[00:00:01]
EVERYONE, AND WELCOME TO THIS SPECIALLY SET JULY 28TH PLANNING BOARD MEETING.UM, WE HAVE EVERYBODY BUT YOU, SHE ALSO MET TODAY, SO WE'RE GOOD ON, UH, ON THE QUORUM.
AND, UH, I'LL START, IF I COULD JUST, THE JULY MEETING WAS,
[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
UM, EARLIER MEETING WAS CANCELED, SO WE STILL NEED TO APPROVE THE JUNE 10 MINUTES FROM OUR PRIOR MEETING IF SOMEONE CAN MOVE TO APPROVE THOSE.CAN I GET A SECOND? I'LL SECOND IT.
ANYONE OPPOSED? ALRIGHT, MR. NICK.
GOOD MORNING MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
UM, TODAY'S MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD WILL BE CONDUCTED IN A HYBRID FORMAT WITH THE BOARD PHYSICALLY PRESENT IN THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS AT MIAMI BEACH CITY HALL AND APPLICANT STAFF AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC APPEARING EITHER IN PERSON OR VIRTUALLY VIA ZOOM TO PARTICIPATE VIRTUALLY IN TODAY'S MEETING, THE PUBLIC MAY DIAL 1-877-853-FIVE 2 5 7 AND ENTER THE WEBINAR ID, WHICH IS 8 6 1 4 3 4 2, OR LOG INTO THE ZOOM APP AND ENTER THE WEBINAR ID, WHICH AGAIN IS 8 6 1 4 3 4 7.
ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM? MUST CLICK THE RAISE HAND ICON IN THE ZOOM APP OR DIAL STAR NINE IF THEY'RE PARTICIPATING BY PHONE.
IF YOU'RE APPEARING ON BEHALF OF A BUSINESS, A CORPORATION, OR ANOTHER PERSON, YOU NEED TO REGISTER AS A LOBBYIST WITH THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE.
IF YOU HAVEN'T REGISTERED YET, YOU SHOULD REGISTER BEFORE YOU SPEAK TO THE BOARD.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO REGISTER AS A LOBBYIST IF YOU'RE SPEAKING ONLY ON BEHALF OF YOURSELF AND NOT ANY OTHER PARTY, OR IF YOU'RE TESTIFYING AS AN EXPERT WITNESS PROVIDING ONLY SCIENTIFIC, TECHNICAL, OR OTHER SPECIALIZED INFORMATION OR TESTIMONY IN THIS PUBLIC MEETING, OR IF YOU'RE APPEARING AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WITHOUT ANY COMPENSATION OR REIMBURSEMENT FOR YOUR APPEARANCE TO EXPRESS SUPPORT OF OR OPPOSITION TO ANY ITEM.
EXPERT WITNESSES AND REPRESENTATIVES OF NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS SHALL PRIOR TO APPEARING DISCLOSE IN WRITING TO THE CITY CLERK, THEIR NAME, ADDRESS, AND THE PRINCIPLE ON WHOSE BEHALF THEY'RE COMMUNICATING.
IF YOU'RE AN ARCHITECT, ATTORNEY, OR EMPLOYEE REPRESENTING AN APPLICANT OR AN OBJECTOR, YOU MUST REGISTER AS A LOBBYIST.
THESE RULES APPLY WHETHER YOU'RE APPEARING IN FAVOR OF OR AGAINST AN ITEM, OR ENCOURAGING OR ARGUING AGAINST ITS PASSAGE, DEFEAT, MODIFICATION, OR CONTINUANCE.
[SWEARING IN OF PUBLIC]
WE HAVE NO, UM, QUASI-JUDICIAL ITEM APPLICATIONS ON TODAY'S AGENDA, THERE'S NO NEED TO SWEAR ANYONE IN.AS NICK MENTIONED, EVERYTHING IS A NEW COMPREHENSIVE PLANNER CODE AMENDMENT TODAY.
[2. PB25-0768. Floor Area Increase (FAR) Temporary Moratorium.]
PLANNING BOARD FILE 25 0 7 6 8 FLOOR AREA, INCREASE TEMPORARY MORATORIUM, AND, UH, BOARD MEMBERS MAY REMEMBER, UM, WE DID EMAIL THIS TO YOU SEPARATELY FROM THE PACKAGES, UM, LAST THURSDAY.WE DID PASS AROUND, UH, A PRINTED COPY FOR TODAY'S MEETING JUST FOR YOUR, UM, REFERENCE.
SO AS PROPOSED, THIS FAR MORATORIUM WOULD APPLY TO THE ADOPTION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION AMENDMENTS BY THE CITY COMMISSION THAT INCLUDE A FLOOR AREA RATIO INCREASE ABOVE THE MAXIMUM FAR CURRENTLY ALLOWED IN ANY OF THE CITY'S, UM, ZONING DISTRICTS.
IF THE APPLICATION RESULT IN AN INCREASE OF MORE THAN 5,000 SQUARE FEET PER PROPERTY OR SITE, THIS ORDINANCE DOES NOT APPLY, OR THIS MORATORIUM DOES NOT APPLY TO THE RECEIPT OR PROCESSING OF APPLICATIONS BY THE PLAN DEPARTMENT.
SO SOMEONE COULD STILL SUBMIT AN APPLICATION THAT INCREASES THAT IS PROPOSING TO INCREASE THE FAR, UM, FOR A SITE OR A DISTRICT OVER THE CITY COMMISSION.
IF THE ORDINANCE IS ADOPTED BY THEM, WOULD BE DECIDING TO TEMPORARILY DELAY THEIR REVIEW OF THE ORDINANCE.
UM, IT WOULD ALLOW THE PROCESS TO CONTINUE UNTIL IT GOT TO THEM.
HOWEVER, THIS ORDINANCE DOES ALLOW, UM, THAT REQUIREMENT TO BE WAIVED, UM, BY A SIX SEVENTH VOTE OF THE CITY COMMISSION.
THEY FELT THERE WAS AN ORDINANCE THAT THAT INCREASES FAR THAT WAS BENEFICIAL TO THE CITY.
SO EVEN WITH THIS MORATORIUM IN PLACE, THE CITY COMMISSION COULD VOTE BY SIX SEVEN'S VOTE TO TAKE ACTION ON SUCH AN ORDINANCE.
PART OF THE REASON FOR THIS, UM, PROPOSED MORATORIUM IS TO REVIEW THE IMPACTS OF, UM, OTHER PENDING FAR INCREASES.
YOU MAY REMEMBER WE HAD, UM, WASHINGTON AVENUE, UM, UM, WAS APPROVED FOR A PENDING INCREASE BY THE PLANNING BOARD THAT IS STILL, UM, AT THE CITY COMMISSION LEVEL.
WE HAVE THE LINCOLN ROAD, EAST AND WEST, WHICH WAS REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING BOARD THAT IS STILL PENDING REVIEWED BY THE CITY COMMISSION.
THIS WOULD NOT, UM, THIS WOULD NOT STOP THOSE PROCESSES.
IT WOULD JUST SUSPEND THE PROCESS FOR FUTURE FUTURE AMENDMENTS.
SO I ASSUME THAT'S ALREADY ONGOING, IT'S NOT AFFECTED.
UM, AND PART OF PART OF THE PURPOSE FOR THIS, UM, SUSPENSION IS THAT THE CITY COMMISSION HAS EXPRESSED A CONCERN WITH IMPACTS ON, UM, TRAFFIC MUNICIPAL SERVICES, PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE SUCH AS STORM WATER, UM, AND FLOOD WATER MANAGEMENT, UM, PORTABLE WATER AND SANITARY SOURCE SYSTEMS. SO THE IDEA IS THAT WITH THIS, IN THIS TIMEFRAME, THE CITY COMMISSION WOULD TAKE A LOOK IN A MORE COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF WHAT THESE IMPACTS WOULD HAVE, UM, ON PARTS OF THE CITY OR, OR CITYWIDE WHERE THEY'VE BEEN PROPOSED.
SO WITH THAT, WE ARE RECOMMEND, AND THIS AS WELL, THIS, THIS WOULD, UM, MORATORIUM WOULD LAST FROM TODAY WITH A, UM, POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION ABOUT THE BOARD UNTIL JANUARY 31ST
[00:05:01]
OF, OF NEXT YEAR.UM, IT WOULD NOT AFFECT ANY APPLICATION THAT, UM, IS FOR FOR BOARD WORKFORCE HOUSING UNITS.
UM, AND WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT THE PLANNING BOARD TRANSMIT THIS TO THE CITY COMMISSION WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION.
UM, I KNOW YOU'RE HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS, SO JUST OUTTA CURIOUS, THERE ARE PEOPLE ON ZOOM.
WE DO HAVE, WE DO HAVE PEOPLE ON ZOOM, BUT, UM, WE, THEIR HAND RAISED YES.
I ALWAYS TREAT CUSTOMERS IN THE STORE FIRST, SO, AND MR. MR. CHAIRMAN, BEFORE WE, BEFORE WE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, I JUST WANNA MAKE A COUPLE OF OF COMMENTS ON THIS ORDINANCE.
UM, THERE, I'VE GOTTEN SOME CORRESPONDENCE, UH, FROM, FROM, UH, FROM BOARD MEMBERS AND, AND INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS IN, UH, AS TO HOW THIS ORDINANCE HAS BEEN IMPACTED BY RECENT CHANGES IN STATE LAW.
UM, THE, AND THERE ARE TWO STATE LAWS IN PARTICULAR.
ONE IS THE 2025 AMENDMENTS TO THE LIVE LOCAL ACT, UM, WHICH, WHICH, UH, INCLUDE RESTRICTIONS ON MORATORIA ADOPTED AT THE, AT THE LOCAL LEVEL.
UM, AND I WANTED TO JUST, SO IN OTHER WORDS, THIS WOULD BE PREEMPTED BY THAT.
WELL, IT, IT WOULDN'T BE PREEMPTED BY THAT.
AND, AND, BUT I WANTED TO, I WANTED TO EXPLAIN WHY FOR THE RECORD, UM, THE, THE RESTRICTION IN THE LIVE LOCAL ACT APPLIES TO BUILDING MORATORIA ON, UM, ON, ON ESSENTIALLY ON LIVE LOCAL PROJECTS ON, ON, UH, ON, ON WORKFORCE HOUSING PROJECTS THAT ARE SUBMITTED UNDER THE LIVE LOCAL ACT.
AND THE WHAT THE ACT ALLOWS IS A LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO IMPOSE A MORATORIUM ON SUCH PROJECTS FOR A, A VERY LIMITED PERIOD OF TIME.
IT'S, IT'S NO MORE THAN 90 DAYS IN A THREE YEAR PERIOD.
BUT, UM, THIS IS NOT THAT THIS ORDINANCE DOES NOT, UM, PREVENT THE DEVELOPMENT, UM, OF A PROJECT THAT IS CURRENTLY ALLOWABLE UNDER THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
IT DOES NOT PREVENT THE DEVELOPMENT OF A LIVE LOCAL PROJECT SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO STATE LAW.
