Planning & Zoning - Regular Meeting

Mr. Brady?

Here.

Mrs. Salo?

Here.

Mr. O'Hara? Here. Mr. Spirk?

Here. Mr. Hilton?

Here.

Good evening, Maria McGinnis, 1250 Northeast 101st Street. First of all, I want to thank the Village for posting the Our District draft regulations and the notice and setting the calendar date of December 8th at 6 p.m. for the Our District regulations, so that's great. It's available online for anybody who's interested, so I want to thank whoever's involved in that happening for it to get done in advance of the meeting.

especially with upcoming holidays and everything.

I have item-specific comments that I'm going to say for the item-specific on the agenda, but I want to talk generally about delays and procedures. And one of the things in particular that I want to bring up is the fact that some of these draft ordinances have taken over a year to be presented. Some of them have been presented previously and somehow they've fallen through the cracks. So I think it's a good idea to have some mechanism on this board and the council when something is raised and it's unfinished, that it somehow accounted for in either an old business section of an agenda or designating somebody, whether it's a planning and zoning director or the village attorney, to keep you apprised of the status. Because things like the public notice issue, the ordinance that was passed this year was first brought up sometime in like early 2024 and was presented to this board in March of 2024 and then was presented again on the agenda for April, but was pulled and then just didn't resurface until almost a year later and was passed literally a year later. And that seems to be a pattern. So I think if there's a mechanism that can be put in place and I also I'll remind the chair that there were years that you had asked for a far analysis and things like that. as you were serving on this board, and for whatever reason, it never got teed up until you pressed and asked for a presentation, and then there was a presentation, and then eventually it came into those amendments that were passed last year. So I think that these sorts of things are really important, and I'll highlight one of them that's outstanding right now is in February of 2024, the flume was supposed to be modified. It was on the agenda. It was part of a combined flume amendment dealing with a property that was DESIGNATED INSTITUTIONAL THAT NEEDED TO BE UPSOWN TO RESIDENTIAL. IT WAS TWO PLOTS, I GUESS, EAST OF THE GRACE CHURCH. AND THE CR DISTRICT WAS INCLUDED IN THAT PROPOSED CHANGE TO THE ZONING CODE OR THE ZONING MAP TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT WAS PASSED ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2023, ACCEPTED BY THE STATE NOVEMBER OF 2023. SO THAT WAS PULLED FROM THE AGENDA IN 2024 BECAUSE THERE WAS NO CR DISTRICT REGULATIONS, AND YOU CAN'T date the map until you have the regulations that coincide with it. So we passed, this board recommended the passing of the CR district regulations in February of 2025, but that map has not been updated to be consistent with the comp plan. So that's something that's just an item that's out there floating in the ether that needs to be buttoned up. So my suggestion is that there be a mechanism that this sort of thing doesn't just hang out there. Is that my time?

Yes, ma'am.

Do you have any more time? Yes. Do you have any more time? I'll get to your microphone.

I can't. Thank you.

Thank you.

More general comments? All right. There are none. Minutes? Approval of last meeting's minutes?

Sorry, we didn't have time to turn it around. The last meeting went fairly late, and we just didn't have the time. No, they're not in your packet.

I didn't think I saw them, yeah. All right, so I guess that I'll have to defer that for next meeting, and then we'll approve two sets of minutes at the same time. So I guess I'll make a note here, deferred until next meeting, right?

legislative items all right so we have two legislative items for discussion here so in the ordinance of the village council of Mimeshores Village Florida amending Appendix A zoning this ordinance is required to The authorization by development permit required prior to undertaking development activity to require site plan approval by the Planning and Zoning Board prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for any building, providing that demolition applications for structures 50 years of age or older shall be forwarded to the Historic Preservation Board for review and recommendation prior to site plan approval, providing for exceptions, providing for severability, providing for codification, and providing for an effective date.

Mamie Shore's village is recognized for its historic character, tree-lined streets, and distinctive architectural charm that contribute to the community's overall sense of place and quality of life. Over time, the village has experienced an increase in redevelopment activity, which include the demolition of existing homes and structures. Currently, the Village Code requires site plan approval for redevelopment and new construction. However, demolition permits for existing structures may be issued before a site plan has been approved. This has, on occasion, resulted in vacant lots remaining undeveloped for extended periods, negatively impact neighborhood integrity and visual character. To address these concerns, the Village Council, at the Planning and Zoning Board's request, has directed staff To prepare an amendment to Section 906 of Appendix A zoning to require site plan approval prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for principal or accessory structures. The proposed ordinance formalizes the sequencing of approvals related to demolition and redevelopment. In addition to requiring site plan approval prior to demolition, the amendment addresses a review process for historically significant structures. Specifically, if the structure proposed for demolition is 50 years of age or older, the site plan application shall be forwarded to the Historic Preservation Board for review and a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Board prior to site plan approval. The HPV's review will provide an opportunity to evaluate the potential historic or architectural significance of the structure before demolition occurs. Circumstances where immediate demolition is necessary to protect public health and safety, such as removal of unsafe or hazardous buildings, or where parcels are being lawfully unified without redevelopment intent may be exempted from this requirement. The ordinance clarifies that the amendment does not create a more restrictive development standard, but rather adjust the order of approvals that supports the village's preservation goals. To further add, at the Historic Preservation Board's regular meeting held yesterday evening, the board reviewed and discussed the proposed zoning ordinance. And by consensus, the board recommended revising the current criteria that requires referral of applications for structures 50 years of age or older. The Board recommends replacing this age-based threshold with a fixed construction date, such that demolition permit applications for properties built on or before 1965 shall be forwarded to the Historic Preservation Board for review. This revision establishes a more clearly defined and historically meaningful period of significance, ensuring that properties with potential historic or architectural value remain subject to review while eliminating unnecessary consideration of structures that do not meet this threshold. And with that, some of our board members are in attendance. So when you open up for a public comment, they'll elaborate a little bit more on that item. And to conclude, The proposed change aligns with the village's comprehensive plan, specifically objective six, which ensures the protection of historic resources, in particular, conservation of local structures and sites which are of historic significance. These objectives promote orderly redevelopment, neighborhood preservation, and the continued protection of community character. And with that, staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board, acting as the local planning agency, LPA, recommend approval of the proposed ordinance to the Village Council. Thank you.

Thank you, Planning Director. I guess do I open this for our discussion and then public discussion? Sure. Any discussion on this item?

Yes. If you note, two of the applications we have today would fall under this particular requirement. Both are over 50 years old. Both have asked for demolition. I don't think there's any indication in the applications or in looking at the drawings that there's any historic presentation value of any value there and my general guess is that about 70% of the buildings in the village are probably over 50 years old I know mine certainly is and I mean this really is basically adding another review to the existing review and I'm not even sure we have to review it then it goes to them for review and then it comes back to us

I think the way it would play out is at pre-application, staff would hear the applicant out, we would assess the year that the building was actually constructed, and at that point in time, upon hearing what the applicant's intentions are, we would route them to a review, and then for historic preservation board, where they would make their assessments and suggestions, and then the next planning and zoning board here. Yes.

How much time does that add to the application review process? Another 30, 60 days?

I think it's fair maybe another 30 days.

It would be similar as if it was historically designated home today.

I would say yes. I think the one thing to note is that the agenda for P&Z are 20 days before the meeting, and HPB is only seven days before, so maybe 14 days more or less.

Any other comments? With respect to Board Member Brady's comment, I think that the Historic Preservation Board met last evening and discussed 50 years being a little bit too excessive. And I think they've recommended a fixed date, which would be essentially a 60-year time frame, I think, more or less. I think that might alleviate some of these proposals that would need to go through the process. My comment to the fixed date would be rather than put a fixed date, maybe put a timeframe. Why? Because if we put this into an ordinance now, something that was older than 19 or younger than 1965, 10 years from now might become historically relevant. So maybe we say it's a 60-year timeframe instead of a 50-year timeframe. I think when we came up with 50 years, it was exceptionally arbitrary. We just needed to

think of a number in the 50-year number came up but I agree with you I think I think we need 60 years would make no difference with the applications we have for forest tonight I mean you think it should be 70 I don't know if that's yeah I mean I have absolutely no problem with the historic preservation buildings and since the fire standing current law is current urgencies that they decide something is of historic importance they can designate it irrespective of the owners wishes that it would be better to write and say if it's any building that falls into that category to go ahead and submit for them to review rather than I mean again even at even at 60 years you're still talking about a huge proportion of the existing housing stock in the village. I mean, if people think it's okay to kind of just create more paper for people to push around each other, in the case of the two that we have on today's agenda, I mean, I looked at them.

I don't think they have any... Maybe increasing that from 60 to 70 starts solving some of that problem.

Well, 70... My guess is you really have to push close to 85.

I would be interested to hear the chair of the historic preservation board's opinion as to that number and what they think is relevant because we didn't have the benefit of their input when we came up with that arbitrary number. But we do know that they had requested that if a structure came before us that had some historic significance that they would have the opportunity to at least have that application go before them. And while I do think they have the ability to force designate, my understanding having watched a number of board meetings is that there's not an appetite to do that, thankfully. With regards to that, I think I would like to hear what the Historic Preservation Board Chair has to say. I have one other item that I would like to discuss, though, and that is item E2 that reads plots for which demolition is sought in conjunction with a lawful lot combination or partial unification with no intent to redevelop the site, and it goes on further. I think that the intent behind adding that initially was to satisfy a question that the that Council Member Burch brought forward, which was what would happen if somebody wanted to buy the adjacent property and knock that house down on that property to benefit from a larger yard. And I think we most certainly shouldn't prevent that from happening. But what we wanted to do was to try to put restrictions in place that prevented somebody from land banking in the village to the extent that we could under the law. And so my suggestion here would be to change this, to remove with no intent to develop and instead say something along the lines of plots for which demolition is sought in conjunction with a lawful lot combination or parcel unification whereby one structure is retained and the other is demolished. That would essentially allow an applicant to demolish a structure without coming before us because they wouldn't have a proposal to the Planning and Zoning Board. They wouldn't have a site plan approval. They're just looking to unify a lot, create a larger yard. That was what the Council Member Birch was driving at as far as I could tell. I think that that would otherwise close what could be a loophole and render this entire ordinance moat. So I would put that out there for the attorney's opinion.

No opinion. It's your preference. It's a policy choice.

Any other comments?

So in terms of the date, I mean, if we go 75, I would... 50 years, I wouldn't support it. It has to be older than that. I'd say 75 years catches post-World Modern. But I mean, I could even go longer, 1950s. But 50 years, I think, is not the right number. And then I would say two other comments about the building official. I think he needs to declare it an unsafe structure. I don't think the language kind of said that he needs to go that far. I think he needs to go that far if we're going to allow the demolition. And I would say a demolition permit should not be issued until the building permit for the project approved by the Planning and Zoning Board is issued. It has to go to the actual building permit. Because loads of projects fail after they come here and they don't get built and that would have demolition before a building permit and maybe a project not going ahead. So I think it has to go a little bit further than just being approved here. It should be a full building permit. That's similar to what City of Miami Beach has.

