Planning Board - Regular Meeting

the Monday, January 26th, 2026 meeting of the planning board. Please join me for the pledge of allegiance. I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Okay. Roll call, please. Member Izzy, here. Member Perry, here. Vice Chair Angelus here. Member Lorenzan, here. Chair Hubard, here. We have a quorum. Thank you. Okay, [clears throat] we are on to approval of the agenda. Are there any changes requested? Yes, chair. If we could take item 4 C out of order and and review that first. We do have two experts with us on the call and I would like to respect their time. Okay. Any other changes? Okay. Do I have a motion to approve the agenda as amended with 4C coming first? Motion to approve agenda as amended.

Second. I'll second. Roll call, please. Member Perry. Yes. Vice Chair Angelitus. Yes. Member Laorenzan? Yes. Member Izzy? Yes. Chair Hubard? Yes. Motion carries. Thank you. Do we have any audience comments not specific to action items where I'll call for comments individually? Yes.

Good evening. Deborah Sheckner, Vocusa Isle Drive in St. Pete Beach. I'm not sure, but I'm sure you are all aware of the country music festival, three days, hundreds and hundreds of people on our beach. And the reason I have a problem with that is it's turtle season as well as skimmer season. And both are protected by law. Turdles are protected by federal, state, county, and local laws. And yet, the tradewind thinks that they can have hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of people walking on our beach while the turtles are trying to nest. The noise alone may deter some turtles from making nests on our beach. I was in Hutchinson Island last year and I will say they take their turtles very seriously. They do everything right. I don't know why we can't. For instance, the commissioner meeting on December 13th, the owner of the tradewind literally said, "I am not changing the lights. I don't care." He's been in violation for years. Are we a city that protects our wildlife? Are we a city that cares about our beach or are we a city that allows developers and big hotels to do whatever the heck they want? And for me that's really really serious situation and we have to think about that. We have to know who we are. I know I want to protect the turtles. I know I want to protect the skimmers and the other seabirds. You start neglecting the wildlife and allowing it to be killed because they will be killed. Those turtle nests won't last. You have to say to yourself, are we a

good great St. Pete Beach that I knew for 3540 years or are we changing? And by the way, there's even international laws that protect the turtles. And I think we need to do everything we can because we neglect, in my opinion, enforcement of the laws and the rules. And we're not a good society if we allow some people to get away with scoffing at the important laws and rules in our city. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional comments? Okay, we will move on to the approval of the minutes of the December 15, 2025 meeting. Does anyone have changes to those minutes? No. Okay. Can I get a motion to approve as written? Motion to approve minutes as written. Second. Roll call, please. Vice Chair Angelus, yes. Member Lorenzan, yes. Member Izzy, yes. Member Perry, yes. Chair Hubard. Yes. Motion carries. Thank you.

Okay. We're on action items and this is sitting as a local planning agency. Are are you ready for me to Okay.

All right. I'm going to adjourn temporarily as planning board and reconvene as the local planning agency. Okay. I'll read the title of 4C um just because we're as the LPA. An ordinance of this ordinance number 2025-16. It's 4C on the agenda. Marine Turtle and Coastal Wildlife Protection. An ordinance of the city of St. in Pe Beach, Florida, for the purpose of renaming land development code division 44, marine turtle protection to division 4, marine turtle and coastal wildlife protection, amending 44.1 through 44.9, and adopting sections 4410 through 4414 to update technical standards, clarify requirements for new and existing development and special events, modify penalties, compliance, and enforcement measures, specify responsible parties, and update definitions to better serve the purpose and intent of the division and align with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Fish and Wildlife Commission best practices providing for codification, conflicts, severability, correction of scriveners errors, correction, construction, publication, and an effective date.

Thank you. If we could bring up the PowerPoint, please. I also want to thank Stacy Gallagher with the Sea Turtle Conservancy and Katie Mastenbrook with the National Wildlife Federation. I believe Stacy also has a intern. Uh you can see him on the Zoom call here. Um they've been very helpful with helping to prepare this ordinance, providing feedback and um they also worked with us on the proposal that we're presenting to you today. So this is a modification to what was reviewed by the board back in December. Um the focus and it was made clear by the board at the time uh that we were to look at the what was a de facto prohibition on special events on the beach um at night during marine turtle nesting season. Our proposal is to amend the text to allow approval of special events during marine turtle nesting season when transient lighting, so temporary lighting that is set up solely for the special event is presented through a special event lighting plan at the time of application. And when installed, transient lighting visible from the beach is long wavelength, lowmounted, and shielded. That is in line with the existing lighting standards, which are the the lesser of the two stringent standards in our code. There are some additional standards for that new lighting that is installed uh post 2008 that is permanent in nature. The longwavelength lowmounted and shielded lighting um is more in line with our existing lighting standards that are proposed under this ordinance. This does exempt special events that use existing compliant lighting from these special uh from the lighting plan requirements. So, for example, if a beachfront hotel has a trellis that is set up, um it's a it has permanent lighting fixtures and that trellis is used for the special event only. Um that special event would be exempt from the lighting plan requirement. It allows the city uh the amendment allows the city to retain a capable entity to review and inspect the

lighting plan or setup when the event is of significant technical complexity. And this also scales it back from what was drafted in the ordinance in December to include uh nesting season for both uh seabirds and marine turtles. This scales it back to marine turtle nesting season only for that special event lighting plan requirement. Um there was an item brought up at the last meeting regarding the use of barriers instead of lighting controls. We did discuss this item with um both of the experts on the call. uh they determined and we we did as well that barriers are not effective in lie of lighting controls due to the meandering path of sea turtle hatchlings. The paths follow the horizon. Uh they look for the horizon and the light on the horizon rather than a single light source in most cases. Um barriers are ineffective to prevent disorientation of nesting turtles. So those coming ashore, the barrier is not effective at preventing their disorientation. Uh there are cumulative effects of indirect lighting on the beach. So, it may not be a direct bulb or other light source. There might be a spotlight that shines down into the beach that can disorient sea turtle hatchlings as well, and a barrier would not necessarily be effective at um providing a a barrier to that. And there are also maintenance requirements for barriers. Um they do need to maintain once they're on the beach. So, the comprehensive plan consistency is found to be the same as was presented to you at the December meeting. um goal for the future land use element policy 4.1.2 and also the special planning area goal which includes many of our beachfront resorts and objective 3.1 um in the coastal conservation element goal one objective 1.5 and policy 1.5.3 all support what we find to be the amendments proposed for this this ordinance.

So, that being said, um we do request a recommendation of approval of this ordinance as amended to the city commission and find the ordinance consistent with the comprehensive plan. I'm happy to answer any questions. We also have our technical experts who um can assist with those technical questions. [clears throat] Any questions, Brandon? I just have one in there because I get got in reading it. I just want to make sure if other and and I went on to some of the conservatory sites and I read read all about this. If there are other methods like you know dunes and vegetation and other things that are used to block some of the the lighting and I'm talking about um turtle compliant lighting not not non-compliant lighting. um is that acceptable according to our our plan or is there you know what I'm saying? So if someone even a residence not just not just a business for example a residence but if there's if they have lighting that's still visible and they put some vegetation other things in the way. Is that is that okay? Because I I couldn't find that in here. I got lost a little bit in there.

We do have options for existing lighting um that can be screened through barriers. not necessarily a a sea turtle barrier, but through barriers on the property or through vegetation, new lighting would need to be fully compliant. It wouldn't need to be non directly visible from the beach.

Okay. All right. And then the only I think one of the things that came up regarding transient lighting before I just want to make sure we're not writing something that's just not feasible. So, for example, you know, like cars turning into a parking lot or turning down one of the streets, you know, and, you know, obviously don't have um turtle lighting on their cars or the random flashlight or something like that. I I just want to make sure we're not writing something so restrictive that um no one's going to enforce it anyway. You know what I mean? So, so did we did we go back and look at that too just to make sure that we were not doing anything kind of crazy there.

So, I did add in I believe this was a direct copy out of the Florida model lighting ordinance is that handheld and other portable transient lighting shall not be directed toward or used in a manner that disturbs turtles, seabird nest and so on. Um I I think there is some discretion involved there and and potentially Stacy, do you have any input in how other jurisdictions handle that?

Hi all. Um yeah, so the transient lighting is definitely becoming a growing concern over the years. I'm sure you all may have noticed people with flashlights on your beaches. And this issue is something that is kind of like a Pandora's box. once it's out, it's very difficult to enforce or deal with. Um, but it it is our opinion that regulating transient lighting in some way, if it's just having it on the books, so folks know that you cannot point transient lighting in sea turtles in a matter that in a manner that disturbs them is better than having no regulation of it because there are some beaches where there are hundreds of people with flashlights out on the beach at night. And while that might not be the city of St. Pete Beach now that may be the city of St. Pete Beach in the future. We don't know. Um, so I definitely think what is in the ordinance that's being presented today is a good step. We always try to encourage local governments to prohibit them completely, but we also recognize that there are enforcement concerns with that. So, I do support what is in there currently as uh as he mentioned, it is in the model lighting ordinance. So, we we support that. And Katie, I don't know if you wanted to add anything.

No, I was going to say I'm an angry end with what you just said, Stacy. Thank you. I had just a couple of quick questions and and I mean this question in all innocence, I missed the opening uh the credentials for the uh wildlife experts. Are you with FWC or who exactly are you with?

I guess I should have introduced myself. My name is Stacy Alager. I work for the Sea Turtle Conservancy. We're a nonprofit organization. I'm our development and policy coordinator and I'm on our sea turtle lighting team. And we've been retrofitting coastal properties in Florida since 2010 with wildlife lighting. So, we have a lot of that realworld experience using this type of lighting. Okay. So, you're not from any regulatory agency like FWC. your strictly volunteer folks that love to do this for lack of a better expression. We're we're a nonprofit organization, so we're not volunteers. We're I Katie and I are both full-time employees. Okay. Yeah.