ALL IT APPLIES TO IS LEGISLATIVE CHANGES TO INCREASE, UM, ALLOWABLE FAR IN ANY OF THE CITY'S ZONING DISTRICTS.
SO IT DOESN'T STOP, UH, UH, DEVELOPMENT THAT'S, THAT'S CURRENTLY ALLOWED UNDER, UNDER OUR CODE.
UM, THE OTHER CHANGE, GO AHEAD.
I HAVE A, LEMME ASK QUICK QUESTION.
YOU HAVE QUESTION ABOUT THAT ONE? YEAH.
WELL, CURRENTLY WHAT WOULD THE PROCESS BE WITHOUT THE MORATORIUM IS FOR OUR OWN EDIFICATION FOR AN FAR INCREASE.
A PRIVATE APPLICATION WOULD NEED TO BE SUBMITTED RIGHT TO THE PLANNING BOARD.
THE PLANNING BOARD HAS, HAS, UH, VERY RECENTLY HEARD TWO SUCH APPLICATIONS.
ONE WAS FOR 1250 WEST AVENUE AND THE OTHER WAS FOR THE DOVAL, THE NORTH, THE, UH, NORTH BEACH OVERLAY.
UM, IT REQUIRES, NOW OUR CODE REQUIRES TWO READINGS BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD WITH A COMMUNITY WORKSHOP IN BETWEEN AND TWO READINGS BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION WITH A SECOND COMMUNITY WORKSHOP IN BETWEEN.
IN LIGHT OF THAT, I'M JUST, I WANNA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE REASON IS FOR THE POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION OR THE SUGGESTION FROM STAFF THAT IT BE SENT POSITIVELY.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I, 'CAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE YOU'RE JUST TAKING, I THINK THIS IS MORE LIKE A, A PUBLIC NOTICE.
THE CITY'S, THE CITY COMMISSION IS CONCERNED WITH THE FAR INCREASES AND LET PEOPLE KNOW THAT THERE'S GONNA BE A PAUSE IN THE REVIEW BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION IN REALISTIC.
NOW, LEGISL, WE DO HAVE AN APPLICATION THAT'S, THAT'S ON THE AGENDA FOR, UM, SEPTEMBER FOR A SPECIFIC SITE TO INCREASE FAR.
THIS DOESN'T AFFECT THAT BECAUSE THEY'RE ALREADY IN PROCESS.
BUT ULTIMATELY THE COMMISSION, WE HAVE TO, AND THE COMMISSION HAS TO APPROVE IT.
UL NO, THE, THE, THE PLANNING BOARD.
IF THE PLANNING BOARD DOESN'T HAVE TO APPROVE IT, YOU CAN RECOMMEND NO, I AGREE.
WE GIVE A RECOMMENDATION, THEN THE COMMISSION'S GOTTA APPROVE IT.
SO IT'S KIND OF TAKEN THE, THE POWER AWAY FROM I DON'T OKAY.
BUT RIGHT NOW, THE TIME, SO THE TIMEFRAME, SO THIS, JUST IN TERMS OF THE TIMEFRAME, WE HAVE AN APPLICATION FOR SEPTEMBER, THAT'LL BE THE FIRST READING BY THE PLANNING BOARD.
THEN IT'LL BE A, A PUBLIC WORKSHOP IF IT'S, IF IT'S, UM, LOOKED AT IN SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER, THERE'LL BE THE SECOND PLANNING BOARD IN NOVEMBER.
SO THAT ITEM WON'T GET TO CITY COMMISSION ANYWAY UNTIL JANUARY.
SO IN THE END, THIS DOESN'T REALLY AFFECT ANYTHING THAT'S ALREADY IN PROCESS AND ANYTHING THAT'S SUBMITTED AFTER THAT, WE'LL GO TO THE CITY COMMISSION AFTER THE MORATORIUM HAS ENDED.
UM, BUT HOW IS THE TIME USED, UH, DURING THIS MORATORIUM? LIKE, SO, SO IF WE'RE PAUSING THIS, WHAT ARE YOU GUYS DOING WITH THAT TIME? THAT WE'RE GONNA BE, UH, FEELING LIKE THERE'S PROGRESS INTO, YOU KNOW, A REASON TO BE DOING THIS.
SO WE JUST NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS WELL USED TIME.
SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE CITY COMMISSION WOULD ENGAGE A CONSULTANT TO REVIEW THE CAPACITY FOR THE AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN MENTIONED TO MAKE SURE THAT
[00:10:01]
THEY, WE DO HAVE, UM, CAPACITY FOR, I THINK THE PROBLEM HAS BEEN MOST RECENTLY FOR, UM, UM, SANITARY SYSTEMS, STORM WATER, UM, THINGS OF THAT NATURE TRAFFIC.AND, AND THE CITY FEELS THAT WITHIN THE SIX MONTHS MORATORIUM THAT YOU GUYS COULD BE GETTING, UH, THE, THE, UH, INFORMATION AND THE FACTS AND WE'LL BE ABLE TO HAVE A GOOD ANALYSIS OF THAT.
THE OTHER CHANGE IN STATE LAW, UM, THAT, THAT, THAT, UH, THAT THIS ONE DID IMPACT THE ORDINANCE BEFORE YOU AND WE REVISED THE ORDINANCE FOR TODAY'S MEETING, UH, TO, TO, UH, TO CONFORM WITH THE RECENT CHANGE.
BUT, UM, THE, THE SECOND LAW I WANTED TO COVER IS SENATE BILL 180, WHICH WAS ADOPTED DURING THIS YEAR'S LEGISLATIVE SESSION.
AND IS, IS FOR THE MOST PART, UM, RELATED TO, UH, DISASTER PREPARATION AND RECOVERY.
UM, THERE ARE PROVISIONS IN, IN SENATE BILL 180, HOWEVER, THAT ARE, THAT ARE EXTREMELY BROAD AND THAT IMPACT THE CITY'S ABILITY TO, UH, TO, TO REGULATE GROWTH.
UM, AND, AND ONE PARTICULAR PROVISION WHICH PROHIBITS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FROM ADOPTING, UH, ANY MORE RESTRICTIVE OR BURDENSOME AMENDMENT TO, UH, TO OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLANS OR LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, UM, THAN WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY IN PLACE.
AND THE, THE BILL IS RETROACTIVE TO AUGUST 1ST, 2024, UM, AND ESSENTIALLY IMPOSES A, A A THREE YEAR, UM, UH, PROHIBITION THROUGH OCTOBER 1ST, 2027 ON ANY MORE RESTRICTIVE OR BURDENSOME LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION AMENDMENT OR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT.
SO WE'RE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE ARE LOOKING AT THIS CLOSELY, WE'RE EVALUATING EACH, UH, EACH, YOU KNOW, PROPOSED AMENDMENT THAT IS, IS, YOU KNOW, WHEREVER IT MAY BE IN THE PROCESS.
UM, THIS PARTICULAR ORDINANCE, AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY DRAFTED, WOULD HAVE ALSO PROHIBITED THE, THE ACCEPTANCE OR REVIEW OF AN APPLICATION TO AMEND THE LDRS TO PROVIDE FOR ADDITIONAL FAR.
UM, BECAUSE A, A PROPERTY OWNER WOULD, YOU KNOW, WOULD HAVE A, RIGHT, LET'S SAY BEFORE, YOU KNOW, BEFORE THIS IS ADOPTED, A RIGHT TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION FOR A PRIVATE APPLICATION FOR AN FAR INCREASE, UM, THAT, YOU KNOW, IN EFFECT WOULD BE A MORE RESTRICTIVE, UH, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION.
SO WE'VE REVISED THE ORDINANCE TO COMPLY WITH SENATE BILL 180 SO THAT, YOU KNOW, APPLICATIONS COULD STILL BE SUBMITTED, BUT THAT THE CITY COMMISSION IS NOT GOING TO CONSIDER, UH, ANY LEGISLATIVE CHANGES THAT INCREASE FAR DURING THIS, DURING THE, THE MORATORIUM PERIOD.
UM, WE'RE CONFIDENT THAT AS REVISED THAT, THAT, THAT THIS, THAT THIS ORDINANCE IS CONSISTENT WITH SENATE BILL 180, BUT I WANTED THE, THE, YOU KNOW, THE RECORD TO BE CLEAR AS TO WHY.
MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING BOARD.
MY ADDRESS IS 1 25 JEFFERSON AVENUE.
AND I'M SPEAKING THIS MORNING AS A PRIVATE RESIDENT OF THIS CITY.
FIRST IT'S GREAT TO BE BACK HERE.
UH, I WAS SITTING IN I THINK JONATHAN'S SHEET WHERE HE IS NOW, JUST A FEW MONTHS AGO BEFORE MY TERM CONCLUDED.
AND I VERY MUCH ENJOYED THE SERVICE AND WAS HONORED TO SERVE ON THIS BOARD.
SO THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO COME TODAY AND TO SPEAK ON THIS TOPIC.
UH, THIS ONE IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT.
THE CITY COMMISSION SPENT MANY HOURS, MANY SPECIAL COMMISSION MEETINGS DISCUSSING FAR INCREASES FOR CERTAIN PROJECTS IN THIS CITY.
AND LAST MONTH THEY APPROVED TWO PROJECTS, ONE PROJECT, WHICH YOU ALL IN YOUR ADVISORY ROLE ACTUALLY VOTED, VOTED DOWN.
UH, I WOULD URGE YOU ALL TO VOTE DOWN THIS ONE AS WELL, BECAUSE IT IS THEATRICS, THEATRICS ONLY.
IT HAS NO BEARING ON ANYTHING THEY CAN, AS WAS DESCRIBED.
THEY CAN WAIVE THESE, UH, AT ANY RATE, IF THEY WISH TO, UH, ALL THE PROJECTS THAT WERE APPROVED WERE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT INFRASTRUCTURE ANALYSIS, WHICH SHOWED THAT THEY WOULD NOT IMPACT IT.
AND ANY FUTURE FAR INCREASES ALSO WOULD BE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT SUCH INCREASES.
SO AGAIN, JUST TO, TO WRAP IT UP, UH, THIS IS BAD POLICY, I THINK, AND I DON'T THINK THAT YOU ALL NEED TO BE INVOLVED IN IT.
JUST TAKE YOUR ROLE, UH, YOUR ROLE IN ADVISING THE COMMISSION, VOTE IT DOWN, AND LET'S TRY TO FIND WAYS TO, TO TRULY HELP THE HOUSING SITUATION IN THE CITY.
OVER 60% OF SOUTH BEACH AND NORTH BEACH RESIDENTS ARE RENTERS.
