[5:14] Good evening. At this time,

[5:16] I would like to call to order the August 6 meeting of the Largo Planning Board.

[5:21] It is requested that everyone attending this meeting please turn off or silence

[5:26] this meeting please turn off or silence your

[5:26] phones. I'd like to start today's meeting by introducing staff.

[5:30] We have Jared Austin, our planning manager; Noah Diker, our board attorney;

[5:35] Commissioner Smith as our commission liaison.

[5:38] We have Matthew Crawwell, Planner 1,

[5:40] who will be giving his first presentation to us today, so we're glad to see you.

[5:45] and Kimberly Mejia. And we also have Chase Bergeron,

[5:48] which is our community standards manager.

[5:51] Cheryl Reed, our director of community development, are all in the room tonight.

[5:56] And then Jamie Jarvis is the recording secretary.

[5:59] Tonight, the planning board, in its capacity as the local planning agency,

[6:04] will be acting both in an advisory and quasi-judicial capacity.

[6:08] The procedures of this board are as follows.

[6:11] All individuals who will be speaking this evening on a quasi-judicial item must

[6:16] stand to be sworn in.

[6:17] The first item will be to consider any requests from the public to be considered

[6:22] requests from the public to be considered as

[6:22] an intervening party.

[6:24] City staff will then have 10 minutes to present its case to the board first.

[6:29] The board will address any questions to staff.

[6:32] The applicant will then be given 10 minutes to present his or her case to the

[6:37] minutes to present his or her case to the board.

[6:37] After the applicant's presentation and any responding questions from the board,

[6:42] any intervening parties will then be given 10 minutes to make their presentations.

[6:47] After the intervening party presentations, the public portion hearing, if any,

[6:52] will take place, in which anyone who wishes to speak may come forward giving

[6:57] wishes to speak may come forward giving his or

[6:57] her name and address to speak to the board, limiting their comments to 3

[7:02] board, limiting their comments to 3 minutes.

[7:03] The board will determine the relevance of any public input and its duration.

[7:07] After everyone has had an opportunity to speak,

[7:10] the public hearing portion of the meeting will be closed.

[7:14] City staff will then be allowed 3 minutes to make a presentation.

[7:18] Any intervening parties will be allowed 3 minutes for a rebuttal and closing

[7:23] arguments, and then the applicant will be allowed 3 minutes for rebuttal and closing

[7:28] arguments.

[7:29] Thank you.

[7:30] The board will then discuss the case and vote.

[7:34] So I just want to make everyone aware in the room, that is for agenda item 1.

[7:40] If you are here for this other agenda item,

[7:44] you don't need to worry about anything I just said. Okay? This next part's for you.

[7:51] Then the board— for advisory items, staff will make its presentation first,

[7:57] followed, if there is, by the applicant. The board will then hear public comment.

[8:04] Our first item on our agenda is approval of the minutes of the July 2nd,

[8:10] 2026 meeting. Are there any changes, updates? If not, I'll entertain a motion.

[8:16] Mr. Chairman, I move to approve the July 2nd, 2026 Minutes.

[8:23] I have a motion by Ms. Donaherty. Is there a second?

[8:26] I'll second.

[8:27] Second by Ms. Hall. All those in favor?

[8:29] Aye.

[8:29] Opposed? Motion carries 6-0.

[8:32] All right, the next item on our agenda is quasi-judicial in nature.

[8:37] It is case CU-26-0003, Success on the Spectrum Medical Office.

[8:41] If you are a member of the public and plan to speak on this item,

[8:46] If you're planning to speak on the short-term rental item next,

[8:51] you do not need to stand.

[8:53] But if you're planning to speak or want to speak on this item,

[8:58] we would ask that you stand up now and raise your right hand to be sworn in.

[9:04] Also, is the applicant here?

[9:10] Yes.

[9:13] Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth,

[9:15] and nothing but the truth?

[9:16] I do. I do.

[9:18] Thank you. And then I'll go ahead and give it to Noah for any intervening parties.

[9:22] Thank you, Chair Fosdini.

[9:23] The item the board is about to hear, which is about using, uh,

[9:27] space as a medical office— it is not the short-term vacation rental ordinance— uh,

[9:32] is quasi-judicial. That means the applicant,

[9:34] since they have a legal interest in the property, has the right to present

[9:38] property, has the right to present evidence,

[9:39] testimony, or witnesses, as does the city.

[9:41] Uh, other people may also have a legal interest in the property and have a right

[9:46] interest in the property and have a right to

[9:46] also present evidence and testimony.

[9:48] If you are here to present testimony on this case and would like to be added as a

[9:53] party, please stand. Seeing no one, we can proceed.

[9:56] Thank you so much. Just whenever staff are ready.

[9:59] Thank you.

[10:05] All right.

[10:06] Good evening, members of the Planning Board.

[10:09] My name is Matthew Crowell, Planner 1 with Planning and Development Services.

[10:14] Joined by me at the presentation desk is Kimberly Mejia, Planner II.

[10:18] The case before you tonight is a request for Class 2 conditional use approval to

[10:23] allow for the establishment of a medical office on a parcel with the future land

[10:28] office on a parcel with the future land use

[10:28] of Industrial Limited. The applicant, Omar Resto, is present with us tonight.

[10:33] The subject parcel comprises 6.36 acres of land located at 13922 58th Street North.

[10:38] This property is classified as Industrial Limited on the future—

[10:42] on the City of Largo future land use map.

[10:44] And currently houses 4 office buildings with a mix of office, medical,

[10:49] and institutional uses.

[10:50] The site is accessed from ICOT Boulevard and 58th Street North and contains 277

[10:55] parking spaces. The proposed medical office use will occupy Suite 900 within

[11:00] Building 9. Here is an overall location of the parcel with the nearest arterial

[11:04] roadways being US Highway 19 and Olmerton Road.

[11:07] Here is a closer locational overview with the tenant space shown in black and the

[11:12] parcel outlined in red.

[11:14] Here are the adjacent land uses with the parcel abutting industrial limited

[11:18] properties in all directions. And here is a street view from Eichert Crossing.

[11:23] The applicant has requested this Class 2 conditional use approval to allow for the

[11:28] establishment of a medical office within an existing tenant space on the subject

[11:33] property. Per CDC Table 6-1,

[11:35] medical office uses are conditionally allowable on parcels classified as

[11:39] allowable on parcels classified as industrial

[11:40] limited. Here are the proposed plans showing establishment of the medical

[11:45] showing establishment of the medical office

[11:45] within the existing tenant space.

[11:47] The grayed-out area is a separate tenant space belonging to a religious institution

[11:52] that received previous conditional use approval.

[11:55] Through review, based on the criteria outlined in CDC Section 4.2.4,

[11:59] staff recommends approval of the proposed scope of work outlined in CU-26-0003.

[12:04] Thank you.

[12:06] If this conditional use review is approved,

[12:08] the tenant build-out permit under record remodel-26-000151 can be approved,

[12:12] subject to meeting Florida Building Code requirements.

[12:15] Any further expansions or changes in operational scope would require the site

[12:20] operational scope would require the site to

[12:20] undergo further conditional use review and receive subsequent approval from the

[12:24] planning board. That concludes my presentation,

[12:27] and staff is available for questions.

[12:29] Thank you so much. Does Does the board have any questions for staff?

[12:32] I do. Is the build-out, it's all interior?

[12:37] Yes, ma'am.

[12:38] Okay.

[12:38] Any other questions?

[12:41] If not, if the applicant would like to speak.

[12:46] If you don't, you don't have to, but if you would like to,

[12:53] you— yep, you just come up here and then give your first

[13:00] name and address. Yes, sir. Thank you so much.

[13:05] Good evening, Mr. Chairman and the board.

[13:09] Um, Patrice and I are co-owners of Success on the Spectrum Clearwater.

[13:13] The facility will operate in a manner that's consistent and professional with

[13:17] healthcare services.

[13:19] We will not create adverse impacts on neighborhood properties,

[13:22] and we will provide an important healthcare resource to the children and

[13:24] healthcare resource to the children and families in

[13:25] the Largo Clearwater community.

[13:28] Thank you so much. Does the board have any questions for the applicant?

[13:31] I do.

[13:33] I have a question.

[13:34] What type of medical practice, um, would be housed at this location?

[13:39] Yes, ma'am. This is an outpatient ABA therapy for children on the autism

[13:43] therapy for children on the autism spectrum.

[13:44] So we have board-certified behavior analysts that will be providing therapy to

[13:49] analysts that will be providing therapy to kids

[13:49] that have autism.

[13:50] Well, thank you. I'm sure that's well needed in the community.

[13:54] Yes, ma'am.

[13:56] And any other questions?

[13:57] Just one thing I wanted to mention, the county administration site is—

[14:01] their new site is going to be very close to your location.

[14:04] So definitely an area where we're going to have a growing population that needs

[14:09] access to healthcare and children that will need access.

[14:12] Good to hear.

[14:12] Thank you. Might want to reach out to the county to see how you can work with them.

[14:15] Yes, of course. Collaborate.

[14:17] Thank you.

[14:17] Absolutely. Any other questions? If not, I'll entertain a motion.

[14:21] Mr. Chairman, I move to approve CU-28—

[14:26] Oh, wait. I'm sorry.

[14:27] Is there anyone from the public that would wish to speak on this item?

[14:32] Seeing none, I will go ahead and close the public hearing portion of this item. Ms.

[14:37] Donaherty, go ahead. Sorry. No problem.

[14:40] Mr. Chairman, I move to approve CU-280003.

[14:45] I have a motion by Ms. Donaherty. Is there a second? I'll second the motion.

[14:49] Second by Ms. Ropshaw. Can you poll the board, Ms. Jarvis?

[14:52] Yes. Mr.

[14:54] Chair, I'm so sorry, I believe it is CU-26-0003.

[14:59] Okay.

[15:00] You mind?

[15:01] Want me to do it again? Yes, ma'am.

[15:02] Okay, no problem.

[15:04] Mr. Chairman, I move to approve CU-26, right?

[15:11] Yes.

[15:11] 0003.

[15:13] That's what I have on mine.

[15:15] I'll second. Okay. And we have— so we have a revised motion by Ms.

[15:20] Donaherty that is approved and seconded by Ms. Robshaw. Ms.

[15:24] Jarvis, can you poll the board? Yes.

[15:26] Ms. Hall?

[15:26] Yes.

[15:27] Ms. Robshaw?

[15:28] Yes. Ms. McGee?

[15:30] Yes.

[15:31] Mr. Graham?

[15:32] Yes.

[15:33] Ms. Donaherty?

[15:34] Yes.

[15:35] And Chair Fastini?

[15:36] Yes. Motion carries 6-0. Thank you so much for coming to Largo.

[15:41] We wish you all the best in your business.

[15:45] All right, I'm going to let Noah speak— or, um, sorry, Jared speak first.

[15:51] Sorry, Noah, stole your thunder. No, I was really hoping to speak.

[15:55] Um, yeah, while Chase gets up here, uh, to speak, and Cheryl as well, um,

[15:59] do just want to provide a few clarifying points, um,

[16:02] for the board on this item since I know there were a number of materials, uh,

[16:07] circulated to you all in addition to the ordinance.

[16:10] Um, so again, not to take too much away from Chase's presentation,

[16:14] but I do just want to inform you that this is one piece of a broader attempt by the

[16:19] city to establish some more clear protocols as it pertains to short-term

[16:24] protocols as it pertains to short-term vacation

[16:24] rentals. You may all recall from the planning board retreat that we had

[16:28] planning board retreat that we had recently,

[16:29] there are a number of codes that the city is responsible for administering and

[16:34] enforcing. Um, the Comprehensive Development Code is one of those, um,

[16:38] which we in Planning administer and which you all as a Planning Board oversee

[16:43] changes to. Um, that being said,

[16:45] the Comprehensive Development Code does relate to very specific things,

[16:49] particularly development within the City of Largo.

[16:52] Um, so things such as noise, um, or nuisance types ordinances, um, that—

[16:56] or nuisance type, uh, matters that would be regulated by a nuisance ordinance,

[17:01] which, uh, is something that Chase is going to be touching on, um,

[17:05] would be something that would be more covered by our, uh,

[17:09] some of our other codes that we enforce in the city,

[17:12] not particularly the Comprehensive Development Code.

[17:15] Um, so what we're focused on today are the changes and amendments to the

[17:20] Comprehensive Development Code, um, as it pertains to short-term vacation rentals.

[17:25] That's why you'll see things in here such as, um,

[17:28] adherence to building code and things such as, um, parking requirements, um,

[17:32] those types of things, not necessarily noise or, uh, you know,

[17:36] trash-related problems that may come from a short-term vacation rental.

[17:40] Um, with that though, I can, uh, I will just say, uh,

[17:44] one other thing is that we do have to be mindful of, um, and legal was in,

[17:48] in drafting this, uh, language,

[17:50] is that something that I've brought up to you all on a number of times, um,

[17:55] that does prohibit us, um, as a planning board and as planning staff,

[17:59] our Senate Bill 180,

[18:00] which does prevent us from passing any ordinance that is considered more

[18:04] ordinance that is considered more restrictive

[18:05] or burdensome on development,

[18:07] as well as some of the other state preemptions surrounding short-term

[18:11] preemptions surrounding short-term vacation

[18:12] rentals. So do just want to provide that clarification before we dive into our

[18:16] presentation this evening on this item.

[18:19] And with that, I hope I haven't stolen too much of Chase's presentation.

[18:23] I'll go ahead and turn it over to him.

[18:25] Chase, actually, I'm going to stop you for another minute.

[18:30] I do need to make some disclosures.

[18:32] I just want to, for the sake of transparency,

[18:36] Let the public know that before we start discussion, I currently reside—

[18:41] I have a private home and I rent a room in that home that I live in on Airbnb.

[18:47] I have spoke with our city attorney, Noah Diker,

[18:50] because we are not legally allowed to abstain unless there is a formal statutory

[18:56] conflict that exists.

[18:58] But in full transparency, I wanted to let everyone know,

[19:02] and I am legally required to vote on this item.

[19:05] Also, in the interest of transparency,

[19:08] I do want to let individuals know of an ex parte communication in which an

[19:14] individual reached out to me to provide the planning board information.

[19:19] I provided that individual the person to get that information,

[19:24] and they were able to get it to the planning board.

[19:27] And with that, now I will go ahead and hand it over to Chase. All right, thank

[19:33] hand it over to Chase. All right, thank you.

[19:34] Good evening, uh, Planning Board.

[19:35] I am Chase Bergeron, the Community Standards Manager.

[19:38] Tonight I will be discussing Ordinance Number 2026-33,

[19:40] which covers the Comprehensive Development Code Section 15.18 pertaining to

[19:44] short-term rentals. Uh, before I begin my presentation,

[19:47] I'm here with Community Development Director Cheryl Reed, who has a few

[19:50] Director Cheryl Reed, who has a few comments.

[19:51] Good evening, Chair Faustini and Planning Board members.

[19:55] Again, my name is Cheryl Reed.

[19:57] I'm the director of the Community Development Department,

[20:00] and I just wanted to provide a little bit of context and maybe some background about

[20:06] this particular proposed ordinance,

[20:09] and then I'll be handing it back over to Chase so he can give his presentation.

[20:14] The city first adopted a short-term vacation rental back in 2019, and at that

[20:19] vacation rental back in 2019, and at that time,

[20:20] the city was not really having a large issue with short-term vacation rentals.

[20:25] We didn't have very many in the city of Largo, and the ones that we did have,

[20:30] if there were loud parties, our— the city's police department was,

[20:35] was very well equipped to be able to address those kinds of complaints.

