Planning and Zoning Board - Regular Meeting

One of the applicants here so you're ready. Don't walk away. Is this yours? Yes. Oh, don't get him too close. 80 minutes. Yeah. Look, this is the wine right here. Go on, John. I got I'm g Yeah. I don't But it is 3:00. Yeah. Yeah. Maybe you told them three. Okay. We're ready whenever you are, Mr. Goldberg. Okay. Thank you. Good afternoon and welcome to the June 23rd, 2025 meeting of the Pakora Planning and Zoning Board. We would stand and let's have a school. Keep your seat. Let's have a roll call first, please. Tony Gray, Harvey Goldberg here, Patrice Patrick

here, Robert Ciphert here, James Wilton here, John Rinders here, Charles Lewis here. Thank you. Thank you. And we can stand for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with justice for all. Thank you. And we need it. I have no announcements. Uh, anyone else have any announcements? Um, the next meeting of the planning and zoning board is July 28th, 2025. There's no one here would like to address the planning and zoning board and provide any public comments. Please step to the podium, identify yourself. If you have comments regarding today's business and quasi judicial public hearing, we hold those comments until until the that hearing is introduced. So, I can't I can't speak today about what was going to be on the agenda today. It it won't count as part of the testimony for today's decision making. You can do it now, but it it's just information. I can just come back and do it again. Yes, you'll do about that. You'll have an opportunity. Okay. All right. My name is Mike P. Uh I'm a resident of City of Panagorta. I'm an attorney and I'm a a commercial real estate appraiser. I hold an Mi designation, a CCIM designation. I'm an estate certified general real estate appraiser. Um the project before you

today is a 112,510 ft self-s storage facility at 2530 Tammy Trail. Charlotte County has already approved the 99,930 ft cube smart facility on Mac Drive just north of Jones Loop west of I75 that is under construction and will likely be completed prior to the subject project breaking ground. Additionally, the Scenic View 5 storage facility on Taylor Road has also been approved by Charlotte County containing 145,000 square feet. These three projects will bring approximately 345,000 square ft of self- storage space into an already saturated market. There's currently approximately 320,000 square ft of self- storage space in the Pontagora market area, which equates to 16 square ft per city resident. The development of these three facilities will increase the supply of self-s storage space in the city of Pontagua by over 100% or do 33 square ft per resident. To put that into context, the city of Cape Coral implemented a moratorium on self-s storage development capping the supply of self-s storage development at 10 square ft per resident. In the petitioner's package, they claim the Cube Smart facility is 4 miles or 10 minutes out of town when in fact it is 2.68 miles from the subject site and a half a mile from the city limits. Due to limited parking on these type of properties, the repurposing of the structures, if they are not successful, is limited. Additionally, no job creation from this type of the the the job creation from this type of use is minimal. The requested density of 120 112,510 square feet is excessive and the coverage ratio for the project is 140 142% of the land area. The project is not compatible with existing development

along Tammy Ammy Trail with typical coverage races ratios in the 20 to 25% range. The density the petitioner is requesting is five times the typical density of the US 41 corridor. To further further put this development intensity into perspective, the 123,318 square foot smart self storage located at 3811 Ammy Trail is situated on 7 a 7.89 acre site with a coverage ratio of only 35.86%. The proposed subject project will flood the market, neg negatively impacting the smaller mom and pop facilities that have been paying taxes in the city of Panagorta for decades. Once you allow this type of density, you open the city up to future litigation if similar projects are denied. Finally, the statement in the package by the petitioner that the project will generate $200 to $250,000 in city tax revenue is also misleading as the likely taxes to the city will only be 70 to $80,000. The request of the petitioner should be denied. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else wish to make public comments? Thank you. Um, move on to next item on the agenda. Approval of the minutes of the May 20th, 2025 meeting of the planning and signing board. Anyone have any uh changes or issues with the minutes? I'll move the minutes. I'll second them. Move in a move in a second for approval of the minutes. Any other comments or discussion? All in favor indicate by saying I. I. Oppos say nay. Minutes are approved unanimously.

We have no legislative public hearings on the agenda. We do have one quasar judicial public hearing which I will read. Public hearing is a a-01-2025. Appeal of administrative decision related to total four area allowance for the property located at 2530 Tamiami Trail. Before um for the zoning official gives her report. I just want to go over a couple matters regarding the procedures for quasi judicial public hearings. Well, Mr. Chair, may I uh make one comment before we go into that? Please do. Okay. Um because of the uh close proximity of one that's was received. It was not uh distributed to you all. I received an email just this morning at 10:11 a.m. from Milton Pate, who is the program manager for the Contino Group, who is the authorized agent for um the applications regarding this property. And the email reads, "Good morning, Rachel. I have just spoken with Marble Creek, who is the proposed developer, and they have asked that I contact you and request they be taken off today's PCB agenda without prejudice. There are some ongoing negotiations with the land owner and the Marbor Creek representatives are not able to physically attend today's meeting. Please confirm receipt of this email. I apologize for the late notice, but it literally just came up moments ago. And I responded to him and said that I received the email, but I do not have the authority to personally grant the request. Section 16.2G of the LDRs. It says that after the newspaper deadline, it can only be pulled off the agenda with the consent of the planning board. So if you all uh would be willing to entertain a motion to continue it to the next regular scheduled meeting um that is what they would requested.

