Remarks by Hayden Dublois
138 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 2 of 6
- Play at 18:54
“I mean, a lot of... And I understand, Bob, you haven't been part of all the fun stuff we've been dealing with. You've been missing out. But it's been a lot of continuances, a lot of noticing errors, whether that's applicant or city issues, a lot of moving things, things getting stacked up, special meetings. And it's starting to get a little tiresome just up on this desk. I spent a considerable amount of time preparing for this item this week. I mean, last night I watched the entire city council hearing on this from three and a half years ago for the second time this week. I've spoken to…”
Planning Board · Aug 7, 2026
- Play at 31:55
“Hayden? follow-up to Joan's question. If they did that, of course, would they have to come back for a site development plan?”
Planning Board · Aug 7, 2026
- Play at 32:18
“Okay. The one thing that's strange for me on this is I don't and there might be other instances but do we have occasions where we in the land development code make exceptions for specific parcels of land that says this shall be the standard except for this plot here it's going to be different. It just seems a little unusual.”
Planning Board · Aug 7, 2026
- Play at 33:58
“And this is a scenario where the density restrictions in the land development code and the comp plan are kind of not eye-to-eye, and this would make them”
Planning Board · Aug 7, 2026
- Play at 35:00
“But be clear, when we say additional density, this is technically under density for what is... Oh, yes, definitely. It's not... We're not adding density relative to what the comp plan says.”
Planning Board · Aug 7, 2026
- Play at 1:06:14
“Thanks, Zach. You must really enjoy punishment being here three weeks in a row. Or you must really love us, one of the two. Unless you decide. Just out of curiosity, what is the code limit per year, the number of times we can change that? Four. Four, OK. Thanks for the presentation, Zach and Charlie. Zach, when was the last restaurant operational here? Do you know?”
Planning Board · Aug 7, 2026
- Play at 1:07:05
“It's been a while. Just so I understand what you were saying, when you presented the background information on the collier county documents from the 90s there was no density limitation at that time correct there is a there's a residential density cap but not for hotels okay and then for some reason that we don't really know when it got moved in to the comp plan this was carved out”
Planning Board · Aug 7, 2026
- Play at 1:08:46
“If we go forward with this – and I know we're not dealing with an SDP or an STPA at the moment – but if we went forward with this, the density limits, you'd not only be within them, you'd be under what the comp plan limits are. And technically, if – considering the operational constraints that would probably exist on being able to operate a restaurant, it would be a reduction in intensity as well.”
Planning Board · Aug 7, 2026
- Play at 1:09:38
“I thought it was 16 per acre, but 19 I think was the number of rooms. Oh, number of rooms.”
Planning Board · Aug 7, 2026
- Play at 1:10:48
“The question is how many units are currently on site?”
Planning Board · Aug 7, 2026
- Play at 1:11:17
“Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. Is that all?”
Planning Board · Aug 7, 2026
- Play at 1:11:25
“No. The only other thing I was going to say is I think a lot of the comments up here have been well put by the board. I was a little sensitive to the sort of spot zoning thing and still am, but good points have been made. This area has had some decay and Brad makes a good point. My preference would be, if we look at the text of the code, if we just struck Marco Lakes, that's a cleaner way to do it in terms of, to Brad's point, making it more broadly applicable to the entire portion and not site-specific. But at the same time, I don't know if I'm inclined to deny this change on the basis that…”
Planning Board · Aug 7, 2026
- Play at 1:33:28
“Just a couple things, I'll try to be quick. I think it's a good thing we don't have the opportunity for variances with respect to density. Otherwise, we could find ourselves being inundated with variance requests. And that would be not, I mean, a lot of folks have been concerned about the number of variance requests we've gotten over the last year or two that would open the floodgates. But to Brad's question, and I think it's a very serious one, what do we get here when we're kind of controlling this? I look at it a couple ways because I'm sensitive to the one thing that I struggle with a…”
Planning Board · Aug 7, 2026
- Play at 1:38:41
“I do. And I don't want to prolong our meetings much. But you may recall a few weeks ago, I had mentioned that council had sort of given us a green light to talk about the possibility of remote participation in quasi-digital hearings. And I'd asked the board if everyone was OK with us discussing that at the August meeting. I had in the interim period the opportunity to speak with Alan Gabriel and David, and we had a good conversation. And so if the board's okay with that, I'd like to take a few minutes and talk a little bit about that. Again, I don't want to detain us here.”
