City Council - Regular Meeting

She's their Yeah, she's their emergency government. Was it a certain level of

usually? It's kind of bizarre. I wonder how the question was asked. You never know, right? Are you good, Alicia?

Thank you. Okay. Good morning, everyone. We'll go ahead and call this meeting to order. If there is anyone in the audience that would like to make a public comment, please come up and do so at this time. Seeing no one rise, we will close that portion of the meeting. I do want the record to reflect that all council members are present this morning. The first item on the agenda is the Saint Vincent Depal Day. Who would like to present that? The Vietnam Veterans Appreciation Day.

I was asked to do that. and Tribute Woods Economic Development Day. I'll do that. Great. Thank you. And we move on to item three, which is a request for vested rights. Any questions on 3A? Um, I would just like vested rights to be defined.

Is that possible? So, I've I received a bunch of input yesterday and and even this morning, concerns about that, but I was I happened to be at the DRC meeting where his issue was discussed. And I understand he went through a lot of of uh frustration and uncertainty after we repealed the LDRs and the implications to the property he bought. in communication with the city staff and I was very satisfied that DRC approved his vested rights and uh we'll be discussing that as well. Um I'm not prepared to turn him down at this point after all that he had been through. But I want to share with you all the input that I got before we really get into it on Wednesday.

Oh, you want to share today? I I have to pull I was sent several texts. Um and I I will do that today. I can give you a call or give me a call. Um but to answer your question, Councilwoman, vested rights. Now I'm on. Yep.

All right. Vested rights is if the government did something, if council did something that has material that has materially materially affected a property owner's right to their land. So the example is is the LDRs. When this council repeal it, if a property owner prior to the repeal had substantially relied upon

the previous version of the LDRs, such as had engineering done or blueprints done or architectural plans done, or met with staff and was in the process of moving forward. And then the LDRs are voided. The previous version are voided and now they're precluded from doing something. They then have a vested a possible potential probable vested right to say, "Hey, I relied upon this previous version of what the government had in place. Here's how I relied upon it."

Okay. So, it's more than just it's more than just um I bought the property, right? Or it's more than just hey, I met with staff on a few occasions about designs. Okay? You know, there has to be movement towards what you were planning on doing and then the government came in. When I say government, I mean loosely, you know, came in and did something that affected their ability to move forward. Okay, great. Thank you. I appreciate you giving that explanation. And were there plans? Were there I mean there's nothing that I saw in the packet that shows that there's a plan or an approval for a plan.

Just conversation basically. It was conversation that he had with with this particular packet. I did not see in the agenda items either like an architectural plan or an engineering plan. Thank you. That doesn't mean that they weren't submitted. I just don't see them in here. Okay. Thank you. Good morning. Rachel Barry, signing official for the record. I I have not seen house plans yet for a new home to be rebuilt. Um but the applicant did have an engineering report done on the um previously existing shed that straddled the property lines. U but I haven't seen house plans yet per se. Okay. No site plan at all then. No this is where the house will go. Nothing. Nothing.

No, not to that extent. Okay. And there was concern about it being two properties and that there should be two vested rights claims in instead of one combining them. And uh substantial loss was another issue that uh this resident was telling me about that she wasn't certain that that that was demonstrated. So I'll share everything that she sent to me. That's fine. That brings up a great point, Mr. Julia, in that It's my understanding there is a $300,000 investment.

That appears to be the purchase price for the two properties. It appears to me that the properties have not been joined together. So there's 302 and 308, but it appears there's one application with both properties. So, it's, you know, whether you want to take it as one application or it needs to be two because it's two separate properties. That's going to be up to you guys. Okay. And the question of the 2020, it says O2 2025, but this is 2026. I know that was brought up also. Does it matter? Is this

So, that was just a a numbering um issue. we received the application in 2025 and so now all the applications we're receiving have the 2026 date. Um so the application number doesn't affect the timing or anything. It's just so when we did the vested rights ordinance or whatever it's called we um we gave a time frame and does this fit within that time frame like when they purchased or when they Okay. Okay. So, it fits within it's within you have to apply within one year after a governmental action.

