Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon. The Monday, July  14th planning board of the city   of Pam City is now in order. Please take  the role. Board member Carol here. Board   member Stamp here. Board member Barker  absent. Board member Rich here. Chairman   Eubower here. Are there any announcement  or any changes or deletions to the agenda? Yes. Okay. Yes, there are. So, um we received   um a correspondence for um from the applicant  for the uh first item. That would be item 6A,   the 1814 Mound Avenue uh variance request  there requesting the item be continued to the   August planning board meeting. and um staff  recommends that the board grant that. Okay. Great. Are there any announcements or disclosures  by board members? Um I spoke to Mr. Anderson about   one of the agenda items with the dock. Uh it's  if you let's Mr. Rich, thank you. You and I spoke   about this earlier. Let's do that on the at the  time of that hearing. So, we can keep it all uh   contemporaneous after that. Okay. But any of the  others that we have only because that one's got a   few more moving parts to it than our typical quasi  judicial. So, if there's any others that you have   announcements to make to except that one, you can  do that now. Should have told you that earlier.   All right. Anyone else? Thank you. Uh do a motion  to approve the minutes from the June meeting.   Motion to approve. Second. I have a motion  second. Please take roles. Board member Carol,   yes. Board member Stamps, yes. Board member Rich,  yes. Chairman Bower, yes. Motion passes. 4 Z. All   right. Now, I'm going to go over the procedure for  quy judicial hearings. Step one, public hearing   announce introduction of application by staff.  Two, exarty communication disclosure by board  

members. Three, identification of the applicant.  Affected parties that intend to participate in the   hearing. Effective parties only intend to make a  statement may do so at the public participation   part of the agenda. An affected party means any  person or any that will suffer an adverse effect   and interest protected by or furthered by the ULDC  including interest related to health and safety,   police and fire protection, service systems,  densities or intensity of development,   transportation facilities, healthcare facilities,  equipment or services and environmental or natural   resources. Alleged adverse interests may be stated  in common with other members of the community   at large but must exceed and agree the general  interest and community good shared by all persons.   Now, I'll have council swear any witnesses that  Mr. So, all of the items on the agenda today are   quasi judicial proceedings. Um, so if you intend  to speak on something on the agenda this morning   or this afternoon, rather, you would need to stand  now and raise your right hand and be sworn in. So, do you solemnly swear affirm that the  testimony you'll give in these matters will   be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing  but the truth? Yes, it is. Thank you. when   you come to the podium to speak on your matter,  if you'll state your name and address for the   record and that you have been sworn. Um, and as  I you may have heard me say just a moment ago,   um, most of the item or sorry, every one of the  items on the agenda is a quasi judicial proceeding   today. The last one on the agenda has um, a lot  of evidence and already it's been submitted to us.   And so we're going to be because of the number of  people and the time that might be allotted in that   one, we're going to follow the rules a little  more strictly than we typically typically do.   uh the proceeding matters will um take our more  relaxed approach that we usually take. Okay,   thank you. Start with item letter B. Item  B is case number CPC PLN 20250694. It's   an application for reszoning. The owner  and applicant is Janiro Madrono and it  

is located at 1410 Wilmont Avenue. The owner  has requested that the parcel be reszoned to   neighborhood general to accommodate for  long for space for long-term rentals. Any questions for board for staff? Is the applicant here to speak on this item? My name is Tony Madano. Uh 1026 Pearson Drive.  wanted to see if you guys um could probably help   me out to put a long-term living in that old  church. There's nothing there. Uh beautiful   homes right in front and hopefully we can match  that in the neighborhood. Sir, you were sworn in   earlier. Yes, sir. Thank you. Any questions,  sir? I see the reference to a quadlex. Is it   meant to be four four units within the building?  Yes, sir. In the same building. the same uh that   building is 2950 square foot. Same foundations  just divided in into pieces. Are there multiple   buildings on the parcel? Yes, there is. There's  a big church that was used and I think uh there's   a house right next to it. I'm not planning  on doing anything with the house. Okay. So,   the house will remain the same and then four units  within the larger portion of the church. Correct. What else? Thank you. Is there anyone  else that wishes to speak on this item afternoon? I'm Robert Gilmore. I have been sworn  in and I'm from 1406 Lumont Avenue in Panama City.  

Um, regarding this reszoning of the request for  the 1410 Wilmont property adjacent to my family   residence at 1406 Wilmont, my family moved  to Panama City Beach in 1986. In 19 2018,   we moved into this uh this home in uh St. Andrews  as refugees from the gridlock and chaos unfolding   in Panama City Beach. Our family is happy to be  in St. Andrews. We recovered and improved our home   following Michael. We walk most days to the marina  and Oaks by the Bay. We eat out locally at locally   owned restaurants four times a week. We enjoy  year-round festivals and events and live music all   in walking distance. We chose our home because of  this delightful walkable neighborhood. My church   is now less than three miles from my house. We  felt the comfortable comfort of having a property   that serves as a buffer against the commercial  hubhub of Highway 98. Our previous neighbor,   Reverend Ruben Hoskins, family was a delight. We  look forward to having neighbors living next door.   An empty house is not good for the neighborhood.  Um, my understanding is that when you reszone,   uh, that you would not just be reszoning  for multi- homes. Is that correct? That   this would include all of the things  within that zone. resoning. For instance,   uh within that resoning, uh mult besides multif  family homes, it says that you could have daycare,   corner stores, food establishment, gas station,  parking garage. Is that correct that it includes   all of those as well? What's the uh that's  not specifically saying Native Americans. So that was on the information that I received  from uh from the you know the planning board.

But anyways, all of that carries a likelihood  that our loss of community feel and imposition   of increased noise and traffic will sour our  happiness nest. Adding multiple family homes   will bring too many vacancies to our already  congested end of 14th Street. A single quadlex   would offer would mean that we would probably have  need for parking for at least eight more cars,   I would think. Um and uh and it would also mean  those cars would be coming up and down the street   going in and out. I'm suspect there would be a lot  more pedestrians walking around enjoying the area.   Um, [Applause] I feel that this um that right  now adding multiple homes would bring too many   vehicles to our already congested end of 14th  Street. Nor is this area suited for increased   pedestrian traffic, especially for children.  Today, there are neighbors whose children are   found dangerous that are found playing dangerously  close to the road and uh in their own yards.   There's no sidewalks. It's um it's a little bit  unsafe uh for people walking in the neighborhood.   This is just going to add to the number of people  that are out there. We do not have sidewalks and   encouraging more than two single family homes  on this property. And I'm thinking both lots,   not just the church, but you know, where the  church sits and where the house sits would   would nicely accommodate two two family home uh a  single family home in each each of those sections.   Um, our property value as uh as a residential  neighborhood will be impacted neighborly   negatively. Please do not allow for the creep of  commercial development. Please champion single   family homes to maintain the integrity of our  neighborhood. There needs to be a line drawn   where families can feel safe. There needs to be  a buffer to keep the commercial noise and traffic  

at bay. This is an issue for all of St. Andrew's  uh neighborhood. The neighbors that we spoke to   share our concerns but work or have other issues  to prevent them from speaking. I speak in the   uh also for my wife Eileen Zacher who uh  resides with me. Thank you. Thank you. So any more also to speak on this item? Yeah. Did you have you got any questions on what  the differences in neighborhood general versus   commercial that we usually fit? Yeah. So, we can  we can speak to that. So, as you know, this is   um the area part of the St. Andrews  uh neighborhood plan districts. So,   um the neighborhood residential district does  allow for single family detached um dwellings,   duplexes, cottage courts, accessory  dwellings. Um but it also allows for   um public and private schools um public or  non-commercial private recreation and all   of the uses and if you want me to go on it's  just it gets kind of lengthy so y'all let me   know when to stop but I one thing I I do want  to just mention and this you will find in your   packets is that all of the uses that are allowed  in neighborhood residential are also allowed   in neighborhood general which is being proposed  here at this site. So um when we're talking about   neighborhood general so in addition to what's  already allowed in neighborhood residential   um you have another set of uses so it is does  increase the intensity live work units civic   institutional uses healthc care commercial office  temporary open air retail so it does open up the   use you know allowances for for this particular  parcel. So, um, if you have any other questions,  

let me know. But that does provide you with some  insight, too. We're just we're essentially taking   it up a notch with neighborhood general. And  then the parcels adjacent to it and across the   street are zone neighborhood general. Correct.  And so, as you're coming off of 15th Street,   um, you do notice that's that's the pattern here.  So yeah, I remember going through the process of   assigning zoning districts as we approached  commercial versus residential and it's a very   fine line between exactly versus progress and  that's really why we have this process because   staff does the best that we can, right? We, you  know, we all did. Um but of course that's why you   have this process cuz people have the right to  at least ask and go through the process. If if   this was a church as it was previously designated,  would it have fit better in neighborhood general   rather than neighborhood residential like the  the previous you correct would have been? Yes.   And we did see that um even getting down to the  wire quite quite frankly when we were trying to   um move forward with the neighborhood plans.  you have those parcels that could fit that   would actually fit better but were originally  assigned to zoning districts of of much lesser   intensity. And we believe that was mainly  because you know you're doing we we think it   was mainly because initially when this process  got started people were looking at the overall   uh existing development pattern of you know of a  neighborhood which I also think is the case here   but a church would also obviously fit more within  a district that calls out the civic uses. So

any other questions? Is there a way  to allow the quad complex without   changing the land use designation? Uh, the  neighborhood residential only allows up   to two units. Is this two parcels or one  parcel? Believe this is just one parcel.   One parcel. This is a double size lot.  It's just Yeah, it's a nice size lot. 1408 is that the single family house and 1410 is  the D. So why would you need if you're not going   to do anything with a single family house, why  would you need to change that to and just not   change it? It's 1410 the parcel itself. Sir, would  you come to the microphone, please? We'll get you   on the record. Thank you. So the only reason I'm  changing the whole thing is cuz uh the parcels   together, I'm not sure why both buildings are in  the same parcel. So when I survey, I had to survey   both units. So if you want to change just the  half of the parcel, that's fine. But as a parcel,   when I bought it, it was just the whole thing.  Well, you can split the parcel. I could. Yeah,   that I wouldn't have a problem split one  time. Then it could do two and two and Well,   kind of a quad complex. One and four. Yeah. So,  the the intention is Yeah. The intention is the   house. I I haven't even considered anything with  the house cuz it's already there. And these four   This is going to be like a quadriplex. It's  going to be all built together and everything.   Correct. And they're going to park. So the the  in the back in the back of the property, right,   uh that's where the parking space would be. So  it would alleviate the parking in the front.   We are estimating that we can fit 10 cars  in the back a lot more than what we need   uh to alleviate any any I wouldn't want my  cars in the front neither. So we're parking   in the back. So to alleviate our the the  our neighbor um and then right at Jensen   is the Cororum's restaurant right next  like literally we're touching it already.   But if if I can I mean I didn't even think about  it but yeah we can split the parcel and just do  

one the building to be general and the other one  can stay at the house and I can well then that   would that would create a buffer between uh his  property and the 1410. Is it correct? You're not   planning on taking down the church building. You  want within the church building. Exactly. I mean,   yeah. That church's been vacant, I  think, for over I think since Michael. Any other questions? Thank you. Do I have a motion? Motion to approve.  [Music] I'll second. Have a motion,   a second. Any further discussion?  Please take role. Board member Carol,   yes. Board member Stamps, yes. Board  member Barker, yes. Board member Rich,   yes. Chairman Debower, yes. Motion  passes by zero. Thank you. Item letter C. [Applause] that that meeting that this will  still be heard before the city commission at   the which meeting? It'll be the first hearing  will be August 12th and the second one will be   August 26. Okay, Mr. Chairman, excuse. Can I  ask a question? Yeah, please come to the mic. I'm Arlene Zacher and I live at 1406 Wilmont  uh next door to the house. So I just wanted   to understand what you're saying then. So if if  um the zoning changes for the church property,   does it also change for the house property? Uh  so this board made a recommendation that goes to   the city commission to to resone the tower  parcel because that's what came before us.   Um we did have the question because it looked  like at one point in time this was two separate  