Thank you. Is there a motion to accept the um postponement till the next date certainly was the next planning board on July 28th, 2025. Is there a motion to I'll move I'll move that we do that for purposes of discussion. Yes. Is there a second? Not hearing a second. Um, the motion is denied. So, we will proceed with the public hearing. the um for the public hearing. Um first ann the first uh um proclamation or not proclamation, excuse me, first presentation is about the zoning official presenting the city's findings in in position. Uh zoning official has 30 minutes for that to provide that. Um uh we have we have the opportunity after the zoning official makes the presentation to to question uh for purposes of clarity. Um anything related to the issue at hand which is the permitted square footage. After that unfortunately the applicant is not here. So, we would move to um any public testimony that the public would like to uh anyone in public would like to have. We after they are sworn in and we'll get to that in just a moment and the public will have up to three minutes a piece provide any testimony regarding this. At the conclusion of that, we will close the public hearing and we'll have the the city attorney um provide any

applicable facts and findings that must be made um for the must be made for the um uh relevant uh comments on the public hearing as well. as well as um what would be required to approve, deny or postpone uh approve with conditions deny or again postpone um the application. After that the the board the board will conduct a deliberation on the application. Following that, um, a motion will be made again whether or not to approve approve of conditions or deny the application. All right. Good afternoon. Really quickly before we begin testimony, can I swear everyone in? Absolutely. Yes, please. Anyone intending to provide testimony in today's proceedings, please stand and raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth during today's proceedings? I do. Thank you. All right. Good afternoon, board members. My name is Rachel Barry, the zoning official for the record. Before I start, I want to make sure, do each of you have an updated presentation from the applicant. It looks like this on the front page. I do. You do? Okay. For those in the audience, this is the presentation I'm referring to. I have copies in my bag if you need one of the updated presentation. All right, with that said, so the item before you today is an appeal of an administrative decision. Uh there are a couple uh related applications to this request. It started with a special exception that was SE012024,

a proposed indoor self storage facility which came before this board and was approved on December 23rd, 2024. Subsequently, the applicant filed their development application which was distributed for staff review in March. And our comments on the staff report noted uh the 30,000 foot limitation uh that is found in section 3.10 10 the highway commercial of the LDRs. Um so the determination that I made at that time was that the special exception approved the use but not necessarily the specifics of the overall development including the square footage and that section 4.13 was not intended to apply to all development within the highway commercial district. Um and was intended to be updated when the code was rewritten and adopted last year. So that is the determination that is being appealed. Approval criteria for an appeal of administrative decision. Uh so section 16.2 of the LDR subsection E approval criteria. An appeal shall be sustained if the planning and zoning board or city council finds that the official aired. The decision shall be accompanied by written written findings of fact and conclusion stating the reason for the decision. So the first consideration or number one under subsection E consideration for appeals the following items should be considered when you're making your decision whether it was properly brought before you all for a decision or if there is another avenue uh that would be more appropriate. Uh the intent of the regulation in question the effect the ruling will have when applied generally to those zoning regulations. staff recommendation, the testimony of the appelllet, and the testimony of substantially interested parties. And so, next up was going to be the applica, the applicant's presentation. Would you like for me to open that up

and just click through the slides? Sure. She wants to open that click through it. Why not? I of course won't present on their behalf, but I can at least click through the the slides. First slide. Oops. There we go. Okay. All right. So, that is just the history they provided. They started working on the application November 2023 and we are now in June of 2025. They gave some site conditions. They included some maps for the location and context of the surrounding areas, the proposed site layout. Um other development challenges for uh the property at hand, the intent of their development, the specifications and updated renderings that they have provided some additional details on the architectural elements.

some information they have provided on market and demand need existing facilities a map of the facilities they've listed traffic and environmental topics, economic benefits. And that is the end of their presentation. And so, uh, with that, I can answer any questions you might have. We can move to public comment, whichever you like to do. I have a lot of questions, but I I just like to know when they started, has this always been 112,510 ft right from the get-go in November of 2023? To my knowledge, yes. Okay. I came on November of this last year, uh, which was right before was coming before you all with the special exception. Um, so I I do not know what exact conversations were held within that year before I started with the city. Um, but to my knowledge that was always part of their application. I know I know it was when we made a decision December 23rd of 2024, it was in when I went back and looked at it, it was in that document. Yes, it was in their application. I'm going to reserve I've got some other comments and questions. I'm going to reserve until we we uh close the public hearing and and have comments from our from the board. Okay. This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak on AAD01-2025, please step forward, introduce yourself. You have three minutes.

Okay. I guess I misunderstood you. I thought you were going to postpone it. But again, my name is Mike Pulk. This project's 112,000. Excuse me, Mr. Pulk. Yeah. Um, is this a repeat of what you said? Yeah. Earlier, then you've had your three minutes. Well, is it going to be on the record? Yeah. Yes. Okay. So, what I did was on was on the record. Yeah. But I need to be sworn in because I wasn't sworn on when I gave my You need to get sw would you swear him in, please? Yes, I'll swear him in. And um I believe he's able to have three minutes for this as well because it's a quasi judicial public hearing. So Okay. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in today's proceedings? I do. Thank you. Then go ahead and with your presentation, sir. Again, this is 112,510 square feet. Okay, it's literally a third of the existing supply that we have out there right now. Okay, as I said earlier, um Cape Coral put a moratorum at 10 square feet per person per per capita of the residents in in Cape Coral. Okay, we already have 15. We have 50% higher than that right now of our existing supply of self- storage space. Now, you're going to double it. So, we're going to have 30 square ft per person. Okay? There's no demand. These large companies like this, they go in and they buy impulse sites, which would typically be utilized by retail users. Okay. And they pay a high price per square foot to buy these sites because they know they can go in put up a 100,000 square foot facility and cannibalize the space all all the market and and basically put the mom and pops out of

