.
>> mayor: call to order the
august tweafnth -- 27th meeting
of the gains scril city plan
board.
ms. Mcplul -- ms. Mcmullen,
formula -- uld call fold
if you
would call the order.
please.
>> robert ackerman.
tina certain is absent.
robert mermer.
will be joining late.
jay morassky.
>> here.
>> joshua ney.
>> here.
>> jason sanchez.
>> here.
>> stephanie sutton.
>> here.
>> you have a quorum.
>> fantastic.
do we have a motion to adopt t
he
agenda as presented?
>> so moved.
>> second?
>> second.
>> all those in favor?
thet wasn't all of us.
>> aye, sorry.
[laughter]
>> felt like all those opposed?
all right, the agenda is
adopted.
going to be an oddly contentio
us
adoption.
do we hava proval of the -- hav
e
approval of the minutes of las
t
meeting?
or motion to approve the minut
es
from last meeting?
>> so moved.
>> second.
>> all right, had those a
ll
those in favor?
aye.
all opposed?
okay.
we all like the minutes from
last meeting.
at this point in the meeting I
open the open it up to mem
bers
of the public who want to speak
to items on the agenda.
the floor is yours.
>> ralph's coming up.
>> no.
I thought he was doing it.
all right, seeing none, let's
start with the first item on th
e
agenda, please, ms. Mcmull
?oon first item on the agenda,
2026-538hc sarks I-75 corridor
sign height extension request
ld26-00008y with 000080 wit
h a
presentation from allison
pager.
>> okay, good evening, board
chair and board members.
thank you for having me
tonight.
my name is allison pager, I'm a
planner in the department of
sustainable development, and I
'm
before you tonight to present a
height extension request for a
n
I-75 corridor sign for hc sarks
a
identified as petition number
ld26-00008o.
this request is for subject
parcel others 6974-040-000 for
property that is generally
located along archer road and
southwest 41st boulevard.
it's adjacent to I-75 and is
home to a recently constructed
hospital campus and freestandin
g
emergency room.
this parcel is owned by hca
florida gainesville hospital.
the application is submitted
by -- enterprises and there is
representation here tonight by
the applicant and ownership.
the parcel has medical services
zoning and office land use
designation.
the next few slides are going to
provide some context and
familiarly to the subject
area -- familiarity to the
subject area before jumping int
o
the dethey the details of
the
request.
provided here is a map of the
subject area.
the parcel for the request is
outlined ipred.
to the north is archer road, a
nd
general business zoning, to the
south is business industrial.
to the east is I-75.
and to the west there is some
additional medical services and
multifamily, and then further
west is alachua county
jurisdiction and their
residential zoning.
and similarly is provided here
a
land use map of the area and
similar trends for the land
use.
and this is a summary of the
nearby existing uses, and the
zoning and land use as
previously seen.
and in terms of existing uses,
north there is a gas station, a
hotel, a restaurant.
south there is self-storage, a
n
office space.
east is of course I-75 and
fdot right-of-way.
and west there is largely
residential -- properties.
and the aerial base map as wel
l
to kind of see what this area
looks like.
I wanted to provide a couple o
f po
pot of view slides using
google street view to help som
e
familiarity to each area for
this request.
if you haven't been by there
recently, so this slide shows
the intersection of archer roa
d
and 41st boulevard.
so this is looking towards the
I-75 overpass with the hospital
campus on the right.
this this is to show the mai
n
entrance to exiting the parcel
and accessing facilities.
so turning routh down this
intersection would take you dow
n
41st boulevard, and that
roadway is what largely goes
arou the parcels and how you
get to the parking lot that
accesses the facilities.
and here we are located on the
offramp from the southbound
lanes of I-75.
this is heading towards archer
road so looking directly towar
ds
the hca campus with I-75 to the
left, and as you can see here,
and this is going to come up
later as well, around these
interstate areas, especially t
he
interchange areas, there's goi
ng
to be larger areas of state
right-of-way associated with
these places, es
overpass where there is going t
o
be larger -- and infrastructur
e
and right-of-way areas.
and here we are on I-75, in the
northbound lane heading north.
this is located at the entranc
e
of that exit ramp that we were
just on, so looking towards the
hospital campus, which is on t
he
left.
just to kind of show that view.
and finally, here it is located
on the actual overpass,
specifically in the southbound
lanes, looking to the right ove
r
towards where the hca campus
would be, and you can see arche
r
road and we can also see the
on-ramp area as well.
okay, so now that we're a littl
e
bit more -- know a little bit
more about the subject area,
we're going to jump into the
request.
we do not get these requests a
lot, so just wanted to provide
some extra information to cover
on this slide about what I-75
corridor signs are in general
before we jump into the height
part.
so these signs are a type of
frestanding permanent sign tha
t
are specifically conched --
covered in section 309/7d of t
he
land development code.
there are certain criteria for
meeting the requirements of an
I-75 corridor sign in order to
be allotted having one.
if not, the development would b
e
subject to the regular allotment
of freestanding permanent signs
as allowed by the code.
these include that the signage
is for the permitted use in a
nonresidential district.
in this case it's medical
services and hospital is a
permitted use by right, and the
sign is for the hospital.
the location being within a
quarter mile of the centerroid
of an I-75 interchange with any
arterial roadway.
this sign should be readily
visible from I-75.
this sign area of I-75 area
in -- must not exceed 300 square
feet and the sign should fough
t
be located on frontage where
adjacent or facing properties
have single-family land use.
these crituria have cri
teria
have been confirmed by staff.
this will have to be main
maintained during permitting.
so this section further provide
s
that an I-75 corridor sign by
right can have a maximum sign
structure height of 18 feet.
for context, the normal maximum
height for freestanding sign I
s
10 feet for the structure.
this section further details a
process for height extension
requests, which is why we're
here tonight, where an
application can be applied for
to request up to a maximum of
90 feet in height with certain
special considerations that mus
t
be met during review.
wih the city plan board to be
the final decision maker.
for this sign the applicant is
requesting 30 feet for their
height extension request.
staff has reviewed the
application with the criteria
outlined in section 30-9.7d of
the land development code for
height extension requests for
I-75 corridor signs.
the criteria of which are shown
on this screen.
I'm going to provide some
details about some of the
criteria but please note that
a
more in depth analysis of the
criteria are provided in the
staff report.