And additionally, I'm with the National Wildlife Federation. I'm their senior wildlife policy specialist for the golf program. So, also a nonprofit. Um, and I've been working with uh Sea Turtle Conservancy, Stacy's team, uh, on a project with the lighting ordinances, uh, statewide. Uh, and my primary focus has been on the west coast just because of location. I actually live in St. Petersburg, Florida. Okay, great. And do other, uh, municipalities along the barrier islands here, the ones that are all north of us, do they use your services as well? Just out of cur.

As part of Yeah. So, as part of the uh ordinance projects we've been working on, uh we have contacted many of the barrier island. Um you guys are one of the first that have made more substantial movement um in the past couple months, especially with uh the Senate bill uh that was passed last summer. Um so, yeah, we do work with and are continuing to work and even south as well. So, Manatee County uh being some of the barrier islands too that we're covering.

Okay. Thank you. Yeah, just to sorry, just to give you an idea, there are over 100 lighting ordinances like this in the state. Um, so this is definitely something that almost every local municipality is adopting and enforcing throughout the state. Thank you.

If if I could, I'd like to uh take a minute to talk a little bit about the black skimmers. Um, I think I started stewarding for them in 2014 or 15 somewhere in there. Um, and so I did distribute for everyone. If you could bring up the overhead, please, Jenny. The papers there. Oh, it's there. Thank you. Um, I just at the last meeting, I got the sense that there was a lot of lack of awareness of what already exists in, you know, the different codes. So, I wanted to make sure that everybody knew in 2022 FWC did put out a um conservative measures and permitting guidelines for imperiled beach nesting birds, which we do have. And um the the purple thing there is like the the front page of that. The document is actually 77 pages long. So, I will spare you all the details, but a lot of the stuff that we've been debating and questioning is answered if you just look at the FWC published documentation. Um, I pulled out a few specifically. Um, rule 68A-27.003, Florida Administrative Code prohibits take of these species, which includes harm and harassment, and of course, that's all defined. Um, 37 379.411 411 Florida statutes prohibit the intentional killing or wounding designated as endangered, threatened, and it goes on and on. The black skimmers are a threatened species um and that's why they need to be protected. And um to be specific, one of the questions that has arisen is fireworks. And um if you look at examples of harassment in this document 3D, a person or organization uses fireworks that cause imperiled beach nesting birds to flush within or from an active breeding site. That is definitely defined as harassment.

And in this day and age, of course, there are cameras everywhere. And so I have brought a very short video that I'd like to show you because I think a picture is worth a thousand words. Um, black skimmers are a very special bird. They are great parents and one parent will stay with the nest with the chick or the eggs the entire time. I mean, if you observe them, you'll actually see them come in and make a switch. Um, the video I'm going to show you is over on the right. There's going to be fireworks that go off. You will see all the adult skimmers. They're the parents that are sitting on their nest and being with their chicks. you will see them take off because they're frightened. Um it's called that the the nest is the um colony is flushing. You'll also note that there's lightning in the background. This was a scary uh a stormy night because sometimes people go, "Well, lightning would bother them." But they they actually know the difference between lightning and fireworks. Um so fireworks are very stressful. You'll see them um the fire, they come back to the nest, try to settle, fireworks go off again, they all take off again. And to me, one of the most heartbreaking things that I see is there's baby chicks um probably about two weeks old in this picture. They're running around. They don't have tail feathers. They cannot fly. And they are in pure panic mode. And this is when a lot of the chicks are lost and die. So this is real pictures from St. Pete Beach. very brief, but I want you to understand and see what really happens when fireworks are around these poor birds. So, can we hit play? So, there's the colony. There goes fireworks. The colony flushes. All the parents are abandoning their chicks and their eggs at this point. A crow can come in, a seagull, anything. So they immediately

swoop around and try to land and get back with their with their babies. See the lightning is not bothering them. They're still landing. Can see the little chicks in front of you here that don't have they can't fly yet. Okay. So they're trying to settle down and fireworks go off again and it flushes the colony again. This causes them to burn an extreme amount of energy. Um, sometimes parents get so stressed out they abandon their chicks. The chicks have run off somewhere. They're not with their parents anymore. They're not protected. And it's just a very heartbreaking thing to watch. So, I think when people are are talking about fireworks and the wildlife, they really should see what's actually going on. It's it's not just people trying to create rules. And I don't believe for a minute that the people putting off these fireworks are sitting there thinking, gee, I wonder how many threatened species I can kill tonight. I mean, they it's just a lack of awareness and understanding. And I think the best thing we can do is try to educate people so that they are also invested in protecting these animals.

Are these offshore fireworks or are they on the beach? It it can be. It depends on how close they are, how loud they are. And FWC does try to give some guidelines um like they might say 300 feet or whatever, but the issue is if if you're causing a colony to flush like that, yeah, [clears throat]

that is harm. Um it's the same thing they do when a dog shows up on the beach. Um you know, they they self-preservation. They get scared and they will abandon their chicks. So, I I am very happy to see the work that the um the beach stewardship board has done. They have looked at what's going on. They've been very thoughtful. I think that our own um staff have done a great job. And I think that what we need to do when people say just shoot the fireworks and don't worry about it, I think we need to find an opportunity to try to educate Are you in agreement with this? Uh,

yes. 4410C as written. Yes. Okay.

Brandon, has the city given thought to how this would be enforced? Uh, for like even ownership of the necessary equipment to determine light wavelengths and if it can be enforced.

So, we do have a meter. Um, I know we do have code enforcement staff that has training for the more complex events. Um, music festivals, things that are really intensive. We would expect that we would probably need to bring in a consultant or professional to help us with that. Um, and that is part of the ordinance, just reserving the right to do that as part of the special event permitting process. Typically, those events, the larger events are submitted far enough in advance that get that gives us weeks or or months to to prepare that. Are those types of events intended to be on [clears throat] the land side of the CCCL or can can they be on the beach?

Well, typic it's it's any lighting that is directly indirectly or cumulatively visible from the beach. So, technically a landward side uh event that shines light onto the beach would would be subject to this. Okay. I did have a question on 44.5 subsection A2. It this is the one that allows for final inspection before CO is issued. And I was I was curious Why not just do this in all development cases? Uh not just new construction. It it very well could be. Um I think it was really just probably a balance of of our available resources, but new coastal construction does include um most non-maintenance items. This would not include, for example, window change outs, but it would include additions and modifications and things like that. So, it's more it's more inclusive of just a new building, but if we were to extend it to new light fixtures or windows that would require a modification.

Okay. What I'm just curious what are you what are you thinking there, Dave? I mean, new new builds, it's easy. Yeah, I was I mean to what ex if it's not new builds, what are you thinking?

I was I was just concerned that if there is a major redevelopment that does not involve forfeiting and reapplying for a certificate of occupancy, then it doesn't trigger this section. So, I don't know if there's some threshold where a certain amount of redevelopment can occur and then we're just hoping that code enforcement catches it down the line. But if we already know this development is occurring, then it seems like applying the same standard and having the same inspection would would make sense. Yeah. So, so you're talking about even a major renovation to to a to to a home. Yeah. Yeah. Beach facing. Yeah.

Beach facing home. Oh, you I think in any of those the inspections require we've done homes on the beach where we have to replace any new window we replace has to be turtle glass and any lighting we have to replace has to be Mhm. Oh, okay. turtle lighting. Yeah. Yeah. Maybe this this wasn't as evident in the way it was written, but this is specifically for those non-certified fixtures or windows or doors where we have to do our own inspection to make sure that it meets the the compliance standards. That that's that's specifically what two is is for. Okay.

Any other questions? I have another. So, with the no fireworks on the beach, do offshore fireworks fall under the state or the county instead of the city? um that offshore would would still be permitted subject to state permitting, local permitting if it's pushed to us. So So they probably have some determination of how far offshore they should be correct to not disturb the wildlife.

And I believe our swim zones are about 300 ft. So that would coincide if that's the recommendation of the state. And they I know what they've been doing is that they you know they are basically going down this end of the beach over here as opposed to the south end where the skimmers tend to nest. Now of course they they pick a spot every year. Just so happens the past few years they've been picking the same spot because they need a wide beach and they need certain characteristics. But the city has um there was the one year that it was too close to the colony and there were about 30% of the chicks died that night. Oh wow.

And so um since then, and I don't remember what year that was, um the city very carefully looks at where are the birds and they work with, you know, Florida Ottabbon or whoever and they they do figure out where to put that barge. Okay. And we're okay with that process. Yes, it's been working. I mean, we we had fireworks last year and I mean, we still Yeah, I recall in New Year's Eve, they were like behind Yeah, they they do. They They put them away from Yeah, they put them away from the birds. Cool.

I I have a question on uh section 44.13 penalties um paragraphs A and B, subaragraphs. As I read that, one of the lines that jumped out at me is when a property has multiple light sources in violation, each may be cited as a violation. And I'm trying to boil that down to the common man. What that really means, does that mean, for example, a condo or a hotel has 20 lights that are not in compliance? So that's 20 times $100 or how does that roll?

Potentially, yes, that that is how it's written. it would be each individual light source. And I think part of the concern is that I mean just one light source out of compliance can can be an issue, but when you have 20, citing it all as one um one citation, one violation is is maybe ineffective at getting quick quick movement on getting those corrected. So that was the reason for putting that um proposal in there. Well, hopefully the uh the inspectors would use good judgment like I'm sure they do and not go with this hammer right away.

It and it's I I I don't feel that it is the code enforcement process. There's the init the initial contact. Um from there there may be a notice of um violation then a notice of hearing from there. So, there is significant amount of time to make corrections and even on the leadup to the hearing, um, our officers are willing to work with property owners if they need more time, but it's to prevent those that are not taking steps toward correcting the violation. That's the intent. I believe 22286 even prescribes for that notification period and time to allow for correction. And

um, I I agree with how it's written. I I like that it gives it some teeth. If you if you throw a hundred non-compliant bulbs in there and you choose to ignore it, it's it's going to be painful. Um so I like that you do have time to re to fix it and repeated violations are more serious. Yeah. As long as they have time, I'm good with

any other questions. I I just uh Are we getting close to voting. Yeah, I was gonna Brandon, is it too late for me to just offer our general comments about this? No, please. Okay.

