior to 1965, I think is the only thing that we've changed on this.

And if I can add just real quick, I think one of the dissenters from the board who came to our last meeting, I think we've, unfortunately he's not here to say whether or not we've addressed his concerns, but I think that's certainly what we've attempted to do here, and I'm I feel pretty good that we have done that, just to strengthen what you were saying there.

No, I appreciate it. I think where I'm at with this is if there's some language in here that the law firm feels that we could tweak a little bit to make this, definitely not have to push back on it. I'm also open to hearing discussion on that. Speaking of order that we do, for me it's notification. Right now, as it was historically, the building department, if a resident owned a property and then wanted to demo it after they had site plans or something else, they did not have to go back through planning and zoning, is that correct?

As long as they fall within the expiration period.

Right. Right. So they could just, they could give some set of plans and then not say they were necessarily going to demo something. They just gave plans in and then have a discussion or whatever, maybe get a divorce. I don't know, whatever it is. And then just walk into demo and just knock the house down. Correct? Yes. So I think that's, that's one of the loopholes that we're trying to write. Um, don't know what the extenuating circumstances for any of that could be in the future, but I think all I've gotten, gotten a lot of notifications on whether it's over there on 102nd Street like had that house get knocked down and I think this is part of it we had we already taken steps for I think the local planning board had only one of their suggestions for anything that we're doing it's only four houses this council actually moved it to a thousand feet for notification I think this one is more of an internal notification that the building department notifies other departments that a resident is doing something with a property. At least that's my take on this ordinance.

Yeah, that seems correct. Right.

Yes. Well, I think, I mean, this ran through this. We've run this through legal. I mean, it's our ability as a council to pass this ordinance, and it then becomes a law, correct? And then if this ordinance gets challenged, it gets challenged. Is that correct?

Correct. Just now you mentioned, though, that there's some alternative language. So I'm trying to figure out.

Well, where it says, I'm trying to figure out the order for, again, Council Member Burch, for the person who's the property owner. Okay. what somebody buys here and then what is the order that they have to do. If it's on the 400 list, then you're saying before you do anything, you're supposed to do something. But most people in the real world would have bought something, had an idea, hired people to do it, and then done drawings. I think maybe with the language of this would be better is that it's conjoined. It's like when this happens, then the historic board is present at that planning and zoning meeting where they decide. I've been to planning and zoning meetings where people have spent tons of money on a house the board reviews it and sends them back home so i think just to to appease the historic preservation board it's a notification for them to be present if one of these on the 400 show up and if that language could be better put in here i think that instead of another step for a person i think would make a government more efficient is what i'm looking at when i see this right so

Based on what I know that the Historic Preservation Board has now endorsed this version. Originally, the chair presentation at the PNZ meeting, she indicated that they merely just wanted notification at minimum is what they were asking for. And if that's the route that this council wishes to go, which I think from the standpoint of being a little bit more legally defensible, yes. If you were to ask me if one presents more risk than the other version, then the notification is the better route to go. What is the least amount of risk associated with it, opposed to going to an actual separate hearing? And so if this was revised, it would be something along the lines of like if it's simply providing notification, it would be just another step for staff to notify the board when a demolition permit has been requested or an application for demo has been requested for properties that are listed on that list. And so it would then give the Historic Preservation Board the opportunity to weigh in on that decision-making as that item is presented before the site at the P&Z board.

Right. And if they showed up in person or issued a memo also, that could be attached to the public document before the public hearing, correct?

As long as they have a meeting prior to that P&Z meeting.

So that's the only timeline for something like that. How do we do the notification on the demo permit?

Well, I think that we've backed up.

significant time now eddie with the noticing requirements for when something would have to be on an agenda anyways which is 30 days right 30 days before a pnz meeting staff is obviously preparing an agenda and then we publish it and then obviously we notify the members so i think if the council chooses so

And just to clarify, that's 30 days when the application is deemed to be complete, not...

Pardon me. It's 30 days for the mailers. It's 20 days for the agenda publishing.

Right. So, but when that agenda is published, that application has already been deemed complete. You've gone through your review process. So you can even back that up a little bit further. I think the, the historic preservation board would be notified at the very beginning stage, not at the stage of when they're going into the hearing, but we received this application for this. And so. that would give them enough time to formulate something on their own agenda to talk about this property in abstract without an actual plan or so.

I think it works just fine. Staff can adapt to that. Obviously from the point of an application being deemed complete to when it's ready to be on agenda is really applicant driven, right? And it all depends on your design professional. You have a great set of architects that produce a solid set of plans. Within two months you're ready and then you have some other applicants that it's like pulling teeth and it takes them six, seven, eight months. We can do that, just know that it may take some time for the ones that use poor designs.

And then this ordinance doesn't supersede unsafe structures deemed, I mean, you just go through the normal process, go to the building department and get a permit to demo, correct?

If it's deemed unsafe, that would be the building official who makes that call.

Right, it doesn't go through planning and zoning.

No.

Right. And then before this ordinance, did we have anything or was OE's demo just building department? demos always just build an apartment right it's only been we've never had an ordinance for this right so demo is only just building department not zoning correct correct chair Eddie on as far as the FEMA requirement are

Does the village enforce that? Are people required to comply with that here in this village as far as building a new home?

Absolutely. FEMA requirements are you have to adopt your plans to incorporate those state regulations.

