Remarks by Hayden Dublois
138 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 3 of 6
- Play at 2:02:05
“I'd be open to it. And I would also just ask, when do we expect that density study? Because maybe it could be part of that dialogue. I don't know if that would be appropriate. I'd be open to it. But I'm also curious as to when we might expect that.”
Planning Board · Aug 7, 2026
- Play at 2:04:40
“And I just want to be clear. I hope my comments were not intended at a... No, I didn't mean it that way. I think you guys have been doing great. And I know, like today's, I think the applicant missed the TIS and updating that. Like that's kind of on them. but I appreciate that.”
Planning Board · Aug 7, 2026
- Play at 27:02
“Kind of going back to how we got here, you had talked about what the actual density limitations used to be and are now for the property and what the real density is on the site. I went back and looked at that 2015, I guess it was a renovation plan that was sort of submitted as a site development plan. At that time, would it be a correct statement to say the density was whether intended or not, it was increased.”
Planning Board · Jul 31, 2026
- Play at 27:35
“I had a hard time reading through those application materials, finding other than in a very blurry, poorly scanned piece of paper in a parking matrix, tiny font, where it mentioned it went from I think it was 298 to 310, do you think it was a clear It was clearly presented at that time that they were increasing the density of the property? MR. No. MR. Yeah. That's a problem for me, because reading the application materials, I didn't get that either. And if we're already coming with, for lack of a better word, hands that aren't clean, and now we're asking for another doubling of density, that…”
Planning Board · Jul 31, 2026
- Play at 28:36
“It said the Comprehensive Plan does not cap hotel and resort rooms in the residential – excuse me, in the resort residential land use category.”
Planning Board · Jul 31, 2026
- Play at 28:47
“MR. That's what I thought. And it's not just the – You know, we've got that table in the comp plan. It's not just the table. It's your interpretation that it's actually a written policy item.”
Planning Board · Jul 31, 2026
- Play at 29:00
“Right. At one point, staff was doing a, or I think you had hired a consultant to sort of do a density review of the island. Have you received any findings specifically related to these land use categories as to where we might be with that?”
Planning Board · Jul 31, 2026
- Play at 30:22
“That's very helpful. You mentioned, you talked about fractional density. It was a little unclear to me because I know we've, you know, there's been conversations about fractional density in the context of this project. There's been conversations about doing through ReZone. Is it your impression that the applicant is still incorporating fractional density into their proposal?”
Planning Board · Jul 31, 2026
- Play at 31:06
“This might be a more appropriate question for the applicant, so I'll probably pose it to them as well, but why don't we have a comp plan amendment in front of us? To your point, that would seem, if we wanted to consider this, that would seem to be the correct avenue.”
Planning Board · Jul 31, 2026
- Play at 31:25
“Okay. And then I guess my last question for now is we usually get from staff, you know, recommendations for approval with conditions or approval outright. I don't typically see recommendations for denial. I don't know if I've ever seen a recommendation just flat out denial on a rezone. Is that something that is commonly prescribed by city staff?”
Planning Board · Jul 31, 2026
- Play at 32:24
“I guess I'd like to add one more. You know, one of the things I'm sure we're going to hear a lot about today, you know, maybe in public comment, and it was included as part of the applicant's narrative and evaluation criteria. There are a lot of what are characterized as public benefits, like roadway improvements and, you know, a lot of parking for environmental groups. And that's all well and good, but my understanding is our charge is to view does this meet the comprehensive plan of land development code. And we can't say, well, staff's saying it doesn't, but we're getting X number of…”
Planning Board · Jul 31, 2026
- Play at 1:17:09
“Well, sorry for Zach. I don't know if Zach, you have any closing comments. I don't want to cut you off prematurely.”
Planning Board · Jul 31, 2026
- Play at 1:17:19
“Okay. I do want to dive into the density issue. But before I do that, I had some questions about the trip generation. And I don't know if, Norm, this is better for you or Zach. Staff had talked about this effectively doubling the trips to the hotel?”
