[0:07] AARP is here to help. Find the cure guides you need at aarp.org slash caregiving.

[0:39] and available 24-7 from anywhere in the world.

[0:42] Visit your library's website to get started.

[0:47] Keeping raw foods and ready-to-eat foods

[0:49] separate will help reduce your risk of food war-nilness.

[0:53] Hi, I'm Chef Justin Timmery from the Fresh

[0:55] from Florida Test Kitchen.

[0:57] Help prevent cross-contamination and food

[0:59] war-nilness by keeping raw foods, such as meat, poultry,

[1:03] seafood, and eggs separate from ready-to-eat foods.

[1:07] Make sure you start at the store by separating

[1:09] these items from other foods in your shopping cart.

[1:13] At home, place your raw foods and containers or sealed plastic bags on the bottom shelf

[1:18] of the refrigerator.

[1:19] Keep fresh fruits and vegetables separate from raw food.

[1:23] Use separate cutting boards for raw and ready to eat foods.

[1:27] Use separate plates and utensils for cooked foods and raw foods.

[1:31] To learn more about the core for and define additional food safety tips, visit the Division

[1:36] of food safety, consumer resources, and outreach website.

[1:40] When it comes to safe cooking, following the core 4 is a recipe for success.

[1:46] There are 16 million children struggling with hunger in America.

[1:49] That's one in five daughters, sons, neighbors, and classmates who don't know where their

[1:53] next meal is coming from.

[1:55] Yet billions of pounds of good food go to waste every year.

[1:58] It's time we do something about it.

[2:00] Feeding America is a nationwide network of food banks that helps provide meals to millions

[2:04] of kids and families in need.

[2:06] Visit feedingAmerica.org to help them feed even more.

[2:10] Together we can solve hunger.

[2:12] Together we're feeding America.

[2:49] Why do counties matter?

[2:50] Because from roads to recycling,

[2:53] we count on the services they provide.

[2:55] Floor to counties recycle more than eight million tons

[2:58] of waste every year.

[3:00] That's a big number.

[3:02] But it's just a start.

[3:04] Counties maintain more than 70,000 miles of Florida roads.

[3:09] Florida Counties help maintain more than 12,000 bridges.

[3:14] We put more than 18,000 sheriff's deputies on the streets,

[3:18] and more than 24,000 firefighters work for Florida cities and counties.

[3:23] Every day, millions of Florida's count on Florida Counties

[3:28] to get us where we're going, to keep us safe,

[3:31] and even to take out the trash.

[3:34] That's why Counties Matter.

[5:29] This message is brought to you by the U.S. Fire Administration.

[5:33] Have two ways out. When fire strikes, deadly smoke can fill your home within minutes. That's why the U.S. F.A. wants you to plan and practice home fire drills.

[5:42] Draw a map of each level of your home showing all doors and windows. Discuss the map with everyone who lives with you.

[5:49] Practice your home fire drill at least twice a year. Make sure all doors and windows that lead outside open easily.

[5:55] Push the smoke alarm button to start the drill.

[5:58] Try feeling your way in the dark or with your eyes closed.

[6:01] Have at least two ways out of every roof.

[6:03] If your first way out is locked by fire or smoke, you can use your second way out.

[6:08] If there is smoke, get low and go.

[6:10] Proak quickly under the smoke to your nearest exit.

[6:13] Close doors behind you.

[6:14] And gather at a pre-planned outside meeting place where first responders can see you.

[6:19] Call 911.

[6:20] Remember, get out and stay out.

[6:22] and ever go back inside for people, pets or things.

[6:25] Learn more at www.usfa.fima.gov.

[7:02] Quality is cast aside.

[7:04] When you discriminate against you because you're LGBTQ, or because of your race, or the

[7:09] obstacles you face, then now you're a lender because of your gender, housing discrimination

[7:14] has no place in our nation.

[7:16] If you believe you've been denied a home because of your race, color, religion, national, or

[7:21] and familial status, disability or sex, including gender identity and sexual orientation,

[7:26] go to hud.gov slash fair housing to file a complaint.

[7:32] In America, we all count, no matter where we call home, how we worship, or who we love.

[7:39] And the 2020 Census is how that great promises kept, because this is the count that informs

[7:44] where hundreds of billions in funding will go each year, for things like education, health care,

[7:50] And programs that touch us all.

[7:55] Shape your future.

[7:56] Start here.

[7:57] Learn more at 2026.gov.

[8:00] Do you want to retire like a champ?

[8:02] Just like legendary basketball star Uncle Drew.

[8:05] Don't like it.

[8:06] You're already he's in the game.

[8:08] You've got your dream ride.

[8:10] Don't be smiling.

[8:11] Don't worry about him.

[8:12] You just didn't have to get the boys.

[8:15] Your dream vacation and your dream team.

[8:18] The now you can make your retirement just as legendary.

[8:22] Okay, fuck it.

[8:23] It's a tips you need to get on track at acretirement.org.

[8:31] The people you think are going to be alone.

[8:34] There's no one else.

[8:37] Today is a year of the world.

[8:39] But someday, you can be a star.

[9:03] Go into your place to get them to come down.

[9:08] That surely you'll check NHTSA.gov slash the right seat to make sure they're in your right car seat.

[9:25] Every individual can take important steps to prepare for emergencies and put plans in place in case of a disaster in your community.

[9:33] If you have a disability or other access or functional need, you may have to take additional steps to protect yourself and your family.

[9:41] People with disabilities and people who have access and functional needs have to take a very proactive

[9:47] position in their personal preparedness.

[9:51] If you think about it, we do it every day.

[9:55] We're ready for the next little gesture that we will face.

[10:04] How we say, prepare as if no one's coming to rescue you, because the reality is in a moderate or large event, no one is coming to rescue you anytime soon.

[10:13] It may be a very short period of time, it may be a more extended period of time, but you need to prepare as if you're not going to have any of the resources that you might typically depend on.

[10:35] Do an inventory of yourself, do an inventory of the things that you use on a daily basis

[10:40] to be living independently, and then think about what is essential.

[10:44] Think about the strategies, services, devices, tools and techniques you use to live with

[10:49] a disability on a daily basis. These may include medications, durable medical equipment,

[10:55] service animals, assistive technology, communication tools, and transportation.

[10:59] You really have to be focused, that's what all your needs, if you end up going to a shelter for four or five days.

[11:04] Or if you're stuck in a sheltering in place, you can't feel like you just can't get to you.

[11:09] What are these things that you're going to need to be able to survive?

[11:13] As you think about assembling a support team, you need to be thinking about who are the people in your workplace,

[11:19] who are the people in your neighborhood, who are the people in your community, who might be able to assist you.

[11:24] Go over your emergency plan with everyone in your support network.

[11:28] Make sure that someone in your personal support network has an extra key to your home and knows where you keep your emergency supplies.

[11:35] And teach them how to use any lifesaving equipment or administer medicine in case of an emergency.

[11:42] It's important that you find out in those places where you receive services on a regular basis.

[11:47] You find out what their emergency plans are. Ask them.

[11:50] If you are a person who gets dialysis, what are their emergency plans?

[11:54] If your person who uses paratransit system, paratransit services,

[11:59] what are their emergency plans for providing paratransit?

[17:19] And thank you for attending the Monroe County Planning Commission hearing for Wednesday August 26, 2020. Members of the public who are attending and participating via Zoom are kindly reminded to use the raised hand feature when choosing to participate in public comments.

[17:36] If the member of the public called in via telephone, please down, start nine to raise your hand and start six to unmute your microphone.

[17:43] Again, thank you for attending today's Monroe County Planning Commission hearing.

[17:48] We will begin the meeting shortly.

[22:14] Just letting staff in the board know I'm going to unmute the mics in the chamber.

[22:25] I think the mics are on the minute. It's 10.

[22:38] Okay. Okay.

[22:43] I've got 10 o'clock.

[22:47] So, Monro County Planning Commission is now on session. Please join me, the pledge of allegiance.

[22:57] I'd say it's of America and to the Republic for which it stands, on my nation, on my God, in the visible, with liberty and justice.

[23:13] Thank you all. Madam Secretary, would you please call the roll?

[23:17] Yes.

[23:19] Commissioner Scarpelli.

[23:20] Here.

[23:21] Commissioner Thomas.

[23:23] Commissioner Nuget.

[23:23] Here.

[23:24] Commissioner Anderson.

[23:25] Here.

[23:26] Chair Deans.

[23:27] Here.

[23:28] Exofys.

[23:29] Members.

[23:29] Douglas.

[23:31] James Brownley.

[23:33] Devon Tolpen.

[23:34] Here.

[23:35] Mike Roberts.

[23:38] Thomas Francis Seaver.

[23:40] Here.

[23:41] Cheryl Sephard.

[23:43] She's on Zoom. She's coming in.

[23:45] Tiffany Stinkler.

[23:46] Here.

[23:46] Liz Lusper?

[23:49] Yeah.

[23:50] Jay Burnswood?

[23:52] Here.

[23:52] Peter Morris?

[23:55] Here.

[23:56] Derek Smith?

[23:57] Here.

[23:57] And myself, Jessica McKinney?

[24:01] Thank you.

[24:03] Councillor, would you please read County Resolution 1-3-1-9-2?

[24:09] The pleasure.

[24:11] Resolution 1-3-1-9-2.

[24:14] Please be advised that pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 286.

[24:17] 6.0105, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners has adopted Resolution 131-1992,

[24:28] which requires that if any person decides to appeal any decision of the planning commission,

[24:33] he or she shall provide transcript of the hearings before the planning commission prepared

[24:38] by a court court at the applicant's expense, which transcript Shelby filed as part of the record

[24:44] on appeal within the time provided in section 102-185 subparagraph F Monroe County land development code.

[24:58] Thank you, Madam Secretary.

[25:00] Do we have all the paperwork we need?

[25:03] Yes.

[25:05] Okay.

[25:05] Well, kind of, there's a change.

[25:08] Okay.

[25:14] Council, will you please swear in the county staff and speakers?

[25:20] Please raise your right hand if you intend to testify.

[25:27] Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

[25:31] Thank you.

[25:32] Yeah.

[25:33] So, sworn.

[25:36] Thank you.

[25:38] agenda. I believe that we are going to recommend we take item number six and bring it

[25:45] up to number three. Is that correct?

[25:52] If you would like to, we can. We did provide you with the

[25:56] revised agenda with item number six in that location. Okay, I need to get that. Okay, thank you.

[26:06] So, however,

[26:15] Chair, we do have a request to continue item number four to the September 23,

[26:22] 2026 meeting here in Marathon at 10am, due to insufficient posting documentation.

[26:36] So we do the, well, postpone in first.

[26:44] You could take him whenever or you want. Okay.

[26:47] Let's go with the agenda then,

[26:51] as is, and that would be, so I don't have the revised copy for some reason.

[26:58] So, we're saying that the number, the 19th-South Bridge Key Largo Ocean Reef property is now number 3.

[27:09] It

[27:18] was number 3 on the prior version of the agenda that you had reviewed and our staff changed

[27:28] revised the order of the agenda to put that item number 6 out of concerns of it taking longer

[27:34] than other items.

[27:36] Oh, that's why I'm confused.

[27:38] I think you previously had it as number three, and yeah.

[27:43] Okay.

[27:44] Thank you.

[27:44] So it stands as is.

[27:48] Motion approved again.

[27:50] Are you responding?

[27:51] Number four.

[27:52] Managed people line.

[27:54] That was going to do that second.

[27:55] Okay.

[27:56] Fair enough.

[27:58] Motion error.

[28:00] Second.

[28:01] Second.

[28:01] Any further discussion?

[28:05] Anyone opposed?

[28:08] motion carries.

[28:11] Let's put that postponement. Motion will prove the postponement.

[28:17] I feel moved. To the day of certain?

[28:21] Two September.

[28:23] September meeting the Planning Commission.

[28:26] September 23rd here in the Marathon Government Center at 10 a.m.

[28:31] Yes.

[28:32] Second. Second. Second, Eric Anderson.

[28:37] Any further discussion?

[28:38] And you want to pose? Motion carries. Thank you.

[28:48] Council, would you please read the first item number please?

[28:54] Item number one, a public hearing to consider and finalize the ranking of applications in the dwelling unit allocation system for April 14, 2026 through July 13, 2026.

[29:07] Rogo, quarter four, year 34, allocation awards will be allocated for all unincorporated

[29:15] Monroe County, file number 2025-161.

[29:22] Okay, on before we move on to this, thank you commissioner Newton for reminding the

[29:29] of expert day communications that we go over.

[29:32] I've had two, myself, and that includes seeing Mr. Smith out there.

[29:38] We had a conversation about each end item number six, and nothing that's not in the

[29:46] staff report.

[29:47] I'm a little effect on what I might decision to be as well as I had a, even in a conversation

[29:55] and I got a call from Mr. Owen Coupanier for Panier.

[30:00] About item number one and it's more of just a statement rather than a real discussion.

[30:07] So anyone else have anything to disclose?

[30:10] I had a brief conversation with Mr. Smith about item number six that will not empty my decision.

[30:18] I had item number six that I'd sought to, but I remember six I talked to the parts with as well.

[30:22] and also spoke with Orange Panion on item number one,

[30:27] neither of which will affect my decision on either item.

[30:32] And I have a conversation with...

[30:34] That's also...

[30:36] Anyone not affect my decision.

[30:39] And I also had a brief conversation with Mr. Spets.

[30:42] And we'll not affect my decision.

[30:43] It would busy.

[30:45] Yeah.

[30:46] You're billable hours, I'm sure.

[30:50] the okay back to item number one we have a staff report please you need the

[30:56] minutes approved to thank you so much must have been the drive up here today

[31:02] moved to approve Mr. Commissioner Nugien second

[31:08] rosemary any further discussion on the minutes anyone opposed motion carries

[31:16] Thank you. Now we're going to get to the staff for, I don't know the one. Good morning, Tiffany

[31:23] Stankwitz. Report for the residential, I'm dwelling in allocations. The planning department

[31:28] recommends a approval of the following market rate rankings. Lower key applicants ranked 1 through

[31:35] 6 are recommended for allocation award. Lower keys and ministry to relieve applicant ranked 1 for

[31:42] application or big-pine-known applicant rank number one subject to mitigation, availability at the time of permitting for allocation, and

[31:52] uppercase applicants went through eight recommended for allocation, all other rankings roll over to a more able to have rankings.

[32:04] Any questions for staff?

[32:07] You know, can we take

[32:08] People with common, is anybody present in the room that wants to comment on item number one?

[32:18] Just on our award-winning IT person out there, do we have anybody in Zoom Land?

[32:25] Yes, we do Mr. Chair, we have one raise hand, one entrepreneur, one please unmute your microphone.

[32:34] Thank you. Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today.

[32:40] Commissioners, my request today is narrow and specifically addresses the lower keys regular

[32:46] market rate allocation. Either award the seven regular market rate allocations plus the

[32:54] one administrative relief allocation or postpone this item. So staff, applicants and the

[33:01] public can fully evaluate the legal and accounting basis for reducing the regular

[33:07] market rate allocation count by one unit this quarter.

[33:12] The staff report says that the lower keys has a year 34 market rate

[33:16] allotment of 28 units that's seven in each quarter.

[33:21] And for this quarter, the report shows the seven market rate

[33:24] awards are available.

[33:27] Yet the recommendation is to award only six,

[33:30] while also awarding one administrative relief.

[33:33] In effect, the report treats the result as six regular awards plus one relief award to equal the quarter's seven total allocations.

[33:45] The report separately identifies 96 unused lower keys market rate allocations from prior years available for administrative relief.

[33:56] It's specifically site's comprehensive plan policy 101.3.2, unused allocations for market rate shall be available for administrative relief.

[34:10] If the admin relief award is funded from that separate, previously unused market rate pool, then it should not automatically displace the seventh regular lower keys applicant.

[34:24] The accounting is really straightforward, 7 plus 1, 7 market rate the pass awards plus 1 relief award.

[34:36] The LDC's 50% admin relief provision does not prohibit 7 plus 1.

[34:43] It simply places a ceiling on the number of relief awards in any given sub-area quarter.

[34:50] The one proposed relief award is well below 50% of the seven regular allocations.

[35:00] Court does not state that a banked relief allocation must be charged against the current quarter's seven-unit allotment, or that a relief award may replace the seventh regular ranked applicant.

[35:16] The report simply does it without any stated rational basis.

[35:21] If the county has an administrative interpretation requiring the six plus one or other policy requiring six plus one,

[35:31] it should be identified clearly in the record before the hearing.

[35:37] So it can be understood and fully vetted prior to PC action.

[35:41] Accordingly, I respectfully request the Commission either award seven regular market rate

[35:47] v-pass allocations plus one relief allocation or continue this item to allow staff to provide

[35:56] a written legal and allocation accounting explanation and give the affected parties a fair

[36:03] opportunity to review and respond.

[36:07] I'm not making an objection to administrative relief.

[36:09] I'm requesting to honor both systems and administrative relief from the unused allocation pool and the full seven regular B-pass awards that the staff report itself says are available for allocation in the lower keys this quarter.

[36:28] And I thank you for the opportunity to address you.

[36:31] Thank you Owen.

[36:33] With that, I used the word straightforward.

[36:35] I wish things were that straightforward.

[36:37] forward, but then can you please explain the path to where we are now and how we got to

[36:45] the six plus one and what the other restrictions are on that administrative pool?