I'll also use some of the next
slides to help with
demonstrating some of these
points.
so for criteria a, the applica
nt
provides that the special
condition and circumstance
necessitating the need for a
sign structure with a height o
f
30 feet in order to be sign by
motoristed on I-75, the greener
y
reduces the -- to ground mount
ed
sign that is at or below
18 feet.
staff finds from past reviews o
f
hospital campus to examine the
proposed location of the sign I
n
relation to the sight line of
the I-75 interchange, that the
justification is sound.
so between the hospital campus
and the I-75 interstate, there
are multiple natural manmade
buffers, including stormwater
areas, right-of-way on both
county and state.
there's the on ramp, there's
roadways, landscaping, and
infrastructure that is
associated with the overpass.
kind of seen with both of these
,
so this picture is you are on
41st boulevard.
the parking lot for the hospita
l
is on the right.
you're looking towards the
interstate.
for criteria b, the applicant
and their engineer provide tha
t
the proposed 30 feet requested
for the height extension, which
is 12 feet above what is allow
ed
by right for the I-75 corridor
signs is the minimum necessary
to achieve a readable sign fac
e
above the obstructed sight line
in order to deliver adequate
advanced identification to I-7
5
motorists.
the applicant and engineer
further provide with proposed
signage elevations as seen here
that the letter height would
provide optimal reading from
275 feet with maximum full
reading from 825 to 1,238 feet.
for criteria d, the request is
found by staff to be compatibl
e
with the primary use of the
property as a hospital campus
and location is optimal being
directly adjacent to the I-75
interchange.
for additional context in terms
of compatibility and height for
existing structures on the
property, the permitting for t
he
campus shows a maximum building
height of four stories and
58 feet from the elevations of
that review; and that's outside
of necessary rooftop equipment.
and considering other factors
like faa requirements and the
gains ril gainesville reg
ional
airport height zone
requirements, this property
being within subzone 2, the
proposed height of 30 feet wou
ld
remain below the height that is
currently existing on the
property as constructed on sit
e,
and well below what is allowed
by right in the medical service
s
zoning district and the office
future land use category.
and lastly on that point, the
proposed location of the sign I
s
nearest that I-75 interchange,
so it's a pretty large parcel.
so where the proposed sign is
found to be optimal for what
I-75 corridor signs are for, a
nd
it's opposite the side of the
property that is nearest the
city limits and nearest the
alachua county residential
residentially zoned parcels tha
t
are on the other side of the
parcels, so it provides distanc
e
and buffer to any potential
impacts of the sign height fro
m
that side of the property.
and finally, here is provided
the public notice items as
required for this public
meeting.
and lastly, based on
of the criteria mentioned in
this presentation, staff --
recommend approval of additiona
l
000080 for the I-75 corridor
sign height extension request
for the sign structure height o
f
30 feet as the final decision
making authority for these
requests, the land development
code in section 30-9.7d outline
s
the three applicable decisions
available for the board in
making their decision that are
provided on the screen.
in addition, staff did receive
today a public comment in the
form of an email that did
express concern pertaining to
the property owner
authorization.
the concern was reviewed and
responded to, and no issues wer
e
found to continue from that
concern.
so just wanted to share that.
so we are available for
questions and discussions and
the applicant and also
representation from hca is her
e
as well.
>> okay, thank you see so m
uch
have for a very thorough
presentation.
does anybody on the board have
questions?
ms. Bell, like out of practice.
>> thank you for that.
I'm just curious, because the
email wasn't forwarded to us
that I could see.
what was the resident's
concern?
>> so they were referencing a
section of florida
administration code that was f
or
wastewater permitting but they
were calling into question the
,
the property owner authorizati
on
because for any application you
have to be property -- you hav
e
to have property owner
authorization so it is who is
signing the application, so if
someone is signing on behalf of
of a property owner that is par
t
of the checks we do as staff a
s
part of the submittal so all o
f
that stuff was tbowpped to be I
n
line -- found to be in line.
so we just replied to address
their expern let them know that
it did meet the standards that
are in our land development cod
e
and that the section he was
specifically referencing wasn'
t
really applicable, but also jus
t
to let him know that we did do
a
thorough check for what our
procedures are for checking ea
ch
of those conditions.
>> okay, thank you.
>> thank you, and the property
owner authorization and the
letter of authorization that w
as
also provided in the submittal
are part of the backup as well.
>> thank you.
>> any other questionsfor
ms. Pager while we've got her
up
here?
seeing none, if the applicant
wants to come some and speak
,
you're more than welcome to.
if you don't, that's also
totally fine.
>> I can never be that
thorough.
[laughter]
>> fair enough.
it was a very good
presentation.
>> we don't get a lot of these
,
so.
>> like -- this is the first
like giant sign item that's com
e
before me at least, so I don't
recall having to do -- oh,
yeah.
well I see these guys have don
e
it longer than I have, so
they've seen a little bit more
than I have.
all right.
well, I see, I suppose I'll ope
n
it up to members of the public.
I don't think you guys have an
opinion on this at all, so we
will bring it back to the board
for discussion and a motion.
do we have a motion on this
item?
>> I'll make a motion to approve
ld26-000080 I-75 sign height
extension request as presented
.
>> a second?
all right, a second.
all those in favor?
aye.
all opposed?
it's unanimous.
all right.
congratulations.
you have a big sign.
thank you very much.
all
>> all right, if you want to
read it into the record, then
the floor will be yours.
>> so this next item is a
discussion item for you all, no
t
asking for any votes this
evening, but wanted to bring you
an update on one of the, or a
few of the statutory changes
that have gone into effect as o
f
july 1st of this year.
there are, there are several
different statutes that have
been adopted that go into effec
t
at various times, so one that
I'll be talking about this
evening is house bill 803.
there are a few others which
we'll bing you more info on tha
t
go into effect in january of
next year.
but there's a few things in the
,
if the in the bill that wil
l
impact how the planning and
building departments operate a
nd
some of the land development
code regulations that are
currently in our code, and may
be policy considerations for y
ou
all, so just wanted to inform
you of those and just let you
know kind of some things we've
been working on.
so just an informational item,
and then feel free to have
discussion afterwards if, you
know, if there is anything you
want to propose implementing,
but yeah.
so just to give you an
overview.
loic I said, this, this is
specifically related to house
bill 803, effective in july.
a few things that it provides
for are greater statewide
standardization of permit
applications and electronic
permitting.
that's something that the city
already does.
we already do all electronic
building permitting, so there
won't be much that we have to d
o
to address that, but that's kin
d
of one of the big things that's
been talked about with this
bill.
it provides for more specific
requirements for communicating
deficiencies, denials, and
incomplete applications.
that's part of building permits
as well.
and you'll see a few of the
things that are covered here a
re
more pertaining to the building
division specifically, but
things that we work closely wit
h
them on and we do participate I
n
building permit reviews, so th
ey
will affect the planning in som
e
ways as well.
one of the big things that it
does is provide new limits on
permit fees and the type of
documentation that can be
required by the building
department 689 .
again, that's a building
division thing but that's a big
thing the building divisioning
is working on now.
providing for expanded permit
exemptions for qualifying small
residential projects, expanding
authority and use of private
providers for plan review and
inspections, the probably the
biggest thing that you might b
e
interested in at a policy level
are new requirements affecting
manufactured and offsite
constructed housing.