[20:40] The City Commission at that time was confident that the short-term vacation

[20:45] confident that the short-term vacation rental

[20:45] hosts would be desirous of being in compliance with the city's ordinance at

[20:50] compliance with the city's ordinance at that

[20:50] time. And that's kind of how we began our short-term vacation rental journey,

[20:56] as I'll call it. When we flash forward 7 years,

[20:59] the city does have substantially more number of short-term vacation rentals than

[21:04] number of short-term vacation rentals than we

[21:04] did back in 2019. They have become the most common complaint or the second most

[21:10] common complaint that this—

[21:12] that the Community Standards Division that Chase Bergeron manages.

[21:16] So we are hearing from our residents that they have become a concern in their

[21:21] neighborhoods.

[21:22] Right.

[21:24] And I want to assure both the planning board as well as the members of the public

[21:29] that the Community Standards Division is vigorously pursuing enforcement of any

[21:34] short-term vacation rentals that we are advised of where that particular host or

[21:40] property manager is not following the city's existing ordinance.

[21:44] Back in March of this year,

[21:46] we did have a number of residents from a variety of neighborhoods across the city

[21:51] come to a city commission meeting and under Citizens to Be Heard let the city

[21:57] commission know that there were short-term vacation rentals in their neighborhood

[22:02] that were were not being good neighbors.

[22:05] The hosts were not behaving, and that they were having, you know,

[22:09] an unfortunate impact on the neighborhoods.

[22:12] So at city administration's request,

[22:15] the Community Development Department began meeting again with city administration as

[22:20] well as with the city attorney's office to explore what would be the next best

[22:26] steps. The city attorney at that time recommended a 2-prong approach,

[22:30] the first being to reevaluate the existing short-term vacation rental ordinance that

[22:36] the city already had on the books, and that's why we are here this evening.

[22:41] They all— the city attorney also recommended that the city probably needed

[22:46] recommended that the city probably needed a

[22:46] stronger chronic nuisance ordinance that would be a companion to this particular

[22:51] ordinance that is in front of you this evening.

[22:55] So at this point, we are bringing both proposed ordinances forward as city staff

[23:00] proposed ordinances forward as city staff to

[23:00] the appropriate advisory boards and then ultimately to the city Commission in the

[23:06] form of a first and a second reading of 2 formal ordinances.

[23:10] As Planning Manager Austin referred to earlier,

[23:13] you're seeing one of those ordinances this evening because it is the ordinance that

[23:18] is in the Comprehensive Development Code.

[23:21] The second ordinance that the City Attorney had recommended will still be

[23:26] Attorney had recommended will still be coming

[23:27] forward, and those 2 ordinances will travel together to the City Commission for

[23:32] travel together to the City Commission for the

[23:32] City Commission's consideration.

[23:34] We have had a work session with the City Commission.

[23:38] The City Commission did give us direction on what they wanted to see in both

[23:43] ordinances, and so staff has been busy working on those items.

[23:47] Simultaneously, I do want to also let the Planning Board as well as the audience

[23:53] know that city administration is working with the police department to ensure that

[23:58] we have an— that the police department has the ability to begin tracking any

[24:03] complaints related to short-term vacation rentals,

[24:07] the community Standards Division also has a process for doing that,

[24:11] and the police department will also be looking at ways to track public nuisances

[24:17] which may not be short-term vacation rental related.

[24:20] So with that, I hope that kind of gave you a little bit of background for us to set

[24:26] the stage. And at this point, I will turn it over to Mr. Bergeron.

[24:30] Thank you.

[24:33] So to start with a little background information that both Ms. Reid and Mr.

[24:38] Austin have touched on,

[24:40] there are a few legislative pieces that we have to consider when in making

[24:45] amendments to the Comprehensive Development Code.

[24:48] The first would be the state statute 509.032, which was passed in 2011,

[24:53] which states that local governments cannot prohibit the operation of vacation

[24:58] rentals unless they had an ordinance on the books by June 1st, 2011. As Ms.

[25:03] Reed alluded to, our ordinance for short-term rentals was not passed until

[25:08] short-term rentals was not passed until 2019.

[25:09] So we would be preempted by the state statute to fully prohibit the operation of

[25:14] vacation rentals. Secondly, Senate Bill 180,

[25:17] which was passed in 2025 in response to the 2024 hurricane season to help aid

[25:22] recovery, has language that states that land development codes cannot be deemed

[25:28] land development codes cannot be deemed more

[25:28] burdensome or restrictive. That is set to expire October of next year.

[25:33] So the current The short-term rental ordinance covers things such as meeting

[25:38] ordinance covers things such as meeting the

[25:38] minimum life safety requirements through the Florida Building Code,

[25:43] the Florida Fire Code, and the Florida Life Safety Code.

[25:46] It also requires these rentals to comply with State Statute 515,

[25:51] which is the Residential Swimming Pool Safety Act.

[25:54] We require internal postings which has relevant information regarding where the

[25:59] closest hospital is, other emergency numbers, trash pickup days,

[26:04] and other relevant local ordinances that all guests need to apply by.

[26:08] And then lastly, we do require the posting of a designated responsible party.

[26:14] This is an individual who is required to respond to any issues at the property

[26:19] within 2 hours of receiving a complaint.

[26:22] Back in May of this year,

[26:23] we had a commission work session and were directed by the commission to update this

[26:29] ordinance. A few things the commission wanted to see was creating a registration

[26:34] process for all vacation rentals operating in the city.

[26:38] The community standards is currently reactive;

[26:41] we are not proactive in seeking out short-term rentals.

[26:45] So this would allow us to have a more comprehensive coverage and ensure that

[26:50] everyone is meeting the requirements of our ordinance.

[26:54] Additionally, they wanted to add enhanced enforcement options for those.

[26:59] Handful of nuisance properties. As Ms.

[27:01] Reed alluded to, this will be handled by creating a chronic nuisance ordinance,

[27:06] which is covered in Chapter 11 of the Code of Ordinances.

[27:10] Because that's in the Code of Ordinances,

[27:13] that will be heard before the commission slated for September 1st.

[27:18] Additionally, commission recommended hiring additional staff and utilizing

[27:23] hiring additional staff and utilizing software

[27:23] that will help us implement this program and provide a continued high level of

[27:28] customer service, not just for the host,

[27:31] but there are aspects of the software that will allow residents to submit complaints

[27:37] if they are next to some of those nuisance properties,

[27:40] and then either Community Standards or the police department would be able to react

[27:46] accordingly. And then finally,

[27:48] they also recommended implementing a registration fee to help make the program

[27:53] overall cost-neutral.

[27:55] So there actually is a 3rd companion ordinance updating the fee schedule that

[28:00] ordinance updating the fee schedule that we

[28:00] will be bringing forward with both this comprehensive development code update and

[28:06] the chronic nuisance update.

[28:07] So going off of the commission's recommendations,

[28:11] these are the updates we're proposing to Section 15.18,

[28:14] expanding the life safety minimums through the Florida Administrative Code and

[28:20] specific codes within Chapter 18 of the comprehensive development code,

[28:25] expanding some of the required language in the internal posting that specifically

[28:30] covers language in the noise ordinance requiring that registration and annual

[28:35] renewals of the registration,

[28:37] along with life safety inspections through both the Community Standards Division and

[28:43] the fire department that would be conducted both at that initial

[28:47] conducted both at that initial registration and

[28:48] each annual renewal of the vacation rental.

[28:51] So as we touched on before,

[28:53] there will be a couple supplemental ordinances along with this short-term

[28:58] ordinances along with this short-term rental

[28:58] update. the chronic nuisance ordinance, which is in Chapter 11,

[29:03] and the update of the fee schedule,

[29:05] which will cover those registration and renewal fees.

[29:09] Additionally, staff will evaluate if updates or changes need to be made to this

[29:14] ordinance or the chronic nuisance ordinance once Senate Bill 180 expires

[29:19] ordinance once Senate Bill 180 expires next year.

[29:19] So staff recommends the approval of Ordinance Number 2026-33,

[29:24] updating Section 15.18 regarding short-term rentals to include those

[29:28] short-term rentals to include those registration

[29:29] requirements and the additional life safety measures.

[29:33] And the first reading before the City Commission is slated for September 1st,

[29:38] Commission is slated for September 1st, 2026.

[29:38] And staff is available if you have any questions.

[29:41] I'm sure the board does have questions for staff.

[29:45] Um, just— I usually don't do this, um, and I swear this— I'm just— one question,

[29:50] I'll give it over to the rest of the board members.

[29:53] Will these ordinances be going to another citizen advisory board,

[29:58] or are they going straight to the commission?

[30:01] The chronic nuisance and the fee schedule update will both be going straight to the

[30:04] commission.

[30:05] Okay, so the Code Enforcement Board will not see—

[30:08] No, we do have a work session next week to cover the chronic nuisance and updates to

[30:14] this ordinance.

[30:15] Okay, because I, I really struggle with the Code Enforcement Board not being

[30:21] involved in They are the ones that are going to have to make the decisions on

[30:26] whether someone is or isn't in violation.

[30:29] They're the ones who know the loopholes that people are using.

[30:33] We can pass all the stuff we want up here, I'll be honest,

[30:37] but we're not the ones enforcing it. I just want to be clear on that. Go ahead.

[30:43] Just a follow-up to that, Chair Fostini.

[30:45] We have found that the Municipal Code Enforcement Board has been very supportive

[30:50] Enforcement Board has been very supportive of

[30:51] staff recommendations as we've brought violators forward.

[30:54] So we do feel like we have their support. They understand the issue very well.

[30:59] Staff makes very detailed presentations when there are violations of short-term

[31:04] vacation rental hosts or property managers.

[31:07] So we feel like they're very knowledgeable at this point, if that's helpful to know.

[31:13] Yes. It's just— it's hard when we're getting half of the picture,

[31:17] and I understand how we have to get half of the picture because of the way our code

[31:24] and city charter works.

[31:25] But I just— there are real questions that I have that I can't answer for the code

[31:31] enforcement on how they're going to enforce things.

[31:35] So if there's an after-action complaint and a code officer doesn't get there and

[31:41] doesn't see the party and then there's no violation,

[31:45] What does the Code Enforcement Board have to use to issue a violation?

[31:50] I think probably, um, Mr. Bergeron could address that question for you.

[31:54] So in instances like an after-hours party,

[31:56] we would coordinate with police department.

[31:59] We've actually had a similar case where we used their event report and their body

[32:03] cam footage to document the violation.

[32:05] So as long as we have documentation of a violation,

[32:08] we can bring that forward to the code board.

[32:11] Okay, but that's only if we have the police come out.

[32:14] And I'm not— and again, I understand you guys are doing the best you can.

[32:19] So please do not— I just— we have to ask some tough questions on this.

[32:23] Our police department is currently understaffed.

[32:27] I believe we are understaffed by 18 positions.

[32:30] Does the police department have the manpower to support extra enforcement in

[32:34] manpower to support extra enforcement in the way

[32:35] you're saying to? So because what I think is going to happen in most cases is our

[32:40] cops are going to be dealing with more serious events.

[32:44] And a nuisance call is going to have the lowest priority.

[32:47] It's going to be 30 to—

[32:49] 30 minutes to an hour before a cop might get out there in many cases.

[32:53] And then again, the violation is done. It's gone. There's no evidence.

[32:58] So I'm trying— this is my real struggle with us not looking at the other

[33:03] with us not looking at the other enforcement

[33:03] piece.

[33:04] But that's just— excuse me— one aspect of, you know, a potential violation.

[33:09] They still would have to go through the registration process.

[33:13] There are still other violations they may be noncompliant with.

[33:18] Okay.

[33:22] I'm good for now. Anyone? Yeah, I have a question.

[33:25] Tell us a little bit about the process.

[33:28] Thank you so much. You mentioned after hours.

[33:31] You know, if a citizen had a concern and it's doing—

[33:35] traditional business hours, who would they call?

[33:39] Would they call the police, or would they call Community Standards?

[33:43] I mean, who would respond to that?

[33:46] So this is a process we would— excuse me— still be in setting up.

[33:50] Some of the software we're looking at has the capability of having a 24-hour

[33:55] hotline. They can actually first contact that designated responsible party I

[34:00] mentioned earlier in the presentation.

[34:02] If that designated responsible party is not capable of correcting the issue,

[34:07] then they can actually contact the city's non-emergency line.

[34:11] And then the police would respond?

[34:14] Yes.

[34:14] But they're short-staffed.

[34:17] Yes.

[34:20] I have some concerns. Me too.

[34:23] I have a question. So we received some emails and letters from

[34:29] the citizens with ideas that incorporate some other methods of

[34:36] enforcement and things that they felt were missing from both the

[34:43] current ordinance and the revised version.

[34:47] So were you able to look at those?

[34:50] Were you able to look at those with legal staff?

[34:56] Yes.

[34:56] And is there any Is there any chance that some of those

[35:00] ideas could be incorporated into the revised ordinance?

[35:04] Yes. As we mentioned, you know,

[35:06] some of those are preempted by either the state statute prohibiting the restriction

[35:11] of short-term rentals or Senate Bill 180.

[35:14] Some of the other issues they brought forward are actually already addressed.

[35:18] They may not be specifically in this code, but as Mr.

[35:21] Austin mentioned, they are still beholden to any other ordinance within the city.

[35:26] You know, we see common violations— building without permit, trash, noise,

[35:31] building without permit, trash, noise, parking—

[35:31] those are all violations that get to be handled in those city codes.

[35:35] They don't have to be specifically spelled out in the short-term violation in order

[35:40] us— in order for us to cite a short-term rental for those violations.

[35:44] I think it— in reading what people have submitted,

[35:49] it seems that they are just completely unable to reach the people who are

[35:55] unable to reach the people who are supposed

[35:56] to be managing these Airbnbs. They're just MIA.

[36:00] They may not even live in the state or city.

[36:04] So if that person is not actively involved,

[36:07] and even though having somebody officially designated,

[36:12] I don't think that would violate—

[36:15] I don't think making stricter requirements for the person who's designated as the

[36:22] property manager overseer of that Airbnb to have backup people if they're out of

[36:29] town, or who's the 24-hour person if you're managing—

[36:33] a lot of these are corporations, so if they're managing multiple Airbnbs,

[36:39] they should have a 24-hour maintenance property manager person that people could

[36:46] contact. I think it would be good to have more language in the revision that would

[36:53] address those concerns. That wouldn't be prohibitive in any way, I don't think.

[37:00] I mean, I'm not a lawyer,

[37:02] but I don't think it would be prohibitive to Senate Bill 180.

[37:08] Hi, good evening. Hi, Sarah Allen, the city attorney.

[37:11] Just to— a lot of the concerns are actually Going to be addressed in the

[37:16] actually Going to be addressed in the chronic

[37:16] nuisance. So, for example, one, you bringing up the designated individual,

[37:21] if they're not responsive.

[37:23] So once we've identified that we've got this chronic nuisance,

[37:27] and whether it's from failing to fill out the form accurately,

[37:31] but a collective of nuisance activities, they go on,

[37:35] they have an option for a nuisance plan.

[37:37] And because the enforcement component of this isn't before you, So, you know,

[37:42] if they're not going to be able to pay for it,

[37:45] that's why there's some additional questions.

[37:48] But they have the ability to put them on a plan.

[37:51] And so one of those plans would be 24/7 contact.

[37:55] We can— there's been some jurisdictions that have required them to have security,

[38:00] that have required them to check in, you know, frequently,

[38:04] depending on the level of nuisance.