parcels. U but this was the mo he doesn't intend  to um demolish the current buildings there. He's   just going to renovate them. So the mot this  board made the motion to approve the his request   and recommendation to the city commission. So does  that mean that he could also put a a a quadlex on   the house property also? So we could have two quad  properties. uh he could but he's he told the board   that that he intention is to just renovate the  buildings that are there intention is different   than you can change your mind right so so ma'am so  all all development and and I haven't had a chance   obviously to look at a detailed site plan but  based on the information that's provided looking   at the parcel um there's called something there's  something called maximum buildout intensity So   essentially, when looking at this parcel, it's  probably, and you could probably speak more to   this, you could probably only do so much with what  you have is what I'm trying to communicate. So   maybe there might be a desire to have more units,  but quite frankly, I don't know if he's going to   have the room is what I'm what is what I want to  try. There there's there there are allowances,   but your your actual land that you're working  with does provide limitations. I hope I'm making   sense. There's also increased setbacks when a  parcel Yeah. borders a residential parcel. So,   I'll give you an example. So, let's say you have  a parcel, not necessarily this one, and the zoning   district allows for 30 dwelling units per acre,  but the parcel's only 0.25 acres. Can't really,   you know what I mean? like you're you're limited  to what the actual land um the the acreage and if   there are certain environmental features on the  property. So, we get into more into that. We as  

in staff work with the applicant during the the  development stage, but right now we're just at the   the zoning stage, but there are some checks and  balances there. Just just FYI. Thank you. Well,   I say the hearing's really been closed. But the  point is is that the city commission ultimately   has the decision to be made on this. This body  just recommends, right? Item C. Item C is um   case number CPC PLN 20250702. It's a request for  an annexation small scale and land use amendment   and resoning. Um the applicant is uh North Well,  the the owner is Northstar Church. The applicant   is Joseph Bishop with um a flag design building in  Incorporated. Um the request is to annex the the   subject parcel into the city of Panama City  and and for a land use category of general   commercial and a zoning district of general  commercial 2. Um this property is located off   of Highway 90 approximately 0445 acres. If  you have any questions, staff is available.   So this is a Bay County property right now and  it's owned commercial three. Yes. Commercial two   in the city would be the most applicable.  Yeah. That's typically and you know we've   seen this typically if people are already have  commercial three in the county they'll they'll   they're going to request GC2. So it's that's  what we're that's what they're requesting   here. That's the most compatible. [Applause]  Is the applicant here to speak on this item?   Is anyone else doubting serious speak on the  second? All right. Do I have a motion? Motion   to approve. Second. Motion second. Please  take role. Board member Pearl. Yes. Board   member Stamps. Yes. Board member Barker. Yes.  Board member Rich. Yes. Chairman Newower. Yes.  

Motion passes by. Item D. Item D. Case number  CPC PLN 2025773. It is a variance. The owner   and applicant is Stefan Granch. Uh address  is 910 Cherry Street, parcel ID 20986-0-0. And the request is for um variance from the  setback standards regulated by section 104-38   general commercial 2 zoning district minimum  setbacks and we have um staff would support.   Thank you. Any questions from board members?  Is the applicant here to speak on this item?   Is anyone in the audience here to speak on this  item? Any further discussion with the board? So,   what's the request? 5 foot setback in the  rear. Is that what we're looking for? Yeah. Um,   a three a variance to a 3ft setback in the rear.  It's an existing structure and its rear setback   is already at 3 ft. So it wouldn't be able to  do any continued or new development until the   variance is approved. Um and then a side step  back to 3 ft as well. Okay. Because yeah, this   is it is an existing building. The plan is the  footprint remains the same. We're just bringing   it into compliance with variance. Yes. Okay.  Okay. The goal is and I just want to make sure   um so the existing setback in the rear is what it  is currently but remember when someone requests to   expand and encroach into a setback we got to bring  the whole structure into compliance and of course   we're not going to shift a building x amount of  feet to the front. So you go through the variance   process. So, in order to expand it to and correct  me, that's to the east. Expand to the east. We   also have to make sure we come into compliance  in the rear to the south. So, that's that's what  

that's what's going on. It is expanding to  the east. Yes, that side set back. Okay. But   not expanding towards where the to the Yeah, to  the south. That would be the re That's the rear.   Okay. But the side expansion is still within the  current like it's not impeding into the setback.   So the side so the side set back for GC2 the  required set back is 5 ft. They're requesting   a reduction of 2 ft which would give them three.  Correct. So they're asking for 3 ft instead of   the required five to the east. That's that's the  relief request. So right now they're at 20. Is   that am I reading this map correct? Yes. They're  at 20 and they want to go all the way to three. And what's I guess now I'm curious as to  what the expansion is for. You get Yes.   So the the reason they want that expansion on  the eastern side is in that corner is where   all their sewer and water connections are and  they wanted to have that extension so they can   make an more ADA compliant bathrooms.  um without having to go through as as   as costly and expensive as a renovation  is there to approve everything everything the water lines on the property are  at that location. So they want the   building connection is why that's why the  applicant is posted on his application and the applicant is not here. Is that correct? I I guess my hesitation is I thought  we were bringing a current structure   into compliance versus an expansion that  really limits that eastern side for the  

existing property owner should that actually be   the intent. So Mhm. it would be ideal if  the property owner was here. Absolutely. And that property has to go. All these are  commercial to but it's this property. Any   further discussion? And I guess being that it's  a variance, this does not go to the commission.   Correct. This is the final decision. Do I  have a motion? I move to deny. Can we table   this until you get to the office and just deny  it? Could the question was can we table this   um items the variance till next meeting since we  don't have an applicant or any I'd like I mean   I think the questions need to be asked is you  know absolutely yes and we and we we can touch   base with the applicant of course you know we're  more than happy to do that um is the desire of   the well you all will vote on it um I'd like to  better understand exactly what she absolutely yes   and we'll reach out and um the recommendation I  mean we would recommend that table it to the next   um planning board meeting which is in August. We  believe that we should be able to of course reach   out to them and connect with them um in a timely  manner. Somebody absolutely yeah motion make a   motion to well he'll need to withdraw his person.  Yeah. I will withdraw a motion K motion. I'll make   a motion that we table till we have owner come  forward and talk give us more idea what's going   on. He made a motion. Larry seconded. Okay. So  just to just to be clear though you're going to   table this to we need the date and time certain  of the next meeting. Can you give us that date?   It's August 11th, 2025 at 4 p.m. August 11, 2025,  

4 p.m. And we anticipate we'll be  back in room 10 at that time. So,   your motion includes all that I just said. Okay.  Have a motion, second to table this agenda item.   Please take role. Board member Carroll. Yes.  Board member Stamps? Yes. Board member Barker?   Yes. Board member Rich? Yes. Chairman Dubar? Yes.  Motion passes 5. All right. Item E. [Applause] Item E is an appeal on an administrative  decision. It's case number CPC PLN 2025 0786. Um, like I said, it's an appeal and administrative  decision to rescend a stop work order issued on   May 15th, 2025 for a dock under construction  at 3411 West 15th Street. Enclosed with your   agenda packets are the following: aerials and  location maps of the property, doc plans and   specifications. Additional information to be  made part of the record include the following.   Building permit development order issued for  the single family dock at 3411 West 15th Street.   Documentation on the decision to issue a stop work  order. A copy of the stopwork order. Submittal of   additional information by the dock owner. A  copy of the updated plans and specifications   of the dock. A notice to interested parties of  the decision to resend the stop work order. Copy   of the decision to resend the stop work order  or the actual decision to resend the stop work  

order. Copies of four appeal petitions submitted  by Joe Popsel, Sterling Anderson, James Pic,   and Nicholls Trudeau. In essence, this boils down  to my decision to resend a stop work order on May   23rd, 2025. stop work order was issued because of  concerns that a dock first may impede navigation   and two may not be constructed in conformance  with the approved plans. The dock owner provided   additional information including updated plans and  specs showing that the dock is not an impediment   to navigation. The updated plans delineate the  correct footprint of the dock, showing it is   being constructed at a length of 246 ft and not  the 260 ft as shown on the original plans. All   aspects of the dock appear to comply with the  section 110-4G of the unified land development   code. Based on this, we had no other reason or  justification to leave the stop work in place.   I'm happy to answer any questions from the board  uh including any requirements of section 110-4G   of the plan development code. Uh I'd like to  highlight uh subsection 3 Roman numeral 4 of   that section which states that the dock structure  shall not impede the flow of water nor navigation.   That is our requirement. I believe that's be the  case here. Um, again, I'm happy to answer any   questions. I think we've got a number of people  that want to come speak on this matter. So, I'll   hand it back over to you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Uh, I before we go, I wasn't here for the opening.   I do have disclosure. I have been in contact with  some of the Yeah, we're going to do that. We we   table the disclosures on this item to Yeah, Mr.  Barker, I was just about to announce that because  

of the we have four petitioners here today. you're  all you've all received the package and because we   have a number of folks that are here, we're going  to follow a little more um formal process on this   so that we can keep time and and evidence  straight and all those kind of things. So   the first instance of that is to if you have any  exparte disclosures that you need to make if you   would make that on the record now and I know that  Mr. Rich has some then obviously Mr. Barker does.   I have been in contact with some of the people  but one of the persons that he called and I cannot   think of his names but he did call and make his  appeal. So I think it's military just okay I guess   that was him. Okay. I also spoke to Mr. Anderson  on the phone and then uh talked to Mr. Burke about   processes and I talked to Sterling. I received a  voicemail that did not speak of likewise. Okay.   All right. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any more  um No, sir. The uh the next next part of this is   going to be the the um the uh applicants or the  petitioners in this instance. Uh Mr. Anderson,   Mr. Pop Popsicil, I'm sorry. Uh Mr. Trudeell  and Mr. Pick. Um I have and and the um the   dock owner I have sent an email to them last week  um explaining the process because we did have so   many and so and and encouraging the petitioners  to uh combine their case. I believe they're going   to do the best they can um to do that because they  are the party with the burden of proving that Mr.   U Fuller's decision was incorrect. They get to  go first and last. And so at this point in time,   it would be the the time for the petitioners  to come up and and speak. Typically, we have   a 10-minute um time frame frame on this one. Uh  because there's four, they're really entitled to  