business. So these taxpayers who've been here paying taxes for decades, okay, are probably going to be put out of put out of business. I mean, think about it. You're doubling the supply between these three projects. Okay, the one at Jones Loop, it's it'll be done before they even break ground on this parcel. It's out there. It's right there across from McDonald's next to Waffle House. Okay, and for them to try to say that it's 4 miles or 10 minutes away. It's 2.87 miles from away from the site and it's a half a mile from the city limits. Okay. So, I don't think they're being very forthright about the supply that's out there right now. And again, as I said earlier, the taxes generated from this project to the city is only going to be about $70,000. The total tax bill will be 260. They're saying it might even be higher, but only about 70 to 80,000 is going to go to the city. Okay. Um, again, as I said, this type of development, you're not going to create any jobs. If it doesn't work out, you can't repurpose the building because it doesn't have enough parking. I mean, what kind of use could you put in there? You can even put warehouse in there, okay? Because because you don't have enough parking spaces. So, um, I don't think I think you're setting a a dangerous precedent to go in there and give them 145% coverage ratio. The typical coverage ratio on 41 is 20 to 25%. You're going to go five times that that. So, what are you going to do to the next guy when you deny him? And he's going to go, "Well, you let you let the storage facility go in there that high density." So, I think that's a dangerous precedent that you're going to set. and it's going to open you up uh to future litigation. Uh uh let me see if I got anything else.

That's about it. Thank you. Thank you again. This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak on AAD01-2025, please step forward, introduce yourself, and indicate that you've been sworn. Last call. This is a public hearing. Judicial quasa judicial public hearing. A a01-2025. Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion. The chair will entertain a motion to close the public hearing. So move. Second. Second. Been moved and seconded to close the public hearing. Any further comments? The public hearing is hereby closed. Thank you. I've got some information to share with our board. This is both to keep us centered as to where we are. Um the issue at hand is um is whether or not the square footage proposed in the application is allowable under city code. Do you want me to pass? This is just so that we can follow along. Is there going to be a lot of mention of of um various land development regulations? Pass that down to the city clerk, please. So, what we're dealing with here is um in chapter 26 of land development

regulations uh section 3.1 zoning and regulating districts. The next section that's applicable is section 3.10 highway commercial district. That's where the proposed um commercial businesses is located in 3.1. The next page that's on page 126 of the zoning regulating districts. The permitted principal uses in item number one, commercial development, says it's up to 30,000 ft in total four area. As we know and recognize, the proposed uh square footage of the uh of the development is 112,000 square feet plus what the development room committee did not permit pursue were the additional permitted uses within 3.10 in 3 in in 3.10 10 PN PN C and then PN one permitted uses with conditions says commercial and office uses exceeding 30,000 square ft within categories listed in one in A1 BN which is go back to that A1 it's commercial development so this is a commercial development

Further down in that section we have parent F special exceptions. The following users are also subject to application provisions of article four of this chapter. And then if you go down to F six, any such other uses as deemed appropriate by the in the district by the zoning official and that was identified and approved in the special exception previously noted on December 23rd, 2024. Go to the reference article 4 uses permitted with conditions section 4.13 commercial office structures exceeding 30,000 square ft individually or in combination. So we have two items in 3.10 in in section current F and then in section 4 PN 413 that allows commercial and office structures exceeding 30,000 square ft. The condition in 4.13 says a traffic impact analysis is required involving all streets within one mile of the site and indicate the method intended to resolve any conflicts. These shall be accepted as determined by the city council by the city excuse me or the far department of transportation. That impact analysis was provided in the special exception review and accepted on

September, excuse me, December 23rd, 2024 and accepted by the development review committee as well as the zoning official. So, we have more information to add to our consideration and determination. I will ask the zoning official a question with with those with those paragraphs identified in 310 PN C item one item PN F special exceptions is item BN six and then in article 4 section 4.13 does the zoning official is the zoning officials understanding and position that the 30 112,000 square feet as requested by the by the applicant meet those conditions of the of the um code. So, my determination was made based off of um the understanding that there was most likely a typo when the code was rewritten and that that conditional use was not supposed to apply to all of all of the uses within the high commercial district. Um, and so my interpretation was no, that it did not fall under those uses permitted with conditions. Where is the typo?

So, let me see if I can up here. I'll be it from here. Okay. So, the mic. Okay. Okay. So, the one that I have up now is the current version of the LDR. So, this is currently in effect. Um, and these are the same that that Mr. Chairman that you were referencing. Uh, so 310A1 uh just says commercial developments up to 30,000 ft in total floor area. The previous LDRs for A1 had an entire page of specific uses that were listed out. So when you get down to the uses permitted with conditions in both versions, it's the same commercial and office uses exceeding 30,000 within categories A1 and two above. Same here within categories A1 and two above. The code at that time A1 and two again had two pages of individual uses that were listed, none of which included storage. And then the current LDRs when it refers back to A1 and two, it just says commercial development up to 30,000

square feet. And so my my determination was that that was not their intent and that it was intended to be updated when the code was rewritten. I I didn't follow that. So you're saying that 310? Let's see. 310 uh C1 where it's it says exceeding commercial and office use is exceeding 30,000 ft. So that would seem I I don't where is that where the typo is? Are you saying the whole paragraphs were not the that um C that C1 was not updated in accordance with the updates they made to A1 and two. So C1, the uses permitted with condition that contains the reference remain the same where the information it was referencing was completely changed. Well, let me ask you a question. Mhm. Are we guided by these? I mean, can can anybody come up and say they're well, I think they should have done this. I mean, is this not our our Bible? Is this not our statute or ordinance that we have to follow? And those are the LDRs in effect. Um, we have found a few typos where we will go back and look at the old code for reference to make sure that, you know, we're on the right page. Um, but that is the determination that is before you all today is to determine whether my determination at that time was an error in that the use permit with condition does in fact apply to all commercial uses in the district um or or not. I have a I have an issue with the with the purpose of intent. Okay. Um uh I don't I think it's difficult for staff