I will get into ins some more
specifics on that, and then som
e
limits on certain local
architectural and urban design
requirements.
so the first few, I think we'll
go through pretty quickly
because they learnlg are
largely
are related to building but jus
t
to let you know at a high level
some of the things the bill
covers.
it does require for application
s
to be made available
electronically, like I said, w
e
already do that, so not
something that we need to
specifically address.
it does require additionally
more specific review comments
for building permit reviews, s
o
administered by the building
department, or the building
division, the planning
department does review a large
number of building permits as
well, so that'll be some,
something operationally nat
we'll need to make sure we're
doing as a team is providing
very specific review comments
for building permits, something
we try to do anyway, but just,
just something to kind of keep
a
closer eye on.
so the emphasis on this is a
predictable, code based bas
ed
based and transparent review f
or
building departments rather tha
n
discretionaryo open ended type
of situation.
the next part I really won't g
o
into a lot of detail on because
it really just impacts building
fees, which I'm not, heightly
involved with and it's not my
division, but this is something
that the building official is
working very, very diligently o
n
to figure out changes ibbuildin
g
-- in building permit fees and
how they'reicalitycuted and wha
t
type of -- they're calculated
culated and what type of
documentation they can require
for those.
another thing that it changes I
s
allowing for single-family
homeowners or their contractors
to any exempt from permitting
certain work under -- it can't
be structural, electrical,
plumbing work, or electrical, o
r
gas work, and it wasn't be
located within a flood hazard
area.
but essentially what we think
this will largely cover are
things like sheds and detached
accessory structures.
so you know one of the impacts
from that will be we'll see les
s
permits come through for thing
s
like sheds.
they will still be required to
meet zoning standards though
things like -- typically, and
in
the single-family zoning
district for example.
it's typically a five-foot
setback from the rear property
line and the side property
lines.
they still need to meet those
setbacks, but they won't have t
o apply
apply for a permit for it, so
you know we've talked about way
s
of just kind of putting fyis
out there for people, letting
them know technically you still
need to meet these setbacks,
essentially it would become a
code enforcement issue if it
starts to become a problem whe
re
people are installing sheds tha
t
either don't meet setbacks or
don't meet certain size
requirements in certain
instances, things like that.
so that's something that will
affect planning in some ways.
did you want to ask questions
now?
we can just talk through each
item.
>> I think I just, through
context my question was
answered.
>> okay.
and let me know, you know, fee
l
free to stop me at any time wi
th
a question on any of these in
particular.
the next thing that we've talke
d
about a good bit in planning a
re
restrictions on glazing
requirements.
so local governments may not
require more than 15% glazing o
n
the primary facade of most new
commercial or mixed use
projects.
there are some limitations or
exceptions within historic
districts.
this will impact the glazing o
r
the percentage of windows that
we can require in transect zon
es
and in mixed use and
nonresidential zoning districts,
and the glazing requirements I
n
transect zones are fairly high.
so that's in effect now.
at some point it would be
probably a good idea to update
our code to reflect that, but
currently as of july 1st, we
can't require more than 15% on
the commercial and mixed use
projects on the front -- on the
primary facade.
so that's something that's
impacting us with this.
along the lines of design
requirements, there are also
some restrictions on branding
and corporate identity kind of
interference so to speak in tha
t
largely as it pertains to
signage in addition to any
restrictions that might
interfere with the ability for
gas stations to comply with gas
price signage, visibility
requirements.
I'm not really seeing anything
that stands out too much on
these at this point in time.
I think, you know, we'll see I
n
the future if anything specific
comes up with signage perhaps
there could be questions about
interfering with logos and
things like that.
but you know, we don't have
anything, the city doesn't hav
e
anything in the code that
specifically talks about those
things in particular, so we'll
see kind of what the effects
are.
there is a good deal of expanded
private provider authority.
again, largely related to the
building division.
we do expect to see an increas
einstances of private
providers for building items.
a different bill that we'll tal
k
about at another time that goe
s
into effect in january kind of
expands this to get into
planning functions.
for this one in particular this
is just affecting the building
division, but it's a big thing
that this bill does, so just
wanted to bring it up.
it really doesn't affect
planning too much.
but the other thing that this
part of the bill does is stres
s
the importance of timeliness of
the comments, so, you know,
there will be increased pressur
e
on making sure that we get our
comments in all departments on
time and issued.
otherwise there are potentially
some consequences of sort of
automatic approvals so to speak
,
so just something that we're
going to have to look at and
make sure we are really tight o
n
our timelines.
so probably the big one for
planning from this bill is the
placement for residential
manufactured buildings.
so the language talks about a
couple different things.
placement in rv parks in
addition to placement in
single-family districts.
so one of the things that it
does is require that state
certified residential
manufacture building may not b
e
denied placement in mobile hom
e
or similar communities so that
includes rv parks.
the bigger one probably is
talking about qualifying offsi
te
constructed homes must be
allowed anywhere single-family
detached homes are allowed.
so that -- there are some
specific definitions in the
bill.
I can read a couple of those o
ff
to you.
but it talks about offsite
constructed residential
dwellings meting a manufacture
d
building as defined in florida
statute which is intended for
single-family residential use or
a manufactured home defined in
a
separate statute, which is
constructed in whole or in par
t
offsite and is treated as real
property.
so this, this will impact the
type of those type of structures
being allowed in the
single-family districts and
other districts that allow
single-family homes.
previously and up until recent
hisory, the application has
been of the code language that
we have which doesn't generally
allow for those types of
structures to, to be construct
ed
in kind of the typical zoning
district.
it kind of limited them to
mobile home zoning.
and the code is pretty outdated
t. Talks about a structure tha
t
has an integral chassis, things
like that.
at any rate, this is something
that we are implementing now
allowing for manufactured homes
based on state statute.
so the bill requires or it doe
s
state that local governments c
an
put additional standards on
these types of structures, but
they've got to be applied
equally to site built homes and
nonsite built homes.
and the types of standards tha
t
local government could add are
things like roof pitch, square
footage, foundation treatment,
setbacks orientation.
approval of qualifying homes o
f
offsite constructed homes in
zoning districts that allow
single-family as a use.
we wanted to bring this to you
as a policy consideration.
so this is kind of wrapping it
up, and then we can go into
discussion.
so the kind of the big takeaways
for this bill in relation to
planning and building in
gainesville, it allows for
greater housing flexibility, s
o
like I mentioned the offsite
factory built housing must be
accommodated.
it provides for private
providers and sort of limits t
he
city's ability to do deplicati
ve
reviews.
it requires timeliness of
reviews.
it looks at local governments
reviewing their fees t. Does
impact some of our design
regulations, and it applies som
e
exemptions for the smaller
permits for single-family
homeowners.
so areas for staff follow-up
that we've identified, the
building division is re viewing
their permit fee schedules and
fee calculation
methodologieses.
we're working to make sure tha
t
we've got development review a
nd
building permit work flows
providing for private provi
coordination and meeting
timelines.
and application materials, and
just coordinating across
planning, building, legal, and
all the various functions to
make sure we're implementing
these changes.
and that's it.
so I wanted to get any feedback
from y'all or answer any
questions you might have.
>> thank you.
ms. Sutton.
>> I would say I'm generally
in what we're able to
do on the, likic mobile homes
offsite built homes, what we're
willing and able to put into the
code, and I would like to get
maybe some analysis on what
other places are doing.
I know the county did implement
something recently.
it might, I don't know how man
y
of you are going to the state
planning conference.
that may be something you can
ask others about there if
there's staff going to the
conference.
I'm interested in seeing what
our options are and considering
putting something in place.
