Remarks by Hayden Dublois
138 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 4 of 6
- Play at 1:41:11
“Got it. I want to ask for a minute about, I have one more question and then one more comment, and then I'll shut up. On the question of the rezoning this to a PUD, It is staff's interpretation, as I understand it, that this does not qualify because it's not a mixed use property from your perspective.”
Planning Board · Jul 31, 2026
- Play at 1:41:33
“It would not qualify for PUD because it is not mixed use in your interpretation.”
Planning Board · Jul 31, 2026
- Play at 1:42:01
“So, Zach, that's one thing I'm having a lot of trouble with here is the mixed use component. And I know, you know, talk about the Marriott, my understanding is they have a multifamily as part of that track of land. They do. Technically kind of makes that a different ball game. But if there are limitations with respect to how we would consider this as an excuse and the redevelopment point Dan just made, how would we overcome that?”
Planning Board · Jul 31, 2026
- Play at 1:44:12
“Last thing I'm going to say is more of a comment. I love the Hilton. I've been there many times. I officiated my aunt and uncle's wedding there this past March. I've had staff fly in from my company there. And I'm sensitive to what you presented a very interesting slide, Zach, on the balance of sort of tourist demand with the – that was it. Which I thought was interesting. And you sort of made the case that because the city has been unable, for whatever reason, to regulate the vacation rental space appropriately, we've kind of got this matrix that's a little out of whack. And I understand…”
Planning Board · Jul 31, 2026
- Play at 1:45:57
“And I, for one, just don't appreciate it being characterized in those terms as, well, this is, you know, we'll do it as a hotel and that will shift the balance away that's better for the residents. And then framing this as sort of this, it almost felt flippant in terms of, Yeah, the whole thing was just a gift, and it's really their home away from home. No, this has real implications for us. And I viewed that, I don't know, maybe it's just me.”
Planning Board · Jul 31, 2026
- Play at 2:17:18
“The only other thing I had was Jackie had mentioned your conversation with Jeff. It sounds like there are some additional planned components of a development restaurant and such. So we could expect if this passes a site development plan coming before us. Absolutely. And that also would entail additional level of service considerations because we're looking at new demands for restaurant and all that fun stuff, right?”
Planning Board · Jul 31, 2026
- Play at 2:18:07
“Actually, just one question. Since the trip generation analysis was obviously focused on the increase in the hotel rooms, if the plan is to add a restaurant and perhaps some other uses as well, have you considered that at this time, how that would affect the level of service?”
Planning Board · Jul 31, 2026
- Play at 3:02:33
“But that doesn't necessarily apply to other properties that may be looking at what you're doing and treating no density cap as the correct interpretation. They could say, hey, we're going to go for bigger than that.”
Planning Board · Jul 31, 2026
- Play at 3:03:35
“Anything else from the board? I had some comments. I don't want to drag it on too long. Not questions.”
Planning Board · Jul 31, 2026
- Play at 3:04:50
“A couple things. I appreciate all the thoughtful deliberation up here and by the public and certainly by the applicant as well and staff. It's come up a few times this question of taxes and revenue. Again, I would just encourage my fellow board members to look at this from the perspective of our zoning, our land development code and our comp plan and consider that as the primary element. And listen, the applicant has made their case that this is consistent with that. I would have a difficult time applying weight to if a ballot amendment passes in Florida, this could be a great way to recoup…”
Planning Board · Jul 31, 2026
- Play at 12:43
“First, to confirm for the public's benefit, these three distinct items are all tied together. They're intertwined in the sense that if one fails, they all kind of fail. Is that a correct statement? That's correct.”
Planning Board · Jul 23, 2026
- Play at 13:00
“And just David and I had this brief conversation before the meeting, but David, just for the benefit of the public, obviously the variance petition and the conditional use permits are recommendations to council. The site development plan is does have a unique council tie-in component because there's an off-street parking arrangement. But hypothetically, if the site development plan were to be voted down today, I'm just speaking in hypothetical, the way it would procedurally move would be they would appeal it to – they could appeal it to council as the Zoning Board of Appeals. Is that the…”
Planning Board · Jul 23, 2026
- Play at 13:36
“Okay. I just want to make sure I had that right. Dan, you mentioned alternate ways of addressing parking requirements and that being something to consider in the code. My question to you is, is that a mandate or is that an option? In other words, do we have the discretion to utilize or not utilize alternative ways or is that not up to our discretion?”