10 minutes each, but I believe, as I just said,  they're going to try and and keep that um to a a   shorter time frame and their presentation of their  evidence and their reasoning why they believe you   ought to overturn the uh decision. So, Mr.  Anderson, are you going to lead the Joe? Sir, Joe, and you have copies of Mr. Potsel's appeal  petition and a copy of supporting information   that he provided in your packets. Who provided  this package? I did. This is the package you   provided. Okay. That contains everything. All  right. And then you also have before. So, that   was the stat package that Mr. uh Fuller referred  to earlier. It's got all the evidence in it. And   then this is also a package I believe is provided  by uh Oh, it's by Mr. Bowers. He is the doc owner.   And then I believe you you all sent stuff in  to have up on the screen. Is that right? Yes,   Mr. P. Okay. Sorry, sir. Go ahead. Okay. My name  is Joe Pospol. I live at 3208 West 16th Street,   St. Andrews on Lake Huntington, and I've been  sworn in. Um, I'd like to thank everybody for   this opportunity to speak. This is in regards  to the dock that's uh built in the channel of   Lake Huntington. I'd like to start by reading a  list of information that is a summary of facts   and our contentions about this issue and then  I'll briefly discuss why they're important. We   the petitioners maintain that the dock has been  constructed in the entrance and exit channel for   Lake Huntington. The dock structure will impede  navigation of the channel under certain weather   and title conditions. If a bo boat were to be  morowed on the outside of the dock structure,   as this often happens when you're loading a boat  for an outing, the boat would essentially block   navigation of the channel. The permit application  drawings submitted to obtain permits both from the   city and the Florida Department of Environmental  Protection were erroneous. Is it possible to put  

picture JP1 up that I sent in? and I'll continue  talking to see if you can do that if you have it.   It essentially is the permit drawing. The permit  application drawing shows the proposed dock well   outside of the Lake Huntington channel. There's  the drawing. If you look to the left side of that,   you see where the two lines indicate the  approximate location of the channel. I'm sorry,   sir. We maintain that the dock is clearly in the  channel. Two US Coast Guard licensed captains and   myself, a retired formally licensed captain  that use the channel regularly, can attest   to that fact. All three of the captains agree  that the dock impedes navigation of the channel,   will impede navigation of the channel  in certain weather and title conditions.   Please note from section 110-4G of the Unified  Land Development Code, the docks, I quote, "The   dock structure shall not impede the flow of water  nor navigation," unquote. We further maintain that   during construction, the contractor installed  channel markers, presumably to route traffic   around the new dock. These PVC markers are new  and they create a new routing of the channel. They   create the illusion that the dock is not inside  the channel. These markers were placed during   the construction. They do not accurately mark the  channel. Additionally, the western newly placed   green markers are placed in a very low water. They  are inside submerged aquatic vegetation seaggrass   beds. The result of which will be boats transiting  low water with potential to ground at low tide and   to scar or damage the seaggrass on the western  side. Through review of both the city permit and   the FD permit, it appears that the permits were  issued and approved based on incorrect data and/or  

drawings. It's our contention that the permits  would never have been approved if the application   drawings were correct. One of the conditions for  the city permit is that the structure must meet   the requirements of other regulatory agencies.  I have obtained an administrative hearing with   the DP regarding their general permit condition  prohibiting a a project that adversely impedes   navigation. Essentially the same restriction  of of your unified development code. Condition   14 of the D condition states and I quote, "The  construction, alteration, or use of the authorized   project shall not adversely impede navigation or  create a navigational hazard in the water body."   As discussed above, three of the Lake Huntington  boat owners are currently or formerly US Coast   Guard licensed captains of various tonnages.  They all agree the dock results in some degree   of navigation impediment and potential navigation  hazards. All other non-licensed voters that may   not be as familiar with the channel potentially  face a habit of grounding now due to the   alteration of the channel markers on the western  side. So we maintain that the original request   for permit drawing submitted to the city and the  DP that is the drawing on the screen that you're   looking at is completely inaccurate. It shows the  approximate location of the channel to the left   hand side there. And in fact the dock structures  well inside the eastern side of the channel. This   will be demonstrated later with some view some  aerial drone views and and further testimony of   some of the captains. In fact, the dock, okay,  the drawing also shows the dock well outside the   seagrass, which is the light green area there.  In fact, the boat house portion of the dock is   constructed almost 100% over seaggrass, and that  will be discussed later on in our presentation.

Can you put please picture JP2 up on the screen? Thank J3. There you go. Thanks. The Lake  Huntington entrance involves and always has   involved in navigating a relatively narrow channel  from approximately 300 to 400 or more feet from   the shoreline to the entrance under the bridge.  The channel used to be clearly marked on the east   side with three PVC pipes. Very difficult to see  them in this view, but you can see all three of   them PVC pipes on the left hand side. That's the  eastern side, left hand side of the picture. all   three PVC pipes that marked the eastern and the  deep side of the channel. We used to have to stay   close to those PVC pipes when coming in and out of  the channel. It's a deep water. Um it's important   to note that the water on the right hand side  of the channel in this picture, the west side,   is extremely shallow. Only by staying close to  those PVC pipes now removed can a vessel avoid   grounding. Those PVC pipes were removed and new  PVC pipes installed. Please go to picture J3. If vessels are forced to transit the channel  further to the west, they'll be grounding during   certain tides and certain shallower western  certain shallower uh winter tides. In that   previous, and I'm sorry, it's but in that previous  picture, there were cuts in the exposed seaggrass.   You'll see other pictures of them and from some  of the other uh applicants. Um this is the current   view right now looking under the Lake Huntington  Bridge. It it doesn't really require any verbiage. So, as I've spoken above, I've been granted  an administrative hearing with the D.  

The same information included above, the same  information I just told you was adequate for the   D to approve my request for an administrative  hearing that is scheduled for the early part   of September. It's our contention that the both  the city and DPE and the Florida D were provided   inaccurate permit application drawings and they  would not have been approved. That is the permits   if the drawings were accurate. Depending on  the outcome of that administrative hearing,   the structure may not comply with permitting  requirements, another permitting requirements   of the unified land development code, which is  number four in section 110-4G. The structure   comply the structure shall comply with  the permitting requirements of all other   government agencies. So why has there been a big  deal about the location of the dock? And several   people have stood on the Lake Huntington Bridge  and looked out and said, "Well, what's the big   deal? It doesn't look like you can't like you can  go around the dock." And it does look like that. [Music] On a calm day with a high summer tide,  it's a true statement that almost anyone can go   around that dock with no problem. I have a 43- ft  housebo. The structure of the house part of the   boat acts like a large sail. Even so, on a totally  calm day with a high tide like we have often in   the summer, I have no problem scooting around that  dock which is in the which is in the channel. But   if the wind is blowing from the southwest or  the west, as it almost always is in the summer,   especially in the summer due to the afternoon  shore breeze, and especially if the tide is low,   I must stay directly in the deepest part  of that channel where his dock now is. I   must keep moving. I cannot stop. Imagine a  43 ft boat stopping with the wind blowing.  

It'll blow me right into that dock or into the  shallow water if I'm on on either side of it.   So if I if I and if I ground in the channel, I  have no other option than to get out and push.   So there's a very good reason why there  are regulations prohibiting structures   from being constructed in channels and your own  unified development code has a uh a prohibition   or whatever for against doing that. Thank you for  your time and consideration. Thank you. [Applause] Captain James P, 258 West Night Street. I'm  going to read the letter that I sent to y'all   into the record. Captain Pic, you were sworn  in too, correct? What's that? You were sworn   in also. Yes. I'm sorry. I was sworn in.  Thank you. Let me get back to where I was   and then I'm going to make a few comments um  based on the information just just given. Uh,   thank you for taking the time to read my letter  concerning the above reg reference property. I believe I have a unique perspective concerning  the dock built in on the reference property   partial number. I lived in the original home  located on the corner of Lake Avenue and 16th   Street in 1987 and 1988. I used both the launch  and the channel on Lake Huntington from 1988 to   1994. In 1994, I received my captain's license,  at which time I started chartering. From 1994 to   present, I have caught live bait for my charters  in Lake Huntington, utilizing the channel each   day. Over the last 10 years, I have docked  my boat and private slips in Lake Huntington   with the exception of two years. During those  two years, I was in the St. Andrews Marina,   and continue to use the channel into the lake most  days to catch bait. I run 150 to 200 times a year.  

For the past 33 years, I have I have during the  last 30 38 years used the channel in and out of   Lake Huntington thousands of times. No one no one  knows that channel more than I do. In 1987, there   was a day marker marking the entrance at beginning  of the channel incoming on the right or the   starboard side. That would be the east side. This  marker disappeared in the early 90s. This marker   was located on the east side of the dock built  on the abovementioned property. Historically,   this places the boat slip in the working channel.  Over the years, PVC or red incoming markers have   been put on the put marking the channel to aid in  navigation. About 8 years ago, after the channel   was dredged by the city, Sterling and I, Sterling  Anderson and I placed new markers on the channel.   These markers were painted with red  paint, wrapped with reflective tape,   and topped with reflectors. These served as aids  to navigation for 7 years and were replaced 2   years ago after the last time the city dredged.  These markers were so accurate in their placement,   the last dredging crew used them to  template and redrredge the channel.   The crew of the dock builder or the owner of the  property located at 3411 West 15th Street move   removed the old markers and replaced them with his  own. These new markers were were clearly placed   in the channel. During the construction of the  dock in question, these markers were moved almost   on a daily basis to fit whatever construction  progress had been made that day. In my opinion,   for the sole purpose of cheating the system to  have a deep water boat slip without having to pay   for it. Based on my use of this working channel  over the last 38 years, this dock was built in   the channel. [Music] Along with being a fishing  guide, I have also been a uh rung guided duck hunt  

since 1994. There are many mornings and I I am an  anomaly that I have to leave that dock, my dock,   at 4:00 in the morning during winter low tides,  which are always in the morning. I have to get my   boat on a plane to avoid any shallow water once I  clear the working channel of Lake Huntington. So,   I'm gonna I don't know what number this one  is, but you can clearly see on the flat just   outside the channel on the southwest side  with this channel actually runs northeast   to southwest. On the southwest side, you can  clearly see prop scars and those came from   the wintertime because there's no boats that are  that are uh big boats can get into the channel. And then this JP2 that he had up earlier,  if they could put that back up. I'd like to   make a point with this one. You can  tell the channel is clearly marked. It's clearly marked. I mean, you see that if you  run a straight line, you're going to hit the the   uh the pilings from the dock that  was there before this dock was built.   So when I come out of the channel in the morning  because the tides are so low and sometimes we   get tides as low as 3 foot less than what a  normal tide is. This is not even a really low   tide. And I'm going and I'm taking my clients  on a duck hunt. If I don't get up on a plane,   I will hit that southwestern flat just outside  the channel because I have a 26 ft boat. But now,   if I do that, because I line up with um  I use line of sight navigation uh on some   condominiums across on the beach. If I do that  now, I'm going to hit that dock and I'm going to   kill everybody on my boat. That boat is in the  channel. Moving along. I keep using the words   working channel because in my opinion, under  the Code of Federal Regulations, Maritime Law,  

this is a working channel. Therefore, falling  under the discretion of Homeland Security and   the United States Coast Guard. Having said  that, the C CFRs clearly state that no one   can block a working channel for any reason.  The dock is clearly built in the channel and   this is an impediment to reasonable navigation.  Last, as a taxpaying citizen of Panama City,   a voter and someone who cares about my community,  this let's do it and ask for forgiveness later   attitude has got to come to an end. I'm a 100 ton  captain and you can ask me any questions you want. Thank you. Good afternoon, board. Uh Nick Trudeell. I  live at 3,400 West West 16th Street in uh the   Lake Huntington area. Um and I have been sworn  in. Thanks. Um I'm a new resident of the Lake   Huntington community. I moved in in February.  I moved there because of the water access,   right? That's that's why we bought it. That's  why we paid for the uh location that we did. Um   and then immediately after I moved in, this uh the  dock essentially started to be constructed. It was   concerning. Um it took me a little while to wrap  my brain around what the problem was being a new   uh member of the community. I am a Coast Guard  certified captain. Uh I'm also a colonel in the   US Air Force. I'm not here representing the  Air Force. Uh but my retirement is to plan   to stay here and execute my Coast Guard captain  capabilities. Right? So um this dock is a major   concern for me uh just for the fact of I've  found what I believe to be my forever place and   uh that has slightly changed as a result of this  doc. Um I'm not going to get very technical on   this. Sterling and uh some other representatives  are going to speak to uh the the real specific  

technicalities on this. I'm just going to try and  keep this uh simple the way that I see it. Uh the   word impede does not say prevent. It doesn't  say stop. It just it interferes. And does this   dock interfere with our access to that channel and  navigating that channel? It absolutely does. You   saw the picture of the dock looking through the  bridge. I believe that was JP3. Um, when you're   coming into this channel now from the bay side,  you have to navigate to your right on the screen,   which is the west side, you navigate west. Then to  navigate back to the east to line up to get under   the bridge in my boat, a 25 ft center console,  it's not a problem, especially during the summer.   In the winter, I haven't lived there, but I have  seen how low that tide gets out on the east side   in the winter time. So, that is concerning. Um,  but with my 25 foot boat, that's not a problem. Do   I want to live with a 25 ft boat forever? Probably  not. I'd like to get a 27 foot, a 30 foot. You see   where I'm going with this? The larger the boat, as  long as I can get under that bridge, I should have   access to that channel to navigate that boat  under there. Um, Joe, who's already spoken,   has a larger boat, and it is a problem for him.  The rules that we all follow aren't so that my 25   ft boat can go there. so that all of my neighbors  are represented in the protections of their use of   the channel as well. Uh my second point here, just  to kind of keep it simple, this dock is is the   boat house itself is built over seaggrass. Um I'll  just leave it at that. There's pictures Sterling   is going to show some, Bethy's going to show some  that show that this boat house is clearly not on   the side of seaggrass or near seaggrass. It is  built in seaggrass. Um, if you go to JP1 for me, the drawing there shows the dock outside of  that green area, which is the seaggrass. We  