So if you had a house that was on 102nd Street or on the bay as the house is on the end there, That person really has no choice as far as where his first living floor is because that's being required by FEMA. Is that correct?

Correct. If it's new construction or if it's, I think it's like 50% or more, right? Like those are the thresholds for it.

Last question. So a person... goes to planning and zoning and says, I want to build a 500 square foot house on this lot that's one story with a bathroom in the interest of saving money with the architect. He doesn't have the million dollars to build a home he'd like to build right now, but he wants to get rid of the one he has because it's costing him money and he has no use for it. What do you do in that type of instance?

Well, under this ordinance, they would be required to go through the site plan approval process, get approved by the Planning and Zoning Board, and then they would file for their building permits and obtain a permit.

But are they going to be given a permit to build a 500 square foot house?

If they meet the, you know, there's many different trades that have to review. They might have difficulty with zoning, because I think you have to have a minimum square footage, I don't know, 500 square feet. It's very tiny.

It's nothing on purpose because it saves the architectural fee that you have to pay. No, no, this is not a discussion. This is not a discussion.

It's not a discussion with the audience. Go ahead.

They would have to meet all of the independent trades to have to review that sort of construction. And if it gets approved, then that's what they're allowed to do.

Thank you. Council Member Walensky, for the language of the order of, I mean, are you fine with the language as it appears right now, or what my suggestion with, because there's two different things. We have two different advisory boards. The historic board was just notification. It's the planning and zoning board that suggested the new extra step.

I think it's interesting. I can make the argument either way, actually. I think what you're saying makes a lot of sense. I'm sure the attorney feels a lot better about going that route, I would assume. Is that correct, in terms of our?

All right.

Well, you don't have to answer. However, on the other side, the intent of what it is that we're doing with that, if the intent is to give the Historic Preservation Board an opportunity to educate the homeowner about their property and its historical significance and all that stuff, I would think they're going to have the best shot Making an impact on the homeowner if they're doing that as early on in the process as possible If they've already invested resources, they've already made plans. They've already you know, I Wherever it's reasonable. I guess I'm saying for that part of the process to be as early in the process as possible I think makes the most sense in terms of what the intent is that we're trying to accomplish with that so

I think they're parallel. I think the individual who buys a home, these rules are until you spend money before you joke check with the government. If somebody moves here, they don't come up here and say, what are the rules for all this stuff? It's not until they actually spent the money, then they come up here and find out there's a bunch of rules.

Let me ask that. So what we're saying is instead of them going to the Historic Preservation Board, we're going to notice the members of the board and have them

they want come to the planning and zoning meeting and do their input there yeah or do they don't have to come to it it could be a memo that's issued with it it's like some of them I mean it's what we're trying to do here I mean as a community is preserve what makes it people attracting here if you just start leveling everything it's not what it was And then it's just this balance of what is lacking in our code right now, our ordinances, that what are we missing that we can do that just helps preserve the character. It's already in our comp plan. We have stuff in our meeting code that they were allowed to build a list. It's just this notification, not taking away individuals' rights for buying property in Miami Shores. It's just you might, even on some of the stuff, if you go to the historic meetings and go visit some of these homes, some of it is you save the facade.

Right.

and the other three walls are, you can do whatever you want with them, or eight walls, or whatever you want to do with it. That's something, if it's super significant, but it's just to point out to somebody, who has one of these properties, this is why it's significant to us that you take this into consideration. I don't think it's.

But if we're gonna ask that question at the point where they're already showing up with plans for their next house.

They do, have you been to a planning and zoning meeting? They show up with these brand new things and we have a thing called harmonious.

If I may, I understand your point and what you're communicating and then I think the, I'm not gonna say it's the absolute solution, but in an effort to address that, maybe it's the notification as we indicated is immediately when the request or the application comes in and now they're informed and they're involved in the, we don't have a formal development review committee per se, but we have different disciplines that provide comments on these applications. And so not to look at the Historic Preservation Board as another level of a discipline that would be reviewing this application, but their comments could be provided early on in that process, opposed to being heard at the P&Z Board. And so maybe we can formulate some language that indicates their comments being provided by a certain timeframe in that development process. And I'll defer to Eddie because ultimately you know this process way better than I would ever. So do you think that works or not?

I think it's very difficult to get them before they've produced a set of schematics because by the time they get to us, they have an idea of what they want. And very often, I would say 80% of the time when we have these pre-submission meetings, they're telling us, hey, I have my architect working on this, or the architect has done a schematic and he kind of wants to go over some of the code intricacies that they're not clear on. So I think probably the best step is at completeness. So essentially, they've submitted an application, and before we even get into a thorough review, we assess, hey, this is a complete app, it falls on the list, let's notify the board members, and let's see what kind of response we get. And maybe it's

Is there a window you think we should allow for them to respond back? Because I also don't want this to serve as a delay in the development review process because we have some shot clocks per the statute, per statutory requirements that we have to respond back to applicants.

I don't believe it needs to stop our internal process. I think we deem it complete, we notify the board members, and maybe they advise us whether it be a virtual meeting with the applicant. Well, it can't be all of them, so it has to be one of them. That's what makes it a little tricky.

A little trickier, because they'd have to...