Planning Board · Jul 23, 2026
- Play at 14:02
“That's helpful. And I guess the only other thing I wanted to mention, and I'm sure a lot of residents feel this, there were obviously some delays in getting all this up, which is frustrating. And I don't want to get into an issue of who did what where. I will say this. For my own benefit, I actually added up the total number of pages. We're at almost 500 for all three of these things. It's a beast. On the plus side, 83% of those pages are things that have been posted since March in some form. In other words, they haven't changed. Only 17% of the page count is new. The majority of those were…”
Planning Board · Jul 23, 2026
- Play at 15:02
“Okay. I was going to ask about that, so thank you. The one thing I just want to make sure of, it was a little frustrating. The traffic information study, the applicant did submit a revised memo, right? That's correct. It just didn't get captured, although I did see you put it in your staff report. That's correct. Okay. And the revision is relatively un-material. I mean, in case this comes up, and I don't know how much we're going to get into a substantive debate on this. Like I was, my head was saying if this is, because we had a conversation late last week that, you know, we don't know when…”
Planning Board · Jul 23, 2026
- Play at 16:47
“That's what I figured. Okay. I think that's all I have for you.”
Planning Board · Jul 23, 2026
- Play at 16:53
“I just wanted to mention that. That's all I have for you, Dan. A lot for the applicant.”
Planning Board · Jul 23, 2026
- Play at 25:32
“Just a few thoughts. We're in part here because of my fault. I motion to reconsider this after the April and May meeting. And I think we did the right thing as a board in reconsidering this because of the information that came to light between the April meeting and the May meeting about some of the parking and some of the advertisement issues with one of the vessels in particular. This is now, by my count, and I could be off, the fourth meeting, I think, in which this has been an item of discussion. I'm struggling to see what kicking it back would give in terms of the marginal value of new…”
Planning Board · Jul 23, 2026
- Play at 32:05
“I did have one minor question for staff that I forgot to ask Dan. Dan, am I correct in saying in the prior parking matrix, if you didn't count the transient slips that I know staff was iffy about, they would have had a surplus. But now if we don't count them, they do not have a surplus.”
Planning Board · Jul 23, 2026
- Play at 1:17:53
“Sure. Thank you, Zach. Very thorough. I do have quite a few. Let's start with talking about your feelings about the mica conditions. Correct me if I'm wrong, but was it your statement, and I believe it's my memory, that we've seen that condition or similar conditions phrased in the same way on other staff report recommendations? Absolutely. So your objection is because of MICA's action that they've taken essentially?”
Planning Board · Jul 23, 2026
- Play at 1:18:36
“I don't think it's in the record because I don't remember seeing it.”
Planning Board · Jul 23, 2026
- Play at 1:19:21
“Which I guess would be my point, which would be, I understand MICA has made whatever intervention they've made. Again, I don't think anyone on this board has seen it. So it's a little bit difficult for us to make an informed decision on. But my instinct would be, just because they've said something shouldn't justify the alteration of a verbiage that we've used time and time again for site development plan conditions. That would just be where my head's at on this.”
Planning Board · Jul 23, 2026
- Play at 1:20:22
“My own read would be it doesn't convey that.”
Planning Board · Jul 23, 2026
- Play at 1:20:27
“Yeah, that's my opinion. Okay, parking. on the second to last page of the parking study we have the rosemarina proposed wet slip usage and passenger counts table um which i appreciate you putting together i guess my question would be how first question would be how did we arrive at those passenger counts for each vessel on that chart”
Planning Board · Jul 23, 2026
- Play at 1:24:16
“Yeah, I mean, one of my questions was going to be what is the longest duration?”
Planning Board · Jul 23, 2026