will show and I can show you now. I  don't have the label of the picture,   but this picture right here before it had a roof  on it. There are halos and donuts in this. This   dock is built in seaggrass. So either the dock  is located in the wrong spot or that seaggrass   drawing is incorrect. Both of these things cannot  be true at the same time. And I don't know where   to go from there. So we've got a dock that's over  seaggrass that's misrepresented in this particular   picture here. Um or uh it was intentional. That's  kind of where I'm at with this. Uh I thank you so   much for your time. I don't want to get too  into specifics. I know Sterling's going to   talk quite a bit and I don't want to take up too  much of your time. If there are any questions,   I'm happy to answer. Otherwise, I'll take my  seat. Thank you. Do we have that overhead photo   somewhere where we can pull it up or Yes, sir.  It's in Sterling's presentation packet that you   uh got for you. I don't have the the  name of the exhibit photo itself. Yes. Can we see any other questions?  Can I see yours? Yes, sir. Sorry. And I got I got another question for you as well.  When when you're talking about going out in winter   time when it's low tide, are you guys getting  up on plane before you go under the bridge? Is   that your I would defer to Sterling and Joe.  They they've done this in the winter. I just   moved there after the winter time. Okay. So,  what I've been learning so far, because I have   to transit even in the summer on the western side,  because of the depth, even at low tide right now,   I come into the channel on plane, which isn't  preferable. I'd prefer to go further to the   east at a lower speed to get over the low  area before we get into the really deep water  

in the vicinity of the bridge. Gotcha. You see  that? Any more questions? Yes. Thank you. Well,   let's let Mr. Anderson go next and then then if he  wants to you you you can speak to that next. Thank   you. Thanks. Well, I'll get to drive. Appreciate  it. Uh Sterling Anderson. I live at 3304 West 16th   Street with my lovely wife who is here with me. Um  to put it bluntly, we spend our money and our time   on the water. They always say, "Hey, what are your  um what do you do in life? What do you spend the   most of? Where do you spend your time and your  money?" That's what Tanya and I like to do is   spend our time and our money on the water, right?  So, we bought there um 2017. Been a resident   since. I'm also in the Air Force or Florida  Air National Guard. Not here to represent that,   right? Um I'm here on a personal capacity. Um  and I am a JAG attorney. I am not licensed in   Florida and I have to say that out loud, right? He  knows why. There's some other people in town. So,   I'm licensed in South Carolina and DC, but um I do  practice law under the federal government purview,   but I'm not here on that capacity today. Um I've  got a 20 Yes, sir. And in spite of being a lawyer,   you still swore to tell the truth, right? And  I was sworn. Yes, sir. Sorry. And I'm here to   tell the truth. Um this overhead kind of tells  the story. You can see just from looking at it,   you know, water depths. I mean, the colors  aren't everything, but it is in the channel.   And I'm just going to flip through quickly  here. I don't know which way's front. Okay,   this is Lake Huntington. This is a backdub view.  I couldn't get any higher. Apologize. But um if   you count the structures on Lake Huntington that  have water access or have the ability to do it,   it's 46 structures. Um 44 of those to my knowledge  are residential. Two of them there's the church   is on the um St. Andrews Baptist has a parking lot  that touches the water. And then also you, us, we,  

all of us have a city um park um Lake Huntington  Clubhouse. It's been called many different things,   right? I'm not even sure what it's called,  but y'all have a clubhouse there that y'all   rent out for people to use. There's also a boat  ramp there. So, while it affects 46 structures,   it affects countless people who we see all  the time use that boat ramp daily, um nightly,   all all hours of the day. Um, those are the  prop scars that one of our previous petitioners,   I believe it was Captain Pig, was talking about.  So, you see, if you come out of that channel and   you make a right too soon, you ground. And  two bad things, one for you and your boat,   but not necessarily in the order of  importance for the seaggrass environment,   etc. So, you can clearly see where the channel is  and then some of the channel markers there. So,   I'm just going to keep keep clicking. That's  the the the scars that are zoomed in. I got a   lot to go through. This is another picture of it  very similar to the one that um that Joe showed   you earlier um but from a little bit closer view,  right? If um and and to answer your question, Mr.   Rich, we do not get on plane before we go through  the bridge on either way, right? I go through the   bridge at wake speed um you or sorry, idle speed.  Um, but there are times when the tides and the   grounds will require you to be on a plane either  through or by this dock, if that makes sense. I   think that may have been what you were getting  at, especially when coming in or going out. Um,   y'all have seen this. I don't have to talk. The  only thing I want to say to this is about half of   that water right there um to my right as I point  this way or the western edge is is non-navigable   during winter tides and especially when you have a  north wind. If there are any boers here, the north   wind um just blows the the water right out of the  out of the bay and everything and the tide can be   up to a foot in addition to the tide just because  of that north wind. Um, basically what we're here  

for is um, Nestex Strategies has not complied with  either D permits or the city permit on file. Um,   and in my opinion, you do have the, um, decision  or ability and responsibility to reverse that   decision for the resment of the stop work order.  Um, we're not here to say no that people shouldn't   have access to the water. Everyone has it. I just  told you my wife and I love it. Um, the neighbors   love it. But you can't have access and impede  on other people's access. And there are rules in   place here. They should be followed. Um, multiple  drawings are inaccurate. Somebody else has already   gone into that. And and the doc clearly impedes  navigation. We're going to go through that. So   D in their permit, they asked some questions.  They asked, "Please provide reasonable reasonable   assurance in October of 24 that the proposed  activities will not adversely impede navigation or   create a navigational hazard." I want to be very  clear. D's rule is adversely impeded navigation.   The city's rule is impeded navigation, not  adversely. Right? It's just impeded navigation.   We're going to get into the definitions of impede  here in a little bit, but and then and then also   create a navigational hazard. So, the response by  the peritty, Mr. McCoy, engineer at Shoreline and   in um I believe it's Pensacola responded, we're  going to put dock lights and we're going to put   reflective tape. So essentially they know that  there's an issue here. That's why they have to   put lights and na and um reflective tape on there.  Um this is the original drawing from the D permit   just to point out some measurements. It shows 260  ft length right and it does show the dock outside   the SAV clearly. This is another drawing. Same  permit D November of 24. You'll see the access   peers listed as 270 there. And then notably  the water depth at the end of the dock is 5 ft. Modified city permit drawing. So you file a D  permit. You get it in November. In January, a  

permit was issued by the city. After this resment  of the stop work order, the um uh affected party,   I believe we're calling EST strategies, responded  with new drawings and said, "Oh, we didn't build   it 260 or 270 ft in length for the access walkway  or the pier as I call it. We built it 246." And so   they just submitted new drawings. It's basically  the same drawing with different numbers on it.   And you will see the Lake Huntington approximate  channel which is misrepresented in our opinion in   this slide. Modified drawings this that um that  was in I believe May of 2025. The second page it   still shows 270 foot access pier. Not sure why  cuz I thought it was 246 in the previous slide,   but it does show a 3.99 foot water depth, right?  And the city code requires four feet, right? You   can only go out to four feet. So now all of a  sudden the same drawings, by the way, no pilings   came out to my knowledge. We witnessed this on a  daily basis. Same dock, new drawings got submitted   with a different length and a different depth,  but no changes to construction. This is again   the modified city permit. You'll see red lines  here that were drawn. And again, this is what the   affected party, Nestex Strategies, has given you  and the D, right? It's not what I'm providing you.   I'm giving you what they're they're drawings. I'm  just interpreting here. Those red lines show the   channel. So, if you look at that red line on the  eastern side and you see where that dock drawing   is, it's clear that they even knew that the dock  was clearly within the channel. Um, we we're also   look at the bottom. Lights were added every 10  ft to the dock plans. You know, proof that we   foresaw a problem here. Original city permit  data. The extension of the dock and the water   course shall not be any longer than necessary to  reach a minimum water depth of 4 feet or 25 ft,   whichever is greater. So that's where we get into  the 4 foot requirement. It's right there on the  

permit that was signed by the affected party. It  also says 260 ft of dock length or access pier   length or dock length. You know, they've got 260  and 270 for an access pier and then an additional   dock here. They've got 260 feet of everything.  So, I'm not really clear on what's going on here,   but I'm confused and I would expect you to be as  well. So, just some um D permit excerpts. And I   know I'm talking about the D permit a lot.  I'm going to explain that in just a minute.   Um but basically, if you change the drawings,  that's a problem. Um, you submit drawings and   any deviations from these conditions may subject  the permittee to enforcement action and possible   penalties. Construction or extension of boat  lift, moorings, terminal platforms, etc. shall   not occur over submerged grass beds. And then, um,  this is a general permit. We're going to get into   the specificities of that with Mrs. Wilmack and  what that means, but basically any deviation needs   to be changed. And to our knowledge, that has not  happened. Um there's a lot of other language about   navigational hazards re re-evaluate a permit. Uh  basically if you build it wrong they can require   you to pull it out and you don't have any recourse  against D or the state of Florida etc. Um there's   similar language in the city as well. All right.  This is the um I'm calling it Clayton SAV. That's   submerged aquatic vegetation or seaggrass. It's a  drawing that the affected party did in September   of 24 before they got their D permit, before they  got their city permit. And you see these drawings,   if you'll look at that red line from the earlier  markings where the channel is, and then you can   kind of extrapolate where the dock is right there.  So essentially, they knew exactly where the the   SAV was, and they still built on top of it. Um,  there's a marker there that's designated as pole.  

That's what we see on Noah charts, which Noah  is the official charts for navigation for the   United States. I forget what Noah stands for,  but you guys probably know better than I do. Um,   and essentially, you can see, I'm going to flip  one here. These aren't exactly accurate, but you   can see where the dock is in relation to that SAV.  It's entirely over the SAV. And then also in the   channel, this is the um the SAV study again dated  September of 24. I just would draw your attention   to the bottom right. Conducting these assessments,  following best practices can lead us toward a   sustainable future where we protect and preserve  our natural resources. It also talks about how   crucial protecting and preserving seaggrass beds  are to the ecosystem on the coast. This is what   um Nick was talking or referring to. Halos or  donuts. This is obviously during the construction   of you can see those halos or donuts. Those are  specifically forbidden by DP and Miss Wax's going   to get into that in just a minute, but you can you  can tell basically it's when you jet a pile in, it   blows that seaggrass out and that's illegal. It's  not allowed. Another picture, same result. Again,   I know I'm going fast. This is the city code. The  dock structure shall not impede navigation. Yeah,   I left out the flow of water part. But if  you read that sentence, what does it mean   with respect to us? The dock structure shall not  impede navigation. It also mentions the 4T below   me low tide there. And then also notably number  four at the bottom, the structure complies with   permitting requirements of all other governmental  agencies having jurisdiction aka D and others. So,   back to the doc structure shall not impede. Just  in case you don't know what Mariam Webster says  

about impede, interfere with or slow the progress  up. So, um, a synonym that I pulled up was hinder.   Again, I referenced the D's rule is adversely  impeded. The city's rule is just imped. And I   can't emphasize that enough. Here's a Noah chart  just real quick. It shows markers there on the   outside of Lake Huntington. I'm going to show  you that marker that Captain Pic talked about.   It is still there. It's just submerged. And  it's because at some point a boat hit it and   it's jagged. It's dangerous. We actually put a  PVC pole in it. At some point it got broken off.   If you zoomed in on there, that's actually a PVC  pipe within the original marker. And then I myself   put that gray marker there um just this past week  to kind of give a view of where this is. And so   if you look at that picture, you can clearly see  where that marker is, where the dock is, and where   the channel is down near the bridge. These are the  channel markers that were added um by the affected   party during and and throughout the construction  phase. I'm going to overlap that yellow is the   marker that I just showed you, what we alleged  the official Noah marker on the chart. And then   the two markers were marked in green. Those were  removed during construction. Those are the ones   that Captain Pic and I put out in 2017 just so  we wouldn't ground or or hit anything we weren't   supposed to when we're coming in. Um I think I'm  at the end. Yeah. So they're not in compliance   with either permit, either D or the city. I know  y'all don't have anything to do with the D, but   we can show they're not in compliance with that.  Therefore, they're not in compliance with the city   permit because of the other governmental structure  reasons. Um, we've got a couple of licensed   captains. We've got u Miss Wilmarmac who's in the  crowd. She's ready to answer your questions on  