THERE HAVE BEEN, WELL ACTUALLY, CAN I ASK A QUESTION? HAVE THERE BEEN ANY FAR INCREASES FOR MULTI-FAMILY RENTAL PROPERTIES
[00:15:01]
IN THE LAST OR RENTAL PROJECTS IN THE LAST FIVE, 10 YEARS? UM, NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF.I MEAN, THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE IS THAT THIS IS A RENTING TOWN, RENTING CITY, AND NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE.
UH, OR HERE YOU ARE CONSIDERING A, A PIECE OF THEATRICS, SO VOTE IT DOWN.
WE HAVE, UH, CECILIA TORRES, TOLEDO, MS. TOLEDO, GOOD MORNING EVERYONE.
CECILIA TORE AKERMAN, LLP OFFICES AT 98 SOUTHEAST SEVENTH STREET HERE ON BEHALF OF AMBASSADOR PAUL SEJA.
WE'RE GONNA BE ON THE AGENDA FOR SEPTEMBER, AND WE ARE ONE OF THE APPLICATIONS THAT WOULD BE GRANDFATHERED IN MR. SEJA IS PROPOSING THE URBAN CORE LEGISLATION, WHICH PROPOSES MINIMUM FAR INCREASES, WHICH ARE INTENDED, UH, SO THAT THE PROJECT CAN REALIZE DENSITY.
CD THREE HAS A DENSITY OF 150 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, WHICH IS THE HIGHEST IN MIAMI BEACH.
BUT THE CURRENT FAR AND HEIGHT ALLOWANCES FOR THIS PROPERTY DON'T ALLOW YOU TO REALIZE THOSE UNITS BECAUSE YOU RUN OUT OF FAR BEFORE YOU'RE ABLE TO REACH DENSITY.
AS YOU KNOW, THIS CODE HAS MINIMUM AND AVERAGE UNIT SIZE REQUIREMENTS THAT NEED TO BE COMPLIED WITH.
SO WE ARE REQUESTING A 0.5 FAR INCREASE SO THAT WE CAN BETTER REALIZE THE DENSITY THAT'S ALREADY AFFORDED TO CD THREE.
AND WE'RE VERY EXCITED TO PRESENT THIS PROJECT TO YOU NEXT MONTH.
I THINK HERE, MY GOAL AND MY PURPOSE IN SPEAKING TODAY IS TO ENCOURAGE YOU TO RECOMMEND AGAINST THIS LEGISLATION BECAUSE IT SHUTS THE DOOR TO PROPOSALS SUCH AS MR. SEHA PROPOSALS, WHICH ARE REASONABLE CONTEXTUAL AND WILL HELP THE HOUSING INVENTORY IN THE CITY.
RIGHT NOW, THE ONLY PROJECTS THAT ARE PENCILING OUT ARE ULTRA LUXURY PROJECTS, RIGHT? BECAUSE THEY HAVE LOW UNIT COUNTS.
AND IF WE WANT TO HAVE HOUSING THAT IS ACCESSIBLE FOR DIFFERENT, UH, PERCENTAGES OF THE POPULATION IN MIAMI BEACH THAT ARE ACCESSIBLE FOR YOUNG FAMILIES AND PROFESSIONALS, THEN WE NEED TO ALLOW DEVELOPERS TO REALIZE THE DENSITY THAT IS ALLOWED UNDER THE CODE.
AND THIS MORATORIUM SHUTS THE DOOR ON CREATIVE PROPOSALS THAT ARE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF RESIDENTS AS WELL AS DEVELOPERS.
AND IT'S GOING TO FORCE PEOPLE INTO CONSIDERING LIVE LOCAL PROJECTS BECAUSE THAT'S THE ONLY OTHER AVENUE THAT IS AVAILABLE TO THEM IF YOU SHUT THE DOOR ON LEGISLATION THAT PROPOSES FAR INCREASES.
SO AGAIN, THIS APPLICATION THAT WE WOULD BE PRESENTING IS GRANDFATHERED.
YOU WOULD STILL BE ABLE TO HEAR IT IN SEPTEMBER, EVEN IF YOU RECOMMEND IN FAVOR OF THIS.
BUT WE ENCOURAGE YOU TO RECOMMEND AGAINST IT BECAUSE IT JUST, IT'S NOT HELPFUL TO ANYONE.
AND THAT CONCLUDES OUR PUBLIC COMMENT.
UH, KEITH, I THINK YOU HAVE SOME THOUGHTS.
WELL, I DON'T OFTEN AGREE WITH MATTHEW GUTTAL, BUT WHEN I DO
UH, I'M OF A DIFFERENT GENERATION, BUT I THINK IT APPLIES HERE.
AND THAT'S CALLED FAKE HUSTLE.
UH, THIS IS COVER FOR THOSE SIX COMMISSIONERS WHO, WHO DID NOT LISTEN TO THE PLANNING BOARD NOR STAFF.
AND IF YOU'D GIVE ME A SECOND, I'D LIKE TO READ SOMETHING ON MARCH 4TH, MY VERY FIRST, UH, PLANNING BOARD, UH, SESSION WE HAD IN FRONT OF US, UH, 1250 WEST IN THE REVIEW CRITERIA.
UM, ONE, WHETHER THE PROPOSED CHANGE IS CONSISTENT AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN ANY APPLICABLE NEIGHBORHOOD OR REDEVELOPMENT PLANS NOT CONSISTENT AS CURRENTLY PROPOSED, THE AMENDMENTS FAR EXCEED THE MAXIMUM FAR IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
WHETHER THE PROPOSED CHANGE WOULD CREATE AN ISOLATED DISTRICT UNRELATED TO ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOODS, NOT CONSISTENT PROPOSED AMENDMENT CREATES AND ISOLATED OVERLAY DISTRICT, IT BEARS NO RELATIONSHIP OR CONSISTENCY WITH SURROUNDING CONTEXT.
WHETHER THE CHANGE SUGGESTED IS OUTTA SCALE WITH THE NEEDS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, NOT CONSISTENT.
AND I, AGAIN, OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN, WE VOTED NO.
I WATCHED, UH, MR. MOONEY, WHO IS IN CHARGE OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, ARTICULATE VERY CAREFULLY, AND THEY DID ALL THE ANALYSIS, THE MASSING THE TRAFFIC STUDIES, AND SAID THAT FAR SHOULD NOT EXCEED 4.75, WHICH WAS UBER GENEROUS.
[00:20:01]
SEE ONE OF THE SIX COMMISSIONERS EXPLAIN WHY WHILE THE, HE WENT DOWN NOMINALLY FROM THREE 80 TO THREE 30, THEY LEFT THE FAR ALONE.WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN? WHAT WE NEED IS AN ORDINANCE TO FIX THE COMMISSIONERS.
UH, I'M, I'M SORRY, BUT THIS IS RIDICULOUS.
YOU KNOW, UH, YOU WANNA, UH, IGNORE YOUR PLANNING DEPARTMENT ONE POINT FAR.
I MEAN, WE GIVE 0.2 5.5 AS BONUSES FOR A LOT OF THINGS.
THIS IS AN UNJUSTIFIED FAR THAT WENT AGAINST EVERYTHING THAT THE PLANNING IS THERE FOR, AND YOU VOTED FOR IT.
AND NOW AFTER YOU VOTE FOR IT, YOU WANT A MORATORIUM, UH, THAT AS MANY SAY, UH, IS NOT HELPFUL AND IS POLITICAL COVER.
SCOTT, YEAH, I'M STILL TRYING TO FIGURE OUT EXACTLY WITH THE CHANGE THAT YOU MADE TO, TO SORT OF NOT BE CONTRARY TO, TO SENATE BILL 180.
UM, I'M STILL TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW, HOW THIS IS GOING TO MAKE A, A DIFFERENCE.
IN OTHER WORDS, WITH, WITH THAT AMENDMENT WHERE BASICALLY PRIVATE APPLICATION CAN STILL MOVE FORWARD.
UM, OBVIOUSLY NOW THE PROCESS STILL IS GONNA BE A MULTI-MONTH PROJECT OR, OR, OR PROCESS.
SO IT'S PROBABLY GONNA TAKE AT LEAST SIX MONTHS TO GO THROUGH.
SO THOSE PROJECTS CAN STILL MOVE THROUGH.
AND THEN WHEN THE MORATORIUM ENDS, YOU KNOW, THE COMMISSION WOULD HEAR IT.
SO, I MEAN, I JUST, MAYBE YOU CAN EXPLAIN IT, BUT I DON'T SEE WHETHER OR NOT WE PASSED THIS OR NOT.
I DON'T SEE HOW IT WOULD CHANGE ANYTHING.
I JUST DON'T SEE, AM I MISSING SOMETHING? NO.
UM, WHAT IT WOULD, WHAT IT WOULD CHANGE IS THAT DURING THE, DURING THE PERIOD OF THE MORATORIUM THAT THE CITY COMMISSION WOULD NOT CONSIDER, UM, ANY, ANY NEW LEGISLATION THAT INCREASES FAR AND AT THIS, AT THIS POINT RIGHT NOW, UM, WITH ANY PROJECTS ALREADY IN THE, IN THE PROCESS.
I MEAN, WHAT, WHAT DO YOU FORESEE AS THE EARLIEST THAT ONE OF THOSE WOULD GET THROUGH THE, YOU KNOW, THE CURRENT PROCESS FOR AN FAR INCREASE AND MAKE IT TO THE COMMISSION RIGHT NOW, JANUARY, WHICH IS WHEN IT ENDS, WHEN THIS ENDS ANYWAY, IT MAY, ANYBODY ELSE COMING IN WOULD BE PROBABLY LOOKING AT FEBRUARY OR AFTERWARDS.
SO BASICALLY THIS IS NOT REALLY GOING TO, I MEAN, TO ME, THE ONLY THING THIS WOULD PREVENT IS THE COMMISSION ITSELF FROM, FROM SPONSORING AN FAR INCREASE, BUT ACTUALLY IT WOULD STILL GO THROUGH THE PROCESS.
SO, UM, YEAH, I MEAN, YEAH, I MEAN, YEAH, I GUESS I JUST, YEAH, I JUST DON'T SEE A, UM, ANYTHING THAT THIS IS REALLY GONNA DO OTHER THAN MORE OF A, UM, HE USED FAKE HUSTLE, MORE OF A FAKE HUSTLE.
I COULD COME UP WITH OTHER TERMS, BUT, UM, YOU GOT IT.
HEY, JONATHAN, I GUESS I, I HAVE A QUESTION OF, UH, I UNDER, I UNDERSTAND WHAT IT'S BEEN SAID THAT THE PURPOSE OF THIS IS, BUT WHAT IS THE DOWNSIDE TO THIS? IS THERE A, A NEGATIVE TO PASSING THIS AND, AND PUTTING THIS ON THE BOOKS? I MEAN, I THINK AT A MINIMUM, YOU KNOW, I'VE GOTTEN A, YOU KNOW, AN ONSLAUGHT OF EMAILS FROM RESIDENTS WHO ARE IN SUPPORT OF THIS.
YOU KNOW, MAYBE THEY DON'T KNOW THE FULL IMPACT OF IT OR, OR WHATNOT.