Okay. Thank you all. Um, first I just want to commend the city of St. Pete Beach for being proactive about this and for really just correcting a lot of, you know, up reflecting updates and new research and just really changing a few things that will have a very large impact. And we definitely recognize that it you have to balance people wanting to use the beach with wildlife and I think this does that very well. Um I do have a few kind of thoughts or suggestions particularly on the event piece just because I do speak a lot with our agency folks about this issue and earlier um one of the comm one of the representatives brought up the land word piece and when it comes to if FWC or D can permit an event it has to be seawword of the CCCL line so often what happens is the state will not hear about an event until it's already happening and then all of these horrible impacts are happening because of an event. So that's really where the local government falls into regulating those events. So the fact that you all are focusing on that is great. Um, getting feedback from agency staff just in the past, they have said that time restrictions, uh, notice for events, limiting the size of events, and then limiting the duration of events is a really effective way to kind of limit impacts on the beach during these important wildlife seasons. Um, I'm happy to share that as the process goes on past this, but I just wanted to overall say that um, it's we're a very proactive step and we're in support of it and we appreciate you all caring about our wildlife uh, and stepping up.

Thank you. And thank you for taking your time to uh, help us with this today. Uh, no further questions. Do we have a motion? I just I just wanted to so one of the things I think you we asked you to go back with was to get with the various parties that have various interests in this and see if they could work together to come up with any was there was that fruitful at all or did or was it basically no I'm not changing my lights you know type of thing.

So we did we did reach out um we will be working with having a meeting with several of the individuals who appeared at the last meeting. Um we do have a meeting set up with some of the hotel years that tend to have the special events on the beach. Um we've shared this draft with them. We haven't actually sat down and discussed it, but we made them aware that this meeting was happening happening. I haven't received any comments at this time. So,

okay. Do I have a motion on ordinance 2025-16? I make a motion um that we on or ordinance 25- what was it again? 16 um that we go ahead and and approve this to go to the next step. Recommend for approval. Recommend recommend for approval to the commission. Okay. Do I have a second? A second. Roll call, please. Can you hold out for one second? I believe you have to make a finding of consistency with the comprehensive plan as part of your motion. Please. Yes, please. Okay. And um this this proposed ordinance is consistent with the comprehensive plan.

I'll second. Roll call, please. Member Lorenzan. Yes. Member Izzy. Yes. Oh, I thought you talked about it. Here, please. No. Stand by. You can't be doing this. uh Deborah Shaknavok Sega I'll drive St. Pete Beach. I thought it was very important that this uh individual here. I'd like to object. I thought we were take a vote and public comment. Well, anyway, for the public use red flashlights when you're out on the beach. Yeah, I'm sorry. I did ask for public comment on this item. Um I'd like to continue the roll call vote. Thank you. Okay. Member Perry.

Yes. Vice Chair Angelitus. Yes. Member Hubard. Yes. Motion carries. Thank you. And thank you to our two guests. This will take us back to action item 4 A. Yes. This is a resolution. So I won't have to read this one. So, um, recommendation for resolution 202601 vacating a three-foot easement located at the rear of lots five and six of block C of Sunset Park replat as recorded in platbook 18, page six of the public records of Penelis County, Florida. Do we have any public comments on 4 A?

Yes, we do. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Amy Leer. My address is 12055 Gandandy Boulevard North, unit 254, St. Petersburg, Florida, 33702. Thank you for the opportunity to address you today. I represent David and Melinda Gallagher, the owners of the adjacent property at 10124th Avenue, and we oppose the vacation of the easement. The Gallagher sewer line is connected to the Pez sewer line and then connects to the main line. Last week, the Pezas cut the sewer line without the appropriate approval by the city. Prior to that, the city attorney votes sent a legal opinion that stated, "The city may and should take the position that the demolition or construction permits will not be approved if they result in loss of sewer service regardless of the private ownership structure of the lines." When the city was alerted, they did instruct the pezes to reconnect immediately. City attorney Vos additionally stated that vacating the easement while an ad active sewer dispute is ongoing could expose the city to claims that its action facilitated interference with utility service or private property rights particularly if the vacation is perceived as enabling redevelopment that disrupts sewers [clears throat] access. She further stated, "At a minimum, the city should defer action on the vacation request until the sewer service issues are fully resolved and should make clear that any vacation does not authorize removal of or interference with existing sewer connections. Clearly approving this vacation would be against the advice of city attorney Vose." My client provided a solution to the sewer connection and the Pezes turned it down. After they disrupted sewer service, the city instructed them to reconnect my client's sewer line and informed the pezes that no permits would be issued until the issue is resolved. I sent the suggested solution to the Pezes council and have not heard from him in over a week. City attorney votes while not appining on a private property [clears throat] dispute ditto pine that any disruption of sewer service necess necessitated by the pez's redevelopment

should be undertaken at the pez's expense and must be reviewed and approved by the city from an engineering and public health standpoint. We simply ask that the pezes follow the city's guidance on this matter and that the city not take any action including the vacation of the easement request today until the matter is resolved. We respectfully request that the agenda item regarding the vacation be removed from the city commission meeting tomorrow. Thank you. Thank you. Any further comments? Okay. Are you presenting right now?

Just have a short presentation on this one. If we could pull up the PowerPoint. So, this is actually the first of two vacation requests that are being um heard by the board tonight. We don't see these very frequently, but we do have two redevelopment projects that necessitate them. This is resolution 20261, vacation of the easements at 103 24th Avenue. Uh Mike and Gina Paza, owners, Mike is present tonight. Um request to vacate platted 3-foot easements that run along the rear of lot six and lot seven of block C of Sunset Park Replaid. You can see within the bolded box on the right the survey. Uh that is the property that is owned by the Pezos. Lot seven um is to the left twoirds or so of that property. Um that is the original platted lot at some point in time I believe prior to the late 1970s. The eastern 22 feet of lots five and lot six which run on Pass Way uh were acquired by the property at the west side. So, at the rear of lots five and lot six, there is a three-foot easement that is a platted easement, there is an also an easement that runs along the north side of the property that is not requested for a vacation and that is only along the portion that runs along lot 7. Uh so, they do not directly intersect. They do touch. Uh they are requesting vacation of the subject easement in red there, which is the three- foot wide easement. It runs the depth of the property uh which is the rear of lots five and lot six. And then uh this is proposed to be undertaken in conjunction with the new residence. It's a little hard to make out on the screen. I believe the plans were with the um or with the um publication of the agenda packet. But you can see that the home does intersect where the uh the platted easements are currently located. So they're requesting the vacation so that they can move

forward on new construction of a dwelling. Letters of no conflict have been issued by all active utilities in St. Pete Beach. Those are Duke Energy, Penelis County Utilities, Charter and Frontier Communications and Tiko People's Gas. City does not have any basis to retain the easement based on our local requirements. Drainage will be provided through swelles during redevelopment. Um, as was just stated in the public comment, the neighbor sewer line connects into the subject property sewer line which runs to a manhole at the rear of the property. This is a known issue. It is not directly uh related to the vacation, but final action to discontinue that line requires resolution of this issue. That is the direction that we received from attorney vos. I do want to make clear that this board is only a recommending body on this request. This board meets once per month. I did clear with attorney vos that this item be brought to you as a recommendation item, but the resolution or the the final determination on this item will be pending resolution of the sewer issue. So, I just wanted to make that clear. With that being said, um we do request a recommendation of approval of resolution 20261 for 103 24th Avenue to the city commission. I'm happy to take any questions. The owner is also present to answer questions if if desired.

So, is the sanitary sewer line in question not going through an easement? I believe it does pass through the easement at some point. I was out on site today and it looked like it was just west of the easement, but I don't have an actual survey showing that line location. And that is something that's going to need to be resolved before final final action. It has to be moved. Um I think there's a few different options that were presented in the letter. One of them was relocation. One of them to to accommodate the home in its its present location, it would need to be moved. So or its proposed location. So at the end of the day before this gets approved the a problem has to be resolved.

Correct. Yes. Is there I I just got a little confused by your comments. So do you the person that got up and spoke. Does your party not have sewer right now? Is that what you're saying? It was reconnected after they Okay. So they they have their sewer. Everything is working. The pezes cannot get approval unless they address and and resolve the overall issue going forward. Right. Is that correct? Pretty I'm just trying to keep it really really simple. Yes. That's been the direction of the city attorney. Okay. I'm I'm okay if she speaks again. I just want clarification that Yeah. I just

My concern is that they probably knew all of that. You got to come up to the microphone. I'm sorry. My concern is that they knew all of that and yet they still cut the line um tried to move forward with their development. So I'm trying to protect um my very elderly um clients um and ensure that that's not happen again. And I know this is step one much like attorney's opinion said it could be frowned upon by us if it leads to another incident. So Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, yeah, sure. Please, please, uh, state your name and address at the podium.