[38:06] Speaking to some of the emails that we received, you know,

[38:10] one of the issues I saw earlier was about the parking.

[38:13] is it identifies the permitted parking, how many spots,

[38:17] and then there has to be a location.

[38:20] So they, they have to identify as part of their registration,

[38:24] this is where the cars can park.

[38:26] So that makes the enforcement much easier,

[38:28] and that's enforcement that's easier for a code enforcement officer rather than

[38:34] strictly relying on police,

[38:35] which those would be more of the egregious late-night nuisance activity.

[38:40] But some of the day-to-day stuff that falls within the standard purview of code

[38:45] would be addressed. So, um,

[38:47] there are methods in the chronic nuisance ordinance that would allow us to

[38:52] progressively address these.

[38:54] Um, these— they— these property owners are property owners.

[38:58] They do have some property rights.

[39:00] So we still need to ensure that we're providing due process for everybody, um,

[39:05] and balancing that with the nuisance activity that's impeding their neighboring

[39:10] property owners. So we do have that.

[39:13] We've got a process that allows us to implement these maybe stricter enforcement

[39:18] implement these maybe stricter enforcement and

[39:18] tracking methodologies.

[39:20] But we need to be able to track it, provide justification, due process,

[39:24] give them notice. So that is worked into the other component,

[39:28] which is why this is coming forward in 2 different parts. Got it. Thank you.

[39:33] Ms. Allen, before you go, I have a question.

[39:37] So, in Ellis County last year passed short-term rental regulations for

[39:42] unincorporated. Our ordinance seems watered down in comparison to that.

[39:47] I understand we have a difference with the occupancy in our land code,

[39:52] so we can't really do anything about that because of Senate Bill 180.

[39:57] But the certificate of use for making sure the life safety standards are met,

[40:03] Having a detailed, drawn parking plan, not just designating a space.

[40:08] Those were all things that were included in the county's ordinance.

[40:12] And they had no— correct me if I'm wrong—

[40:15] they were like Largo and had no regulations on short-term rentals before

[40:21] regulations on short-term rentals before 2011?

[40:21] I am not sure about their preemption. I did look at that code.

[40:25] So, I think we're on the same page.

[40:27] There's— it's just more verbose,

[40:29] but requiring them to have a parking plan that identifies the number and location of

[40:35] parking. I'm not sure we need plans rather than we have a parking spot here and,

[40:40] you know, this is the front of the house and this is where they're parking.

[40:44] So we still have the same requirements. We do not have a certificate of use.

[40:49] That would require implementation of a program we don't have.

[40:53] So we're going with the registration. It's more practical.

[40:58] challenging.

[40:59] There's been some questions about challenging, whereas, you know,

[41:03] requiring a registration that's consistent with something we have already on the

[41:09] books is a lot less likely to be challenged. It gives us a lot more room.

[41:14] And so that was something we were balancing, looking at,

[41:18] that we're not adding new regulations. We're not making it more burdensome.

[41:24] We're just saying, okay, this is what we require,

[41:27] and so we're clarifying this is how we need to establish that.

[41:32] But the requirements are the same. It's just maybe it's not—

[41:38] I get what you're saying.

[41:39] We're still requiring it. We're just not using as many words.

[41:42] Just to clarify, Pinellas County,

[41:44] their short-term vacation rental ordinance is actually in their code of ordinances,

[41:47] not their comprehensive development codes.

[41:49] I've actually spoken to a few Pinellas County staff.

[41:52] That's sort of— they feel like they're not as beholden to Senate Bill 180 as we do.

[41:56] Okay.

[41:57] That makes a lot of sense, actually.

[41:59] The one thing I did have, last question for you, is I know when we did our CRD,

[42:05] I think for the Clearwater Largo Road District,

[42:09] we put specific language in there that wouldn't go into effect until Senate Bill

[42:14] wouldn't go into effect until Senate Bill 180

[42:15] expires. Why are we not doing this here?

[42:17] So that's not exactly the case.

[42:20] So we carved out— we specifically wrote that ordinance with the understanding that

[42:25] we were not putting anything in there that was more restrictive or burdensome per

[42:31] Senate Bill 180. That caveat language at the top was basically indicating that if

[42:36] for whatever reason, you know,

[42:38] because we added so much new language per those sections by, you know,

[42:43] adding all that related to both CRDs,

[42:45] that if for whatever reason there was something we added that did happen to,

[42:50] you know, essentially we missed something and it did happen to be more restrictive

[42:56] or burdensome than say what a development could have done under a commercial general

[43:01] category that was now brought into that,

[43:04] that whatever was less restrictive would essentially govern until the expiration of

[43:10] Senate Bill 180.

[43:11] Okay.

[43:12] I actually wrote parking down and circled it in big letters before you came to the

[43:15] podium there. Um, when someone brings a business into Largo,

[43:18] they're required to have a certain number of parking spaces to suit the building and

[43:22] the type of business. Why can't we do that for the, uh, these vacation rentals?

[43:26] If they have X number of rooms,

[43:28] They need to have a requirement to have a certain amount of parking available for

[43:33] those rooms. Well, they're limited by parking already in the code.

[43:37] They're already limited. So when they have that many cars, that's a violation.

[43:41] The— but you have to balance that with where all the single-family homes are

[43:46] where all the single-family homes are subject

[43:46] to the same parking requirements.

[43:48] You have a lot of people over for a holiday dinner,

[43:51] we're not necessarily going to give you a code violation.

[43:55] But, you know, we do have— we now have this language in there,

[43:59] and so we've identified that this is sort of chronic,

[44:02] and they can go out and they have the parking plan.

[44:05] So we do have parking limitations on these properties.

[44:08] It's how do you necessarily know that it's, you know, for them?

[44:12] So there are some challenges.

[44:14] This just makes it a little easier for us to enforce rather than You know,

[44:18] if they were to go now, it's,

[44:20] I'm going to knock on everyone's door and identify whose car and where they're

[44:25] coming from, which house they're coming from.

[44:27] Mm-hmm.

[44:27] So it makes it a little bit easier. And then their burden goes back on them.

[44:33] We cite for the code. They have to establish that it wasn't them.

[44:37] So some of this is just to address some of those things.

[44:41] And to the Senate Bill 180 language,

[44:43] the preemption that we're governed by actually provides for a cause of action

[44:48] actually provides for a cause of action for

[44:48] any resident. if we were in violation of it.

[44:51] So you don't want to pass a code that you know is in violation of Senate Bill 180

[44:57] because you open yourself up to being challenged by anybody.

[45:01] They don't necessarily have to be subjected to it. Is the occupants—

[45:06] I read something from one of our citizens about the occupancy.

[45:10] Can you speak a little bit to that?

[45:13] Because that would be kind of hard to enforce,

[45:16] like if they have so many bedrooms So you notice some activity coming and going.

[45:21] How do you address that? Absolutely.

[45:24] So the occupancy is— it is challenging to enforce from that perspective.

[45:28] Obviously, because of Senate Bill 180, we can't reduce occupancy.

[45:33] That's clearly a more burdensome development regulation.

[45:37] The reason that it is beneficial in this context for short-term rentals is when

[45:42] context for short-term rentals is when they

[45:42] register and they identify this is what the occupancy is permitted for that home,

[45:48] it's much easier for code enforcement, 'cause then when you do that,

[45:52] you also add language that says if you violate,

[45:56] if you advertise for a higher occupancy, that's a violation.

[46:00] Mm-hmm.

[46:00] And so it, what it does is it creates the easier evidence for us to say, okay,

[46:05] your occupancy is 10, but you're advertising this,

[46:09] which we can just print out as for 22 people, sleeps up to 22.

[46:13] And so then that's just a violation. So then you can add that to the violation.

[46:18] It doesn't solve the problem.

[46:20] It isn't a magic pill that now they're shut down automatically.

[46:24] It just gives us another avenue of recourse to address some of the issues.

[46:29] Without that advertising language,

[46:31] then you are in a challenge of how do you know if they're occupying it or not?

[46:36] So you add it with the language about advertising.

[46:39] Does anyone have any other questions for Ms. Allen?

[46:44] I think my question may be for Chase or Sherri.

[46:46] Yeah, I have more questions. I didn't want to make you stand up.

[46:49] Okay, I'll get up if I need to. Thank you.

[46:51] Uh, Miss Hall.

[46:53] Um, so, uh, one of the comments was regarding a physical on-site inspection

[47:00] requirement, um, and we have a volunteer police department.

[47:06] We have cars that say volunteer, and they're part of—

[47:11] there's some kind of volunteer for the Largo Police Department.

[47:16] I don't know what their limitations are. I don't know what their role is.

[47:23] But would we be able to utilize them to do some of the enforcement?

[47:30] So we are actually adding staff,

[47:31] we'll have an additional code officer who will just be doing short-term rental

[47:36] inspections, that'll be their primary duty.

[47:38] I believe we are also adding a fire inspector because there is both a

[47:42] inspector because there is both a community

[47:42] standards inspection and a fire inspection.

[47:44] So those 2 new inspectors will primarily be handling,

[47:47] handling just the short-term rental inspections.

[47:50] And those are requirements to operate.

[47:52] So if you don't have those inspections, okay, you're in violation.

[47:56] We can't stop you from operating, but you would be found in violation.

[47:59] We would bring those violations in front of the code board,

[48:03] and the code board would then, you know,

[48:05] make their decision based on the evidence we provide.

[48:09] And have you thought about having somebody on code

[48:14] enforcement staff, one of the officers on call for

[48:19] after-hours issues?

[48:21] We've had discussions on it, yes.

[48:22] Okay.

[48:23] Okay. So I'm going to ask one more. Go ahead, Ms.— Chase, one—

[48:28] some of the comments that we've seen from the citizens refer to not being able to

[48:33] track and be aware of the status of a code issue.

[48:35] Is there such a vehicle that people can actually see what's gone on,

[48:39] what's going on, and what's transpired? Yes.

[48:41] So currently, we are handling all short-term rentals as code cases.

[48:45] So with our current software called LCAP, you can go in if you know the address,

[48:50] or if you have a case number, you can literally type that in the search bar,

[48:55] and it'll bring up and show you the status.

[48:57] And, you know, what the current situation is on that property.

[49:01] So there are ways online you can check.

[49:04] Anyone can check?

[49:04] I could just do that as a random—

[49:05] okay.

[49:06] Okay, but you need the case number?

[49:08] Or the address.

[49:09] Or the address. Okay.

[49:11] Because if you search by address, it would show you everything related,

[49:13] whether it was a code case, a permit, but then you'd be able to click and see, oh,

[49:16] there's a short-term rental violation. Let me see what's going on there.

[49:19] Okay. Have we looked at our surrounding communities, Indian Ranch, Madera?

[49:24] You know, how are they addressing this?

[49:27] Because I assume that all of short-term vacation rentals have increased.

[49:35] They have, and, you know,

[49:36] some communities have been more aggressive in their ordinance,

[49:40] and as Attorney Allen mentioned,

[49:41] they are actually facing some legal challenges based on the languages they

[49:46] challenges based on the languages they have in

[49:46] their ordinance. So we have to be careful, not just Senate Bill 180,

[49:50] but the state has made it very clear that they don't like codes written specifically

[49:54] targeting short-term rentals. They've tried passing legislation to ban them.

[49:58] And I think that's a good point.

[50:00] of legislation in the past, haven't been successful yet,

[50:03] but they have tried to advance legislation saying, hey,

[50:06] you can't write codes targeting short-term rentals.

[50:09] It's got to be for your community as a whole.

[50:11] So that's why when it comes to trash, parking, noise, any of those things,

[50:15] we utilize what's already in our code of ordinances for these properties.

[50:19] That's interesting.

[50:20] Okay. And so I'm going to go ahead.

[50:22] I just— I know we all have more questions,

[50:24] but I think it's time to open it up to the public and hear from them.

[50:28] I did want you guys, though,

[50:29] to hear a little bit of our conversation and where we were at so you weren't coming

[50:34] in blind when you were addressing us.

[50:36] So that's— normally we would have gone straight to citizens' comment,

[50:39] but I wanted you to hear those answers and questions. So whenever we're ready, Ms.

[50:43] Jarvis. Okay.

[50:44] We have 11 cards. First, Stephen Ives.

[50:48] Can you come up to the microphone, please?

[50:56] Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Ives.

[50:58] Thank you so much. Just right up at the podium here.

[51:02] Well, I, I'm currently waiting for about 3 returns from the police department to

[51:08] return my calls over the last couple of months about calling on violations over 10

[51:14] o'clock. And when I call them initially, One police department couldn't handle it.

[51:20] They said, on these days we don't handle it, but you call me.

[51:24] And he gave me another number and I called them and they said, okay, well,

[51:29] if somebody, you know, if we can handle it, we will, we do it.

[51:34] And so I know that I'm not getting too much support there.

[51:38] Now, the other thing is, what I'm hearing is this is a loser, okay?

[51:43] Financially a loser. Why do you want to keep it? Just shut it down.

[51:47] What do you want to do this for? It doesn't make sense.

[51:51] Everybody has the same problems.

[51:54] These people go in there, they're loud, they're rude, and they have a ton of cars,

[51:59] and it's not their neighborhood, and they're not just short-term.

[52:04] They're only there for usually a week, if that. It doesn't make sense.

[52:09] It just poisons the neighborhood. It just does.

[52:12] So, I mean, I've been living across 3 Airbnbs.

[52:16] I live on Allen Creek, and, uh, and, and they're just,

[52:20] they're just having a great time, you know. They're having a good time.

[52:25] It's about 20, 30 people. That's probably not what they say is in there.

[52:30] And it's just, it just doesn't make any sense.

[52:33] So now that I'm listening to that, it's a problem for you to manage. Why manage it?

[52:39] Shut it down.

[52:40] We can't.

[52:40] We don't need It's just a bother to us, and and it's very unsafe.

[52:45] There's things that go on, and I've reported a couple of things, and and

[52:49] reported a couple of things, and and again,

[52:50] I haven't heard anything about them.

[52:52] But it's very unsafe,

[52:53] and I'm sure there are things happening that that you probably won't let us know

[52:59] what's going on, and it should be shut down. That's what you got to do.

[53:03] Take care of it that way. You're in charge. It's a problem.

[53:07] You're not going to make any money here. So that's all I have to say.

[53:12] Thank you so much. Now, we're normally not going to have a front and back dialogue.

[53:17] I just want to address something on behalf of this board and staff.

[53:22] A lot of us agree 100% with what this gentleman just said,

[53:26] but the state has taken away our right to be able to ban short-term rentals.

[53:31] So I would— we are trying to do everything we can,

[53:34] and this board is going to ask as many questions as we can to make our

[53:39] questions as we can to make our restrictions

[53:39] as tight as possible within the legal bounds the state of Florida has given us.

[53:45] But if you want real change, you do need to reach out to your state legislatures,

[53:50] and they need to change the law to allow us to have home rule and be able to

[53:55] regulate these items. What's their opinion about keeping it?

[53:59] You would have to ask them. They're in Tallahassee. I can't speak for them.

[54:04] Thank you so much. Next.

[54:05] Okay.

[54:07] Dagan Harris.

[54:07] I'm Dagan Harris. I'm at 1914 Cope Lane, and I can tell you I am frustrated beyond.

[54:13] And what I've heard today just pisses me— frustrates me more.

[54:18] What I hear is you're going to probably charge us some more taxes.

[54:23] I need more people. I need more software, which is ridiculous. We have AI now.

[54:28] There's a way to solve this better, faster.

[54:31] I can't believe we haven't got to that point.

[54:35] You got code enforcement, what, 4 to 6? Take one of them.