I had the same comments that between 70 and 75 years get you into the 1950s you know as far as the architecture goes 50 years 1975 I can't remember a significant building I guess my comments are and I like the intent

I know Brandon is the one that proposed this. Because we see demolition and then things stay idle for a long time. But I guess my concern is I think it's an overreach sending this stuff to the historical board. And I'll tell you why I think that. The historical board has a task already to identify, create an inventory of historically significant homes, create the inventory, designate them if they are historically significant, and working that process. And if they are designated, then we have a process where it if an owner wants to change the home or demolish it or whatever it goes to the historical board and they get a certificate of appropriateness before it comes to us so we have a good process in place I guess my concern is this is automatically throwing a bunch of homes into that process that we already have it's going to create confusion it's going to create delays it requires It requires a process to be written now how to do it because the historic preservation board already has a process, a whole application for the certificate of appropriateness and all of that rather than here just saying here's the planning zoning boards. It just needs to be developed more if that's what we want to do. And to go one step further, a home that's not designated historically significant, let's say it goes to the historical board, And they say, well, we really like this home. We don't want it to be demolished. That comes to us. We go, OK, let's respect the board. We're not going to let you demolish your home. Where does that leave the city? It leaves the city in the lawsuit is what it does, the way I see it. I mean, it's just creating, it's creating issues there that I think we have processes already for to address. And I think we should let those processes be, and let's just keep this a little simpler. And also I think it can get passed by the council a lot easier if we just leave the historical board review out of this in its entirety and let them work their process as it is. And if it is historically significant, it's in their inventory and they can request the owner to put it on the historical, you know, list or, you know, they can do it without the owner's consent.

I would. So that's my opinion. Yeah, I would remind you that the original proposal that I put forward, 14 months ago, didn't have that step in it. This came about because it was a request from the Historic Preservation Board that we included. And I believe that that came at a council hearing, and the council wanted us to do that. But I'm not certain my memory is correct on that, and so I would ask two things. One, that we open up the ability for the Historic Preservation Board chair to kind of say their part as to what they discussed as it relates to this particular ordinance. But then also I would say I don't I none of my intent is to create extra layers and extra process for applicants to take more time. But what we do know is that there are only a few opportunities to try to save these historic structures. And if we are not forced designating and I don't think we should be clear. That last push through the historic preservation board is more of a fact-finding mission. A lot of people are misinformed about historic preservation. They believe they're hamstrung in and they're not aware that there are an enormous number of incentives available to them. And I think that the historic preservation board wants that opportunity to do that one last pass, that one last push, so that the owner would decide to perhaps change their intention. And if they don't, I don't think we're ever going to sit here and say, because the historic preservation board said that the structure is historic, we're not going to let them demolish it. I don't think we would do that.

I think you have to consider that that is something that certainly can happen.

I wouldn't. I just don't think that that's correct. I think it needs to be the decision of the homeowner. And if they don't make the decision that those of us that appreciate historic structures would like them to make, it's a sad event, but it's their decision to make. So, yeah, that's just my part.

Any further discussion before I open this for public comment? public comment on this item? Please. All right.

Good evening. Patricia Bonaduce, Miami Shores Historic Preservation Board. I don't know how to answer these questions in only three minutes, but I'll try. First of all, as Mr. Spirk said, in Miami Shores, we don't force designations. We always want the owner's approval. We are not Coral Gables. We are not Miami Beach. So that's why we've been advocating for the past five years to just have a chance, an opportunity to convince the owner. We're not enforcing anything. just to not have a demolition under our watch that we could prevent it. That's all we wanted. The same objections were like, I will add another time. The process will be longer. And as Mr. just said, that it might be 14 days. I asked last night on our meeting that maybe if we just get informed with an email. We don't want to delay any process, but we just want to have a last chance. to give that house an opportunity. This is a historic neighborhood. Like it, anybody or not, this is a historic neighborhood. So we wanted to save the most possible houses, and I agree that 50 is too... too short. Even 60 is too short. But we found amazing architectural significant mid-century homes built in 1959. So maybe you decide that would be before 1960. It's up to you. But we just wanted like a last chance. And we wanted to do it the easiest way, like in an email or something. But Eddie advised that there has to be a formal way to present it. And this is the only way to try to save We cannot stop the process if the owner is convinced to demolish it, but we as preservationists of this village appointed to preserve the village is what we like to do, to just have a chance, a last chance. and not have a demolition that happened a month ago that we were all in shock. What happened? We never knew about this. Maybe if we had the chance before the bulldozers arrived, we could convince the owner. So that's what we want. We're not enforcing. We don't want to create more hectic process. just a small opportunity to be informed if that structure has architectural significance. That's all we wanted. And the same objection we had, but I think after what happened a month ago, it's worth a try to save our historic district. This is not a designated historic district like Morningside, but we are. We should. So at least give us the chance. for houses maybe before 1960, because between 60 and 75, they were not that significant, relevant architect houses. But up to 1959, they are breathtaking, mid-century modern homes. And that's why this year, 2026, next year, we're going to dedicate Historic Houses of the Month to mid-century modern homes to create awareness. So I strongly support the approval.

I'm not going to hold her to the three-minute time. Thank you.

Okay, so that's why we want to create awareness. We already dedicate to centennial, we already dedicate to 3040s, but mid-century homes architecture in the Shores are breathtaking, award-winning houses. So give us a chance.

So I got a question for you.

Yes.

So one of these applications comes to you with this language in our code. And you review it, and you guys like the building. It wasn't in your inventory, but you like the building. So you guys say, okay, we recommend this building not get demoed. It's historical. We feel it's historical to us. So you give us a recommendation that says it's historically significant. and we recommend that this house not be demoed, then what do we do sitting here? What do we do with that information?

We will never recommend not demolish. We only recommend that it's a historic structure worth to be preserved. We will never, ever recommend something like this. And as I say, we don't designate houses without the owner's consent. That would be easier. So that would be dramatic. In Miami Shores, we don't do that. So all the designations we've done in the past years have been with the owner's consent. So the only thing we would like to have the chance is to just locate the houses that has historic significance. Just send information.

Well, that's already your job as it is. to create this inventory and manage this inventory of historic homes.

No, but not for mid-century homes, only centennial homes.

I thought for any home that's historically significant.

No, not all of them. That's why we're creating books, books for centennial homes, books for houses from the 30s and 40s, and lastly, mid-century homes. So after 1960, You can demolish the whole village if you want.

So now back to my question. So you give me, depending on how you word it, instead of saying do not demolish, you said this is historically significant and we love this home. How do we process that as a planning board now?

First of all, I repeat, we will never say that do not demolish the house. We will only pass information. The historic board considered that this house has architect history significance, period. That's it. What you do with your information is what you do. But at least it will not skip under our eyes. Oops, what happened here? It's demolished. Oh, we never know. At least we had a chance. Maybe we can... make the owner reconsider. So just to try to create that, we're not gonna designate against his will, but at least the chance to preserve the most possible way, even if we preserve once a year, twice, two houses a year for us would be an achievement in preservation of Miami Shores houses.

So you give us that recommendation or that notice that it's historically significant.

Just an information. This house has relevance historically.

So now what do we do with that information now? Are we going to now deny them the ability to demolish their home based on that review from a historical board?

That's a decision as you planning and zoning board has to make.

I don't think we have that, you know.

It's like a public comment.

I could just see this creating conflicts. I mean, if we do say, OK.

It's just like an education.

I mean, I guess at that point, we would have to deny the application for development then. Or you're just putting it in the record that you think it's historical. You're putting that in the record.

I think that would be enough to say it's on the record that the historic board considered that house significant. And that's it. The owner wanted to demolish it, but at least we acknowledged that as a village, as a historic board, and as a planning and zoning board. So it was not something that just passed under the desk and nobody knew what happened. It's like a last chance to convince the owner.

What if we just struck end recommendation?

I'm just trying to... I'm just kind of adding another whole layer to our review process.

No, no, not that you can't. I'm just based on what I'm hearing in terms of the needs that the Historic Preservation Board wants, which really sounds like an alert and then the ability to provide some type of information to you all. So opposed to creating a whole separate process to simply do that, then maybe it's a policy administrative type checklist where if they meet whatever that year is, then staff has to send that application and forward it to the board. The board then, you have to take it upon yourself to then alert the P&D and submit anything for public record to be entered into a part of your record. So there's no separate process as much as it is an alert to them and then now they have the opportunity to submit information a part of the package.

That's an option to... Or we alert them and then they provide a comment for our meeting.

Right, that's what I'm saying.

A comment for the meeting rather than having them wait for their board to meet and then the applicant would want to probably attend it and basically, you know, say his piece or her piece and so I'm just opposed to adding another layer in our process for just in order just to get a historical board's

If I may share.

Comment on something that is going to create some tension.

If I may share, we requested that long ago, five years ago, three years ago, and we were promised to be notified, and we never did. So that's why maybe now the process is this. I don't know the technicalities, but we requested a simple request.

Well, I mean, our stuff is online. Every house we use is online and available for public comment.

Remember what happened months ago? The plan was to preserve 90% of a historic house, and then it changed and nobody knew, and then it got 90% demolished, completely the opposite. So who can be aware of that? I was aware of that. I came to this meeting with that historic home, And it was everything OK that the house would be preserved 90% of the historic house. And suddenly, it's 90% demolished. So how come we are aware what happened after you approve a project?

That's different now. That's a different item. I mean, let's not mix, let's not, you know, that was a process.

But that's the correct system that we wanted to avoid.

Yeah, I think on two comments. One is I really don't particularly think it's good government to create a review which you say you're never going to reject because really all you want to do is talk to prospective historically important homes. but you would never use the authority that this gives you, which is, I guess, to recommend demolition. The second thing is that this ordinance really does nothing to what happened on 96th Street. The owners of the property apparently went to the building officials and said, our assessment is this building is no longer structurally sound. that it would be dangerous for us to do what we planned. We're gonna demolish it and start all over. But I mean, this doesn't solve that problem and create a review process where the end result is, well, we really think this is an important building and we really don't want you to demolish it. But if you wanna demolish it, that's your private property right. I mean, I don't see the rationality of that.

If I may, my last comment is that I think these houses need an opportunity to be saved. Just a message to a board that can consider and engage with the owner trying to convince them to change their mind It's just an opportunity for preservation, and Miami Shores deserves it, to try to preserve the most possible houses. And it's not getting another layer. We just wanted a small alert, but as per Eddie, it cannot be like that. So we never want to delay any process. We never want to create any conflict. Just an opportunity to try to convince the owners of houses that are not designated to keep preserving Miami Shores. That's all we wanted to.

Thank you.

Thank you so very much.

Thank you. And I appreciate your passion. I love your passion for the historical board. I really do. Thank you.