to say it was the intent although staff was not present at the time uh that the LDRs were were revised um uh through many many months almost years of of work by prior staff and prior members of of this board when was the planning commission. Um so to express um a difference of a purpose for intent at this point in time I think um does not stand any test. You could you could say you could use that same um position on other other matters as we read through and and evaluate uh the land development regulations. But the fact is that the land development regulation, the current land development road, sorry, regulations were heard and approved by the city council, sent to the state legislature and approved there as well. And to say that that um uh at this point in time that there was a different intent or an intent was not followed through in the creation of those those regulations. U just doesn't it doesn't stand a test for me. Did the DRC take your position of what you're talking about now that there was a typo? So or did they just make a mistake? In going back through, there was an administrative review of the application. I could not find where it went through a public meeting before the DRC um but there were no other comments provided by other departments um regarding the the application or the proposed use when it was going through

the special exception phase. Right. and the DRC as well as all the other administrative people were pro provided with a copy at the pre-application meeting which is mandatory in this and they and when the application was completed which is mandatory that you give them all copies. So everybody knew right from the get-go that this was the size it was going to be. So I I would think that the DRC made an error there was an error in their decision making to say that they now have to go back to 30,000 ft. And I think if that's an error then we have to find um that that that uh it is this appeal is sustained. Understood. So you you acknowledge that? I I was not here when the application was deemed final. So I I do not know what conversations took place with the applicant before then. Okay. I'm talking about 16.2e. That's the one you're I'm saying that there's an error. If there's an error then we have to find that this appeal is sustained. Correct. Okay. Other comments, questions? I have several comments. First of all, Charles Lewis, for the record, uh I understand that we're under a moratorum on these buildings and car washes. Actually, um to your point, um it needs to be a clarification on that. I believe the zoning official can clarify that. So, to that point, the city council did make a motion to um place a moratorum on car washes and storage facilities at that time. time this application was brought up and it was noted that this would not be part of that because it was filed prior to that uh motion being made. To my knowledge,

an official resolution or ordinance was never brought back before council to illegally and officially adopt the moratorum and so legally we don't have a moratorum in place at this time. Boy, I read it. We have 180 days. That was the discussion March 19th. That was the discussion that happened at council. Yes. All right. The other thing is it's a vacant piece of property. Correct. Correct. And there is language in SB 250 about vacant properties that are being changed in zoning. How does this property affect that? I don't believe SB250 would come into play at all with this. Um especially because the SB50 mentioned I'm sorry. So we don't know. She knows. Can you be more specific or Well, I I I I I don't know how it's going to come in. I thought maybe council might be able to enlighten us. I I don't believe SB250 would affect this at all. Um because we're not changing the zoning of the property. We're not there there's no moratorium affecting development of the property. Um just a special exemption. Correct. Correct. Which isn't a a change to the zoning, just a special approval. So the petitioner does not own the property. Is that correct? At this current time? No. They have no vested rights? That I can't say. When it comes to vested rights, uh Mr. Levich has been working on an application process. Um you know, where they the applicant would provide their information, what they have invested in the property. It would be evaluated to determine whether or not they do in fact have vested rights in the property. You want me to come up here? Please, Stephen Lasco. For the record, uh,

interim city attorney, my understanding is is that the proposed developer of this storage facility does not own the real property in question. And if I heard correctly and I reread that email that you had written earlier or referenced earlier, they're in negotiations with the land owner, but it does not say for what type of negotiations. I am assuming potentially for purchase or lease or whatever it may be. We don't know. If they are not the land owner, they would have no vested rights at this particular point. Okay? without knowing, you know, what's going on with the real property in question. Well, thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. So, I agree with intent. Okay. Intent does work. Intent does have precedent. And I don't think there's any way you speak into the microphone. I agree with intent. intent does have purpose and it does have precedent and I believe that your assessment of what was there was correct and spot on. I don't think there's any way that this committee can approve the application that's put before us for um 112,000 square foot exception. I just it can't happen. It's going to set a dangerous precedent for where we're at in our community and for other people. And at some point in time, you got to draw the line. That's why you have the laws. And you should have the law with the ability to have intent as part of that particular law. James Wilson, I got a question for

clarification. I guess if we determine that the appeal is allowed, does that automatically approve 112,000 square ft or does that kick it back to 30,000 because there hasn't been an application for $112,000 ft that I've seen. They're still subject to the $30,000 30,000 foot that's in the ordinance as it exists now. There's been no special exemption granted for that uh expansion in the ordinance only for the use as a storage facility the way I understand it. So Rachel Barry again so yes the special exception was for the use um the determination that I made and enter into the staff report when they filed their development plan was that they were capped at the 30,000 that was referenced in 3.10. um and that that is what is being appealed. The appeal is that the 30,000 does not apply um in this scenario and that you know through the process of them having it in their application the whole time that you know that that's what they're filing the appeal based off of. And does their application state the basis for them claiming that the 30,000 doesn't apply? the the appeal states that they they applied for this, right? They they What's the reason that the $30,000 or 30,000 square feet does not apply? DRC says the DRC and the administrative review said that um it has Oh, by the way, it has to be 30,000, but I think Harvey just went over all the the code sections that would allow more than 30,000. So, so we're at a position where they have always requested this amount. It's not something new. It what's new is the official interpretation