Uh, Michael Peza, 103 24th Avenue. Pastor Grill. Uh, f first of all, I just want to mention about the cutting of the line. That it sounds like we're bad people. Went out there and cut the line. We had a contract with AAA demolition. We canled the contract. They went out there on their own, cut the line. Okay. Brandon requested that Triple AAA go back out there and do it. They didn't. We went out the next day on our cause with a plumber and reconnected it. So, this is completely ridiculous what you're saying. This this started two years ago, this easement. We had we had Duke Energy come out, move our utility lines, move the poles because we were putting a pool in our backyard. That's the reason why we bought the house. When we bought the house, we were never told about any underground pipe. They didn't have any easement or approval from any prior owner. We went in there as soon as we we started this project. We called them up and let them know. They were very non-communitive. They they let us talk to a guy named Steve. Okay. And every time I talked to Steve, "Oh, I don't have an answer. I don't have an answer." I said, "Steve, we're putting a pool in and you need to move that sanitary line. We do not want it in our backyard." Goes on and on and on. We've got to the point now where Steve has been told not to talk to us anymore. Okay. Talked to Katie. We called Katie. She said, "I've got a lawyer, the nice lady right here. We call our attorney." She would not give us a name. We had to call Ralph to get the name of the attorney. Okay. She wouldn't give it to us. Then my attorney calls the lawyer. The the the lawyer just happens to hang up on him three times in one day. How are you going to communicate when when this is happening? Okay. So, so that that's where we're at. So, to come to an agree and and when we started this whole project, the city said this is between us. They have their pipe illegally running on our property. It's got nothing to do with the vacate of of the of the easement. It's illegally running

on our property. Okay. We we had no intentions to shut it off be before we started our our relocation of the house. Okay. We wanted them to have time to do it. They've been pushing the the kicking the can down the street. They have options. Over two years ago, the city gave them an option of what to do to get a they can get a a a temporary um a holding tank to hold it and then move it. They have been given the direction from the city to run it out to Pastor Grillway. Why is this have anything to do with us? Take care of it on on your own. The the the Gallaghers very very nice people in their 80s. Yes, they are. What's going to happen if that line stays in my yard? Okay. In my yard, they sell the house to an Airbnb or a family with young kids and you have diapers going down the drain. You have sanitary napkins. You've got wipes going down the drain. I own an apartment building in Chicago. I deal with this all the time, constantly. This is not my responsibility to have their pipe coming into our yard. I know this this is not nothing to do with the vacate, but the vacate we started this two years ago. This has nothing because they have a problem. They need to move their line. It that's the bottom line. This is undue hardship to to to me and my wife. It's costing us money. It's causing us delays with the construction. This meeting was supposed to be two weeks ago. It's been delayed. They're now they're delaying the the the relocation of the house. The value of the property. If I need to run their line in my yard, what does that do to my value? Does it increase it or does it decrease it? Decreases it. It It We have a problem with that pipe. We've got landscape. We've got the pool. We've got the plumbing. This is all on us. Why? When they built the house, they should have done it the correct way and and and and ran it out to Pastor Gil Way. I mean, it's it's ridiculous what what they're saying. So,

okay. Thank you. Thank you, Brandon. Do we know the history of that sewer line? how it crossed flatted lots. Same question I was gonna ask you. I don't know.

I mean, this is probably something from the 40s or 50s when the cottage was put in, I'm guessing, or the 30s and then the heliers or Gallagher's house probably got put in in the 70s, I'm guessing. I live two blocks away, so I walked the ground today to look at it. But is there a way that uh if we were to pass this variance just to get this part taken care of, is there any guarantee or is there any leverage the city has to make the two parties figure this out or what would be the way ahead? How would the city handle this?

I don't know if the city is realistic. Um, the city's not required to determine whether the owner A has a valid express, implied, or prescriptive easement over owner B's property. Owner B bought this property. That sewer line was in there when they bought it. Um, there might be some it may leg be legal. Uh, it may not be legal. U, it's for a court to determine or or by agreement of the parties. Um what the city can't do is um endanger the public health, safety, and welfare by allowing a sewer spill to occur. If the pipe is open, the sewer runs into the ground or if the pipe is capped, it backs up into the owner A's house and causes a public health, safety, welfare issue inside that house. Um so we're looking for the two properties to come to agreement and it's not a vacation um or a variance, it's a vacation of an easement. So we would con recommend that you condition or the city commission condition any u [snorts] approval for the vacation of the easement that it would not become effective until there's some agreement between the parties about how the sewer line will be addressed.

That that was where I was wondering that was my next question. If you know if this is simply a recommendation from the planning board then I would personally recommend once this thing has been resolved then vacate the easement. encourage resolution. So you're but that's that's so you're recommending that the two parties solve this before we recommend on this to move forward to the commission.

No, I would I would be comfortable saying as on behalf of the plane board to the commission we recommend vacating the easement once this issue has been resolved so we don't hear it again. City can say I mean there's a commission meeting every two weeks. There's no insufficient number of city commission meetings to get this done when the underlying problem is out of the way. So yeah, I think us seeing this again would just cause delay that's not really necessary. Um Becky votes opine that conditioning any redevelopment approvals including the vacation of the easement and the demolition permit be conditioned on a lawful un uninterrupted sewer service being maintained. So we don't have a sewer spill.

Okay. And and there's no way to maintain that without coming to some agreement or postponing development. If they can't agree, they have to go to a circuit court and get an a determination about whether there's a legal right to the continued use of that sewer line, okay, that predated the purchase of the property. I I I personally feel like we should uh recommend pushing approving this and moving forward to the commission and then it's up to the private parties to solve this on their own. The good neighbors you'd hope. I don't see any point in postponing it. I agree with that. I agree. Also,

you have a motion. I'll make a motion to recommend resolution 2026-01 to the city commission vacating the three-foot easement. I'll second. Roll call, please. Member Izzy, yes. Member Perry, yes. Vice Chair Angelus, yes. Member Lorenzan, yes. Chair Hubard, no. Did you say no? No. Thank you. Motion carries. Motion passes four to one. Thank you. Okay, moving on to 4B.

This is a recommendation for resolution 20263 the city commission vacating a two vacating two 5-ft drainage and utility easements. This is two easements on both 5T along the common side lot lines of lot one and two of block 79 of the plat of north unit number one as recorded in book 21 page 27 of the public records of Panelis County. Thank you. Do we have any public comment on floor 645 78th Avenue? Thank you. Do we have public comment? No. Okay.

Another quick presentation on this one. Um, we do have Leanne Ferris, the owner, present, request to vacate two adjacent 5- foot utility and drainage easements that intersect their property at 64578th Avenue. Uh, you can see a survey of the property between the bolded black uh rectangle on the screen. And then in the red rectangle is the are the subject uh easements. These uh this property is a combination of lots one and two of north unit number one. Uh that is a plat named north unit number one block 79. There's also own land to the water. They have a sidewater front yard um on blind pass there. The plaid in the neighborhood contain blanket 5 foot rear and side easements. Those are easements that are made reference to in the actual text of the plaid rather than shown on the property. All of the individual platted lots in this neighborhood have a 5-ft easement that run along their sideyard and their rear yard. You can see that on the screen there. There is a 5-ft ement that runs along the rear of the property as well as on the east side of the property and what will become the applicant's sideyard for setback purposes. Um they are only seeking to vacate the area in red shown on the screen. Letters of no conflict have been issued by Duke Energy, Penllis County Utilities, and Frontier Communications. Staff is awaiting response from Tico's PE people People's Gas and Charter Communications. Uh we did hear back from Tiko on Friday. We're just awaiting that letter. Charter Communications I did follow up with this morning. I've not yet received a response, but those are the active utilities in our jurisdiction. As with the prior case, the city does not have any basis to retain the easement. drainage will be provided through swailes during development. Uh they are seeking to develop one single family home. Uh so they would be subject just to the swinging requirements of the land

development code in the code of ordinances for that new improvement. We did speak to the owner at the technical review committee last week. Um they do not knowingly have any neighbor sewer connections or anything else in the easement that would cause concern. So this is simply a public utility easement vacation um as well as the drainage easement vacation which staff has no concerns with. So with that being said um we do ask for the board to recommend approval of resolution 20263464578th Avenue to the city commission. Happy to take questions.

Any questions? Uh so just just to clarify um with the um development, it's going to either improve but certainly not make worse any of the drainage for flooding things, you know, for our city because that's our number one thing. I would think it would make it better and should be that simple. Correct. Correct. They will need to swell the property, direct all the drainage on the property. We don't have any retention or detention requirements for single family homes, but they do still need to grade the lot. So, okay. And there's nothing in that easement right now. Is that okay?

Oh, are there not structures in the easement? Based on the survey, it looks like there are. Oh, that's proposed. Okay. I'll make a motion to approve. Do I have a second? Second. Roll call, please. Vice Chair Angelites? Yes. Member Lorenzan? Yes. Member Izzy? Yes. Member Perry? Yes. Chair Hubard. Yes. Motion carries.

Thank you. Okay. This takes us to 4 D. A recommendation for ordinance 20261 amending the land development code standards pertaining to accessory structures, ancillary equipment, non-conforming uses and structures, stair and balcony encroachments, and providing for consistency in flood plane management regulations and definitions to the city commission. Oh, and I should read the entire ordinance. Um, an ordinance or the header, an ordinance of the city of St. Pete Beach amending the St. Pete Beach Land Development Code sections 2.1, 3.10, 6.13, 6.14, 6.22, 7.1, 7.4, 28.1, and 28.5. to increase the front yard stair encroachments for specified residences, allowing retention of non-conforming balcony footprints and specified nonconforming residential accessory structures following substantial improvement to the primary residence. Clarify restrictions on non-conforming uses and amend restrictions on elevated and substantially improved non-conforming structures. Modify residential storage building standards. Modify residential equipment setback standards. Provide a front yard setback line alternative for residential culde-sac and curved street lots. and amend definitions and content of the land development code to provide clarity and consistency with chapter 98 of the code of ordinances and the Florida building code providing for severability codification and correction of scrivener's errors and providing an effective date. So just a short presentation on this one. I also have the ordinance pulled up if you would like to go through any of

the content within it. So, the board has already seen the majority of this content. Um, the reason we are bringing it back to you with the new ordinance number as well as with amended content is that last year we passed an amendment to our technical amendments to the Florida Building Code that allowed for property owners that have flood damaged equipment that are not elevating their home to be able to reinstall that equipment at four feet above grade instead of requiring to elevate it above the flood plane. We worked with the state on those amendments. Those were to our code of ordinances. As part of the agreement in bringing those changes forward, that's something that's proposed to be adopted at the end of the year in the Florida building code amendments. uh they asked us to go through our land development code and make definitional updates, some standard updates that would bring us into consistency with chapter 98 of the code of ordinances as well as the state of Florida, Florida building code requirements for uh flood plane management. So that's largely what we're attempting to do with these amendments. for consolidating the two because a lot of the requirements that the state had overlap with the ordinance amendments that we had already brought forward to this board. So we decided to bring it forward as a new ordinance. This did go to the city commission two weeks ago. Um it did go past first reading and tomorrow will be the second reading pending planning board recommendation. So just to briefly uh cover the the major changes. Um, as I mentioned before, we made several modifications requested by the Florida Department of Emergency Management to align definitions and references with state and local flood plane standards and requirements. We did change the requirement for stair openness from 80% to 60%. I looked back at some of the recent approvals for compliance stairs that the city has brought forward and what we would think of as open stairs when you add in the columns or just the basic supports. They would actually be

below an 80% openness standard. So, I felt that 60% was more in line with what um was coming forward for approval and most would consider to still be an open stair. Um we also added some clarifications on restrictions to substantial additions to historic structures. Again, this really aligns with the Florida building code limitations, but they are a little bit stricter than some of the federal limitations when it comes to adding on to historic structures in a manner that constitutes substantial improvement. So that is something that we did add into this ordinance. Um finding of consistency did not change with the comprehensive plan compared to what was presented to you back in October. Uh we find that goal for policy 4.1.2 of the feature land new set. I'm sorry this is uh the wrong slide. Um the comprehensive plan um consistency was found in the agenda packet.