Maria McGinnis, 1250 NE 101st Street

I just want to remind you, I'm sure you're all familiar, but the comp plan did add policy 6.3 and 6.4, which strengthened more protection of historical homes and wants to prioritize, it hasn't been done into the code yet, but it wants to prioritize adaptive reuse of historic structures. And I'm sure it's contemplating historically designated, but I I don't want to be, I think I need to remind you, if you didn't watch the council meeting last month at the end of the month when all of these issues were coming up, there seems to be an appetite for at least some of the council members that, you know, we're down to 35. of these centennial homes in the original condition. So there may be an appetite of designating unilaterally some of these homes. I'm not sure. I know there's people who want to protect individual property rights and everything. But the authority is there. And even though the chair is speaking that they're trying to do it cooperatively and with consent, that may need to change in this village if we want to keep some of these homes. So I just want to kind of temper that because there was expression from the dais in the last council meeting that addressed this, that there was at least some consideration that maybe the really old centennial homes or the original ones may have like a heightened thing, but not like the whole mass of this village. So I just wanted to point that out. So the years, changing the years, I don't have a problem with that either. But with that language of the combining lots and one structure being demolished and the other one not, Also, the other alternative is if somebody is saying, yeah, I'm not going to develop, there's restricted deeds that could be required. That, OK, you're not going to develop, and it's just going to be your pool and side yard or whatever, fine. But let's have some level of accountability for what we're allowing to happen. Because like it's been said, this ordinance does nothing to correct what happened last month. It doesn't. It doesn't address it at all. And I'm kind of surprised that this agenda doesn't address the alternative motion that was made. And I don't know if it'll be discussed tonight. The suggestion and that if carried in the 3-2 vote last week or last month was a suggestion that when there is a deviation of 10% or more in a site plan approval that it has to come back to this board. And I hope that's gonna get addressed. Because I think that is something that should have prevented what happened. And I also believe that when you say that you're going to build or renovate, and now you're going to actually build a replica, you need a site plan for your replica. That wasn't approved last year. I didn't come to that meeting last year because they said in the paperwork that was attached to the agenda, they were keeping 90% of that structure. I looked at their notice of intent. I looked at their letter of intent. I looked at the attachments. I chose not to come. because I thought it was being retained. So there's a drastic change in public notice and ability to participate. And it's just notice. It's an opportunity to speak. And so for that reason, I think that just I understand the split on this board with wanting to be reasonable with the applicants and trying to protect the village. But we are, as the chair said, a historical thing. But we won't be if we allow everything to be demolished. Thank you. and I am in favor of this provision.

Can that whole podium come forward like two feet? There you go.

Good evening. Wesley Castellanos, 875 Northeast 92nd Street, former chairman of Historic Preservation. I want to bring some clarity of how the process happens because I've heard these questions. What happens is that other municipalities, for instance, the city of Miami Beach. It's not a historic designated home. It's not in a historic area. However, they have architectural significance. This is the term that they actually use on a home that is deemed to get demolished. If the planning and zoning director of the planning and zoning reviews the application coming in and they find that the structure has architectural significance, which ultimately can be demolished based on the Senate bill. So it can ultimately be demolished. The legal repercussions are not going to get you. It's just that it has this last opportunity to be recorded, be drafted, be studied, and then at the end of the day, it can't come in front of the planning and zoning. The historic preservation can say, okay, we recommend you preserve the building and maintain the building. But once it comes to site plan and you find the project acceptable and it's in compliance, it can be demolished. But what it has is that last opportunity for the architectural significance to be captured. And that's the most important part. Because you see what's happening right now. All these historic homes, what we find is historic, are getting demolished left and right. And we have, with a trained eye, the Historic Preservation Board has the trained eye, and with the public notice, thank you, that is 1,000 feet, it allows the opportunity for the resident who lives here to see and capture this and say, wow, this has an opportunity to be remembered. in New York City, Penn Station, what do we have? We have a few photographs. But if you actually captured it before it was demolished, all the architectural significance, it would have been well documented prior to its demolition. I have been part of a historic home being demoed in Miami Beach, where they had no I could not make it survive. However, I was tasked to record everything internally and externally, photograph, record it, pilasters, details, and then provide it to the Historic Preservation Board, and then they can keep it. And now it is a part of the archives. At the end of the day, it still can be demoed, but it gives that opportunity for one last time before somebody comes in to demolish it, and it can be recorded, and it can be remembered. That's the reason for historic preservation. Not necessarily for the structure itself, but also for memory. Thank you.

I got a question for you. Yes. Probably more for legal, but this is where I'm struggling. Yes. So you give us the recommendation that it's historical.

To preserve.

And it should be preserved, right? Yes. And I agree with you. Okay. I like the home. It's historical. So I'm not going to let you demo the home.

Well, that wouldn't be just, that wouldn't be the...

I'm not, so I tell the applicant, I'm not going to let you demo the home because our historical board gave us the recommendation that it should be preserved. But that's not... Where does that leave the city at that point? But legally, that's not allowed. That's my challenge, my consideration, my struggle.

Your review is not whether or not the applicant should demo the home. Your review is the site plan.

Correct.

And so ultimately your decision is going to be based on the criteria of the site plan and what we have in our code. The same way you review now is what you'll continue to review your site plans under. This additional recommendation is as if there's a public comment and you review, you hear public comment and you consider that a part of your review. and you weigh it, and you make your decision, and you weigh it against the code, all this is just a part of the overall process. But I don't want you to think of it as now we're having a new process of whether or not somebody is allowed to demo their property or not. It's simply...

I have this information that's now influenced my decision, and I like what they want to build, but they're telling me it should be preserved.

And they tell you that now.

So I yield to them it should be preserved, and I deny the... And it's obvious I deny the application on that basis. Where does that now leave the city?

The same place it would leave us if you didn't have that process, right? If you were to lean into a requirement that was not codified and that you were just making based off of a feeling or an emotion or something, the same place, which is, yes, we're subject to some type of legal lawsuit against us not approving a site plan, it's always going to be the case. We're always going to be subject to something. But in this case, it's not solely their recommendation that is influencing you. You're still looking at the code, the criteria. They have to meet everything collectively. This is just another part of your decision-making.

So basically you're saying treat it as a public comment.

Treat it as a recommendation from a board if you choose to have that as a recommendation. Otherwise, you can treat it as a public comment the same way if something was submitted into the record. It's the same exact situation. But the Historic Preservation Board does not have any authority over site plan approval or changes to any structure unless it is historically designated. So that's when their certificate of provenance comes into play. But besides from that, it is solely going to be a recommendation. The same way what you say tonight here is solely a recommendation. The council can say, I agree with it, or the council can say, I disagree. So it will be treated the same exact way as your recommendation would be to a village council. Simple as that.

Thank you. All right. Any other? Thank you. Any other comments on this item?

Mr. Bolton is... I think you guys know where I'm on. I'm surprised I'm kind of on your side, at least on a portion of it. So kind of what I'm hearing from Historic Preservation Board is it's a notification issue, not necessarily a recommendation issue. They want to be notified. So I was kind of just jotting down some notes. So if we said something like... If the structure proposed for demolition was built before, we'll insert a date in there. So if the structure proposed for demolition was built before, whatever the number is, notification shall be made to the Historic Preservation Board upon submittal of an application for site plan approval. So it's just a notification.

So getting down to the nitty gritty here, we're discussing the language. Yeah. By number 88. I mean, are we at the point where we want to maybe modify the language and come up with something that we can all agree on and give the council a unanimous recommendation?

I think we should probably banter the lines a little bit. The only thing I would say in response to Mr. O'Hara's notification doesn't require the applicant to come before the Historic Preservation Board, and I think what I heard the Preservation Board say to council and council to reciprocate was that they actually wanted that to happen. They wanted that step. They wanted the applicant of a structure that is of a certain age. to come before the historic preservation board, almost for an education session. Hey, this structure you have, if you didn't know, is historically significant or architecturally significant. There are other options in front of you other than demolition and new structure, such as, and any number of the following. In addition, preservation of the existing facade. And by the way, if you should choose to do that, these are all the incentives that you can find through the state, grants, et cetera, so on and so forth. If it's merely a notification, then then the applicant and the Historic Preservation Board both lose that opportunity.

Right, but couldn't, sorry if I can. Please. Couldn't then if the Historic Preservation, I'm just kind of thinking through the steps here. So if the Historic Preservation Board received notification upon submittal of this, so it's at the beginning of the process, the Historic Preservation Board could add it to their agenda as a discussion item. Now whether or not the applicant goes to that meeting is another story, but I would imagine the Historic Reservation Board would invite the applicant to their meeting, but it wouldn't be a requirement. They're notified and if they take a look at it, they're okay and there's no architectural significance, then the process continues on. But if they're notified early enough,

then they can make the request to add it to their agenda. Here's the rub. I think any skill competent architect is going to look through the code to understand what the requirements are. If they see a requirement such as this, hey, I need to go to the historic preservation board, they're likely to want to do that before they get too far into a process because they're not sure what the historic preservation board is going to say. They don't understand the banter that we've had here and what the true limits of what the historic preservation board can do are. And so just simply a notification means I've already spent money with my architect, my engineers to come up with a site plan. I'm not going to change my mind at that point. Whereas if I'm coming before the historic preservation board earlier before I've made that capital investment, I might actually be more inclined to listen to what they have to say and it might actually change my mind.

A notification as opposed to Because it's not mandatory. We're not going to make them come to the Historic Preservation Board. Yes.

If you adopt this as written, if the structures say more than 75 years old, they will have to go to the Historic Preservation Board.

So what if they say, I'm not going to go to the Historic Preservation Board?

They can't come and get an application. They can't file their application because the application is incomplete. They haven't gone through the process.

Where does that say that in this language here?

It doesn't have to say it as far as I can tell. I think it does have to say it.

Otherwise, they won't go to the to the meeting and there's nothing that makes them go to the meeting if it's not written.

As drafted? Yeah. As drafted, they will be required to go to the P&Z, the historic.

I physically attend that? Where does it say that?

If the structure proposed is for demolition, it's line 89. I'm reading it out loud. If the structure proposed for demolition is 50 years of age or older, the site plan application shall also be forwarded to the Historic Preservation Board for review and recommendation. Now, you're saying they can choose not to show up.

Yeah.

But then... I think that would do them a disservice. And I, as an applicant, would want to present my application if I know it's going to be reviewed before a board. So the same way we have a policy here that requires the applicant to be present for you to hear it, I don't know if they have that policy there. So they can very much so hear an application without the property owner being available.

I mean, because most of these houses, let's say the majority of these boring houses, right? So now this is another whole process where the architect and the owner have to go in front of this board to, for the board to say, you're right, it's a boring house, you know, next, you know, now they've, you know, it's these layers that I'm trying to think of. Yes.

What would they, Do we define the site plan so they have to submit the same application they submit to us? All the architectural drawings, all the stuff that we wanted to do needs to go to beautification.

The way I read it, you didn't have to attend it.

Well, I think it's fairly clear. Right.

I mean, I don't know who wouldn't show up to if somebody's making a recommendation on my item.

I wouldn't show up. I'd say the house is boring. Why do I want to show up? Let them tell me I can't demo it. I think that'll happen more than not, you know. And if it does, then we'll get ourselves in this tension, you know.

So at least as written, the application they will comment on it and they will review it from their historical lens but the way it's written right now is that

There needs to be a review and a recommendation by the Historic Preservation Board if it meets whatever that threshold is that you guys are going to decide tonight. If that is triggered, then they go before the board. That's how it's written right now, but you certainly can change it.

Is there a set of criteria that's been developed? No. No.

It's just that one sentence.

And that would need to be drafted because what they have in their ordinance right now is a certificate of appropriateness which outlines for the purposes of a historical property. They won't be reviewing it in that same criteria. So we would have to draft something that gives them some type of guideline to say what their recommendation is, but no.

And they have no authority over architectural significance.

In terms of? It's not historic.

If it's a house built three years ago and the guy decided he hated it, and they went and looked and said, well, this is a magnificent example, Frank Lloyd Wright would be happy to have designed this house.

Yeah, but if it was three years ago, then it wouldn't even meet the criteria, right?

Correct. Well, but I mean, but there's no discussion of what are the elements of architectural significance. And I would assume, again, if you're going to ask people to, my understanding, it's not inexpensive to complete our application.

That's correct. That's correct. It's a lot of effort. And we've made it more expensive with the notification rules.

If I may add another extended comment, because I think there's so many things.

That's good, and then we'll wrap this up.