Well, that board also could, as a board, then designate somebody and rotate through months or whatever who the lead one is doing it. And then it doesn't have to, as per that they have, I'm speaking on behalf of the board. They know the list. Yeah. I mean, the list... to me is the list that they deem historic so I think they could rotate because that board is also going to rotate that's not a permanent board and it's going to be new residents in the future it's just I'm looking to streamline or efficient government for something that was lacking in government and if we could get that to yes and and like I said we didn't in the past it was just the building department dealing with properties that other residents deem you know, important to what makes Miami Shores Miami Shores. So if we can get to that tonight, I would appreciate that.

I think it's doable. I think it's essentially a notification thing that really is going to fall more on staff to process internally. And you're saving the applicant time without going through the various review cycles that get warranted throughout that process. And if they don't have to physically attend board hearing and they can receive comments from the board or an agent of the board. Right. Preliminarily, I think we're doing them.

I think probably, I mean, another homework assignment for the board is if there's just any of the 400 items, they already have a sheet of paper why it's significant, and everybody in staff, plus the building department and planning and zoning, everybody should have that book, and it's pretty simple. When a person shows up, it's like, hey, by the way. So I just, I mean, this is what I'm hearing from the residents, and if we can get to that, I'd appreciate it, because we don't have something for demo right now, and people have been asking this for years.

To the chair. I wonder how you all feel about notifying these 268 people. I think that, I mean, I would think, as Jerome was saying earlier, it would be nice if the average resident came here and knew all the rules in the city and what the various committees were and et cetera. But when we have residents themselves that don't know they're on this list, You know, I think it would be beneficial for the village to at least send out notices and let people know that they are, in fact, on this.

I don't think not doing it is even an option. I think we have to notify. I'm in total support of that. Do you need direction on that?

Well, maybe maybe you work with their I don't know what their budget is But maybe we make a book and then the book has all the houses in it And then we just give it to any one of the homes that are in the book And then any new home buyer, here's the book for Miami Shores. I mean, we should actually think about it. I don't think a book would be that expensive for that. They've done most of the legwork for it. But it would be nice that the document actually either exists electronically or we actually hand it out.

I really like that. All right, I'm sorry. I think I asked the attorney a question.

Okay. If the intent is, let me clarify, is the intent to notify these residents

prior to this ordinance becoming effective or prior to this ordinance being passed on second reading not no I think it's going to pass from what the other members of the council have said so no I don't feel that I just think that it's something the city ought to do You know, the book could cover a lot more ground, that's fine, but it wouldn't hurt anything to send each of these people a letter from the city and say, you are now on this particular list. I think residents ought to know that they've been put on this list, and I can promise you that there's many that don't.

So two options. One option, you can defer this into next meeting for the two items to catch up together on second reading in the interim, notify those residents in the deferral period, right, which would be next meeting. Option number two, you cannot do that. You can move forward with the amendment as drafted tonight. still separate and apart direct staff to let them know that there has been this ordinance and their property was listed on the list. You can do that as well. But ultimately, it's a policy decision in terms of how you guys want to move forward. As far as these additional discussions of this amendment, we are on second reading. Sometimes, you know, it's not best to craft language without you guys having seen it. So the option would be to give me, I guess, direction if you wanted to amend it, and we can figure out some language that hopefully serves the purpose of your intent of what you discussed today. Or again, you can refer to next meeting, clean the language up, get what needs to be done, and then you're gonna be reviewing both ordinances at second reading to approve them together. So those are all your options. all of them legally sound, you just decide as, you know, decision makers which way you want to go.

Council Member Devaney, do you have?

With the chair, I'd just like to ask a question, I guess, about the process. I think the virtue and the intent is great to preserve the character and not have vacant lots left speculatively. But let's say that a property owner wants to do a demolition and they give you a site plan and you approve it, but they're determined to just wait and it becomes null and void, right? They have the money and they have the leverage to do this and they can wait and see what kind of property they want to build to account for market changes or to get the best value for the ideal property they're trying to build, whether it's for themselves or to sell it on the market. But somebody else, they want to demolish a home and not pay for insurance, property taxes, utilities. Now they're on a timeline to build a house and a particular site plan, right? So my only concern is that person loses the leverage to build a house that might be ideal for their property. And maybe my colleagues can just weigh in and enlighten me on how we can assuage that concern or keep the ability to have leverage about how you want to build the property.

Well, I would say this. Again, the reason we have a vacant lot at the Bay and 91st Street is because the wife got sick the fellow lost his job, and the house that they wanted to build there, they could no longer afford to build. And so they were put into a position of building the 500 square foot home as opposed to, which would have been not inharmonious with the rest of the neighborhood. You know, I think you have to realize that life sometimes throws you curveballs. And though you may have the best plans. My concern here is that the village is going to force people to build a home on private property. I think that's illegal, but we'll see because I'm sure we're going to end up in court with that one. So we'll see.

One of my colleagues just explained how we can't force somebody to build a house on their property. And my other colleague is concerned that we're forcing people to build houses on their property. So we need to get on the same page here.

Well, let's go back to it.

I'm also being asked how we're going to allow residents to do the thing that we're trying to stop the residents from doing, which is sitting on a vacant lot. So, I mean, if you think that residents should be allowed to sit on a vacant lot, then you shouldn't be supporting any of this because we're trying to solve that problem. If you don't think that's a problem, then this ordinance is not for you.