I think even if it's orientation
or whatever we can do I think w
e
should think about it.
how the parking is associated,
how the, I mean, I think inwe
don't if we don't have a
ny
design standards other than yo
u
can put this on a single-family
lot, and with the dengsties tha
t
we're allowing in our
single-family zoning right now
,
it could kind of create a
situation we don't want to see
in single-family districts.
>> ms. Bell.
>> out of curiosity, can you
expand on that a little bit
more, ms. Sutton, on where you
think this is headed?
just help me understand.
>> I just think we changed the
single-family zoning
requirements in the last couple
of years, so we have very small
lot sizes now, very small
setbacks.
I think you could create a
series of really, really tiny
lots and essentially it would
look almost like a trailer par
k
in any single-family zoned
place.
because your side setbacks wou
ld
only be five.
you would have a mobile home in
the middle.
I mean without any design
considerations, if you look at
what our lot standards allow, w
e
could be creating something tha
t
I don't think is compatible wi
th
all of the neighborhoods of
gainesville.
>> I would be curious if staff
could provide a future meeting
sort of like a table or
something indicating what the
current restrictions are on
traditional single-family versu
s
offsite still because of the
law, the new law is that it
would have to be allowed and I
t
can't be more restrictive
ordinances than traditionally
built homes, so could you help
us understand more what the
implications are by providing
kind of like a side by
side-by-side of what our current
regulations are, because like
from the perspective of more
opportunities for affordable
housing, I'm intrigued.
but I understand what you're
saying from an aesthetic and
like neighborhood vibe for lac
k
of a more technical term
perspective, so I would just b
e
curious from a, like what our
starting point is before we loo
k
into what we could do to smoot
h
this transition if you will if
it's being required regardless.
>> sure, yes, definitely.
and so I will, I can let you
know now that there generally
are not design requirements for
new single-family homes.
an issue that we would run int
o
with, with adding any new
requirements is, yes, senate
bill 180 -- making things more
restrictive than they currently
are.
so any kind of restrictions that
put, they also have --
they'rapplicablecross the
board --
>> [off mic]
>> I guess the confusion is for
me, at face value, is like, what
the difference would be like
putting a series of tiny on-si
te
built homes versus smaller
offsite built homes and what
like the practical difference
would be.
that's more of what I'm looking
for education on I guess to hel
p
me understand.
if that makes sense.
>> d .
>>> dr. Mermer.
>> thank you, mr. Chair.
so my understanding
understanding and please corre
ct
me if where I I'm wrong,
ms. Mcmullen, this would,
there are two different
requirements, so anything with
a
chassis would be put in the, t
he
requirements on regulating
mobile home parks would be
relevant, right?
because they have to be state
approved mobile homes.
>> yeah, so I think --
>> verse this manufactured hom
es
in single-family neighborhoods
,
those, we could require that
they not be allowed if they hav
e
a chassis, in which case, it
would only allow what most
manufactured home manufacturers
build, which look just like
on-site built houses but if you
look an on-site built house tha
t
has vinyl siding, that's noted
ney what they look like.
we can still require they put
into a foundation and all that
stuff, right?
>> so I think, and I -- may hav
e
made it a little bit more
confusing the way I described
it, but I think the current, s
o
the current definition in the
city's land development code of
a mobile home talks about --
>> mobile homes would not --
>> yeah.
>> , the part of the new law
that affects single-family zon
ed
neighborhoods, mobile homes
would -- those, that new --
doesn't aplooito moibl homes.
>> -- apply to mobile homes. >>
>> it does apply to mobile hom
es
fabricated after june 16th,
1976.
so effectively it is allowing
mobile homes, and I don't think
the code's definition is reall
y
applicable anymore in talking
about the chassis and whatnot.
sorry, I might've made that a
little bit more confusing.
>> I don't think so because I
thought -- if it's a mobile
home, that's already regulated
by the state.
the state decides what's
considered a mobile home.
so the new law does say we do
have to allow mobile homes.
>> essentially.
>> offsite whenever.
>> I mean, there's still will
be, there are requirements in
terms of how it has to be
anchored.
it probably would be more
helpful to get information fro
m
thebuilding official on kind o
f
those distinctions because he
explains it much better than I
can, but they don't necessarily
have to be put on a permanent
foundation.
they can be attached -- they c
an
be like piers and things like
that.
so we did discuss, you know, m
ay
be looking at compatibility
standards of requiring a
permanent foundation.
that could cause, the concern
that came up for us on that is
some of the older neighborhoods
,
historic neighborhoods that hav
e
houses on piers.
>> [off mic]
>> the type of things we've
talked about so far, and why w
e
ultimately so far have decided
not to recommend any additional
restrictions because we don't
want that to affect houses tha
t
are already in existence, you
know, and it's not necessarily
always the way things are done,
but.
>> so the last thing I would
say, it sounds like, sounds lik
e
maybe the next step or the nex
t
step I'm, I I think we should
do
is maybe see what, look at the
,
get a sense of the designs tha
t
are currently offered by mobil
e
home manufacturers.
you know, to see like you know
what we're possibly --
>> the date was 1976 though.
>> so I mean --
>> 1976?
1976?
>> it's not things that like
would necessarily be new and
modern.
>> yeah.
>> I mean, that's why I think
design considerations to the
extent that we can think about
I
would like to see our options.
>> I agree.
okay, I totally missed the 1976
thing.
sorry.
>> I didn't say that at the
beginning, so it's, you've got
to go a little bit deeper in t
he
statute.
>> 50 years.
>>> I imagine, I don't know
who's going to the planning
conference.
I imagine this is going to be
topic of conversation there.
if not even a presentation, I
would just be interested in you
all gathering information about
what, what other communities I
n
florida are doing --
>> absolutely.
>> florida specific issue, and
bringing just some information
back to us.
I would like to explore that
further and not just let it go
tonight as like we're not takin
g
action on this.
>> sure.
yeah, we're happy to do that
research.
>> dr. Mermer.
>> yep.
mr. Chair, should we make a
motion about that, ms. Sutton?
>> I mean, britney, do you fee
l
like you need a motion to that
effect, to bring us back more
information.
>> not necessarily.
>> I have a question about
this.
maybe this is actually good that
we've got our attorney here.
my understanding of sb180 is
that we couldn't apply any new
restrictions on mobile homes
because we would be applying new
restrictions to single-family
homes which would be a new
restriction which we're not
allowed to do.
>> that's my understanding is
also.
sorry.
you were asking.
>> I mean,.
>> we've talked about it, and
we -- I think we both agree tha
t
yeah, I don't know I don't thi
nk
we could make those changes
until at least october of '27 o
r
if something changes.
>> or regarding a -- bar
ring a
hurricane, state of emergency.
>> sure.
>> ms. Bell.
>> I don't disagree with the
idea of like evaluating what o
ur
options are, but I would ask I
f
staff, I would -- I would just
ask if staff could provide som
e
cost impact assessment of what
any requirements couldpably
could potentially add because
without getting into any of the
politics of it, strictly from
someone on the ai ahac, the
affordable housing impact of I
t,
it's an opportunity to bring I
n
more affordable housing options
into our city, comes is
desperately fee -- which is
desperately needed.
so from a neighborhood, again,
I'm having a brain fart on the
word, like neighborhood vibe
compatibility perspective, I g
et
why we're going with that, but
I
would be interested in what the
cost impact of enforcing that
compatibility would have and
would it take away the
affordable benefit essentially.
thank you.