BUT THEREOF, CLEARLY THERE'S AN INTENT, YOU KNOW, OR, OR A, A SENTIMENT BY RESIDENTS THAT THEY WANT SOMETHING LIKE THIS.
THERE'S OBVIOUSLY THAT SENTIMENT BY SOME COMMISSIONERS SINCE THIS WAS PUT ON THE BOOKS.
AND SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, I I, I GUESS IF THERE IS A DOWNSIDE TO THIS, I'D LIKE TO HEAR IT IF NOT, OR THE VICE VERSA.
IS THERE A DOWNSIDE NOT TO, THAT'S WHAT I MEANT.
IS THERE A DOWNSIDE? NOT, OR IS THERE A DOWNSIDE TO NOT TO PASSING THIS OR NOT PASSING THIS, BUT FOR RIGHT NOW, I THINK IT'S, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IT DOES IT, IF THIS WERE TO PASS THROUGH US, IS TO EXPLAIN TO THE, TO DEVELOPERS AND TO THE COMMUNITY HOW WE FEEL THAT WE ALL, YOU KNOW, UH, YOU KNOW, RESIDENTS DON'T NECESSARILY WANT MORE, UM, FAR INCREASES AND DEVELOPMENT.
AND THIS, AT LEAST AT THE VERY, AT A MINIMUM, SENDS A MESSAGE THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS WHAT MIAMI BEACH WANTS IN TERMS OF A, A PAUSE.
NOW, I UNDERSTAND IT'S NOT AS BIG OF A PAUSE THAT MOST PEOPLE WOULD LIKE, OR ANY PAUSE FOR THAT MATTER, BUT AT LEAST IT SENDS A MESSAGE.
BUT I'M CURIOUS, IS THERE ANY DOWNSIDE TO HAVING THIS LEGISLATION PASSED? WELL, I CAN RESPOND TO, TO PART OF YOUR QUESTION.
I, I WORKED WITH THE SPONSOR ON THIS LEGISLATION AND, AND THE PURPOSE OF THE ORDINANCE IS THE STATED PURPOSE IS TO PRESERVE THE STATUS
[00:25:01]
QUO WHILE WE REVIEW THE IMPACTS OF, OF THESE RECENTLY ADOPTED, FAR INCREASES ON TRAFFIC, MUNICIPAL SERVICES AND PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE, INCLUDING STORM WATER, THE SUPPLY OF POTABLE WATER AND SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM.SO THE, THE INTENT HERE IS THAT DURING THE PAUSE, UH, THAT THE, THAT THE CITY WILL ENGAGE IN A STUDY OF OUR, OF OUR INFRASTRUCTURE, AND THAT THAT WILL INFORM THE, YOU KNOW, CITY'S ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION.
AND ULTIMATELY THE CITY COMMISSION'S VOTE ON, ON FAR INCREASES, UH, AFTER THE PAUSE.
SO, UM, SO THAT, SO THAT'S REALLY THE INTENT OF, OF THE ORDINANCE.
THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO ADVISE, UH, THE BOARD IS THAT THE SPONSOR HAS REQUESTED THAT THE, THAT THE ORDINANCE BE AMENDED TO REMOVE THE SIX SEVENS, UH, WAIVER PROVISION.
SO IF THE, IF THE BOARD ULTIMATELY TRANSMITS THIS ORDINANCE, WE'LL INCLUDE THAT.
CAN, CAN I ASK THE QUESTION ON UNATTENDED CONSEQUENCES? I DIDN'T.
UM, AND I'M POSING THIS, UM, UNATTENDED CONSEQUENCE IS THAT DEVELOPERS SAY, OKAY, I HAVE THIS PATH.
IT'S BLOCKED FOR A LITTLE WHILE.
OF COURSE, THEY COULD WAIT, BUT THE OTHER IS THAT IT WILL SHINE A BRIGHT LIGHT ON LIVE LOCAL AND THEY WILL START APPLYING MORE AGGRESSIVELY FOR LIVE LOCAL, UH, PERMISSION.
BECAUSE IT DOESN'T REQUIRE THIS REVIEW.
YOU CANNOT PUT A MORATORIUM ON ANY LIVE LOCAL ACT.
UM, AND IT MAY DRIVE SOME DEVELOPERS TO EXPLORE IT WHEN THEY WOULDN'T HAVE, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH A MORATORIUM TO BE DOING A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS OR STUDY OF, OF WHAT THE CITY CAN HANDLE IN DEVELOPMENT.
SO I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE PUTTING THIS FAKE PAUSE WHEN WE SHOULD BE DOING THAT ANYWAYS.
WHETHER IT'S MORATORIUM IN PLACE OR NOT.
AND SO, AND SO THE, THE I, YEAH, I JUST, I THINK WE'RE RESPONDING RIGHT NOW.
THIS IS RESPONDING TO THE BACKLASH WE'VE HAD FROM, UH, A LOT OF RESIDENTS WHO WANNA SEE SOME SENSIBLE DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS COMPLETELY FAIR THAT THE CITY HAS TO TAKE THOSE STEPS, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT WE NEED TO GO THROUGH MORATORIUM TO BE DOING THAT STUDY.
AND I JUST THINK WHAT'S IN PLACE, THE SAFEGUARDS THAT ARE IN PLACE TO ME ARE SUFFICIENT.
AND THIS REALLY DOESN'T CHANGE IT, IN MY OPINION.
SO, AND MR. CHAIR, UM, ALSO, I FEEL LIKE, UM, THIS SORT OF SAYS THE CITY DOESN'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO CONTROL ITSELF.
UM, I MEAN, MAYBE THAT'S A LITTLE INTENSE, BUT, UH, I, I, I FEEL LIKE THESE ARE THINGS THAT WE SHOULD BE DOING ALL ALONG.
UM, I THESE BOARDS ARE IN PLACE FOR YOU.
AND I ALSO THINK THAT, UM, THAT WE HAVE, WE DON'T HAVE A VERY ACTIVE MARKET RIGHT NOW.
UH, WE HAVE A VERY QUIET MARKET.
AND I THINK THAT IF WE DON'T GIVE SOME SORT OF SOMETHING AND THESE ARE THAT, THAT WILL STOP ALL DEVELOPMENT.
'CAUSE I, YOU KNOW, I MENTIONED THAT IT REALLY DOESN'T DO ANYTHING.
THE ONLY WAY I WOULD ACTUALLY CONCERN, AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT RUNS A FOUL OF STATE LAW, BUT IF THE MORATORIUM WAS A YEAR, THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD ACTUALLY GIVE THE CITY A, A GOOD AMOUNT OF TIME TO, TO, UM, DO SOME KIND OF ANALYSIS ON, ON INFRASTRUCTURE AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
AND IT WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT MORE, IT, IT WOULD, IT, IT WOULD ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING THEN.
BUT I DON'T KNOW IF, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A WILL TO DO THAT.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT RUNS AFOUL OF STATE LAW, BUT THAT'S ONE WAY I WOULD CONSIDER THIS.
SCOTT, LET ME ASK YOU ALSO, DO YOU, DON'T YOU FEEL LIKE THAT THESE ARE THINGS THAT WE SHOULD BE CONSIDERING ALL ALONG THAT, THAT THESE ARE, YOU KNOW, WE, YOU KNOW, EVERY DEVELOPMENT HAS TO, TO SUBMIT A, A TRAFFIC STUDY AND INFRASTRUCTURE IMPACT, UH, STUDY, ALL OF THESE THINGS.
I MEAN, WHAT, WHAT ARE WE, WHAT, I MEAN, I I, YOU KNOW, I THINK I'VE LISTENED TO THE COMMISSION MEETING LAST WEEK AND, AND IT SAID, THEY SAID SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, WHY ARE WE HAVING ALL THESE STUDIES? WHY ARE WE HAVING THESE CONSULTANTS? WHY ARE WE DOING ALL THESE THINGS? IT'S, YOU KNOW, THESE ARE THE CITY'S JOBS, AND I JUST, I JUST, I DON'T, YOU KNOW, HAS, HAS, HAS A CONSULTANT BEEN ENGAGED? HAS SOMEONE BEEN ENGAGED? I MEAN, HOW LONG DOES THAT TAKE? I MEAN, THESE ARE, THESE ARE LEGITIMATE QUESTIONS THAT I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, THAT'S, THOSE ARE JUST MORE THOUGHTS.
KICKING IT BACK TO NICK, IS THAT, I GUESS THAT EVERYBODY'S SORT OF WONDERING THOSE STATED PURPOSES OF IT, I THINK EVERYBODY'S IN FAVOR OF DOING THOSE THINGS, BUT WHY DO WE NEED THE MORATORIUM TO DO THOSE? LIKE, WHAT WAS THE INTENT OF THIS LEGISLATION? YOU KNOW, WHAT WAS THE, WHAT WAS THE NEED FOR THE PAUSE FOR THAT? IT SEEMS VERY REACTIVE TO, AGAIN, TO THE LAST COUPLE OF PROJECTS THAT WE, THAT WE WENT THROUGH.
UM, I THINK THE, THE, THE, THE IDEA BEHIND MORATORIUM
[00:30:01]
IS TO, IS, YOU KNOW, REALLY A LEGISLATIVE POSITION TO SAY THE CITY COMMISSION'S NOT GOING TO CONSIDER OR ADOPT ANYTHING DURING THAT PERIOD, RIGHT? BECAUSE ABSENT, UM, ABSENT THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION, I MEAN, THERE'S, IT'S, IT'S NOT REALLY FORMALIZED.UM, THE OTHER THING I WOULD ADD, JUST IN RESPONSE TO A QUESTION OR COMMENT SCOTT HAD IS THAT THE ORDINANCE, UM, IS AS, AS DRAFTED WOULD GO THROUGH THROUGH JANUARY.
IT'S BEEN DRAFTED TO ALLOW THE CITY COMMISSION TO, TO EXTEND IT.
UM, BUT CERTAINLY IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE BOARD IS INCLINED TO RECOMMEND, IT'S, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD INCLUDE THAT AS PART OF YOUR RECOMMENDATION.
I THINK WE WOULD NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE CONSEQUENCE OF EXTENDING.
I THINK THERE'S, WHY DON'T WE, A DIFFERENT LAYER OF ISSUES THAT I'D LIKE TO ASK ALEX, WHO'S NOT ON THE LINE, WHY DON'T WE GO TO THE ROOT CAUSE? WE HAVE A PLANNING DEPARTMENT, WE HAVE A PLANNING BOARD, WE HAVE STAFF THAT MAKES RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON ALL THE CRITERIA THAT YOU JUST TALKED ABOUT, MASSING, TRAFFIC, SEWER, DOES IT FIT THE COMMUNITY? AND YET THEY STILL VOTED 6, 5, 6 SEVENS AGAINST WHAT YOU RECOMMENDED.