[54:39] She just said this is a high priority for us.

[54:42] Take one, take 2, and be a nuisance to the people who are a nuisance to us.

[54:48] All I hear is giving fines. They don't talk. Knock on their doors.

[54:52] Make their, their customers frustrated because they're leaving trash out there.

[54:58] Thank you.

[54:59] their bin doors either parking all over the place.

[55:02] You have that power to do something. Finally, you said, well, we can't do

[55:07] Finally, you said, well, we can't do anything.

[55:08] It's up to the state legislation. Well, that's true.

[55:11] But there is something that you guys can do.

[55:14] And you are part of the Florida League of Cities.

[55:17] There's 411-ish counties, cities where their attorneys collect.

[55:21] And all of you who know this is a problem and come together as one,

[55:25] quit fighting them individually.

[55:27] Thank you.

[55:28] And go up there and do something about it. Quit putting it on us.

[55:31] You have the ability, but you're doing nothing. You're giving us paperwork.

[55:35] We're going to do this. We're going to raise your taxes.

[55:38] But we don't want to make it too nuisance for them as they're making nuisance for

[55:42] us. What I'd love to see is give— instead of us asking you for the data,

[55:46] show me the data of where the calls— we'll give you the data all day long.

[55:50] You can make an online form.

[55:51] We can fill it out, give you pictures, tell us what you need.

[55:55] We'll give you as much data as you want.

[55:57] You should be able to share that data today so that we know.

[56:00] You know your top 4 to 5 nuisances. Start with them. Don't go hit all 400.

[56:04] That'll take forever. Take the top 5. Hit them first.

[56:06] And when you're done with them, they'll start talking. Go to the next one.

[56:10] And as you're doing that, go to the city. Take the league, the city league, 411.

[56:14] Go do something about it. Go talk with us. You guys are on that board.

[56:18] What are you doing? I don't— I see nothing on that board talking about this.

[56:22] Thank you.

[56:23] So I'd love to see you get on that board and do something about it and go be a

[56:27] nuisance to the top one. Start there. You got the, um, the code enforcement.

[56:31] Pick a couple of those and do something. We don't need to add more.

[56:34] Is that—

[56:35] what's the priority? She just said that's the highest priority. Adjust them.

[56:40] Show us you mean it, not talk about it. Thank you. Thank you.

[56:44] And if we got to do— we're good.

[56:46] We'll go as long as we need to tonight, to be honest.

[56:50] We're gonna, we're gonna talk this out as a community.

[56:53] I want you all to know we are not elected officials.

[56:56] We are all citizen volunteers up here. We do not make a single penny doing this.

[57:01] So I, I just— we are not members of the Florida League of Cities.

[57:06] We are just regular citizens like you who are trying to serve our community and

[57:11] advise our commission. Um, next person.

[57:13] Okay.

[57:14] Yes, I am your elected, and I will say I'm sorry.

[57:21] Hello.

[57:21] I, I'm one of your electeds and I'm a member of the Florida League of Cities,

[57:25] and I will tell you that that is something, uh,

[57:28] all the cities have been talking about on this, their lawyers, uh, and staff,

[57:32] and have been directing our staff how to do this.

[57:35] Um, so this is something,

[57:36] if you really truly want change and give it back to us and give this board a

[57:40] direction, is to reach out to your state legislators and your governor and let them

[57:45] know to give this back to us.

[57:47] Home rule.

[57:47] How many cities?

[57:48] 411.

[57:49] I question that. And I'll get you the information for it.

[57:53] I absolutely will. Because trust me,

[57:55] we've sat in many meetings with Florida League of Cities and challenged it.

[57:58] Every time I've gone up to Tallahassee to lobby up there,

[58:01] their lawyers have been there trying to convince legislators that this law is

[58:04] affecting cities.

[58:06] So I'll get you the complete information.

[58:07] I'll also get your state representatives' information to you.

[58:10] Because honestly, I sometimes question why aren't they at these meetings helping us

[58:14] out.

[58:15] So thank you.

[58:15] And one thing that just Commissioner Smith made me think of too is Commissioner

[58:20] Flowers, who's a county commissioner.

[58:22] She's actually the president of the Florida League of Counties.

[58:26] Oh, no, no, you're fine.

[58:29] It is a different organization, but it represents all the counties in our state,

[58:34] and she has been pushing very hard to talk to the legislature about this too.

[58:38] So on every, on every level, we are trying to get that communication out.

[58:43] I appreciate that. I would love to see the code enforcement start being nuanced.

[58:47] And I promise you we're going to talk about that later.

[58:51] So I promise you, once we get through public comment, we have—

[58:54] we're going to talk much more about that.

[58:57] Okay.

[58:59] Denae Goltepe.

[59:01] Hi, everybody.

[59:08] Hi.

[59:08] I'm a little out of my comfort zone here.

[59:11] Public speaking is just something that brings me a lot of anxiety,

[59:15] but I feel that I have to do this today because my situation is a little bit

[59:19] because my situation is a little bit unique

[59:19] other than a lot of people's because, first of all, my name is Danae Goltepe.

[59:24] I live at 1983 Bel Air Road. My house is the one that is in the red.

[59:28] And if you can see this, this is Bel Air Road. This is my house. This is 1995.

[59:34] I'm sorry.

[59:35] Bel Air Road. This is an Airbnb.

[59:38] They have to use my private property, my easement, to make—

[59:43] to basically access their property.

[59:46] This is not just a noise issue.

[59:48] It affects my property, my safety, and my quality of life.

[59:53] Um, we own and maintain this private road that provides access to this rental.

[59:58] I pay for its upkeep, and yet it is now heavily used by guests, many guests.

[1:00:04] I don't know if you saw on here, this house is advertised for 16 people. 16.

[1:00:10] And it always has 16 people.

[1:00:13] My driveway, it is getting wear and tear. There's congestion.

[1:00:18] And it's also a one-lane road that dead ends into my property,

[1:00:22] which is surrounded by water.

[1:00:24] That's my only way in and out.

[1:00:27] One of the reasons I'm standing here to talk talk about is because we've had

[1:00:30] talk talk about is because we've had several

[1:00:31] safety issues.

[1:00:32] One of them happened on August 27th, 2025.

[1:00:36] This is kind of like a picture of my,

[1:00:39] my long driveway.

[1:00:41] I mean, it's, it's 2/10 of a mile long. This is a picture of the driveway.

[1:00:45] This man, Life Flight had to be called.

[1:00:48] He hit a pediatric patient.

[1:00:52] They had to shut down Bel Air Boulevard and he had to be life flighted.

[1:00:56] He was— they speed, they don't follow the stop sign.

[1:00:58] There's— I mean, there was over 100 people at this wedding.

[1:01:02] I couldn't—

[1:01:02] I can't leave my house. The traffic is unbelievable.

[1:01:06] On top of incidences like that, I don't know if you could tell,

[1:01:09] I'm 5 feet tall, I'm 120 pounds.

[1:01:11] Sometimes there's incidences where I have to drive.

[1:01:14] Like, I don't even ride my bike to the park anymore because there have been times

[1:01:19] there's 20 drunk men waiting for an Uber On my driveway, I've been catcalled.

[1:01:25] I've been called white trash by telling people to slow down.

[1:01:29] I've been referred to as a bitch, and this is all on my own property.

[1:01:34] Um, I also brought a tax bill, uh, because I want you to know this,

[1:01:39] that $19,416.62 is what I paid in taxes for my piece of property in 2025. Thank

[1:01:45] for my piece of property in 2025. Thank you.

[1:01:45] I've had that property since 2015, so probably since 2018 when we built that,

[1:01:50] I've probably put over 6 figures into that house for taxes, and I don't feel safe.

[1:01:56] And they have to use my private property to access that house.

[1:02:01] So how are we going to address something like this? One, I have to pay for all

[1:02:06] like this? One, I have to pay for all that.

[1:02:07] The city of Largo is not offering me money to come pave my driveway.

[1:02:11] And so, but then again, how are we going to stop these people, like, just

[1:02:17] to stop these people, like, just lingering.

[1:02:18] I mean, it's happened numerous times, and I'm up here literally shaking.

[1:02:21] So thank you for your time.

[1:02:23] Thank you so much. I'm so sorry for what you're going through.

[1:02:26] Thank you.

[1:02:26] I just want to say to the citizen that

[1:02:32] spoke, I am truly sorry this is happening to

[1:02:39] you.

[1:02:39] You should feel safe in your community.

[1:02:42] Honestly, I really don't. I feel trapped in that house.

[1:02:45] But I'd like to see an ordinance made that, you know,

[1:02:48] houses that have to use easements or have to use other people's property,

[1:02:53] that they limit those. They cannot be like any shorter than 30 days.

[1:02:57] We can eliminate some of those weddings and those bachelor parties and those 20

[1:03:01] drunk men lingering on my private property.

[1:03:04] Thank you for taking the time to listen to me.

[1:03:07] Thank you.

[1:03:08] Thank you for sharing your story. It means a lot. Okay.

[1:03:15] Jeff Albenson.

[1:03:15] Hello. I'm Jeff Albenson.

[1:03:18] I have to tell you I'm an attorney, not that that matters,

[1:03:23] and not that I'm here in any kind of attorney capacity,

[1:03:28] but the bar rules suggest that I make sure you guys know that.

[1:03:33] I also at times work in the civic sector,

[1:03:37] so I'm pretty familiar with what your job is and what your role is.

[1:03:42] I don't want to waste a bunch of time talking about how ridiculous 180 is and

[1:03:49] talking about how ridiculous 180 is and what

[1:03:50] the state has done to us because there's nothing you folks can do about it.

[1:03:56] I do want to give you a little bit of an idea about how—

[1:04:01] what I think about this ordinance change.

[1:04:05] And then I want to give you a little bit of information.

[1:04:10] My real concern is with the life safety issues that are presented by these

[1:04:16] properties, and I'll talk about that in just a second.

[1:04:21] What, what I'm concerned with in regard to this proposed ordinance,

[1:04:27] this proposed legislation, is that, um, there's a requirement for registration,

[1:04:34] but there are no teeth to that requirement.

[1:04:37] There's nothing in there that says if you don't comply,

[1:04:42] we'll pull your registration, we'll pull your ability to run your business.

[1:04:49] That should be in there, and you have the right under the state law To do that,

[1:04:56] to say exactly that.

[1:04:57] Because if if you have the right to require a registration,

[1:05:03] then you have the right to enforce that registration.

[1:05:07] And there's nothing in here to take take up with that.

[1:05:12] There's a couple things that I'm a little confused about.

[1:05:17] Early in the in the ordinance, it talks about.

[1:05:21] Complying with the Uniform Fire Safety Standards for transient public lodging,

[1:05:28] but then when you jump down to the pool,

[1:05:31] it just says that there's a requirement to comply with the residential pool,

[1:05:38] which is basically have a fence around it. This is what I want to tell you, okay?

[1:05:45] Every city is dealing with this kind of stuff.

[1:05:49] every area, and especially places like we have, nice, close to the beaches,

[1:05:56] plenty of stuff to do and places to eat and all of that.

[1:06:01] West Manatee— oh, I'm sorry, West Manatee dealt with the same situation.

[1:06:07] They beefed up their transient, you know, whatever they called their ordinance.

[1:06:14] Before they did, and this, this is one of the things that's blowing me away here,

[1:06:21] that, that there's— we don't even know how many of these exist.

[1:06:26] It says between 400 and 600. That's a huge difference.

[1:06:31] And I think we, we should know. I'm sorry.

[1:06:35] No, you can finish your sentence.

[1:06:36] Okay, thank you. So, um,

[1:06:38] We should know how many there are because we should be collecting at least the

[1:06:46] registration fee, and the registration fee should reflect the idea that we have

[1:06:53] to hire a new code inspector and a new person at the fire department,

[1:07:00] which I'm going to guess is $80,000, $90,000,

[1:07:04] $100,000 a year salary for the fire, and I don't know, $50,000, $60,000,

[1:07:11] $70,000 for the code. That's a lot of money.

[1:07:16] When West Manatee looked at their stats before—

[1:07:20] this is the West Manatee Special Fire Control District—

[1:07:25] when they looked at their statistics, once they enacted a new ordinance,

[1:07:32] the fire rate went down.

[1:07:35] Before they enacted that new legislation, Over 70, I think it was 73 or 74,

[1:07:42] but it's over 70% of the structural residential fires in their fire control

[1:07:49] district, which is about the same size as Pinellas Suncoast.

[1:07:55] Over 70% of the fires were at short-term rentals.

[1:08:00] That tells you the kind of burden that these entities I do need you to wrap it

[1:08:07] up.

[1:08:08] I just wanted you to finish your thought.

[1:08:09] 100% of the drownings or near drownings were at short-term rentals.

[1:08:14] When they changed their ordinance and they beefed it up and they put some teeth in

[1:08:20] where they could pull certificates,

[1:08:22] it went down to 14% of the fires and zero of the drownings.

[1:08:27] drownings near drownings.

[1:08:29] So that's the kind of thing that I'd like to see you folks do.

[1:08:33] I know what your limitations are, and I appreciate it,

[1:08:37] and I'm sorry to everybody for going over,

[1:08:40] but I think it's important information to understand how this impacts the community

[1:08:46] long-term.

[1:08:47] Thank you. Thank you so much, sir.

[1:08:54] Michael Schaefer.

[1:09:00] Good evening, everyone.

[1:09:01] Good evening.

[1:09:02] My name is Michael Schaefer. I live at 706 Shore Drive in Largo.

[1:09:06] I live on, um, Ellen's Creek, if you're familiar with Ellen's Creek.

[1:09:10] I have 2 VRBOs on the opposite side of the water from me,

[1:09:14] and has been a complete nightmare for us.

[1:09:17] When my wife and I bought the house almost 6 years to the day,

[1:09:21] we thought it would be a good place to retire. My wife's a flight attendant at

[1:09:26] retire. My wife's a flight attendant at St.

[1:09:26] Pete Clearwater Airport for Allegiant. It's close to her work.

[1:09:30] We figured we could see there. Boy, did that change in early 2023.

[1:09:35] I'm sorry, yeah, early 2023.

[1:09:37] I know your hands are tied, but it's been a complete nightmare for us now.

[1:09:42] I've had so many run-ins with the people across.

[1:09:45] I don't have to worry about parking, as many of these people do, because I have.

[1:09:50] 300, 200 feet of water. But they're down here from Michigan, wherever.

[1:09:55] They're here to party. I get it. They're here to Florida, have a good time.

[1:10:00] They have a—

[1:10:01] they feel like they have a right,

[1:10:03] they have an entitlement because they paid to be here.

[1:10:06] But what about my rights as a homeowner?

[1:10:09] I have, between my homeowner's insurance, my property taxes, everything,

[1:10:13] I'm out $16,000 a year, and it goes up all the time.

[1:10:17] I have rights as a homeowner as well.

[1:10:19] Again, I know you— your hands are tied, but something's got to give.

[1:10:23] Short-term rental does not belong in a residential area. It's a business.

[1:10:28] They're businesses. They don't belong in a residential area.

[1:10:32] We get a constant stream of strangers. I don't know who they are.

[1:10:36] My wife, when she gets home from work, my one thing— it's almost a joke now.

[1:10:41] We said, We got a new group over there.

[1:10:43] I can't say they're all bad, but it's almost a joke because are they going to

[1:10:48] almost a joke because are they going to be—

[1:10:48] are they going to oblige by the rules? Are they just going to be insane?

[1:10:53] We're talking about this. The guy right across the street, he lives in California.