>> can I just say I think the
impacts of it a little
overblown.
I think it would be great to
have more housing di v.ty in
neighborhoods.
-- diversity in neighborhoods.
I think the idea of the vibe of
a neighborhood being disrupted
is -- I don't agree with that
thinking because neighborhoods
are ever changing, and so if
this is a way neighborhood
changes, so be it.
I also think that the
neighborhoods that are most
concerned about the vibe
changing are probably not the
ones where people are seeking t
o
put manufactured or mobile
homes.
they can make more money in
using nose lots in other --
those lots in other ways.
I always get worried when we
bring up this character of the
neighborhood thing because I
would rather have more people I
n
houses than caring about some,
everybody has a different vision
of what a neighborhood's
supposed to be like anyways, so
trying to -- everybody I think
is a fool's errand.
with that said, ms. Sutton.
>> yeah, I dyou
know, I'm necessarily worried
about the old established
neighborhoods -- gainesville.
I think my concern is, like, I
think you underestimate the, t
he
profit motive of developers tha
t
are trying to maximize some of
the areas around the universit
y
and some sensitive areas that
already have had a lot of
redevelopment in a more tasteful
way than this might be.
I think, you know, people who
have a large profit motive hav
e
done some really interesting
things in the neighborhoods
close to campus, and I'm afrai
d
not for necessarily what's goi
ng
to happen next to my house, but
what's going to happen to these
parts of our community that hav
e
already been impacted immensely
without this being a potential
option.
>> dr. Mermer.
>>> thank you, mr. Chair.
yeah, I mean, I'm not concerned
about the, the aesthetic of the
neighborhood or the feel or
anything.
I just, I grew up in a mobile
home that was manufactured in
the early 80s, and the
neighborhood I grew up in,
that's all there was.
and there are just serious
health and safety issues with
a
lot of the 80s mobile homes.
so I'm concerned about, you
know, even if you pack them
together, the fire risk oo o
of
these particular buildings.
inthis was anything -- if this
was anything built after 2010,
I
would be like whatever, but I a
m
concerned about the fireisk
fire
risk in general and
habitability.
I don't know if that's useful
for you when you're gathering
information but I wanted to
throw that out.
>> thank you.
any other comments or questions
from the board on this item?
boy, sure is fascinating all
this stuff the state is doing.
it's basically putting us out o
f
business on the board, you
know?
[laughter]
>> at least somebody is.
>> well, you know.
dr. Mermer.
>> mobile home conversation.
private providers of fees.
if we have -- if you have to,
all staff really have to work
harder and faster to meet the
new deadlines, would that
additional work be ought to be
factored into the fees?
so I think you have to give them
a discount for using a private
provider essentially but it is
putting more work on staff to
rush to get comments in.
so is there a way to recruit
that cost?
-- recoup that cost.
>> it's a good question.
I would have to let the building
departments -- a little bit mor
e
about that.
I can tell you they are doing a
n
assessment of all of that right
now so I can let you know what
the results are of that: I
haven't been as involved with
the building fee part.
I mean I can tell you the
building fund though is, you
know, without trying to get int
o
too much detail on the budget,
the building fund is separate
from the general fund, it's kind
of only for the building
department.
but I'd be happy to let you know
what --
>> yes and not being able to
open --
>> yeah.
>> okay.
anymore questions or comments
about any of the items that wer
e
just presented in our statutory
updates?
if not, I think we'll move ont
o
board member training.
board's favorite city attorney,
mr. Mcdermott.
>> good evening.
shawn mcdermott, assistant cit
y
attorney.
so staff asked me to come and
just speak to the board about
some, just the general laws tha
t
pertain to public boards.
also just on tuesday went to t
he
development review board and a
big chunk of those members are
brand new, and so they
appreciated and wanted me to
give the full blown
presentation.
this board has a lot of
experience, and so --
>> we have a couple -- you know,
there are some still some
newness I think on --
>> sure, so I'll just give you
the option of, I can either wal
k
through the whole -- what I
think are the highlights of wh
at
you need to know, or
alternatively, if there is jus
t
any questions or things you've
always thought about like how
does that work legally with our
board, what can we can't we do,
you know, I'm happy to go down
that road too.
whatever you want prefer,
whatever's the most helpful I'l
l
do.
I just given your experience an
d
new members like I'm happy to
even if one on one, you know, I
f
it's, if it's better in that
regard, I just don't want to
bore bob and everybody else.
>> I think start with the high
level overview, and then you
know this board is not afraid o
f
asking questions.
so if they'll have questions I
feel like they will pepper you
with questions.
>> okay, well, of course, feel
free to ask questions.
but I'll just,.
>> actually we've got one
already.
I can tell.
>> no, I was just going to say
even though like some of us are
newer to this board, we think
we've all served on boards,
like, you know, dr. Mermer's on
the count aahac, I'm on the cit
y
ahac.
>> she has been a city planner
and on the board so basic,
basic, basic we're probably oka
y
on for what's that worth.
>> dwhraw, yeah, that's wha
t I
assumed.
so yeah.
I'll just hit a refresher on
what I think are high level
things.
and feel free to ask any
questions at any time or we can
veer the discussion wherever y
ou
want, but there all to say
should be short and sweet but
stay as long as you want.
so the big picture laws that
govern public boards that you
all know are sunshine law public
records and ethics.
and then zooming in from there
there are certain particulars
every board needs to know about
how their board operatessism so
so -- operates.
so to fly through those.
the sunshine law, the main thi
ng
you would need to know is when
you would have a meeting but
any -- a meeting between twent
y
two or more -- between two or
more members of this body has to
be in the public, has to be
noticedded to the public, and
notes have to be taken.
staff takes care of that but
what's a meeting because that'
s
what you want to avoid out of a
public was peye.
a meeting is when two or more
members communicate in any way
about business that would come
before this board.
it could be informally.
it it doesn't have to be in
person.
it could be through e-mails.
anything where like I said, two
or more members of this
particular board communicate
about items that could come
before this board.
if that ever happens, you just
want mike make sure that's at
a
public meeting.
so avoid e-mails, back and for
th
e-mails, text messages, if you
see each other in publix, that
type of stuff.
keep all discussion about this
board in the public meetings.
of course you can discuss
anything else outside you know,
you can be friends and hang out
otherwise, but just that.
so public records is pretty, y
ou
know, common sense.
it's just any type of data
that's recorded that you make o
r
receive that has anything to d
o
with the official business of
the city or your board, that h
as
to be kept pursuant to certain
florida statutory requirements
about how long it has to be
kept.
so all the important takeaway
there is if you ever receive a
ny
type of data, I say data becau
se
it's broad, you know,
voicemails, e-mails, text
messages, papers, that have
anything to do with the business
of this board, just make sure,
just give it to staff.
just make sure staff has it, a
nd
then you're fine.
so common things that you'll r
un
into are like paper copies tha
t
you receive.
if it's just a copy and staff
has the original version, then
you can throw the paper copies
out as soon as it loses its
value to you.
so it's the original you know
you just want to make sure
somebody in the city has an
original of whatever you come
across as far as public
records.
ethics is the big ones to
remember for ethics are that
this board has certain reporting
requirements at the state level
that you want to, you know, be
apprised of.
one of them is the form 1 I
believe it is that you have to
fill out, which is, it's an
abbreviated financial
disclosure, so it's relatively
short, it's not to the lengths
that an elected officials have
to go through, so it's hole fea
p
hopefully painless, but that
form, the form limited one
financial disclosure has to be
provided to the florida
commission on ethics once a
year.
so you just need to make sure
you do that once a year, it's
done electronically, I think
through their web site: staff
can help you out if you need,
you know, some --
>> just required, so --
>> okay.