[36:52] Yes, I can. Thank you, Chair. I am going to read from Monroe County Board of County Commissioners

[36:59] resolution number 160-2026, which was passed and adopted on June 10th of 2026 this year. This is the

[37:10] resolution by the Monroe County BOCC that approved the request for administrative relief made by

[37:18] Victor and Elina Alpazar regarding issuance or granting a relief in the form of a rogo allocation

[37:26] for the property at 2, 2, 9, 4, 4,

[37:30] Jerk Lane, Kojo P, which is the property that we are talking about here.

[37:35] In this resolution on page 2 of 4, it states that administrative relief is granted to

[37:43] Victor and Elena Alpazar for property located at 2, 2, 9, 4, 4,

[37:49] Jerk Lane, Kojo P. Then it goes on with the legal description. I'll spare you all from that.

[37:55] Subject to the following conditions, condition A, the timing of the issuance of the permit shall be in accordance with the annual number of residential allocations defined by policy 101.3.2 of the Monroe County 2030 comprehensive plan and as required by section 138-27 of the Monroe County land development code.

[38:22] condition B, the allocation award shall be taken out of the next quarterly allocation, which closes on July 13th, 2026, or in the succeeding quarterly allocation period in which administrative relief allocations are available.

[38:44] This quarterly allocation period was the next quarterly allocation available.

[38:50] This was directed by the Munnar County BOCC through Resolution 160-2026.

[38:59] Thank you.

[38:59] Any questions for Davener Staff?

[39:04] Okay.

[39:05] Let's see the Ministry of Relief, please move forward.

[39:08] It is my understanding and I'll let Peter jump in or correct me if I miss speak that those are

[39:14] to be utilized in the future for potential takings cases, to resolve takings

[39:21] cases.

[39:22] So they're not forward ministry of relief, necessarily.

[39:27] Just to clarify, the granting of administrative relief allocations is reserved for properties

[39:32] that haven't been competitively awarded a rogue allocation for at least four consecutive

[39:36] years and is as devine-indicated utilized as an administrative remedy to mitigate and

[39:41] and avert the ripening of an inverse connotation

[39:45] or taking's claim.

[39:48] Peter, let me ask, I tried to understand a little bit deeper.

[39:53] The ministry of relief, and I see that in the application

[39:57] that the four, oh, oh.

[40:00] For revolutions of that, I mean, with no relief is a reason to do it, isn't it? Also, if it's particularly a

[40:11] property that they want to be the owner wants to sell to the county or whatever, and if it's not

[40:19] procured within so many days of that request, can't they ask for administrative relief as well?

[40:26] I can't recall the exact order of which car and the train goes first, but I do know that purchase offer is one of the options that the code prescribes the commission to elect amongst several options such as granting an allocation in order to mitigate that liability exposure.

[40:50] Okay. Thank you. I have plenty questions myself about that.

[40:57] We're going to close public comments.

[41:00] Mr. Chair before you do.

[41:02] Mr. Carpenter has raised his hand again.

[41:06] I'll be so gracious to allow that.

[41:11] Oh, please unmute.

[41:14] Thank you very much.

[41:16] commissioners who is to chair, I appreciate it, and I would just like to point out that

[41:21] the taking the allocation or sorry, the administrative relief out of the regular allocation

[41:29] is contrary to both the land development code and the Comprehensive Plan.

[41:35] The plan sets up a MLDR LVC set up a pool of units from which relief units may be drawn.

[41:47] And the other opportunity is for unused allocations.

[41:52] But there is no provision to preempt the 7th allocation or the 7th applicant from receiving

[41:59] an allocation by resolution of the BLCC.

[42:06] I mean, I'll, I can say, as I respectfully disagree, you know, it's a rather general proposition to say that,

[42:13] you know, the regular operation of the administrative relief, you know, provision of the code runs generally

[42:23] of the land development code and comprehensive plan grid large.

[42:26] It sounds like what Mr. Drew Panier is indicating, and I'm not trying to put words in this mouth,

[42:33] but as being as much as I can translate it into something of a quasi-legal opinion, it sounds

[42:40] more like he's expressing, I think the operative word in what Mr. Tupanier was saying in his

[42:47] initial round of comments was should, it should not. That's a comment on what Mr. Tupanier

[42:57] in his client believe the law should look like, but as a law is enacted now, I don't know

[43:03] of his client could, I guess, file an independent action, a lawsuit, I'm not sure what the

[43:09] cause of action would be because the granting of administrative relief award arguably put his

[43:19] client just outside the ambient of the awards that could be approved of this meeting, but I don't

[43:25] they'll be a very promising cause of action. So I have to respectfully disagree. I just don't see

[43:30] what the legal violation is. Other than it's an undesirable outcome for that particular

[43:36] logo applicant. But it's not a violation of any law that I can discern. Okay, we're going to close

[43:42] public comment. And I was going to go so, so noted, but thank you for the explanation. I again,

[43:51] And when I look at the role of the planning commission, that is beyond doing anything other

[43:59] than what our action is beyond our scope, we have a BOCC resolution that gives us direction

[44:09] and that's something that we are obligated to do.

[44:13] So noted your alternate course of action for that if the concern, why that particular applicant,

[44:26] five of them to do that, but I can see in this particular case the unfortunate place we're in right now is I think those number six and number seven actually had the same points.

[44:40] And it's a matter of who got the application in first, which is the priority of approval.

[44:46] And there's nothing that we can do about that.

[44:50] And normally speaking in other circumstances, I think we could reach forward in certain areas,

[44:56] but there is no reaching forward right now.

[44:58] And my question, Devon, is when?

[45:00] How do we think we'll have the first time we'll have a quarter for approval again, the week of an estimate?

[45:07] As you know, our comp, we are in the process of amending our comprehensive plan and land development code to be able to accept and distribute the new logo allocations.

[45:19] I'm going to say awarded by the state. The comprehensive plan amendment has been transmitted to the state.

[45:27] We're waiting a review and comments.

[45:32] As long as our timeline is maintained, we expect to be next quarterly, the next semi-annual

[45:38] allocation period to open on July 13th of 2027.

[45:45] It would close in January of 2028.

[45:49] We anticipate the next time the planning commission will be awarding roado allocations will be

[45:54] February of 2028.

[45:59] I would chair if I may, I would just like to also add that what is unique

[46:05] in the situation is only the fact that this is our last quarterly allocation period for the

[46:13] current pool of allocations that we do have granting the administrative relief allocation out

[46:21] of the regular quarterly allocation pool is not a UNH situation and has been the practice of the

[46:29] BOCC for as long as I have been here at close to 10 years. I confirmed with Tiffany Stankowitz

[46:36] that this is our the general practice and is not a UNH situation.

[46:48] And I guess what it would take for that, because those, that pool still exists, whatever number

[46:55] of our two new numbers today, went from home and went from you, is that the BOCC would

[47:01] have to have separate resolutions to do something like that.

[47:04] And theoretically, they could, and again, that's something

[47:08] well beyond what we are tasked with, so.

[47:12] I did have a second question, follow what's that though.

[47:15] If someone were to come in and ask for six allocations

[47:18] that for administrative leave, because according to this,

[47:20] they could, from my, I don't read the administrative relief

[47:23] allocation code section, would then those six be taken

[47:28] from the regular pool, or that would have been

[47:31] different resolution at the BOTC meeting. You guys would probably say, okay, we'll take

[47:36] three from the regular allocation pool then you would have the ability to write, okay, I'll

[47:41] take three from the Ministry of the Leaf pool so that you didn't completely wipe out. So there

[47:46] is some ambiguity. There is actually a code provision. It is titled limits on administrative

[47:56] of allocations per quarter. Yeah. 50%. Yeah. So you'd be learning into 50% to say 3. You'd

[48:03] get 3. When we go to your point because we're in quarters now, we're going to some

[48:10] my annual. So we have a stab at what that first number will be for the allocation. I think it's 12, right?

[48:21] I believe so. I cannot confirm off of the top of my head at this moment. Okay. Thank you.

[48:27] So we will be speaking on this for a while, but that said, any further discussion, motion

[48:37] that will prove?

[48:38] It's good.

[48:39] I'll motion to approve.

[48:41] How second?

[48:44] Motion, sure, strictly, second, commissioner Thomas, any further discussion.

[48:53] Anyone opposed?

[48:55] Motion carries. Thank you.

[49:01] Councillor, you please read item number two.

[49:11] Gorman and Company LLC on behalf of Roblings LLC

[49:15] and Marilyn J. Robling, Revocable Trust.

[49:19] Ninth five, three, two, five, and Ninth five,

[49:23] three, five, one, oversees Highway of Kylargo.

[49:26] Maumarker 95.3.

[49:28] A public hearing concerning request for variance of 179 feet from the required 400 foot distance

[49:36] between the curb, between curb cuts, on the same side of U.S. one, as required through

[49:41] Monroe County Land Development Code, Section 114-195, approval would result in an access

[49:49] drive curb that cup curb cut that is 221 feet from the existing

[49:56] dove road curb and cut to the north of the property.

[50:00] For a proposed multi-family residential development consisting of 79 attached affordable workforce dwelling units, and two attach market rate dwelling units.

[50:12] The subject property is described as two parcels of land and section 13, township 62, south, range 38 east.

[50:22] Key Largo currently having parcel identification numbers

[50:26] 0 0 4 8 3 6 0 dash 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

[50:33] And 0 0 4 8 3 3 5 0 dash 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

[50:40] File number 2026 dash 1 1 0

[50:48] Thank you, could we have the staff report please?

[50:59] I spoke Thomas.

[51:01] How much are you muted?

[51:04] My apologies.

[51:05] Good morning, Chair.

[51:07] Commissioners Thomas Francis Seaver,

[51:09] Planning and Development Review Manager.

[51:13] Before you is a request for a planning commission

[51:15] variance to US-1 Curcut Access Standards

[51:20] for a pending, live, local,

[51:22] Act, affordable housing project at

[51:24] 95-325 and 95-351.

[51:27] 351 oversees Highway Key Largo. The owners are Robling's LLC and Marilyn J. Robling's

[51:35] Revolvable Trust. And the agent is Gornman and Company LLC. Trend Claybah.

[51:47] You may recall this property came before you back in January and received a planning

[51:51] commission resolution approving an affordable workforce housing project consisting of more than 20 units

[51:57] in accordance with land development code section 139-1, subsection B, paragraph 6-8.

[52:06] This request before you today is the remaining item before the pending

[52:11] live local act project may be reviewed administratively for approval. Specifically,

[52:17] this request is for a variance of 179 feet from the required spacing of 400 feet from any

[52:25] curb cut on the same side of US one. This results in a spacing of 221 feet from the proposed access

[52:33] drive. Between the proposed access drive to the required access standards from an existing curb cut

[52:41] of four-dove road. This image overlays the land use district on the property, outlined in blue.

[52:48] So, the property is both parcels outlined in blue.

[52:53] You can see the existing curb cut roughly a third of the way from the north-eastily property

[52:58] line.

[52:59] The existing curb cut is approximately 180 feet from the road to the north-east and approximately

[53:05] 380 feet from snap or lane to the southwest.

[53:10] This slide shows the proposed site plan and the new curb cut approximately in the center

[53:15] of the two parcels, the property resulting in a curb cut of 221 feet from the curb cut of

[53:23] dove road. There is nowhere on the property that is not within 450 feet from an existing curb cut.

[53:34] The property is recognized as having two lawfully existing 20 minutes, one on each parcel.

[53:40] the property received on July 1st of this year, a letter issuing that the property is authorized

[53:56] as a live local act authorized project for the proposed consideration of the proposed

[54:11] 79 workforce housing early evacuation allocations for the for the property by the BOCC.

[54:19] Or as pending, my apologies, it's pending approval.

[54:25] Very briefly, the Live Local Act comes from Florida Statute 125.010557.

[54:33] If a proposed development meets the criteria of an authorized project under the Live Local Act,

[54:38] then the project must be administratively approved without further action by the Board of

[54:42] commissioners or the planning commission unless such approval is otherwise required by the

[54:47] Land Development Code or Comprehensive Plan for subject matter other than density,

[54:53] height, flow area ratio or permitted uses. Monroe County may not require an authorized

[55:00] Project to obtain a conditional use approval transfer of development rights or a variance for the height, floor area ratio and or density authorized under the live local act.

[55:12] As I mentioned briefly, this requested variance is the final remaining item before the pending live local act project may be reviewed administratively for approval.

[55:23] The relevant land development code sections are as follows.

[55:28] Land development code section 14-195 provides that no structure or land shall be developed, used or occupied,

[55:37] unless direct access to US-1 or county road 905 is by way of a curb cut that is based at least 400 feet from any other curb cut that meets the

[55:48] access standards of the Florida Department's Transportation, just paraphrasing or an existing

[55:54] street on the same side of US-1 or 95. Second, the Lendivalment Code section 114-199 provides

[56:05] that no-use-fronting US-1 or county road 95 shall receive a permit for a change of use, expansion

[56:12] or substantial improvement unless it is brought into conformance with this article by provision

[56:18] of combined drives, or parallel access, and with any access standards or requirements of FDOT.

[56:28] And LDC Section 102-187, the Planning Commission is authorized to grant variances

[56:36] to the access standards in Chapter 114, Article 7 in accordance with the standards of LDC Section 102-187, Subsection D.

[56:48] This request complies with all eight of the standards required for variance approval, and staff recommends the variance, staff recommends approval of the requested variance to the access standards in chapter 114 Oracle 7 of the land development code with the following conditions.

[57:08] One, this variance approval is based on the submitted site plan sheet AS101 by Patrick

[57:16] Daniel O'Mara registered architect 921 signed and sealed on 513-2026 submitted with the variance application.

[57:28] Work now specified shall not be carried out without additional planning and environmental resources department approval.

[57:35] to this variance approval does not constitute approval of any use on the property and is not a final approval for certain development.

[57:45] The applicant shall obtain a conditional use permit and building permits for any improvements for acquiring such approval.

[57:51] And three, this variance approval does not waive or reduce any other requirement of the land development code nor waive the land development code requirements for any future development.

[58:01] And thank you and I'm available for any questions you may have.

[58:06] Any questions, returns?

[58:09] Well, I have just a couple of comments before opening a public comment.

[58:14] I looked at it and it looks like the proposed cuts will now be just south of the existing

[58:24] And I looked at that, it's pretty impressive to see that existing access to the fence that stepped in for safety, which I found interesting, and I also asked a question about, well, they have a curb cut.

[58:40] There's two, I guess, market rate units through there, and how did that happen?

[58:45] and answer I got was, well, I pre-dated the complaint.

[58:49] So I understand why the current access exists.

[58:55] And I did notice a site plan look quite a bit different

[58:58] than the last time we saw it.

[59:01] And I also understand that this was like

[59:04] our first live local act project.

[59:10] We have had very few.

[59:12] I would, this was not the first to actually have an authorization

[59:15] letter issued.

[59:16] this was the first that actually got back to staff's attention and

[59:20] discussed and this is so far the first one that did have to come

[59:24] before the commission for that approval of more the planning

[59:27] commission for that approval of more than 20 units and it will be the

[59:30] last. As of July 1st, the Florida Keys area of

[59:36] critical state concern is not subject to the Florida

[59:39] level of black, that's correct.

[59:42] So, you know, this will be the last, okay. With that said,

[59:49] we'll open public comment and let me go to Zoom last first time. Is there anyone on Zoom

[59:55] that would like to speak? I see no one.

[1:00:17] All right,

[1:00:41] hello, my name is Trent Claybeln. We'll floor to mark a president with gorum in the company, the developer of this property.

[1:00:51] It's nice to see you all again. I saw you all back in January for that 20 plus unit resolution.

[1:00:57] And as the chair pointed out, as you likely noticed during the staff presentation, looking through the packet,

[1:01:04] the site plan we submitted for this curb cut change of use variance request is different from the site plan we submitted for the June planning commission meeting

[1:01:11] that we ultimately requested to table for a later date, which is today, and the 20 plus unit resolution that you approved back in January.

[1:01:19] I just wanted to provide some context for that decision how we came to this.

[1:01:26] So soon after submitting that original site plan depicting the town home development concept

[1:01:31] in early May, interest rates spike about 30 basis points in a matter of two weeks.

[1:01:37] Before that happened, the prevailing intuition was that interest rates were elevated,

[1:01:41] but that they were coming down as, you know, we approached a resolution to the war in the Middle East.

[1:01:47] obviously that didn't happen. Now they're prevailing in tuition that interest rates are even more

[1:01:53] elevated than they were after that spike in that they're probably going to continue to go up

[1:01:58] as the Warren Middle East sees no end in sight and inflation remains uncertain over time. So we pivoted

[1:02:07] to this apartment development complex that's you know 16 unit buildings versus the former two

[1:02:13] three unit, sort of town-home style units, because it'll allow us to build it a lower cost for

[1:02:20] unit, well preserving the same unit mix, like the same number of bedrooms, etc. And it can

[1:02:25] allow us to weather a wider, a financial shocks that could happen between this variance being

[1:02:31] approved, and the time we actually close next year. Because as you know, and as I've come to

[1:02:36] understand that what we're committing to for this variance application, we're going to be held

[1:02:41] to you. So we didn't want to be put in a situation where we committed to the town owns that

[1:02:46] do come with a higher cost. You get slightly higher rents, but we also don't want to push

[1:02:50] that too much. But if the financial conditions in the market continue to get worse,

[1:02:57] and interest rates get so high that it becomes financially infeasible, then the project can't

[1:03:03] happen and we have no recourse to really change or put it back to something like this after the

[1:03:09] So, that's why, you know, in this decision to table, and then a resummit a slight plan with something that's a little bit more conservative, cost-wise, we're really just hedging our bets on that, just because again, our understanding is that we're going to be tied to whatever is in the slight plan.