That's for the turtle.

Yeah, sorry. copy the turtle findings in. Um, but I I can go through those briefly. That's goal one of the future land use element um pertaining to maintenance of residential character policy 1.1.1 and 1.1.2 two of the housing element pertaining to meeting the housing needs of the city and support for housing rehabilitation for the flood plane management terminology and application specifically uh policy 4.1.2 2 of the future land use element promotes and requires consistency of the land development code with FEMA National Flood Insurance Program requirements. Apologize for that. So with that being said, I'm happy to take any board questions or review any content of this ordinance, but if you do find it consistent with comprehensive plan, if you agree with the changes, we ask for a recommendation of approval of the ordinance to the city commission and a finding of consistency with the comprehensive plan. Randa, this this still allows new builds to have the same leeway as the as the folks who are hurricane damaged, right?

Correct. For the stair encroachment, it retains that

for stair encroachment. Okay. So, for that reason, to be honest with you, I'm going to I'm going to be a no vote again just just for that because I don't understand how for the new builds, you have a you have a blank slate uh to build um you have so much more opportunity to to draw something that's nice versus and I've gone around now and I've driven. I've seen some of these homes are being elevated and how how honestly how ugly the front staircase situation looks because we've boxed them in. Even with the new even trying to help them, what I've seen is it's is horrible. But yet, we're going to allow new builds to have the same leeway as we're trying to give for those who So, I'm Anyway, I I'm mine's going to be a no just again for that reason because I don't understand why they can't, you know, design something within the limits, right? Because it to me it kind of then senses that there's a little favoritism thing going on here, right? When we won't even allow where we're going to force the folks who've been through hurricane damage to even though we've tried to help them, but it's still very restrictive um to live with something that is, you know, totally, you know, doesn't look good. Anyways, thanks. So can you can you re summarize that for me?

Yeah. So what this ordinance does, right? It it it helps and it's been designed to help the folks who have been damaged by the hurricane in several ways, right? One of those being the staircase and allowing them to as they raise their house to have some leeway to But if you look if you drive around and look at some of these staircases that they people have done have to do like you go up you come back you go you know it's just it's ridiculous the way e even e even with the help basically they need more help yet the new builds who don't need any help in their staircase design where it replacement and all that, right? Maybe the occasional weird property that's on those, you know, those angles in the culde-sac there, maybe you can make a case, but we're saying any new build now can actually have these extended uh footprint for their staircases when they have a whole, you know, blank slate to build uh a staircase from. They can design their whole property within the within the current rules. So, I just don't understand why we're extending that to the new builds when we're when we're not really we're we're giving the hurricane damage folks some leeway, but it's not enough, right? And then when we talked about other things for for the hurricane damage folks, we we wanted to be more restrictive. I I just don't understand it. New a new bill, just build it to way, you know, the way the code says. Why do we need to give them relief? I think a lot of people doing new builds also were hurricane damaged,

but you're but they're getting a blank slate. Yeah, but it's not really a blank slate because a lot of these lots are undersized. So, there's plenty of homes in Pass Grill where you tear down, you try to build new and the restrictions are much stricter because the setbacks are newer and a lot of those lots were platted very small. So, but there but well for some of them passive grill they're specifically you know you're given some leeway there because of the lot size

but so I I guess you know I guess I just don't understand because before the hurricane right if someone bought a piece of property and decided they wanted to tear down the house and build a new house they would have to live with whatever was on the books right just because we had the hurricane, why why does that help, you know, the the folks who are coming in to build new new homes? And I hear what you're saying. Maybe it's their home, they're tearing it down because of the hurricane, but if they decided to tear it down before the hurricane and build up, they would have had to um, you know, live with the rules that were on the books.

Yeah. I think so. Unless we change the you know, unless we're willing to change the rules even further for folks, which I'm not I'm not opposed to, right? I'm not opposed to changing the rules, but I just don't understand why we're doing it for the new folks. Let's just change, you know, let's just change the rules even further for the folks that are trying to build up from hurricane damage and have to settle for, you know, an unsightly staircase, right? But for the new builds, they have all the power in their new design to create something even better than what they were going to get, right? Does that make sense? This this this was meant for the folks who got damaged from the hurricane.

Your concern? Yeah. So, your concern is that it's not helping the hurricane, the elevators as much as it could while simultaneously helping new build people more than it needs to. Ex. Exactly. I mean, the intent of this was to help the folks that went through the hurricane and get focused on that. I just don't see why. I mean, if we had not had a hurricane and we were sitting here having a discussion about the staircase in the city of St. Pete Beach because our new new builds were having problems, that's a whole different discussion. But we're saying, hey, let's just let's just do it for the new builds, too.

So, the so the proposed changes keep restrictions on people elevating that someone conducting a new construction is not constrained to. Is that No. If you didn't change if if you didn't if you took out just the part for the new builds out of this, then the folks who went through damage and we're going to raise their homes, they got they get a little relief here that's outlined in here, right? They can go out a little further or what have you. It wouldn't affect the new bills at all. They would still have to meet current code and current setbacks and all that.

And I'm just saying what's wrong with that? I mean, why? I mean, again, I always I always wonder what is the real intent in doing something in making a change. We didn't need we weren't sitting here asking for a change before the hurricane for new builds. Why are we asking for a change for new builds now? And I I still haven't got that rationale yet on why we're doing that. To me, it just seems like a hey, let's just let's just hey, we we got something going on. Let's just add something to it. I I thought when we talked about this once before because we were talking about the stairways, I thought we had I remember saying that it shouldn't apply to new builds just going along for the ride because there could be unintended consequences. Um we haven't really focused on that. I mean, we're basically talking about changing our setbacks and um I thought I thought we had taken the new builds out of it when we talked about it the last time. Yeah, we didn't. We just Some of us voted no because of that. And so I I'm just, you know, I always want to know the rationale. Why? What? What is the reason for the change? I totally get it for folks who've been damaged in the hurricane. I don't think actually don't think we've gone far enough in some of this,

but I don't understand it for the new builds. What What was the problem prior? And so that that's all that's that was a long answer to your question, David, but that's

so I I can't give the full rationale. This is what was brought forward to the commission. I will say that what I've seen in reviewing new home permits is that I am seeing a lot of new homes. Obviously, they're they're building new. They're not elevating or or constructing above a a vacated story, but they are retaining a lot of the structures in the rear of the property. They may have a limitation based on that. I don't know if that justifies an additional 4 ft of staircase encroachment. Um, I will say that although it is 4 feet of additional space for new builds, they do not have the permission that extends to elevated or upper story reconstruction uh, permits, which does allow for those homes that are within a required setback to have a stair that extends out significantly farther than for a new build. um they are both eligible for the seven foot encroachment standard. But when a home is for example set at 10 feet and it's elevated in place, we're not looking at the typical 20ft set back in the front. We would be looking at the distance of that home from the front property line and allowing extension beyond that. So those elevated homes, those reconstructed homes, they have that additional permission. I I do understand your point though and I appreciate it.

So everything you you said, you know, okay, makes sense. My question would be how many variances were submitted over the last five years for new new build homes and stairca and staircases. You know like what whenever you change guidance or policy um you should have some rationale and then there should be some data behind it. If you if you were to say to me, well, we had, you know, every year we had 30, you know, for every new build, you know, 50% of them, you know, submitted a variance request. Well, then, okay, maybe there's a problem with what we have, but this could be just one new bill that really, you know, wanted some help. I don't I don't know. And so I I just change for change sake without the data

to me doesn't make sense. And and oh by the way as as I was reminded once on this board about because I was talking but if you remember I was talking about balconies and trying to help the folks that have been damaged by the flood. I was told and reminded that we have a variance process. So, why don't we just put that back into the variance process and let the uh the new builds if they want an extended staircase for whatever reason and they can come up with their reason, they can go through the variance process just like everybody else. Understood.

And then it keeps this focused on helping the folks who went through the hurricane specifically. That's what all these changes um have done and they're all good changes, right? So let's just keep it focused on that. That's so that's my two cents. I'll stop

is was this authored as a result of data? Uh for example, I watch a lot of the board of adjustment meetings and they I hear them frequently express concern that we're being asked to change our laws. If there's a problem with the laws, we should we should change them, not keep asking for variances. So is is any of this the genesis of this text resulting from that?

So certainly for elevated structures, we've seen a number just in the last year and a half post storm. For new structures, there was one variance that was brought forward I believe last year. Um however, that one would have benefited from another change in here, which is the culde-sac modification. They're on a culde-sac. It's a awkward front yard relationship that they had to deal with. And from my recollection, they would have benefited significantly from just that change independent of the open stairs. Um, this was something we discussed with the city commission and that's why we brought it forward for new builds as well. But certainly if it's a recommendation of the board to not extend that additional staircase encroachment to new builds, we're happy to carry that forward.