>> theoretically we've got a
year to do it.
I don't think we're -- june or
july.
>> they shoot you an email and
a
few reminders.
>> oh, good.
>> they're pretty good about
being on top of you, so as lon
g
as you're on top of your email
,
you should in theory be able
to.
>> okay, yeah, that's great.
so that's the one you have to
do.
there's two or disclosures jus
t
to keep in miewnd you only hav
e
to do if that situation arises
for you.
one is the quarterly client
disclosure and, and you just
file that if you or your partn
er
or associate of your firm
represents a client for
compensation before the city.
so if that ever happens, in tha
t
case, you would need to fill o
ut
the disclosure, and provide it
to the state.
so that's just as needed.
>> like in general or someone
who comes before this board an
d
is represented?
>> it's generally the best
practices in general.
so if you work for like an
engineering firm that comes
before the city often asking f
or
different development approvals
or whatnot, whether it's this
board or the city commission,
you should disclose that to th
e
state.
so yeah I think engineers,
planners maybe, those are the
ones who might run into it the
most frequently.
law firms, you know, stuff lik
e
that.
so yeah, just remember if you o
r
anybody who works for your
company comes before the city,
you just want to disclose that
so it doesn't look like a
conflict.
>> does that include like gru
related items?
because like I work for an
engineering firm and we don't
really do much work for the
city, but but we do a lott
a lot
of gru projects.
is that something that needs t
o
be disclosed?
is that requiring any elected
official approvals, it's at lik
e
staff level.
>> gru is not the city anymore.
>> well, yeah.
>> well, technically they are.
[laughter]
>> yeah.
>> um.
>> so that's a little in the
weeds.
I could ask you after.
>> yeah, you can ask me after,
and so I should preface this a
ll
by saying as opposed to most of
the other laws that are
board where
office and thecity would get
involved with more hands on,
ethics rules of ethics are all
state level personal
responsibilities for the board
members, and so staff can kind
of help point you out what we
think you might want to look
for, but it's an area of the l
aw
that you really on your own with
so to speak, so I don't want t
o,
you know, again we're happy to
help you out informally, but you
really want to contact the
florida commission on ethics,
and they have a hotline number
that they're really receptive
to.
they'll respond to you right
away.
that you can call them about a
ny
ethics questions like that.
so that would be a perfect tim
e
to do that is if you have a
question like how does this
work.
and they will they'll giv
e you
direction.
you know, so I want to caveat
that even if I gave you an
opinion about your particular
instance you're mention, I wou
ld
still --
>> it's my responsibility to --
>> I would still encourage you
to call the commission on ethic
s
and they can tell you exactly
how to handle that.
but yes, so that would be for
that quarterly client
disclosure.
and the last disclosure would b
e
the quarterly gift disclosure
and it's quarterly meaning if
this ever applies to you you
just got to make sure you do I
t
quarterly.
and what this is is you file I
t
only if you received a gift
worth more than $100 from anyon
e
that are not relatives as
defined pursuant to a particula
r
statute, or gifts that are
associated primarily with your
employment.
so in other words a gift above
$100 from anybody except your
rel tbz or atives or your
employer you're supposed to
disclose it to the state.
I think it's all about optics s
o
it doesn't look like you're
being influenced to sway your
vote on any particular matter.
so out of an abundance of
transparency, they require tha
t
quarterly.
so those are thethree
disclosures to keep in mind.
there's behavioral kind of
ethics floors that, and it's a
ll
in the presentation, so the
presentation goes deeper, and
then feel free to reach out to
me if you have any questions,
but we don't need to go through
the -- it's pretty common sense
the behavioral, mandates that
the ethics law dictates.
it's just like a floor of being
a decent person type thing.
the other big -- the last
important thing to know about
the ethics law, our are vot
ing
conflicts.
how voting conflicts work.
for those keep in mind that if
any matter comes before your
board, or you let me get the
class of people here right.
it's you, a relative, I'll read
you what the definition of
relative is in a second, but I
f
you, a relative, a business
associate, or a principal by
whom you're retained could
potentially have a special
private gain or loss as a resul
t
of the decision, then you have
a
voting conflict, and you can't
vote on that matter.
so I'll just say that again is
like any matter that comes
before this board, keep in min
d
especially for engineers and
folks who kind of work, you
know, in areas that come before
the city fairly often.
if a matter is coming before
your board where there could be
a special private gain or a los
s
to yourself, a relative, a
business associate, or the t
he
principal by whom you're
retained, you have to declare a
conflict and abstain from voting
on that matter but you can sti
ll
dus the matter.
so -- discuss the matter.
so you can still discuss the
matter and offer your
professional opinions or
whatever, but you just can't
vote.
and the relatives that are
included in that are father,
mother, son, daughter, husband
,
wife, brother, sister,
father-in-law, mother-in-law,
son-in-law, or daughter-in-law
.
so.
>> no mysteries.
>> and no cousins, you know, t
he
family circle is relatively
tight there.
so, and again it's this is all
in your materials and if you
have ever have a question, sta
ff
can help you through it, but
just remember that for keep it
in mind voting conflicts.
those are the big state laws.
the -- the remainder of what
I'll just touch on are just som
e
specifics to like could help
govern h this board does its
business
and one of those is I think a
majority of what this board doe
s
is hold quasi-judicial
hearings.
as opposed to legislative
matters, legislative matters a
re
like what you just did about
weighing in on new statutory
requirements.
it, it's where you can exercis
e
the full breadth of your
discretion.
whether you like something or
not, your opinion, whatever yo
u
want to bring to the table, you
can for a legislative matter.
a quasi-judicial matter,
however, your discretion is
constrained.
because what it is is
quasi-judicial means it's kind
of like a court hearing, where
you're adjudicating rights.
you're adjudicating the
property, or personal rights o
f
a person or legal entity.
so because of that there are a
ll
these common law restrictions
that get imposed that dictate
how you have to do that.
and the three things you want t
o
keep in mind when you are
holding quasi-judicial hearing
s
is that due process has to be
afforded to all affected
parties.
staff really kind of takes the
lead on that, so that just
involves giving proper notice
and defining who are truly
affected parties as opposed to
just general residents of the
city.
and it's those affected parties
who get a heightened level of
due process that again staff
will kind of take the lead on
that.