Please, yes, okay. I don't know what was drafted. I don't know the legality process, but we don't want to get a heavy burden of the process. We just request a simple information. I even could be an email with the address. We don't want to go to the board, and the owner comes, and then another review. No, no, no.

That's what we're trying to avoid.

Yes. I don't know how it has to be in the legal process, but we never requested to complicate things or the process. We just wanted to have the address information of the demolition request, and that's it.

I'd love to see our planning director just let you know when things are coming in front of us when a structure is 50 years old for demo, maybe he can officially notify the historic board this is what's on the agenda if you want to come comment. the meeting you can you know and then I'd like it's just my opinion we'll have a vote on and then I'd like to just simplify this to just the original demolition concept you know and take the additional historic planning board out and if we want to revisit that later then maybe we can revisit that later but I'd like to move forward on that and that's my opinion can I move to table this to allow further discussion

Before you do that, can we just go through and just discuss it just a little bit more? MR. Sure. MR. Because I don't want to lose the intent of this ordinance. We've been trying to push this for more than a year, and I don't want this to derail the entire thing. Council did say they wanted to see this, so we should do our best as appointed by the Council to fulfill their requests. I know we're getting hung up on this extra layer of process, but historic preservation is important. It was added to our comp plan for a reason. We live in an historic neighborhood. We have an historic preservation board. Is it another layer? Sure, it's another layer. But if we are serious about preserving our history, and I think we should be, then I don't see this as being an overbearing step, and I think it's a necessity if we're ever going to have any hope whatsoever of retaining a significant number of historic structures. Other neighborhoods that have done this have benefited very well from this endeavor, and I think that it would be foolish for us to lose the character that we have here that many people have fought so hard to retain. This additional layer doesn't really cost the applicant much more other than time, and time is money obviously, but in the scope of all things, Adding 30 days to a process that can take a year when you're talking about getting to a permit where you can actually break ground. I don't think is a price that's too large to pay to retain our historic attributes of our village and we're seeing them go quickly. If anything else, this just gives those historic structures, one last opportunity to be retained. There's nothing that we can do to force it. Well, actually, we could. But as a village, we've said that that's not something we're inclined to do. This will help us go down that road. Because if we don't go down that road, then probably there will wind up being some forced designations. And I don't think that's the right way to go. So keeping this in here. While at face value it might feel like it doesn't serve any immediate interest, it does raise awareness. And it does give the applicant a moment of pause. And I think it's worth it. So I would ask that we do keep that in. And I'd like to understand if there's a straw vote amongst us from a conceptual standpoint. We could talk about the language, but just a straw vote for this one item out of us five members. Just a quick show of hands.

would be for advocating leaving this in in some form show of hands yeah I think that's three yeah I I think in some form and I think one of the points that you said is as somebody comes to the city and they are putting their plans in or they're you know they're starting the process that's when they should be notified not when they're already paid their architect, paid their engineers, and they've already gotten so far down the road, and they don't even know that they have this additional criteria that they need to. So if it starts at the beginning, I think that makes absolutely sense because that's when you're gonna have any say. I mean, as a homeowner and you tell me at the beginning of my process, then I have time to change that and say, well, you know, maybe I'm gonna keep this portion of the house or, oh, I see the significance of that. You know, I'm gonna rethink how I'm going to develop my property. you know, which then that gives everybody kind of that fair, fair shake. You know, does that make sense?

Yeah, I think it does. Eddie, there's we have something that's called a pre application meeting, right? So rather than having this written, that the that the site plan application needs to be forwarded to the Historic Preservation Board, why don't we change this language and say prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for buildings, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, if the structure proposed for demolition is 75 years of age or older, the applicant must attend an Historic Preservation Board meeting.

I don't like that.

The site plan application shall be forwarded to this dork. So right now, the way that kind of reads.

But that's what he's saying.

The way that reads, that site plan application is right here online, right? Boom. They could just identify which ones are older than 75 years old.

We could very easily put on our website, when you go to the planning and zoning page and you're looking for the application, we could put a notice there. That would inform everybody that this is a requirement. Notice if your structure is 75 years of age or older and you're seeking a demolition permit, our procedures and policies have changed. Please get in contact with the Planning and Zoning Department. That would be a notification on the website. And then this language could simply just direct somebody to the Planning and Zoning Department and the Historic Preservation Board prior to actually forming an application. Because this isn't necessarily about the application. that they're going to present to us as much as it is an opportunity for the applicant to potentially change course long before it ever gets to us. If it gets to us, it doesn't matter what the Historic Reservation Board has said. Unless they force designated it, we don't have the purview of considering that recommendation not to demolish. It's not within our purview. We can't do it. So I think that this solves that problem. Does it add an extra layer? Yeah, it does. But if we don't do this, we are going to continue to see our historic resources depleted. And once they're gone, they don't come back.

I'd be okay with that. But I would like to put a specific year in. I don't like the idea.

Before 1950. 1960. What was the number? 1960. 60. So 1960.

I think it has to be tied to some type of.

architectural style not because you know you go to 50s homes that probably should go away no they won't yeah and then and then I just try not to exercise and it is true it is actually you know many of these are gonna come from a historic preservation board and be a and probably slam it's or babe maybe we write this in a way where the historic preservation board can deem whether or not they want to hear it

I like that better, too. I don't like it, guys.

I don't know. No, just too much discretion about picking and choosing. We need criteria to say this needs to go and this doesn't. We can't have a situation where we're picking and choosing.

So we have to just stay with the year then, unfortunately.

And I think 65 is fine. Like they originally... 1965.

1965. Going once. Why? What year is your house? 1943. Mine's 59. I'd be in.

I'd be stuck as well with it. This affects me. I'm 38, so I'm...

All of us. 47. You're stuck. Yeah.

You're older than 47. Come on. Just twice.

I'm almost twice 47 this week.

So in the interest of moving it forward, I'm going to step on your toes a little bit. I apologize. It sounds like we probably have a vote.

Can I get clarity, though, on what we're doing?

Yeah. But can we talk, before we do that, can we talk about item E2? Do we have support on item E2? No.

Not as for it. Because I don't think it goes.

My suggestion, so you wanted to, what do you want to see?

On E, oh, on E2.

Yeah. On E2.

This one's just about joint mods. Yeah. So if we can go back to E after E2. On E2, a sworn affidavit is not. sufficient it needs to be a covenant running with the land. Actually I want to get rid of that altogether.

What I wanted to say on E2 is plots for which demolition is sought in conjunction with a lawful combination or partial unification shall be exempt only to the extent that an existing structure remains on the combined site.

So not full demolition.

In other words, you can't land bank. You can't come in and buy a bunch of properties and demolish the structures and leave the land vacant for God knows how long. I think that achieves that end without running afoul of SB 180.

Maybe you wanted to say whereby a principal structure remains excellent.

Not a shed. Not an accessory structure. Thank you.

So then if we could just go to E. And I've been pretty consistent for a number of meetings. A demo permit should not be issued until the full building permit is issued. So that means the project is a go. And you're ready to go. You went and spent the time and the effort and the money. You have a viable project and you're ready to take down that building. It shouldn't be taken down. Like if we just say, for instance, any of the ones tonight get approved, they go out tomorrow and get that demo permit.

So for clarification, you're saying they can submit for the demo permit, they just can't have the demo permit issued until the master permit is also issued. So time frame, the house that was next to me, you guys have seen it demolished. It took them three days to completely knock it down. It took them two days to clear the debris. It's not much of a time.

They haven't put a site plan approval.

I don't remember seeing anything. They have nothing. They don't even have an architect.

So they just did what we're trying to control.

This would have precluded them from being able to demolish it, except there was a strong argument that that was actually an unsafe structure. And there's a provision in here for that.

Can I request that we really kind of separate concerns about land banking from concerns about having the... Demo permit. No, about having the beautification board review projects. I mean, to me, those are very separate items. You want to just get rid of everything here and say... what you want to say about what you have to do to get a demolition permit, that's fine. But, I mean, really, I have a much bigger issue with, as this is currently written, they need to get a full set of the stuff that we get to review it and then come and make a recommendation.

Well, I think what we're doing is changing that. And I think that's taking into account some of your concerns and some of Chairman Baldwin's concerns in the sense that they wouldn't be forwarding an application that would just be a Similar to a pre-application meeting, they will have to have first gone to the Historic Preservation Board, not with what they propose to do, just we have an intention of demolishing this house and eventually at some point submitting an application to the Planning and Zoning Board. We understand that this is a step we need to go through first. We're presenting ourselves to you, Historic Preservation Board. What shall you say? It's not that they even have the application done because they have no purview over the application, except to the extent that No, actually they would have no purview over the application period. I think it simplifies it very much and takes some of your concerns into account.

Well, yeah, try some language to do that. So I could agree to that if you do homes before 1950. Before 1950? You want to make seven-year-old homes? Just so that all of these homes, 1950s, 1960s homes don't have to do that process.

You want to make it more restrictive? Because what we're saying is the home would have to be built prior to 1950. So home 75 years and older.

I'm just trying to limit the, that would bite into the post-war period. But the only thing about doing the 75 years, 75 years from today.

1950 and earlier. 1950. Homes built before 1950. What's the official post-war modern, 54, 55?

I'm trying to, I mean, if you go, so you wouldn't have to do this stuff.

I would want somebody who owns a house like mine to have to go through this step. Have you designated your home? No. Okay. No, but we're considering it.

All right, let's move this. Let's try to get a vote on this in the next four minutes.

So it sounds like what we could do, it sounds like there's consensus to edit the preamble. This would be Section E. Instead of having this language reflect that the application is going to be forwarded, The language might read something like this. Prerequisites for the issuance of a demolition building permit for buildings. Prior to the issuance of any demolition building permit for a building, an applicant shall first obtain a site plan approval from the Planning and Zoning Board for the proposed redevelopment of a plot. If the structure proposed for demolition is, I'm going to say, built prior to 1965, is what we said, then the applicant shall first have met with the historic preservation board prior to preparing a site plan application. So on that first item, those edits, shall we just do a quick vote? Are we all in favor of that?

Chair, can we?

I'm not.

Well, no, I mean, you're chairing the meeting, so.

I mean, that's fine. If you want to propose that, propose it, and we'll take it to a vote, you know. Okay, so I just want to. So can you. I don't agree with it. Can you call a vote on that one change?

You can make a motion.

I would make a motion. That's right. That's what I'm supposed to do here. Oops. Why don't you make a motion?

If you think you can make this pass, why don't you make a motion? Let me just make a suggestion. Make a motion for that and then make a motion to clean up item E2 also.

I'd like to make a motion on each individual item because then we can just check that off. And then once all those motions are passed, it would be deemed to be completely passed, right?

Do one more and say as amended.

Okay.

To clean up the whole thing.

So I would make a motion to edit Section E in accordance with what I already narrated. Discussion?

Request. Do I have a second? That the language include the issuance of the building permit, because we're only addressing the second part of the amendment.

Okay.

You're right, that's where that would go.

Okay, so mind you, we want to give the council something they can approve too. That's what we're trying to get at.

So it sounds like a friendly amendment to the motion. And you're accepting it? Yes. I accept that.

I don't think any of it. We didn't make a second to it. I have a motion. I'm sorry.

Can you just reiterate your motion for clarity? OK. So reiterating my motion, I motion to change the language of Item E to read similar to the following prerequisites for issuance of demolition building permit for buildings. Prior to the issuance of any demolition building permit for a building, an applicant shall first obtain a site plan approval from the Planning and Zoning Board for the proposed redevelopment of a plot in addition to the issuance of a full building permit, if the structure proposed for demolition was built prior to 1965, then the applicant prior to the issuance of a site plan, prior to the submission of a site plan application, shall meet with the Historic Preservation Board.