um some specificities with regard to D compliance,  all of that. And um essentially that's that's all   I have. Just a couple of other notes if I may.  Um we talked about SAV and um what we haven't   talked about is this. the neighbors um met with  the individuals from nest egg on the bridge owner   about April and we all talked and it didn't go  anywhere and it was it was fine. I mean we tried   but one of the concerns that I have is what I was  told by that person we're going to build another   house in between the house that this is permitted  in and the bridge. So maybe there's room for it,   maybe there's not. We're not here to argue that.  But the concern is if they build another house,   guess what's going to happen next? another  dock. So my concern is be careful of precedent,   be careful what we do here, right? Because if we  allow this dock, there's going to be another dock.   There's going to be more impeding of navigation,  etc. Um, we've got Bethany Wac here. I know she   wants to say a few words to it as far as the  um illegalities of the actual permit. Miss WAC. And I'm happy to answer any questions  y'all have if y'all want to go there first. There. Not yet. No questions. Okay. Did I give you that?  Thanks. Good afternoon. I'm Bethany Wac. Um I   have been sworn in Cypress Environmental um 2357  Foxworth Drive. Um I just wanted to talk um with   regards to the uh D permit which uh requirement of  the city uh code is to be in compliance with the D  

permit. Um the petitioners do have a um a hearing  um a administrative hearing that is uh pending for   in September um on that that permit um uh on the  uh D permit. Um looking at the permit that was   issued, it was a general permit and um there are  specific requirements for a general permit and   um it appears that um based on the conditions uh  on the site and the requirements of the de of the   the specific D requirements for a general permit  um DP had had the information been presented to   them correctly um specific Specifically with  regards to the location of grass beds, um D   would not have issued uh the the general permit.  Um the general permit specifically prohibits   uh the issuance of the of a general permit um for  any mooring areas over grass beds. Um it also um   uh first of all, let's let's start with that. it  would prohibit the use of the general permit. So   they would have denied that that that application.  Um it would have then required um the applicant to   um go uh to submit a separate type of uh  application called an individual permit which   would have required them to also submit a separate  application to the US Army Corps of Engineers. um   uh in rather than obtaining a a state programmatic  general permit uh which is a federal authorization  

that they received inside of their um D general  permit. Um so de the core of engineers did not   have an opportunity to review this project. Uh so  in had had DP realized that they would were going   to be proposing mooring over grass beds, um they  would have denied the general permit application   request. They would have had to do a standard  permit. um it would have gone into a a a much more   scrutinized category of review that would have  required an individual permit from uh DP and a   separate core of engineers permit and part of that  um additional scrutiny um would be u more scrutiny   with regards to uh navigation. Um, additionally,  um, under no circumstances would those agencies   have permitted a roof over those grass beds I as  well. So that that's, uh, strictly prohibited, uh,   under their rules. So, um, so I I fully expect  when they go to the to that hearing that D will   resend this general that general permit um because  it does not it clearly does not meet their their   their rules. Um but we we it cuz it specifically  says that construction or extension um uh of and   construction in this case a boat moing location um  shall not occur over submerged grass beds. Um and   so if it does not meet that requirement then that  permit can't be issued. So that one item alone   um um disqualifies the use of that permit that  was issued. So um had the drawings that have  

been submitted to DP showed the mooring area over  grass beds, D would have denied that permit. So any questions? Is there a date on the hearing  with D? I I know you all have said September,   but is there a date in September where that's  already set? It's currently set for the 9th, 10th,   and 11th of September, but we're requesting uh  it to be moved a couple of weeks uh further back   in September. Okay. Thank you, Bethany. Do you is  can it anything be dredged in that area? I mean,   is that dreible? If the person this, you know, if  he's got to move the dock or something, is that   something that he if he chose to, you know, is  that possible? I don't know. I'm just Well, we um   I actually did the seaggrass survey for the city.  Um uh when we dredged the um we didn't dredge all   the way out that far. We dredged a portion of the  um of that channel. Yes. Could it be dredged past   where this dock? Um we we we can dredge a portion  but not it the the alignment of the channel um is   is within you know the that other you know that  that low that that um low tide drawing kind of   shows it right well um but it's inside of the the  the grass bed area there's an overhead where you   see that darker water um and and it so the only  way to dredge it be to remove seagrass. Yeah. So,   they're not going to let you Yeah, they're not  going to let you go into any of the grass bed   area for that. But, but yes, I mean, when when  you know, we could we could it we could dredge the   channel um when we do the maintenance dredging um  you know, we we could dredge further further out  

as long as we're not impacting grass beds. That  wouldn't really have any any effect on what we're,   you know, talking about right here. I don't  I don't believe, but I'm just curious. Yeah. And I will say that um the the grass-bed  survey that that we did for the city   um for the last dredge, which we did go out well  beyond uh where the the um structure is proposed,   um was uh uh fairly consistent with the  um with the property. owners um SAV survey   um that the location of where they  they showed the seaggrass survey   uh where their seaggrass survey showed the  the the grass beds at that minus min - 3 and   1 half to -4t elevation. You're talking  about the pro the property owners that   filed the appeal? No. Okay. The original  Okay. Yes. Miss Mr. Bowers, a consultant. Thank you. Can you can you talk to the foroot? The  city allows 4 ft of depth plus the boat draft. Um   that that's another part of the of the D. Um uh  a requirement of the general permit. um you're   you're required to have a uh at least 2 ft of  of clearance at at mean low water. Um, so, uh,   depending on the draft of the boat, um, uh, if you  don't have at least 2 ft of clearance, then, um,   you you that's another if you can't demonstrate  that that whatever boat you're going to be  

mooring there, if you can't have at least 2 ft  of clearance, then you also would not qualify for   this general permit. So at 5 ft you you would have  that clearance which is what also was shown on the   D permit. Um now um at the with the city permit  it now shows that at at 4T um that you may or   may not have that that uh that clearance. So I'm  not real sure. Um well for that D wouldn't have   permitted over grass beds anyway. um the general  permit um that they would be looking at that you   know in a in the um in the individual permit a lot  of those things would be scrutinized a little more   um you know what they were doing is looking at the  does it meet these items you know in the you know   is it like a check checklist is it over grass beds  okay no the drawings are showing the mooring area   is not over grass beds the the access dock can can  traverse through grass beds as long as the moing   area is not over grass beds So, no. The drawings  show it's not over grass beds. Does it meet a a   twoft clearance? Okay. Well, they're saying it's  5 ft deep. Yep. It's going to meet that, you know,   going, you know, so they're just going down and  making sure it's meeting all these these items   to avoid the um Army Corps permit, right? Well,  it didn't go to the core because it because it   because they applied for this type of permit to  That's correct. But but um had had had the actual   conditions been shown to DP, DP would would not  have issued the general permit. Then it would have   had to go to the core and then the it the core  would have been more um they would have asked all   the same questions. Yeah. and neither one of them  would permit the roof and uh they would both be  

looking more into the navigation issue. There's a  much higher level of of scrutiny in an individual   permit than there is a general permit. And the  reason is because with exemptions and general   permits or or general permits, um the legislature  basically says that they're already issued. you   just have to demonstrate that you meet that you  uh qualify for them. So it limits what D can can   look at versus individual permits. You you the  burden is on you to demonstrate that you have met   avoidance and minimization and and things like  that. Thank you. Questions? Thank you Bethany.   Just a couple of more points in closing if I  might. permitted in this, which is not yet built,   is a two-foot catwalk on the western edge of that  building, which in that picture you wouldn't be   able to see anyway, but another two-foot catwalk  on the outside of that. Mooring a boat is like   blocks the entire channel, especially in winter  tides, right? You just wouldn't be able to get   in. Maybe with a canoe. Um, one other thing,  u, Mr. Filler, Mr. Fuller's in his rescending   the stop work order, he mentioned that there's  no impediment to navigation and and I'm I'm not   trying to quote well I am trying to quote here but  I'm not sure I'm going to get it right and I'll   let him speak if I misquote. Um he says something  about there appears to be 50 foot of width of   channel like where you can go around it. Plenty of  room basically. Um, I think we've proven with, you   know, three licensed captains and Miss Wac that  there's there's not that. It's just not. I mean,   the entire channel may be 25 feet total, including  what he's taken up, especially during a winter   tide. And then, um, I'll just I'll just close  in saying that, you know, there's 46 structures   we've affected, countless people. The city spent  over $200,000 to dredge this channel uh about four  

years ago. And this is the second dredge since  I've moved in. Y'all y'all paid we paid we paid   the city. We paid in 2017 to dredge it. They paid  again. And there were some other measures that   were taken at that dredge. So hopefully we won't  have to do it again. But the city's invested a   ton into this channel. It shouldn't be blocked  by a a dock. Thank you. Any questions? Sorry. Thank you. Thank you. All  right. Next is the uh Oh,   I'm sorry. Captain Pic had something  earlier he wanted to address. You'll   do it pretty quickly because y'all you  you've gone on for about 50 minutes now. So, I was going to address the getting on a plane.  So, in the winter time, tides are sometimes as   much as 3 ft lower than a normal uh low tide in  the summer because the axis of the Earth shifts   the waters to the southern hemisphere and it  makes it easier for the tide to go out. And so,   coming out of there, if you can see that the it's  it's uh you when the tide when the water goes out,   you have to get up on a plane to clear  that grass flat on the on the south side.   And the way I with my boat and with a with a  heavy west wind blowing or a heavy northwest   wind blowing that you all know we get  these these winter uh these winter storms,   it's going to blow me into that dock and  I and I I won't be able to get out in the   winter time at 4:00 in the morning or I would  have a hard time. So, thank you. All right.   Um the affected party or the the dock owner has an  opportunity now to present um their evidence and they're ready. They can come to the  podium. Is that you, sir? Yes, sir.

Do you guys have copies of all this information  that we we had sent? Yes, sir. Yes. Okay. My   name is David Bowers. I'm the owner of Nest Egg  Strategies. Also the resident at uh 3411 West 15th   Street. I have been sworn in. Uh I'll just start  by introducing myself a little bit. Um again,   my name is David Bowers. I'm the resident  at 3411 uh West 15th Street. I'm a licensed   building contractor, licensed roofing contractor,  licensed home inspector, licensed mold remediator,   licensed mold assessor, and I've held most of  these licensed since 2005. I've completed in   excess of thousands of roofs in Bay County during  Hurricane Michael, after Hurricane Michael. I've   completed thousands of uh remodels and uh we  construct hundreds of new homes. Um I have   several companies in town that uh that that are  upstanding. I have Bowers Capital, Boston Metals,   which is a metal roll forming company. I have  a cabinet company that uh we manufacture and   uh install cabinets. Have a art construction which  we build, renovate and roof houses. Uh we have Art   Marine. Uh Ryan Bestier is my partner in Art  Marine. Uh my company actually is constructing   this uh this uh boat and dock house uh or dock  and boat house on this property. Uh we've done   hundreds of marine projects both residential and  commercial. We understand the effects and what   we're supposed to do. We understand the SEV rules.  We understand that we have to get a survey through   uh through the uh through an environmentalist.  We've done the seaggrass survey. We've done the   repairing rights survey. We've done the boundary  survey. We've submitted all this paperwork to   the D. Uh we didn't try to go out and put  something up really quick. Matter of fact,   uh Ryan was out with the with the crew and uh some  of the folks came up and and they had some issues.  