of that 30,000 does apply when it looks like it there's more than adequate information here to show you can have more than 30,000. Now, the the amount I you know that's So, you're saying we can have they can have more than 30,000 without ever applying for more? No. No, they were originally applied for that. It even in the even the decision we made in December of last year was for the use, but it has in there this this exact amount. I understand that. But the stat or the ordinance says 30,000. It says 30,000 one spot and then more than that in other spots. Okay. But we've never approved more than 30,000. And that's what we're doing here today. They're appealing the the ruling of the that that you have to have 30,000 and we're we're saying well you'll be asked for 112,000. So if I may just just to kind of touch on the point that you're making. So, hypothetically speaking, if a U dentist office came in proposing more than 30,000 square feet, since they fall under the commercial and office uses that's mentioned under C1, then no, they would not have to come before planning and zoning. they would just file their development plan which would go before DRC as long as they comply with all of the conditions that are listed in article 4 which for commercial over 30,000 would be the the traffic study. So that would be how the process would go for for a use that is um allowable over 30. Rachel. Yes, sir. On average for an a doctor's office with 30,000 square feet, how many parking spaces would it have? Let's see. can pull that up in article 10.

So if you go just based on an office use that would be one per 400 square ft. Um, there's another line here for general health which says 1.2 per bed. Um, so really you could use either of those, but I feel general health 1.2 per bed is more so referring to like a hospital type setting um versus an office would be more so the the one per 400. Okay. So a number. Yeah, I know. That's why it's hard. 75 75 parking spaces for 30,000 square feet. And I don't I'm not following your Well, I'm going to get there. Okay. You have 112,000 they're asking for and there's nine parking places. Chuck, did you notice that? 11. I've noticed that the thing is that it's completely blown out of proportion. I I I I can't even begin to even think about approving this. It's crazy. Well, we're trying we're trying to go through the ordinance. We're trying we're trying to do a a disciplined approach to this. Okay. Um and they have presented evidence and obviously our code doesn't require more parking when you have a self enclosed self storage. So it's not something that was made. That's not another mistake is it Rachel? Not that I'm aware of. The all other commercial uses requires one per 300 square feet. Does that answer the question? I have one other question for clarification, Mr. Chairman. Um, and it has to do with standing. Can, and as the attorney said that to everybody's knowledge, they are not the legal owner. Can anybody bring

an application for change like this on any piece of property anytime they want? As long as they have all of the necessary approvals in place. So, the property owner has to give a notorized statement authorizing somebody to be the applicant. um there has to be an authorized statement for somebody to be the agent to handle all the paperwork and so they do have to sign and have notorized statements for those purposes. So whoever owns the property has done all of that to this entity that's applying now. That is correct. Thank you. The point is according to section 16.2 to the approval criteria. It appears to me that the application the applicant has met the criteria for approval. Under what what excuse me I'm sorry I how did you come to that conclusion? because I'm reading because I'm reading the the uh consider the approval criteria and the consideration and I find I don't find any exception on the criteria and that's what we have to weigh that's what we have to weigh our decision on whether or not the applicant 16 has has met the criteria screen as well it's in the back of that package Charles. Rachel, can I ask you a question? Absolutely. Do you agree that you can have more? Are you saying it's from the code sections that Harvey read that you can't have more than 30,000

square feet? Is that a true answer? Is that true? That that was my determination for this application. And these people have have been talking to you for two years and have always said they wanted the the 12,510 square ft. And now we get to this point when we've already approved it and it was already in our original um exception, special exception approval in December of last year. We're going to come to this point and tell them you can't do it. I I I think Mr. Eleskovich could answer that one. I think you'd worried about lawsuits. To me, that's a lawsuit in the making. Uh, so yes, to my understanding, so from the very first conversation with the urban design department, um, the size of the development was part of the conversation or at least known by staff at that time. But again, I I I don't know what conversations specifically were had to that point. Well, we know in December 2024 that this was all part of that application, correct? The same the 12,510 square f feet. Um and and and to say there had there has to be an error if you if you try to the DRC's had made an error when they tried to hold it to 30,000 square feet because it's never been 30,000 square feet and it is allowed under the statute. So if it is an error under the ordinances, it it has the appeal has to be affirmed and you've already agreed to that. Understood. Yes. So it does say that it can only be sustained if if you find that there was an error made in that determination. And and in fact there was understood. Is there has there been that that's what you all are determining? I don't think there has been. And and and how do you where do you where do you find that? Is that in your

heart? There. And she said that there was intent. There was intent for the law. And I believe wait what what are you talking about? What section are you talking about? I'm talking about the first one where it says there's 30,000 square feet and shall not exceed. Did you look at 310 C1 that was mentioned by Harvey? And I I did. I was just reading it. And what does it say? It says commercial more than 30,000 ft is authorized. But it also refers back to the first. Yeah. And that's a look at 310A1. That is that one is commercial. That says commercial property. And that's what this is. It says a total floor area total floor area of 30,000 square feet. Don't read that. Read what? Oh, no, no, no, no. Don't don't believe my eyes. Is that what you're telling me? And Chuck, I'm saying it refers back to three. This refers back to the commercial purpose of the square footage. I can tell you the thing is gotten out of hand because there's no way it should be approved. They've already voted first time with the city council to repeal the LDRs. This is probably going to get caught up in it. It looks like the second vote's going to go through. What you just stated has no bearing on this hearing. Absolutely not. And you're bringing into you're bringing into um a case that that of something that may be a future decision. Okay. Well, that's that's that's excuse me. Go ahead. I'm listening. That's that's conjecture and supposition. I'm well aware aware of that. I'm just reminding you. Okay. Well, thank you, Mr. Lecovich. at any time weigh part of my role, big part of my role is