That's your motion? That's my motion.

I'll second it.

Second. Any discussion? I already told you my question.

Mr. Gould, can I ask you a question? To me, there's two parts of that. The first part is the demo at the building permit, and the second part is the historic preservation one. Where are you on the first part?

I support the building permit and the demolition I support that. I'm just trying to... not create an issue, confusion, delays with the historical review board. That's all. That's why I'm OK with that. And then I told you I was OK in order to try to simplify this to go back 75 years instead of 60 years. Then I could support it. But as is, it's fine. I just don't support it. If this board supports it, then that's fine. Whatever.

Look, it's going to be a split vote, but I think. I don't think it's split. It doesn't look like it. Straw poll indicated it was split.

I'm opposed.

So that's what I'm saying. It's not going to be unanimous. So what I would like to do is if we're all unanimous on the first part of the issue about the building permit, if we could. take that separate because I'd like to send I like that idea I like that idea too I think we should if we're all clear on that part I think at least the council should know we're unanimous on that section and then we can take the second part as a second motion and then the council can say okay they were they weren't unanimous on that part but I think it's important that if we are unanimous on some part that at least they know Makes sense to me.

Okay, so I got a motion on the table. Sounds like we would have to cancel that motion.

Yes.

I seconded it because I thought that's where we're going with that.

I'll withdraw that motion. And instead, I will make a new motion.

Thank you.

As follows. To modify Section E, prerequisites for issuance of a demolition building permit for buildings prior to the issuance of any demolition building permit for- Excuse me.

Can you read a little slower?

Sorry. Thank you. I'll start over. Section E. Motion to modify Section E as follows. Pre-requisites for issuance of a demolition building permit for buildings. Prior to the issuance of any demolition building permit for a building, an applicant shall first obtain a site plan approval from the Planning and Zoning Board for the proposed redevelopment of a plot. In addition, the applicant shall also have obtained A complete building permit.

That's kind of redundant. I mean, you can't get a permit without our site plan approval, right? You can get a demo permit.

Just site plan approval and building permit? You want to just combine the two? Sure.

Yes. That's fine.

Because if you say just permit, it could be any permit. We want the permit to be tied to the site plan. So I think combining it clears it.

I appreciate the clarification. I agree. Second. Second. Second. All in favor? Aye. Thank you. Pass this one. So then the second motion would be the modification of that same section, which would read as follows. Modification Section E, prerequisites for the issuance of a demolition building permit for buildings. Prior to the issuance of any demolition building permit for a building, an applicant shall first obtain a site plan approval from the Planning and Zoning Board and a permit. If a structure proposed for demolition was built prior to 1965, then the applicant prior to submission of a site plan application shall first have met with the historic preservation board. I have a motion.

Do I have a second?

I'll second it.

Question? Discussion? Is the meeting with the historic preservation board at the publicly noticed historic preservation board meeting?

I think that's the only way they can meet.

Okay, so we're saying that it has to be at that publicly noticed meeting, not a side meeting with members of the... We can't violate the Sunshine Law. So yes, in other words, it's an official meeting. It's an official meeting. No, they're not giving approval.

No, it's not something that we recommend at all, no. It's going to be a public meeting.

Gotcha, okay, I'm good. Second. Oh, yeah, sorry, that was second already.

All right, I got a second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. All opposed? Nay. Nay.

Okay, so then modification, I think you had a modification on section E2. We already covered it. We already covered it. Right. Right, so then E2. I'd like to make a motion to modify section E2, which would read as follows. Plots for which demolition is sought in conjunction with a lawful lot combination or partial unification to the extent that a principal structure shall remain on the lot. That's what we said before, Eddie?

Whereby a principal structure remains.

Whereby a principal structure remains. Thank you. That's my motion. On a unified lot. That's my motion.

All right, so you're changing E2 in its entirety to read. I'm sorry, can you give me one more time?

Would you mind rereading it?

Because I think you have a better grasp. So E2 is struck in its entirety and replaced with eddies. No, it's not struck in its entirety. No, just a beginning sentence.

So it'll be modified to read, plots for which demolition is sought in conjunction with a lot combination or partial unification whereby a principal structure remains on the unified lot with no intent to redevelop the site.

I don't think it's necessary. guys wore me down all right all right I got I got a motion did I get a second I got a second all in favor aye aye and so the final motion a motion to approve the amended the amended ordinance I guess I'm

It's kind of slow here. If we have, I mean, I can't agree to an amended ordinance if I disagree. Correct. You guys would still be nay. Right.

You'd still be nay. You just wanted to have something on the record that you approved.

So I got a motion to approve the amended ordinance with all of the amendments that were previously discussed. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Nay. All right. Thank you. ALL RIGHT, MOVING ALONG TO ITEM 6B, ANOTHER ORDINANCE.

YEAH, FUN TIMES.

FANTASTIC.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND VILLAGE OF COUNCIL OF MIAMI SHORES AMENDING APPENDIX A, Section, well, Division 12, reserved of the village call of ordinances to create regulations that establish review and approval procedures for certified recovery residences. Pursuant to state law, providing for severability, providing for conflicts, providing for codification, and providing for an effective date. Before we get into this item, I just want to read a few things into the record. So just bear with me so I can pull it up. OK, so before we begin this item, I want to just briefly frame the purpose of this ordinance and the legal context that guides it. Federal law, including the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, requires local governments to provide reasonable accommodations when needed to ensure individuals with disabilities have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy housing. These protections extend to individuals in recovery from addiction, which is recognized as a disability under these statutes. This ordinance does not create a new use, nor does it expand where recovery residences may locate. Instead, it aligns our local code with the requirements of Senate Bill 954, which now obligates municipalities to adopt a clear, written, reasonable accommodation process specifically for certified recovery residences. Note this accommodation process is required regardless of whether the village has a formal adopted procedure. Many cities already maintain administrative procedures of this type and the state statute simply ensures uniformity and clarity in how such requests are handled. Providing a reasonable accommodation process is not optional. Federal law has long required accommodations when warranted. What this ordinance does is create an orderly, transparent administrative pathway for considering those requests. Having a structured process benefits the city, benefits the village rather, because it allows us to evaluate claims directly rather than confronting them for the first time in litigation. It's also important to note that the rights at issue are personal to the individual seeking the accommodation. The need for an accommodation is not tied to the physical characteristics of a property, which is why a process like this is necessary. In short, this ordinance is an administrative update required by state law and grounded in longstanding federal protections. It does not expand uses, but ensures the village complies with the legal framework that already governs how local governments must evaluate reasonable accommodation requests. My colleague, Candice Balmory, is on the line as well, who prepared this ordinance, and who has been working with a number of other municipalities in terms of bringing our municipalities up to date. So that's the overview.

I'll let Candice provide an overview.

Yeah, so if Candace, if you're on the line and want to chime in. No IT? No? Do you have somebody right there?

Is she talking in the IT room back there? Yeah. I thought I heard. I thought I could hear.

Oh, I can't hear.

Not that I have good hearing, but.

You must do, because I could not hear a word.

So in light of lack of Candace's ability to communicate with us, do you want to just give us the broad view of what this is doing?

Yeah, so what it's doing is providing a reasonable accommodation process for individuals who meet certain requirements, right? there is federal statute that outlines what a disability is in terms of the Fair Housing Act, the ADA. And so because of those federal statutes that have been longstanding, the state has now made it a requirement for municipalities to have on the books a reasonable accommodation process by January. And so we currently don't have one. Some municipalities do. And in terms of the statute, in terms of what this looks like, it looks like someone having some type of residence within, let's say, our district or the A2, whatever the case may be, we can't necessarily discriminate against someone because they have a disability. And so the state has now just allowed for a process for us to allow people to say they may need a reasonable accommodation. What that accommodation looks like, like I said in reading it, is individualized. So it could be the number of occupants. It could be a ramp or something if someone was disabled to get into the home. So it just really depends on what the individual is seeking and requesting.

I have a question. Yeah. So, I mean, there's a lot of language here. In a nutshell, they talk about a recovery residence. So is the purpose of this that if I wanted to have a recovery residence in our district here, I am protected by this ordinance that I can have a recovery residence for recovering alcoholics.

Correct.

12 recovering alcoholics in my home because I have six bedrooms and two per bedroom, so I can put 12 of them in my home?

I wouldn't, I'm not going to give you an absolute, no.

Can that be accommodated with this language?

I think it depends on each individual case, right? And so it's not a matter of I'm putting 12, I'm putting 15. Whether or not it's possible is going to depend on if they meet the statutory requirements or if the accommodation is reasonable.

I want to put 12 in my house because I have six bedrooms, two each.

Can I do that? I can't.

My understanding is that whatever the art, let's say it's going to be in an art district, whatever that art district allows is the base. Your art district allows single family.

Hold on, hold on.

They would allow this. Uh-huh. Now, before we even have this, but if you had six bedrooms and we had a code that limited occupancy to the number of bedrooms, and that's a question for our district modifications, let's say we did, then yeah, you would allow 12. But the reasonable accommodation request, they might come in and say we need 14. And they'll ask us for more. It'll be an accommodation over and above or at variance two.

current code that this puts that into place because I am so our district is a single family so I'm allowed to have a single family regardless of size I have 20 kids I have 20 kids and two two adult parents well there's like there's how I can have 22 people living in that home not under not under our current ordinance you can't true I have 20 kids I can't the state health requirements override that

In terms of, I'm sorry, you're asking me as far as the certified recovery residences?

No, I'm just trying to figure out how many people can live in my single family home.

Without, do we have a maximum?

As long as it's a single family. State health requirements, there's state health requirements that limit occupancy on per sleeping room.

All right, but we'll leave that as a separate law. That doesn't have anything to do with this. We'll leave that as a separate law.

Okay, so what we're talking about today is simply a reasonable accommodation process that if our code says three people per bedroom maximum, and they need the 12. If they need the 12, we have to now have a process to review that and to provide a reasonable accommodation, but they've got to check the baskets.

And I also want to be clear, too, that this is not... Well, before we even go there, this isn't a single-family home, so this is changing the zoning to a commercial use. No, this is a commercial use.

It's not a commercial use. It's a good.

It's it's a recovery residents, right?

Right. It's a residential and I want to be.

I want to be not a commercial use. So they're paying. They're paying to live in that room, right?

Well, I mean, no, no, go ahead.

I'm sorry, but I mean, all right.

But tell me how how this is not a commercial use.

It's a, you would treat it as you would treat any resident. The same way it's a home, it's the same exact, there's no new structure that's creating, but if they, let's say if they needed a ramp or something, yeah, you would, but it's not a commercial use. The use is for residents.

So, just so I understand that, so you're saying is that for the purposes of the existing residential code, this is just housing? This is just housing. And to be candid, you can't treat anybody differently. The use of accommodation to be not entirely appropriate because usually you accommodate the needs of a person. You don't accommodate the needs of a house or a residence. And I mean, so I really don't have any idea how you're gonna do this. Because in all truth and honesty, people with substance abuse, if they're in a recovery house, they're not using substances, so they're no longer disabled. So there's really no accommodation of the nature we tend to talk about accommodation required. I mean, I think there's part of our code says that if a man and a woman is not That the man and woman are not married. That they're not allowed to live in a house in our residential code. A residential recruit for single family residence requires that people be related by blood.