They said, "Hey, you know what's going on here?"  Well, at that point, we've got 3 years into this.   We've got a permit that is active with the city  of Panama City. We have a permit that's active   with the FD. We we've we've done what we what we  had to do to get this permit. So, we decided we   were going to take stop construction, call the  FD. FD came out to that meeting on that bridge   with tape measures, listen to the concerns of  all the neighbors inside of Lake Huntington.   The FD left there after taking measurements,  observing the seaggrass beds and told us,   "You guys are in compliance. Move on. Carry on."  We kept on building. We ended up getting a stop   work order. Mr. Fuller got involved. Mr. Fuller  sat down. Mr. Fuller looked at all their evidence,   looked at all of our evidence. He felt like  we are in compliance. We are in compliance.   some of the some of the things that you guys  are seeing, some very good angles that they're   taking photos from inside of Lake Huntington to  look out at that dock. I'm I've got some photos   that I'm going to show you guys that if you're a  Coast Guard captain and you can't get by my dock,   you have some issues. The photo that they  keep showing with all with a very low tide,   it's a hard north wind in January. And  I don't even know when that was taken,   but I live there. And it's not that I haven't seen  seaggrass on both sides right up by that bridge.   I have I mean it's definitely it definitely gets  gets low in there but that's not a getting by my   dock situation. That's a dredge issue. And that  that bridge at the where they have to go through   is 18 ft wide. I have some photos that I'll  show you that as well. But I'll continue on with   uh with going what's that? Oh, sorry. Um I'll  continue going on with you know just the the   whole process of the uh the boat dock. The boat  do in question was permitted through the FDA   uh city of Panama City. There's a boundary uh  survey. There's a seaggrass survey. There's a  

repairing rights survey. All that is required. We  invited the FDP to that neighborhood meeting. Uh   they again they pulled physical measurements of  the property. They walked up and down with with   a tape measure. They had a 300t tape out there.  They measured from our seaw wall. The reason we   ended up there was some talk about us shortening  the dock. The reason we shortened the dock was to   help them. The the there's still plenty of channel  width out there, but we went all the way to where   the dredge went. The dredge permit that Bethany  approved to two was to 250 ft. That's how far   the dredge was supposed to go. All of that dredge  sand got put on my property. I let them dump it on   my property. I could have used the fill behind my  seaw wall. I let them I know exactly what happened   to that dredge project. That dredge went 497 ft.  That's how far that dredge went. Where the edge   of my boat house is, there's no seaggrass. Do you  think that I would put a boat house over seagrass,   there's a seaggrass bed about a foot out from  that roof line. And the rest of when you see   these colors, when you see the white sand  piling up, when they're calling, you know,   heirlooms or whatever they're calling circles,  if you put a pipe in the ground with water,   it it pumps white sand to the surface. The white  sand is sitting on top of mud and silt. It's   not seaggrass. It's it's mud and silt. This is  not a This is not a what they're talking about   destroying seaggrass. It's not there. I don't  think they have a current seaggrass survey that   would prove that there's seaggrass there. We have  a current se a seaggrass survey that says it's not   there at the FDAP. We have a we have our own uh  we have our own people that do what Bethany does.   There is no seaggrass there. After the stop work  order uh from Mr. floor. Like I said, we we sat   down in uh in and met and he he said we're in  compliance and we continued on the project as   it sits right now. The only thing that's really  lacking is power and water to complete that that  

job. There's over $100,000 and three years spent  to put that boat house and boat dock out there. I don't have our pages numbered the way that uh  they did. Uh where's the gentleman with the uh   back? Just just speak to the microphone. I can  do it for you. And there's a picture that shows   the boat house in black facing the bridge.  Look at this. Yeah, that one. There we go.   All right. So when they're showing the dredge  permit and you're showing where our PVC lines   are and actually where that where he has his  gray pipe is right in the front of that yellow   line. There's 78 ft of water that's deeper than 4  foot and that's that mean tide mean tide or mean   low tide in the center. It's 9 foot deep right  there. You're underwater. We're going by my dock   at the front there. 78 ft. You go a little bit  further back to the corner where the where our   current markers are. It's 67 feet. Again, 8 and  9 ft deep across that channel. On the outside,   you're looking at about 3 and 1/2  to 4t of depth. Even at low tide,   you go all the way through. Let's look all the way  down to the to the bridge there. It's 18 ft. That   little hole that they have to go through to get  into Lake Huntington. Is my boat house the issue   here? Or is it they have 18t and two concrete  piles on the side of that bridge to go through? The next photo is going to show the the  distance. There we go. The next photo,   it shows that my my boat house is 300T from  that bridge. The dredge permit was for 250   foot. The last dredge permit pulled. If you  go 250 foot out, even in that dredge permit,  

this water is considered an open water there.  This is not a marked channel. It's not marked by   the Coast Guard. It's not marked by FWC. It's not  marked by anybody. If a 5-year-old goes out and   puts a piece of PVC out there, it's not a marked  channel. If Joe goes out and puts a piece of PVC,   it's not considered a marked channel. If I go  out and put a piece of PVC out there, it's not   considered a marked channel. This is open water.  Let's just say that it was a marked channel. Per   code, I get 25% of that channel. If I would  like that, if it doesn't impede the waterway,   I can get up to 25%. Right now, we are 16%  inside of that channel. We are 16%. There's   still 80 feet for them to go by my dock, in  front of my dock. 80 feet. If you're a Coast   Guard captain or recreational boater, you should  have a not too much of a time to go through   there. If you can get through an 18 ft hole  underneath that bridge, 80 ft is not an issue. Going to the next photo, we'll show like even some  more uh width here. There's two boats in the next   picture. They'll be side by side. Next picture.  He's say he doesn't have any more pictures. He   doesn't have any more pictures. They're They're  in our packet though. They're in the packet. You   guys can see them. So, there's two boats there.  This is coming out of Lake Huntington. The boat   on the left is a 32 ft boat. There's 15 ft plus  between me and the boat on the right. I'm in the   boat on the left. My buddy's in the boat on  the right. His boat is 11t beam. Yeah, we got you have another copy for  them to or here. Mr. Anderson,  

you can have the I'm going to give them my packet. They've got my packet, Mr. Bowers. Excellent. The boat itself, uh, on the right hand  side is there's at least 25 ft out to   that marker. That's your se that's your about  70 foot. That's two boats going out by that   boat house. And technically, if they were tied  together, there's room for five boats. It's not   my b my boat house that's the issue for them to  get in and out. It's the 18 ft bridge that they   got to go through. There's a hole there.  And it it didn't matter if my boat house   was there or not for them to get in and out of  there. It's also it's a no no wake zone and with   when you're within 250 foot of every bridge. When  they're talking about living in Lake Huntington,   it's a Coast Guard law, a Coastg Guard rule.  You have within 250 foot of every bridge,   it's in considered a no wake zone. Why are we  on plane going by the neighbor's docks, my dock,   and going through an 18t bridge? Why are we  on plane there? That does not seem safe at   all. There's people There's kids jumping off that  bridge all the time. There's kids playing in that   bridge all the time and we're going through there  on plane. Doesn't seem like a very good idea. Uh   the next photo, uh he said he doesn't have any  more photos. The next photo they talked about,   uh the dock uh the boat house and the dock being  lit. Every dock and boat house in Florida has to   have lights on it. That's just part of the permit.  We have we have lights on the per we have lights   on the end of our boat house. That's that's not  something that, you know, we're trying to just   do or he had he had mentioned that Clay said we  had to have lights on the boat house. So that's   how we were going to be, you know, uh, complying  with with this. Every boat house has to have it.

There's a couple video links that I sent as well  that'll show um but actually before you go to the   first video link, we've talked a lot about the  scarring on that and that is you know probably   some seagrass over there for sure where that  scarring is probably 80 to 90% of the time there   are boats running around over there with their  outboards all the way down not touching anything.   Those scars are from a winter tide, a very low  tide. You're going to see in the videos of of my   boat actually going over there outboard all the  way down driving, nothing kicking up. I mean,   it's it's uh these are good pictures and there's  definitely scars there, but it's not a it's not a   realistic thing that, you know, 90% of the  time all these boats can go wherever they   want. Technically 90% of the time you will  have 600 ft to get by my by my boat house. Um let's go to the next video or the next  uh slide. It should be a video. There'll   be a a link. Uh this will be just two boats uh  that were in that picture going side by side. It's a little bit long. And they're going a little  bit slow, but I mean, if two boats can get by,   you'll see the space between them. I I don't  see how one boat cannot get by this boat house.   Uh if you look to the left, those X bracing on  that on that dock, they're almost all the way   underwater at high tide. So, we're actually  at low tide going through here right now. [Applause]

It certainly seems like one boat can get by there. This is This is a summer low tide right here. Difference between summer low tide and  a winter low tide is a foot and a half   in Panama City. You get a north wind, it  does blow the lake out of the water out   of Lake Huntington, but that has not  nothing to do with St. Andrew's Bay. outboards all the way down. Dead  low tide. Two boats side by side   with two boats that can go right on through them. Uh let's go to the next should be maybe one  more video clip. This is me coming in. Uh   this is a little bit higher tide. So you can  see how the expiration on the dock it's much   higher. So this is a higher tide. I'm going to  actually drive and do a circle and I'm going to   be on the east or the west side of those piles  or of those uh white markers right there. And   we'll talk about the props and you'll see no mud  kicking up, no nothing. On a on a normal tide,   you can be for 600 feet past my  dock and still navigate just fine. On a low tide, you probably will have to use  the channel, but a lot of the area even west  

of those markers, you can certainly  still get by during a very low tide. It's a 35 34 foot boat turning around  in the channel. Going to go outside. Almost a full boat length  outside. No mud kicking up,   no sand kicking up. Outboards all the way down. and I'll just going to turn around. And  I'll come back and throw a different   section of it. And then I'm going to  turn around completely in the channel.

[Music] It's a 35 ft boat turning around in the channel.   We can get one by here. We  can get one through there. We can go to the next photo. Should be some more photos after that video.   They're going to be actually be like Bay County  property appraisal listings. Yeah, they're in the   packet. Um, so in the packet, it's just going to  be some examples of around Bay County. These are   jobs that we've actually done work around recently  as doing marine contracting. And just notice,   you know, some of the narrower areas. I'm  sure there's a lot more narrow areas. Uh,   in the first one, you got about a 70 ft boat and  he's got a boat between him and the other boat.   that 70ft boat is able to is able to navigate  that channel. He's got 45 feet between him and   that boat. We have 70 to 80 ft to go by my dock.  There's no 80ft boats in Lake Huntington cuz they   won't fit under the bridge. Um, and the next page  just shows the address of where that uh property   is. Uh, the very next one uh did work over here as  well. There's like 47.4t between these two boats. addresses are listed there in the in the  packet. Next one. I think that boat was Yeah,  

was 55 foot. It looks like there's that they  have 57 foot that that guy is able to navigate   nearly a 60ft vessel. I don't He's probably not a  Coast Guard captain, but he's able to get that 57   foot boat in there somehow. Next one. 48 foot.  Another 62 foot vessel navigating miraculously. On top of that, everybody in here,  and you know, for the most part,   they didn't really say too much about the, you  know, the summer tide having issues getting by.   I've watched every one of them except for Joe go  by on plane. Right by my dock, right out through   the bridge. Fourth of July weekend, they were all  out there. I was sitting on the end of my dock.   I watched all of them go by there. They  have no issues navigating around there. Not when they went out or when  they came in. Both two different   tides on the fourth. They were also out  there this weekend. All of them were. I'm asking five five planning board members  to agree with Panama City uh code enforcement   FWC. I have 33 Coast Guard captains and frequent  voters that have signed affidavits. There's all   the affidavits are uh in those packets that he has  scanned in that I sent in as well. We have three   Coast Guard captains out of 46 people that live  in there. I have 10 Coast Guard captains that I   had to collect within 40 probably 48 hours of of  this of knowing what we what we we had to do. Um,   I could probably get another hundred Coastg  Guard cabins assigned that you can get by my   dock and drive under that bridge. This is not  an issue to get by that that boat house. It   was done with permits, with surveys, and it was  done properly. We are not built over seaggrass.   That dock is an access pier. It's allowed  to be over seaggrass. The terminal platform,  