[1:10:58] He doesn't care. He doesn't care. And we've had the police out there numerous

[1:11:03] we've had the police out there numerous times.

[1:11:03] You said you're short-staffed with police.

[1:11:06] They'll show up an hour and a half, 2 hours.

[1:11:08] The people across the street with their party, they'll turn the music up.

[1:11:13] Because they know the cops aren't going to be out there for a while.

[1:11:17] They almost thumb their noses at you. So something has to give, folks.

[1:11:22] Really, that's all I have to say.

[1:11:24] Thank you.

[1:11:24] Thank you. David Thornton. 2196 Lawrence Drive.

[1:11:29] I was going to read a brief statement.

[1:11:33] The city attorney, as you well know,

[1:11:36] has said with 180 can't change the occupancy limits right now.

[1:11:43] Well, that means that the 2 homes that are currently for sale on my street,

[1:11:50] Lawrence Drive, right now under the current occupancy caps,

[1:11:56] they could put 41 renters in one of them, 54 in the other. How about that?

[1:12:03] Thank you.

[1:12:04] We already have one short-term rental on our cul-de-sac.

[1:12:08] There's only 14 houses and one of them's a short-term rental now.

[1:12:12] He took the 3-car garage, turned it into a game room.

[1:12:16] He, uh, has pickleball courts out back. He's turned it into 7 bedrooms and 13

[1:12:21] He's turned it into 7 bedrooms and 13 beds.

[1:12:22] He advertises as a pickleball resort on Airbnb.

[1:12:25] If I wanted to live next to a resort, I'd have bought a house next to a resort.

[1:12:31] I bought a house on a quiet cul-de-sac, residentially zoned.

[1:12:35] So I'm not getting what I was looking for.

[1:12:38] And so because we don't have these occupancy caps,

[1:12:41] then that means that this ordinance that you're contemplating has to be very

[1:12:46] you're contemplating has to be very robust.

[1:12:47] It's got to protect the health, safety, and welfare of our neighborhoods.

[1:12:52] A detailed memo regarding some deficiencies, or perceived deficiencies.

[1:12:57] Maybe once we understand it, maybe we won't think they're deficiencies,

[1:13:02] but right now we think they're deficiencies. So the perceived

[1:13:06] deficiencies. So the perceived deficiencies— Dr.

[1:13:07] Callis, Dr. Mary Callis, I'm sure is probably here,

[1:13:11] wrote a very detailed memo about the perceived deficiencies.

[1:13:15] She also attached an ordinance from Hillsborough County which is working on

[1:13:20] Hillsborough County which is working on the same

[1:13:21] issue right now, and they have a draft ordinance under review.

[1:13:25] Their ordinance looks more robust than ours.

[1:13:28] And so my, my thought is it's not prudent to go ahead and pass this ordinance if you

[1:13:34] don't stop— We've had communication.

[1:13:37] The city has been very good about communicating with us,

[1:13:41] and the city attorney told us that she only recently saw Dr.

[1:13:45] Callis's email and the attached Hillsborough County ordinance.

[1:13:49] Well, I don't think it's prudent to go ahead and pass this without saying to her,

[1:13:55] hey, go back, take another look at it.

[1:13:57] Let's see if we— what we can do to make this more comprehensive, more robust.

[1:14:03] I like that word robust. More robust.

[1:14:05] And I want to be really clear,

[1:14:07] I am in no way criticizing the city attorney or the staff.

[1:14:11] I mean, they've been very responsive to us.

[1:14:14] I know this is the state's fault primarily.

[1:14:17] I just think that when I've got a situation where I could end up with 40 and

[1:14:23] situation where I could end up with 40 and 50

[1:14:23] people in houses on my street,

[1:14:25] that we should take the time to go back and have the city attorney look at what

[1:14:30] they're doing in Hillsborough, look at all of Dr.

[1:14:34] Callis's suggestions, and go through and write an analysis and say point by point,

[1:14:40] I can't do this, or I can't do that, and why.

[1:14:43] And if you do all that, then I'm happy you did everything you could.

[1:14:47] But right now, I'm not in a position to feel like everything that could be done

[1:14:53] feel like everything that could be done has

[1:14:53] been done. So thank you for your—

[1:14:55] Thank you.

[1:14:56] Thank you.

[1:15:02] Lynnae W.

[1:15:09] Good evening. Um, first, I don't know if there are any short-term rental, uh,

[1:15:13] owners here, but I want to address them first.

[1:15:15] I don't know if there are any, but, um,

[1:15:17] the Largo residents wouldn't be here pushing for change in the ordinances if

[1:15:21] pushing for change in the ordinances if you

[1:15:21] obey the existing ordinances in the first place.

[1:15:23] Instead, the majority disregard, disobey, and abuse them on a daily basis.

[1:15:27] Ignore—

[1:15:28] Can you talk into the microphone, please?

[1:15:29] Okay, I'm sorry. Thank you.

[1:15:32] Hang on.

[1:15:33] Yep, I have something to say.

[1:15:34] Um, the majority disregard, disobey, and abuse them on a daily basis,

[1:15:38] ignoring safety issues that affect both the renters and the surrounding

[1:15:42] the renters and the surrounding communities.

[1:15:43] You're operating as a business without storefront,

[1:15:46] yet violating the very codes a typical business would be required to uphold or

[1:15:50] business would be required to uphold or they

[1:15:50] would be shut down. You need to familiarize yourself with the local code

[1:15:54] familiarize yourself with the local code and

[1:15:54] ordinances, including max capacity occupants, monitor your properties daily,

[1:15:59] Learn when the trash goes out, make sure the cans get brought in.

[1:16:02] And did you know that there's a trash valet service that will take care of that

[1:16:07] valet service that will take care of that for

[1:16:07] you? Post that information inside. Don't allow overparking.

[1:16:10] Obtain proper permitting based on our density and zoning regulations.

[1:16:14] And this applies to specifically a Blue Gem Management that has been absolutely

[1:16:18] irresponsible in managing some of the properties in our community.

[1:16:22] This also includes Airbnb hosts.

[1:16:24] You want to advertise that your property is in a nice, quiet neighborhood,

[1:16:28] then you should treat it like a nice, quiet neighborhood and keep it that way.

[1:16:32] Show some respect for those of us trying to live our lives peacefully and enjoying

[1:16:37] our neighborhoods without having noise, trash, parties, and overparking.

[1:16:41] We are not your babysitters. And then the rest, I just wanted to address the board.

[1:16:46] Um, within— uh, while the new ordinance is a start, um,

[1:16:49] we're way behind in many of the other municipalities for the proposal for the

[1:16:53] ordinances, like Indian Rocks and Dunedin and others. Okay, we're way behind.

[1:16:57] And the problem is, without enforcement, strict enforcement, you know,

[1:17:01] it's very disheartening to those of us who live here and pay our taxes that it's

[1:17:06] taken this long and that we still have to fight so hard to get to this point.

[1:17:10] The members of our community are going to be relentless in our pursuit of the laws

[1:17:15] and ordinances being obeyed and enforced by the city, wherever that path leads.

[1:17:19] including legal action and media exposure, so be it.

[1:17:22] And it's not a threat, it's just a fact.

[1:17:24] We are, we are going to do what we can to protect our properties.

[1:17:28] We're not backing down. And let me repeat that again: we are not backing down.

[1:17:32] We're standing our ground.

[1:17:34] Many hotels do not belong in residential neighborhoods, period.

[1:17:37] If other Largo— if other local communities can enforce it, so can Largo.

[1:17:41] And we will not stand by and allow our neighborhoods to be run by business owners

[1:17:46] and property managers who only seek what's best for their bank accounts accounts and

[1:17:51] could care less about the neighbors who live in our communities.

[1:17:54] That's what I have to say.

[1:17:56] Thank you.

[1:17:56] Thank you. Beth McMullen. Evening. My name is Beth McMullen.

[1:18:00] I live at 481 Harbor Drive South in Indian Rocks Beach.

[1:18:04] Although I live in Indian Rocks Beach,

[1:18:07] my husband and I own 2 long-term rental homes here in Largo.

[1:18:11] We are lifelong Pinellas County residents, so we have an invest—

[1:18:15] a vested interest in this community and its neighborhoods.

[1:18:20] Over the past several years,

[1:18:21] we've been involved in IRB navigating many of the short-term rental challenges that

[1:18:27] Largo is now beginning to address.

[1:18:30] I've also attended your meetings and read the proposed ordinance and also your

[1:18:35] workshops, and I want to thank the planning board It's clear that a lot of

[1:18:40] planning board It's clear that a lot of effort

[1:18:40] and thought has gone into developing this proposal.

[1:18:44] I know many people are wondering if these impacts are real,

[1:18:48] why can't the city just do more? I've asked the same question.

[1:18:52] What I've learned is that Florida law places real limits on what cities can do.

[1:18:58] More recently, SB 180 has made local governments even more cautious about

[1:19:03] governments even more cautious about adopting

[1:19:03] regulations that could be more considered more restrictive or burdensome.

[1:19:08] As I understand it, those restrictions are currently expected to remain in place

[1:19:14] until October 2027 unless the state law changes sooner,

[1:19:18] and then you could get down to real work. It doesn't mean the city is powerless.

[1:19:23] It means the city has to be strategic.

[1:19:26] After reading this proposed ordinance, I believe you're laying a strong foundation.

[1:19:32] Registration, annual inspections,

[1:19:34] responsible party requirements and parking plans are all important steps that should

[1:19:40] give the city better information and stronger enforcement moving forward.

[1:19:45] And enforcement is the key here.

[1:19:47] My only request is this: as you move forward towards the first and second

[1:19:52] forward towards the first and second reading,

[1:19:53] please continue thinking about this ordinance.

[1:19:56] Don't let this become the finish line. Let it become the foundation.

[1:20:01] Continue collecting data, continuing documenting Neighborhood impacts.

[1:20:05] Continue planning for what's next as the state law evolves.

[1:20:10] Good ordinances aren't written all at once.

[1:20:12] They're built over time, and you need this information to build it.

[1:20:17] The thing I hope you will also consider as this program develops is providing

[1:20:22] residents with an easy way to report short-term rental violations and making

[1:20:28] short-term rental violations and making sure

[1:20:28] that those complaints are documented and tracked over time.

[1:20:32] Thank you.

[1:20:33] Something such as Granicus.

[1:20:35] Resident involvement and good documentation can become the city's

[1:20:39] documentation can become the city's greatest assets.

[1:20:40] Finally, I want to leave you with one encouraging thought.

[1:20:44] Indian Rocks Beach recently adopted a resolution committed to building—

[1:20:49] to build a coalition of municipalities throughout Florida to advocate,

[1:20:54] advocate for greater local authority over issues like this.

[1:20:58] We recognize that no one community is going to solve this.

[1:21:02] Our city has already begun that effort,

[1:21:04] and my hope is that Largo will join Indian Rocks Beach and other Florida communities

[1:21:10] in that statewide effort.

[1:21:12] Working together, we have a much stronger voice in Tallahassee than any one city

[1:21:17] working alone. We've hired a lobbyist,

[1:21:20] and we've also hired a Tampa communications PR firm for this coalition.

[1:21:24] Thank you.

[1:21:25] So please join us. Thank you. Thank you.

[1:21:33] Terry Conrad, or maybe it's Jerry.

[1:21:38] I'm sorry.

[1:21:43] Thank you all for your service. I appreciate that.

[1:21:47] Chase and Cheryl, thank you for everything you've done.

[1:21:52] I disagree with many of the speakers.

[1:21:55] I think you have a lot of stuff on the books right now that is not being

[1:22:01] books right now that is not being enforced.

[1:22:02] Um, I have a boat and vehicle sticking 5 feet out in the street across the street

[1:22:08] from me right this very moment.

[1:22:11] We had a Little League baseball team from Charlotte, North Carolina a week ago.

[1:22:17] We've had our challenges. I know you have yours.

[1:22:21] This low light's hard for me to see.

[1:22:24] I just wonder, instead of constantly talking about what we can't do,

[1:22:30] let's figure out what we can do.

[1:22:33] Let's—

[1:22:34] has anyone, has anyone looked at deeds?

[1:22:37] Has anyone looked at how deeds are transferred and the restrictions within

[1:22:43] transferred and the restrictions within the deeds

[1:22:43] as they're transferred from owner to owner and what is allowed in a neighborhood?

[1:22:50] It's a novel thought.

[1:22:52] The other thing is, I know Chase has specifically said 3 occupants for 1

[1:22:58] specifically said 3 occupants for 1 off-street

[1:22:58] parking place. We've also said we can fine people for advertising over that.

[1:23:04] We have— this place isn't even legally permitted as far as I know right now.

[1:23:11] They just failed their fire inspection.

[1:23:14] They're at— they started out advertising for 16 people.

[1:23:18] They reduced it when they got caught down to 13. They have 2 parking places.

[1:23:24] They should be only allowed— that's what we have right now in, in, in our bucket.

[1:23:31] Just failed fire inspection, still operating. How does that work? I don't get

[1:23:37] operating. How does that work? I don't get it.

[1:23:37] I mean, they're breaking the law.

[1:23:40] They're being fined every day.

[1:23:41] I Okay.

[1:23:44] I didn't say my address. 1845 Del Robles Drive.

[1:23:49] Sorry.

[1:23:49] The posting on the new ordinance, I'm told, and I don't remember. I've read it.

[1:23:56] I just got in from out of town today.

[1:23:59] But I'm told that the posting is for first responders. That you're requiring.

[1:24:06] The posting should be for the people that run this to come and address any issues.

[1:24:12] I mean, that should be—it should be outside; it should be inside.

[1:24:18] It's supposed to be that one person is not enough.

[1:24:22] Charge enough in the registration fees to get two inspectors.

[1:24:27] You can't do it with one person. And you need people available after hours.

[1:24:33] Most of the problems we have are after hours. I mean, not all of them.

[1:24:39] We've been trying to address this, and, and I, you know, I'm—

[1:24:44] let's find solutions with what we have in place.

[1:24:48] And what I'm, what I'm hearing is we have laws, we have ordinances, we have,

[1:24:55] we have all this stuff that's not together in different departments.

[1:25:01] I And maybe it might be an idea to get it all in one place. Thank you.

[1:25:06] Thank you.

[1:25:12] Patty Peterson.

[1:25:13] Hi. Good evening.

[1:25:21] Good evening.

[1:25:22] I didn't realize you guys were volunteers. Thank you so much.

[1:25:25] I know this is a big chunk out of your time with your families and

[1:25:30] friends.

[1:25:31] Um, I'm a real estate agent.

[1:25:33] Don't hate me. Um, one of my conundrums is living at 1859 Del Robles Terrace and

[1:25:40] having— oh, sorry. Since 2017, we bought our house.

[1:25:44] We now have at least 7 Airbnbs within a half a Now, being a real estate agent,

[1:25:51] I can't pick and choose what my buyers want to buy and why they want to buy it.

[1:25:58] However, it breaks my heart every time I see one of the houses go up for sale,

[1:26:04] not necessarily my listing, and it gets turned into an Airbnb.

[1:26:10] Now, are there some responsible Airbnb hosts? Absolutely.

[1:26:15] My sister stayed at one right on the corner of the end of our road.

[1:26:20] They are a lovely couple. They take good care of the property.

[1:26:25] Their son lives nearby because they live out of state,

[1:26:29] and they regulate their property.

[1:26:32] However, as you have heard over and over,

[1:26:35] there is a property right next to a school, a religious Christian—

[1:26:40] Christian— yeah.

[1:26:41] 42.