HOW ABOUT AN ORDINANCE THAT JUSTIFIES WHY THEY DO THAT? UH, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT FIXING THE CORE PROBLEM IF, IF DEVELOPERS GET WHATEVER THEY WANT, WHICH IS WHAT'S UPSETTING PEOPLE, THEN THIS IS NOTHING MORE THAN SOME KIND OF, UH, SAVE THE, THE RESIDENTS FROM THE COMMISSION ACT.
BUT WHY CAN'T WE HAVE RULES AND ORDINANCES THAT MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT THAN JUST A VOTE FOR SOMEONE TO OVERRIDE THE PLANNING DIRECTOR AND THE PLANNING BOARD ON FAR? IS, IS THAT NOT SOMETHING THAT COULD BE CRAFTED? I, I MEAN, I THINK ULTIMATELY, YOU KNOW, THE PLANNING BOARD IS OUR LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY, RIGHT? SO YOUR REVIEW IS, IS REQUIRED BY LAW OF ANY AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
ULTIMATELY, THE CITY COMMISSION IS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE CITY, RIGHT? SO, RIGHT.
SO THE CITY COMMISSION HAS LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY TO ADOPT LEGISLATION OR NOT, BUT CAN'T, CAN'T WE IMPOSE UPON THEM WRITTEN JUSTIFICATION, THEIR ANALYSIS OF OVERRIDING MASSING STUDIES AND TRAFFIC STUDIES.
AT LEAST HAVE 'EM PUT IT IN WRITING INSTEAD OF JUST VOTING.
I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS DISCUSSION, UM, IS A, IS THIS IS A POLICY DISCUSSION, RIGHT? YEAH.
WHAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU POLICY, WELL, THIS MORATORIUM IS A POLICY.
UM, AND, AND YOU, YOU KNOW, THE, THE PLANNING BOARD IS WELL WITHIN ITS AUTHORITY TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS.
ALRIGHT, SO THAT'S A, YEAH, THAT'S FOR DISCUSSION ITEM.
SO MAYBE WE'LL PUT THAT AS DISCUSSION ON, BUT LET'S GO AHEAD AND IF YOU GUYS ARE READY, CAN WE VOTE ON THIS ONE? YEAH, SO I VOTE, BUT YOUR POINT IS WELL TAKEN.
IT'S KIND OF GIVING, YOU KNOW, MORE DEFERENCE TO THE PLANNING BOARD, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN DO THAT, BUT WELL, NOT PLANNING BOARD ACTUALLY THE PLANNING COMMISSION? WELL, BOTH THE, THE STAFF REPORTS.
WELL, IT'S BOTH RIGHT? 'CAUSE WE OBVIOUSLY MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS.
I MEAN, MR. ROONEY GETS UP THERE.
IT'S NOT EVEN GOING TO THAT EXTENT.
I JUST THINK THAT THERE'S, YOU KNOW, GETTING SOME STUDIES DONE THAT WE CAN, THAT TO EDUCATE ALL OF US, US AND THE COMMISSION AND A BETTER UNDERSTANDING SOME OF THE IMPACT.
'CAUSE WE, WE, WE TRY TO MAKE THE BEST DECISION WITH THE KNOWLEDGE WE HAVE, BUT I THINK AN UPDATED STUDY WOULD HELP US UNDERSTAND SOME OF THE IMPACT OF THE DECISIONS WE'RE MAKING.
AND THAT'S THE SAME THING FOR THE COMMISSION.
AND, AND WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT WITH, UM, UH, WHAT'S THE, UH, EX MAYOR WHO'S A LOBBYIST, UH, HERE, UM, OH NIECE.
HE'S, YOU KNOW, AND HE, HE, HE REFERRED, YOU KNOW, HE, HE REFERENCED THAT A FEW MONTHS AGO SAYING THERE'S A, A LACK OF EDUCATION THAT WE'RE NOT GETTING THAT THEY USED TO GET IN THE PLANNING BOARD.
AND, YOU KNOW, AND SO THERE, THERE, THERE IS A REGULAR UPDATING FOR US TO UNDERSTAND SOME OF THESE, THE, THESE ISSUES.
AND I THINK THAT WOULD BE A GOOD STARTING POINT THAT DOESN'T REQUIRE EXCELLENT.
YOU KNOW, I HAD EVEN SAID EARLIER THAT TO, UH, NICK, THAT I JUST DIDN'T THINK THAT WE HAD ENOUGH INFORMATION MM-HMM
YOU WANNA CALL THE VOTE MICHAEL? YEAH.
UM, IS THERE A MOTION THEN TO TRANSMIT THIS WITH A NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION? YEAH, I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE A NEGATIVE.
CAN I GET A SECOND? I'LL SECOND THAT.
UM, MR. AND THIS WOULD BE FOR A NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION FOR A NEGATIVE, YES.
SO A YES VOTE IS A NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION.
UNANIMOUS AND MISS BEAUTY, I'M SORRY,
UM, SO IT'S, IT'S, UM, THE, THE BOARD HAS TRANSMITTED THIS WITH A NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COMMISSION.
AND, AND WHAT'S IMPORTANT IS THE PUBLIC NEEDS UNDERSTAND THIS WASN'T A VOTE A AGAINST YOUR, YOUR SENSITIVITIES TO INCREASE FAR.
UM, I HOPE EVERYONE FOLLOWED THE DISCUSSION, UNDERSTANDS THAT.
[3. PB25-0747. Vendor Appointments to Land Use Boards]
NEXT ONE IS PLANNING BOARD FILE 25 0 7 4 7[00:35:01]
VENDOR APPOINTMENTS AND LAND USE BOARDS.SEEMS LIKE A PRETTY NO BRAINER.
AND I DO HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ON THIS THOUGH.
THIS IS ON PAGE 11 OF THE BOARD PACKAGES.
I'LL JUST GO THROUGH IT QUICKLY AND THEN NICK IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
UM, SO THIS, WHAT THIS ORDINANCE WOULD DO IS AMEND THE TERMS OF OFFICE FOR THE CITY'S LANDES BOARDS BEGINNING, UM, SEPTEMBER 1ST OF THIS YEAR.
AND INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE VENDORS TO THE CITY, PRINCIPALS OR EMPLOYEES OF SUCH VENDORS CANNOT BE APPOINTED TO THE CITY'S LANDES BOARD.
THIS WOULD INCLUDE THE PLANNING BOARD DESIGNER, VIEW BOARD, HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD AND BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT THAT COULD NOT BE APPOINTED, UM, DURING THE TERM THAT A VENDOR CONTRACT IS IN PLACE.
AND FOR ONE YEAR, UM, AFTER HIS TERMINATION, APPLICANTS TO THE ES BOARDS WOULD BE REQUIRED TO VERIFY THAT THEY HAVE NOT BEEN A VENDOR OR ASSOCIATED ONE IN THE PAST YEAR.
AND IF THEY OR THEIR ENTITY BECOMES A VENDOR DURING THEIR TERM, THEY WOULD AUTO WOULD AUTOMATICALLY TRIGGER, TRIGGER, RE RESIGNATION FROM THE BOARD.
UM, THIS DOES ALLOW THE CITY COMMISSION TO WAIVE THIS REQUIREMENT BY FIVE SECONDS VOTE.
AND FOR PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION OF VENDORS DEFINED AS ANYONE DOING BUSINESS DIRECTLY WITH A CITY OR RECEIVING CITY FUNDS, EXCLUDING THOSE WITH TOTAL BUSINESS OR GRANT DEALINGS WITH THE CITY ARE $10,000 OR LESS PER FISCAL YEAR, DO NOT REQUIRE CITY COMMISSION APPROVAL.
WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT THE PLANNING BOARD TRANSMIT THIS TO THE CITY COMMISSION WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION.
UH, DICK, IF YOU WANNA ADD ANYTHING? NO, I THINK YOU COVERED IT.
I JUST HAD A COUPLE QUESTIONS.
IS THERE ANYONE ON ZOOM FOR, FOR COMES? SORRY.
THERE IS NO ONE ON ZOOM WITH THEIR HAND RAISED.
UM, ARE THERE ANY VENDORS, ARE THERE ANY PEOPLE ON ANY OF THE LAND USE BOARDS RIGHT NOW THAT DO BUSINESS WITH THE CITY? UM, I'M NOT, I'M NOT AWARE.
ARE THERE ANY RELATIVES OR ARE THERE ANY OF THOSE TYPES OF SITUATIONS WHERE THERE COULD BE A POTENTIAL CONFLICT? I AM NOT AWARE OF ANYONE ON ANY OF THE LAND USE BOARDS RIGHT NOW THAT WHO IS A VENDOR OF THE CITY.
UM, DURING THE PANDEMIC, UM, YOU KNOW, WHEN THE CITY WAS, UM, TENANTS CAN APPLY FOR AID TO HELP WITH RENT, UM, ONE OF MY TENANTS CAME TO ME, SHE WANTED TO DO THAT.
AND FOR ME TO EX TO GET THAT RENT, I HAD TO BECOME A VENDOR FOR THE CITY.
OBVIOUSLY THAT'S WAY BELOW THE $10,000, UM, UM, NUMBER ON HERE.
BUT, YOU KNOW, MOVING FORWARD, UM, YOU KNOW, HOW WOULD, HOW WOULD THAT GO IF SOME OTHER KIND OF PROGRAM THE CITY HAS, MAYBE THEY'RE HELPING WITH RENT, TENANTS WITH RENT, AND MAYBE A LANDLORD HAS A NUMBER OF TENANTS THAT ARE COLLECTING AND IT DOES GET TO THAT OR, OR MEET THAT, THAT LEVEL, THAT 10,000 LEVEL, HOW WOULD WOULD THAT PRECLUDE THAT PERSON FROM SITTING ON A LAND USE BOARD? WELL, IF THE GRANT WERE, AS YOU POINTED OUT, IF THE GRANT WERE, UH, IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,000 OR LESS, THERE WOULD BE NO ISSUE IF THE, IN, IN A FISCAL YEAR, IF THE GRANT WERE OVER $10,000, THEN THE, THE, THE, THE BOARD MEMBER OR APPLICANT FOR APPOINTMENT TO A CITY BOARD COULD REQUEST A WAIVER FROM THE CITY COMMISSION ON A FIVE SEVENS VOTE.
SO THERE ARE NO, AGAIN, THERE ARE NO SAY ON, ON, UM, DESIGN REVIEW BOARD.
THERE ARE NO EMPLOYEES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT OF ANY CITY VENDORS OR ANY, I'M JUST, I FEEL LIKE THERE MIGHT, THE ONLY ONE THAT COULD BE IS, UM, THERE IS A MEMBER OF THE DESIGNER REVIEW BOARD WHO APPLIED FOR A PRIVATE PROPERTY ADAPTATION GRANT FROM THE CITY'S ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY DEPARTMENT.
UM, I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT ON ITS OWN MAKES THE, IT, IT PROBABLY DOES MAKE THE BOARD MEMBER A VENDOR DEPENDING ON THE, THE DOLLAR AMOUNT.