it's not allowed to be over seaggrass, and  it's not over seaggrass. I would appreciate   if you guys could see some common sense here  and vote in my favor. Thank you. Any questions   for Mr. Bowers? Yes. I just ask if they have  any questions. Everything's good. All right,   then. U Thank you, sir. You don't have anything  else? No. Okay. All right. U next is staff's   um opportunity to speak. I know that Mike did  a um an introduction in the beginning of it,   but this is his time to actually put on uh  Michael Fuller rather. um any time to put on   um his evidence or to state his case regarding the  matters that are before you. So, Mr. Fuller. Sure.   I'll um go back to my reasoning uh in the email  I sent to the um interested parties. [Applause] back on May 22nd, uh, notifying them that I was  going to resend the the stop work order. Um, Mr. Filler, just for the board members here, there  is a the package that you set in front of you. Mr.   has a portion of it that says notice of rescending   stop work order like that's where you're  talking about you're going to Yes. Right. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. They should have Everybody  should have copies of it. Yeah. Where I state   specifically the stop work order was issued on  May 15th because of concerns. one that the dock   may impede navigation and two the dock may not  be constructed in conformance with the approved  

plans. Since that time we've determined that  the dock will not impede navigation. That is my   opinion. Um the dock appears to be located outside  the dredged channel authorized by DP in their   permits. Uh there were two permits that D issued,  one in 2017 and one in 2020. this area is beyond   that area that that which was dredged. Um I also  go on to state that there appears to be sufficient   space over 50 ft um to navigate or maneuver past  the dock and into the dredge channel. Secondly,   the applicant has updated the plans and  specifications delineating the correct footprint   of the dock. dot appears to extend 246 feet into  the water body and not the 260 ft as shown in the   original plans. All other all aspects of the dock  appear to comply with section 110-4G of Unified   Land Development Code. Um and based on that, uh  I did not think we were justified in leaving that   stop work order in place and therefore rescended  it. and I'm happy to answer any questions you   might have. So, I'm not an attorney like several  folks in here. I know we have specific rules that   we have to follow on accepting evidence based on  the criteria that we've been given here. What I   guess is the is the specific code is it not to  impede navigation and to have all permits by   other agencies? Is that the two grounding elements  we're trying to make a decision? That's that's  

correct. Specifically, section 110-4G states the  dock structural shall not impede the flow of water   nor navigation. So that's one criteria we need  to decide. And then the second would be doesn't   say anything about channels. It just says shall  not impede navigation. Then the other requirement   is the structure complies with the permitting  requirements of all other governmental agencies   having jurisdiction over the project. And is it  correct to say there was a D permit issued? They   have a D permit. Correct. Currently there is.  Right. Currently there is and and that permit   is currently an appeals process but is not yet  decided. They that is correct. Okay. Michael, did   the city reinspect the dock after the stop work  order? Um, after the stopwork order, uh, do not   believe we've done another inspection since then.  Has anybody done an asbuilt survey on the dock to   see if it is in compliance with the drawings?  Not that it's been submitted to us. Okay. And then what what is the process that we go  through? right now. So, we'll hear evidence, make   a ruling. Do does that ruling go somewhere else as  a recommendation or is this it'll be finally here,   but you're not you're not quite finished yet?  Because as I told you at the beginning, yes,   sir. The the the the petitioners have an  opportunity to uh rebut what has been put   on now by Mr. Bowers and staff. Okay. And so,  when we get to there, then I will I'll give you   a little explanation about what your next steps  would be. I'm kind of ask Michael if uh if this   goes through and they appeal and the appeal is  uh upheld what's the city position? So if if they  

prevail with their appeal to D and D um rescends  or or um nullifies the permit that issued then   he would no longer be in compliance with our  rules. But as now that hasn't happened. I can   throw into a different detail. Is it did I hear  correctly and maybe uh this may be a question for   the owner. Is there plans for additional dock and  catwalk coming on the exterior of that as well? I don't know where that came from, but  in the construction plans there is no   catwalk on the west side. There is no uh  there is no plans or development order   for another house. There is no plans or  development order for another dock closer   to the bridge. There's none of that. I just  wanted to that question answered as well. So in practice, Michael, the city checks these  boxes, make sure that the D permit is really   the what kind of governs do building. Is that  fair to say? A lot. Yes. Okay. They rob Yeah.   You've got some basic things that that were in the  drawings correct for the city code, but Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Fuller? Good. All right.  Uh, the petitioners, you you have an opportunity   for your rebuttal. Ask Mr. Fuller questions.  Everybody gets to ask anybody questions. Yes,   sir. Mr. Fuller, if you'll  go to the microphone. So,   we we got to get all this on the record.  I think I'll know. Um, Mr. Fuller,   if the dock permit for D says that the access  pier has to be is 260 or 270 ft in length,  

yet the city permit shows 236 and he's admitted  that they shortened it to 236. Is he not in   compliance with the D permit? That would be for D  to determine. And if that were the case, would he   not then be in compliance with the city permit?  If they determined he was out of compliance and   they revoked his permit, then yes, he would  be out of compliance with our rules. Okay, one more. I had one more question.  Sorry, I got some notes here.   Have any has anyone from city staff done  any type of investigation with respect to   the channel or the depth or clearance  um during low tide winter situations. So, um the only um u investigation or inspection  that the city has done is uh some members of our   code compliance team um went to uh visited the  site or or the area on the police boat that has a   depth finder um and use that to to establish that  basically what's reflected on the plan is for the   most part accurate. When was that? Um, gosh, I  mean May, June. Uh, May. May. Yeah. It would have   been before the So, it would have been around when  the stop order was initially issued. So, nobody's   done it in November, December, January, February  time frame. No. Okay. You have questions for Mike?   Questions for Mr. Fer? Yes. the day that this all  started. Just one second. Who started it? Captain  

James Pic is asking questions now. Thank you. Who  got it going on the day you re rescended their uh   um actually it was me, right? Well, you were one,  but Mr. Popsel had approached the city. But I   walked in with photographs and what did you tell  me based on those photographs that you looked at?   Based on the photographs that you provided,  it looked like there could be a obstruction   to navigation. You clearly stated to me that  that dock was in the channel. It was built   in the channel and we need to stop it. There was  two other people standing there when you told me   that. Okay. Okay. So, what what changed between  that day and today? We don't have a rule that   says it can't change. So, what I would say to  you gentlemen, I mean, there's Stevie Wonder's   not up here. Y'all see the pictures? Captain  Pick, you're gonna have an opportunity in just   a moment. You're actually in Mr. Fuller's time  right now. So, you're gonna get to the rebutt   and make your closing in a moment. Well, the  other the other thing. Okay. So, Mr. Fuller,   when you when you went out and inspected the dock,  did you check for crass beds? Um, I did not. Okay.   Did you check depths? Hold on. Hold on. Our code  compliance team did not because that's not a city   requirement. Okay. Did you check depths? Because  part of the process is a depth. Yes, they they   check depths. You got in the water and and check  depths. Now, as I just explained to Mr. Anderson,   they check depths on the police boat that  they used to drive through the the air. Okay, that's all. Thank you. [Applause] No questions for  Mr. Fuller. Yeah, I'm not looking at you, Mr. B,   if you want to. Well, well, actually, let's let  Mr. POS, you're good. Any questions of Mr. Fuller?   No, I would like to speak, but I don't have any  questions from Okay. Thank you. Now, Mr. Bowers,   did you have any questions for Mr. Fuller after  those questions? Okay. Thank you. All right,  

then. If we don't have any more questions  for Mr. Fuller, Mr. Fuller, are you done   with your presentation? I am done. Okay. Uh, the  petitioners now have an opportunity for rebuttal. Okay. And and as I told you in your in the email,   this is not a time to print on new  evidence. This is a time to rebut   what has been presented by the other parties.  I have notes. Thank Thank you, Mr. Burke. Um, I've been a sailor for almost my whole life. I I  watched people die when I worked in the oil field.   I've crossed the equator when I was 23 years  old in a boat. So, I know water and I don't   I don't care how many captains this gentleman  has to re say what he what he wants him to say.   I run that channel every day. I've run that  channel every day for 40 years almost. And   um it's never been 9 ft deep. There's  never been 9T of water in there. Never.   Uh the the the first the first photo that  he showed um the dock was built the his his   uh can we put that up? I mean his first  photo I don't know what the number was the very first one. That right there. Okay. That's  not accurate because he's got the entire channel   move shifted to the southwest. You can see on the  on the west side the grass flats inside his mark   channel. Okay, the that's that's at least six  or eight feet on this on the far green on the   furthest south green marker, which would be the  west side. He's at least 15 ft into the grass bed. His markers come south, then they go  southwest, then they go south again,   then they go southwest again. And that's  how he's marked the channel. He's moved   the markers around to make them fit his narrative.

And and I trust me the uh the channel has  never been 80 foot wide. When he was when   he showed the second photograph of the single  boat going in, you could see him kicking up   mud coming out when he turned his boat. I  could see the mud coming up. I know what   mud looks like when it comes out of a motor. I  sit behind Shell Island all the time and watch   the pontoon boats kick it up for years and  years and years. He has no visible lights   on his dock exiting Lake Huntington. That's  where the hazard to navigation is at night.   If you if if we want to go out at night, we  have we have no visible lights on his dock. I've seen no visible lights on his  dock coming out of the channel. As far as um the comment about on a plane coming out, you can't see those coming out. Okay? You  can't see them. Or they're off at 4:00 in   the morning. You can't see them. I leave my  dock at 5:00 in the morning every morning   and I have to avoid this dock to go get my to  pick up my my customers at St. Andrews Marina.   the you cannot see these lights. I don't care what  that picture says. You cannot see these lights   coming out. I invite any one of you to come  on my boat and see this for yourself any day.   The last thing I'm going to say is that as far as  getting on a plane coming out of the coming out of   uh uh Lake Huntington, the Coast Guard rules  and the Code of Federal Regulations say that you   operate a boat at a safe speed. Okay. So, he's  put himself in a position. He's put his docks,   his boats into position that if somebody  comes out in the wintertime at a safe speed,  

then getting up on a plane to avoid running a  ground on a on a uh shallow flat just outside   the the traditional channel that we have  there. That is operating a vessel at a   safe speed and that's what the law says. So  I I actually do have one more comment. Um, no. Thank you. So, um, a couple of things. Uh, Mr. Fuller is  exactly right. Uh according to the drawings   that my understanding were used and that were  submitted to the the city and the DP uh it does   appear as if the dock is outside the channel. It  certainly it does appear that and I and I think   that we we talked about that. Uh according to the  drawing which is incorrect it does appear as if   the dock is outside the channel. So I understand  why according to the drawing the permits were   issued in the first place. Mr. Fuller provided an  excellent presentation of boats coming inside or   coming toward the bridge during a relatively high  tide. It may have been a low summer tide, but if   you know anything about tides, there's there just  there's low there's a low tide on any given day   is different than a low tide on the next day. The  tides vary. That's the reason they use a mean low   tide as the benchmark for how how deep shall we  dredge a channel there are in the summertime most   of the time even at a relatively low summer  tide I could take my house boat and do donuts   just like Mr. Fuller did with his boat. My house  boat draws about this much water. Mr. Pospacil,  

you keep saying Mr. Fuller. I think you mean Mr.  Bowers. I meant Mr. Bowers. I'm terribly sorry.   Just for the purpose of that purpose, right?  Mr. Bowers had, you know, did a a great job   of showing his boat doing a donut in the channel.  I could do that, too. I could do it with my house   boat when the wind is not blowing. And on any  given average summer tide, I can do that. But   we're talking about certain tides and certain  conditions that would limit me and other people   getting out. And that's the whole crux of this. I  could spend all day showing you going in and out   of that channel with my housebo on any given tide  with with the wind low. No problem. Meet me in   December and come ride with me on my housebo and  I'll demonstrate why that dock is an impediment   or can be an impediment on certain tides and  certain wind conditions. That's all I got. if we could go to my my um PowerPoint, please. Yeah, I'm gonna go to the end. Okay, Mr. um Nest Egg Strategies stated that  he's got over 100 grand in this dock. Only the   city permit says cost of construction is 465.  So, I'll just show that the development order.   This doesn't surprise me because we have multiple  different drawings, multiple different everything,   right? Um, if you look through the packet that  he submitted, um, this this drawing here again,   what Joe was getting at, perfect tide, perfect  day, perfect location, summer tides are only   about a foot, maybe less. We're talking about  winter tides and we're talking about, you know,   real impediments during those times. Uh,  the other things I want to point out,  