[1:03:29] With that being said, we would ultimately prefer a situation where the finance markets stabilize.

[1:03:35] And we have the flexibility to pivot back to that town home development concept after the curb cut change views sort of request is approved.

[1:03:44] We're more than ready to definitively commit to the final location of the curb cut.

[1:03:48] But we'd really appreciate any flexibility the planning commission could give us to pivot back to our more preferred option after this is approved.

[1:03:58] maybe some language in the approval that could state,

[1:04:03] you know, details, you know, other than the curb cut and the distances

[1:04:07] from the other curves can change after the approval of a prior to being submitted

[1:04:14] for permits.

[1:04:15] And with that things that are not asking for any sort of other

[1:04:18] variances or everything so has to sort of adhere to the land development code.

[1:04:25] But again, I think we just want that flexibility to be able to

[1:04:28] react to the market and be able to capitalize on whatever we can, because like I said ultimately

[1:04:33] like we came in with the town owns, that's what we really want to provide. But again it's

[1:04:39] just in the current situation. You know we just don't want to be putting a position where

[1:04:45] the entire project collapses because of the continuous sort of financial situation.

[1:04:58] And I'm

[1:04:58] I could, is there any...

[1:05:00] Anyone else in the audience who wants to speak on this item? Okay, that's one of those asking questions.

[1:05:11] There have been one with the request of the applicant with the flexibility for the access and cut.

[1:05:20] Is there language that we can put in there to make that happen painlessly, so it doesn't have to come into commission again.

[1:05:27] staff does not have any objection to approving this variance with a condition that could

[1:05:33] allow for modifications to the site plan to continue while still approving the requested

[1:05:40] variance for the per cut, the distance between per cuts. Thomas, do you have a condition drafted

[1:05:48] that you could put on the screen? Yes. So, this would be a potential revised condition

[1:05:57] number one, you'll see the underlining for the additions and the strike through otherwise.

[1:06:03] So this revised condition reads, this variance approval is for the access drive as depicted

[1:06:10] on the submitted site plan, sheet AS 101 by Patrick Daniel O'Mara registered architect

[1:06:16] 992-41, signed and sealed on 716-2026, submitted with the variance application, notwithstanding

[1:06:26] the submitted site plan. This variance approval only establishes the location of the access

[1:06:31] drive along U.S. one overseas highway and does not establish locations of uses or other

[1:06:37] site work on the property. We're not specified, shall not be carried out without additional

[1:06:42] planning and environmental resources department approval.

[1:06:47] Thank you, Thomas. Any other comments from?

[1:06:51] I appreciate this because I really don't like the 16th.

[1:06:55] I don't like the current layout.

[1:06:56] I've already told Trent this.

[1:06:59] I think that the town homes much more higher quality of life for the residences of this property.

[1:07:06] And I think you've got to create a much nicer feel for the overall.

[1:07:09] Do Thomas, do you think we need to add anything in there that's like about whatever site plan change needs to happen needs to be conforming to the land development code or at all or you're you're good with that as is that's a great question any changes will have to be ultimately reviewed and approve through building permit reviewed by the planning department at that time.

[1:07:31] So I see that as being, that's a paid, go pre-it, and the third condition that is proposed states that the variance approval does not waive or reduce any other requirement of the code nor waived the land development code requirements for any future development.

[1:07:49] Great. So we keep getting this setbacks.

[1:07:53] So, I'm pleased to see that we don't have any objections to the project this time around,

[1:08:01] so you must have done something to the neighborhood to appease them.

[1:08:06] So, I know it's often not in my backyard type of a thing that people rather look at

[1:08:10] an empty field than have neighbors.

[1:08:13] So, is there any other discussion, get a motion?

[1:08:16] Robotions will prove with the additional condition.

[1:08:18] Okay. Motion approved with the condition. Second. Second. Second. Commissioner Nugien. Anyone opposed.

[1:08:30] Motion carries. Good luck. Best to you. Thank you. Very much. It's fine.

[1:08:34] Thank you.

[1:08:37] Okay. Item number three. Councillor, please read. Item number three.

[1:08:46] Number three, Florida Keys Electric Inc.

[1:08:50] 5, 7, 2, 0, second avenue, stock island, mile marker 5.

[1:08:55] A public hearing concerning requests for variances to the required front yard and primary

[1:09:00] side yard setback requirements in land development code section 131-1, loading space, dimension

[1:09:09] requirements in LDC section 114-69 and drive aisle with requirements in section 114-67

[1:09:20] resulting in a front yard setback of six feet and six inches, a primary side yard setback of five feet,

[1:09:30] a loading space with dimensions of eight feet and six inches by 18 feet.

[1:09:36] and parking and a parking aisle that is 22 feet wide.

[1:09:42] The property is proposed to be developed with a mixed view structure consisting of an

[1:09:46] office use and a dwelling unit designated as Employee Housing.

[1:09:52] The subject property is described as lot to block 47 McDonald's,

[1:09:57] Donald's Cloud of Stock Island, according.

[1:10:00] To the plot thereof recording recorded in blackbook 1, pages 55 of the public records of Monroe County, Florida currently having parcel identification number 001, 2, 6, 2, 8, 0, dash, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, file number 20, 25, dash, 0, 1, 5.

[1:10:24] Okay, thank you, Councillor.

[1:10:28] Are we ready for the staff report?

[1:10:33] I'll take that as a yes, Liz.

[1:10:35] Yes, I'm here.

[1:10:37] I'm ready to provide the staff report.

[1:10:39] So Liz Lusper.

[1:10:42] This request is for for

[1:10:45] variances.

[1:10:47] One variance related to the front yard.

[1:10:49] Reducing proposed to reduce the front yard set back from 15 feet to six and a half feet.

[1:10:54] And then three variances that mostly address the side here at setback requirements.

[1:11:01] So, a proposal to reduce the primary side here at setback from 10 feet to 5 feet

[1:11:06] to reduce the loading space dimension from 11 by 35 to 8 and a half by 18

[1:11:13] and to reduce the 24 foot drive aisle to 22 feet.

[1:11:27] Here you can see the property at 5720, second Avenue on Stockholm and what I'd like for you to take away from this picture is how skinny the property is, which is relevant to the variances that are requested.

[1:11:48] And the variance is requested in order to develop what is currently a vacant property with two uses.

[1:11:59] In phase one, the property owner would like to develop the property within office.

[1:12:04] So to have a two-story building and so the top picture is up the first level, the second

[1:12:14] picture is up the second level and blue outlines the proposed area for office use on both

[1:12:20] the first and the second level.

[1:12:23] The idea is that in the second phase, if when the property owner is able to get an affordable

[1:12:32] go allocation or exemption on the property to then build an affordable apartment within the existing

[1:12:40] building envelope by adding a floor to an area that would be basically ground level to

[1:12:50] to roof elevation in phase one.

[1:12:58] So for the fruit yards backpack variants request,

[1:13:00] The request is to reduce the 15 foot frontwards of that to 6.5 feet in order to fit the garbage collection area within that front step back portion.

[1:13:14] This would only be needed if when the affordable unit is added to the property because it requires an additional parking space.

[1:13:24] The

[1:13:30] request is for reduction of the primary side yard step-up.

[1:13:35] We're using it from 10 feet to 5 feet.

[1:13:39] And the building itself is proposed to comply with the step-ups.

[1:13:45] But the variance is requested in order to fit portions

[1:13:49] of the parking spaces, a portion of the loading zone,

[1:13:53] and the air conditioning units would in that biethylate area,

[1:13:57] which are called out in that red box.

[1:14:02] The proposed reduction of the loading zone is shown here,

[1:14:06] so to reduce it from 11 by 35 to 18 by 8.5, which is the same size as a regular parking space.

[1:14:17] And here you can see the proposed reduction of the drivals from 24 feet to 22 feet.

[1:14:28] So these are

[1:14:29] the eight criteria that all have to be met in order for the variance to be approved, planning

[1:14:36] staff recommends approval for all of the requested variances and our analysis is that all

[1:14:46] of these criteria are met and to be clear most of the reason for why these criteria are met

[1:14:54] and the variance is necessary, it is because of the width of the property, the property.

[1:15:00] This is 50 feet wide, which is not wide enough to have 18 foot long parking spaces, a 24 foot drive aisle, plus 15 feet of

[1:15:15] accepts and to accommodate overloading zone. So everything has been pinched a little bit

[1:15:24] in order to try and accommodate the width of the property, shrinking the tri-file by

[1:15:31] to the shrinking the primary side of its effect by five feet reducing the dimensions of the

[1:15:43] loading space.

[1:15:48] So staff recommends approval of all of these

[1:15:53] appearances that are requested all of the four appearances. I've just highlighted

[1:15:58] the one deal with the front yard set back because that's actually only necessary if the

[1:16:05] affordable unit is added to the property. All of the rest of the appearances that were

[1:16:11] requesting and for which staff is recommending approval are needed for both the

[1:16:15] one in phase two of the proposed development.

[1:16:21] So stats recommendation is for approval with the

[1:16:26] fairly standard conditions that are are listed here. And the way the conditions are currently

[1:16:33] drafted is that this is recommending approval of all four variances, full stop, and is not

[1:16:43] calling out a specific variance requirement or condition related to the phasing of the project.

[1:16:51] If you wish to discuss that or add in any extra condition related to that, you know,

[1:16:57] stuff is open to that option, but as drafted, stuff is recommending approval of all of the

[1:17:06] experiences, starting with phase one.

[1:17:11] So that is what I've got.

[1:17:13] Does anybody have any questions?

[1:17:17] Questions?

[1:17:18] At this time?

[1:17:20] Okay.

[1:17:21] We'll stay and buy lives.

[1:17:22] I think there'll be some a little later.

[1:17:27] Okay.

[1:17:27] Public comment.

[1:17:29] Is there anyone?

[1:17:31] I probably want the applicant to go last in cases.

[1:17:35] Question if they can answer.

[1:17:36] Is there anybody in Zumland, Jaton, that would like to speak?

[1:17:42] Barbara Mitchell, and I think she may be

[1:17:44] to advocate in my correct or in the state.

[1:17:47] It's the applicant, as I know is here, but Barbara's with her.

[1:17:54] OK, well, why don't we have the applicant go last if we could?

[1:18:00] So is there someone else other than the applicant in Zumland?

[1:18:04] No, okay, so that's how the album

[1:18:09] is all right for Ms. Mitchell. Do you want me to promote her fully or just leave her as voice?

[1:18:16] All right

[1:18:17] Barbara Mitchell please accept the prompt.

[1:18:33] All right, Ms. Mitchell. You're now a panelist. Please unmute your microphone and turn on your camera

[1:18:52] Okay, are we good? Yeah, we're good Barbara. Great good morning commissioners

[1:18:57] My name is Barbara Mitchell with Mitchell planning and design

[1:19:00] Bill Horan and I are the project architect or the agents for the owner of Florida Keys Electric.

[1:19:07] We appreciate your time and hearing this request this morning.

[1:19:10] And I'd like to thank Liz for her thorough staff report and assistance with this project.

[1:19:15] I think she outlined everything that we need to discuss.

[1:19:19] As demonstrated, this is a minimal amount of a variance required to comply with the land development code

[1:19:24] in order to accomplish the construction of a building on a small stock island in

[1:19:30] fill-lot. The primary building is compliant with all development requirements.

[1:19:34] It's the set-backs required for accessory uses, driveway with, van, loading zones,

[1:19:40] etc. that require a variance. The applicant, Florida Keys electric, would like to include

[1:19:46] an affordable housing upportable apartment on the site. But the primary goal is to

[1:19:51] instructive building for office and accessory storage as sorely needed for business.

[1:19:56] With the approval of very requested variances, the applicant will then move.

[1:20:00] Forward with the building permit plans and concurrent submissions into the NROGO and Rogo systems for the required allocations.

[1:20:08] With staff's guidance, we proposed a phased approach that would allow the construction of a non-residential portion of the development and phased one,

[1:20:16] and not be hindered by waiting for an affordable allocation. As part of phased one, all of the requested variants will be realized,

[1:20:24] And we certainly accept staff's recommendation to be able to do the front yard set back at the same time.

[1:20:31] Although we could wait for phase 2.

[1:20:33] When and if an allocation for the affordable apartment becomes available,

[1:20:38] the front yard set back will ultimately become six foot six inches if it hasn't been designed,

[1:20:44] constructed that way beforehand.

[1:20:46] And therefore we'll also get an additional parking space needed for the apartment.

[1:20:50] We thank you for your time and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

[1:20:55] Mr. Horn, I understand it's in the commission room.

[1:20:57] If you have any questions, particularly to the architectural requirements or other site planning

[1:21:02] issues.

[1:21:03] Again, thank you.

[1:21:05] Bill, do you want to say anything?

[1:21:07] Okay.

[1:21:08] Okay.

[1:21:09] Thank you.

[1:21:09] That was the note.

[1:21:12] Questions for the applicant?

[1:21:19] Seeing that, I have a couple of comments, of course.

[1:21:24] I think it's a real task to get where you got with that little lot.

[1:21:33] I am pretty impressed to say the least.

[1:21:36] Going out there, I was kind of taking back, I thought I was familiar with the sight until

[1:21:39] I went out there.

[1:21:40] I saw that that perimeter fence is very formidable and I see that the current gate or the

[1:21:51] of the fence is somewhere in the order of depending on which part of the lot 17 and 19 feet

[1:21:58] off the edge of the road and then maybe 31 but I was pacing it off and the site is extremely

[1:22:07] well kept as far as I could see. Currently it is a lot of equipment there and it's certainly

[1:22:14] with the international shipping containers and things when I'm trying to visualize what it

[1:22:19] look like as an in-product, as inside the fence, there's some pre-substance of planters and things

[1:22:28] with concrete retaining wall. And the one thing I did look at, I just shake my head sometimes,

[1:22:36] as planning goes, that how much we can put in one particular place, and what the cost as far as not monetary costs are.

[1:22:48] because we I see on page five of the staff report when I see something like not granting the

[1:22:54] variances depicted on the variance plan would penalize the applicant for decisions made by the

[1:23:00] county commission years ago when the original plot was approved in subsequent land development

[1:23:05] regulations were enacted. I don't really buy that as a reason, but I appreciate it. It means that

[1:23:13] take into an extreme as a cardboard to do anything to create maximum development. In this particular

[1:23:20] case, my concerns are similar to a lot that we had up in big topic key. U.S. won somewhere

[1:23:31] on my marker nine. This is how much you can put on a lot and then access to it for emergency

[1:23:39] services. And that is something that I understand that the fire marshal will approve.

[1:23:47] And so that's really not my concern. I just want to be able to at some point in time and hopefully

[1:23:53] nothing ever happens there that say, wow, I didn't feel good about that. But it's, I think

[1:24:00] very aggressive plan for that small piece of property. I can see that care has been taken

[1:24:09] with the management of that property and I applaud how smart that and clean that property

[1:24:17] is maintained and I all for it. So my concerns will be addressed by others. But my biggest concern

[1:24:30] is with access for a fire protection because outside defense looking at the lot from the street to the right,

[1:24:41] very narrow access between the apartment building with the vegetation there and then once inside,

[1:24:49] I don't know what the final design will be but that is like close to a nuclear missile silo

[1:24:56] as far as security goes with that path.

[1:25:00] Concrete, slash concrete, block fence. So any other comments at all? Otherwise, entertain a, and I didn't know if there's any concern over the phase one phase two.

[1:25:15] Well, but where's the Enrogos square flage in the come from?

[1:25:23] Uh, we're, we intend to apply for Enrogos and Enrogos allocation, Joe, as soon as we get the building, building permit done submitted and moving to Enrogos at that point.

[1:25:35] Okay, so I'll be February 28th.

[1:25:38] Great.

[1:25:39] Okay.

[1:25:39] That's what that's the goal of assuming we can get through the permitting process that, you know, that's the plan.

[1:25:45] The property could potentially be eligible to apply for some square footage from the Enrogo bank as well.

[1:25:51] We would have to just write that.

[1:25:53] That's a thing. You could do that too.

[1:25:56] Okay.

[1:25:57] I'd like to play it.

[1:25:58] Motion approved.

[1:25:59] Motion approved.

[1:26:00] Mr. Scarpelli.

[1:26:02] Is that it?

[1:26:03] I think Eric was.

[1:26:04] I think Eric was.

[1:26:05] Any further discussion?

[1:26:10] Anyone opposed?

[1:26:12] Motion carries all the best of luck.

[1:26:13] Thank you very much, appreciate your time.

[1:26:16] Good seeing you, Barbara. Good seeing you, Bill.

[1:26:21] Item number four is postponed.

[1:26:23] We've only two item number five.

[1:26:26] Councilor, please read item number five.

[1:26:28] Yes, sir.

[1:26:29] Number five, Dan Nuremberg, of Nuremberg Family Trust.

[1:26:35] 129, 24.

[1:26:38] 113, Hack Doot, Lane.