HOW, HOW, HOW DO WE, HOW DO YOU, HOW, HOW, HOW DOES THAT GET DETERMINED? I MEAN, DO YOU JUST, UM, I MEAN, HOW DO YOU, HOW WOULD WE KNOW? WELL, SOMETHING LIKE THAT REALLY ON A, ON A, ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS.
SO AS PART OF THE, UM, THE APPLICATION PROCESS AND A, A RESIDENT WOULD NEED TO, UH, WOULD NEED TO STATE WHETHER THEY ARE CURRENTLY A VENDOR OF THE CITY OR HAVE BEEN A VENDOR WITHIN THE ONE YEAR PERIOD PROCEEDING THEIR APPLICATION.
UM, SO WE WOULD HAVE TO, LIKE, LIKE ANYTHING ELSE IN OUR, IN OUR ETHICS REGULATIONS, WE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THIS ON A, ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS.
SO I GET ONE QUESTION IN TERMS OF THE DEFINITION OF VENDOR.
UM, YOU KNOW, THERE'S PEOPLE WHO SERVE ON NONPROFIT BOARDS AND NONPROFITS REGULARLY ARE GRANTEES FROM THE CITY.
I CAN THINK OF, YOU KNOW, I WAS ON A BOARD PREVIOUSLY AND WE RECEIVED A GRANT, I THINK IT WAS IN EXCESS OF $10,000 TO PUT UP A WEBSITE, PROVIDE LGBT SERVICES.
[00:40:01]
THAT THEN PRECLUDE THAT PERSON WHO'S SITTING ON A NONPROFIT BOARD HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS REALLY THIS, YOU KNOW, IN THE, IN THE TYPICAL SENSE OF A VENDOR, BUT THEY RECEIVED A GRANT FROM THE CITY.UH, WHAT, WHAT'S THE IMPACT OF THAT? THIS, THIS WOULD LIKELY APPLY TO A, A GRANTEE OR AN EMPLOYEE? YOU SAID YOU WERE A BOARD MEMBER, RIGHT? UM, WE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT, ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS, IS IT, YOU KNOW, IS IT A, IS IT A, IS IT A DIRECTOR OR AN OFFICER? IS IT A, YOU KNOW, A CEO? UM, BUT, BUT IT WOULD, IT WOULD LIKELY APPLY TO, UM, A GRANTEE AGAIN, DEPENDING ON THE DOLLAR THRESHOLD.
AND THEN, YOU KNOW, AND I GUESS THAT'S A QUESTION, YOU KNOW, PUTTING MINUS MY SITUATION ASIDE BECAUSE I'M NO LONGER ON THE BOARD, SO IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER.
BUT, YOU KNOW, I IMAGINE MANY PEOPLE ON LAND USE BOARDS ARE INVOLVED WITH, YOU KNOW, THE BEACH CONCERTS OR INVOLVED IN THE BAND SHELL OR, OR WHATEVER IT MAY BE, WHO, YOU KNOW, THE, THE AARON SEA SHOW THAT MAY RECEIVE GRANTS FROM THE CITY TO BE PUT ON.
THEY MAY BE A MEMBER OF THAT BOARD.
I MEAN, I THINK THAT CAN BE PROBLEMATIC.
'CAUSE WE'RE ALL VERY INVOLVED IN THE COMMUNITY AND YOU WANT TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO BE INVOLVED IN THE COMMUNITY, BUT THEN YOU DON'T WANT, JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE A, A BOARD MEMBER OF SAY, YOU KNOW, MIAMI BEACH PRIDE, MY BEACH PRIDE PROBABLY, I, I DON'T KNOW, BUT I ASSUME THEY RECEIVE GRANTS FROM THE CITY AND I DON'T, AND I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THEY EXCEED $10,000, BUT THAT TO AUTOMATICALLY HAVE THAT PERSON RESIGN FROM LAND USE BOARD, I THINK IS A LITTLE, UH, HARSH.
AND SO I, YEAH, I GUESS, I GUESS THE, THE, I GUESS I'M CURIOUS, I THINK THERE SHOULD BE SOME SORT OF CARVE OUT FOR IF SOMEBODY'S ON A NON-PROFIT BOARD, YOU KNOW, OF, OF SOME SORT.
I JUST DON'T THINK THAT THEY SHOULD BE KICKED OFF OF A LAND USE BOARD.
DIDN'T HE SAY IT WAS WAS, OH, SORRY.
DIDN'T HE SAY THAT IT WAS, IF YOU'RE, WHATEVER YOUR POSITION IS, LIKE IF YOU'RE THE CEO OR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
I MEAN, IF YOU'RE JUST A VOLUNTEER, I MEAN, DOES THAT, DOES THAT NECESSARILY, HE, I CAN ANSWER THAT.
SO THE ORDINANCE THAT DRAFTED WOULD APPLY TO A VENDOR OR A PRINCIPAL OR EMPLOYEE OF A VENDOR CITY.
SO WHAT BROUGHT, WHAT BROUGHT THIS ON NICK? LIKE WHAT, WHAT WERE YOU HAVING ANY CONCERNS OR ISSUES THAT THAT GOT, GOT OUR COMMISSIONERS TO, TO DECIDE THAT THIS WAS A PRIORITY? UM, I THINK THE, THE INTENT BEHIND THIS REGULATION IS TO, UM, TO FURTHER STRENGTHEN THE CITY'S, UH, UH, STANDARDS OF CONDUCT FOR, FOR BOARD, FOR BOARD MEMBERS.
UM, THERE WAS A DISCUSSION WHEN THIS FIRST CAME UP AT THE CITY COMMISSION ABOUT WHICH, YOU KNOW, SHOULD IT APPLY TO ALL CITY BOARDS.
ULTIMATELY, UM, THE, THE CITY COMMISSION REFERRED AN ORDINANCE TO THE PLANNING BOARD TO FOCUS, UH, ONLY ON THE, ON THE FOUR LAND USE BOARDS, WHICH ARE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, THE DESIRE REVIEW BOARD, THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD, UH, AND THE PLANNING BOARD.
UM, I MEAN, I, I THINK IT, IT'S, IT'S WISE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T HAVE PEOPLE WITH COMPETING IN CONFLICTS, UH, MAKING THE DECISIONS.
SO I JUST AS, AS THE, THE REST OF THE GROUP HERE, WE'RE JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S NO UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES FOR SOME OF THE, THE, UM, UM, SOME BOARD MEMBERS WHO MAY NOT HAVE A TRULY FINANCIAL CONFLICT.
BUT MORE JUST WHERE THEY'RE VOLUNTEERING AND PUTTING THEIR TIME.
AND ONE LAST QUESTION, UM, IN TERMS OF TIMEFRAME, JUST, UM, IF YOU'VE BEEN A, UM, VENDOR, I, I GUESS YOU'RE USING A ONE YEAR TIMEFRAME.
SO IF SOMEBODY RECEIVES A GRANT, WHETHER IT'S AN ORGANIZATION OR SOMEONE DIRECTLY, IF, IF A YEAR, IS IT ONE YEAR AFTER THAT MONEY'S RECEIVED THAT THEY'RE CONSIDERED NO LONGER A VENDOR? IT'S ONE YEAR AFTER THE CONTRACT'S TERMINATION OR EXPIRATION MM-HMM
BUT IF THERE'S NO CONTRACT, I'M GUESSING SOMEBODY RECEIVED A GRANT.
LET'S SAY SOMEBODY HAS A BUILDING, THEY RECEIVED A GRANT TO, UM, UM, FIX UP THE FACADE OF THE BUILDING.
UH, THOSE GRANT AGREEMENTS, UH, HAVE HAVE A TERM.
ANYBODY ELSE? YOU WANT SOMEONE WANNA MOVE IT? I'LL MOVE IT FAVORABLY, PROBABLY.
CAN WE DO THIS ALL IN FAVOR? MM-HMM.
ANYONE OPPOSED TO THAT? NO, BUT I'M IN FAVOR OF IT.
I JUST THINK THAT THERE SHOULD BE CLARIFYING LANGUAGE ABOUT, UH, BOARD MEMBERS OF A, YOU KNOW, A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION, NON-PAID BOARD MEMBERS.
THE, THE INTENT IS, IS THAT IF YOU'RE GETTING MONEY, RIGHT, YOU MAY DIRECT YOUR VOTE IN A, WELL, I THINK THERE MIGHT STILL BE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST THAT, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD LEARN OF AND THEY WOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM VOTING IF THERE'S AN ISSUE OF THERE.
WHAT I, THE, THE ISSUE I GUESS, DEFINING A PRINCIPLE OF A CITY VENDOR IS A BOARD MEMBER OR EVEN
[00:45:01]
A BOARD CHAIR, A PRINCIPLE OF AN ORGANIZATION.I THINK THEY, I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S THE, I THINK IF YOU, IF YOU WOULD LIKE, UM, TO INCLUDE A RECOMMENDATION ALONG THOSE LINES THAT'S WITHIN THE BOARD'S, LET'S, SO IF YOU, THAT'S FINE.
SO, SO IS THE IDEA THAT, UH, THAT, THAT A PRINCIPAL FOR PURPOSES OF THIS ORDINANCE WOULD NOT INCLUDE, UH, VOLUNTEERS OR VOLUNTEER BOARD MEMBERS? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE CORRECT.
WELL, LET ME, UH, THERE IS A, AND I'M GONNA USE A REAL EXAMPLE.
WE, WE HAD A, UH, GUY THAT WAS THE HEAD OF A NONPROFIT BOARD OF THE MDPL AND HE MADE OVER, WELL, WELL OVER A HUNDRED THOUSAND A YEAR.
WELL, WE CAN SAY ON, AND WOULDN'T HE BE, AND YOU'RE SAYING THAT HE COULD THEN SERVE ON THE LAND USE BOARD? NO.
HE'S A PAID, HE'S, HE'S A, HE'S, HE'S A PAID EMPLOYEE.
A HE WAS A PAID EMPLOYEE AND ON THE BOARD, I THINK THE INTENT OF THIS IS TO SAY IF YOU'RE AN, UH, UNCOMPENSATED UNCOM, ASSUMING THAT THEIR, THAT THEY RECEIVE GRANTS IN EXCESS OF YES.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE CAR IT OUT CORRECTLY WHEN PEOPLE AREN'T INDIVIDUALLY BEING COMPENSATED.
THAT, THAT'S THE CLARIFICATION.
UH, BRIAN, BEFORE WE CONTINUE WITH THE NEXT ITEM, I'D LIKE TO BRING UP, WE VOTED UNANIMOUSLY.
I'D LIKE TO, UM, UM, HAVE TWO ITEMS MOVE TO CONTINUED ITEMS OR REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES OF THE LAST TWO IN CASE ANYBODY'S, IN CASE ANYBODY'S WATCHING ONLINE OR IN CHAMBERS.
AND THIS IS REGARDING, UM, PV 25 DASH 0 7 76, THE LIQUOR STORE PROHIBITION ON LINCOLN ROAD.