to assist city council in legal mitigations. If you guys sustain the appeal, you are in essence affirming the appeal, in essence granting the appeal, saying they can build. I understand. Okay. Naturally, if you deny the appeal, then it's rejected. They cannot build that would would that enable them to submit another appeal. Maybe a reduced size. They can take it to the circuit court of Charlotte County. If they appeal PCB, it can go to council. Then it could go to council from there. So then council can vote on it. So if we deny it, then they can appeal it to the county, the city council. They could. Yes. The position you guys are in, I'm agreeing with all of you in certain respects. Here's my position on this is although they currently do not have, when I say they, I mean the builder do not currently have vested rights. Yes, council is currently in the process of developing vested rights. Whether that goes through or not, that's going to be up to council. But as of now, these folks would have none. The code currently reads up to 30,000 feet for commercial property. This is where I agree with Mr. Cipher at that. But then A1 or C whatever it is one gives the exception to the rule. Yeah. The code says up to 30,000. Period. But then the exception to the rule says but you can go above 30,000 if it relates to commercial property. Part of the problem I see if the if the case ends up in the court system, you potentially have a developer who said, "We submitted all this paperwork without vested rights." without vested rights because they don't own the property right now. We've submitted all the paperwork that says 112,000 and change.

You knew about it. City screwed up. I'm not pointing at you, but the city screwed up when they said it's authorized. So then I have to look at from a legal perspective who's on the hook. Is it the city or is it the developer? If the city screwed up, the city could be potentially on the hook because they authorized the 112,000 square feet. But then we also have to look at now we have the interpretation coming in which may say hey you can only go up to 30,000 and your application didn't specifically state 112,000. Okay. However, however, you know, this board was put on notice as well as the DRC and planning and everybody else that said 112,000. So it's hard to say that the application didn't have it. So, you guys are in a unique position with it. Um, you know, it it I mean, I will defend the city either way. Um, but it's up to you guys to decide on what to do. Well, my suggestion is that we deny the appeal and then let it go to city council. That's entirely up to you guys. Yeah. All right. What does the avenue for that look like? It would just have to go to city council. it it it it it would end up on the agenda at some point in time because I don't think this board should have the authority to make that decision because if it's going to have if it's going to have a legal implication, it should be done at a higher board. Well, but that's part of what this board is for is to help make those determinations. Well, point of clarification then to your point, the role of the planning and zoning board is review and make a recommendation to the city council whether or not they accept accept the conditions or deny the

the appeal. So our vote even if it is to approve that's to approve recommendation Harvey not this case Harvey not in this case this in this case our decision is final. Yes, the the planning zoning board's decision would be final. Unless correct and thank you. If a valid appeal is filed on your decision, then that appeal would go to council. That's true. That was my point that I knew this was the final decision and the final decision in my opinion should be held at the city council. So, are you asking to in essence abate this and say send it off to city council? uh either it gets denied and it goes to city council or it abates and goes to city council. But either either in any in either in either case we should not be voting on this city council should and that's for you guys to decide. The elected officials of this city should vote on this particular storage facility. Well, it comes down it comes down to whatever is motioned for this appeal and then how this board votes on. Mr. Leovich, I may ask you to help me with the motion uh a legal term. I'm saying that my motion is that this discussion hasn't been closed yet. Okay. Thank you. I didn't know the procedure. I got ahead of myself. No worries. And um James, well, while I agree with you on almost everything you say, I'm struggling with finding a legal justification under these facts as it exists and under the existing code to deny this appeal. We're not denying it, not passing it on. No, no, we're voting to approve the appeal or deny the

appeal. That's what the vote is today. The way I understand it, that's correct. and well my heart and everything I want and I agree with you before because I've had these discussions about this body not being uh uh final authority on anything under the rules the way they exist now in these statutes we are. Yeah. So while I wish we weren't, we are. And I'm tr struggling with finding a legal determination or a legal justification under the existing ordinances and statutes to deny the appeal. And I'm struggling to find that. Well, just to bring it, I I'll make a motion that based on the evidence and testimony presented at this public hearing for add-ing that a building in the highway commercial district may have more than 30,000 square ft and that the DRC staff requests that structure has to be adjusted to the maximum of 30,000 ft was an error and that the 112,52010 square ft initially requested is approved and this appeal is sustained. and um and that we have met all the criteria in 16.2E. Is there a second to the motion to keep conversation going? I second. Thank you. Now, further discussion now that the motion has been uh seconded and put on the floor. Go ahead. Since the motion has been second and put on the floor, I would I agree with the motion in in principle and content. Our land development regulations are are the rules we have to live by

like it or not, and they are for us um our uh the laws that we have to live with. And in two instances in the land development regulation, it says that uses are permitted um exceeding 30,000 square feet, which is an exception to to 3.10 10 A one and that's the purpose of having the other uh permitted uses with conditions um within this uh within this section. It's the same as in other sections of the of the LDRs where there are exceptions to permitted uses and that's consistent throughout the the land development regulations. If there was a if there was a different intent, it hasn't been proven and it hasn't been written into the land development regulation and we can't go on and I mean and applied in all other sections of the law in all different cases of in of the matter of intent. If you can rule and judge on on intent, you know, intent is in someone's in someone's head or maybe in their expressions, but it it doesn't it doesn't stand the test in this case as far as I'm concerned. And and I heard what Mike said and Mike makes some good points and it's a very practical points but that's not really that's really the market's decision and he knows the market because that's what he does but it really can't affect our decision here today because we are obligated to follow our ordinances and