[1:26:40] Kajoki, Maumarker 23, a public hearing concerning request for a variance to the required primary front yard setback requirement in land development code

[1:26:51] Section 131-1

[1:26:55] Resulting in a primary front yard setback of 22 feet

[1:26:59] The properties located the property is proposed to be

[1:27:03] developed with a detached dwelling unit.

[1:27:08] The subject property is described as

[1:27:10] lot eight, block 12, cut-throat harbor states.

[1:27:14] First edition, according to Platte thereof,

[1:27:17] has recorded in Platte book five, page 60.

[1:27:21] Pollock records of the Monroe County floor

[1:27:23] to currently having parcel identification number 001, 8558, 0-00, 0-00, 0-00.

[1:27:32] File number 2026-102.

[1:27:38] Thank you.

[1:27:41] Staff report, please.

[1:27:47] The list was very presenting this very mystery class.

[1:27:52] This came in as an administrative variance.

[1:27:56] It was administratively approved by the planning director and then the public noticing

[1:28:02] of the property and the balance to this surrounding property owners went out and there was

[1:28:09] request from affected property owners that this item

[1:28:13] come before the plan commission to be heard,

[1:28:17] and you should have also received this part of this file,

[1:28:23] the public comments that have been received.

[1:28:26] The proposal here is to reduce the 25th of the primary

[1:28:31] time that's set back by three feet to have the 22th of

[1:28:40] Right here you can see the property outlined and you can see sort of the neighborhood in which the property is located.

[1:28:50] And this is a closer up aerial view of the property and to be super super clear in terms of where the proposed variance is located is in that front yard setback area that's outlined in the orange.

[1:29:08] So previously, in 2017, a variance was approved for this property that reduced the same front yard setback by 22 feet.

[1:29:21] Excuse me, buy a three-feet for 22 foot front yard setback, and that's shown on the left,

[1:29:29] and then a building permit was issued in an alignment with the approved variance.

[1:29:37] Since then, a revision to that house permit has come in, and the proposal is for the house to still be at 22 feet from that front yard set back, but for the house to be wider, to be 40 feet as opposed to 30 feet, 35 feet wide.

[1:30:00] You can see the previously approved variants with the 22-foot setback and 35-foot wide house, one

[1:30:10] wouldn't including the overhangs. And here you can see what's proposed right now, the same 22-foot

[1:30:18] front yard setback, but of 40-foot width rather than 35. And if you look at the blue outline,

[1:30:29] line. In the area that shaded, that's the area that's under approximate area that's under

[1:30:37] consideration with this variance proposal. It's about 15 square feet. It's the same

[1:30:45] three-foot front-earth set that variance, but five feet wider. So what we're discussing today

[1:30:52] is whether the criteria are met to extend the previously approved variance by about 15 square feet.

[1:31:06] There's could you go back one slide? Yes. Okay, that's good. You can go forward.

[1:31:13] Okay. And the difference it says 10 and 24 and the difference is that there were six inch

[1:31:19] on each side, so it's 35 to 40.

[1:31:27] And so these are the criteria, the A criteria that must be met in order for a variance to be granted.

[1:31:35] And clearly the planning department previously in 2017 determined that all eight of these had been met at issue with the proposed variance would be

[1:31:48] is adding an extra 15 square feet. Does it meet the criteria of the minimum necessary,

[1:31:57] because it is an expansion of 15 square feet and planning stuff to determine that yes,

[1:32:04] it meets the criteria and the expansion of the additional 15 square feet is not unreasonable.

[1:32:11] level.

[1:32:14] So staff recommends approval with conditions, just the standard conditions regarding

[1:32:21] the plans on which this is based and clarification that no additional variances are

[1:32:29] approved through this.

[1:32:34] So,

[1:32:36] are there any questions for me at this time?

[1:32:41] Any questions, please?

[1:32:45] None.

[1:32:46] Well, we're not opening a public comment yet.

[1:32:51] So, um, did Liz, did an environmental thing come through yet?

[1:32:57] Did they do environmental existing additional report for the property up for building permit?

[1:33:02] So building permit was already issued for the house with all the

[1:33:07] environmental reviews that would be required for a house permit and that permit was approved

[1:33:15] received a logo and was issued so there is a biologist there he can answer specific questions

[1:33:26] regarding how the biologists do their review but that review was done and the permit for the

[1:33:37] is, is it appropriate to allow for the House to be five feet wider within that front

[1:33:44] air backpack? It's not a question of it is the property developable.

[1:33:50] Understood. I just was reading some of the owner, some of the comments that's why I figured

[1:33:54] I'd ask. Okay. You know, open it up to public comment. Does anyone here would like to speak? Please

[1:34:03] come up to the lectern? Yes sir, come on up. Please state your name and address.

[1:34:20] Commissioner, my name is Christopher Pucco. I reside diagonally across from the property in

[1:34:26] question on Cuccio Key. My wife and I bought the house in 2011 after serving 32 years in the

[1:34:33] I'd like to address why I believe the eight aforementioned criteria do not satisfy.

[1:34:44] The first being good and sufficient cause, the 2015 although I think the nice lady said

[1:34:50] 2017 side plan shows that an approximate 1,068 square foot home could fit within the ordinary

[1:34:59] speed set.

[1:35:01] Currently, the applicant has shown a preference for a larger house, but not in my opinion, a good cause for reducing the setback.

[1:35:12] Regarding the exceptional hardship, I'm the lot's shape, wetland and basin, who already know, in the smaller house,

[1:35:20] At the time was designed and I believe a later decision to pursue a larger plan is not an exceptional hardship, it's a preference.

[1:35:30] I'm thirdly regarding safety.

[1:35:34] I witnessed this property underwater continuously as it has been since 2015.

[1:35:41] And for that matter, both the lot and the haplot lane, they flood, every time, there's a king-tied

[1:35:50] or high-tied or excessive rain such that the neighbors, some of which are here, literally

[1:35:56] have to park their car at the end of the street so that they could get out because the flood

[1:36:04] water in the street rises to like two feet.

[1:36:08] Could you please clarify which number you are speaking to as far as compliance not compliance with that comment?

[1:36:15] Number three, no public expense, safety threat or nuisance.

[1:36:19] Thank you.

[1:36:22] You need circumstances.

[1:36:24] Number four, the lot is unusual, but those same conditions existed in 2015 when the compliance plan was prepared and approved.

[1:36:32] Uniqueness alone does not make the request variance necessary, regarding a special privilege, the current

[1:36:40] 1,481 square foot covered area, is about 39% larger than any other dwelling, not only

[1:36:50] on that street, but in all of cutthroat states.

[1:36:54] The smaller plan was similar in size to nearby homes and granting relief for the larger design

[1:37:02] would provide, in my opinion, a special privilege, not necessary.

[1:37:08] Number six, number seven, not applicable and lastly, the minimum variance.

[1:37:13] The earlier plan proves that a meaningful neighborhood scale residence can fit without the reduction

[1:37:21] in square footage, the request variance, in my opinion, does not allow the minimum relief necessary

[1:37:28] and respectfully request the commissioners to deny the variance.

[1:37:34] Thank you for listening.

[1:37:36] Thank you.

[1:37:40] Next.

[1:37:43] How about you stroke first?

[1:37:46] Okay.

[1:37:46] Thank you.

[1:38:00] Possible to put the site plan back up, so I can reference it.

[1:38:10] I'm Michelle Fletco. I live at 1134 D. Lusana, Chris's wife. I'm the engineer in the family. I'm a PhD in engineering. I haven't had my professional engineering license.

[1:38:23] I'm mechanical engineer, not a civil engineer. I don't have experience working in Monroe County, but I'm able, can you go to the previous site plan, the older one.

[1:38:37] That's just a little easier to read.

[1:38:40] I have not really looked at this plan until this current variance was submitted.

[1:38:47] And when I look at the plan, I know we're talking about the front yard set back.

[1:38:52] That is what we're here today to decide.

[1:38:55] But we're not really deciding on a line.

[1:38:58] We're deciding on a footprint of a residence.

[1:39:01] So when I look at this, I think everyone knows the shoreline set back.

[1:39:07] back here in Monroe County is 20 feet, and it's shown as 10.

[1:39:14] And every plan has said, this property must adhere to the setbacks, unless it's, you

[1:39:23] know, there's the reason.

[1:39:25] So I looked at what could possibly provide a 10 foot shoreline setback instead of a 20.

[1:39:32] And there's the boat slip in the boat ramp, neither of which are on this property.

[1:39:36] and I printed it out, I read it all, and it's like there is no approval for a 10 foot shoreline set back.

[1:39:45] The plan submitted to the Corps of Engineers in 2015 as well as the Florida Department of Environmental Protection show a 20 foot shoreline set back.

[1:39:56] and they're actually in the Nuremberg Spare.

[1:40:00] Request that they put in, but it's just blurry. It's the small blurry one. A 20-foot shoreline setback was the core approved plan and the Department of Environmental Protection Plan. Since that time, the core plan has expired and there is no extension. The Department of Environmental Protection Plan has been extended, but for the plans that were submitted originally. And the Nuremberg's did not do this. They inherited this.

[1:40:30] I don't even know if they actually know what their variants in fat backs were submitted in 2015.

[1:40:36] So in 2015 we have, I mean, high water line established, a 20 foot shoreline setback, and two front yard variances.

[1:40:46] Because it's a corner lot, it has 25 and 15.

[1:40:50] And that's what was approved since then.

[1:40:52] A variance was submitted as Liz said in 2017 with different shorelines setback.

[1:40:59] and a reduced front yard set back.

[1:41:03] And so the mean high water line, which gave the 2015 plans,

[1:41:10] the measurement of 20 feet was surveyed in 2015.

[1:41:17] There has been 11 years of tidal inundation

[1:41:20] and a major hurricane since the high water line was established.

[1:41:26] So 11 years later, we're trying to reduce the setback to 10 feet, there was a survey in 2020 and the 2020 survey in the fine print says we are using the 2015 mean high waterline calculations for this.

[1:41:43] And I am not saying that the property is not buildable.

[1:41:47] It needs to be developed if it needs with current survey.

[1:41:53] And express why are we not even talking about the shorelines that back?

[1:41:59] And the last thing I'm going to say is the swell.

[1:42:02] Can we go to the next, um, the current.

[1:42:06] Mr. Chairman has been three minutes to see you know.

[1:42:09] Oh, okay, okay, give us the 30 seconds, give us the 30 second version.

[1:42:15] That the swell is too much too small for I'm the I was a professional engineer.

[1:42:20] I'm like how can this swell retain that much water for this much fill?

[1:42:25] I'm not the person from Monroe County that's it, but it's part of the site plan that I don't think has really been approved.

[1:42:32] Thank you, thank you. That's the mechanical engineer versus the civil.

[1:42:35] I have my undergrad and civil, my PhD mechanic.

[1:42:38] I know you probably couldn't appreciate you, of course.

[1:42:40] Thank you so much.

[1:42:41] Thank you for your time.

[1:42:42] Thank you.

[1:42:43] Someone else?

[1:43:04] Are you buying any drinks?

[1:43:12] Good morning.

[1:43:13] Planning Commission members, staff, and guests.

[1:43:16] My name's Kim Nuremberg.

[1:43:17] I'm here with my husband, Dan Nuremberg.

[1:43:19] We're representing the Nuremberg family trust,

[1:43:22] the owner of the property to $11.35

[1:43:25] Haculot Lane on Cooju Coojo Key.

[1:43:28] Thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak with you today.

[1:43:31] We are here asking the Planning Commission to approve the application for the small variance needed to accommodate a reasonable home on this property.

[1:43:40] This would require a reduction of the front yard set back from 25 feet to 22 feet.

[1:43:47] This property has a unique configuration. There's a significant cutout along the canal that substantially reduces the usable building area.

[1:43:55] The property is also subject to a secondary side road set back further limiting the buildable area.

[1:44:02] These are existing conditions that were not created by us.

[1:44:06] When combined with the current building, floodplain, environmental and other regulatory requirements,

[1:44:13] these constraints create significant design challenges.

[1:44:17] Our goal is simply to build a reasonable home that fits the character of the neighborhood,

[1:44:21] It meets all required standards and minimizes the impacts on neighboring properties in the environment.

[1:44:28] County staff has reviewed our application and determined that it does meet the required various criteria.

[1:44:34] We believe it's a very limited adjustment that allows reasonable use of the property without inversely affecting neighboring properties.

[1:44:43] We understand and respect the concerns raised today, particularly regarding flooding in the environment.

[1:44:49] But we believe it's important to keep those concerns in the context of the request before you.

[1:44:56] This is a limited three-foot set-back variance request.

[1:45:00] Not approve a drainage plan, change the flood plan requirements, or override any environmental regulations or agency requirements.

[1:45:09] We believe those matters are addressed through the county and other agencies review processes, and we have complied with the requirements that apply to this project.

[1:45:19] This variance simply provides the additional flexibility needed because of the unique constraints of this particular law.

[1:45:26] We respectfully ask you to focus on the limited request before you consider the specific conditions of this property and the review that has already taken place and we ask that you approve the variance.

[1:45:40] Thank you.

[1:45:42] Any questions?

[1:45:43] Okay.

[1:45:44] Is there anyone else that like to speak?

[1:45:46] Thank you.

[1:45:46] Thank you so much.

[1:45:48] Come on out.

[1:45:49] Thank you.

[1:45:51] May I request that any public speakers approach the podium in the front of the staff desk and not walk by.

[1:45:56] behind it. Thank you.

[1:46:19] My name is Barbara Zeki. I live at 11. 25 hack loop name. My problem

[1:46:26] is the flooding on the road. And I'm afraid that being able to raise the lot that they have

[1:46:36] three foot four inches is going to have a great reflection on the flooding of the road.

[1:46:45] The road floods now every two weeks and it isn't passable.

[1:46:53] I have to go to physical therapy. I have someone pick me up at the end of the road.

[1:46:58] So I can go to physical therapy all the time.

[1:47:02] And it's a big inconvenience.

[1:47:05] And I don't know if people have checked to see what this type of filling that much on the road

[1:47:14] on the site is going to do to the road flooding.

[1:47:21] We need a new roadway, but we can't pay for it,

[1:47:25] which is now the plan for the county

[1:47:31] if you need to raise the road.

[1:47:33] You have to, the neighbors have to pay for it.

[1:47:36] So I don't know.

[1:47:37] Are these people going to be willing to pay to raise the road, too?

[1:47:42] I need to, the other thing is they are able to fill three and a half, three foot, four inches.

[1:47:55] And my neighbor across the way just wanted to fill on their sidewalk on the side of the little lot.

[1:48:04] Because it gets constantly flooded by the high ties, and they weren't able to.

[1:48:13] The planning commission said that they could not put any fill on their lot.

[1:48:21] And their lot is not, it's below the level of the road.

[1:48:28] And I don't understand how they are not able to put any fill on their property.

[1:48:34] And the new embers are able to raise the property 3.3 foot 4 inches.

[1:48:46] And have 10 foot from the water, which is going to flood over there.

[1:48:53] And make it like a channel that's going to run through the property, it's inconceivable to me.

[1:49:02] I'm sorry. I know these people are very nice and I always felt that if you bought property,

[1:49:09] you could do something with it. But the original plan was for a smaller house that was only two

[1:49:16] stories and now they want a huge house that's three stories and that's going to take over the whole lot.

[1:49:24] And they are using a permit that was issued in 2015 before Irma by the previous owners.

[1:49:37] I don't understand that either.

[1:49:40] So I'm very sorry to make these this opinion, but I don't want to be blocked in by water anymore than I am.

[1:49:50] Thank you, just the point of clarification, it was not the planning commission that denied that filter.

[1:49:56] It might have been the planning department, but we kind people up here.

[1:50:00] I'm sorry. I don't know who takes care of that. I haven't had to ask for something like that myself, although I probably should.

[1:50:10] Thank you. Thank you for your concern. Is there anyone else who would like to speak?

[1:50:19] Commissioners any comments?

[1:50:23] Well, I know that they're not able to raise the property by three feet. They're raising it two or three foot elevation from their two foot elevation on the property.

[1:50:35] according to the survey there is ma'am, and that's the elevation, currently sits at, to speak to that.

[1:50:45] And then I do know that I've done work on that street, on a house on that street, it does flood.

[1:50:52] I've brought it up to Ronda Hague that that road should be on our list of road resiliency projects.

[1:50:58] It is a poor, poor road.

[1:51:02] She said there are ones that are worse throughout the county.

[1:51:05] This house explains me, but it is on their list for them to address, but that's

[1:51:11] through their grant funding, I believe, as how she's looking at that, to speak to

[1:51:17] the road resiliency portion of it.

[1:51:20] I did have a question, the temp, the for staff, the temp foot, mean high border line, that

[1:51:26] It was part of the original variance, right, Liz?

[1:51:29] It was not.

[1:51:31] It was not part of the original variance.

[1:51:36] So in 2017, a variance to the front yard set back was granted.

[1:51:41] It is referenced in that staff report that a reduction of the shoreline set back could be granted

[1:51:51] administratively through the building permit.

[1:51:54] So I wouldn't even say administratively, but the land development code allowed a reduction to a 10-foot shoreline setback.

[1:52:02] The code section was 118, 12, to allow for 2000 square foot of principle structure,

[1:52:10] a principal structure footprint of reasonable configuration.

[1:52:14] And that was approved through the building permit that was applied for in 2020 and issued in February of this year.