Most people are not going to sit on an empty lot. It's going to be a young family, and they're going to build the home. what if they get fired what if the wife gets fired what if the kids get really sick life can throw you curveballs i'm concerned and and eddie i don't i've asked you this question now three times once this permit is approved are the is the person not required by this city to build that house The simple question, yes or no?

Once a building permit is issued?

Once the master permit is issued for a piece of property, is the person not required to build that house by this village?

You're not required because you can let it expire.

Right. Okay, so you let the permit expire and then they don't ever have to build it?

No. No. It happens all the time.

All right, good. Well, I don't want any empty lots either, Jesse. It's not that I want empty lots here, and I don't think most of the people are going to build empty lots. I don't want to, I mean, are going to keep empty lots. And I'm not for land banking in spite of what, the way you may have taken that before. I am not for that. But I also realize with some, another fellow that gave the same examples, the last guy we put on the P&Z board, who had a neighbor who had exactly the same situation. He wanted to build a new house on that lot, and things changed. He just couldn't afford to do it anymore. Now, he's hopeful at some point in the future that he can. So should he build the 500-square-foot home he can afford, or should he wait whatever period of time until he gets rehired or his wife gets rehired, or he has the source of income and the credit to be able to build it?

I think what we're trying to do here is prevent situations like that in the first place. So not letting people just demolish the house and then figure out all the stuff after what they're going to do and if they can do this and if they can do that. You don't want people to demolish the house and then find out that the thing that they thought they were going to build, oh, the code doesn't allow for it. Now they've got to change and do this. So I think it's totally reasonable. It's just changing the order of the whole process. i agree i mean i think the concerns are valid i think um you know i i think the issue you're forcing with you know are we forcing the people to do the thing i don't know i don't think we actually can it doesn't seem like we can um i i'm still not clear if like there's some extra fees involved in just letting these permits drag out or maybe there is maybe there isn't i Whether there is or whether there isn't, I don't think is going to be the deciding factor and the determined person with unlimited resources. If they're going to want to do this, then okay. I think all we're trying to do here is we're asking residents to demonstrate the intent, go through all the process, show that you have some viable plans ready to go before you go and demolish a viable existing structure.

And just for clarification, for that, what he just said, is that going to be every demo in the village or just the ones that are on the list?

The ones that are on the list? Right.

How this is written, it will be every demo that happens in Miami Shores.

Every demo that happens in Miami Shores. Right.

Whether it's on the list or not. Whether it's on or not. This is just a new demo ordinance. Correct. Correct.

Having plans before you come up. Right. Approved plans.

Right. And it's, again, I mean, you say residents, but there's also businesses that are doing this, too. And, I mean, we're making regulations for what's happened over the last five years, too. So it's not only just residents doing this. There's corporations that are doing it also. As far as this ordinance that's in front of us in Section E, are you happy with the language of it? Or, I mean, as it writes, because it's on line 87, that's where it says, appeared before the Historic Preservation Board for comment on application prior to site plan approval by the Planning and Zoning Board. And that's what I'm trying to straighten out the language, I think, for...

I think if we're changing that on the second reading, which I'm open to, then we should probably defer it.

Okay. but with with but also if we do that then and also moving this as as a council does that the language should be I think articulated to or that we can come to consensus on an or if we're replacing language on the second reading if we could come to consensus on what that language should sound like and what the order of business we I think for the order of it sorry okay so um

Trying my best right now. So we'll keep the first half. So we'll say if the structure proposed for demolition is listed on the sites of historic significance inventory list as defined by Chapter 11 of this code and which may be amended from time to time. Then the Historic Preservation Board shall be provided notice of the proposed demolition and redevelopment application prior to site plan approval by the Planning and Zoning Board. So that is language that we can add. But we also discuss comments during like the application portion of it. So if you want, we can say something along the lines of like, would have been notified and had the opportunity or been afforded an opportunity to provide comments. I don't know how strong you want it but maybe a combination of two if you give me a five minute recess.

That sounded pretty good.

Then I can clean it up a little bit.

Before we do that, I have a something I was going to bring up on the next ordinance. Let's do it then.

But I think it's kind of relevant here.

I don't know if it's you guys tell me what you think. I think I would like to have a discussion about the titles of these two lists and maybe have the historic significance inventory list have a name that makes it a little more obvious that it is not a list of his when you when you say that name it sounds like we're talking about the list of the designated right well that's the difference in the village is there's significance and actually people who have designated and councils have approved the designation they're two different they're definitely two different silos swap the word significance for interest

I'm not sure because our – I don't know the exact language in our comp plan.

We're going to send out notices to all these houses, right? I want them, when they get that notice, to understand that their house was not just unilaterally historically designated, that they are just on a list of potential historic houses that the board wants –

it's not potential it's just again I say we have in our code that we can we have a board that identifies historic significance and they're allowed in our code to do that that's all we're doing so if it's the education of the public that we have a muni code for it I don't want to change language for what we already have okay it's there it's their task and that's what they were tasked to do as a board so that's what I was trying to explain with the comp plan the comp plan

says has language too. And so if we're changing that, I think it would be a little bit more impactful to try to do that. It's going to delay the Chapter 11 amendment. So I'm going to have to go through and change.