the second two are more
pertinent to you personally, a
nd
that's when you're at the
hearing, what you're really
doing is you're accepting what'
s
called competent substantial
evidence, so you're like a
courtroom listening and
receiving a bunch of evidence.
whether it's coming from city
staff or the property owners o
r
anybody else including members
of the public who offer
evidence.
and evidence is a heightened
threshold.
it's notsgist an not jus
t an
opinion.
it's not just I think this
development's going to cause a
bunch of bad traffic.
that's just an opinion.
as opposed to if somebody comes
up and is says I'm a traffic
engineer with such-and-such
years of experience, and based
on this objective data and my
analysis, this is going to, you
know, and then their opinion I
s
based in fact and evidence in
that way.
that could be competent
substantial evidence that the
board takes into account.
so again, you're collecting thi
s
competent substantial evidence
from all affected parties,
andial all members of the publi
c
who speak, if it truly is
evident, you're collecting that
evidence and then you're
applying it to the correct law
that is applicable in that
case.
what that means is the specifi
c
criteria that governs your
particular decision for that
hearing.
so for instance, for this last
one with the sign height
extension, the land development
code lays out like six or seven
criteria that's in the code for
how this board is to make that
decision.
and allison for, you know,
presented those in her
presentation.
so those are the criteria you
want to stick to.
what you'll find is in most all
of the quasi-judicial -- I wou
ld
say all of the quasi-judicial
hearings that this board holds
,
the criteria never includes jus
t
do you like this project.
does it look cool to you or
does -- you know, do you think
it's a good thing or a bad thi
ng
for the city?
the city's going in a good or
bad direction or you know where
like housing this is pro-housing
this is an anti-housing.
it's none of that stuff.
it's just are these criteria m
et
or not.
so you know all the
policymaking, all those fun
questions so to speak, are
handled at the policy level, t
he
legislative level, I
mentioned,.
quasi-judicial, all that's
already been established.
you're just applying it now.
so that's how how the major
ity I
think of your decisions as a
beard operate is in that
quasi--- board operate is in
that quasi-judicial realm and
this board does a great job.
I've never compared to a lot o
f
cities where city attorneys are
busy because boards kind of go
rogue.
like you guys do a good job
so, so the, that's a
quasi-judicial hearing -- just
points about quasi-judicial
hearings to keep in mind.
is if the interest of that fir
st
one I mentioned due process, y
ou
do want to avoid ex parte
contacts they're called, and s
o
nat that just means best way
to
apply it I think the easiest w
ay
is just do not talk to anybody
about that matter outside of t
he
public hearing.
anybody's a little too much
because you can talk to, you
know, your spouse or your best
friend, who has nothing to do
with it.
technically only that ex
prohibition only applies to
parties, affected parties in t
he
case.
but because unlike courtroom
where you might be dealing wit
h
two litigants, the affected
parties for a matter that's
comes before this board could b
e
hundreds of people, so rather
than discerning, you know, if
you see somebody at publix
whether you're an affected par
ty
or not it's just easier to not
talk about stuff, you know,
unless you're certain they have
nothing to do with the issue.
so yes, so that's where you want
to avoid any, any contact.
so that includes e-mails, you
know, people might email you
because of your role but don't
,
don't reply.
and just avoid communications
and leave it all for the publi
c
hearing.
that's an interest in due
process.
so.
>> I was just going to say, it
doesn't happen at often now, b
ut
in the past when we had very
controversial ims it it would
not be uncommon for us to get
e-mails to our personal email
accounts.
just make sure you send them t
o
britney.
also sometimes it's hard, peopl
e
call and at least the past
advice has always been if I in
fact talk to somebody and it
strayed into quasi-judicial
issues, you disclose before the
hearing.
>> yeah, exactly.
that's true.
so if you do have inadvertent e
x
parte contacts, it just happens
,
before you realize what's
happening, your duty is to
disclose it at that hearing to
say that, you know, what the
scope -- that it happened and
what the scope of what was
discussed, and the whole purpo
se
really is to for any, any
affected parties who, to allow
them to hear what you talked
about so that they can respond
to that.
you know, if need be.
so it's just an issue of likepr
ocess and fairness.
another, this is a tricky one.
but under florida law, which I
s
unique to several other states,
but as you all know well, land,
the use of land is largely
regulated with a two tier
process in the state with land
use planning and then zoning.
so the comprehensive plan and
land use planning, all of that
is the state law for whatever
reason in the courts not
statutory, has deemed that
legislative.
so it's that first instance of
decision making where your
discretion is as broad as it c
an
be.
land use planning is all
legislative, even a land use
change for a particular piece o
f
property.
and even, and this is where it
gets confusing and why I'm
telling you s because often the
land use change and the zoning
change will come together is
staff will present them
together.
it's just a weird quirk in
florida law that the land use
portion is legislate fn, iv
e, but
the zoning portion is always
quasi-judicial.
why that's tricky is you'll ge
t,
you know, seasoned engineers a
nd
other folks who might approach
you behind the scenes, outside
of the public meeting, and say
,
oh, I want to talk to you about
this development.
I'll only talk about the
legislative portion.
and they're kind of hard to,
like, divorce that way because
it just, becomes kind of
arbitrary like.
so but they'll, you know,
they'll couch it in those terms
that, we'll just talk about the
legislative portion so we can
fully kind of try to convince
you, and then we'll save the
quasi-judicial portion for the
end.
you know, at the hearing.
anyways, my advice is always
unless you are, you know, that's a personal
a personal decision -- I would
just counsel if it was me havin
g
ima eof those any of tho
se
discussions because it's just
hard to separate those.
even planning had a hard time
when they're giving
presentations they'll give a
detailed presentation in for
the
land use portion to kick it off
and when the zoning comes up, w
e
already told you everything.
sometimes it's a very
abbreviated presentation, so
that's just an example of how
kind of interwoven those two
proses are, and -- processes
are, so yeah, you know, I would
tend to avoid any ex parte
discussions and that might eve
n
include the legislative portion
for situations like that.
the last bit of advice I could
give for quasi-judicial hearings
is so when you're making a
decision, you generally I would
say have four options.
anytime a dcomes before
you.
and fortunately, you know -- b
ut
we're going through a phase
right n where there's just not
many controversial items for
whatever reason.
>> knock on wood sphwhoo don't
say it too loud.
>> you guys need to get some
controversy.
but you know, it goes through
waves and several years back we
had a ton of them that we were
dealing with.
but and I just preface the
comments because keep in mind
when you have a decision that
comes before you, it's importa
nt
to know especially if it's
controversial but even for any
of them, there's four options
you really have you can approve
it outright the way it was
applied for.
you can deny it outright; if t
he
competent substantial evidence
shows that the, that the corre
ct
law, the criteria you have to
apply is not met.
so if the evidence that was all
gathered shows that the
criteria's not met then you can
deny it outright.
so you can approve it outright,
you can deny it outright, you
can, you can continue the
meeting, that's one that
sometimes is important to know
again that's why I was thinking
controversial.
for controversial ones or ones
that get in the weeds at the
hearing, so you know again
hasn't happened here lately but
in past years, for really meaty
issue you might get a lawyer
that shows up representing the
property owner or an adjacent
property owner, that at the
hearing just has like a mountain
of evidence to support their
whatever their argument is.
well, this, you know, the board
can't be expected to review all
that evidence of course that the
night to make it an informed
decision, so there is an abili
ty
to continue the hearing to a
future date to make sure that
the hearing takes place
thoroughly and fairly with due
process.
there are limits to that.
staff would help you, you know,
you can't just keep continuing
a
meeting and hearings to, you
know, a delay tactic and stuff
like that.
but nonetheless, continuation I
s
an option.