[1:26:42] That I almost had a head-on collision last week because they had the mini—

[1:26:50] the softball team, baseball, Little League, 12 cars.

[1:26:54] On the curb.

[1:26:57] Yeah. I mean, that's endangering my life.

[1:26:59] That's endangering all of my wonderful neighbors' life.

[1:27:04] That's endangering the parents with the kids going to and from the school, St.

[1:27:09] Paul's, right there on Allen Creek.

[1:27:12] What if one of those cars does get in a head-on collision and somebody dies

[1:27:18] head-on collision and somebody dies because

[1:27:18] there's an unregulated, unpermitted, unlicensed Airbnb running right there?

[1:27:24] It's a 3 or 4 bedroom home.

[1:27:27] Why are there 18 to 20 people in that place with multiple vehicles?

[1:27:32] And this is not the first issue. There have been parties till 3 AM.

[1:27:38] Thank you.

[1:27:38] The next-door neighbors had a 5-year-old, couldn't get him to bed.

[1:27:42] You name it.

[1:27:42] I mean, it's just— it's a nightmare.

[1:27:45] I'm lucky I don't have an Airbnb right next to me.

[1:27:49] But if I did, I'd be seeing you guys probably pretty often. I have 38 seconds.

[1:27:55] There was one other thing I wanted to say.

[1:27:58] I do think there are very responsible hosts.

[1:28:02] I think we need to make everybody accountable and responsible.

[1:28:07] if we're going to continue to allow many boutique hotels in our residential

[1:28:12] neighborhoods. But we also don't know who is occupying some of these Airbnbs near a

[1:28:19] school or our own children.

[1:28:22] My child, what, 14-year-old son, walks the dog at 10 o'clock at night.

[1:28:26] I am worried for his safety. So I'm done. Thank you so much.

[1:28:30] Thank you.

[1:28:37] Richard Rodriguez.

[1:28:38] Thank you, guys. I appreciate your service. And as you can tell, I am not a

[1:28:44] service. And as you can tell, I am not a lawyer.

[1:28:44] I apologize for my attire. I've been on call all night. Thank you for coming out.

[1:28:51] This is sort of the 3rd time I try to address this,

[1:28:55] and you're hearing a lot of things that are reflected in, in my neighborhood.

[1:29:01] I live in Carlton Estates. I'm 2280 Kings Point Drive.

[1:29:05] A lot of my neighbors are here, too. I've been there since 1990.

[1:29:10] The neighborhood was quiet. A lot of the homes were waterfront.

[1:29:15] The homes ranged from 5,000 square feet, roughly, and higher.

[1:29:19] So it's a higher-end, nice neighborhood. Private road.

[1:29:24] The central part of our neighborhood, it's a big loop road.

[1:29:28] 50% of the homes And at least the last 4 homes who have sold in our neighborhood

[1:29:34] homes who have sold in our neighborhood are

[1:29:35] all short-term rentals. Not one single one of those is like Ms.

[1:29:39] McMullen, where somebody lives nearby and actually cares about the community.

[1:29:45] They are all— when you look them up, it's the address LLC.

[1:29:50] 2 of them are owned by a company out of Miami.

[1:29:53] Only one recently put a sign outside with numbers to contact.

[1:29:58] The first meeting, I gave all the addresses, I gave photos. What's happened?

[1:30:04] It's still happening.

[1:30:06] You know, we've had weddings, we have the bridal parties,

[1:30:09] we have the bachelor parties.

[1:30:10] We had strippers come in one time, and that was spoken by somebody else.

[1:30:14] You come in at night and there's cars driving.

[1:30:17] On the 4th of July, it was like a teen, you know,

[1:30:20] takeover of the whole neighborhood with fireworks.

[1:30:22] And that's not just the strip clubs.

[1:30:24] Anyways, that put aside, there's 3 big issues at least in our neighborhood.

[1:30:29] That's the number of people. These are big homes.

[1:30:32] They all are still advertising 16 to 20 per home.

[1:30:35] We have a home for sale right now that's 12,000 square feet.

[1:30:38] That will definitely be a hotel if that sells.

[1:30:41] We have the trash afterwards,

[1:30:43] and then the one that we're tired of calling is the noise.

[1:30:47] We don't want to be the grumpy old man that is— I'm tired,

[1:30:50] I don't want to come home and be calling the police and bothering them

[1:30:54] over this.

[1:30:56] The one thing we can do is you need to have teeth and you need to enforce.

[1:31:02] If you can't change the number of people and can't do these things, we can enforce.

[1:31:08] We can figure out a way to do that because they're still doing what they're not

[1:31:14] supposed to do. They're not good stewards. They're not individuals.

[1:31:19] They're not, they're not people who care about our community. They are businesses.

[1:31:26] in a residential area. Okay, anything you can do is appreciated. Thank you so much.

[1:31:32] Jamie, do we have any further cards?

[1:31:35] No. I'm so sorry, no more cards.

[1:31:37] Is there anyone from the public who hasn't spoken who wishes to speak? Come on up.

[1:31:43] Just if you could fill out a card afterwards with Jamie. Sorry to bring this

[1:31:48] afterwards with Jamie. Sorry to bring this on.

[1:31:49] No, it's okay.

[1:31:50] My name is Michael.

[1:31:50] That's why we ask.

[1:31:51] I live at 1927 Bella Road. I've witnessed the infamous big party house there.

[1:31:58] It's just not fun to sit in your house with the TV turned very loud and still

[1:32:05] hear just all night.

[1:32:07] If you look up the police reports, I'm I'm probably pretty popular.

[1:32:13] We have had some good luck with, uh, the officers coming out.

[1:32:19] That's how we met one of our neighbors.

[1:32:20] Uh, but the main thing I wanted to say is I, I know it's not an easy world.

[1:32:25] It's not black and white.

[1:32:27] I unfortunately know just enough about law to know that what you think is right

[1:32:33] doesn't always count. I know your hands are tied. We're just asking for help.

[1:32:38] We've been in our house about 20 years.

[1:32:41] As everybody said, it used to be a quiet, beautiful neighborhood.

[1:32:45] Noise comes across the water like it's amplified.

[1:32:49] So, you know, they just need to be made aware of it.

[1:32:53] And I get punished for anything I do wrong.

[1:32:56] You know, I learned that at an early age.

[1:32:58] Unfortunately, we can't take a belt and go next door and handle it.

[1:33:01] Mm-hmm.

[1:33:03] One thing I did hear that just really kind of blew my mind is that we're not allowed

[1:33:09] to institute something that affects short-term.

[1:33:13] This is a business that is operating in a residential neighborhood.

[1:33:18] We, we pay for warehouse space for my wife's business.

[1:33:22] Does that mean I can start stacking equipment in my yard and no one would say

[1:33:28] anything?

[1:33:28] That wouldn't fly, and I wouldn't want to do it to my neighbors.

[1:33:34] It's just again, we're being held to a standard where we can't offend what in

[1:33:40] reality is a business, and I just I find that very frustrating.

[1:33:45] Again, it is what it is, but we're asking for help.

[1:33:49] I would move tomorrow if I were able to. I am that. fed up with it.

[1:33:54] And I should be living the dream. I retire in a month.

[1:33:59] Apparently, it's not going to be what I pictured. So thank you, everyone. Thank

[1:34:05] pictured. So thank you, everyone. Thank you.

[1:34:05] Thank you. I just want to say hopefully we can come up with a solution to make you

[1:34:12] want to stay here in Largo. Anyone else from the public that wishes to speak?

[1:34:18] Seeing none, I will go ahead and close the public hearing portion for further

[1:34:24] discussion by the board.

[1:34:26] Um, can I just— I, I just wanted to clarify, we are the planning board,

[1:34:32] so our duty is to, um, vote on this ordinance.

[1:34:36] Um, the code enforcement board is completely different than us,

[1:34:41] so I just wanted to make sure everybody was aware of that. And thanks.

[1:34:47] I apologize.

[1:34:48] Do they meet like you guys?

[1:34:49] Yes. So, um, and, um, some questions.

[1:34:53] I'm just— do you mind if I jump in with some questions real

[1:34:58] quick, y'all? Um, from what I heard in the audience is we

[1:35:03] have an enforcement issue.

[1:35:06] Yep.

[1:35:06] I, I didn't hear that we have a policy issue and

[1:35:10] we're being presented a policy solution.

[1:35:14] So— go ahead.

[1:35:15] Chair Fosdini, I'll be happy to address that.

[1:35:19] We recognize that it is an enforcement issue as well.

[1:35:23] We wish we had more code officers.

[1:35:25] I will tell you that proposed in the fiscal year 2027 budget that will be

[1:35:31] fiscal year 2027 budget that will be considered

[1:35:31] by the City Commission at 2 public hearings in September are 2 of the

[1:35:36] hearings in September are 2 of the positions that

[1:35:37] Mr. Bergeron recommended earlier.

[1:35:40] An additional code enforcement officer, as well as an additional fire inspector.

[1:35:46] There is a 3rd position,

[1:35:48] which is a board support specialist that will provide customer service to both

[1:35:53] will provide customer service to both those

[1:35:54] individuals that are calling to let us know that we have a problematic short-term

[1:36:00] vacation rental, as well as to ensure that our hosts are following our regulations.

[1:36:06] if new additional regulations, particularly the registration component,

[1:36:11] is approved by the City Commission.

[1:36:14] And obviously, we do think that that portion will be based on the direction

[1:36:20] portion will be based on the direction that the

[1:36:20] City Commission has already given staff. So those are 3 new positions.

[1:36:25] And yes, once the registration program is up and running,

[1:36:30] if there are sufficient resources,

[1:36:32] we will be happy to request that city administration give us the authority to

[1:36:38] administration give us the authority to add an

[1:36:38] additional code officer if needed, or an additional— I really can't speak for fire,

[1:36:45] but I would assume that if there are sufficient revenues coming from the

[1:36:50] registration program,

[1:36:52] that they may also make a similar request of city administration.

[1:36:56] And I'm going to take a little time here because I know we are not the Code

[1:37:01] Enforcement Board, but this isn't going to the Code Enforcement Board.

[1:37:06] So I want to try to ask some of the questions that I think code enforcement

[1:37:11] questions that I think code enforcement board

[1:37:11] members would ask. Um, and one of them is, I think the new positions are great.

[1:37:16] Are we looking at second shift for those employees?

[1:37:19] Because I don't see it being any more effective if it's just 8 to 5.

[1:37:24] Yeah, that is something that we can evaluate, as Mr. Bergeron indicated.

[1:37:28] Okay. And then the other thing for me was I I've watched code board meetings before,

[1:37:34] and the general posture of the city has always been to cure and remediate,

[1:37:40] to give residents time to cure a deficiency and remediate it.

[1:37:45] Is that what we do with short-term rentals?

[1:37:48] Yes. They basically have to follow the procedures and guidelines set within

[1:37:54] procedures and guidelines set within Florida

[1:37:54] Statute 162, which sets up the policies and procedures for the code board.

[1:38:00] They are pretty much held to levying administrative fines is basically the

[1:38:05] administrative fines is basically the extent

[1:38:05] they can go at the code board.

[1:38:08] Okay. But we could, through legislation,

[1:38:11] change that so that it's an irreparable fine instead of giving the

[1:38:16] person time to cure the violation,

[1:38:19] which in many cases with a short-term rental, you cannot cure the—

[1:38:24] Correct. That is a determination the code board can make during the hearing.

[1:38:29] Okay. So they currently have that power right now?

[1:38:33] Correct.

[1:38:33] How often are they using it?

[1:38:37] So I have a whole other hearing to

[1:38:42] go.

[1:38:42] Pretty much all of our short-term rental cases deal with not having the proper

[1:38:47] registration not having the proper permits, things of that nature.

[1:38:51] So those are things that they usually give them, like many other code cases,

[1:38:56] a deadline. If they're not compliant, the fines begin accruing on the property.

[1:39:00] Can they be shut down? Right.

[1:39:02] Can they be shut down?

[1:39:03] We do not have the authority to shut them down.

[1:39:06] We do have the authority to seek foreclosure potentially.

[1:39:09] That has to be approved by city administration. That can't be—

[1:39:12] How long would something like that take?

[1:39:13] The fines have to be accruing for at minimum 90 days.

[1:39:19] Okay. And normally they would have a 30-day period to cure,

[1:39:23] which could be extended by the Code Enforcement Board, technically.

[1:39:28] Am I correct on that?

[1:39:29] Yes, it's a case-by-case basis.

[1:39:30] You know, certain— you know, if a respondent comes in and requests more

[1:39:34] respondent comes in and requests more time,

[1:39:34] they'll take that into consideration when giving their compliance deadline.

[1:39:38] Okay. Have we looked at specifically not doing a cure on this, just going— I,

[1:39:43] I know that you're saying the code board has the power.

[1:39:47] I'm saying that's the only option they have is an irreparable—

[1:39:51] let's say we pass this ordinance and a person isn't registered.

[1:39:56] That is an immediate irreparable violation of our code for not meeting the life

[1:40:01] safety standards that that registration requires. Why can't we do that?

[1:40:06] That would probably be a discussion with the city attorney.

[1:40:10] In instances with irreparable, irreversible,

[1:40:12] it usually has to be something that they cannot cure.

[1:40:15] So if we're saying, oh, you don't have a permit, you can cure that violation.

[1:40:19] Whereas if you had a loud party,

[1:40:21] obviously that's already disturbed the neighborhood. You can't take that time

[1:40:25] neighborhood. You can't take that time back.

[1:40:26] So that is something potentially that could be seen as irreparable.

[1:40:29] Yes. So, but if they don't have the registration,

[1:40:33] then they haven't followed any of our life safety procedures.

[1:40:37] So isn't it— I mean, that is irreparable.

[1:40:40] No, because they can still seek that.

[1:40:42] Like, if we cited them for not having registration,

[1:40:45] they can still obtain that registration by doing the correct inspections and things

[1:40:49] like that. I want to say this for a specific event.

[1:40:51] So I know it's easy to— so when we're talking about a specific event in this

[1:40:56] talking about a specific event in this case,

[1:40:56] so we do case by case, they're going to have time to remediate it.

[1:41:01] They're going to still make their rental money. This is the struggle I have with

[1:41:06] money. This is the struggle I have with it.

[1:41:06] If they're renting a unit for $500 a night,

[1:41:09] and our code gives them 30 days to fix it, and then they fix the registration,

[1:41:14] there's no penalty. There's no punishment.

[1:41:17] And I believe that's why we have a room full of people here tonight.

[1:41:22] Excuse me, Chair, if I can.

[1:41:24] I do believe your rules of decorum don't allow that,

[1:41:27] so we have to be mindful that we don't allow clapping whether we're appreciative

[1:41:33] allow clapping whether we're appreciative of

[1:41:33] it or not. So we have to be mindful of that.

[1:41:37] Please, sir.

[1:41:38] And to speak to what he's referencing, the irreparable is correct.

[1:41:42] So failure to register,

[1:41:43] that's not something that would be categorized as irreparable.

[1:41:47] We have to be mindful of due process rights,

[1:41:50] and so how these are enforced needs to be fair.

[1:41:53] So we wouldn't necessarily apply that to somebody else for failure for a BTR

[1:41:58] somebody else for failure for a BTR license

[1:41:59] or something like that. So we can't single out this.

[1:42:02] However, and this is why we have this companion ordinance for the nuisance,

[1:42:07] the chronic nuisance,

[1:42:08] there are certain nuisances that are so egregious and have such a negative impact

[1:42:14] that there is potential for greater enforcement efforts.

[1:42:17] If there was something that was extremely egregious safety issues,

[1:42:21] there we do have options for injunctions.