I think it's our job as the administration staff or council on that, the education of the public of what this community deems as significant historically to us. I mean, and just for since it's public hearing, it's not willy-nilly how the list has been built, and a lot of time by that board, the volunteers doing it, they're The historic significance isn't only age. It's an architect or the person that lived in it or a unique design in South Florida, whether it be, I mean, Mediterranean is the one here, but there's Pueblo Revival. We have stuff where stucco is done on a building that's different than anywhere else. So it's just that, I mean, it's a good education portion. I think it's phenomenal. I think they did a great job. It's very cool.

Could we possibly include that? in the notification instead of just saying you're on this list couldn't we put in the letter why you're on the list and more importantly what it means that you're on the list or that you are going to if you decide to demo this house this being on this list is going to require you to appear before

historic preservation or based on the direction you guys just gave consensus that's not I'm assuming based on what's been discussed tonight it's no longer gonna have to appear okay thank you yeah motion recess yeah second

Madam Attorney? Yes. Okay, thank you.

Okay.

I'm just, we'll do our very best. I know you guys sometimes make very requests that require quick turnarounds, and so if you see any typos or anything of that sort, you know, We're not robots here. But if you want us to become that, we can become that too. But I just say that as I'm preparing to read this. And then we'll talk about the second ordinance. As far as the secondary clause, we'll remove the requirement to appear before the Historic Preservation Board but instead it'll say that if those qualifications are met, then the Historic Preservation Board shall be provided written notice of the proposed demolition and redevelopment application and afforded an opportunity to provide comments to the applicant and the Planning and Zoning Board through staff prior to the site plan approval.

That's so nice that I'd vote on it tonight.

If that's the link that you want to add in tonight, then we can.

Or do you want to just do the bundle, the two on the next one? All right. Are there, just in the queue right now, are there any demos? I mean, this is, it would be tonight to be effective immediately, but building department, have they gotten read in?

I can't speak for building department, but within the RSP, we have one demo and one over 400 square foot addition. Right.

But that's already in the queue, so this evening we passed it tonight, so it's only, okay. Correct. So two.

Do we typically have a month with no demolitions?

I can't recall that I reviewed any demo permits this past month, to be honest with you.

Okay. Then, I mean, if you want to do it so that they're bundled together, the next? I would defer.

I would be comfortable with the language I just heard. If it's burdensome to, yeah. Oh, my mic wasn't on. I'd be comfortable voting on it tonight. You can bundle it together, too. How do you guys feel about it? I wasn't expecting to be as happy with us whipping something up tonight as we did. So I'm more open to moving forward with it tonight with that language.

I'll defer to staff. I mean, Ms. Wood. Either or. I mean, if it's just an either or, we could take care of it tonight. We could vote on it.

Yeah. I provided the language. If you're fine with that language, we'll add that language in before this ordinance is signed.

Okay. What about the notification? Do we need to discuss that?

You guys, if you want to defer this to allow for notification, then you can do that too.

Well, I think whether we vote on it tonight or the next meeting, we agree we want notification, right?

One provides them with notification and allows them the opportunity to come before you and you hear from them. The other version would be that this is signed already, and now you're providing the notification that it's done after the fact.

I appreciate the wanting to give them the opportunity to come and whatever, but that's separate from just in general notifying people when they're on the list. The list is going to be modified in the future also. People are going to be added to it probably in the future, and I would assume we're going to notify the people when they're added to the list also.

I wouldn't assume that. That's not what you're – unless you specify that, then there's nothing that will require that to take place.

Okay. All right. Okay. I think – okay, so this is good. We should get on the same page with this because I'm looking at this notification thing. As just part of the procedure in general, that if somebody's going to be on this list, they should know they're on the list. There's no language in here. Right.

This is not the place to put that language.

You guys are looking at this as like you want to notify the people so they can come and comment on it. No. I'm sorry, the attorney. Is that what you're saying?

I think that the spirit of what you guys traditionally do and the spirit of this notification ordinance that was passed for zoning planning and zoning purposes, the spirit of what this board typically have done or has would lend itself to believe that you would provide them notice. You don't have to. You have given public notice of this, but that is, this is very much so discretionary.

The list already exists. Like, this is a list that the historic preservation, they were already, they already had this list, right?

They, at their meeting, created this list, yes.

It's been in their code for many, many years.

So it's not like, you know, we're notifying the people that they're on a new list, like,

So, Eddie, this process that they just went through, this was not a new list?

This list has always existed.

Okay. So they didn't add any new names?

I think they went through and, like, made sure it was in, like, you know, like they –

I know the list already existed.

There's been newer members added, so it afforded the opportunity for those members to opine on the list that had already been existed.

Okay. So then now the only thing would be, yeah, if staff has indicated that this is an existent list, they've always been on this list. So the only difference now is that this list is requiring a notification... notice to the Historic Preservation Board. Moving forward, if you want to, now we're talking about two different things, and the secondary thing that you're referring to would be more appropriate in the next ordinance to follow.

So do you want to take care of business tonight, then? I think so. I mean, that's the only thing in the document that I... motion to approve item 9a with the new amended language there's a motion is there a second there's a motion a second all those in favor signal by saying aye aye all those opposed aye So noted. Thank you.