DUE TO THE, UM, WE'RE LOOKING AT THE, THE SENATE BILL 180 THAT NICK MENTIONED EARLIER.
WE'RE ASKING THIS ITEM BE CONTINUED TO THE SEPTEMBER 9TH MEETING, BOTH OF THEM, RIGHT? WE CAN TAKE, WE CAN, WE CAN TAKE VOTES ON EACH ONE SEPARATELY, WHICH JUST SEVEN, SIX.
ALRIGHT, THE LAST TWO, SORRY, THE FIRST ONE IS
[6. PB25-0776. Liquor Store Prohibition on Lincoln Rd]
PLANNING BOARD FILED 25 0 7 7 6 LIQUOR STORE PROTECTION ON LINCOLN BECAUSE OF PENDING STATE LEGISLATION OR, OR IN PLACE STATE LEGISLATION.SO SOMEONE WANT TO MOVE TO 7 7 2.
YOU WANNA MOVE TO WHAT? SEPTEMBER TO SEPTEMBER 9TH.
WHO MADE THE MOTION ON THAT? NO ONE YET.
WAIT, WAIT, I JUST WANNA CLARIFY.
SO THE, THE DISTANCE SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS FOR TOBACCO AND VAPE WOULD ALSO BE DEFERRED? YES.
THERE'S LEGAL REASONS, RIGHT? THERE'S A SECOND ON, ON MR. MURPHY OR KEITH.
CAN WE GET A SECOND ON THE MOTION TO CONTINUE? I'LL SECOND.
[7. PB25-0777. Increase Distance Separation for Tobacco and Vape Stores.]
ONE IS, PLANNING BOARD FILED 25 0 7 7 7, UH, INCREASED IT OF SEPARATION FOR TOBACCO AND VAPE STORES.WE'RE ASKING FOR A MOTION ON THIS ONE TO AGAIN, CONTINUE IT TO THE SEPTEMBER 9TH MEETING.
AND JUST, UH, MICHAEL, IN LIGHT OF THE AGENDA IN SEPTEMBER, YOU YOU WANNA MOVE TO SEPTEMBER? YEAH, BECAUSE WE ALSO CAN MOVE THINGS AROUND IN SEPTEMBER.
AT LEAST, LEAST JUST GIVES IT MORE FLEXIBILITY IN CASE WE HAVE TO BRING IN IN SEPTEMBER.
ALL IN FAVOR? MELISSA? MELISSA MADE THE MOTION.
NEED A SECOND? I NEED A SECOND.
ALL IN FAVOR? UH, ANYONE OPPOSED? OKAY.
[4. PB25-0771. Land Use Board Consent Agenda Procedures.]
PLANNING BOARD FILE 25 0 7 7 1 LAND USE BOARD CONSENT AGENDA PROCEDURES.THIS BEGINS ON PAGE, UH, 19 THE BOARD PACKAGES.
UM, WE'VE DONE THIS A FEW TIMES, NOT BEFORE PLANNING BOARD, BUT FOR OTHER BOARDS.
WE HAVE AN OVERLOADED AGENDA AND, UM, WE HAVE MAY WANNA HAVE A CONSENT ITEM IN ORDER FOR AN ITEM TO QUALIFY AS A CONSENT ITEM ON THE AGENDA.
THIS WOULD APPLY TO THE PLANNING BOARD, UM, DESIGN REVIEW BOARD, HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD OR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
THIS WOULD BE FOR, UM, APPLICATIONS WHERE THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO ALL THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND A DRAFT FUNNEL ORDER IN THE STAFF REPORT.
UM, ALL VOTING MEMBERS PRESENT AT THE MEETING MUST AGREE TO FOREGO A PRESENTATION OR QUESTIONS TO THE APPLICANT AND WOULD ALSO, UM, REQUIRE, HOLD ON.
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? THAT ALL SO UNANIMOUSLY THE BOARD HAS TO AGREE TO BYPASS THE, YES, THIS WOULD BE FOR A PROJECT WHERE THERE'S BEEN NO, NO OPPOSITION FROM THE BOARD MEMBERS, BUT IT WOULD STILL COME BEFORE US AND WE WOULD'VE TO ALL AGREE THAT WE CAN, WE CAN MOVE ON.
SO IT'S BASICALLY THE APPLICANT AGREES TO ALL THE CONDITIONS OF STAFF, THE BOARD MEMBERS AGREE WITH STAFF CONDITIONS AND THERE'S NO SUBSTAN SUBSTANTIVE PUBLIC COMMENT AND WOULD ALLOW THAT APPLICATION TO BE BASICALLY VOTED ON WITHOUT HAVING A PRESENTATION.
SO WAIT, LAWYERS ALWAYS DEAL WITH VAGARIES.
WHEN YOU SAY NOT SUBSTANTIAL PUBLIC COMMENT, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? WHAT COULD BE SUPPORTING APPLICATIONS SUPPORTING PUBLIC COMMENT OR IF IT DIDN'T, DIDN'T REQUIRE, UM, OPENING UP OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD IF YOU DIDN'T GET A LOT OF OPPOSITION, PUBLIC COMMENT.
BUT IF YOU DID, IF THERE WAS A LOT OF OPPOSITION, WE WE WOULDN'T, WE WOULDN'T PUT IT ON THE CONSENT AGENDA IF WE HAVE OPPOSITION.
AND THAT WOULD BE IN THE FORM OF EMAILS BY, FROM THE PUBLIC OR OR PUBLIC TESTIMONY AT THE MEETING.
SO IF THERE'S NO, IF YOU'RE AT THE MEETING, THE WHOLE POINT IS TO BYPASS IT.
SO YOU'RE SAYING THIS NO, THIS, SORRY BRIAN.
THIS SAYS THERE IS LIMITED PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE PROPOSAL AFTER THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE APPLICABLE LUB OPENS THE APPLICATION AND REQUESTS PUBLIC COMMENTS.
[00:50:01]
UP.SO BASICALLY IF SOMEONE WERE, IF A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WERE, WERE AT THE HEARING AND WISHED TO SPEAK ON THE APPLICATION, OR IF YOU'D RECEIVED CORRESPONDENCE, UM, YOU KNOW, THEN THAT PROJECT WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE.
THAT APPLICATION WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR CONSENT APPROVAL.
WOULD THIS STILL BE CLASSIFIED UNDER RESIDENT'S RIGHT.
TO KNOW? BECAUSE I DON'T WANT, I FEEL LIKE THAT IT COULD IMPACT PEOPLE WHO WOULD OTHERWISE NOT BE, BE ABLE TO HEAR SOMETHING THAT MAY IMPACT THEM, THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD OR THEM AS A RESIDENT OR, YOU KNOW, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT ALL THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS STILL IN PLACE.
THAT'S WHAT I WAS GONNA SAY IS THAT THE, IS THAT THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS WOULD, WOULD STILL APPLY.
AND IF IT IS A RESIDENT'S RIGHT TO KNOW APPLICATION, THEN THE RESIDENT'S RIGHT TO KNOW WOULD APPLY.
SO IF WE HAD A BUNCH OF PEOPLE ON ZOOM, WE'D HAVE TO TAKE THE PUBLIC COMMENT.
SO IT, IT'S REALLY NO ONE SHOWS UP, NO ONE'S HERE TO OPPOSE IT.
WHEN THIS, WHEN, WHEN THIS HAS DONE BEEN DONE BEFORE, THERE'S BEEN NO PUBLIC COMMENT, THE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE AGREED WITH ALL THE CONDITIONS THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED.
AND THIS IS ALL DONE LIKE DURING THE, DURING THE MEETING.
IT WASN'T SOMETHING THAT THIS WAS DONE IN ADVANCE.
IT WAS LIKE THE DAY OF THE MEETING WE HAD A LONG AGENDA.
THIS WAS, THIS WAS DONE LIKE BEHIND THE SCENES AND MADE, MADE PUBLIC.
BUT IT WOULD STILL, DO WE HAVE THERE A NUMBER OF THOSE CASES HAPPENED? DO WE DO I MEAN DID IT HAVE NO, IT'S, IT'S HAPPENED LIKE ON A LESS THAN A HANDFUL OF CASES WHEN WE HAVE SCREEN OVERLOADED THE AGENDA.
BUT IT WOULD COME TO THE MEETING AND THEN WE COULD, AT THAT POINT IS WHEN WE DECIDE, OKAY, THIS JUST FORM, THIS FORMALIZES A PROCESS THAT WE, SO BASICALLY TO MAKE PEOPLE AWARE, IT ALLOWS US TO PASS SOMETHING WITHOUT HEARING THEIR PRESENTATION.
'CAUSE EVERYTHING ELSE IS, WELL IT'S JUST FUNNY TO ME BECAUSE IF THERE'S NO PUBLIC PEOPLE, IF THERE'S NO ONE HERE TO SPEAK ON IT, WE USUALLY JUST DO IT ANYWAY.
KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING? IT'S, ANYWAY, BUT IT'S MORE FOR, SO IF WE HAVE AN OVERLOADED AGENDA AND WE DON'T WANNA DELAY MORE APPLICATIONS, BASICALLY YOU'RE ELIMINATING OUR COMMENT REALLY IF THE PUBLIC'S NOT HERE TO OPPOSE IT.
'CAUSE IF THEY'RE HERE TO OPPOSE IT, THEN IT DOESN'T QUALIFY.
SO ELIMINATING, ELIMINATING OUR, ELIMINATE THE PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT.
'CAUSE IF EVERYONE AGREES TO STAFF AND NOBODY'S HERE, THEY DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH THEIR 10 MINUTE PRESENTATION, WE COULD JUST SAY CORRECT.
BUT WE WOULDN'T DO THIS IF IT WAS A SHORT AGENDA, WE WOULD DO THIS.
IF I GET, IT'S A REALLY LONG AGENDA.
I DON'T SEE ANY DOWNSIDE TO IT, SO.
ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK? ANYONE ON ZOOM? THERE'S NOBODY HERE TO SPEAK ON THE ITEM.
ANYONE WANT, YOU WANNA MOVE IT OR ANYONE HAVE ANY COMMENT? I'LL MOVE IT.
[5. PB25-0772. Suspension of Exterior Color Review Requirements.]
LAST BUT NOT LEAST, COLORS PLANNING BOARD FILE 25 0 7 7 2.SUSPENSION OF EXTERIOR COLOR REVIEW REQUIREMENTS.
SO WHAT THIS ORDINANCE WOULD DO IS SUSPEND WOULD SUSPEND THE COLOR REQUIREMENTS FOR, FOR PAY PERMITS FOR A YEAR.
UM, RIGHT NOW, SO WE DID PROVIDE IN OUR STAFF REPORT HOW THE PROCESS WORKS.
CURRENTLY THERE'S A APPROVED, UM, PAINT COLORS ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE.