So, the repeal came in I think it was like July 9th. It was the beginning of July 2025. So, this would fall under chapter 27. Well, I'm also going to give you um what I looked at because number one, the reason why I started looking at this is because it is on the national registry um for contributing structure and that's what concerned me is that you know how did we get there to all of a sudden asking to have this down but as I was looking 308 is actually pending to be sold on April 3rd. I don't know why somebody would ask for a vested rights for 308 when it's being sold in 11 days. 302 is actually on the market. It was actually just withdrawn from the market like a few weeks ago.

And did the HBAB approve the demo? They demo. Okay. So, they did not approve an immediate demolition. there was a nine-month delay added to the demolition permit because we cannot completely deny that demo permit, right? Um the max we can do is put an 18-month hold on it. At the time, my understanding was there was going to be a two-year limitation on any investig right approvals. And so instead of going with the full 18 months, we did nine months um to give time, you know, if there's a limitation on the the vested right approvals.

So M. Rachel, let me ask you this. If the property sells be, does the vested rights demolition go with the new owner or is that a new application? Typically those approvals go with the land, but that's I'm okay. Vested rights goes with the land, but does the demolition go with the land?

We don't have anything that says no. I do have another another property where it's a situation where the property owner applied for a demolition permit, was approved for the demolition permit, never went through with the demolition permit, and now has decided to purchase a different property. And so, we're asking them time out, don't do the demo if you're not actually going to rebuild a home there.

And I think that's our biggest thing if we're trying to save these historic homes. Some people are saying that they want to demo it. They're they're saying it for their home, you know, because they're going to build a new home, but like 302 is on the market to be sold, you know, for $30,000 more than what it's sold for. So, I'm trying to figure out where the vested rights are. So, I was trying to get that a lot of discussion tomorrow on that. It's a lot of loose ends. Wednesday. Wednesday. Keep me right. She always says I do. You all know what I mean.

Got it. Listen, I work too, so all the days are too long. Okay, we'll move on to number four, ordinances and resolutions. The three, 4 A, 4 B, and 4 C. Those all have to do with the Magdalina property. You heard the first reading at our last meeting, and these are the second readings on all of these. Any comments, discussion on these questions? Okay. Consent agenda. Any questions on consent agenda?

Okay. Then on to the regular agenda. 6A is the homeowners against landfill odor. We did add a couple things to the agenda last week. A marketing piece that they had as well as a sample letter based upon the letter that Charlotte County is going to be sending in. Um, I got the draft in front of you so that if you choose to at the meeting approve sending that letter that we can get that signed and sent out right away. Is it um my understanding that draft letter is similar to Charlotte County? So that's what she just said. Yes, exactly. Sorry. It's okay. Yeah.

Yeah, we modeled it after Charlotte County. And if you just just for the record, if you haven't had a chance or an opportunity to drive south on 41, I dare you. It's not even summer. You'll know when you when you cross it. Summer, summer's a lot more. We're on to 6B, which is the PBA contract. Any questions here?

We have the lap agreement for uh Cooper Street. I just have one. That's just our agreement with the design and everything that government is having us do. And that's just for the design, but that's part of the 1% sales tax as well. So, right, it's going to cost more money, but we're probably going to be looking for grants and things. I mean, I think Cooper Street, we need to start, you know, enhancing our east side and everything. So, um I just wanted to make sure that clarified. Okay. Thank you.

6D is an award to Corollo for the mechanical integrity testing and renewal of the operation permit for the RORO plant. And well, any questions? Okay. 6E is an amendment to Carllo for for the water treatment plant. Any questions there? 6F, the city council travel policy looking at community events. 6G AI governance policy. I have Oh, go ahead, Greg. I'm sorry. I was really pleased to see that. I think we're moving in the right direction. Thank you.