Item 10A. In Ordinance of the Village Council of Miami Shores Village, Florida, amending the Village Code of Ordinances, Chapter 11, Historic Preservation, to establish and clarify two historic inventory lists, providing definitions distinguishing between properties formerly designated as historic landmarks and properties identified as sites of historic significance, providing procedures for maintaining and amending such inventory lists, providing for severability conflicts and ineffective tape. This item is brought forth by the interim planning and zoning director through the village manager.

Thank you. At second reading during April 21, 2026 village council meeting, at which the ordinance addressing demolition procedures for certain properties was under consideration, the council directed the village attorney to work with staff to prepare amendments to chapter 11 of the code of ordinances to clarify the structure and application of the village's historic inventory lists. Chapter 11 currently references properties identified through the village's historic survey as well as properties that have been formally designated as historic landmarks. However, the code does not clearly distinguish between these two categories. The proposed ordinance before you amends Chapter 11 to clearly establish and distinguish between two separate inventory lists. Number one, historically designated property inventory list includes properties that have been formally designated as historic landmarks or pending designation pursuant to Chapter 11. Number two, Sites of Historic Significance Inventory List includes properties identified through the village's historic survey as having potential historical, cultural, architectural, or archaeological significance, but which have not been formally designated. These amendments are intended to improve clarity, consistency, and transparency in the village's historic preservation program by distinguishing between properties identified through survey efforts and these formally designated by the village council. The ordinance reduces ambiguity for property owners, staff, and advisory boards. Inclusion on the sites of historic significance Inventory List does not in and of itself impose regulatory restrictions on property owners. The amendments do not alter the criteria for designation or the authority of the Historic Preservation Board or Village Council, but instead clarifies how existing tools and processes are applied. This ordinance is organizational and clarifying in nature and preserves the ability of the Historic Preservation Board to update the sites of historic significance inventory list as part of an ongoing preservation planning effort. And with that, staff is recommending approval. This is first reading.

This is a public hearing. Is there any public comment on this item?

The language that's in there, I think, is fantastic. I don't know why you have to go second and third reading. Just stamp it, make it approved, and let's get it done on both of them, 9A and 10A. This has been dragging out for way too long. And what you're saying is correct. Everybody that has an issue with that, it's going to be addressed, and I think it's addressed the proper way. And if you want to make it tougher...

moratorium on tear-downs thank you madam clerk are there any comments on today okay any council discussion on 10a so the notification

I think the notification actually goes a long way in taking care of one of my previous concerns about getting this information to the property owner as soon as possible. That provides an opportunity for the Historic Preservation Board to make them aware, obviously, way before any you know, any thoughts of demolishing or anything to your house, just letting people know, hey, you know, you have – there's some historical interest in your house of some kind. I think – I don't know who we're going to put that burden on or how the – I would assume that the board would be – the Historic Preservation Board would be involved in that some kind of way. No? How would you – how would those notices – how are you envisioning that?

Similar to, I guess, the notification if this was the, an actual historically designated, like if there, there's already language in this chapter for when a property is listed on the inventory list, either as designated or pending, like in that interim. and there's some notification that is required through this. So I can kind of lean to kind of glean from that language and maybe under section 11-5A1 where we talk about amendments to the sites of historic significance. We can add language like a sub A1B or A12 or something along those lines that just says like when this is amended that the property owner shall be notified through mailing or whatever it may be that their home is proposed to be added, maybe give them an opportunity to come and talk at the Historic Preservation Board. I don't know how you want to word it, but that part I'll leave up to you all, whether you want this to be a notification triggered after the fact or a notification triggered when we're considering adding you.

I think it would probably be on the nominee side of it because the list is pretty robust right now. And then it would be in the future to say, you know, just like any awards thing, we're just thinking about nominating and that's where noticing should go. I think after the fact, run into, they didn't have a say in it. I just think that if you're nominated for something, you can turn it down.

I wouldn't use nomination as the description here because...

Or that they're adding it to. Sorry, I hear because then that's confusion with when it actually moves off the list to the other list.

Well, we have two different lists.

Obviously, the one that already have the plaques on it, the homeowner recognizes the property is historically designated. There's a plaque. That's one list, correct? Correct.

I'll read you the two definitions I think is important for everyone to understand. So the historically designated property inventory list means the official list of properties that have been formally designated as historic landmarks or are pending designation pursuant to this chapter and are afforded regulatory protections consistent with such designation. So there's two types of properties that are on that list. one that's pending and one that's actually formally designated. And then you have the sites of historic significance inventory lists, and that's the official list of properties identified through the historic survey as possessing potential historical, cultural, architectural, or archaeological significance, but which has not been formally designated as historic landmarks. So those are the two type of lists. One, you're actually designated or you're pending. You're in the process. You've been nominated and now the council is going to determine it. And then the other is the sites of historic significance. And so if you scroll down to subsection 11.7, which governs demolition of buildings, originally this said landmark inventory list in general. So we streamlined that to make it clear that we're only talking about historically designated landmarks. because that list that's defined as the historically designated property inventory list consists of both historically designated landmarks and pending. So this 11-7 we clarified is only applicable if you are historically designated. So the definitions in this chapter become very important because they kind of play into one another. So when we're talking about what to do with When this historic, this sites of historic significance is amended, then it's a matter of how soon you want them to be notified. Do you want them to be notified at the point of consideration by the board? Or are you just notifying them after they have been added and they've been, you know, to the list? That's just really the clarification I need before making the amendment.