[1:52:23] And now revision to that site plan is proposed, that is the subject of the request today.

[1:52:29] There is no change to that short line set back that is proposed.

[1:52:33] Yeah, by measurements, according to the site plan, the footprint of this house is only 1300 square feet, roughly judging by the site plan.

[1:52:43] What was that?

[1:52:47] Okay,

[1:52:50] I have a measurements of 36 by 37 is what I got, but regardless, that's all I, I was just

[1:53:14] Curious, is anyone telling me why the soap senses up?

[1:53:18] I mean, I don't know.

[1:53:21] No, I can't take any staff.

[1:53:25] I went out there.

[1:53:26] There's a soap barrier put on.

[1:53:29] There is an issued building permit currently.

[1:53:32] Okay.

[1:53:32] That makes sense.

[1:53:33] Thank you.

[1:53:34] That's the answer.

[1:53:35] Because I tell you.

[1:53:36] That's a guess.

[1:53:38] We don't have.

[1:53:39] Okay.

[1:53:40] Because I saw that.

[1:53:41] It was indicative of you doing that before construction.

[1:53:46] I think, Commissioner Scarpelli, I mentioned something earlier about the actual biologists or something.

[1:53:54] I tell you what, I personally, Mike, was blown away going out there to see the metaphors all over the lot.

[1:54:04] I mean, the black main grows, and then the mature red main grows, I can see there, the doc plan, I guess, is going to put, that's a separate issue.

[1:54:12] it goes out around them as far as wetlands go. I'm amazed that you can even get a building permit.

[1:54:28] I'm just, but that's why we're here. I'm going like, I mean, I mean, I looked at there.

[1:54:36] And I said, there's no trespassing signs up, not that I would go on the other way, but I don't want to chill in the matter for us on the black,

[1:54:44] I, of the sights I've looked at, I was, I wouldn't have been surprised if that driveway

[1:54:50] wasn't there whether it was tier one property to be honest with you, but we're talking

[1:54:55] about what 15 square feet for the additional, we're talking about.

[1:55:00] I see that the swell to the comment about that, the swells are designed by a registered professional engineer, correct?

[1:55:11] And that should have taken into account the counties required run-off calculations to take on that water granted from what I can see.

[1:55:22] And I totally can believe that that lot is inundated times just by the vegetation that's there

[1:55:30] in the model of soil that's present through all those undeveloped lots there.

[1:55:41] But I know it's, we are here about 15 square feet cannot undo what has been done already

[1:55:49] And our purview is that 15 square feet.

[1:55:54] I very much appreciate the residents' comments that have come here and the concerns about

[1:56:02] that because it's obvious to me that a lot floods were not here unfortunately today to

[1:56:10] want to do that. It's about 15 square feet. So, yes, George.

[1:56:18] I mean attached letter going back to 2017.

[1:56:24] It states that they were giving given an administrative

[1:56:29] variance. And I think, also, at that time, we weren't really experiencing the high

[1:56:36] the king tides that we are now. They've gotten worse over the years and it seemed like

[1:56:46] they're much more frequent than they used to be back in the early days. In fact, we never

[1:56:52] talked about king tides back then that I can look all up. But now we're definitely experiencing

[1:57:00] But I'm so am I correct and say and they got a variance in 2017 that is correct a variance was granted in 2017 that variance was granted because the

[1:57:15] It was found that the proposed plan and the property met the eight required criteria that permit was issued that's the permit that was finally issued in February of this year

[1:57:28] the applicants then proposed a revision to their site plan.

[1:57:33] The revision does include approximately 15 square feet that of additional square footage

[1:57:39] within that front yard step back area, which is why they had to come in for another

[1:57:44] variance.

[1:57:45] I did review it.

[1:57:47] I found that the status of the property in the request had not substantially changed and that

[1:57:54] there was not sufficient justification to issue an alternative decision, other than that,

[1:57:59] what was granted in 2017, our code does require us to notice all surrounding property

[1:58:05] owners of the intent to approve the variance, and the surrounding property owners have

[1:58:10] the option to request that variance come before the planning commission, which is how we

[1:58:15] are here today. I do want to add, though, because the building permit that we're talking about

[1:58:20] was originally applied for in 2020, and now a revision is being a requested county biological

[1:58:28] staff did review this proposed revision and did note that the Army Corps of Engineers

[1:58:33] permit that was previously issued that authorized the proposed development did expire and

[1:58:39] are requiring a new authorization from Army Corps prior to approving this revision.

[1:58:45] So that will be reviewed, but today, as Liz had previously stated, is the requested front

[1:58:52] New York setback variance, which is approximately 15 square foot change from what had been previously

[1:58:58] approved.

[1:59:01] Thank you for that, and that will be interesting,

[1:59:07] and hopefully you read between the lines on

[1:59:11] that, the neighbors, about the Army Corps commitment, needing to be revised. Any further discussion?

[1:59:20] Motions?

[1:59:29] I'll go into a group as is.

[1:59:32] We have a motion to prove Mr. Carpelli's second commissioner, Newtion.

[1:59:37] I just want to add one little caveat there to that. I'm only motion to improve this because

[1:59:41] in my opinion, when you reduce the setback variance, it's already been reduced all the way

[1:59:47] cross not on the merit that it's the setback of variants was already requested. I feel

[1:59:55] it's silly. I know that that's how the land development code is written, that these

[2:00:00] We are further encroaching in the front yard setback that that variance still needs to add for that three linear feet that we're adding.

[2:00:09] But that's the only reason why I'm voting. Motion to approve. Sorry.

[2:00:14] Okay.

[2:00:16] Commissioner Scarpelli made the motion. We have a second from Commissioner Noochand. Anyone opposed?

[2:00:21] I'm opposed.

[2:00:24] Okay, call the roll, please.

[2:00:35] Mr. Skarpali?

[2:00:36] Yes.

[2:00:37] Mr. Nortama?

[2:00:38] No.

[2:00:39] Mr. Nogent?

[2:00:40] Yes.

[2:00:41] Mr. Anderson?

[2:00:42] Yes.

[2:00:43] Chair deans.

[2:00:44] Yes.

[2:00:47] Thank you.

[2:00:49] Thank you.

[2:00:51] The, um,

[2:00:54] okay.

[2:00:55] We've up to

[2:01:02] item number six.

[2:01:05] Council.

[2:01:06] Council, will you please re-Ile number six?

[2:01:19] Number six.

[2:01:20] Brian and Beverly Platner,

[2:01:23] 19 South Bridge Lane,

[2:01:26] Key Largo, Florida,

[2:01:28] Ocean Reef Club.

[2:01:29] A public hearing for the Monroe County

[2:01:31] Planning Commission to consider

[2:01:33] an appeal initiated by Smith Hawks PL

[2:01:36] as agent for the property owners.

[2:01:39] pursuant a section 102-185

[2:01:42] of the Monroe County Land Development Code

[2:01:44] of planning environmental resources, the Department Review Determinations,

[2:01:50] Failure for Building Permit, R-R-M-DL-2026-0043.

[2:01:59] The property is legally described as a lot 19 block-3.

[2:02:03] Harbour course section 4, Ocean Reef, Platinum 13,

[2:02:08] According to the platform, as recorded in the platform 7 page 8 of the public records of Monroe County Florida, having parcel identification number

[2:02:24] 00573670101900 file number 2026-048.

[2:02:39] Thank you.

[2:02:40] Two or three times my head spins trying to understand how we got to where we are today and the chronologies extremely important and to emphasize county actions and what didn't happen.

[2:03:00] It's to get here and on the basis of this appeal, but I'm very interested and see that the diligence and what I ascertain from what I read, the county trying to work with the applicant, so Jay, go for it.

[2:03:18] And if I might ask just to get us out of here younger, would it be willing to stipulate

[2:03:22] I'm referring to opposing council for purposes of the record to the Planning Commission's

[2:03:28] recognition of Mr. Barren's wig as an expert in the fields of planning and environmental resources

[2:03:34] and stipulate to Mr. Tolpe and being recognized as an expert in the discipline of planning.

[2:03:40] Okay, yes, yes, I'm both council. Okay, thank you. Thank you, chair and commissioners.

[2:03:47] You're going to try to walk you through that through this brief staff or presentation.

[2:03:55] Again, item before you is an appeal filed by the appellant regarding the department's

[2:04:02] review determination for Billing Permit are in D.L., 2026-004-3 regarding a determination

[2:04:13] of illegal land clearing alteration to an existing tropical

[2:04:18] hardwood hammock conservation easement area.

[2:04:26] Again this is the subject

[2:04:28] parcel is 19 self-bridge lane within ocean reef on the hardwood core

[2:04:35] section.

[2:04:43] So that recorded conservation easement was on approximately

[2:04:47] 9,964 square feet of tropical hardwood hammock. The easement was required and is required in order to maintain compliance.

[2:05:00] With the development of the property for single-family residents, and that residents was permitted under building permit number 993-00192. As you can see in the slide, the hatch area is the conservation easement area surrounding the property,

[2:05:25] and there's four little red boxes that you can see.

[2:05:30] those are noted on the recorded sketch as dense vegetation.

[2:05:37] Jay, could you ask you a question?

[2:05:40] When I looked at my black and white staff report page 8, how does that exhibit, but that is partially

[2:05:48] highlighted in yellow and so I can't tell the difference.

[2:05:53] Yeah, so I'll kind of come back to that, but the yellow portion is part of the area that we determined to be potentially disturbed, altered from the natural state, but there's that little sliver of the black and white that you can still see there that's still part of that

[2:06:16] It has not been disturbed.

[2:06:21] Thank you.

[2:06:26] So this is pulled directly from the recorded conservation easement from the time when the easement was recorded in early 2000.

[2:06:39] key restrictions include no removal, trimming or pruning of trees, shrubs or other vegetation,

[2:06:50] no acts that are detrimental to wildlife or wildlife habitat preservation, no pea gravel,

[2:06:58] rock, soil, or other material substances and such manner as to affect surface of the

[2:07:11] No planting of non-native plants, no activities detrimental to flood control, drainage, soil

[2:07:18] conservation, erosion control, or water conservation.

[2:07:24] Additionally, this conservation easement provides that it is perpetual, runs with the land,

[2:07:30] and is binding on all present and subsequent owners.

[2:07:38] So what I'm going to show you next are some images that we're taking in February while I visited the property in an attempt to issue notice of a potential stop work order to be posted with with no environmental restoration of the site if that was the way how they're going to follow.

[2:08:08] What this image, I'm not sure if you can see the tape measure, but the base or the case of the housing of that tape measure is situated approximately at the start of the front property line.

[2:08:27] That's measured 20 feet from the center line of Southbridge Lane

[2:08:38] that little, well, what I'm, my arrow here is playing approximately to the location where that tape measure was.

[2:08:49] And you can see we have sod and ornamentals visible in that picture.

[2:09:03] So this is also the front portion of the conservation easement showing that indicate a large amount of mulch.

[2:09:13] It's a little clear.

[2:09:15] Well obviously clearing and spread within the conservation easement.

[2:09:19] There's non-native ornamentals planted throughout and also some artificial lighting within the easement area.

[2:09:34] Again, this is the front portion of the property kind of close to where my that arrow was depicting

[2:09:43] that's also indicating some non-native ornamental ornamentals, some greenillides that are planted within the easement area.

[2:09:58] So at this slide depicts...

[2:10:00] Is those previous three photos kind of in that general vicinity?

[2:10:09] I can go back, if you like,

[2:10:15] if you need me to go back to the pictures again, please let me know.

[2:10:19] You have a picture. We have a picture in here.

[2:10:24] So now what this photo depicts, again, I'm kind of walking you through the property, the existing

[2:10:34] conditions,

[2:10:37] this is depicting the ease property line on the parcel and this is actually

[2:10:42] considered part of the conservation easement area, this is the easement area directly

[2:10:50] to the east of the driveway.

[2:10:53] And as you can see, the hedge of a non-native vegetation,

[2:10:59] some non-native palms in the background there.

[2:11:03] And ultimately, this area should be

[2:11:07] undisturbed and unaltered, hardwood hammock,

[2:11:10] as is established within the conservation movement.

[2:11:17] So that's approximately the area

[2:11:19] where this photo was taken.

[2:11:30] So this next photo you can see is also portions of the easement

[2:11:37] area that indicates basically all vegetation has been stripped except for including all ground

[2:11:46] cover, there is one native fetch palm to the left-hand side of that photo, and then you

[2:11:57] see that, I believe it's a mango, which is a non-native in the center there, and obviously

[2:12:05] all the pea gravel and devoid of any natural ground cover in the area.

[2:12:15] So, this is continuing down the east property side part of the conservation easement, as well.

[2:12:25] So,

[2:12:28] the photo is basically facing north towards the water,

[2:12:39] towards the rear of the parcel here.

[2:12:41] Again,

[2:12:49] you can see all native vegetation, all ground cover has been removed that part of the conservation easement area,

[2:13:04] and you can see the P gravel, sod, and even the hard escape that's potentially within the conservation easement area.

[2:13:15] So

[2:13:28] this is just illustrating on the the conservation easement sketch of what you what I was just depicting with those photos

[2:13:36] So

[2:13:43] this is still on that east side looking back up at the driveway from the back of property

[2:13:49] Just the different view of those previous three previous photos you were looking at it shows how

[2:13:56] essentially disturbed that area is

[2:13:59] No no habitat present

[2:14:16] So here, these arrows are basically depicting the clearing disturbance shown in the immediate

[2:14:23] photo and I have that little photo symbol facing the way I was looking for clarity.

[2:14:40] And again, this is a view from the east side looking at the rear conservation easement area

[2:14:49] And my thumb is basically the picking right there, where you're viewing, again, the...

[2:15:00] Tropical Hardwood hammock is no longer present in this area. You can see structures, landscape plans, considerable amount of p-rock.

[2:15:13] That's an insum- hedged landscape material in the area that's supposed to be Tropical Hardwood hammock for the easement

[2:15:29] photo of the sketch where we were just viewing.

[2:15:36] So, this is just a aerial for, to look at historic verse, verse fairly current, 2024, verse

[2:15:47] 2012.

[2:15:49] Even in the 2012, you can see a more of a, again, we're only looking at canopy in these

[2:15:56] aerial photos, but more of a robust tree canopy surrounding the single-family residents,

[2:16:03] 20-24 aerial, you can kind of clearly see and what's depicted in the red areas that may

[2:16:13] have been thin, altered, or trimmed, degrading the hammock conservation easement area.

[2:16:22] And then the ground truth observation shown in previous slides established clear evidence

[2:16:29] of land clearing and alteration of the conservation easement area?

[2:16:37] Can you take Janks?

[2:16:39] You go back to the photo a second.

[2:16:42] I know that when you, the photograph you had with the tape showing your cross from a property

[2:16:50] line and showing them the graphic that shows where the conservation area is when I look at

[2:17:02] 2012 to the left. It appears back in 2012 and it's kind of hard to tell, but it looks

[2:17:12] like there's maybe coconut palms and sod already there and 12. Is that correct?

[2:17:19] I think I believe you can see palms there that's likely, yeah, right in the front there.

[2:17:28] It's unclear whether or not those are on the property line or in the private right away easement.

[2:17:35] Okay.

[2:17:36] Southbridge Lane.

[2:17:40] Thank you.

[2:17:41] Is that okay to move on?

[2:17:42] Thank you.

[2:17:43] Yes, sir.

[2:17:47] All right.

[2:17:47] So I guess this is how we got to where we are.

[2:17:53] The parcel owners applied for an interior remodel permit in April of 2025.

[2:17:59] The owner's 2025 interior model permit underwent a compliance review with planning and environmental

[2:18:06] resource department. I issued the April 2025 permit a failed determination and cited disturbance

[2:18:14] and scarification of the parcels tropical hardwood hammock conservation easement.

[2:18:21] Despite the

[2:18:22] The opportunity to file an appeal, no appeal was filed,

[2:18:28] about a year later, the owners applied

[2:18:31] for another interior remodel permit in January of 2026.

[2:18:38] As noted in the professional staff report, the owners 2025 permit and the owners 2026

[2:18:45] permit share the exact same scope of work, or for the exact same property and use the exact

[2:18:51] same contractor.

[2:18:58] Owners 2026 permit, likewise, Underway Compliance Review, and received the exact same fail determination that was provided with my failed determination for the permit of April 2025.

[2:19:26] So we made multiple attempts to work with cooperatively with the contractor, again, the owners, to remedy the violations.

[2:19:45] Um, verbally communicated with the contractor up to at least half a dozen times regarding the violations.

[2:19:56] Um, and an opportunity how they could be resolved.

[2:19:59] In that first book.

[2:20:00] The three to six times you spoke, was that in reference to the 2025 or all of the above since the first and then the second?

[2:20:11] So that it was the same contractor.

[2:20:15] We communicated both for the 2025 and, again, for the 2026. So I'm looking back. It's probably, yeah, at least three to six times for both combined.

[2:20:29] Thank you.

[2:20:34] So apart from that, I also met the owner's contractor on site, both during the 2025 and attempted

[2:20:45] the 2026 bill.

[2:20:49] And then on, even on February 26 of this year, the department senior director, Mr. Tolbin,

[2:20:57] and the department's assistant director, Mr. Roberts, spoke with another agent of the owners

[2:21:04] to offer relevant details and information to help them pursue voluntary compliance.