There's also something um I think that the airport is doing it as well and it might be good to get their information on, you know, how they're working it out to help us with less steps that we have to do if we're finding somebody, you know, we we're not, you know, reinventing the wheel. Well, our intent on this is we get this in front of council. We are going to have your input on it and then we're also we'll get it in front of our labor attorney as well because he looks at all of our policies. So, we can make any changes that you'd like to see at at the meeting on Wednesday and then we'll get that to our attorney to take a look at as well. the kayak services discussion. That's one that council member Denton wanted to have. If you'll recall a few months back, um city council just decided that we had so much on our plate right now that wasn't something we wanted to consider. Um it was definitely not a definite no, don't ever want to see that type of situation. So, all of you agreed to hear that item again. So, staff will be looking for feedback on what you want us to do with that. Any questions? Okay, then we'll be on to the long range financial plan and property tax reform.

That should be the long long range financial. Is there any way or is there maybe there's a reason why we have this at the end of the meeting? Is there any way we could move it up to maybe after 6A? We have some decisions that are going to be made based on some of the knowledge I think that we need to we need to inform our citizens about in 6i. Is that possible? Are you all okay with 6 I being right after 6A? Sure. Okay.

Yeah. My first thought was where are we with annexation? Is there any momentum there? We are looking at the the first round at those properties on US 41. Yeah. Um bringing those probably starting through the

I'm sorry. Yeah. Boyd Lawrence, planning director. Yeah, we're looking at those properties at US 41 to start. Um because of the Jones loop, there's quite a few more and perhaps more that we'll add to that original analysis that was done. Uh so hoping to start that probably in in April. Now, we'll have to look and see how the uh the LDRs, what we do with those impact because ultimately whatever we bring into the city will have to come into the city zoning, too. So, we have to make sure everything's in compliance there. Uh and the future land use map. Okay. But yeah, we are in progress of doing something with those. Thank you.

Any other questions or comments? Okay. Then we have the local option sales tax. questions, comments, project updates, boards and committees, any questions there, mayor. No, Missy, I was going to ask you if we're moving things, is Carolo going to be here as well on Wednesday, the engineers? Because if they're not, I'm I'm not worried about it, but if they are, I was wondering if we moved them up or not. I just wasn't sure if they were going to be here and I didn't want them to have to sit. Corola engineers. I can't remember if they are or not.

No, no, they will not be here. It'll just be a staff item. Okay. Thanks. That that was my only concern. And then lastly, any comments, Vice Mayor? No, thank you. Yes, I have two um regarding I was also contacted this week weekend regarding sports courts and concern about did we follow proper procedure uh that we should have had two noticed public hearings in order to change the ordinance. You will? Yes. Yes. Yes. the ordinance does not go in effect until after we've had those two public hearings and two council meetings

because the discussion I I had to listen to the whole thing again. We decided to implement it immediately. We had a a second um motion to but then there was an email that came out that said it has to go ordinance for it to go into All right. Yeah. And that he was Yeah. And I think Mr. Mr. Luskovich was looking into that ordinance to write it up and and all all parties that have been involved will be notified of when that hearing is going to be.

Good with regard. This second item is u and it's not a ding on on code enforcement by any means, but um I was drawn into a discussion about the enclosure for some dumpsters out behind the strip mall over on Ball Harbor and they had replaced the gates on on the enclosures. The old ones were dilapidated and and they put on some enclosures that would stand up to the weather and they're made with chain link and then they have slats in them to obscure the view into the the dumpster enclosure and they don't qual they didn't get a permit. Um they didn't think they had to because they were just replacing the doors. Um, but in fact, they did need to get a permit and they still need to have a permit. And I'd hate to force them to remove that and put something else on cause them additional expense because it's behind the building. Who sees it other than the people that take the garbage out there and the sanitation guys that pick up the dumpsters? Um, and when we have things all around town, he went after he got the the uh citation went around and and identified places all over the town that are much worse and but because they're pre-existing nonconforming, they're allowed to remain that way. I would like to discuss that with all of you uh going forward probably in the LDR

y process or or whatnot but I don't know about the immediate remedy for these guys. Right. Rachel does not the zoning official does not have any mechanism to approve something like the structure that's there because it is the slats you can actually see through them and it has to be um comp completely um where you can't see through it. So um certainly would require council discussion and council um making an alternate determination because staff doesn't have the authority to do that.