[1:42:24] The Florida statutes have laid out primarily what those are,

[1:42:28] and that's in the chronic nuisance.

[1:42:30] That's not in your land development code,

[1:42:33] because typically your land development code isn't going to have those types of

[1:42:38] activities. But it does—

[1:42:40] what we're trying to do is have a multifaceted approach to this so we can

[1:42:44] multifaceted approach to this so we can address it

[1:42:45] with these administrative angle for violations, and then for some of the

[1:42:50] violations, and then for some of the egregious,

[1:42:50] because we understand not every violation is going to rise to the level where we're

[1:42:56] seeking ...taking injunctions or wanting to foreclose.

[1:42:59] And some of these businesses are going to want to come into compliance,

[1:43:04] because it will become so cost-prohibitive,

[1:43:07] it won't make sense for a business operation.

[1:43:09] And so that's the intent, to—

[1:43:11] as uncomfortable as you're making it for everybody else,

[1:43:15] we'll do that until you sort of come into compliance,

[1:43:18] and at least you're mitigating some of those negative impacts for your neighbors.

[1:43:24] Can I follow up?

[1:43:24] So we do have other avenues that potentially can be pursued for more

[1:43:29] potentially can be pursued for more aggressive

[1:43:30] enforcement. Things like failure to register, it still allows us to.

[1:43:34] The inspections to ensure compliance, those are life safety.

[1:43:39] Now, if, you know, the fire inspector goes in there and there are egregious life

[1:43:44] safety issues, that's a different issue.

[1:43:47] But just failure to register, you could cure that.

[1:43:50] You still have a violation, but you can potentially cure it. Thank you.

[1:43:58] Okay. Oh, uh, Miss Robshaw, do you have more? Can I ask a question?

[1:44:01] Um, how— these are not individuals buying these homes,

[1:44:04] they're LLCs buying these homes.

[1:44:06] Can they not be treated as a business and not as a homeowner?

[1:44:09] There's a lot of LLCs and trusts that own property.

[1:44:15] Okay, you can— you can own it and live in it.

[1:44:19] Um, so it's That's allowed.

[1:44:22] No, what I've heard loud and clear is these are businesses.

[1:44:25] That's what I've heard loud and clear. No, we understand.

[1:44:28] And that issue has been raised. And somebody came and asked me about it.

[1:44:33] And I think it was around 2013.

[1:44:35] Some jurisdictions were trying to really push that issue,

[1:44:39] that these are commercial operations, they're not residential.

[1:44:43] And the legislature said, no, no, no, that's not how we're allowed to treat

[1:44:48] that's not how we're allowed to treat them.

[1:44:48] So whether it's a business or not.

[1:44:51] So I Just to quickly touch on this other issue, speak to your state representative.

[1:44:56] This is where this comes from.

[1:44:58] I am a member of the Florida Association of County Attorneys,

[1:45:02] also with the Florida League of Cities. I'm involved in both. We all are, all of

[1:45:08] I'm involved in both. We all are, all of us.

[1:45:08] Every year they push,

[1:45:09] every year there's legislation out there to minimize the preemption,

[1:45:14] to overcome the preemption.

[1:45:16] It is always one of the items on the legislative agenda, and it never moves.

[1:45:21] And that is your state representatives. Thank you.

[1:45:24] I have a legal question.

[1:45:26] Is there any ability to create an ordinance for owner-occupied Airbnbs and

[1:45:32] ones that are not owner-occupied? Can we separate them?

[1:45:37] That was looked at. There are some additional challenges with that,

[1:45:41] but that is something I think there's some issues with that.

[1:45:45] There's definitely some challenges right now with Senate Bill 180.

[1:45:49] It's something we would look at. But again, we're— we are going to look at

[1:45:53] again, we're— we are going to look at this.

[1:45:54] We're going to look at other options if it isn't effective.

[1:45:57] And then we're also going to try to implement those that are most effective.

[1:46:02] And then if we still are continuing to have an issue and we want to take some

[1:46:07] greater legal risk, then we'll do that.

[1:46:09] But at least we'll have other things in the books that help us kind of manage

[1:46:14] the books that help us kind of manage maybe

[1:46:14] the majority of the bad behavior we can manage, and then some of the more

[1:46:18] manage, and then some of the more egregious,

[1:46:19] we'll look at other avenues for how to do that, rather than come on, you know,

[1:46:24] initially with a really aggressive ordinance that gets challenged and then we

[1:46:28] ordinance that gets challenged and then we can't

[1:46:29] do anything while it's being challenged.

[1:46:31] We thought this approach would allow us to at least address it for most people,

[1:46:36] and then the other cases,

[1:46:38] we will continue to move forward on different avenues to address those.

[1:46:42] Okay. I have some questions. Anyone else have questions for Ms. Allen?

[1:46:46] No, I'm good.

[1:46:47] I have a question for Chase and Cheryl.

[1:46:50] Are we seeking some remedy to the property that's discussed today about not being

[1:46:56] registered? We are? Okay. Okay.

[1:46:59] I know you probably can't say too much, but I just want to know that's being Okay,

[1:47:05] thank you.

[1:47:06] Yeah, I can say that they've been before the code board.

[1:47:09] They have running fines, so they have already been cited.

[1:47:13] And I don't know if— I have another question.

[1:47:16] I don't know if it's legal or not.

[1:47:18] Um, is there a cap on fines that can be charged?

[1:47:21] Yes, it's for first-time violators, it's $250 per day.

[1:47:25] If you are a repeat violator,

[1:47:27] it's actually up to $5,000 per day.

[1:47:29] That's a state law?

[1:47:31] Yes, that's through Statute 162.

[1:47:34] Thank you.

[1:47:35] Then they have like 30 days and 90 days to payment before we would foreclose.

[1:47:39] How quickly can we act if they don't pay?

[1:47:41] So, like I said, depending on if it gets to the point where those fines run,

[1:47:45] we have a process where I review the case, review it with Ms.

[1:47:49] Reed, then we review it with the city manager.

[1:47:51] If they sign off, we have a third-party attorney who reviews those cases.

[1:47:56] If everything is good, they Do those fines get compounded if something new develops?

[1:48:03] Does that get added to the pile?

[1:48:04] If it's a new violation, correct.

[1:48:06] They can't be found in violation of something there's already fines accruing

[1:48:10] something there's already fines accruing for.

[1:48:11] So they can have a bigger pile of fines for different things?

[1:48:14] Potentially, if it's a different violation.

[1:48:16] Does that impact what we do and how we handle it?

[1:48:18] Not necessarily, no, because, like I said,

[1:48:21] it's more the duration of the fine than the amount of the fine.

[1:48:25] I think seriousness of the fine should be something to consider.

[1:48:27] consider the seriousness of the violation. Sir, I know you're raising your hand.

[1:48:32] Unfortunately, the public hearing portion has stopped,

[1:48:35] so we're just going to be discussing back and forth with staff.

[1:48:38] I did want to recognize I saw your hand back there, and we'll be here after,

[1:48:43] some of us, to answer questions as well.

[1:48:45] I have some more.

[1:48:48] Go ahead.

[1:48:48] Sorry. And I'm not sure who would answer this.

[1:48:52] If an apartment— if somebody who lives in an apartment or an apartment building,

[1:48:59] if they fail a fire inspection, aren't people not supposed to live there?

[1:49:05] Isn't that something that happens? It's red-tagged somehow?

[1:49:10] That would be a question for the fire department.

[1:49:12] Unfortunately, that's not my area of expertise.

[1:49:14] Ms. Allen?

[1:49:16] Yes, unfortunately, our fire staff were not able to be here this evening,

[1:49:21] but they will be at future public hearings,

[1:49:24] both the commission work session in August,

[1:49:27] as well as at the first and second reading in September and in October.

[1:49:32] So if, if, if that were the case,

[1:49:36] it seems like these are not being shut down if they're in violation

[1:49:43] of a fire code, and they're still allowed to continue to operate.

[1:49:49] As if they're a single-family home versus an apartment,

[1:49:55] but it's a rental. So how can we fix that?

[1:49:59] The fire code is— the fire code governs those violations,

[1:50:03] so they would dictate whether they're able to be shut down or not.

[1:50:08] That's something that's really outside of our jurisdiction.

[1:50:12] Same with the building code.

[1:50:14] So there's not all violations are going to rise to that level where it gets shut

[1:50:20] down.

[1:50:20] Okay. And then let me see what else I had.

[1:50:24] Oh, and the last question I have, and I'm not sure who answers this one.

[1:50:32] Can— is it possible to—

[1:50:35] the resident who had the situation where she shares the road and it's an

[1:50:43] easement, Is there a way to make it so if you live in a property that

[1:50:50] doesn't have direct access to Bel Air Road or whatever street,

[1:50:57] that it cannot be used as an Airbnb?

[1:51:01] Is there a possibility to do something like that?

[1:51:06] That's a private property issue.

[1:51:08] That's something that that she could have an attorney look at,

[1:51:11] because I'm going to guess they probably have a cross-access easement.

[1:51:15] So they can look at that, whether there's covenants.

[1:51:18] Same thing if you're in a community and there's restrictive covenants about it.

[1:51:23] As other property owners in there, you would have standing to challenge them.

[1:51:27] The city would not necessarily, but individuals would.

[1:51:31] So, you know, there are some associations that have gone after short-term rentals

[1:51:35] because of covenants, and they've been successful, but that's a private matter.

[1:51:40] So they would have to—

[1:51:41] they could retain counsel and look at it and do it and handle it that way.

[1:51:45] It's just not something we can legally opine on.

[1:51:48] Got it. And I just think it may be beneficial. I don't know.

[1:51:54] I'm not a fan of HOAs, but if— I understand.

[1:51:59] But your easement has— could be But there's no HOA attached.

[1:52:05] Understood. I'm not— that wasn't my point.

[1:52:09] For the people that are watching, just calling from the audience,

[1:52:13] just referencing that that example is not an HOA. We understand that.

[1:52:17] It's— I'm not giving an opinion on it.

[1:52:19] It's potentially— that could— if there was a cross-access,

[1:52:22] they could have somebody look at whether it's changed dramatically and how it was

[1:52:27] originally intended. But that is not something we can give an opinion on.

[1:52:31] Got it. And I was just going to say that would If people live in a

[1:52:36] neighborhood that doesn't have an HOA,

[1:52:38] would it be beneficial for them to form an HOA?

[1:52:42] I can't opine on that.

[1:52:46] Okay.

[1:52:46] They can look at their covenants and consult, you know, an attorney.

[1:52:50] There are some attorneys that specialize in, you know,

[1:52:54] private real estate matters and HOAs and covenants.

[1:52:57] And so they can have somebody look at—

[1:52:59] Well, they wouldn't have covenants if there's no HOA.

[1:53:03] So what I'm asking is, is if you—

[1:53:05] sometimes there's restrictive covenants recorded on property.

[1:53:07] You don't have to have an HOA.

[1:53:09] Okay, got it. Thank you. That's it.

[1:53:12] I'm going to take one minute before—

[1:53:15] I see some people are starting to get ready to leave.

[1:53:19] I normally don't do this, but I saw this as a request on the, the memorandum,

[1:53:25] so I'm going to ask by a show of hands,

[1:53:28] how many people would want us to delay a vote on Okay.

[1:53:32] So you would want us to delay a vote on this to get different language and

[1:53:38] stronger wording? Okay. Thank you. Thank you so much for that feedback.

[1:53:44] Thank you. I'm going to defer to your board attorney,

[1:53:49] but it probably spells out where your authority is in terms terms

[1:53:54] of reviewing?

[1:53:55] I, I would say the board can vote to continue this if they have a reason to

[1:53:59] continue this if they have a reason to continue

[1:54:00] this. They can also recommend approval with conditions if it has specific things

[1:54:04] with conditions if it has specific things it

[1:54:04] wants. Yes, to be considered for the ordinance.

[1:54:07] That's what I was thinking.

[1:54:09] Um, it was a question I had left for staff.

[1:54:12] I have one question for Cheryl.

[1:54:15] You mentioned that fire couldn't be with us tonight.

[1:54:19] Uh, would they be willing to come if we were to continue this in a future meeting

[1:54:25] to address some questions?

[1:54:26] Yes, I think they potentially would be able to do that.

[1:54:29] Okay.

[1:54:29] Okay, um, I have some questions.

[1:54:32] How closely have we been talking to the county since they

[1:54:36] implemented their program in 2025?

[1:54:39] I've had a couple discussions with some of their staff.

[1:54:42] Okay, because they use the same Tyler technology software as us, correct?

[1:54:46] I believe they actually use Accela.

[1:54:49] They do use use one of the programs we are potentially looking at for the

[1:54:55] short-term rental registration and documentation.

[1:54:58] Okay. And Chair Fostini, when I answered the question about staffing,

[1:55:04] I did neglect to mention that also included in the proposed budget is funding

[1:55:10] included in the proposed budget is funding to

[1:55:10] purchase the software that would have multiple features that would make it

[1:55:16] multiple features that would make it easier

[1:55:16] for the city to manage registrations.

[1:55:19] And then also potentially we are looking at software platforms that would have a

[1:55:25] 24-hour Have we looked at—

[1:55:28] and I, I just know we're in a tight budget situation,

[1:55:31] so I don't know if this is possible or not—

[1:55:34] but have we looked at an interlocal agreement where we could partner with

[1:55:38] agreement where we could partner with Pinellas

[1:55:39] County and just pay a license fee and use the same software?

[1:55:43] We are. That is one of the softwares that we are evaluating.

[1:55:46] So yes, that could be something that we could explore.

[1:55:51] Okay. Because I could see dramatic cost savings in that,

[1:55:55] and it would help the county too in reducing their administrative costs if we

[1:56:02] reducing their administrative costs if we can

[1:56:02] work together on this,

[1:56:04] especially with how many unincorporated enclaves we have within Largo.

[1:56:09] The other question I did have was the the fee structure here.

[1:56:14] And I know we're not voting on the fee ordinance.

[1:56:18] And again, I'm speaking out of concern for the residents.

[1:56:23] I'm not speaking in terms of this.

[1:56:26] I understand what we have to vote on in terms of this.

[1:56:30] Actually, let me ask Commissioner Smith.

[1:56:33] Sure.

[1:56:34] Can I get an idea of your— and I don't know if you have it or not,

[1:56:39] but do you have an idea of the consensus of the board on how they would want

[1:56:45] enforcement handled on these?

[1:56:47] Would they want a system like we have traditionally,

[1:56:51] or would it prefer a more robust and instant action?

[1:56:55] From the conversations we've had, probably more robust.

[1:56:59] I feel like a couple commissioners have come along on this subject,

[1:57:04] and it's evolved to more of a taking more aggressive approach to it.

[1:57:09] So I feel like they'd probably be leaning that way.

[1:57:12] In the discussions I've seen,

[1:57:14] I can't get in their minds because of the Sunshine Law.

[1:57:18] But from what I've heard at Commission meetings and,

[1:57:21] and where they've spoken on these,

[1:57:23] I feel like they'd probably be more inclined to that. Okay.

[1:57:27] And just— and I know this is totally you just guessing.

[1:57:30] If this was to go to the Commission today, just your personal,

[1:57:34] would you be happy with this product? That's a tough one now.

[1:57:38] And this is not an attack on staff.

[1:57:40] I want— staff did the best they can with— I just, yeah,

[1:57:44] we have to ask hard questions. Yeah, and, and, and, and that's a tough one.