Okay. I did I did have some general comments on the language before we get to the point of making a recommendation. Um this is on page nine which is 71 of 88 in the packet. It's listed as a section C but I I also have like 10 comments on this. I don't know if it would make sense to kind of go through the document in order um um if we I mean, it's fine just if we want to jump around, but I just thought I want to go page by page is what you're asking. Yeah, just to keep it I only had two items. Okay, fine. Very good.

Okay. Okay. This So, this is non-conforming uses. It's listed as a C. Uh, let's see here. Page nine. Yeah. Page 71 of 88.

Let's go by the U markup numbers. So, page nine of the ordinance. So, this this section is about non-conforming uses and that you could give up that that non-conformance if the use is discontinued. And I wasn't sure if we define discontinued anywhere because the thought I had was, well, what if a storm causes your utilities to be turned off for 90 days and you're forced to discontin your use through something you have no control over? That that is a good point. Um discontinuation does involve typically extinguishing the use through storm damage or loss of the structure. So it is the stricter I believe of the interpretations that could be made with that.

Okay. Do we know what the intent is?

Um I think it's typically and and a lot of codes have these. Some are more permissive than others. I'd say are probably moderate in terms of non-conforming use permissions, but non-conforming uses are typically tolerated until um an event happens or the owner decides to electively redevelop the property. Um there is the intent for them to eventually go away and you have on one side the maybe the low density residential in a commercial district or commercial in a residential district. That's the intent to eventually get rid of those. Okay. Um the other one is on page 11 towards the top item six. So I [clears throat] thought it I wanted to make sure the intent was for the use of the word obtained. So permits to rebuild shall be obtained versus applied for. uh because I know if there are delays in permit processing, I didn't want to be see someone squeezed out if they applied for a permit and it has taken months to get one.

And that's current code language, but I I do understand what you're what you're recommending. I would say potentially applied for and kept active during that time period. So it's not just a perpetual um they they'll have six months to correct but if if that's a recommendation of the board I'm happy to make that change. I would agree with that. Okay. Yeah. If no one objects I would like to see that. Yeah. That was all I had. Member Perry. Okay. I am going to go back to um page 61 of 88. Um can you go by the ordinance number?

Well, it's it's before you get into the ordinance. It's when you're doing the summary of the changes. Maybe I don't need to address it there. The agenda report. Yeah, it's it's Yeah, the agenda report. It's the uh we're trying to pull these up on the screen while you're talking about it so everyone can see them.

Second Yeah. Second page. It says, you know, changes presented in the subject ordinance that modify content presented includes the following. And um one of these we've already touched on which is the first bullet um reduction of the base openness requirement for stairs. And what I have found is that here it says 80 to 60%. Um but then um it's also mentioned in the um ordinance on page uh 70 of 88 and on page 77 of 88 and they're not consistent percentages. Do you have the number from the ordinance number instead of 17?

It is 15. 15. Oh, page 15 of the ordinance. You pull up page 15, Brandon. And then the other was page eight, right? Yes. You see that here? So, it is it is 70% transparent in the ordinance. And then it does it does state in the agenda report 60. I apologize. I believe the intent was for it to be 70%. And so so it's it's in three p three places but it's not consistent. So thank you. Okay.

Um let's see the next thing I had was um page four exhibit A which is page 66 of 88.

Yes. Um, we're talking about height and I know this is came up recently at the commission meeting, but I I did give you a diagram and it's it's on the table over there if you want to put that up, Jenny. If you look at height and where the starting point is, it says for A for any structure less than 8 ft above natural grade, height is measured from the designed flood elevation. But then B, if it's um higher than 8t above natural g grade, it's um measured from 8t above the natural grade. I didn't understand why this was different. And um in the drawing uh if basically if somebody is a sixeenth of an inch off the way I understand this there could be a twoft variance in how high a building could be based on whether they're above or below this 8 foot line. So I didn't know what the basis of the 8ft line was. That was one question. And then the second question is since these things move, I mean you get a new flood pain map, you get u would it not make more sense to um use the NAVD and you know just make it consistent. So I had this the way this whole thing was worded. I also didn't think it really took into account what happens when we try to go to 5 foot seaw walls. So there were some future thoughts. Um, and then I didn't even know watching the commission meeting if you would even be able to change this because of some of the, you know, current restrictions SB 180. Um, although I know that's being looked at in Tallahassee right now. So, I guess my the bottom line here is that I this whole area um really probably needs to be reworked.

Understood. So to to give the basis for the 8oot height standard that has been in our code I believe for around five years now. That was the intent when it was passed if I if I recall was to allow for consistency in single family home height across the city regardless of whether the property was in Vina Delmare or in Bel Vista or in North Beach. All of them would be eligible for when a home is elevated above grade and has a non-habitable level. So, parking, storage, and access at the ground level of eight or more feet in height, they would be eligible to not count that 8 ft up to 8t above grade um against their height limitation. That's that would effectively allow someone to have the same height of home regardless of which neighborhood they're located in. That wasn't extended to commercial. it wasn't extended to those non um protected residential districts, but that was the intent. If that needs to be clarified, happy to do that. I do understand your point about NAVD. I think that would maybe involve a little bit more of a broader look just to to come up with what that standard would be. We would likely need to look at different districts and we'd have to base it on topography, but that's certainly something we could look at. Um, what we have in there I believe is consistent with what we currently have in our definitions. We're just updating it to comply with the the state recommendations and I don't believe it's any stricter than what we're currently enforcing at least for now. So,

okay. So, so possibly a future um when that that does get looked at. Yes. And I I like I said, I know it's coming up again. So, do I'm sorry, member Perry. Uh do we define natural grade specifically? It's it's prior to any filling or excavation. So that would be the we would typically get that information through an elevation certificate. They provide the the natural grade, right?

But but you're right, David, part of the thing that makes it is like in our island, we're like at my house, we're a foot and a half to two feet higher than a few houses down. And so it's it's kind of a very not consistent just by what it is. Um the next thing I had was on page eight um which is 70 of 88 and there's um in this particular place um it says proceeding shall be permitted to have one exterior stairway that encroaches into the required front yard setback and then it gives the criterion. We've already talked about the 70%. Um, but on page 77 of 88, let me see if I can find that

15.

Um, it talks about um if you look at C letter one, it talks about um any yard setback into required yard setback. It doesn't just say the front. Um, other stairs shall be permitted to encroach into required yard setback. So, I didn't know is that a state requirement for the front or is the intention different? That just seemed to be a little inconsistent to me. I I don't believe it's based on the state requirement. Um, we do allow for the three-foot extension into any required yard. That that three-foot encroachment is based on the Florida building code. That's the minimum width of a staircase. Um, we often see where a property owner will build to the side lot line, but they'll have a meter in the sideyard. So, they need some kind of a a path to get up to that meter. So, that is the minimum dimension that they're allowed to have for that stair.

Okay.

So, I guess I just wasn't sure since they didn't seem to read the saying, you know, the one on page eight specifically says front yard. So, I didn't know. And and that would be item two on Could we get the um screen pulled back up? I'm sorry. So we can all be on the same See here. So there are two options. Well, three options really. So any enclosed or independently roofed stair must meet all of the structure setbacks. When it is not independently roofed, it is allowed a three foot setback encroachment into any required yard.

Okay. Residential single family homes and this again is for the for the for new homes, new new um from the groundup homes, they would be permitted to encroach up to seven feet into the required front yard. So, they would not be allowed a side or rear yard encroachment of 7 feet. They would be required to both be unroofed and have an open base. I do need to make these standards consistent. I believe I intended to go with 70% and I just took the average across the ASL. Um, it'll be 70% for all three of these references in the agenda report as well as the other other section. But this permission here is only for the front yard. It doesn't apply to the side or rear.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. On um page 11, which is also 73 of 88 and number six, it talks about um with within one year. Um and then it says unless a general extension of time has been granted. So there's a year and then there's some but on page 74 of 88 which is 12 um item three it just says 12 months of the date of damage. We could certainly align the two um change item three on page 16 sorry on page 12. um to coincide with the proceeding standard if that's the recommendation of the board.

I'd be okay with that and including that change to applied for from obtained. Yes. And then the last one I had is on page 13 which is 75 of 88. And I remember us discussing this and I couldn't remember and and I couldn't find but it when we're talking about these residential storage buildings subject to following dimensional and required yard requirements which is item five the 80 was crossed out and it went to 120 and I just couldn't remember I remember us having a discussion about it but I couldn't remember where we left it. I I remember disliking that and everyone else disagreed. So, so we went up to 120.

Yeah. Okay. Thanks for refreshing my me. Sure. That was everything I had on on this one. Thank you. Anyone else? Do I have a motion? Well, should we summarize what we're going to motion here? Yeah. Do we make any adjustments? lost sir.

So we we made some minor adjustments to the language uh that could be incorporated regardless of our recommendation. We would be recommending this uh for approval or disapproval by the city commission as well as finding whether or not it uh is consistent with the comprehensive plan. So,

so we could we could recommend it city commission approve with our changes without our changes, disapprove uh disapprove with other changes we would like to see. And I I would ask with the board action if you could if you were going to make a recommendation either for approval or for denial um if you address the new home stair encroachment specifically because I do think that's important information to provide them tomorrow whether the action is actually taken tomorrow if it's directed for staff to look at alternatives um that that is a you know significant part of the ordinance. So I I would like to make it aware to them what the

should we if if the board chooses to go in that direction, would you prefer we table this versus recommend disapproval? I think we just need a recommendation whether you want to include the new builds or only um the elevation of existing structures. That way the rest of it can go forward and they can make a decision. Okay. Probably be a split decision here, split decision there. We'll see.