that's what we're trying to do. This is a a unique piece of property. It's very irregularly shaped. It's not going to be good for most uses. It has a very low um it it doesn't produce much taxes as Mike said because it doesn't have many people there, but it will give us maybe not $200,000 in taxes, but it will help the city's tax ratio of a residential and commercial. Uh they're building a building that's that's hurricane proof. It's elevated. It's climate control. Um it's it was I think a little bit of an eyesore when they first provided it, but you guys have worked hard with them and they have kind of they've toned it down. They put porticos. I mean they've got columns and the fake. They they really did I think it looks really nice now compared to what it did. Um I I I hear everybody. I hear Chuck. I hear him. But I think that we have to follow the rules and I think we've established that it's that it's allowed to have more than 30,000 square ft and that there was an error made by DRC and so I think those require that we sustain this appeal. Any other further comments or questions? I don't think you made a mistake. I think it's an eyes. I do I do appreciate the fact that you were able to say, "Hey, this is what we have found. This is what we did. We don't remember the 112,000 square feet." I don't remember seeing it either first time and I don't believe that the building is conducive to Pontagora. I think it is something that is outside of what is normally built here. They didn't tell exactly the truth about where it was positioned with other buildings that were here. And they still don't own the property. They are not vested. No matter how you cut it, they are not vested. They haven't settled on the property. They haven't done anything

to own the property. As far as we know, all we know is they are in false. I don't think there's any way that this council should vote on this particular piece of um uh exception that is before us. I think it should go to city council. I think it's up to city council to make a decision on whether or not it's going to be granted, not this board. Can I address one more thing? Yes. Prior to you guys voting, in a matter of protecting the city, in the event you were to sustain the appeal, I would kindly ask that you guys amend your motion that the appeal is conditioned upon them gaining possessory interest of the property because So is that with prejudice? Is that what that means? No, it it just means because in this email they sent that they are in negotiations with the land owner. I heard the word precedence come about, you know, a few times and you don't want a different developer coming down the pipeline and taking over and saying well you approved 112 now I want to put it, you know, 110. your appeal, your decision would be solely made regarding this particular developer, regarding this particular piece of property, but I'll leave that up to you guys if you want to do that. And that is a great that's a great um suggestion. And then but it can still go with the same conditions up to city council. Correct. It can still go up to city council. That's where it needs to go. So, I'd move to amend the motion before us to include language that it is um limited to this property and that it is subject to the applicant obtaining uh legal title or is there another term

I should central title I take possessory interest possessory interest within how many days set a closing date time it out. They have to do it within 90 days. That's your opinion. They should It should be timed out. You can't You can't leave it open-ended. This is a This is That's the end of my my This is This is coming back. Okay. We have a motion and an amendment. An amendment that hasn't been seconded. I second it. Okay. It's my motion, too. So, now you vote on the amendment and then you vote on the motion. Yes. You don't think so? So I will also I will also comment that that from the minutes and the documentation that was submitted on December 23rd, 2025 2024 um it included the 112,000 square feet in for that special exception. Okay, I got copy here if you want. We got all kinds of stuff and it was the opinion it was the opinion of the zoning official that the request to construct 112,510 ft storage facility will not negatively affect the neighboring properties. It also states that page six says something else too hard. It says the development review committee did not identify any issues or concerns with the proposed use. So that was just as to the use I understand and that the traffic statement was included. So in all those issues, in all those cases rather, and with the documentation that was already acknowledged and approved, um all the information, uh there is

clear that that the land development regulations allow that property that that commercial development to include 112,000 square feet. Is that zoning official still employed? Is that a city? She she took that was me. You approved that. That was part of our I know that it was mentioned in the application. Um and I do know that we did not see any issue with the proposed use of the property. I don't see in those specific minutes a mention of the square footage. I have those minutes here. It was accepted with the in the special exception staff report. Oh, understood. I thought you were reading from from the comments that were made. Okay, I see. the the mention of the square footage was included in the staff report that that was part of their their proposal. Yeah. Right. So, we have a a motion to amend the original motion. That's been moved and seconded. All in favor of accepting the amended the a this amendment indicate by saying I I oppose say nay. The amendment amendment is carried is approved unanimously. All right. I'd like to propose another amendment to the amendment and the amendment would be that there's a timestamp on the time limit from when they have to take ownership and it should be within

90 days. Um we can consider that. However, um that's the 90 days is is arbitrary based on already on the contract with them. They should be able to close in 90 days. If they don't close in 90 days, then they have to go before city council. It's not saying no. It's just telling them that they have to do certain things. It's not a problem with that. I think conditionally it keeps their feet to the fire and makes them do what they're supposed to do. If they don't, then they're not able to to go forward with the project or sell it to anybody else. Isn't there a code section says they have so so it once it's granted it's only good for so so long for the appeal? Not that I'm aware of. No. Um, I know that once they go through the development process from the date of your DRC hearing or meeting, you have three months to get all of the necessary approvals from all the departments that would have to sign off on the development. Um, if they don't get it within that time, they could request they could request an extension. If they don't do that, if they don't get it done by the timeline, they don't request an extension, then the application is considered dead and they have to reapply for development. Well, there's your 90 days right there. Well, it isn't because they're not vested and they're not owners of the property. I think they should be owners of the property. If they're under contract with the current owner of the property, they should close the deal within 90 days. I don't think that's something we can impose. Why not? I I don't believe it's fair to for us to make an alter. I don't believe it's fair to put this a monstrosity interrupting me while I'm speaking. Yeah, I was. Sorry. I apologize.