I understand that. So they could put like fake grass in all the chain length and then you can't see through it and that might be okay because you can't see the dumpsters. Is that kind of what I'm I am not a zoning official but I the biggest thing is because you can't see the dumpsters. So if you like you know I'm just trying to think of an outside the box solution. Yeah. Rachel Barry zing official for the record. And so, yes, it's a very frustrating situation um because, you know, we we're tied. We have to enforce the code. Um it's a two-part issue. Number one, it's not completely blocking the dumpsters and the gates are made of chain link um which is another part of the problem.

Um the the gates can't be made of chain link. It's prohibited. And so, you know, maybe we can discuss the I don't know if you've seen um like the sun shades that are, you know, pretty solid. you know, maybe if council would approve that, something a similar color to the building tacked onto the outside of the chain link so you can't see the chain link and then it serves both purposes. Blocks the dumpster also. Um, so happy to discuss that. That sounds reasonable. Yes. Thanks, Rachel. That's all I have. Thank you, Mayor. you I think

I just had a question. Um so the the current ordinances that we have regarding sound I'm talking about the courts uh and why don't we have an ordinance well we must have an ordinance about lighting bright lights and and the height of lights already. I mean can we enforce existing ordinances? I don't know what they say but the noise ordinance in the neighborhood must be reasonable. Rachel said, "So, our current ordinance, noise ordinance, doesn't even have the word decibel in it." Yeah, it's hard, Rachel. How is the police going to do anything about it, though? I mean, we have So, yeah, tell us about the ordinance.

Um, so Rachel Barry is unofficial for the record. So, the noise ordinance is about a page and a half long. Um, and it is very, very insufficient. It is practically uninforceable, right? um you know, what one person might consider annoying, somebody else might love. And so it's it's subjective also. And so we're going to be working on um you know, updating that noise ordinance and having actual items in there that we can enforce. As far as the lighting standards, we currently don't have anything that applies to residential properties. Right. Um any exterior lighting standards we have in the LDRs are for commercial properties. So last,

so when it comes to noise or should have look at a residential noise already and then a different one for downtown. Like some of our restaurants can get pretty loud and some of them are a little close to the neighborhoods and stuff. So, um yeah. So, just considering those as well. Absolutely. We'll definitely work on it. I love the the yard the restaurant that's going to be the yard, but it does in Fort Myers it gets quite loud and it's probably too much for what we have here. It's going to have to be a little lower. So anyway, all that to say, we can we can work these things out. We just have to address them.

And I can say, Janine, for the record, I live downtown and I love hearing the music. I I go outside, I hear the music. It's It's I love it. I know that people are downtown. I think it's cool.

Yeah. And I I'll just say historically um that came up years ago. I'm not sure if you were on council yet, Council Member Lockheart, or not. Um but basically that was the second largest. It might have been the largest crowd we ever had in the old city council chambers. All of the business owners, all of their patrons came out and did not want to see anything changed with the noise ordinance. It overwhelmingly it it's part of the character of of Quagora. At least it was seven years ago when that was I hear fisherman's village music. I love it. like you say, I can even hear the railroad

when the trains come by from where I live, and I'm nowhere near that. And the other thing that concerns me about this this um subject is it seems like we focused on one family and all of a sudden we're making changes

because of one family. And I don't know if that's really right for us to be considering doing. And I think that's how it it triggered. And so I kind of feel bad that how we went about it. I think none of us intended to stop kids from playing at all. But I I don't know if we should even consider going through with because even when you're hearing we're talking about, you know, lights and noise and all that and you know that we've already had an issue. Is this something that we want to continue and have, you know, two meetings on and have all this discussion when it's probably going to go nowhere. So, I don't know if we should direct staff to continue on with this or not. That's a good question because if we're not going to do anything about it, we don't want to waste their time, right? Well, we can't make any decisions today. However, I think it but this is up for Wednesday.

I understand. Okay.