[1:57:48] If it's not, my concern only is that we're,

[1:57:51] we're pushing it out more and y'all are already dealing with situations,

[1:57:56] and by delaying this,

[1:57:57] it's just giving them more time And and and our staff really don't have the teeth.

[1:58:02] And I know you didn't say it doesn't have teeth,

[1:58:05] but it in my situation of dealing with code cases,

[1:58:08] I think there it would give teeth.

[1:58:10] It also, like I said,

[1:58:12] it would actually and it would also help with our staff to be able to target these

[1:58:17] individuals and put them on notice a lot quicker.

[1:58:20] I just my concern is if we delay it,

[1:58:22] it's just giving that more of a time and and it's going to put our staff way behind

[1:58:27] the eight. But I truly understand what you want, more teeth.

[1:58:31] And trust me, and anybody who signed up here,

[1:58:34] I'm going to ask staff if you've given your email.

[1:58:37] If not given your email,

[1:58:39] I would have staff get you the contact information for your state representatives

[1:58:44] and your state senators, because we are hamstrung by them, basically.

[1:58:48] Tomorrow, like I said, the direction of the Commission I see up there,

[1:58:53] this is an issue I People need to get— Pulling out a couple measures.

[1:58:57] I have a couple in my neighborhood that are— a couple are great ones,

[1:59:01] a couple of them are not.

[1:59:03] Um, I've had the signs out there that say the same thing as y'all have said, uh,

[1:59:08] we don't want businesses in our community, this is not a hotel. I get that totally.

[1:59:13] But also we have businesses that do dog grooming stuff that run out,

[1:59:18] or like a tax business.

[1:59:20] Those fall under those kind of things also.

[1:59:23] So just realize that I, I Truly, truly, truly agree with you.

[1:59:27] I live here, and many members have come to the Commission and spoke to this,

[1:59:32] and we've evolved. So I feel— I just— my concern is if we delay it, the Commission—

[1:59:38] it's just giving them more time. I appreciate that perspective.

[1:59:43] And just to Commissioner Smith's point,

[1:59:45] I think you guys can all see by the questions staff's asking,

[1:59:49] the questions we're asking, we're all trying to find ways, loopholes,

[1:59:54] sideways ways of looking at things, looking at it from a different

[1:59:59] looking at it from a different perspective,

[2:00:00] any way we can. So everyone's doing the best they can to get this done.

[2:00:05] I don't want to criticize anyone.

[2:00:07] I just wanted to make sure that we're recommending a product that fits the will

[2:00:12] recommending a product that fits the will of

[2:00:13] the Commission. Any other questions?

[2:00:15] Yeah. If we were to pass this today, um, with conditions, right?

[2:00:21] Um, and, and we could pass it with conditions that it be revisited,

[2:00:27] certain things be added, uh, certain more discussions happen.

[2:00:33] And that way we're not delaying it,

[2:00:37] but we're making sure that concerns are addressed that may not

[2:00:42] necessarily be in the current version. Would that work?

[2:00:48] Yeah. So, and I actually, um,

[2:00:50] had some conditions that I thought we might want to consider. Okay.

[2:00:55] Um, one thing I said at the beginning of this,

[2:00:58] I would like us to have a joint code enforcement and planning board meeting.

[2:01:04] I do not know how we effectively solve this problem if we are not all at the

[2:01:09] this problem if we are not all at the table

[2:01:10] together trying to fix it. So that would be more of a recommendation.

[2:01:15] We can't direct city staff to do that,

[2:01:18] but it would be a recommendation for the City Commission to direct staff to

[2:01:23] City Commission to direct staff to schedule

[2:01:24] that meeting. Another one is I would like us to strive more towards the county

[2:01:29] ordinance. I know the city attorney said it's just more beefed-up language,

[2:01:35] but our residents clearly want that beefed-up language.

[2:01:39] Um, so, um, and then the other condition I wanted is us—

[2:01:43] was the commission to look at the irreparable violation framework and have

[2:01:49] irreparable violation framework and have legal

[2:01:49] look at that and see what direction we can go on in that too.

[2:01:54] I'm just going to say for that one,

[2:01:55] that would be within the realm of code enforcement.

[2:01:57] This board really doesn't have any authority to recommend the— you,

[2:02:01] you can say it like you did the first item, but yeah,

[2:02:03] it's not a valid condition we can impose, just so you're aware.

[2:02:07] So we're just asking the commission to consider that.

[2:02:11] Chair Bostini, if I could just interrupt for just one moment,

[2:02:15] just to echo what Commissioner Smith's comments were.

[2:02:20] If there are conditions, it will cause a delay.

[2:02:23] We have already discussed these requests ad nauseam with the city attorney's

[2:02:29] ad nauseam with the city attorney's office.

[2:02:30] So I just want to be clear that it will cause a delay.

[2:02:34] Staff is happy to accommodate whatever recommendations you may have,

[2:02:40] but it will mean a delay,

[2:02:42] and we will not be going to the City Commission in September and October for

[2:02:48] Commission in September and October for first

[2:02:48] and second reading.

[2:02:50] So I have an idea, actually. Then could we break this into 2 motions, Noah?

[2:02:54] So we do a motion to approve it,

[2:02:56] and then we do a second Motion with our recommendations for the City Commission to

[2:03:01] direct with what we're, we're asking.

[2:03:04] So the, the second item wouldn't really be a motion,

[2:03:07] but if you could come to a board consensus,

[2:03:09] I'm sure staff would be happy to present that information to the commission at

[2:03:13] that information to the commission at their

[2:03:14] workshop.

[2:03:14] Yes. Okay.

[2:03:15] So you could reach out even before approving.

[2:03:18] Okay.

[2:03:21] What if the condition was that the first and

[2:03:28] second reading go on as scheduled But have a

[2:03:34] workshop established for more discussions on

[2:03:40] future—

[2:03:41] A request for a workshop.

[2:03:42] So it wouldn't actually— again, it wouldn't be changing the ordinance itself.

[2:03:46] It would just be saying before, you know, first or second reading, we—

[2:03:50] if the commission grants us the ability,

[2:03:52] we'd like to have a public meeting with the Code Enforcement Board to discuss the

[2:03:56] ordinance.

[2:03:58] Either that or, or for,

[2:04:00] for staff and the city attorney and concerned residents establish a

[2:04:08] workshop, um, in anticipation of the, um, the sunset of, uh, SB 180 and,

[2:04:15] and make that a condition. Could we do that? So that could—

[2:04:21] That doesn't necessarily relate to the ordinance But again,

[2:04:24] I think that's a good item for the board to discuss and maybe come to a consensus

[2:04:28] and ask staff to make that recommendation,

[2:04:30] just like Chair Fosse's idea with the joint meeting.

[2:04:33] All right. So let's actually start with— we're just going to do general consensus.

[2:04:39] We won't do a vote. Do we have general consensus that we would like Commissioner

[2:04:46] Smith to ask staff to plan a joint planning board and Code Enforcement Board

[2:04:52] planning board and Code Enforcement Board meeting

[2:04:53] to review this ordinance with staff. We have general consensus? Everyone on board?

[2:05:00] Okay. Good on that. And then do we have— what was the—

[2:05:04] To establish a workshop in anticipation of the sunset of SB 180.

[2:05:11] I think staff definitely are looking at that.

[2:05:14] Trust me. I'm sure staff is on it.

[2:05:17] that I would— I want staff to, to have meetings with the public,

[2:05:22] or somebody to have meetings with the public to gather information, and,

[2:05:29] and then go to the city attorney and say, can we do these things, and, and,

[2:05:35] and address the public's concerns.

[2:05:38] Can I make a friendly suggestion?

[2:05:40] Sure.

[2:05:40] So I think the Pinellas County ordinance beefed up, covers a lot of the concerns.

[2:05:46] Maybe with taking NOAA's advice again, we, you know,

[2:05:50] ask the City Commission to discuss whether that Pinellas County ordinance is

[2:05:56] something— it's the same legal framework.

[2:05:59] I mean, they— I— to them, to me, I don't know.

[2:06:02] They haven't been sued, to my knowledge. No, I don't know. I'm aware of none.

[2:06:08] So they passed this over a year ago.

[2:06:11] No one sued So I don't see a real litigation harm in us going more towards

[2:06:16] litigation harm in us going more towards that

[2:06:16] Pinellas County route,

[2:06:18] and I actually prefer us taking a more regional approach and making things

[2:06:23] regional approach and making things uniform

[2:06:24] where possible. I think that's just best practice,

[2:06:28] especially if we're going to hope to annex a lot of these properties in the future.

[2:06:34] So my recommendation would be to to look county for the.

[2:06:38] commission to direct staff to see between first and second reading if there can be

[2:06:44] any changes made to the ordinance to put it more in line with Pinellas County's

[2:06:50] ordinance, and if there was consensus for the board on that.

[2:06:54] Maybe Noah can answer my question.

[2:06:57] I really think it's important to have different ordinances for owner-occupied

[2:07:04] Airbnbs versus, uh, non-occupied.

[2:07:08] Um, I know that's not going to get addressed now, um,

[2:07:12] but is there a way to make that a future thing?

[2:07:17] Um, if we're not looking at changes to the ordinances proposed before you today,

[2:07:21] it wouldn't be a motion you would make. But again, that could be a consensus item.

[2:07:25] I know the city attorney mentioned that they had previously looked into that,

[2:07:29] and that's something staff is actively considering.

[2:07:32] So So I think it would be within this board's power to make a consensus

[2:07:35] recommendation that the city continue to explore those options.

[2:07:39] And just to clarify, from what we've seen on the code side,

[2:07:42] it's probably about less than 5% are owner-occupied of the short-term rentals.

[2:07:46] It's a very small percentage.

[2:07:47] And just one thing to nitpick. This is for kind of just my curiosity.

[2:07:53] I said earlier, you know, I rent a room in my own home.

[2:07:59] This is one question I've always had. Maybe Ms.

[2:08:03] Allen or Noah, someone can help me with it.

[2:08:07] My reading of Florida statute says short-term rentals can only be regular or

[2:08:14] short-term rentals can only be regular or have to

[2:08:15] be a dwelling unit. But our ordinance says part of a dwelling unit.

[2:08:21] So I— is there legal authority to under Florida statute to regulate part of a

[2:08:28] dwelling unit when the law specifies dwelling units?

[2:08:33] So when you're regulating part of something,

[2:08:35] you're also regulating the entire thing.

[2:08:38] I— that is an argument that could be made,

[2:08:40] but not one I think would be legally successful.

[2:08:43] Okay. So with this ordinance, then, with someone like myself,

[2:08:48] and I'm just gonna use myself as an example, I rent a room in my own home,

[2:08:54] I self-regulate, There's no issues. I mean, they live in my own home with me.

[2:09:00] Would I be required to register and do all of these items?

[2:09:05] No.

[2:09:07] Now, Pinellas County's ordinance does— it strictly prohibits that, actually,

[2:09:11] because there is an Attorney General's opinion that that falls under sleeping

[2:09:16] quarters, not actually a short-term rental.

[2:09:19] But Pinellas County, I know, specifically says if the owner lives in the property,

[2:09:24] they are exempted from their short-term I think we would want to consult the city

[2:09:28] attorney with regards to that. Okay.

[2:09:31] Because I know it's very few, but we do have a number.

[2:09:34] I know Mayor Brown has talked about someone who, you know,

[2:09:37] lives in an ADU and rents out the top part of that.

[2:09:40] So for people like me, it's, you know,

[2:09:43] the only way I can help support my mom and pay the mortgage.

[2:09:46] And I don't want people like that who are doing the right thing,

[2:09:50] which I think everyone in this room agrees we don't want to hurt the people that are

[2:09:55] doing the right thing,

[2:09:57] We want the enforcement on the people that aren't following the rules.

[2:10:01] So trust me, I wanted to bring up about an amendment, Ms. Hall, about that.

[2:10:05] But with what staff's telling us, and it's negligible,

[2:10:09] I don't want to hold up the process, especially with the commission,

[2:10:13] Commissioner Smith, you know, wanting—

[2:10:15] giving us direction that commission wants this to move forward.

[2:10:19] Okay.

[2:10:21] just to kind of— that's kind of why it's been bumped to now is because the

[2:10:26] commission has gotten more aggressive. And I just want to make that to the audience.

[2:10:31] This is why our staff is doing this as quickly as we possibly and physically can.

[2:10:36] So just to clarify that. Okay, so everyone good on the consensus that we've given?

[2:10:41] All right. Any further discussion?

[2:10:43] Yes, I would just like to say this has been a very interesting discussion

[2:10:48] tonight, and probably one of the most difficult discussions we have had in the

[2:10:54] last year. And I just want to thank the citizens for coming out today,

[2:11:00] for voicing their concerns and giving us things to think about that we may not

[2:11:06] have pondered upon.

[2:11:08] So you're not a burden here tonight,

[2:11:10] but I just want to thank each of them because we can hear the passion in your

[2:11:15] voices.

[2:11:15] We can see and the illustrations and the examples you have given are very helpful.

[2:11:22] And I want to echo Ms. McGee's comments. We, we love it when we see a room packed.

[2:11:27] Actually, I'm proud to say I think this is the fullest almost the room's been for a

[2:11:32] public meeting since we moved into the new building, so we're proud to,

[2:11:36] proud to take that title. Um, I really do appreciate everyone coming out as well.

[2:11:41] We are a city and we're only as good is us working together to solve problems.

[2:11:46] So without you coming out here and giving your feedback, you know,

[2:11:50] we can't make good recommendations to our commissioners and ask the proper

[2:11:55] questions. So thank you so much.

[2:11:57] Um, and with that, I will entertain a motion at this point if there's no further

[2:12:02] discussion. Well, Mr.

[2:12:03] Chairman, I move to approve ordinance number 2026-33.

[2:12:10] I have a motion by Ms. Donahue. Is there a second?

[2:12:12] I'll second.

[2:12:13] I have a second by Ms. Robshaw. Can you poll the board, Ms. Jarvis?

[2:12:21] Yes.

[2:12:21] Ms. Hall?

[2:12:23] Yes.

[2:12:25] Ms. Robshaw?

[2:12:26] Yes.

[2:12:27] Ms. McGee?

[2:12:28] Yes.

[2:12:29] Mr. Graham?

[2:12:30] Yes.

[2:12:31] Ms. Donahue?

[2:12:32] Yes.

[2:12:33] And Chair Fastini?

[2:12:34] I'm going to do a protest no. On behalf of my other members.

[2:12:41] Thank you.

[2:12:42] So motion carries 5 to 1. Again, I want to thank everyone for coming out.

[2:12:47] Thank you for sharing your feedback.

[2:12:49] We have a couple items left, but you can feel free to head out.

[2:12:54] We just have a little bit of wrapping up business to discuss, and we'll be

[2:12:58] business to discuss, and we'll be finished—

[2:12:59] we'll be done in about 5 minutes.

[2:13:01] So if you just give us a quick couple of minutes and then we'll be good to go.

[2:13:08] And we're happy to—

[2:13:09] did that again, right?

[2:13:13] I'm losing Jared.

[2:13:15] Anything next month?

[2:13:16] Um, just that, uh, we will have our new planning board member, um,

[2:13:21] joining at our next meeting.

[2:13:23] And I think this time I'll actually let Noah give his Sunshine Law, uh,

[2:13:28] presentation. So I know you've all been looking forward to that.

[2:13:32] It's going to be Really good. Yes, I might. I'm excited now. The anticipation—

[2:13:38] We're giving you too much time. Any other business?

[2:13:41] Hearing none, this meeting is adjourned.

[2:13:44] Thank you. Thank you. Yes, sir.

Largo Planning Board

Transcript