Planning Board · Aug 7, 2026
- Play at 1:39:22
“I was just saying, Dan, a couple meetings ago, we had, as a board, kind of given consideration to the green light we got from council with respect to remote participation in quasi-judicial hearings, having a discussion about that. And in the interim, I had a conversation with Alan Gabriel and with David, and I was hoping the board would just entertain letting me talk about the outcome of that conversation a little bit and what next steps could look like, if that would be okay. So I had a talk with Alan and David. If it's possible, could I use the overhead projector? Because I have some stuff…”
Planning Board · Aug 7, 2026
- Play at 1:40:20
“Oh, whoa, whoa, whoa. Oh, that's a no. So this was an ordinance that was adopted, or excuse me, a resolution that was adopted during COVID that facilitated, at that time, remote participation in meetings. And this is just the whereas information. The backside, it's a pretty short ordinance, is”
Planning Board · Aug 7, 2026
- Play at 1:40:49
“And at the time, it said, and you'll see my proposed markups in red there, but city council hereby allows the participation in a public meeting via telephone, video conference, or CMT, which is communications media technology, I think, to the extent the city has the ability to establish and approve appearance by CMT by city council members or any appointed city board or advisory, excuse me, city board or committee member at all public meetings in the Marco Island City Council or at any of the city's appointed board or committee meetings. It says right now, due to the evidentiary nature of…”
Planning Board · Aug 7, 2026
- Play at 1:50:02
“The only thing I would add, and David, correct me if I'm wrong, the language in the charter that discusses physically present does not distinguish between a quasi-judicial. No, it doesn't. It just says members should be physically present. I have witnessed, and I'm sure many of you all have, many times in which counselors have been absent from meetings have zoomed in have been they have a vote on the dais should we allow so-and-so to participate I mean I've seen mounts counselors zoom in from cruise ships and they've been able to participate in that dialogue and engage in that meeting and…”
Planning Board · Aug 7, 2026
- Play at 1:51:02
“But again, the Charter doesn't mention quasi-judicial.”
Planning Board · Aug 7, 2026
- Play at 1:54:31
“Yeah. I appreciate that, Mike. The only two things I would offer would be, I think, part of your concern would be addressed by the cap of no more than two. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Someone wouldn't.”
Planning Board · Aug 7, 2026
- Play at 1:54:43
“The other thing is, and I would just add this, Being mindful that our meetings happen during a workday. I'll just say on a personal note, it's been very tough for me the last several weeks. And I travel a lot for D.C. And, you know, I'm sure to Jason's point, this could be potentially broadening the applicant pool if we allowed it.”
Planning Board · Aug 7, 2026
- Play at 1:55:05
“Exactly. And that would be my only point. And if there's not a majority, I totally respect that. I just wanted to raise the issue.”
Planning Board · Aug 7, 2026
- Play at 1:55:33
“Well, the only thing I would add is I think, and I don't want to speak for the council of the room, they asked us to have a conversation. And so I would hate to go back with them and say, we think you guys should have a conversation. I think they were looking for us to come up with something.”
Planning Board · Aug 7, 2026
- Play at 1:57:49
“And I'll get this to, first of all, thank you. And I will get this to staff and everything. And thank you, everyone. Appreciate it.”
Planning Board · Aug 7, 2026
- Play at 1:58:03
“One very brief thing for Board Communications, which is during the last hearing on the Hilton, towards the end of the meeting when I was recapping and talking about the extent of the renovations that were done in 2015 versus the extent that were done then, I was making a comment about the size of my relative perception as to the extent of those renovations that were done. And I said it was a lot. Upon rewatching the video, it sounded very much like I said that was a lie when referring to what Zach was saying in him making a statement that the renovations were not as substantial. And I was…”
Planning Board · Aug 7, 2026