So I'll I'll give this a shot. I'll make a recommendation that we uh approve this for to go to the commission with the administrative changes that we've discussed and the removal of the new residency piece requirement or it's not consistent with the comprehensive plan. What's that? And that it's consistent with And that is consistent with the comprehensive plan. I second. Roll call, please. Member Izzy, yes. Member Perry, yes. Vice Chair Angelitus, no. Member Lorenzan, yes. Chair Hubard, yes.

Motion carries four to one. Thank you.

Okay, this completes the action items. As a local planning agency, I will adjourn as a local planning agency and reconvene as the planning board. We have discussion item 5A. we pull the PowerPoint back up. So, this is another exciting year as it pertains to um House and Senate bills uh that affect planning and zoning in the state of Florida. Um just to cover broadly some of the major subjects of applicable bills, there are continued preeemption on local regulation of zoning and land use. with some of them that even get into um very specific dimensional standards for housing setbacks and height and so on. Uh there is a proposal to significantly scale back Senate Bill 180 passed last year. It's obviously loomed large in the state of Florida and most jurisdictions um in both scope and location. I'll cover that one briefly. Um there's support in multiple bills for increased residential development and permissions. Um there's a bill that was brought forward last year that's been slightly modified this year to allow for accessory dwellings in any single family residential zoning district. There's also another bill um not necessarily competing, it would be a companion uh that is a preeemption for one to four unit tiny home residential developments. And again, that would be a largely a preeemption on local zoning.

Brandon, would would would this be a mandate, not support for like they can say to the state you will allow preemption?

Correct. This many of these would be preemptive on on local uh governments and I'll go into some of these bills in more detail. Um limitation on local review of applications and adjustment of considerations of compatibility in land use planning. So the first major bill is SB840 that amends Senate Bill 180 uh 2025 which was effectively a blanket statewide prohibition on moratoriums um as well as any kind of amendments that create any kind of additional burdens or restrictions on redevelopment. So currently um this is a very restrictive law that applies to all municipalities including us. It doesn't have any major changes to the actual prohibitions from now until the end of the post helen post Milton period. However, what it proposes is to roll that back from October 2027 expiration to the end of June 2026. So, should this bill be signed into law, which oftent times they're signed in June, so it would be less than a month uh from when this law is signed to when it is in place. Um, this would reduce the significant prohibitions on our jurisdiction that apply from Senate Bill 180 as a result of Hurricane Helen and Milton. Something that's not discussed as frequently with Senate Bill 180 is that that law also put in place that under any future state of emergency, there would be an automatic one-year period where cities are cities and counties are subject to the same limitations that we have been under since Hill. um Milton and Helen hit for those future events. So, not looking at our current period, but looking at any kind of future one-year posttorm state of emergency,

it would allow posttorm moratoria on construction and redevelopment. It would allow posttorm moratoria on repair and reconstruction. So the more restor restorative um work but only to address storm water, flood water management, portable water and sanitary sewer. So if a city's sanitary sewer system completely failed during a storm, if they need to put in place a moratorum to allow that sewer to be restored to pre-storm condition, this would allow a moratorum even on repair and reconstruction of buildings. Cities will not have to do that. It's something that they would be permitted to do. It would allow cities to enforce land development code and comprehensive plan requirements for repair and reconstruction if those requirements were applicable prior to the storm. For example, we have a requirement that commercial properties when they redevelop, when they're substantially improved, construct a 10-ft sidewalk at their along Gulf Boulevard and Blind Pass Road. We could enforce those requirements for repair and reconstruction that constitute substantial improvement. It would allow posttorm changes to review approval or issuance processes for development orders such as conditional use permit site plans, provided those changes do not affect issuance time frame. So, we want to be able to draw out the time frame for review of these projects from, for example, from 6 months to a year, but we could require that they provide renderings. We could require that they potentially hold an additional community meeting if it's not going to affect that time frame. And I should say that those local prohibitions apply only to documented storm damaged properties to the extent necessary to repair or reconstruct. If if someone is undertaking elective redevelopment, these restrictions would not apply. It allows more restrictive amendments when required to comply with state and federal law, the Florida Building Code and or local technical amendments. That wasn't something that was really directly addressed through Senate Bill

180. So, that would be made more explicit that if the federal government, the state is requiring us to make a change, we're not going to potentially be um adverse to this law just by by making that change, carrying that forward. There is a another Senate bill 218 that modifies Senate Bill 180, but it only changes location. It doesn't change any of the other applicability um under Senate Bill 840. So, this bill um I believe it was opened about two weeks ago and it has gone through two committees. It was um recommended by both committees. So, we'll track this one as it moves forward. It's obviously a significant scaling back of Senate Bill 180 as it applies to future events. It is drawing back largely preeemptions that um applied to the city under Senate Bill 180. So, we'll see how that moves forward. Senate Bill 1138 um in companion House Bill 927. It is titled qualified contractors, but it is uh potentially very expansive in scope. Uh potentially even as as impactful as Senate Bill 180. So currently under Florida law there is a requirement that under certain conditions the anyone undertaking a uh building permit be eligible to use a private provider. So that's effectively a private outside review of a building permit. This would extend that requirement to cities as it applies to zoning and permitting uh zoning permit and um special hearings and so on permits as well. Because of our size um we would be required to have a list of three qualified contractors who can effectively provide that private provider service for zoning and planning application review. It reduces the cost of application by a flat fee or percentage when an outside entity

reviews an application. For example, we have a $1,250 site plan review fee for those new commercial projects that are within our community redevelopment district. It may be reduced by $300 to offset the cost of zoning department review. If they were to use a private provider for zoning review of that that application, it does allow for a clerical fee for processing. So if this is a request that we have to take forward to a board or provide a development order for or so on, we are able to still require a clerical fee for processing of these applications. What is confusing about this Senate bill, um, I've reached out to our partners with the county and I've I've sought some additional clarification as well, is that it allows outside entities to perform reviews of development related applications and requires issuance after 10 business days of submittal of completed application unless the city specifies a basis for rejection in that time frame. A lot of the applications that zoning reviews are akin to the building permit equivalent. We review site plans. We review single family home permits. These are based on objective standards. But the definition of a zoning permit in this bill includes special exceptions which we call conditional use permits. It includes variances. It includes reszonings. It's other actions that are typically subject to the quasi judicial process. So what's unclear in this bill is whether the outside entity is responsible for coordinating and holding required by ordinance public hearings and other actions during their review. So if they would be the entity bringing these items forward or if they can effectively decide on these items, provide them to the city, say that they meet the comprehensive plan in the land development code and then require effectively within 10 business days that the city hold a public hearing to either accept those findings or reject them. it effectively significantly scrunches the public hearing process if if that is the

case. Um, as I as I stated, if not, this law significantly limits public involvement and current noticing requirements for conditional use permits and variances. We typically have about a 45day lead period. We start to notice for those cases 14 days in advance of the meetings and we also post signs on site. We publish legal ads. It's not clear if this is preemptive to those local requirements for noticing. We are seeking clarification with the overall impact of the law, whether it's chilling to public comment and public hearings on development review, those items that are subject to the quasi judicial process. This does very clearly apply to site plans, zoning reviews of building permits, and so on, but it could also potentially be preemptive for those public hearing items. So, we'll certainly share that with the board when we get more information on that. But it's one definition within this bill. It's a very long bill. Um, but it does appear to include conditional use permits, variances, and other quasi judicial items. So, we'll see how that shapes up.

Is is your understanding that these outside entities would be different from the three qualified contractors for zoning and planning? They would be the three qualified contractors. We could have more, but we cannot have fewer. If we had fewer, they could effectively use any outside entity that they wanted to review that doesn't have a conflict of interest. And we have a Oh, so it's not mandatory those three. you we would have a list of three, but you could use anyone else. If we had a list of three that were qualified, they would have to use a list of three. But if we were to solicit and we were to only receive two, they could use a two or they could use any outside entity they wanted. Oh yeah. Okay.

This is also not something that's new. This is something we were some people were trying to get pushed through, you know, posttorm. Um, so there's a lot of cities that are using private providers. So it's just what you're seeing here is the the lobby for the private providers um finally getting something on the books. So I would also recommend going to the cities and talking to the city managers and the you know the building folks who who are actually using them because it this could potentially really help our residents. Well, I if a third party is dictating to our city that this applicant's application passes the uh the bar for receiving a variance or conditional use. I mean, you're just going to contractor shop until you find one that says it passes.

Yeah. Well, don't forget that our, you know, the head guy in our city that's making a lot of the rules is a contractor who works for a firm that does private providing services. So, you have to also believe that the folks that are approved that do this actually know what they're doing. You know what I mean? They're not it's not going to be some cowboy operation. That's why they're trying to get it codified. But Luke works Luke works Luke is a contractor who works for a firm who provides this kind of service. Great. So, so the expertise is out there already. But it sounds like this bypasses the commission. Is that

so? And this this is specific to zoning and planning applications. There is already a law in place in the state of Florida that anyone can use a private provider. It works a little bit differently in our jurisdiction because we're in the flood plane, but um for example, if someone renovates their condo, they're on the third floor, they can use a private provider to both inspect the permit application as well as do the on-site inspections. This would extend that to the items that were typically within the purview of zoning and planning. So that would be site plans. Those would be potentially variance and conditional use applications. Right. So you're talking like technical review stage, correct? It doesn't byp the the the mention of cups and variances isn't bypassing the commission's vote on them.