I can't tell you that in your code, but I think that far exceeds what we're talking about tonight. I was just having trouble getting around. Okay, I really want to bring us right back to what it is. Candace, give me one second, please. I want to really bring us back. This is not a situation where we are introducing anything new. Right now, in Miami Shores, this could be a use. I've asked the planning and zoning director whether this is already currently in play, whether it's not. From my knowledge as of today, right now, I don't see this. I don't know where Miami Shores exists. I'm not saying it doesn't. I just don't know where it is. And then we haven't processed any applications. So again, this is not a new introduction of a use. This is solely the purposes of satisfying a statutory requirement for us to actually have a process in place, not introducing anything else.

Is there a, does the state statute require us to comply before a certain date?

Yes, January 1st.

January 1st.

Yeah.

Yeah. So we have to go through January 1st?

Nothing in here that you are reviewing tonight. Most of it is purely statutory. Anything else we've added has been to help for best practices and to give you a little bit more strength. But there is nothing in here that you can say, I want to scratch out because I don't want it, unless it's something that we added for the bells and whistles. But again, it's just adding clarity through the process.

they're just to piggyback on so they've asked me they asked me to try one more time can you hear me now we can hear you all right through the zoom awesome um did you have a question so the question i had was so the reasonable accommodation is not necessarily to the resident of this facility the reasonable accommodation could be to the entity that owns on behalf of the resident on behalf of a specific resident or a thought of issue is it no it's specific right it's specific to yes so there so this is for certified recovery residences

The residence is managed, in order to be certified, is managed by an administrator. So presumably the administrator or the entity that the administrator is beholden to would be the one that would be making that request.

On behalf of the residence.

On behalf of the residence, correct.

A specific named resident.

Correct. This is not abstract. I think Candace, what he's getting at, can you put up the video so we don't over-talk one another? Yes, it's on. No, I'm not asking. We can't see you. So I'm asking IT if they can allow us to see you so we can see when you're actually talking. Thank you. There we go. Hi, everyone. Thank you, IT. Thanks for bearing with me. OK. So the question is whether or not the board member is concerned about an abstract or some reasonable accommodation that's being requested without it being attached to an actual true reason, not something in theory.

Right. So in order for it to be a certified recovery residence, that certification is a process that's provided through DCF through the state of Florida. So that's who would be requesting either that, the certified recovery residence administrator, which is also a certified licensed individual who's licensed through the state of Florida. i i can't echo shanae enough in just letting you know that and i understand the the number of questions that probably this topic raises but i can't echo her enough in saying all this is doing is complying with the statutory requirement that the florida legislature has put forth requiring all municipalities to prepare a process for review and they have given minimum standards that have to be met when these requests are submitted So we don't have an option. This is something that's statutorily mandated. With regard to the certified recovery residences themselves, as Shanae said, these are not new entities. They've been operating for years. What this does is it creates a standard process by which all the municipalities are using the same base criteria to evaluate.

All right, discussion. I got one question. I guess I'm having a little trouble getting my head around. If these are businesses, recovery residences with multiple residents in each home, I mean, our zoning doesn't allow these businesses with multiple residents to operate in the single family or the R districts.

So I see your concern. I see your concern.

I just, I mean, it's not a concern. It's a confusion. Yeah, yeah. It's not in compliance with our single family policy.

Which makes sense. So let me explain. Under federal law, this is not looked at as a business. This is looked at as a reasonable accommodation that's being sought for a disability, right? So you can't look at certified recovery residences as a business entity from that perspective, because they're moving into a residential neighborhood. What you need to look at them as, for example, would be a family. So you can have someone who's making this application on behalf of their family. There's more than just that one person that will be living in that residence. The reasonable accommodation being sought is not for their operation. They're permitted to operate. It means that there's something in the code, in your code, whatever that might be, that might not permit them to live in that residential area. And so for that reason, they're seeking an accommodation. Just like, for example, someone who uses a wheelchair may seek an accommodation to be able to enjoy their property and their home in a residential area, these certified recovery residences would be treated the same way as someone who has a disability who may need an accommodation to be able to enjoy the property in that residential area.

these recovery residences aren't single-family residences.

They could be.

How are they single? I mean, am I missing something? They're not single-family residences, so our codes wouldn't allow them to operate there, right?

So that might be the accommodation that they're seeking, for example, is that however your code and I don't know. So so please.

So this this would then trump our code and say we can operate these recovery residences in your single family neighborhoods.

It would say the residents of this certified recovery resident have the federal right to take full advantage of residing in this property within your village. And they're requesting an accommodation because X, Y, or Z of your code would otherwise not permit that.

So how would this be different than, let's say, an assisted living facility?

So under the law, assisted living facilities are defined differently. They have different certifications. They have different rules. It's very easy to make the argument that they're similar, and I understand how that can be made. But this is not an assisted facility where you, for example, would have medical services, clinical services being attended to in the residence. You have to think of this as part of a treatment or recovery plan. So all this is is that they used to be called, for example, sober homes. They used to be referred to as sober homes. And all it is is an environment, a therapeutic environment, that takes away the temptation of the disability of addiction and allows them to live and enjoy a residence as they are going through their treatment.

Do the sober homes require to notify the government entity that they are in a particular location?

They are certified. I don't know whether they have to notify. You mean the government entity being the village?

Yeah, the village. I mean, they're certified. I'm not sure. They're not licensed.

There's a certification process that has statutory criteria that DCF evaluates and provides a certification. The revision of this code, and again I echo, is just creating a process for which these certified residences can request an accommodation to exist. if they so desire to within the village. And it gives you the opportunity to review that request and to then consider that accommodation that's being requested of the village.

This is driven by people that are living in a sober house? I mean, the accommodation has to be person to person?

I'm sorry, I don't understand the question. I have a sober house.

I have a sober house. My son is a recovering drug addict, and I have John's four-bedroom house, and I decide that would be the best thing for me to do would define three similar recovering substance abusers and move them into the other three bedrooms in my house. If I want to get an accommodation, I have to go through each person in terms of discussing the accommodation? The accommodation is individually based or facility based?

So in your example, for example, you would need to become certified through the state of Florida. And with that certification and the criteria that's proposed in this proposed drafted ordinance, you would then come to the village and say, I would like to have a certified recovery residence within the village's residential neighborhood. For whatever reason, X, Y, or Z, I need an accommodation because I am otherwise prohibited from having that type of residence. In the same way, and I'm going to liken this again because it's just a procedure, I can't stress enough how much to think of this, for example, as someone who has a home in a residential neighborhood and is now, for some whatever reason, has a disability where they have, for example, a physical impediment where they may have a wheelchair. They can now no longer come into the front door of their home. But they need to ask for the village's permission to create a ramp. Let's say, use that as an example. So they would be seeking a reasonable accommodation from whatever the village's regulations would be to be able to put a ramp so that they can use and enjoy the property as a resident. And that's the same idea behind these certified recovery residences, that these individuals are protected by federal law as if and they are recognized as having a disability. And so if, for whatever reason, the villages scheme would preclude them from, for example, living as unrelated people in a home that is a certified recovery residence, federal law says, and state law now says, village, they have the right to request an accommodation to live there. You have to create a process by which they can make that request, and then you need to review it and approve or deny.

How long before the process needs to be made available publicly?

So this goes into the statute, went into effect in July, and it is required by the first of the year. I will say there are no penalties for not complying with it, but obviously the village wants to be in compliance with state law. OK.

Thank you. All right, so I guess basically this is boilerplate language that you guys have developed using it in other municipalities. Correct.

Again, this is just the process and the framework that SB 954 is requiring of all municipalities.

Okay. So I don't think it makes sense for us to parse words here.

Well, you need to open up for public comment.

But we do need to open it. So with that said, let me open this for public comment on this ordinance.

1250 Northeast 101st Street. I would just this is more of a question I know you don't banter with the public comments but I know we already have community residential homes in our zoning code so is this just a different category because those lists and define what community residential homes are and there is a breakdown based on occupancy numbers as to whether they can be in our district versus the multifamily so I'm just wondering is that

It's different. This is different than that? This is a statutory definition, and we looked at that.

Okay.

But it does not – it's separate and apart from it. Okay. Two different definitions.

And I know that – I'm sorry, I forget the name of the – Candace's comment that there's no penalty, but my understanding of reading this ordinance is that there is a default provision that if you don't process an application within the timeframe, it's an acceptance of whatever's submitted. Right.

That's in the language.

So I think it may not be a technical penalty, but it's kind of it.

I was referring just for clarity's sake. I was referring to the state requirement that the municipality adopt these requirements.

Understood. Okay, that's it. Thank you.

Thank you. Question with respect to that. My understanding also was that if we didn't adopt these requirements, there was boilerplate requirements that the state's already drafted and that we would essentially inherit those requirements. Is that correct?

Well, by federal law, you are required to address a reasonable accommodation request. So in any respect, the village would need to address a reasonable accommodation. State law now is providing an avenue specifically for certified recovery residences where they've provided minimum criteria. that they say municipalities need to consider when they receive those requests. And so what this drafted ordinance does is it takes the reasonable accommodation request and it tailors it the way that SB954 requires.

If at some point in the future we want to modify this ordinance, are we still permitted to do so?

There's a little bit of leeway in terms of being able to create or add within the SB954. But I have to say that it's in very limited circumstances. And so that would be a discussion that would need to be had more fact-specific. The way that we have drafted it satisfies the minimum requirements. And as Shanay said, there's a couple of things that are just good practice. They're prudent for the process and the way that the village would administratively received certain things, and those have been included, but there are very few of those markers.

Thank you. Any more discussion on this? Do I have a motion?

Motion to approve the ordinance as presented.

Second.

I've got a second. All in favor? Aye.

Thanks, Candace. Appreciate your time.

Thank you. My pleasure. Nice to see everybody.

All right, moving along. Item 7, quasi-judicial items.

Please be advised that the following items on the board's agenda are quasi-judicial in nature. If you wish to comment upon these items, please indicate the item number you would like to address when the announcement regarding the quasi-judicial item is made. An opportunity for persons to speak on each item will be made available after applicant and the staff have made their presentations on each item. swearing in all testimony including public testimony and evidence will be made under oath or affirmation in accordance with section 2-100 of the village code any lobbyists must register before addressing the board on any of the following items board members must disclose any ex parte communications concerning any items on the agenda pursuant to section 2-86 of the village code at this time if there's any board disclosures you can do so If not, the board clerk will swear in any persons who wish to testify on the quasi-judicial item.

If you're going to talk about your application, that's testimony, so you need to raise your hand if you're going to talk about your application.

For those who wish to speak on any items tonight, please raise your right hand.

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that what you are about to say is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

All right.

Thank you. Very good. All right. Item 8A, RSP 25-22, Joaquin Pineros, 182 Northwest 96th Street. New construction of 3,569 square feet. So our planning director addresses this first before we get to you.