In regards to there's always there's always a start of something, right? Something may get built, whatnot. There's nothing wrong with looking at it to say is this, you know, unfortunately this subject has gone just bonkers. People are saying we don't want kids to play. We want to shut down kids after dark. And it's just it's gotten ridiculous, honestly. Okay. Some people have kind of taken run with it, which is not what our discussion was. Our discussion is if something is built that is unusual for a residential area, is it appropriate that if it creates more gatherings and more noise and and lighting that, you know, unfortunately a lot of this is what we're finding, right? Our code is is silent on some of this stuff. Then there's no reason why we can't look at it and say, is this something that we want for the future? Are we okay with it? Does it need some noise abatement? Should it be, you know, if it's built on a canal, it needs another, you know, walt for the sound and this and that. Like there's all kinds of easy things that we can do. But first, and this is what was back in 2024, it just never got to that point where the attorney needs to define what a sports court is first, right? And say this is that's not and then maybe that one doesn't even fall under it. So I think we have an obligation because if it's allowed right now to be built and we want if we want to see more of these built in residential areas, then fine. But if we don't or we want to make sure that we have a structure for lighting, which obviously right now there is no lighting for residential, there could be other issues that come up. So it's looking at it. This court was built and so you look at it. I mean it just is what it is. If it was built, you look at it and then you go forward and see whether you want to regulate it or not. There's nothing wrong with having a conversation.

Right. The reason I became aware of the inadequacy of our noise ordinance is from the car wash on 41 down there by the YMCA. and the residents that live behind it. And when they're coming out of the car wash and the jets drying the vehicles off, sounds like you're at a runway. And it's really bad. And um and Rachel comes from somewhere that has a more robust noise ordinance that I I think we should take a look at. There's more than just it's it's a conversation that's stemming that's going to look at other things that you're not aware of until something like this comes about. Yep.

Well, our LVRs will be addressing sports cars. I don't think they should be allowed because there's too many problems associated with them. You know, our properties aren't big enough and if you own two, we'll put a house there, not a sports cart. I just don't think it's right for for the neighbors to have to deal with that. And there's no way to really control it. And we will be nasty to the kids if we have to try to control it. Well, I mean, just like we have pickle ball, we've got time for for play downtown for pickle ball. I mean, you know, we've got I think we do have like a 10 o'clock kind of quiet time ordinance, even though it may not be enforceable, but there's just certain things you can do.

There's already a 70% coverage ratio in place. Most places can't have a court, right? I mean, we're we're, you know, we're talking about very few properties that are allowed to have them. So, keep that in mind. Not everybody could build one. That's just that's just not realistic. um you know most houses take up 70% of their property and then that's it. So keep that in mind you know and I go back to what are we trying to change when you know this city started and people had tennis courts and things you know I was listening that there's one tennis court in the whole I mean was there yeah there's only one that I'm aware of there's only one I think it was the Sam Burchers or one of the ones Mr. John's had a very big basketball court. Yeah. And then I think after

it was allowed. It was always allowed.

Yeah. So it it these things were allowed back back then and now we're trying to restrict more. And like Janine said, 70% of the surface, you know, you don't have a whole lot of space. I I definitely couldn't put any kind of basketball court in my backyard. Well, I'm but at the same time, if we have something that is a problem, if we agree that there is something that they can do to help the residents that live around something that's existing, then I think we have an obligation. I don't think there's a problem with that. And maybe it's just the lights. Maybe it's, you know, nothing. But, you know, I'm not in favor of not not looking into this. But I also am very upset that the people that are throwing this issue out on social media is trying to make it that we're targeting a family. were trying to restrict kids from playing. That's not the case.

There's so much stuff distorted on social media. You just have to ignore it. I mean, I get a lot of stuff thrown at me that's totally false, too. So, I'm making a statement because we're in a meeting so people can watch it and understand that. You know, I think all of us agree that none of us are trying to define when kids can play. End of story. Mayor, did you have comments? I'm sorry. Um, no. I'll save my other comments for Wednesday. Okay. Attorney Lasco. No, ma'am. Okay. Council. Okay. All good. All right. Then we are adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.