[2:21:15] And basically, what was expressed to them, voluntary restoration to avoid any

[2:21:22] code compliance issues with the property,

[2:21:31] and then, and then even we communicated that

[2:21:34] the twenty twenty six interior model permit could be issued if they applied and were

[2:21:41] issued a relevant restoration permit for the tropical hardwood hammock.

[2:21:57] So that attempt to

[2:21:59] the situation was unfruitful.

[2:22:05] So a stop work order was issued as mandated by our land

[2:22:11] development code section 11811 and as you can see on the screen those are copies of the

[2:22:19] posted stop work order.

[2:22:28] The owners were charged with violations of land development

[2:22:32] code sections, 1-183, 1-189A, and section 1-189D, and with violating permanent conditions

[2:22:43] associated with the residential single family, residents permit, 993, 00192.

[2:22:53] The stop work order was not appealed nor were any of the departments, determinations, charging

[2:23:00] the owners with violations of the code sections, 1-183, 1-189A, 1-189D, or with the violation

[2:23:12] of the permit conditions, a session with the permit 993-00192, 8-the single-family residence

[2:23:20] permit.

[2:23:32] This stop work order further indicates that a co-compliance department case has been initiated

[2:23:40] for for the subject property.

[2:23:53] So section 1-183 provides that, I'm sorry,

[2:24:02] 1-183 provides

[2:24:06] the administration and compliance of our environmental development regulations for Hammock

[2:24:22] family residents, permit, and the CO for the House on the subject parcel, further 1-189-A states

[2:24:32] that the Upland Native Vegetation, which in this case is the Tropical Hardwood Hammock Habitat,

[2:24:40] shall not be cleared or disturbed and shall be protected by a conservation easement that runs

[2:24:46] with the land and favor of Monroe County.

[2:24:51] 1-18-9D provides that the clearing limit of upland native vegetation is for properties

[2:24:58] within Ocean Reef is...

[2:25:00] Limited to a maximum of 40%.

[2:25:12] These are the permit conditions associated with the single-family residence permit 993-00192.

[2:25:26] So, as you can see, what I've highlighted here, it imposes what's required to be placed within the conservation easement and the maximum clearing,

[2:25:35] which the maximum clearing for the single-family residence was max out with that permit, so all remaining open space was to be placed in the easement area.

[2:26:04] So, 118, 11A is our code section regarding illegal land clearing and restoration, illegal

[2:26:18] land clearing requires a stop work order and the initiation of a code compliance case.

[2:26:25] Section 118, 11A also states that the stop work order shall remain in effect and that no permitting

[2:26:32] process shall continue except for processing and environmental restoration permit until the

[2:26:40] legal land clearing is first corrected

[2:26:45] which in this case would be the passing of a restoration

[2:26:51] permit inspection.

[2:26:59] Section 118B sets force the process for how to achieve compliance with

[2:27:04] in a legal, land clearing violation, like I just stated.

[2:27:10] The owners would be required to obtain a restoration permit

[2:27:16] for the hammock area as mandated by this code section.

[2:27:31] So development code section 102-185A and section 102-185C,

[2:27:40] speak for themselves, my issued failed determination of the Pellon's April 25,

[2:27:49] interior remodel permit application was provided in April of 2025 and never appealed.

[2:27:58] The owners then nearly a year later submitted an identical interior remodel permit application

[2:28:05] in January of 2026, which again for the exact same property using the same contractor and the exact

[2:28:16] scope of work that was in the April 2025 permit. So I simply re-provided the exact same failed

[2:28:24] determination that I provided to the owners and their contractor in April of 2025.

[2:28:38] So it's with

[2:28:39] that the department's position is that this appeal is jurisdictionally untimely the department's

[2:28:47] failed determination on the owner's April 2025 remodel permit application was provided

[2:28:54] at April 2025 and was never appealed. Almost a year later the owner submitted the identical

[2:29:01] permit application in January of 2026 for the same parcel using the same contractor and for

[2:29:08] identical scope of work and subsequently I re-provided the same departments same failed

[2:29:18] determination that had already been provided in April of 2025.

[2:29:25] The department's position is also that our failed determination is supported by the adopted

[2:29:32] land development code, particularly sections 118, 11A, 118, 11A directs the

[2:29:42] department to take actions that we have taken to this point. So we feel we're

[2:29:54] correct in terms of the merits of this.

[2:30:00] With that, I can feel any questions you have at this time. Thank you.

[2:30:10] Commissioners?

[2:30:13] I guess what? Jay, what prompted the site visit the biological review site visit?

[2:30:22] I guess now. It was just that you happened to notice the 2018 file.

[2:30:29] Yes.

[2:30:30] So you're currently doing your permit. Correct. Okay. So you saw the note from the 2018 doing the

[2:30:38] permit review. You saw the note that there's this failed. That's actually because there was

[2:30:44] illegal land clearing. And so you went out to see if that was rectified. Correct. Found it. It wasn't.

[2:30:52] When out there with the contractor found that the condition had not changed, was not rectified.

[2:30:57] And that one went to the field.

[2:31:01] And the contractor asked you to come to the property?

[2:31:05] Yes.

[2:31:15] If I could, this is very involved.

[2:31:22] And I understand the positive side of county government.

[2:31:29] The idea is to get compliance.

[2:31:33] once we find the violation.

[2:31:37] In 2025, I can see there was

[2:31:40] tensile, you said in a three to six times initially, then later on in

[2:31:45] 2026, we had the staff meet with the applicant and attempt to resolve this.

[2:31:57] So how much we miss you so why when this non-compliance was discovered back in 2025 or

[2:32:07] would this take the 2025 issue to permit was denied?

[2:32:13] Why wasn't there a code compliance case issued for rectifying the situation that was thought

[2:32:23] to be non-compliance?

[2:32:25] So I believe in the staff report, even detailed, we go above and beyond to try to avoid the situation of a co-compliance and look for voluntary compliance with the property owners, with the applicants, and lieu of a set directly just jump and straight to a co-compliance case.

[2:32:54] So,

[2:32:57] that was the reason the fail was issued in 2025, subsequently, same thing in 2016.

[2:33:07] Yeah, I appreciate that.

[2:33:09] I obviously could tell that there were attempts to work it out, but as I said in this commission,

[2:33:17] go forward and it's been known that I know we go over we go the extra mile I'll say and for

[2:33:28] some people who doesn't work I know Devon knows a couple cases where I shake my head and I can

[2:33:36] see then from a curious from a legal standpoint, how we permit is denied and the appeal window

[2:33:51] is closed and then is a technique for everyone to understand, well, just put in another

[2:34:01] permit for the same thing, and then we're going to open another window for an appeal.

[2:34:05] I mean, seems strange to me, because the bottom line to me is, I don't know what we're

[2:34:11] doing here.

[2:34:12] I mean, it's far as, and again, I take that as the county, in this case, the commission

[2:34:21] working towards the ultimate goal of the county government is to comply with, with the

[2:34:31] to get compliance and the least painful way possible. But I see that I'm taken back by this.

[2:34:40] I don't think I can remember a case where we had a building permit that was shut down.

[2:34:46] It was not compliance discovered a year later. How do we potentially open the window again?

[2:34:53] Put in basically a very similar same permit and then get it denied again. It's like cutting off.

[2:35:03] I don't understand. Again, we're here and then it appears that, is it from what I've read a couple times the second appeal window was that? This is appeal within the window because I think it was May and then the appeal was this appeal filed in a timely fashion.

[2:35:29] considering that the second permit was put in, I didn't think it was.

[2:35:40] Is that to me?

[2:35:42] How about it?

[2:35:43] Anybody wearing it?

[2:35:44] It was fast to bark in the answer.

[2:35:46] Anybody wearing a tie?

[2:35:49] You're asking if, let me clarify the question.

[2:35:52] You're asking if you can reopen a window on something that's already been closed?

[2:35:56] I mean, is that basically, once the appeal time for the 2025 has been closed, can you re-open it by doing the same thing?

[2:36:06] If you determine, and that's a factual determination for you guys, by doing the exact same thing a second time,

[2:36:12] and that's a principle called race due to Kata.

[2:36:14] And that means a thing already decided.

[2:36:18] So in legal parlance, the door closes.

[2:36:21] And I was going to say, he's asking me for...

[2:36:25] No, I said, factually he's going to have an opportunity to determine.

[2:36:30] But if you're strictly basing it upon,

[2:36:32] did the same thing get decided once,

[2:36:35] and then attempted to reopen a second time,

[2:36:37] absent any other considerations,

[2:36:39] it's called race to you to kind of the thing already decided.

[2:36:42] So in legal parlance,

[2:36:44] the door shuts, it doesn't reopen.

[2:36:46] And I can appreciate learning from our councils over the years I've been here.

[2:36:52] We try to work with the person that is subject to the non-compliance, to the point that we're

[2:37:03] here today.

[2:37:05] And I know Mr. Smith and Alp Kim will present the case of the rational behind this.

[2:37:12] But I start after I read this, I suppose the Mr. Smith and then I went home and I got my package

[2:37:19] and went through this actually two or three times trying to put it together and say I appreciate

[2:37:25] the time you've taken to walk through it, I'm kind of taking back by the level of non-compliance

[2:37:34] And that we just got to this red tag, and the bottom line is, and I think there was a window,

[2:37:46] that you said, hey, if you would apply for a mitigation or a way ahead to correct the

[2:37:52] action and permit for this kitchen could have gone forward possibly.

[2:37:58] So,

[2:38:01] that's just some of my comments, this is, this is, I'm really taking back by this particular item's form.

[2:38:08] And nobody else has any questions we'll go on to the applicant.

[2:38:11] The, the appellate, yeah.

[2:38:15] I did have one more question for staff before we hear from Bart.

[2:38:18] the site visit performance on August 8th, 2018 that found that the conservation easement was in violation.

[2:38:29] That is just a drop of ball we're saying.

[2:38:34] Why there wasn't a referral to code?

[2:38:37] Yeah.

[2:38:37] Or why wasn't there action on the main department then?

[2:38:41] I can't give you.

[2:38:42] Can they can't look into your crystal ball?

[2:38:44] I can't.

[2:38:44] What I can say in terms of, you know, the legal dimensions of that is, you know, the county does retain

[2:38:52] and it's evergreen floor to law that local governments retain prosecutorial discretion.

[2:38:57] Okay. So kind of like the state attorney, state attorney can decide whether or not to pursue criminal prosecution,

[2:39:04] the county, the code compliance department decides in the exercise of discretion when to engage in civil prosecution.

[2:39:12] And so that's really just a matter of decision that's discretionary to the code compliance

[2:39:18] director with coordination from planning if necessary.

[2:39:22] All right.

[2:39:23] And then subsequently we issued a couple other permits.

[2:39:26] But without notice to that field inspection and J happened to find that.

[2:39:32] And that's why we are where we are.

[2:39:34] Yeah, and I would only come.

[2:39:35] Trying to figure out the timeline in my head, guys.

[2:39:37] And I would only caveat that, you know,

[2:39:39] While the Code Compliance Department, the county can exercise prosecutorial discretion with regard

[2:39:46] to the sort of separate and distinct question of whether or not to simply prosecute before

[2:39:52] the Code Compliance Special Magistrate, that in my view, the Department made its position clear

[2:39:58] that there was a violation.

[2:40:00] When it failed the permit and issued the determination, the adverse re-indetermination that there was

[2:40:07] unlawful clearing of at least the apparent frontage of the conservation easing probably visible in death.

[2:40:14] I can't go north of the gate.

[2:40:15] Well, that kind of makes sense too, because we've always said that the planning department in

[2:40:19] co-compliance or two, it's two separate buckets, you know, they don't typically interact

[2:40:27] to hold on, unless you actually have to step it up to that degree.

[2:40:33] Yeah, I mean, compliance can be achieved through lawful coercion, which is prosecution,

[2:40:39] through failing a permit or suspending permitting privileges.

[2:40:42] There are a lot of different tools that are available to local governments, but in my view,

[2:40:48] there's no reasonable reliance on the fact that maybe you're not being civilly prosecuted,

[2:40:53] but you've been told by another arm of the same government

[2:40:55] that there is an illegality on your parcel.

[2:40:58] God, that's my view.

[2:41:00] The departments view.

[2:41:02] I'll do a little bit of something to share from Bart.

[2:41:04] You know, this for clarification from me,

[2:41:07] I know back in August of 18, I guess it put in for a permit

[2:41:11] that was denied.

[2:41:15] Was there non-compliance noticed back in 18?

[2:41:18] was it to twenty twenty five. There there was in twenty eighteen as well. I believe it was with

[2:41:25] a application for a paper permit. I think it was helpful. Like cart path or something. There were

[2:41:32] multiple, multiple communications between the applicant, resumitting and then as re-reviewing and we

[2:41:42] You know, try to give opportunity to resolve to potentially get a path through what we call

[2:41:49] a corrective conservation easement where if they had the availability to clear for additional

[2:41:58] pavers or whatever, they would just have to re-align their conservation easement or put

[2:42:04] different areas of it in, but, you know, they essentially had already maxed out that footprint

[2:42:10] of allowable development.

[2:42:14] You know, I see that and to commissioner Scarpelli's point.

[2:42:18] I mean, I see what was windows and doors

[2:42:20] from it that slipped through and then a roofing one.

[2:42:25] Maybe with a AI now that will happen.

[2:42:28] I don't know.

[2:42:29] But we could hear from the appellant.

[2:42:46] Mass on behalf of the applicant Brian Plattner,

[2:42:49] Beverly Plattner, for the pallet apologize.

[2:42:53] Before I get a stark as this is an appeal in some of the statements made by Mr. Burmese,

[2:43:01] I just have some follow-up questions I need to just need to have them confirm.

[2:43:05] I think you can probably set, you know, microphone over there, correct.

[2:43:21] So this appeal is filed in March 4th, 2020, 6th, are you aware of that?

[2:43:30] Yes.

[2:43:30] Yes, okay. The stop work order that you served on the house was filed in March 9,

[2:43:37] 2026 after the appeal was filed, correct?

[2:43:44] Yes, that's correct.

[2:43:47] So at the time that they applied for the permit, you failed it. There was no stop work order

[2:43:51] in effect.

[2:44:00] That's correct. Okay, stated that the determination, the permit was failed based

[2:44:10] of determination of planning. That was your determination, correct?

[2:44:18] I'm sorry, can you?

[2:44:20] I mean, was it devintopen the planning directors determination or was it your determination as a principal planner?

[2:44:31] I believe it's one moment.

[2:44:32] It's just one moment.

[2:44:33] His title is Principal Environmental Planner.

[2:44:35] I apologize.

[2:44:38] Can you just clarify that, please?

[2:44:39] Well, the failed determination stated that the failed to appeal was that and determination made by the planning director by you as a principal environmental planner.

[2:44:58] I failed the bill.

[2:45:00] All right, and did you put in writing when you failed that determination that this is a final determination of the planning and environmental resource department, and that this is a final determination subject to appeal and you have 30 days to appeal?

[2:45:17] If I could, I just want to feel comfortable about this, speaking to our councils, is this type of questioning of staff appropriate?

[2:45:28] It's a quasi-genital proceeding. We have the right and opportunity to cross the council.

[2:45:35] Under our rules, and I can point you to the rule. There is cross-examination allowed. You do have the ability to limit it to things that you determine or relevant.

[2:45:44] in other words, if it's something not relevant, you can say, okay, let's move back into the

[2:45:49] lane of relevance, but yes. Anyone who testifies absolutely can be crossed. Thank you very much.

[2:45:56] Continue, Lauren. Okay, so did you send a written notice that it was a final determination,

[2:46:03] and that they had 30 days to do appeal, the final determination of planning and environmental

[2:46:08] resource.

[2:46:14] That's in our land development code. Did you send a written notice that

[2:46:20] stated that it was a final determination and they had 30 days to appeal?

[2:46:31] So, yes,

[2:46:31] or no question? I think we can stipulate that the documents in the professional staff

[2:46:36] report that you're referring to say what they do and that. So, the record of the question

[2:46:42] was nothing. And that the relevant language is in the land development code is the

[2:46:46] to Brands Week State. So a building permit that is online that says failed by a dozen states,

[2:46:55] it's a final determination of the planning and environmental resource department correct.

[2:47:01] I'd lost you there. Could you please repeat that? Well, how was this failed determination

[2:47:06] It's provided to the applicant.

[2:47:12] A failed determination is resulted in our permitting software and is subsequently at

[2:47:23] the end of each cycle emailed to the applicant of the.

[2:47:27] It doesn't say that it's a final determination of planning the environmental resource department

[2:47:32] and that you have 30 days to peel.

[2:47:38] I'm not aware of that language precisely.

[2:47:44] So, so that language doesn't exist.

[2:48:00] Let's go to the staff work or the staff work

[2:48:02] or the issue March 9th, 2016 after you got the appeal from Smith Hawks of Agents for

[2:48:10] Mr. Platner, correct? Yes. Did you provide that to the Platner's agent?

[2:48:19] The staff work

[2:48:20] order was posted at the property.

[2:48:24] Did you provide it in writing to the applicant?

[2:48:32] It was in writing and posted on the property.

[2:48:36] Did you provide it to their agent that you

[2:48:38] are on notice of?

[2:48:45] Don't recall exactly.

[2:48:48] The answer is no.

[2:48:50] You do not.

[2:48:51] Are you aware that on March 11th,

[2:48:53] we requested any documentation of stop work

[2:48:56] or as a co-compliant?