Planning director. Thank you, sir. This is item 8A, RSP 25-22. The lot is approximately 9,225 square feet in size and contains a single-story, single-family dwelling originally built in 1947. The existing structure has a living area of 1,104 square feet. square feet configured a one-car garage two bedrooms and a bathroom the applicant is seeking to demolish the single-family structure while proposing the development of a new one-story single-family dwelling comprised of three thousand five hundred sixty nine square feet in size the proposed site plan indicates a total of four bedrooms four bathrooms two car garage and a swimming pool on april 25th 2024 the planning zoning board issued development order 24-17 which granted the property an approximately 1,736 square foot single family home addition in connection with the above reference address. The development order has since expired and rendered null and void pursuant to the adopted village code time limitations for construction. Staff assessed the site plan documents with the R15 zoning district and found that it generally complies with all of the listed zoning criteria. And also I'd like to add that It's also important to note in this case that RSP 2522 was initially submitted in March of 2025. Since that time, the Village implemented new add notice requirements, which has resulted in significant changes to the application process. specifically the addition of a completeness review at initial submittal. Staff has also been working to bring this application into alignment with the updated criteria while also navigating the applicant's desired, you know, because they've been in the system for nearly eight months. And I think it's important to note that because it's been brought to our attention that the details and the technical drawings that were included in this application are not of the type of stature that we have come to see. But at the end of the day, what staff is saying is that we've been working with the applicant. They've been in the system for almost eight months. And we've reviewed the technical drawings and found that it meets the criteria of the zoning code. And therefore, we feel that it's adequate to bring forth for your consideration. Also, based on some of the notations and suggestions that have been made towards us, it has come to my attention that maybe the efforts and the work that staff is putting forth is not up to a certain level or threshold. And I did feel it was important for me to adequately address that because I do feel that we put in a lot of work. and hard effort in order to bring these applications and that they're properly bedded before bringing them before the board. So we consistently strive to manage these challenges responsibly and efficiently, but we acknowledge that there's always room to improve. I firmly believe our team is performing at exceptional level in ensuring that each application is brought to the board in the best possible form for your consideration. With that, we are recommending approval along with all of the listed conditions that are found in your staff report. And I welcome you to speak with the applicant. I'm sure that they have a lot of thoughts and comments regarding the process, the general application, and feel free to engage. Thank you. Thank you.

Questions from the board to the planning director?

Yeah, just a couple questions. I was unable to locate compliance diagrams. Can you point them, point out to me where they are in the drawing set? How do you mean by compliance diagrams? FAR, pervious, impervious. No, they're zoning charts. They're zoning charts. I don't see any compliance diagrams, so it's hard to know what they took, what did they calculate. How do we know that it's complying? We've seen in the past other applicants have come forward miscounting certain areas which we've caught here on the board to prevent something from being approved that ultimately violates our zoning code. So I see that they're missing here. So I think what you're saying is there are no compliance diagrams?

There's no diagrams, but there's zoning charts. Correct.

Okay. Just another couple of questions. I see that there's some dimensions missing on the overhangs. I'm just wondering how you were able to determine that the overhangs didn't project past the required setbacks particularly on I think it was the north facade or the front facade.

It's on the sheet. It's the one that's missing that I pointed out to you in the e-mail. 8300.

That's missing a significant dimension there. If you go to that drawing, it looks graphically the same all the way around the structure but it's impossible to know. We don't have to get there. On the tree disposition plan, there's no indication whether or not trees are being retained or removed. I'm just wondering how did we come to the conclusion that that was compliant?

I think the applicant is here and they can address that.

Hi. Good night.

Hang on. We'll get to you in a second.

I guess all the questions I have for the planning director. Thank you.

Any other questions for the planning director? I got one, I guess, following up on Brandon's. Yeah, he does have FAR and the impervious 39% FAR. Do we check those numbers?

We absolutely do.

So you actually take off from the plans and actually crunch the numbers?

We check the numbers and we crunch the numbers. And wherever there's a deficiency, we communicate with the applicant. We have them reconfirm it.

Yes, sir. But you're doing takeoffs on the plans? No, we don't just take off on the plans. You're just checking the numbers. You're checking the compliance diagrams.

Takeoffs on the plans means you've got to look at the areas of the... to figure out how he came up with his, like FAR, his floor area, right?

We're confirming the numbers that are being presented and then we verify with the dimensions that are listed.

So you're looking at the plans and checking the floor area, at least having, not through software, but at least even a rough check that the floor area seems accurate. Yes, sir. Okay, if there's no more questions for the planning director, I'd like to open it up to the applicant. Can you please tell us about your project? How are you?

Good night. Good. My name is Joaquin Pinheiros, 182 Northwest 96th Street.

I want to introduce this render, which is a little better.

You don't like the shaded door? No, don't like it. So basically, we were granted an approval a couple of months ago. And I guess this house is a perfect example of what you guys were talking before. So we didn't went to the board. I'm a builder. I've been building in Miami Shores for years, and also a general contractor. I purchased this home for my own purpose, for my family. And that's the intention, to build it and leave it here. At the beginning, when we purchased the house, the intent was to keep the existing structure. Unfortunately, we went through the design, and as a builder, once we started seeing deterioration in the house, the roof is falling apart. Actually, my neighbors have been requesting for the house to be renovated. I have been keeping it till the end, trying to do my best efforts to keep it, but at the end of the day, the design and the cost were too high. So we had to go back to the architect to spend other resources and have been significant resources. We are paying two mortgages because we live in a house in El Portal. Now we're paying mortgages, another mortgage here in Miami Shores. And the intention is to get approval and build it as quick as possible upon this approval. Once we get approval, I guess we're different. I haven't demolished the house, even though it's in very bad condition. So now the first steps would be to demolish it before starting this project. This is a four bedroom, four bathroom house to a double garage. And it's in a corner lot. It's 3,500 square foot under AC. And like I said, we were previously granted a different approval. Now we're seeking this new project.

So you had different plans approved before, right? Yes. Oh, the different plans were to do a large addition and not a full replacement.

Trying to keep the existing home.

Questions from the board to the applicant?

Just kidding. So this is the drawing we should be looking at or that's the drawing?

No, this is the, I just changed the door. It's what I didn't like. It's the same render, it's just that the door color changed to brown. I don't know if that's important for the board, I just wanted to keep it as clear as possible.

I'm confused here. So you're keeping the glass panel garage door, or no? No. No glass panel garage door, gotcha. So you're the builder as well? Yes. So when you take down the house that's there, Are you going to, do you secure the site or what do you do? It's the intention to fence it, yes. It is the intention to fence it, okay.

And start construction as quickly as possible. And to address the board member, Mr. Spirk.

Yeah, just I, you know, the dimensions around the eyebrows, not all of them are there. That's fine. You're showing a graphic that goes around it. I would much rather prefer an actual dimension because it's very difficult for us to then enforce that if it's not dimensioned. But I'm just wondering, on your tree disposition plan, I don't see any indication of what stays and what goes. What are you taking out?

The tree disposition shows a couple of trees. We only have three palm trees in the front. which the intention is to relocate them or change them as per code. There's no more trees really in the property. There's only one in the back. It was an old avocado below the P&L easement, which it was pruned previously by someone else. And the tree is decayed.

But your plans don't say what you're doing with the trees. They don't say that they're staying. They don't say that they're going. They don't say that they're being relocated. The trees position should say. Let me read it. This is sheet 001. If you want to go to it, it's PDF page 14 and 21. So the condition is good. So it's sheet 001, existing tree disposition plans, the drawing, not a, I think it's the page before this one that you have on, maybe, or, yeah, that one. You've passed it. Go back one. That one. You see how you don't say whether or not they're staying or they're going? There's no way of knowing what you're keeping and what you're removing.

I believe it's in the landscaping plans that we are going to relocate the palm trees. They are not native, so if the intention of the board is to keep them, I can keep them. No, it's not about that.

It's just about having an application that is complete. That's all. That meets our standards. That's all. But I do realize and have sympathy for the fact that you've been in the system for a long time. I'm not looking to hold you up, but I am looking to make a point.

No, that's fine. And in the building plans, when we submit the landscape plans, the full set landscape plans, we'll address that. That's past our purview, though.

At this point, let's say we are inclined to approve this. We're approving a lot of leeway here. Whereas what we'd like to do is have a plan be very specific and lock you in to the things that we have purview over.

This doesn't do that. I have no issues addressing what the board recommends for those three palm trees. If they want to be kept, I can keep them. If they want a better tree.

Palm trees are easy enough to relocate if you have to relocate them.

For me, it's fine to relocate them or address more trees.

I have a question for you.

In my previous home, just to interrupt you, I'm a builder. I like landscaping. So in my previous home, I requested to add a new combo limbo that had been cut without approval of previous purchase. So here I go with what the board requests and suggests. Any other questions? I think that those palm trees are not very nice, and I think that the new render shows three better palm trees that make more sense with the project.

What is the finished floor elevation of the proposed?

Same, nine, I think it's.

Should be 12.

Or 10.

12. The existing was 12.

Let me check.

Let me check. But I didn't see what the proposed new was.

On sheet A302, does that answer your question?

It doesn't give an elevation.

It says two foot from the sidewalk. So the site plan might tie that in.

Yeah, but it doesn't because it only has the existing. So the existing house was at 12.82. Are you trying to keep the same? Floor elevation?

Yes, we do.

The existing house is at 12.82.

This survey says 12.82.

Yeah, 12.82.

how did you decide to go on with this style of house and the style of architecture what was your decision making as opposed to let's say a hip roof or pitched roof or a gabled roof or something and you went with the the box and the flat reason what why did you do that

When you guys were discussing the previous item in the agenda, I was thinking about that. For me, as a builder, I can go with a gable roof. Actually, I have other renders to show you how the house is. For me, it's the same. Here, it's just a matter of preference. We discuss it with the family and with the neighbors and with the friends, and it's basically a personal choice.

Are these buildings cheaper to build than hip roofs, gabled roofs? Is that why we're seeing so many of them, or do people just like them? I mean, that's the new...

From a point of view, the cost might be the same. It's a better system in terms of hurricane proof. It comes to a better structural system. Because you can do it with filigree or concrete slab. You have several options. I'm also a concrete shell contractor. So I can tell you that price-wise, it might be almost the same. So for me as a builder, it's kind of the same. As a matter of fact, this is how it's shown with the cable route. OK. which I debate with my wife yesterday, which was bad. Did you guys arm wrestle? Almost.

Which one did your wife like? The gabled roof? No. Oh, the flat roof. So she won. Happy wife. Any other questions for the applicant?

I'm just going to say that I agree with your wife. The flat roof.

Don't, don't. Move to approve the applications.

Oh, I'm sorry. I'd like to open this application for public comment.

Edmund Dahl, 37 North East 100th Street. I'm going to ask this gentleman a few questions, too, about this property.

Let's do this. Let's do this. It's not really a question and answer format. Okay. So let me do this. I wanted a couple questions to verify. You can have three minutes to comment. You can put questions in your comments. And then if I feel like it, I might have them address those questions.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right. Well, this is what's been bothering me lately. We get builders that come in. They buy a house. Apparently that house is tiny. They said it was 1,000 square foot. I didn't know that there was any houses in Miami Shores that were 1,000 square foot. So it looks like he's got a couple of kids. He's going to have a big family, this and that. He needs a bigger house. The house that he has, now he says there's problems with it, that the roof is bad. That's all replaceable. If you're a builder, you can put a new roof on there. Whatever you are, you can build a nice house, use the existing structure, and do what you have to do. But why do you want to continually, and this is all the builders, they buy a house, They say they're going to live on it. They say this. They say that. And then three years later, after the house is built, somebody comes up. Hey, guess what? I love your house.

How about $4 million?

And he goes, well, shit. Excuse me. He says, well, I'll sub my house because I can move down the block. You know, 100 miles up the road and buy a two-acre house and my kids can run around and everybody's happy. I got plenty of money left in the bank. So this is what bothers me. Why do we continuously, planning and zoning, allow this? You should make it as hard as possible for somebody to tear their house down. Now we've discussed it and a lot of stuff you said I agree with about making it harder to issue building permits on tear downs. But this has got to stop. I'm fed up with it myself and a lot of people feel the same way that they're not public speakers and I'm not a good public speaker either. It takes me five minutes to get my nerves and everything else to calm down.