YOU CAN GO IN WITH A NUMBER AS LONG AS YOU, UM, ARE PROPOSING A, A COLOR THAT COMPLIES WITH THE PRE-APPROVED COLORS.
UM, FOR NON PRE-APPROVED PAINT COLORS.
THERE'S A PROCESS FOR APPROVAL.
THERE'S A FEE, THERE'S A PLANNING INSPECTION AFTERWARD TO MAKE SURE THAT THE, THE COLOR THAT WAS PAINTED WAS WHAT WAS APPROVED.
UM, WHAT THIS ORDINANCE WOULD DO IS SUSPEND THAT REQUIREMENT FOR A PERIOD OF YEAR, WHICH ALLOW ANYBODY TO BASICALLY PAINT WHATEVER COLOR THEY WANTED FOR THAT TIMEFRAME.
UM, WERE NOT SUPPORTIVE OF THIS ORDINANCE.
WE BELIEVE THAT IT COULD RESULT IN A LOT OF NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES BY SOMEBODY PAINTING AN OUTLANDISH COLOR, WHICH WOULD ATTRACT A LOT OF TENSION.
OTHER BUSINESSES TRYING TO COMPETE AS WELL.
UM, SO WE DO BELIEVE THAT THE, THE CURRENT REQUIREMENTS ARE, UM, YOU KNOW, PROTECT THE CHARACTER OF NEIGHBORHOODS AND WE DON'T BELIEVE BY THAT SUSPENDING THE REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE A BENEFIT TO, UM, THE CITY AS A WHOLE.
SO WE ARE RECOMMENDING THE PLANNING BOARD TRANSMIT THIS WITH A NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION.
SO IF HE DID WANTED A, A SPECIAL COLOR, THAT WAS NOT ON, YOU GOT TO GO THROUGH, THERE'S, THERE'S A PROCESS, THERE'S A FEE, AND, AND, AND, BUT THEN IT MAY OR MAY NOT GET APPROVED.
AND, AND WOULD YOU GUYS SAY IN GENERAL, DO YOU GUYS GET A LOT OF THOSE? NO.
AND WHEN THEY ARE REQUESTED, DO YOU GUYS IN GENERALLY ARE IN FAVOR? LIKE DID, WHAT'S THE CRITERIA IN DECIDING ON THESE OFFBEAT COLORS? WE LOOK AT THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE BUILDING.
UM, THE, THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU KNOW, A COLOR FOR SOME NEIGHBORHOOD MAY NOT BE APPROPRIATE FOR ANOTHER NEIGHBORHOOD DEPENDING ON, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S WHAT'S AROUND IT.
AND GENERALLY WHEN APPLICATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE, TYPICALLY TO THE DESIGN VIEWPORT, THEY HAVE BEEN APPROVED.
BUT IT DOES, IT DOES, THEN THERE'S THIS PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS.
SO IF NEIGHBORS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE COLOR, THEY CAN COME TO THE BOARD.
SO THE FEW TIMES THAT WE DO HAVE PEOPLE WHO WANNA BE, UH, YOU KNOW, STEPPING OUT OF THE, UH, PRE-APPROVED COLOR, THERE'S WHAT LIKE A THREE TO SIX MONTHS DELAY INTO THE WHOLE PROCESS.
BUT IT'S A THREE MONTHS TYPICALLY A, A PAINT PERMIT, A PAINT APPLICATION IS NOT GONNA BE A VERY SUBSTANTIAL IN TERMS OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DB RIGHT? OR FOR PRESERVATION BOARD AND LIKE $112 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? WELL, THAT, THAT'S FOR, THAT'S FOR THE, UM, THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL.
IF THEY HAVE TO GO TO A PUBLIC HEARING, THEN IT WOULD BE SEVERAL THOUSAND DOLLARS.
I I MEAN, I, I DESERVE ANYONE IN PUBLIC ON TO SPEAK ON, THERE'S NO PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS APPLICATION ONLINE.
I, I JUST THINK A CITY LIKE MIAMI THAT HAS, UH, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A BIG IMPORTANT PART OF THE ARCHITECTURE.
[00:55:01]
I THINK IT'S A LITTLE CRAZY THAT WE'RE GIVING A WILD CARD FOR EVERYONE TO GO THROUGH A DIFFERENT COLOR.I HAVE A, I I DO HAVE A QUESTION.
THESE, THERE ARE PRE-APPROVED COLORS ALREADY, RIGHT? AND SO WHAT I'M READING IS THAT, UM, YOU KNOW,
AND ALSO, I MEAN, IF YOU'VE GOT, I I REMEMBER WHEN WE WERE FIRST LOOKING AT BUYING HERE, THERE WERE, I THINK IT WAS THE ORIGINAL COLOR PALETTE THAT, UH, AND YOU WERE ONLY ALLOWED TO CHOOSE FROM THOSE COLORS.
IS THAT NOT STILL IN EXISTENCE? AN EXPANDED COLOR CHART? SO IF, IF WHAT, WHAT? I DON'T SEE ANYTHING IN HERE THAT SAYS THAT YOU CAN, THAT IT'S SAYING THAT YOU CANNOT CHANGE, YOU CANNOT HAVE THINGS LIKE, YOU KNOW, YOUR HOUSE PAINTED, YOU KNOW, THIS, THIS DOESN'T AFFECT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
WHAT'S THE PURPOSE BEHIND IT? I IS THIS TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO MAINTAIN THEIR BUILDINGS AND KEEP THEM NEWLY PAINTED? THE PURPOSE WOULD BE TO BE ALLOW, TO ALLOW, ALLOW SOMEBODY WHO MAYBE WANT TO PAINT THEIR BUILDING IN A COLOR THAT WE COULDN'T APPROVE.
PAINT IT WITHOUT GOING THROUGH A REVIEW PROCESS.
BUT, BUT IT WOULD ALSO ENCOURAGE, UM, PROPERTY OWNERS TO REPAINT AND, AND MAINTAIN.
WELL, THAT, YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT.
AND I MEAN, TO THAT END, I WOULD, I MEAN, I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS.
WHAT I'D LIKE TO SEE IS THAT REGARDLESS OF IT'S A PRE-APPROVED COLOR OR A NON PRE-APPROVED COLOR, UM, YOU SEE, YOU KNOW, FOLLOWS THE PROCESS WHERE THAT YOU HAVE FOR PRE-APPROVED COLORS, WHERE THERE'S BASICALLY NO PERMIT, NO FEES, OR I'M SORRY.
UM, UM, FEES FOR INSPECTIONS OR, OR I RED PERMIT FEE ON THERE.
IN OTHER WORDS, WE WANNA ENCOURAGE SOMEONE TO PAINT THEIR BUILDING.
IF IT'S A PRE-APPROVED COLOR, FINE.
IF NOT, AS LONG AS IT'S NOT AT ANY DARKER.
I MEAN, THAT'S HOW, HOWEVER YOU PHRASE IT IN HERE, AS LONG AS IT'S LESS INTENSE THAN SOME THE CITY SHOULD SAY, HERE, GO AHEAD AND PAINT IT.
THAT, THAT REQUIRES A REVIEW THOUGH.
THAT'S, THAT'S WHY IT DOES REQUIRE THE EXTRA LEVEL OF REVIEW FOR US TO VERIFY.
BUT I MEAN, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO PAINT THEIR BUILDINGS, THERE PROB THERE SHOULDN'T BE FEES FOR THAT.
IT SHOULD BE A, A QUICK THING, A QUICK REVIEW.
I DON'T, I MEAN, I, I MIGHT BE WRONG, BUT I DON'T THINK YOU NEED TO ASK FOR A PERMIT IF YOU'RE REPAINTING YOUR BUILDING THE SAME COLOR.
IF YOU'RE JUST DOING A, YOU WOULD NOT HAVE TO GO THROUGH A PERMIT.
I'M KEEPING THE SAME COLOR AND I'M JUST PAINTING MY BUILDING.
IF YOU ARE DOING LIKE STUCCO WORK AND REPAIR WORK, THEN YOU WOULD NEED TO GET A PERMIT.
EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE STAYING WITH THE SAME COLOR.
BUT IT'S A FAST FORWARD PROCESS IF YOU'RE A PART OF THE PRE-APPROVED STATE.
IT'S ONLY IF YOU WANNA DO SOMETHING THAT'S OUTLANDISH.
SO I, I THINK WE'RE PRETTY MUCH COVERED ON THAT.
IT'S JUST, I'M, I'M TRYING TO MAKE IT, YOU KNOW, NO FEES.
SOMEONE SHOULD GO IN, IN AND SAY, HERE'S THE COLOR THE CITY LOOKS.
OH, IT'S LIGHTER THAN THIS PRE-APPROVED COLOR.
THAT'S, PLUS THERE IS STAFF INVOLVED.
SO WITH, WITH THE PREAPPROVED, THERE'S NOT, BUT YOU HAVE TO, THERE IS, THERE IS A COST.
SO IF THE APPLICANT'S NOT PAYING IT, SOMEBODY ELSE IS PAYING IT, THE RESIDENTS ARE PAYING IT.
SO WHAT, WHAT'S, I MEAN, IT'S, BUT IT'S NOT FEE, MINIMUM FEE.
SO IT'S NOT LIKE IT'S AN EXTENSIVE, YOU KNOW, EXPENSIVE FEE.
I JUST, I'M JUST TRYING TO LOOK AT, I DON'T GET IT.
BUT IF YOU'RE REPAYING YOUR HOUSE, PUTTING IN AN EXTRA A HUNDRED DOLLARS FOR THE PERMIT IS NOT WHAT'S, I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE IT AS EASY AS POSSIBLE.
WELL, THE PROCESS, I THINK THE MAIN THING IS THE TIME BECAUSE YOU KNOW, YOU'RE RIGHT, YOU'RE RIGHT.
BUT, BUT I THINK IT'S THAT, IT'S, SO I SPOKE EARLIER, SO WE DO ENFORCE THE PALLET FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, JUST NOT THE PERMIT.
ANY OTHER COMMENT? SO WE WANNA MOVE IT, I'LL MOVE IT.
UM, SO YEAH, SO I'M ON FAVOR, ON FAVOR RECOMMENDATION ON THIS ONE.
CAN I GET A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
ANYONE OPPOSED? OKAY, THAT WAS QUICK AND EASY.
JUST PREPARE NEXT IN SEPTEMBER.
WE'RE GONNA BE HERE A LONG, LONG TIME.
YEAH, WE DO HAVE A LONG AGENDA FOR SEPTEMBER 9TH, WHICH IS THE NEXT MEETING.
GET I, I'D LIKE TO EARN MY MONEY,
UM, SO IF ANYBODY CANNOT MAKE THE SEPTEMBER 9TH MEETING, PLEASE LET ME KNOW.
'CAUSE WE DO ANTICIPATE HAVING A VERY LONG AGENDA.
ANYONE NOT GONNA BE HERE? I'M NOT.
AS OF RIGHT NOW, I HAVE A TRIAL, BUT YOU'LL SETTLE.