[2:48:59] Are you aware that we were not

[2:49:01] provided any documentation of a staff or a code compliance case.

[2:49:07] No.

[2:49:10] Is there currently an active code compliance case that they've been served?

[2:49:22] There was an incident report created by our code compliance department.

[2:49:27] You filed an incident report with code compliance correct?

[2:49:32] I've provided communication to code compliance and they initiated a report.

[2:49:37] There is not an active code compliance case isn't that true?

[2:49:46] certain of the status of the compliance there is no act of code compliance case I'm gonna

[2:49:54] object the questions have been asked in the answer to I know we're all amped up here but

[2:50:00] I'm just trying to get the facts out. So, let's go forward then. Are you aware that on June 11th, our office again requested any records of a stop record or a coke compliance case from the county? And to that, we still have not received a copy of that stop record or any of the coke compliance documents.

[2:50:21] I am not.

[2:50:31] Mr. Plant, I just want you to come up here. I just have a couple of questions. I would like to ask you.

[2:50:35] If you can pull up a couple slides,

[2:50:37] I say, oh, they're already up there.

[2:50:38] Look at that.

[2:50:40] Mr. Platner, I'm gonna grab this microphone

[2:50:42] so you can speak into this one.

[2:50:49] Check, check, check, check, check, check, who has that?

[2:50:52] I can make things work.

[2:50:54] What do you, stay in there.

[2:51:01] Mr. Platner, please stay in the name for the record.

[2:51:05] Where I am, Platner.

[2:51:07] All right.

[2:51:08] Are you the current owner of 19 Southbridge Lane?

[2:51:11] I'm calling her with my wife.

[2:51:13] All right, how long have you all the housework?

[2:51:17] Approximately.

[2:51:18] I did two or three years, like I remember for just 23.

[2:51:22] I wasn't just 24, we bought that house.

[2:51:25] Okay.

[2:51:26] And so before this house, do you know who the prior order was?

[2:51:30] No, no, I did not.

[2:51:32] My son's trust and my son on the house.

[2:51:36] Okay, so you did not own the house under a trust previously?

[2:51:40] No, no, it was an irrevocable trust. So it was between him and his trustee to purchase the house, so it's his house in his trust in his name.

[2:51:50] All right, so back in the period of 2018, were you and all involved in the ownership of this home?

[2:51:58] Absolutely, no.

[2:52:00] Okay, I'm wrong. What time frame did your son acquire the house if you know?

[2:52:05] I believe he bought the house in 2013.

[2:52:08] Okay, and so when he bought the house in 2013, did you go with him to the house prior to that date?

[2:52:15] I'm sorry, well, Dan, did you visit the house when he was looking at the house back prior to that date?

[2:52:20] Oh, of course, yeah, we were involved in selecting the house as soon as she was from.

[2:52:26] Okay, I'm showing you some photos. Do you recognize these photos?

[2:52:31] Yes, I do. Okay, what are these photos? These are photos of the property.

[2:52:41] I'm just going to make one objection.

[2:52:45] I believe these photos were submitted in under the 10-day requirement under I believe

[2:52:50] it's rule one of the planning commissions adopted rules of procedure.

[2:52:56] I believe that a majority vote to let the untimely photos in is required under the established

[2:53:02] rules, I'll defer to the General Council, the Planning Commission on that.

[2:53:06] This rule is not new.

[2:53:08] It's a bit exacerbating to see them come in.

[2:53:10] Yes, and if I may, so we receive their staff report within the ten-day time frame and immediately

[2:53:16] upon reviewing the folks that were included in the staff report, recognize that the photos

[2:53:21] that were taken by Mr. Burwenzi, which were not even with permission to be on the property

[2:53:27] from my client in February, reflected these exact same condition.

[2:53:31] it was in November 2012, so we wanted to make sure that it was made clear that the

[2:53:38] properties existed that way since at least 2012.

[2:53:41] When was the house permanent in the conservation of the Mediterranean?

[2:53:45] I think between 1999 and 2001.

[2:53:48] Okay, so the conservation of the Mediterranean is being placed since 2001 and now since 2012.

[2:53:53] I'd like to ask a question, how can I be sure that these were taken at the time?

[2:53:57] There were times saved.

[2:54:00] We don't have that, but whether.

[2:54:02] I don't see anything.

[2:54:04] And Mr. Mr. Platter can testify that he actually took the photos at that time.

[2:54:15] We are...

[2:54:18] The hard copies of the photos that were found on our...

[2:54:24] The Dias...

[2:54:25] Is the presentation you're going to give us right now?

[2:54:28] It's just simply just staying for the proposition that

[2:54:31] not only was Mr. Platten not involved in any of the land clearing, which he will testify in

[2:54:36] Acts, but it predates even a song.

[2:54:39] Well, my, my, my, so it's a very good question is, and we're getting back to what

[2:54:44] Council said to put this for us to look at these they need approval. So that's my point.

[2:54:50] So, and for the relevance of what was put in front of us to what you were showing us,

[2:54:57] I'm asking you for us to...

[2:55:00] We'll look at it if this is one in the same.

[2:55:04] That is correct. Okay, so we need to move on approval to accept this part of the record.

[2:55:16] There is presentation. I'll move to approve.

[2:55:19] Okay, move to approve. Commissioner Scarpelli, seconded by Commissioner Nugien, any further discussion?

[2:55:27] Anyone opposed? Hearing none? Your request is granted.

[2:55:33] Thank you.

[2:55:34] All right.

[2:55:35] So, these photos show the properties in the exact condition that Mr. Burwenzig showed it in

[2:55:43] in 2026, correct?

[2:55:46] I'm sorry.

[2:55:47] The photos that you took in 2012, 2026, well, their photos were named November 2022.

[2:55:55] All right, reflect that the property was in the same condition as it is today, correct?

[2:56:02] Oh, yeah, it was very, very little has been done.

[2:56:06] So you did not conduct any laying clearance on the property since your ownership.

[2:56:10] Is that correct?

[2:56:11] Correct.

[2:56:12] And you're not aware of your son during his time ownership conducting any laying clearance.

[2:56:17] Correct.

[2:56:17] And you're applying for a interior-chick kitchen renovation. Is that correct?

[2:56:26] That's correct.

[2:56:27] And some bathroom cabinets, correct?

[2:56:29] And some cabinets.

[2:56:30] Okay, let's get that straight.

[2:56:31] All right, that's the solid head for you.

[2:56:34] Thank you.

[2:56:44] The point that I'm trying to make with this is that we're sitting here on a kitchen remodel.

[2:56:51] That would not be reviewed by Bio.

[2:56:53] and Biola stepped in without a stop work order, failed that did not provide a notice that

[2:57:00] it was a final determination of planning, and then it's trying to time-bar them from getting

[2:57:06] in front of you to prevent him from doing a kitchen remodel.

[2:57:13] I think the circumstances are such that when you look at it, you should overturn the denial

[2:57:19] of the kitchen remodel as Bios should not even be in review of a kitchen remodel.

[2:57:26] So here's the property in 2012 as I stayed in.

[2:57:30] The property was bought, he just identified by the Brian and the Brian Platner, a voteable

[2:57:38] trust and benefit in Nicholas C. Platner.

[2:57:40] He's the son, wasn't even a misplatter, but of course he took photos when his son was

[2:57:45] looking at it. And then in June 2024, Mr. Plattener bought the house, and of course, then he

[2:57:53] wanted to renovate his kitchen. They go out the apply. There is a prior permit. Of course,

[2:58:01] that permit wasn't failed by the building official. It just simply expired. So there wasn't

[2:58:06] an official action by the building official. There wasn't a letter or a notice by the administrative

[2:58:14] official for planning, which is the step in to open. So of course, that permit expire. It was

[2:58:21] never, but it never denied, there was no action taken that was it denied out for the 2025.

[2:58:28] So in 2020, six, a new permit was applied for, and the failed came up and tried to work

[2:58:35] it out. And of course, we appealed it to you, because this is a kitchen remodel. This is not

[2:58:41] about a potential violation of a conservation easement.

[2:58:47] This is not a typical review for bio.

[2:58:51] And so the reality is that there was no basis for this denial.

[2:58:56] And there was no even stop work order

[2:58:58] when the permit was applied for it.

[2:58:59] There was no code case where the permit was applied for.

[2:59:02] There was nothing that was a basis for denial.

[2:59:06] And so when it was appeal, it should have been not even done.

[2:59:10] So, you're here to look at it as to whether or not at the time the county staff reviewed that permit.

[2:59:20] Was there a basis for it now by that department?

[2:59:23] In fact, there's no.

[2:59:25] So, there was a...

[2:59:29] The dial is for the...

[2:59:31] For the...

[2:59:32] This is the kitchen permit.

[2:59:34] So, we're sitting here that there was no notice of the staff work order at the time.

[2:59:40] In fact, the stop work order itself, oh, I forgot to ask you, it's a pleasure.

[2:59:43] Come on.

[2:59:44] We got one part.

[2:59:53] It's a pleasure.

[2:59:54] Around March 2020 sits where you did your wife.

[3:00:00] Tell you about seeing some type of posting on the property.

[3:00:04] You know, she did.

[3:00:06] And after she saw that, did she come back and was it still there?

[3:00:13] The posting. Was it posting on your property when she came back?

[3:00:18] Yes.

[3:00:20] Was it posting missing when she went to go take a picture of it?

[3:00:25] No, no.

[3:00:27] It's still there right now.

[3:00:29] Oh, the posting.

[3:00:30] Yeah.

[3:00:40] So we have a property that they've stated because of code compliance is not allowed to obtain a permit in a staff work order, however, none of these things existed as of the time they applied for the permit.

[3:00:59] And so when reviewing whether the denial of the permit was valid, we have to look at what

[3:01:06] was in place at the time the permit was applied for.

[3:01:10] They may say, hey, listen, we've now done this, but that doesn't satisfy whether at the

[3:01:16] time the permit was applied for and the denial was made, whether or not.

[3:01:21] So, the stop work order itself was issued pursuant to the stop work order requirements.

[3:01:29] And so, it says the officer or other designated authority charged with the administration

[3:01:36] enforcement of the footbilling code in this code or really authorized or represented.

[3:01:41] There's nothing identified that provided Mr. Verwin's thing, the ability of the issue of stop work order.

[3:01:47] although he was a person that issued the stop work order.

[3:01:51] The funny thing about it is, what is the stop work order for?

[3:01:53] There's no work going on at the property.

[3:01:56] How is the stop work order being issued for something that happened 14 years prior,

[3:02:03] or if not longer, and that they've known about for over eight years.

[3:02:07] The fact of the matter is, there was no work that would require the stop work order,

[3:02:14] and they did not file code compliance case.

[3:02:16] Instead, they're holding up a kitchen permit.

[3:02:20] This isn't where they're applying for something outside the property that, oh, it's something in that area, they're denying it because you can't do anything in the conservation easement.

[3:02:29] This is a kitchen permit.

[3:02:31] By someone that had nothing to do with anything that occurred in the past.

[3:02:36] And they're trying to hold it up to provide enforcement outside the normal mechanism, which is co-complex.

[3:02:42] The reality is this. If there is a violation of the code, the appropriate mechanism to address

[3:02:49] it, it's from code compliance. There is no code case. In fact, we welcome a code case because

[3:02:54] it is barred at this point by the statute of limitations. The fact of the matter is that the property

[3:03:02] itself has, they've done not notice this 2018 and because of that, the ability to review

[3:03:09] for this is in violation of code. In fact, it exceeds the scope of the administrative authority

[3:03:15] for them to review it based on the fact that there is no rational nexus between a biology

[3:03:21] review and an interior kits and a permit review must be based on something with a rational nexus

[3:03:29] to that permit. In this instance, there is no. And so the fact that the matter is is that the

[3:03:39] review. Now, going to the fact of the code compliance, they've been on notice of a potential

[3:03:48] violation since August 8, 2018, we brought it up that there was a 40-year bar to enforcement

[3:03:54] back in 2018. They didn't bring it forward, they're barred. And so this trying to back and into

[3:04:02] this through a kitchen permit is simply unheard of and is not permissible under the code.

[3:04:11] Um, the, and we sighted to that, we sighted to it in our case law and it's, I think it's pretty much black leather law on that.

[3:04:18] There's a case on point called Stephen Stone vs. Monroe County as a 2021 case in the, you know, 16 genus with circuit that said, look,

[3:04:28] if the county sees something when they're inspector, they know of something and they don't bring forward a case within four years.

[3:04:33] from doing it. They can't then go and backhand it in through a permit review that the actual

[3:04:40] review that they're trying to have barred under is not even a rational nexus to that permit.

[3:04:45] That would be like you go to replace a electric socket and they say, hey, you know what you

[3:04:50] dug a ditch in your front lawn. They're unrelated. Site the ditch or if you haven't

[3:04:55] So today, the reasonable time, then you're parked.

[3:04:58] You're here to review.

[3:05:00] Whether or not there was a basis to fail a permit for a kitchen room, one, was there even a basis for that review?

[3:05:08] Two, if there was a basis, was there actually the requirements in place that would allow?

[3:05:15] There was no stop work order when they failed it. There was no code compliance case, so that juncture they required to issue it.

[3:05:22] Now, could they have done something afterwards and maybe we fight over it? Yes, but at that juncture there was nothing.

[3:05:29] At this juncture, to not allow him to get this permit, would be a violation due process.

[3:05:37] The fact of the matter is that if they want to go in front of code compliance and argue

[3:05:41] about this violation of code, that's a hearing we can do in front of code kind of appliances

[3:05:45] special magistrate, but for them to try to backdoor it in through this proceeding is a violation

[3:05:52] of their due process to address that potential code violation in the appropriate proceeding.

[3:06:01] Now, finally, timeliness, going to their argument about we didn't appeal this timely.

[3:06:08] So the blackler law is any time that you have an appellate right.

[3:06:15] The action must inform the effect of the party of its right to request the hearing in

[3:06:22] the time limit and minutes for doing so.

[3:06:24] And if you don't, then they're not unnoticed because you have to provide them the right to enter,

[3:06:31] and because they're not notifying you that the permit is failed.

[3:06:37] It's a final determination by the administrative official.

[3:06:41] Then there is no actual notice.

[3:06:43] In fact, the appeals provision of the land of El McCode 102-185A provides the planning commission

[3:06:52] of the authority to hear and decide appeals from any decision to termination or interpretation

[3:06:58] by administrative official, with respect to the provisional land development code.

[3:07:06] And administrative officials, so who are the administrative officials, right?

[3:07:10] Trying to find and look at that, there's no actual definition of administrative officials,

[3:07:16] but the typical identification is you have a planning director, they get an issue to

[3:07:22] now, get the building official. They didn't issue the denial. So there was no actual notice

[3:07:28] by the administrative official. In fact under 12 National 141 was only supposed to be fine

[3:07:33] something about administrative officials and it provides the administrative means of mineral

[3:07:37] county administrator or administrative official mineral county government designated by the county

[3:07:41] minister. I'm not aware of any other administrative official but planning director or the

[3:07:47] other sections of it provide that the determinations that are peeled must be by an administrative

[3:07:55] official, which again is not someone underneath the planning director and so without a notice

[3:08:01] of denial from the planning director building official there is no issue of time limits. So

[3:08:07] it actually says under such a one of two dash 21 that the planning director is the one that

[3:08:15] the land development code. We go through this a lot of times where they're saying, well,

[3:08:18] the only one with the authority that interprets the land development code is the land

[3:08:21] planning director. And so of course, the county is trying to put this position out that a

[3:08:28] program that puts in a fail that doesn't state that it's a final determination that you

[3:08:32] have 30 days of appeal, and this is the determination of the administrative official,

[3:08:36] is still putting you on notice that you have 30 days of appeal. Well, that simply doesn't

[3:08:40] It's a violation of due process.

[3:08:44] We're here before you on the substantive issue of whether this permit should have been denied

[3:08:48] at the time the planning denied it for a bio failure.

[3:08:53] The reality is my client wasn't on notice of any potential issue.

[3:08:58] My client was applying for an interior permit that has no nexus to outside

[3:09:04] and my client had nothing to do with any of these issues.

[3:09:09] Although there could be something that's brought up in a code compliance case in another form,

[3:09:14] this is not the form for you.

[3:09:16] What we would request you to do is reverse the decision, allow the permit for the kitchen

[3:09:22] being remodeled, and if we have to address this through code, we'll address this through code.

[3:09:27] But if this juncture, there is no justification to hold up a kitchen remodeled for something

[3:09:32] that has nothing to do with a kitchen remodeled.

[3:09:35] Thank you.

[3:09:35] Well, thank you any questions.

[3:09:37] Could you back up to the slide before the timeline of the slide?

[3:09:48] This one?

[3:09:48] Yeah, okay, thank you.

[3:10:08] Okay, thank you. You know what?

[3:10:14] Okay. Actually, I just realized there's

[3:10:17] pious and confusion on something. This planet can come back up here.

[3:10:27] I probably

[3:10:27] went through that a little quick.

[3:10:31] What is posted on the property right now is the

[3:10:33] posting for the notice of this here, correct?

[3:10:38] Is there a, there's a big red

[3:10:40] thing in my way of taped up to the tree? Okay. It's just, all right, never mind. I've never

[3:10:46] Okay, sorry, I'm getting different information on that subject.

[3:10:59] Any other questions?

[3:11:01] Well, let's don't sit just yet.

[3:11:06] Okay, commissioner.