But this lady, she'll put in two cents.

If you need some more time, I'm gifting you my time.

Good evening. Maria McGinnis, 1250 Northeast 101st Street. I'm just wondering, based on the comments that were made and the motion that was made and passed in the majority last planning and zoning meeting, whether there is something that needs to be added to the development order with any 10% deviation, any proffers that were made, that that be included because I think that was the point of that motion. I don't see any item on the agenda tonight to discuss what that mechanism is or how it's being addressed, but the whole point, you already know that the ordinance that you passed or agreed to tonight on the demolitions did not cure what happened the last time. I do think the point of the size of the lot and the size of this building, which we'll address in the art districts going forward, but the .45 on these kinds of things is just way too big afar, and 30% and 40%. This is a huge house on a tiny lot. I mean, you know, it's shy of 10,000. It's not a 10,000-square-foot lot, and you're putting up almost a 4,000-square-foot house. And it's – I'm sure – I don't know the area exactly. I haven't seen it or whatever, but if you looked at this in context to whatever's next to it, you're not going to have – the report given on the workshops by the CORDINO group on page 14 indicates what the built-out environment is. And if you bother to look at that chart, you're going to see that even on the largest lots in Miami Shores, the far – average is 0.33. Pinecrest is 0.30 maximum. Many other municipalities don't have a FAR. But if you're talking about scale and massing, which is what the comp plan was designed to include, and these regulations should have been done contemporaneously and concurrently, and that was the direction of the council, and it hasn't been done, These delays and these passing of these regulations is why this is happening one house at a time. These demolitions, one by one, the character of the village is changing forever. And I just, whatever you can do to stop this process of disproportionate bills I hope you will take that into consideration when those R district regulations come before you, for you to see that there has to be proportionality. If you're on a large lot, you cannot have a .45. If you have a 27,000 square foot lot, that's too big of a house, scale-wise, to the rest of the neighborhood. If you're on a 7,500 square foot lot, yes, you're probably gonna need a little bit more, but you don't need to be maxed out so that, we're not dealing with sustainability, there's a schizophrenia going on with resiliency and climate change and sea level rise and C8 canal, and then we let people just cover things with concrete. I wasn't prepared to speak tonight, but I do think these points should be made, and the motion that you passed last week was not addressed at all tonight, and if it is relevant and should apply, please do, thank you.

Public comment?

Good evening.

My name is . I live in 46 Northeast and 93rd Street. I'm a resident, of course. I wasn't prepared to speak here either. I hate public speaking, to be honest. I do it at work because I have to. But I just want to express that after listening to the discussion here, I was looking at the design. I think that the design is really beautiful. And I think that what they're bringing here is that the house that is in this lot is actually in really bad shape. And I think that bringing this new design and building a house is not only helping the neighborhood, because they talk with the neighbors. They're presenting. the construction design. And I just feel, I understand, you know, that the house was built many years ago. But just because, I mean, the house is built doesn't mean that a family cannot build a new house in this lot. And there's a lot of small houses, huge houses, but they're maintaining the trees, they're maintaining the landscape. If I were their neighbor, I would really like my neighbor to build something like that. So that's what I wanted to express here. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Does that end public comment? Discussion?

Move to approve the applications with the conditions identified by staff.

Do I have a second?

Yeah, I'll second it, but can we add that if the plan were to change like we had said before, There is a change in the plan. I'm sorry.

It's unnecessary. So you made the motion last time. You instructed staff to include it in the development order.

I made the motion last time?

No. Last time you instructed that you went individually every time and you added it to almost every application.

Yeah.

And then at the end of the meeting, you also instructed if it's possible for staff to now include it as a defaulted condition.

Okay.

So...

So we don't need to say it each time anymore.

So what's that condition that you're concerned with?

That if the plan were to change more than 10% of what was approved, then they would come back for approval.

And I just want to be clear, because I'm not trying to conflude. Well, I'll save it to the end, this application. I'll save my comments to the end.

OK. So is that a condition that's in your list of conditions? Yes, as discussed during the last meeting.

Yes, the temporary construction fencing and the 10%, yes.

All right, so I have a motion and a second. All in favor? Discussion. Discussion.

A couple of things, questions that came up, finished floor elevations, projections into side yards, things like that. How are we going to, at least with the finished floor elevation, how are we going to reconcile that? We don't know where this house sits on the lot.

I don't believe they'll get a building permit.

Of course they won't, but we don't know how it sits on the lot. You mean elevation? Yeah, in relation to the neighbors. Well, we're going off of a rendering. Can I ask the applicant?

Is the finished floor tied in to your site plan survey or to your survey? Is there something that ties it in? Usually. Well, we'd ask you to proffer that as a condition, you know, to say that you're going to match existing finished work. I'm sorry.

Can you speak in the record, please? You can't speak in the audience.

So I'm looking at your survey sheet one here. Correct. Is the finished floor on here?

Yes. That's the existing. The 12.82.

Oh, that's the existing house. Correct. And it's what?

12.82.

12.82. OK. So then are you saying you're going to build your new house at finished floor 12.82? Correct. So that's the zero.

That's the intention. All right.

Whatever. I mean, I was just wondering. I just thought it had to be tied in somewhere.

But if that changes, I mean, it's really difficult. But if that number changes significantly, they've got to come back.

As a builder, I have to mention something. Because when we go to DRC in different projects, usually, for example, City of Fort Lauderdale will allow you only 5% variance at the moment of DRC. And I agree with you. Our plan here is not to change the house at all. We've been already, just to put it in context, we've been paying mortgage here for this home for almost 14 months. So I cannot afford another month. So the intention is to have the same level as we had before. We cannot afford any more changes. Personally, I cannot afford them. So talking about the variance, usually it's only 5% in Fort Lauderdale. Here, if you have 10%, I'm sure that I'm not going to go over 1%.

What does that mean, 5%?

5% of what?

Basically, in other quotes.

Yeah. I mean, just 5% of what?

A quick example, if you build a building that is 65 feet, and for some reason, fire or building cold, you have to go to 67. That's the overall building height. Yes. But what about the finished floor? Everything. It goes through everything. It's, like you said, it's a little complicated.

Why don't we just make a condition that the finished floor of the new structure will be 12.82? Correct.

That's what I suggest. That's what he's proffering so put it in the. I heard that proffered.

Yeah. And applicant is also a builder and I did hear a proffer of the construction fence after demolition.

And we'll make sure we put that in. You know what they're doing in other building departments?

Yeah. They're putting fences like branded fences with the village and it's very nice. Yeah.

Unfortunately, it's not a requirement here, but it's going to be. It's a suggestion. It's nice.

If you go to Bay Harbor Islands, all those fences are the same.

All right. Are we clear on the motion and the second? All right. Any more discussion? All in favor? Aye. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it. Item 8B, RSP 2554, owner Eric Clayman and Melanie Navarro, 1296 Northeast 99th Street. Thank you, sir.

RSP 25-54, 1296 Northeast 99th Street. The lot is approximately 10,932 square feet in size. It contains a one-story single-family home originally built in 1951. The existing structure is a living area approximately 2,317 square feet configured with three bedrooms, two bathrooms, and a one-car garage. The applicant seeks an approximately 1,529 square foot two-story addition to the existing single-family residence consisting of 949 square feet within the ground level and 580 square feet at the second level. The new total habitable area indicates 3,826 square feet, complete with six bedrooms, five and a half bathrooms, a two-car garage, and outdoor terrace area. Staff has confirmed that the R25 zoning district is compatible with the single-family land use, and therefore, we're recommending approval along with all of the stipulated conditions as found in your report. Thank you.

Thank you.

Any questions for the planning director? Yeah, I've got one. It seems as though this is in a flood zone, yet there wasn't a certified septic system that was included in the package. Just wondering if your team caught that or not.

Yeah, in this one, there's sheets C101, 102, and 103, I believe, in this package.

None of those are septic systems.

Yeah, CO1, CO2, CO3 is what was collected. And the applicants here, if they want to speak further to what those sheets provide.

The question is actually to the Planning and Zoning Director. What I would ask for you in the future is that when we are in a flood zone, I don't expect you to review the content of the septic system, but that's an item of completeness. This is an incomplete application because it didn't have that. There was no septic system that was included there. There was a drainage plan. That's great. We got that. But there needs to be a septic system for things that are in flood zones. Why? Because in the front of this house, which is where the septic is shown, not on the septic engineer plan, but just on the architectural plan, there will likely be a very large mound in front of the home. which might be rendered moved because of other issues. But just moving forward, just so that we know on this board what we're looking at and what we're approving, what we don't want to have happen is we approve a project, it winds up getting built, the neighbors come with tortures to us saying, why did you approve this? And we had no idea what it was going to be because the item, the application was incomplete. The reason why we asked for this in the first place, so please make sure that it's signed by a licensed engineer and that it is a septic system that's engineered.

Yeah, we're doing our best collecting that, but also keep in mind that we're not reviewing the septic system because we don't have civil engineers on hand. Understood. So on and so forth.

Just check box. Yes, it's a septic system. It's engineered. It doesn't say preliminary, and it's signed by an engineer.

It does take a technical person to kind of make that assessment. So we're doing the best that we can. But I hear you.

I understand. Any other questions for the planning director? None. Questions for the applicant? Can you present the project? Yes, of course. Start with your name and address, please.

Yes. My name is Alessandra Canel. I'm the lead designer with G3 Design Build. My address is 2500 Biscayne Boulevard. We are the architectural firm who designed this project. So as mentioned, we are proposing 1,529 square feet addition. We are complying with all the zoning requirements, which includes slot coverage, FAR, impervious and impervious ratios. And I want to highlight that the new construction is primarily located on the west side of the property. We have a modest and code compliant second story mass. and very small footprint of the second story. Also, as shown in the diagrams, you can see the orange outline that separates what is existing and what is the new construction. And we want to keep the existing structure of the house as much as possible and as much as we can, just adding that extra square footage. This house is for a growing family.

The owners are here.

And they obviously need the square footage. So that's the reasoning why we started this process with this project. And from an architectural standpoint, the design maintains a scale proportion and also the material palette consistent with the neighborhood. So the architectural inspiration for this house reflects Mediterranean contemporary approach, which is again tailored for a family that is seeking a warm, functional, and enduring home for their family. Some of the proposed materials, as you see, we have a lot of natural coral stone, veneer, white stucco, arched, bronzed frame windows, and roof tiles, concrete roof tiles. All have been selected to create a timeless and cohesive design with the neighborhood. This is our goal here. So we have developed a proposal that meets the needs of the homeowners and respect and enhance the character of the community. That's our main goal. So I thank you for your time and consideration. And if you guys have any questions, I'm happy to answer them.

Thank you. Any questions from the Board to the applicant?

Is that your question about the location of the septic tank?

Yes. It's not a question about the location of the septic tank. It's really a point of order about the completeness of the application in that there's nothing provided as far as in that. So the rendering that we're seeing, which by the way is very beautiful design, not that we have any purview over that, we don't, but my concern is that There's going to be a big mound in front of that with the septic tank because the county's made everybody raise the drainage field 36 inches above seasonal high water table. And then there's dirt minimum coverage above that. So there's a concern there, that's all. And it would be nice that I want our department to ask for that because then the applicant knows that that's an issue and they're working into the design.