I just want to point out.
the last option is an approval
with conditions.
which you know, I think that
happens routinely.
there's a practical matter of
course this board relies heavi
ly
on staff who are the experts and
work day to day on this, so
staff will really vet issues
well and bring it to you, and
make a recommendation that we
recommend you approve this but
with these conditions and the
conditions are only there to,
because it's to get that
application to the place where
it can be approved.
so in other words, it was
approvable and meets everythin
g
in the code and the
comprehensive plan, except for
like these two or three things
that need to be done to fix thi
s
little area that was, you know,
eskew a askew a little bit
so
that's when the recommendation
is approved with conditions and
you can do that to, certainly.
the reason I'm telling you all
this is because, and again thi
s
board doesn't do it, so you
know, but if you on your own
want to desire to make up
conditions on the fly, you know
because you're like okay, thank
you, staff, for your
recommendation, but I would like
to move to continue this, I
mean, to approve this with the
condition that x yz.
you just have to be very caref
ul
with those conditions because
there's a whole body of case l
aw
that governs the limits of wha
t
you can do.
and there is in the state of
florida there's what's called a
dual rational nexus test that
just says without boring you t
oo
much, the conditions that you
want to impose have to be
related to that, to the impacts
of that specific development.
an example there is say
traffic.
if there's going to be a
development on a street that's
already taxed, it's already
pursuant to traffic engineering
,
you know, out of the standards
of what it should be, well, you
can't condition that new
development on fixing stuff tha
t
that development didn't cause.
so that's the first portion of
that condition decision tree s
o
to speak, is that whatever
condition you want to impose h
as
to be related and caused by tha
t
specific development.
nothing else.
the second tier is that once
that's the case then you can
impose a condition but the
condition has to in relationshi
p
to the specific issue that tha
t
development is causing.
so in other words if they are
causing an issue with traffic,
using that same example, and you
do want to make a condition that
is, is tailored to the impact
that that development is
causing, well then your co
condition to fix that can't be
so we want you to deed us over
a
five-acre public park, for
instance.
you know?
urban cities do this, like the
re
is case law where, you know,
like oh, you're causing a littl
e
bit of traffic.
we're going to need 10 acres s
o
we can have a public park like
down, you know, down the
street.
so that's where you got to be
careful with that second tier I
s
that your condition is related
to what they're doing.
and so anyways, that is about a
s
brief as I can get you.
any questions?
>> [off mic]
advisory on almost everything.
the only thing we're not
advisory on is the special use
permits.
and so when the special use
permit has a list of god I thi
nk
it's up to 13 different
criteria, so if you want decid
e
you want to deny a special use
permit, in your motion you nee
d
to specify what the grounds are
for doing that, and that gives
these guys if somebody wants t
o
sue us, it gives our attorneys
the ability to defend.
>> that's true.
wayerhauser was a big one the
city did.
it led to a lot of litigation
but my office and staff did a
good job of counseling the
commission and having a bunch o
f
legitimate reasons for denial
that led to success in
litigation.
but a lot of boards won't and
they'll just deny and go rogue
and that's when cities lose
those cases.
so that's all I had to say.
if there are any questions or
any areas you want to touch on,
I'm happy to hear.
>> I would volunteer if you're going
going to deny a special use
permit based on incompatibility,
that's probably the weakest
criteria when you take that to
court unless you can give some
specific reason why it is
incompatible rather than a
generic it's incompatible.
incompatible doesn't have a
strong definition.
I don't like gas stations.
I've heard somebody from this
board say that a couple of yea
rs
ago.
you just, you know, that's just
not going to work.
>> people have rights to have
gas stations and you may not
like them, but you have to mee
t
the ordinance.
>> yeah.
quasi-judicial realm.
beput it's legislative, we I
f
you say I hate gas stations
stations and want to keep them
in the very corner of the city
you can make that recommendatio
n
to the city.
okay, good luck.
if you have any questions in th
e
future, just reach out.
>> okay.
>> bob, I bored bob like I
said.
I was trying not to.
>> bob spoke more than anybody
else, so I think you didn't bor
e
him.
>> only the tenth or 12th
time.
>> you guys should do it --
>> it's always been you.
>> it's always been me.
>> yeah and it's always been
me.
[laughter]
okay.
>> all right,.
>> well, thank you so much for
,
for the refresher, and you know,
yeah.
I wish I had known some of thi
s
stuff like years ago when I was
really screwing up as opposed t
o
now where I'm only sometimes
kind of.
but very helpful.
okay.
we're moving onto member
comment, of which I have a
member comment.
I did want to talk adjust
briefly about our last meeting
because there was some after
meeting e-mails and after
meeting discussions, and so I
don't know about the board but
from other people, it's just a
reminder we should treat each
other with grace, we should
treat each other with respect.
we all have passion which is w
hy
year here.
sometimes that passion leads u
s
to -- it can boil over a bit a
nd
lead us to kind of butt heads,
and I think respectful
disagreement is okay.
I think we also should remembe
to respect the people that com
e
before us.
it takes -- to come up and spe
ak
in public so make sure that
anybody that comes before us, w
e
afford them respect and then
also just remember that what
we're dealing with is people's
homes, people's businesses,
their churches, their
communities, their
neighborhoods, and so when we'
re
also speaking to people about
these issues and speaking about
the issues in particular, to
afford those issues the respect
they deserve as well because
everything that comes before t
he
board matters to somebody,.
if if did didn't matter to
anybody, it wouldn't be before
us.
just a reminder to everybody.
generally I think we do a good
job of this, but just in gener
al
reminder to do that.
and then of course with us, you
know, on the board, if you hav
e
something you want to say, jus
t
hit the button.
that stupid little button will
light up in front of me and the
n
I'll at some point remember to
hit it, and then you'll be abl
e
to speak.
and so you know that'll be you
r
time to speak and if somebody
wants to jump in because they
disagree, just hit your button.
I will hit the button and once
they are done making their poi
nt
you can jump in and say whatever
you want to say to rebut them o
r
you know, I don't know.
but please do it respectfully.
and the last thing, which is
ironic because I'm kind of
grandstanding right now is jus
t
we all do it from time to time,
we're all very passionate, we
should try to keep that to a
minimum and try to keep focused
on the agenda at hand and work
at hand.
these meetings run pretty long
sometimes.
I'm extending it right now to
say this, so I know I'm aware o
f
that.
all right.
that's my piece.
that's my member comment.
if anybody else has any member
comments, now's the time.
and seeing none, I'm going to
end this meeting.
the next meeting of the plan bo
board, september 24th, 2026.
with that, this one's