I don't believe that the an arbitrary date to impose on this on the developer at this point in time of the negotiations with with the owner of the property and and and set that forth um puts them in a bind. I don't believe it's I don't believe it's fair. If you want to if you want to if you want to make an amendment um put that in amendment go ahead and then we can we see if there's a second to it and then and then we can vote on it. So what is my understanding is they don't have to be legal owner. They just have to have a possessory interest which means they could have a leaseold interest that would enable them to do this. So they don't have to be the owner. Yeah. The applicant is an engineer engineering firm that's been doing all this work. So that's that's it's not unusual. It's not unusual. Please restate your motion. Your amended motion for amendment. Yeah. No, I'm trying to be open mind. Harvey got mad. I ran all over him. He didn't like it. Um, I think that the current the current applicant should within 90 days convey ownership of the property to himself based on the previous amendment. So, he's got 90 days to do it to convey the property. Bye.

That's your motion. Right. The petitioner has 90 days under contract to close the property in order to keep the appeal alive. Is there a second? Hearing none. Uh the um motion for amendment is uh fails because of lack of second. So we'll go back to the original motion that has been amended as amended by m by Mr. Leco. Yes. As amended by my amendment your suggested by Mr. Levich. We'll go with that. Do you want to repeat the motion? Ah, required for clarity purposes. Mr. Cipher, the current motion on the table is to sustain the appeal. It is providing up to 112,000 square 112 510 500 square ft conditioned upon the developer attaining possessory interest to the property. It is correct. Basically, I had I put some other things in here just because I was concerned the way the ordinance read um that you had to find findings of of uh fact and and u so I I put in here that uh that we found that you can have more than 30,000 square feet that there was an error made, which is what the criteria is to to sustain the appeal. So, I I added that in, but I think they all got it.

So, but basically what you said is what I' I've asked. Do you want me to read it again? No, I think Mr. Les stated it. He he said much clearer. All in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying I. As amended. As amended. Yeah. Please indicate by saying I. I. I. I. All All oppose say nay. Nay. The vote is um Patrice, did you vote? I did. Okay. I'm sorry you're here. Thank you. Vote. The vote is in favor. 5 to one. Thank you very much. Um it's been a complicated situation. Um but we we we stuck to our regulations. Next on the agenda is a general business. It's a resolution of the city council of city of Pakora, Florida reaffirming the Charlotte County and city of Pakora local mitigation strategy as the formal guide for hazard mitigation activities. Mr. Chair, if you don't mind, I believe my business is done. I was asked to be here for that particular issue. Thank you for joining us. Thank you. Thank you for being here for Fort Lauderdale. Thank you. Thank you. You got to bring an attorney back with you. That's where the the use land use attorney is supposedly from. All right. Ready for me? Yes, please. All right. Good afternoon again, Rachel Barry, zoning official for the record. Um, so I am going to try my best to give you a presentation on this item. Another staff member was supposed to be here that's much more familiar with it than I am,

but uh we will go from here. So, agenda item 4 A. This item is a request for a uh recommendation from you all to city council to approve the uh Charlotte County program for public information. Uh this is to help with the CRS, the community rating system, which ties into our flood rates for our insurance. Uh so, here just some pictures uh just for a view. Uh the one all the way to the right is the storm surge map. Um and so just a good indication of why we need to put as much effort into flood resiliency as we can. That was a start. The uh program for public information has nine keyformational topics. Know your flood hazards. So know what zone you're in. Ensure your property. Make sure that all of your insurance documents are up to date. You have flood insurance. Anything you need. U protect people. Make sure that you are heeding to all hurricane warnings. Evacuate when required. Uh protect your property. If you have a low-lying home, try to cover up as many openings as possible to reduce any flood or water inundation. Build responsibly. So of course, anything that is built today has to be built above the uh flood elevation requirements. Uh protect natural flood plane functions. Um, so that is one of the key roles our building official plays. Um, he is also the flood plane administrator for the city. And so he pays attention to all the different buildings, residential, commercial, where they're being built, what flood zone they're in, and make sure that they meet all of the necessary building codes and FEMA requirements. Uh, know the cost of a flood. Um, so if you have um, oh goodness, what is it called? not your premium.

The month when you have to pay to the insurance to fix something deductible. Thank you. Know what your deductible is. Know that your insurance covers water damage. Uh next, plan for sea level rise and so that is something that we going into the future. Um, of course the flood maps are updated by FEMA every few years and so we do plan for each time those maps are updated whether or not we need to increase our requirements to have people elevate further. Next and last would be prepare for hurricanes. Make sure that you have all your supplies ready at home. Make sure you have a plan and that you are ready to go when we get notification of a storm coming. And so that is what this item is all about today. um in order to be considered for those lower flood rates, we do have to adopt a public information program. And so since Charlotte County has already adopted the plan that was contained in your packets, um that is the suggestion we are going with and requesting a recommendation that city council approve the request. Any questions? In that case, we'll entertain a motion to uh recommend the city council adopt the resolution as presented. I move to recommend to city council that they adopt the resolution as presented. A second. Second. Motion is moved and seconded. Any further discussion? All in favor indicate by saying I. I. I. All oppose say nay. The motion was approved unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. Um, we're at the conclusion of the meeting. Um, any staff comments? I have nothing further. Thank you. U member comments. I I have a comment. I I want to thank Harvey for his How many years have you

been on here? Eight years now on on this P&Z board and and on the city council for I don't know how many years. and nine years on the board and six years on the council. All that time he served our city and this is his last very last meeting because he termed out so he won't be here in July. So, um I want to I want to give him a round hand. He served the city. Well, with that said, I take it back. I do have a comment. Thank you, Mr. Goldberg, for your service for all these years. Thank you. It's been an honor and pleasure. Thank you very going to miss your face. I I wish we could Can we extend his term? Is there any kind of amen resolution we can pass? There's no special exception for that. Charles, any comments? In that case, I have none. In that case, we're adjourned. Thank you very much.