I think consideration, and that's the better word than I used earlier, so I won't use the other one. Consideration is, I think, in earlier with anything in politics or anything with the public, it's doing it with them, not for them or to them. So if we could do it with them would be my suggestion.

Okay. To the Chair, I was hoping that with this, resolution that we could include some language that would require either the village or the historic board again to notify these people that are on this list. And a question I would have then for the council is should people be allowed This is five individuals, our historic preservation board, that have made this list, which they will probably add to, but at a much slower pace as time goes by. Should people be allowed to get off of that list? Should there be a mechanism where there could be perhaps a hearing between the private property owner and the board? I fear that, or I have residents say to me that being on this list is going to affect property values in some instances because there are people who are interested in building a more modern home perhaps than what was there. You know, I don't know if there's any way to put any mandatory language there, but unfortunately many of our young buyers just don't, along with the many other regulations they don't know, they're not being told. They don't even know to ask that they're buying a property that is on this list. I don't know if there's any way to include that.

But there's no consequences of being on the list. Yeah, it's just our inventory.

It's the village's inventory. Right. And just like if you go over to the library, we have pictures of houses that people might not know their house is in the library.

Some architectural scholar can just decide to make a list of houses and, you know, that they think are important in Miami Shores and, you know, that list has, you know, we'll pretty much the same weight, especially after we just said they don't have to go to the Historic Preservation Board anymore. The Historic Preservation Board is just going to get notified and be allowed to come, you know, provide input on the process. And by input, that's just like

So this is a list for the historic preservation board just to you know, they're maintaining there's no teeth to it What's whatsoever there is no teeth to this one, but unfortunately there is teeth to the county one and remember that if the historic preservation board decides that a property is historic it can be so designated whether the owner wants that done or not no that is not what our uh but that is what the county law is our we are the deciding no we're not the county law shanae which law supersedes which the county law or the village law

So the county law makes it a requirement that owners doesn't have to consent. The way our code is set up, in certain municipalities, the Historic Preservation Board has the final say in that designation. In other municipalities like ours, the Historic Preservation Board makes a nomination, and that ultimately comes to the council, who ultimately decides one way or the other. If the council were to agree and say in some scenario that there's a property that is being nominated to be historically designated, the owner does not consent, the Historic Preservation Board wants to do it anyways, they move forward with making that nomination to you all, you all agree with the Historic Preservation Board, then yes, you can certainly designate the property without the owner's consent. Will that ever happen? According to this council, no. While this council is made up of the individuals that are made up of, could it happen down the line? Sure. But is that going to happen? I don't know.

And does being on this inventory list have any effect on any of that whatsoever?

No, they're two different lists.

Whether they're on that list or not, we could designate them. If we really wanted to do that, we could do that.

Right, yeah.

It has nothing to do with whether or not they're on this list, which the Historic Preservation Board is maintaining just for their, you know,

And even if a person bought a historic one that is designated with the plaque, they could also come before a council and get off the list. That's interesting. I see. I didn't know that. Yeah. Okay. So, I mean, it's just an appeal.

So if you want that same mechanism or something similar for the historic inventory list, the significant list, we can certainly kind of bake that into it.

Just for clarification with the county and us is where we do this and we have our own historic preservation board kind of opted out of the counties. It's not like a county superseding law. We have home rule here and we make our own.

No, I wouldn't categorize it as such. The county's historic preservation law does require certain minimum standards that we have to have in our law.

Right.

No, but the county law outlines direct verbatim the minimum standards. In order for us to be able to do what we do, we have to have those county laws embedded in our program. So I wouldn't categorize it as we have our own separate home rule of power. I think we're afforded certain rights because the county has allowed us to. Otherwise, if we were not in compliance with what their minimum standards were, we would not be able to have historic preservation board as we have it okay so the better form i think to think of this is that there's minimum standards we have to apply them we have those minimum standards in our code right now and one of those minimum standards is that we cannot not have in our code that if an owner does not consent then they're not designated as historic that language we've already ruled has to be in our code because the county said we have to have it in our code

I think the fact that we're not making them go to the historic preservation board meeting anymore, I think we might be causing more problems than we solve by sending out notices to everybody about this list. Because really, like, If I had no reference of any of this stuff going on and I just got that letter in the mail, I would assume that it meant something, like that my house was on a list for a reason and there were some implications to it. Otherwise, why would they be sending me this letter? when really, like, there aren't really any implications here. So I don't know if we need to send out some, like, dry official letter or whatever. If this is where we're at, I would leave that up to the Historic Preservation Board and let them send whatever they want to send to these houses at their discretion. And if they want to send out something to all these houses, be like, hey, you know, you have a historic house that we are interested in, and here's why, and whatever. Yada, yada, yada. Okay, great. Let them do that. That's wonderful. But, yeah, maybe, I don't know. What do you guys think about that? Is that crazy?

No, I don't think it's actually in this ordinance. It was something you were talking about adding tonight. No, but it's not. As in front of it in first reading, it's not there.

Right. Right? Yeah, I think, yeah, I think... I think the change that we made to the previous ordinance solved this problem also, actually.

Is your home on the West?

You know, it's not, and I wasn't really sure how to feel about that, you know? I was like... You find it historically significant because you live there. I don't know. I don't know. I was a little disappointed. I was like, oh, maybe I was going to be on the list. I think my neighbor is on the list, a couple neighbors.