That's what's unclear. That's what we're trying to get clarification on because the private entity would be able to move forward items that would typically go to technical review committee, but the city would receive a completed application effectively an application that is prepared for acceptance issuance of a development order 10 business days in advance of the period the the date that we need to make a decision to either accept or reject that. So if it's a situation where a private entity can effectively decide on a conditional use permit and variance and then submit it and allow the city 10 days to determine whether that's, you know, rejected or not, that would effectively be deciding the conditional use permit process. We could still advertise for that hearing, but we would need to call a special meeting of the city commission and potentially planning board. Would would that potentially allow someone to spend what could be a a year of working on this type of stuff u outside like let's say it's a large or district entity could they spend all of that time with their private contractor and then we don't even hear about it until we got 10 days it's it's really unclear at this point I it's you know this bill wasn't necessarily written about our around our local process where we typically have the community meeting requirement um I assume that would still apply because that is a pre-application requirement. But everything between when they actually submit the application for review and when when it decisions render, it's unclear. So,

and my my understanding is is the real benefit here is in the residential piece where you don't have to wait for the, you know, the city inspector to come out and do the, you know, the drywall screw inspection or this that I mean, you'll you'll have this entity that can do these things that then have to be accepted by the city, right? Because they're qualified to do it. So, you basically can go choose the public or the private way of doing it, right? Um, for the big projects, I don't think you're going to be able to bypass. Thank you. All right. We have uh two major bills related to residential preeemption. The first is Senate Bill 948, Starter Homes Act and Procedures for Development Permits and orders. This prohibits municipalities from requiring more than 12,200 square feet in land area per dwelling. That works out to about 36 dwellings per acre for single through four family development in residential zoning districts. This would effectively allow within any current zone single family zoning district up to a four family development on that property. It also gets into as I mentioned at the beginning um standards that are usually very specific to the jurisdiction uh setbacks height and so on. It would permit no greater restrictions on residences than three stories or 35 ft above the base flood elevation in terms of height that is taller than we allow in most of our current residential zoning districts. It would allow for a zero foot side and a 10-foot rear yard setback. And again, that's a preeemption on cities. They can be more permissive. Uh obviously not more permissive as it relates to the side because you can't get any closer, but it could be more permissive in the rear yard, but um you obviously that affects our waterfront properties

because that reduces the current setback of 20 ft to 10. Um with the side, you also get into some of the building and fire protection requirements. When you have a zero foot sideyard, that tends to be what you see in a in a downtown. They have fire rated walls and so on. you would you would need to get into that level of um you know involvement with those homes that are built on a lot line. Um the dwellings would also not be able to be limited to any size greater than the minimum size required by the Florida Building Code. So that can technically increase density over 36 units per acre. Uh the Florida building code of course does have requirements for minimum dwelling size based on things like requirements for a sleeping quarters um a area to prepare food um sanitary facilities and so on. But zoning codes would not be able to prohibit or prohibit any unit um smaller than or in in line with the size required by the Florida Building Code. It does allow some limited consideration for historic properties, but they must be regulated the same as other historic properties. For example, in the Pasal Overlay district, we do not allow for a lot to be subdivided to smaller than its historic lot size. So, if it was platted at 4,000 square ft, it needs to remain 4,000 square ft. If they have an 8,000t lot, if they've combined two properties, they might be able to subdivide them back to 4,000 square feet, but they could not separate them to 1,200 square foot properties. um only because those are within our historic district. It also provides a very limited time frame for review of lot splits. Um so this would obviously be a significant preeemption. This would be very you know significantly impactful to our single family districts if this is undertaken in any any you know large large measure.

So this does preempt. It's not as you change your code you have to comply. It's okay.

Correct. Another uh residential preeemption. This is Senate Bill 48. Um I'm obviously not involved in the legislature in any day-to-day capacity, but from what I understand, this is uh smart money. You know, this is the bill that would pass out of any of these. A very similar bill came close to passing last year. The holdup was over short-term rental uh prohibitions, and that is something that was included in this bill this year. So this would effectively allow for accessory dwellings by right in any single family zoning district, garage apartments, um an additional um you know rear dwelling unit. It would not require extra parking if the driveway can accommodate an extra vehicle. Our standards are 9 by 20 for parking spaces. So, if you have a driveway that is 27 feet wide and 20 ft deep or 60 feet deep and 9 ft wide, um they would not need to provide any additional parking to accommodate the additional dwelling. It does not require replacement of converted garages. That's not a standard we have in our jurisdiction. We don't require garages associated with residences. We allow for surface parking even for single family. That is generally irrelevant in St. Pete Beach due to the flood plan requirements. We're not going to allow under the flood plane requirements an atgrade garage to be converted into a dwelling unit. But if they chose to elevate that garage to create living space, if they chose to add a level on top of the garage, they would be eligible to do that and and added an additional dwelling.

I I don't we don't we prohibit uh I thought we have a height restriction on accessory dwellings as well as utility connections. So that I understand that there's just a blanket preeemption on cities. You would not be able to regulate accessory dwellings any different from a primary dwelling in terms of height setbacks and so on. So if it were a garage, if it were only functioning as a garage, it would be still be limited to 12 feet in the setbacks, but if they were to build it out as a residence, they could build as tall as the primary structure. So if your accessory structure, your shed is now called a dwelling, you can do that. Okay. Actually get a lot higher. Yeah.

Yeah.

Um we can't require primary owner occupancy. Again, this might be a preemption or a requirement that other jurisdictions undertake. We we don't require that locally, so that would have no direct impact on us. Uh it appears to limit the size area lot coverage of accessory dwellings to the same standards as the primary home. We do have a requirement that accessory dwellings be lesser in extent and stature than the primary dwelling. Now, if someone built a larger accessory dwelling and now the main home is the accessory dwelling, I guess that effectively fulfills this purpose, but we wouldn't have any standards that are more or less restrictive on accessory dwellings unless the city commission were to to dictate that. Um, added into this bill compared to last year, the one major change is that cities can continue to prohibit short-term rentals but not otherwise prohibit rentals in these structures. St. Pete Beach defines a short-term rental as less than a period of one month. So, the city could continue um although we would be preempted on allowing the accessory dwellings, we could prohibit short-term rentals within those dwellings in the districts in which we we do that. Uh, so the accessory dwelling could be rented but not for a period of less than one month in most areas.

I'm curious, does our short-term rental prohibition include a concept of sublet or subleas leases? I was just thinking, you know, you call your thing at a dwelling now and some party rents it for a year, but they allow use under that rental. Is that prohibited? We don't account for breaking of a lease. Um but if it's subleted, it's expected that they follow the one month. Okay. Right.

Senate Bill 208, land use and development regulations. Um it requires fees to be tied to direct and indirect cost to review. Cannot be percentage based based on site cost, permit cost, etc. That is consistent with the current application development review fees in St. Pete Beach. I will say at least on the planning and development side, our fees are very low. Um we don't typically collect back the cost of review. Um we often have flat fees based on site area and they haven't been updated in in well over a decade. So those fees are low. That is something we're looking at updating, but um we don't undertake anything that would really be directly affected by that part of the bill. uh what we would be affected by is that it requires cities to include regulations and comprehensive plan references to massing architecture and so on for new residential uses and use those regulations specifically when assessing compatibility of new projects. So that would require design standards to assess residential project compatibility and that that would be required. It's this is actually more restrictive as I understand it on new development. We don't currently have development standards in most areas of our city. I know that there are cities and counties in Florida that do have fairly intensive design standards for new development. It's unclear if this is intended to preempt those standards or not, but in most neighborhoods in the city outside of Passeril and in our uh community redevelopment district, we do not typically have design standards that apply especially to single and two family development. There's already a statutory preeemption on applying design standards for single family residences. I assume that would stay in place. This bill does not appear to modify that uh statute in any way. So, I believe this would likely only apply to two family or greater properties. Uh would likely apply to residential multif family projects in St. Pete Beach. We don't of

course have any land for new subdivisions and uh it would provide preeemptions for established historic districts. So we our one established historic district that would be in place by the time that this bill goes into effect should it be um signed by the governor is pass. So any future districts would would not be um would not be exempt under this uh this bill. There are a couple other bills um lesser in extent um SB302. This is probably the one permissive zoning bill that's uh moving forward this this session. It's largely encourage encouraging in nature. It's not preempt preemptive and it pertains to nature-based solutions for coastal resilience. It encourages local government involvement in identification of properties that could benefit from nature-based solutions. We were talking talk a lot about living seaw walls in different neighborhoods in our jurisdiction and work with them on developing those solutions. It will study providing communities community rating systems. So, our flood insurance discount program credit in forthcoming years for implementation of nature-based resiliency efforts. So, there's a potential in the future if this bill is signed that we could actually receive credit and homeowners could receive a flood insurance discount if we were to implement living seaw walls and some of those um you know, green solutions instead of the gray wall solutions that we typically see. Uh, House Bill 479, Senate Bill 718, land and water management. It would preempt regulation of activities 15 to 25 feet from wetland wetlands when the buffer itself is preemptive of that activity. We do have a few uh neighborhoods in our jurisdiction that are adjacent to defined wetlands. So, we would be limited from any greater buffer from those wetlands than 15 to 25 ft depending on what the occurrence uh established buffer is is in place. And uh this affects more our code enforcement and our enforcement

division. But talking about the sea turtle ordinance earlier and some of the other ordinances that we brought forward recently, House Bill 105 would affect local government enforcement actions when requested by the entity or individual cited. Cities must review an enforcement action and provide a written response. If we have cited an individual or an entity for a code violation, if they question what that decision was made upon, cities would need to provide a written response within a certain period of time. It would allow suits up to $50,000 when an action is not supported by law when it deviates from prior interpretation without justification, causes unreasonable delays on legal development, or imposes requirements that are not authorized by law. effectively just require cities to follow their ordinance, provide a clear citation when we are citing a property owner for code enforcement action, which I believe our staff already does. So, a lot of uh a lot of big bills this session. Um definitely things worth keeping an eye on. Several of these bills have already gone through at least one committee. A number of them have gone through two and have been recommended. I believe the one bill that has not had any kind of committee hearing is the one that would allow for the fourunit dwellings in a single family district that would I believe that's moving forward tomorrow for its first committee hearing. Uh so we'll continue to bring these items back to you and give you an update as we receive more information. The county is also involved with reviewing these and we've received quite a bit of information from them. So any questions I'd try to answer? [laughter]

No. Okay, that was the last item. Uh, thank you everyone. This meeting's adjourned. Good job, Brandon.