um, I've looked through, I didn't have time  to look through all of them, the 50 or so or   however many Coast Guard captains he's got.  I'm reading these affidavit and they say does   not constitute an obstruction to navigation.  Um, does not impede such travel under normal   operating conditions. Right? So, we're not we're  not always under normal operating conditions. Um,   and then the other affidavit that he has, hang on  one second, does not pose any navigable hazard,   any obstruction or navigational hazard. That's  not the standard we're here to decide that   you're here to decide. It's does it impede  navigation, which is hindered navigation. Uh, he admitted he's 16% in the channel. I don't  know if y'all heard that, but I heard it. He said,   "We are 16% in the channel." If he's in the  channel, he's impeding navigation by definition,   especially a 25 ft wide channel. I know there's a  discrepancy. He thinks the channel is 80 ft wide,   even though he pointed out that  the bridge is 18 ft wide. 18 ft. The permits were obtained in uh DP permit was  issued in November of 2024. City permit was   issued in 7 January 2025. He didn't start  construction then. I would submit to you   probably because the tides are really low and he  knew the problems that were associated with that. And then he talked about it's not a Coast Guard  channel. Um, I mean, I hate to get back into it,   but I think I showed you a Noah chart right there.  Markers. I don't know if y'all see abbreviations   marker. I kind of glossed over it. It It is a  mark channel. No question about it. It's a mark  

channel. Uh, we obviously disagree with his  comments that there's no seaggrass there. I   think it's evident in the pictures and in the SAV  study. Um, with respect to Captain Pig's comments, we don't blow through the bridge on plane.  I kind of took personal that personal,   right? I'm not blowing through the bridge on  plane. He said his dock's 300 ft and we have   to be 250 ft not on plane. So, we can come by  his dock and still be within the legal Coast   Guard rules. Um, we have to be on plane under  certain conditions. Again, not always normal,   not always perfect in order to navigate. Um,  there is one other point I want to make and um,   I'm going to need Miss Wack to comment on this,  but all of the pictures he showed you in this   back packet show um, canals, right? All of the  70oot boat navigation, etc. These are all canals   from what I can tell. They're not channels. And  there's a difference. Um, and he talks about   he's allowed to build 25% into the channel. I I  disagree. Maybe in a canal you can do that. My   understanding is you cannot do that in a channel.  And I would ask Miss Wac to speak to that. All right. Um, don't need to say much. You're  still right. You still got to tell the truth.   Yeah. Yes. Um, so the uh D has a rule um that uh  allows uh docks to extend um as long as you're   not in an aquatic preserve uh 25% of the width of  a water body. Um so uh in the the pictures that  

um were just shown to you in a canal um which a  canal is not a channel. A canal is an upland cut   or an artificial uh water body. Um that that water  body uh 20 you can extend 25% of that width the   width of that water body um for a structure.  um then the opposite uh property owner can   extend 25% and that leaves the middle 50% open for  navigation. Um if you are in a an open water body   um the like uh Grand Lagoon um Grand Lagoon you  you would be allowed to extend 25% of the width   of the water body. the other person would be  allowed to extend up up to 25% of the width of   the water body. Um but but you can't encroach  into the to the channel. So um if you have uh   if if the channel the marked channel or a thread  of navigation um if that that common line of of   navigation is um is within that 25% you can't  impede in that navigation either. So, uh it uh   if you the you that that would be excluded from  your from your 25%. So, uh in a in a in a channel,   you're not you're not afforded a 25% of a channel  the way you are in a canal or an open water body.   So if so in the actual channel  in a in a in a in a channel  

um that area would not be  considered subject to a 25%. That make sense? Does D make the determination  of what kind of water body it is as part of   their process during the application? Yes,  they they they they will and and when they   um review this application and under a more  um uh strict um uh application process,   which I believe that that's what they will it will  come to. Um that is one of the the the things that   they would look at is they're they're going to  want to see where the edge of the channel is.   um versus it won't come to 25 the 25% rule.  It'll be the the edge of the channel. Was that   not determined during the original DE? Well, if  you look at the project drawings, it should have   been um but if you look at the project drawings,  it's not shown. Okay, which is another contention   of if you look at the D permit drawings,  it it shows the mooring areas not in grass   beds and it also show does not show the the the  channel. Okay. And it also doesn't show the the   the the contours because that would have probably  given given it away of where where that's at. So that's speculation, but that that's  what I would Thank you. In closing,   we just ask you to look at the rule again. Doc  structure shall not impede navigation. He's   admitted he's in the channel and we'd ask that  you resend the permit. Thank you. Any questions? Thank you. Thanks. All right. There being no other evidence to  be presented to you board, then here's here's  

where you sit. You've got no other questions  for any of the parties involved. Any of you?   You're you're good. Okay. So, you you start from  the proposition that uh Mr. Fuller has made a   decision, a determination that the stop work order  should have been lifted. Uh the petitioners have   appealed that decision and so it is their burden  to to determine today or to prove to you today   that uh Mr. Fuller's decision was incorrect. So  that's where you are at this st at this stage   of the game and you've heard um evidence from uh  the the affected party in this instance who is Mr.   uh Powers um regarding his position on that. So  now you sit in the position essentially as Mr.   Fuller did at the time he made the decision  understanding that his that the appeal is of   his decision and you have the the ability to  um agree with that. You have the ability to   disagree with that. You have the ability to  modify that decision. So you are essentially   Mr. Fuller at this stage of the game. Are you  envious now? Totally. It it is my feeling that   until D makes their determination in September  that we would be preemptively making a decision   that we don't have all the information on and we  don't have their jurisdictions decision. Um so it   is my opinion that we should defer that decision  until the D makes that final determination. That's   my feeling on it. I I do think you all have  some very compelling evidence. Unfortunately,   we can't make the rulings on seaggrass channel  markings. The evidence that I saw today, I   didn't see a winter low tide with navigation being  impeded, which is difficult for me then to make a   ruling that navigation's been impeded only because  there simply wasn't that evidence presented. But I  

I do agree the compelling argument seems that D's  information would be much more applicable versus   our ruling and to be able to have an asbill survey  to where we can verify that what was was planned   was actually built to that same degree because  there's a lot of back and forth about where it   was built versus where it says it was supposed  to be built and I feel like that's a feasible   way to move forward. Let me let me make one one  point to you right now about the FD permit. Um it   is a condition of Michael issuing the permit that  that FD has had that approval. So he went through   that and and the evidence that you've had so far  has been that there is a D permit. Now there's an   appeal of that permit just like what you're going  through right now. So as the evidence sits before   you that permit has been issued and that was one  of the criteria that Mr. Fuller had to determine   when he was going through that. Okay. Um so  secondly, you're not here to make a determination   about FT's um any of that any of that stuff. You  are limited to the criteria that said within the   the land development code. And then you also  heard evidence too um from Mr. Fuller that   and this happens anytime you build something in  the city of Panama City dock or anything else.   um you come in and you make application and you  uh proceed and you build something and you build   something that was in violation of a permit that  was issued. You have built that at your own risk   and you can be required by the city to remove  that structure if it offends the code. So the same   would be in this instance. Mr. Bowers has gone  and constructed his dock. He has done it under a   D permit. That permit has been challenged. You've  heard why the why the petitioners think it'll be   overturned, but and it's relevant to you in the  fact that it was issued. It's not relevant to you  

in the fact that it is under appeal at this point  in time because as Mr. fuller testified to you. If   um the petitioners are correct and they seem  pretty confident in their position that the   the D permit is um has been exceeded or violated,  then it goes away and Mr. Fuller is back to a stop   work or a code enforcement action that won't that  you might be glad to hear won't come before you,   but um it is a possibility that to be removed.  So to the extent that you are considering the   FD criteria, I would caution you to consider it  to the extent that the permit has been issued   at this stage of the game and your decision is  based on whether or not Mr. Fuller was accurate   or correct in his decision to rescend that stop  work order. Okay, I said a whole lot right there.   So if you got any questions, you got any questions  of me after after having said that, please please   feel free to ask. Okay. The motions. What is the  language of a motion if someone were to make one   that we are either approving or denying Michael  Fuller's reset? Yes. If you are, like I said,   you have you have three options here, but it would  be either a motion to um to affirm his decision,   a motion to uh deny his decision or rescend his  decision, or a motion to I guess I guess you   could have a motion to affirm his decision with  um further criteria that you you may add to it,   but it's got to be within the bounds of the of the  land development code in order to make that make   those that that addition additional um act like  Mr. Fuller and tell them they can build it only   to 230 ft or something to that effect. And if it's  not built to the criteria that the drawings were  

and D does a denial on their part, then it's going  to be a completely different situation outside   of the appeal. That's right. It goes to the code  enforcement. The special magistrate is what we use   in Panama City, but it would be uh just the same  as I used the example if they if they said they   were permitting a 3,000 foot home and they built  a 10,000 ft home and that didn't fit within the   criteria of what we allow on on that particular  lot, that wouldn't come before this before this   board. That would go to the code enforcement  special magistrate because they violated the   permit. Okay. Well, my concern is that he has an  admission that he built it outside of the scope   because he wasn't supposed to build in the channel  and he admitted that he built in the channel. So,   I'm just wondering about that part of it. Yeah,  that's that's my concern when he's going to admit   that he build it illegally really when he  build it at the CH and he's admitted that.   So I I have that. No, sir. The the the evidence  is closed and so um that's my thing. I don't   think there's a clear definition of the what's  the channel in this case, which makes this very   I think Mr. Fuller's position is that he wasn't  in the channel. That's why Mr. Fuller issued the   the permit the way that it is. He said the channel  ended further closer towards the bridge. And then   the petitioners have said to you, well, they  disagree that that's where the channel is. cuz   they think the channel extends beyond his dock.  So, Mr. Fuller, I'm agreeing with what he said.   I don't think that's what Mr. Fuller said. I think  he said he wasn't in the address. Mr. Power said   if it works. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay.  Mr. Bard talked about the 25% rule that Bethany   spoke to to elaborate 16. That'll be that'll  be a determination the D will make at their  

final hearing. Yeah. But as far as his decision  at the time where he made a decision, I I can't   disagree with the decision that he made because  that's the evidence he had at that time. Now,   if D comes in September and they say something  different, that's no bearing Michael's decision.   Yeah. You know, exactly. And so, the petitioners  have said to you that Mr. Filler didn't have all   of the the proper evidence before him. And  so, they've presented that today to say this   is what it should have been. Mr. Filler has  said, "Well, I've considered all of that and   and here we are." So, that's where your your  rub was that you were just describing. Yep. Do I have a motion? Wow. So, it's either  a motion to affirm, a motion to deny.   Uh only based on the limited scope that we  have and based on the information we had today,   I'm voting to affirm Michael Fuller's  decision and leave it to D unfortunately   for you all to pursue. So it's a motion to  affirm Mr. uphold Mr. Fuller's decision. Do I have a second? Is there a second? Well, next to the vice second. We have a motion  now and second to affirm. Motion to affirm Mr.   Mr. Fuller's decision is is on the table. So,  if you'll call the role board member Carol,   yes. Board member Stamps, yes. Board  member Barker, yes. Board member Rich,   yes. Chairman Dubower, yes. Motion passes  5-0. Okay. All right. So the decision of the   board was to affirm Mr. Fuller's decision to  release or to uh resend the stock work order   and um I will prepare a written order for the  chairman to sign that is affirms that and when  

that order is signed by the chairman you will  then have 30 day you'll have 30 days to appeal   the decision. I will let you know it may be less  than that and that appeal is to the circuit court. All right, this brings us to the audience  participation portion of our agenda. Seeing none, [Applause]