And Council Member Birch is your home on the list? John Bolton's is. Mine is not, thank God.

somebody significantly there though so we might designate it right that's one of the criteria right take that picture down all right is there any more discussion on this item is there a motion on the item motion to approve item 10 a I second that motion There's a motion to second. All those in favor, single by saying aye. Aye. Aye. All those opposed? Motion carries. Madam Clerk?

Manager's report.

The NICs aren't on, so. Manager's report in the meantime? Yeah, in the meantime.

Or?

Or.

Not much to say, but I can't buy it. It's been too much time. But I know there has been a number of bills that's been passed this session. This session has... the bills, a lot of them require us to do things, right? So we internally are just kind of regrouping with our municipal group and formulating hopefully some guidelines or guidance for us to be able to then better counsel you all about what those new deadlines might look like, depending on what the new laws might be. Most of them don't take a place until January of 2027, so we have some times for compliance. But just that's forthcoming as we're kind of working on that collectively as a firm for our various.

The one I read is that we'd have to start taking inventory like in June, though. It's not that the law takes effect, but kind of like our requirements start in June or July.

I don't know which one you're referring to. There's so many, truthfully. So that's why I said it. I'll leave it as that. There's a lot, and we're doing our best to just kind of comply.

I'll just say it's a controversial one. How's that one?

Compile everything at this point.

Okay. And at this moment, I would like to also thank you for all your efforts put in on the contract negotiations with Kemper and getting that done, and also even the amendment which we did this week. I appreciate it very much.

My pleasure.

Manager, we skipped you, but now it's your turn, I think. Yeah.

Yeah, that's fine. So good evening, everyone. Well, there was a question that was asked earlier about our preparation just in the event, you know, there's certain legislation coming from Tallahassee that would impact our budget. Well, clearly, it wouldn't be for this fiscal year that's coming up. At least I don't think so. That would be very, very draconian. I want everyone to know, because we have already spoken, that we... we're looking at what our budget would look like what kind of changes would have to make but I think would be a little these would be a little bit previous if we were to start talking about all those planned changes to our budget and how we would operate if we were to come out and It may give cause for alarm without knowing exactly what's coming from Tallahassee. But suffice it to say, that's something that we're very cognizant of and we are watching it carefully. And as soon as we know exactly what's going on at the state level, we'll be able to speak a little bit more clearly and address it as to what our options are going forward. But to speak about that right now would be a little previous. And secondly, I thought Delroy was going to be in here. He stepped out. But just to let you know that we have a planned presentation through the coming to council where we'll talk about property lines, where property starts, where it ends, what's an easement, what's a utility easement, what is right-of-way. and public right-of-way, of course, to address swales and things of that nature. But that's something we're putting together, and we hope to bring that to a council just to discuss and more so as an education for all. So that's all I have to say. Thanks. Madam Clerk?

Mm-hmm. September 8th for the tentative hearing, and then September 22nd for the final budget hearing.

And that's within compliance, obviously, of the state.

Correct. Right. During compliance, there's several times that we can't have the meeting on the same day On the first as well, so in conferring with the village manager, the proposed meeting dates are September 8th for the tentative, for the first council meeting of the month, and then also the tentative budget hearing, and then the second council meeting of that month also held on September 22nd with the final budget hearing proceeding.

was how the calendar was we have August off was how the calendar was falling that we're going to do early the first week of September that's what we're switching is that what I'm understanding or no we have the month of August off right and then the dates yes

from certification, which is July 1st.

Okay.

But the first possible date would be September 3rd.

Right. And on our master calendar that you gave us, we had the 1st, and that's what we're changing, correct? Right. Okay. And then that would ripple the one that was on the 15th, we're moving it to the 22nd. Correct.

So it would be the 2nd and 4th meeting.

Right. Even though the charter's right. Right. Is everyone good with that? Yeah. Okay. All right. Thank you. But just to let people know, Labor Day is the 7th, and we're meeting on the 8th, just to let you know on that. Right? Okay. Sorry about that. It's okay.

There are also vacancies, several board vacancies. We encourage the public or residents to visit the village website to learn about the upcoming vacancies. If you need any specific information regarding the boards and committees, you may contact the clerk's office at Rodriguez. I encourage you to attend the community bike ride. Said event will take place on May 16th at 9 a.m. at Optimus Park. Ride, connect, and enjoy. It's a fun, free ride for all ages, bikes only, so no rollerblades, skateboards, train wheels, or electric bike scooters. To RSVP, contact 305-758-8103. Council comments.

any council comments one thing I mean to the board here and vice mayor's not here but I think from meeting with the manager and then seeing how we're moving forward with our master plans the last strategic plan that we had for the village was 2022 I think we should start considering like reviewing that document and then seeing what we've checked off the list and even looking at if you look back in 2022 one of the the number one one was the revitalization of down of the second half and obviously that's I mean it's still community business development that we're still working on but I think if you look at the list it shifted for what priority parties are in the community I think with that said with this council and then also the manager and administrative I think if we update that strategic plan I think that would be something we should start considering and that's uh and again thank you staff for for the it was the kemper the kemper pcm has been a lot of work i don't think people realize how much went into that and how important is the village but uh i want to thank everybody for all the efforts put into that and uh thank you motion to adjourn all those in favor aye