Planning Board · Jul 31, 2026
- Play at 1:17:43
“Give me your take on that, because that does seem like it could be a problem.”
Planning Board · Jul 31, 2026
- Play at 1:18:16
“So we are doubling peak hours? Yes, sir. Yes, nearly. Okay. Yes. You mentioned this did not impede or keep the level of service of the roadway beyond what is required. How close does it get, for lack of a better way of phrasing it?”
Planning Board · Jul 31, 2026
- Play at 1:19:04
“That's all I had on the TIS. I appreciate that. Thank you. On this density thing, Zach, would you – the very first piece of paper you put up in the – on the screen there where it talked about 3.1.5, if you could display that again, I'd be grateful. So I'm not going to lie, this is an interesting case as to the fact that in the other categories that allow hotel uses, there is an explicit mention of the hotel density cap at the end of the paragraphs. The way I read 3.1.5 was that the density cap mentioned at the end was implicit to the use description of it. This provides residential dwellings…”
Planning Board · Jul 31, 2026
- Play at 1:27:28
“Well, that leads into one of my other questions. You mentioned in your opening comments that what is on the ground as determined by past city council approvals is relevant which I think is what you're bringing up now. You acknowledged and I hope you would acknowledge that what was done in 2015 was at best unclear in the paperwork that was presented like that was not a clear situation even though I watched both planning board and council meetings in video like that did come up very briefly but a plain reading of the application materials does not give a good impression and not to put uses or…”
Planning Board · Jul 31, 2026
- Play at 1:29:11
“And I don't want to do too much on the record on this hearing about the Rosemarine entitlement process, but here— But you did file the conditional use because you realized you needed it, and that is something that should have been addressed at a prior council discussion that wasn't— The conditional use was not part of the 2014 approval.”
Planning Board · Jul 31, 2026
- Play at 1:30:33
“So is it your contention that there is no cap, no density cap for hotels in this land use category.”
Planning Board · Jul 31, 2026
- Play at 1:31:01
“Well, that's what I was just going to suggest is from that perspective, putting aside structural constraints of the property for a moment, I mean, you could – knock things down and put up a big parking lot, I guess. Is there any density limitation that would prevent, I don't know, A handful of years from now, we're getting a request, why not a third tower and X hundred number of new units? From a density standpoint, is it your contention that there is no restriction whatsoever on that happening?”
Planning Board · Jul 31, 2026
- Play at 1:32:32
“the comprehensive plan that the resort residential where our hotels are largely concentrated is the only land use category on Marco Island with no upper limit on density?”
Planning Board · Jul 31, 2026
- Play at 1:35:10
“in the context of other avenues to get at this. You had mentioned at the onset the reason and I don't want to put words in my mouth but my understanding was the reason you are not here for a comp plan amendment is principally because of some pretty significant live local considerations that that would create. Is that fair?”
Planning Board · Jul 31, 2026
- Play at 1:35:29
“Okay. My question to you is It seems to be at least the implication for us, if we followed your reasoning for a moment, that there's at least a lack of clarity between the Land Development Code and the Comp Plan on all of this. And if a comp plan amendment could achieve that and achieve your project, isn't the live local objection really just a political consideration? Isn't it just a we know that would never happen because it would blow up the density for the island and we boxed into that for live local. So politically it's a less advantageous avenue for the applicant you're representing to…”
Planning Board · Jul 31, 2026
- Play at 1:36:39
“But it's also because it would be politically untenable and I think that it would have additional ramifications. Yes The comp plan in other areas, I mean goal one talks about the city small-town charm as consistent with low density and intensity I know these are overarching goals, but how am I squaring a 60 density you know 60 unit per acre density allowance 150 foot tower as consistent with that goal of our comprehensive plan and the other you know vision elements that dan cited well i'm gonna well i pull up that one i want to address the vision piece the vision's not an enforceable document…”
Planning Board · Jul 31, 2026
- Play at 1:38:20
“While you're doing that, just to be clear, you think a 60-dwelling unit doubling and 150 foot to accommodate that is consistent with a low density and intensity?”
Planning Board · Jul 31, 2026