[3:11:09] Thank

[3:11:20] you, sir.

[3:11:21] What's that?

[3:11:22] I thought you were going to have a question.

[3:11:23] No, I'm not.

[3:11:24] Do you have any?

[3:11:25] No, I'm trying to formulate some questions.

[3:11:29] Okay.

[3:11:32] I guess I don't guess anything.

[3:11:37] A couple of comments I have,

[3:11:41] this is a far more of a legal issue to me and interpretation

[3:11:48] of the law and the allegations made by the appellant, especially on the basis of appeals.

[3:11:55] Also, I would actually appreciate the response from Council on the one slide I looked at.

[3:12:05] That was the county's biological review is legally insufficient to support the denial

[3:12:10] of the menstrual permit for internal renovations for the following reasons.

[3:12:17] And then the four reasons were given.

[3:12:18] The stop work order was incorrectly issued and the required notice was improper.

[3:12:24] Number one, the two, the county's review exceeds the scope of its administrative authority.

[3:12:35] Number three, the alleged violation is time-barred under former section 837 of the Monroe County Code of Audiences and

[3:12:45] with holding the issuance of the permit violates procedural due process.

[3:12:53] Can we go one at a time? I can go off from because would you like may I reply or are you

[3:13:01] No, that's odd. This was all for our council. Yeah, usually there's the clothes of the case and she

[3:13:06] called deferred to the general council and then the other side was okay.

[3:13:10] We've done it. We've done it.

[3:13:12] The only goes first and then it actually gets a reply. But if we're going to talk about due process,

[3:13:17] the procedure seems to be a reverse here. Because normally the talent has an initial argument,

[3:13:22] And then there is the response and then a reply by the appellant.

[3:13:26] So we do not feel even that would be a proper procedure if the appellee gets to reply to us

[3:13:33] and we get no response.

[3:13:35] But whatever.

[3:13:37] I think we can spend the carousel of rejoinders and surrogenders as long as this commission

[3:13:46] sees fit to clear the air.

[3:13:48] So, I, you know, I don't have quarrel with the Appalance Council desire to address and

[3:13:55] re-address the Planning Commission and, you know, I presume that the Planning Commission

[3:13:59] will hear what it wants to hear.

[3:14:02] You know, I think that the question was seeking response from the county, so if I might, you

[3:14:08] know, I thought he asked his council.

[3:14:12] Yes.

[3:14:13] Not, not the council.

[3:14:14] So,

[3:14:18] you're asking me, is the county loud to respond to his position?

[3:14:25] The rule says that the Monroe County staff will first present its report, followed by the applicant.

[3:14:31] And they're hearing we open for public comment.

[3:14:34] After public comment, the applicant will have an opportunity to make conclude your marks and are respond to public comments.

[3:14:40] After this, Monroe County staff may present clarifying information to the Planning Commission.

[3:14:46] So that is the next step after Mr. Smith is done, is that County has the opportunity to present

[3:14:53] clarifying information to the Planning Commission.

[3:14:57] Okay, so Mr. Smith was about to step down.

[3:15:00] And then I asked for that clarification. So it seems appropriate to me.

[3:15:05] It would be appropriate. Again, whether you let Mr. Smith speak again, it's going to be someone on your discretion.

[3:15:13] But it is after he concludes, it is the county's time to respond with clarifying information.

[3:15:20] So your questions could be posed, not to Mr. Smith, but in fact to your own.

[3:15:24] I was not, I was not questioning Mr. Smith and he was concluding and we're going to sit down, but I was going to have a stand.

[3:15:32] Okay.

[3:15:34] Mr. Smith, give me a second.

[3:15:36] What are your clarifications?

[3:15:37] I thought you asked your council Mr. Smith some questions that you asked him to respond to.

[3:15:44] Yes.

[3:15:45] It seems to me that Mr. Smith has provided the solution to this situation, which would address the due process of issuing a permit.

[3:16:00] And then letting him go before the judge.

[3:16:07] before you, you know, before you let's just stop for a minute, guys, when Mr. Smith is done then it's time for the county to present their clarifications and then you go into your debate about what the right thing is to do or right thing and wrong thing is to do that's the last thing that says

[3:16:26] planning commissioners will then deliberate the matter in the planning commission thereafter

[3:16:30] conduct its vote. So when you start debating the substance of who's right and who's wrong,

[3:16:35] there's one step left and that's before that is to allow the county to have.

[3:16:39] So I mean, it's ready.

[3:16:41] It's.

[3:16:41] Okay, but points he's done.

[3:16:42] My only point, I would agree with the chairman, Mr. Smith was leaving. I thought his park was over.

[3:16:49] Okay, so I do.

[3:16:51] And that's where we're at. So Mr. Smith said you were done and you were sitting down

[3:16:55] I think we need to move into the next step. If I'm missing something, no, that's what you're supposed to do.

[3:17:01] The rules say to do that.

[3:17:03] Okay. Well, I wish you would have done that before he was concluding with Gohead.

[3:17:09] And then after this, we're moving on to the next step.

[3:17:12] I did say I'll take any questions.

[3:17:15] A couple of questions. Why not just come into compliance with the environmental code.

[3:17:23] Compliance with environmental part could take significant time and whether or not we agree with what compliance would be and whether we agree that

[3:17:32] That this juncture compliance would be required are issues that would be rather addressed through code compliance case

[3:17:37] And in this juncture, we're talking about a kitchen permit and the fact that this is a complete violation of someone's due process rights

[3:17:43] Give a permanent issue for an internal repair internal improvement that has nothing to do with the review by bio

[3:17:51] And so, my client's standing on his property, right?

[3:17:54] Since standing on his rights to be, have his promised process like anyone else,

[3:17:58] and not be taken through the rain, by the county, for something that has irrelevant,

[3:18:03] has nothing to do with getting a kitchen remodel permit done.

[3:18:07] So, hide the medical eye by a house on the water.

[3:18:11] It's got anger, I can't put a dock in, but I put it in.

[3:18:16] The county finds out.

[3:18:18] later on I want to do an internal remodel and they come and they notice

[3:18:25] they say you still have that dock so they stop my kitchen remodel or whatever

[3:18:32] it is I'm doing it insertly they cite you for code for the legal dock is the

[3:18:40] first thing that would happen and actually that case that that stone case ready

[3:18:45] for this, that was an illegal dock case and the illegal dock they had actually been to the

[3:18:52] property for inspections multiple times and observe the dock and did not cite them.

[3:18:58] And so then they cited the dock like eight years afterwards and the case was dismissed

[3:19:06] in barbed by the Statue of Limitations because they didn't cite the legal dock within

[3:19:12] the wreck was appearing and that meant that they couldn't utilize that as a leverage point

[3:19:17] for permits internally.

[3:19:19] And so what's happening here is this is trying to go around the fact that they failed

[3:19:25] to cite a code case in 2018 and it's using a legal process to try to obtain compliance.

[3:19:35] And so my client is standing on his rights and his rights do process and his property rights

[3:19:41] which most people don't have the wear with all that do.

[3:19:44] But thankfully Mr. Platner does and sometimes people have to actually stand up for their rights

[3:19:48] and I hope that you do the right thing and recognize that this is about someone being treated fairly

[3:19:54] under law, having this permit reviewed for the nexus that it is an interior kit to remodel.

[3:20:00] I want to have the fight over whether they can cite them for a legal clearing. I'll gladly have that fight before code compliance and a special magistrate.

[3:20:11] Are there any other questions?

[3:20:14] Here we go.

[3:20:16] Hearing none, thank you.

[3:20:21] And now it's time for the county to clarify and during his clarifications, you can also ask him questions as you did just ask Mr. Smith questions.

[3:20:32] All right, that's under section six, four, D, six.

[3:20:40] All right, county staff, I'm behalf of the county.

[3:20:43] It can be nearly omitted from my learned at France argument,

[3:20:46] is section 118, V. 118, which was among the first slides presented to you by Mr.

[3:20:51] Baron's wig.

[3:20:53] As you might recall, from the professional staff report,

[3:20:56] furnished by the department's professional staff,

[3:20:58] as well as the presentation that was just provided to you,

[3:21:01] Section 118-11A mandates that lane clearing is relevant at all times.

[3:21:06] So, however, convenient it is to besiege that a permutus scope of work is interior

[3:21:10] should result in a blind eye as to illegal on permit lane clearing outside the building footprint.

[3:21:15] That isn't the law according to the land development code.

[3:21:18] I would also add that section 111-4 states an air clear language quote.

[3:21:23] No development shall be undertaken without prior approval and issuance of the development permit under the provisions of this land development code.

[3:21:29] and other applicable laws and regulations.

[3:21:33] In my view, that more than adequately rejoiners

[3:21:37] and accountermans of the view shared by my friend

[3:21:40] on the other side, the department was not only doing

[3:21:43] the right thing, but the right thing coincides

[3:21:45] with what the enacted law prescribes,

[3:21:47] the department's mandated to issue the stop work order,

[3:21:51] and it means it's only attempted to work cooperatively

[3:21:54] rather than, I have to say,

[3:21:56] thematically it's a bit curious because when you take a B and a reflect on the presentation from the other side

[3:22:03] it's almost as though the accusation is you should have prosecuted my client sooner

[3:22:08] which would be a first time for me in 13 years to hear. In any event with regard to the issue of notice

[3:22:14] case outside of my friend on the other side trades on case law that buying state agencies. I believe the case

[3:22:20] thrown up on the screen a moment ago or for it to the State Department of Administration to

[3:22:24] division of retirement. State agency such as the water management districts, the Department of Children

[3:22:31] and Families, the Department of Environmental Protection, or Subject to Chapter 120, the

[3:22:36] Florida Administrative Procedure Act. Local governments are not the same as state agencies.

[3:22:42] Monroe County is a county under the Florida Constitution, subject to Home Rule,

[3:22:48] under chapter 125 of the Ford Statutes.

[3:22:50] It's not subject to chapter 120

[3:22:53] administrative procedure act to case law.

[3:22:57] State agencies are given their own uniform

[3:22:59] statutory and ruler requirements

[3:23:01] when they issue a judicative decisions.

[3:23:05] So I would say not only is it wrong,

[3:23:07] the case law sided by the other side,

[3:23:09] but it's entirely relevant.

[3:23:11] In addition, I would add that the other side

[3:23:13] is conspicuously omitted that,

[3:23:15] and I think members of this planning commission

[3:23:17] have aptly discerned this, the conservation easem has been of record for over 20 years.

[3:23:25] When the appellants took title to the subject property, the chain of title, which

[3:23:31] shown bright neon, this conservation easemment is in the chain of title.

[3:23:35] It's evergreen longstanding case law that private property owners and companies are on constructive

[3:23:41] notice of documents that are recorded in the land record index.

[3:23:46] So, the opponents took title subject to the conservationists and the department disputes that

[3:23:55] the violations were inherited.

[3:23:56] The department takes the position that they were not inherited, that they occurred after

[3:24:01] acquisition.

[3:24:02] However, even argument for the sake of argument, assuming that the violations were inherited.

[3:24:09] It would be incumbent upon a prospective purchaser when checking the land title in the land

[3:24:14] record index and finding that conservationism, which has on its final page page 5, the

[3:24:20] loan exhibit attached to it, a diagram of the tropical hardwood hammock conservationism

[3:24:25] protected area, that diagram which is both in the professional staff report that's been

[3:24:29] provided to you and has been shown on multiple times on the screen so much is probably

[3:24:33] TV burn. It shows in hatched areas where the tropical hardwood hammock is delineated.

[3:24:38] So we'll be incumbent upon a prospective purchaser checking the chain of title as that's a responsibility of the buyer

[3:24:46] to look at that conservation easement and then look at the ground

[3:24:51] and if you see mulch and p-rock artificial lights

[3:24:55] you know, non-native landscaping invasive ornamental plants where there should be a-

[3:25:00] Forrest, that should tell you something. You can either walk away from the acquisition or you can factor in the contingent liability of those violations and negotiate a reduced purchase price, just like when you're purchasing a property that's a distress property that's subject to a lien.

[3:25:16] I would not also that it's the evergreen case law in Florida that violations run with the land.

[3:25:22] This decision actually comes out not only out of the third district court of appeal,

[3:25:26] which is the intermediate appellate court that controls the 16 judicial circuit in this forum,

[3:25:32] but it actually comes out of Monroe County.

[3:25:35] This is the decision of Monroe County versus whispering pines associates.

[3:25:39] The citation is 6.97, southern seconds, 8.73, the pinpoint citation to the page of about

[3:25:45] to code is 8.75.

[3:25:47] This decision is a Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal, 3rd District Court of Appeal

[3:25:51] Decision from 1997, and I quote, thus clearly code violations, quote, run with a land

[3:25:57] to encode, and subsequent purchasers can be held responsible for bringing their property up

[3:26:01] to code.

[3:26:02] By necessity in logic, there's nothing unconstitutional and holding that as the party who has

[3:26:07] power to bring the land into code compliance, the current owner should be charged with that responsibility.

[3:26:13] More recently, the fourth district Court of Appeal of Florida in 2008, in the decision of Henry versus McDonald.

[3:26:20] The pinpoint citation about to quote is 971, southern second, 998 at page 1000.

[3:26:28] In that decision, the fourth district Court of Appeal stated, quote,

[3:26:31] violations run with the land and subsequent purchasers can be held responsible for bringing the

[3:26:36] property up to code and that actually slides internally. Monarch County versus whispering

[3:26:41] pines associates. So ignorance of the law is no excuse. The rule is you don't have to be licensed

[3:26:48] attorney to know by or by or by or by or by or by. The conservation easement had an exhibit.

[3:26:57] So to the extent we indulge in the hypothesis that the violations were inherited or assumed

[3:27:05] or one might say someone else did it, it would have been obvious from the land record index

[3:27:12] that there were series problems with the property and that's incumbent upon every private property

[3:27:18] on it to sus out into advance of acquisition.

[3:27:22] I would also add the decision of Schlachter versus Swanson

[3:27:26] In 1826, Southern Second, 1012, page 1014, that's the Florida 3rd DCA decision of 2001.

[3:27:33] In that case, the 3rd District Court of Appeal held or recognized that the act of recording

[3:27:38] any document in the index of county's official records and future constructive notice to

[3:27:43] subsequent purchasers of the document.

[3:27:47] I'm going to turn next to, I think it was

[3:27:55] the holding the permit hostage.

[3:27:57] I would disagree with the somewhat dramatic framing of that.

[3:28:02] I would also refer to Lane Development Code section 1, 10, that's the title of that LDR

[3:28:09] is, quote, suspension of development, re-proceedings end quote, and it states fully the

[3:28:14] planning director May and his or her discretion suspend consideration of any application

[3:28:18] for development approval during the Penency of Code Compliance Proceeding involving all

[3:28:22] or portion of the parcel proposed for development.

[3:28:24] The planning director may suspend development review entirely for such a parcel or may choose to proceed with the review of a development application, but in post conditions on such development approval requiring resolution of outstanding code violations on the subject parcel prior to your concurrent with the proposed development.

[3:28:40] So not only was it mandatory for the department to the action, it did take under section 118, 11A,

[3:28:50] but there are myriad tools in the kit for local governments to ensure that compliance is achieved.

[3:28:56] I think that it's resulted oriented and leave we incorrect.

[3:29:00] The argument on the other side is put forth that seemingly code compliance is the exclusive means by which

[3:29:07] correction of violations of the code or complaint can be achieved.

[3:29:12] In my view, it's self-serving to achieve a preferred result

[3:29:16] for the appellants.

[3:29:18] There are many different avenues in which compliance can be achieved.

[3:29:23] Cooperation, suspension to development, or EU proceedings,

[3:29:26] which does not require the issues of a no-discive violation.

[3:29:30] It states, during the dependency of a code compliance proceeding.

[3:29:34] So, you're not required to issue a notice of violation or citation or notice to appear.

[3:29:40] As Mr. Brands would testify, a code compliance case was opened.

[3:29:46] I mean, now turning to the repeals, what some have called the statute limitations,

[3:29:52] 8-37.

[3:29:54] 8-37 of the code of ordinances was repealed by the County Commission in 2023.

[3:30:00] It was formally found in chapter 8 of the Code of Audences, which was in a Mainstitled Code Enforcement

[3:30:07] Enquote. Section 8, that's 37, used to state, Code All Prosecutions, before the Code

[3:30:13] Compliance Special Magistrate, which I'll be initiated within four years of the

[3:30:16] Corinthians of the event, complaint of or be forever barred for the purpose of this

[3:30:20] section. The term initiated means the filing of a notice of violation.

[3:30:24] issues of a notice to appear, or issues of a civil citation, by the code compliance department."

[3:30:31] The code compliance department, not the planning and environmental resources department, is directed by the provisions of chapter 8 and indeed repealed 8-37.

[3:30:43] This appeal seeks to return a written adverse failed determination issued by the planning and environmental resources department, with regard to the permitting process.

[3:30:53] most cheritably, the failed determination,

[3:30:56] asserting that illegal anchoring occurred in 2025.

[3:31:00] It might fairly be argued that it was actually

[3:31:02] initially failed on the basis of illegal anchoring in 2018.

[3:31:08] We're not obviously in a prosecutor proceeding

[3:31:11] before the code compliance special magistrate.

[3:31:14] So the argument is mistaken in terms of choice of form

[3:31:17] and indeed, well, convenience, it's irrelevant.

[3:31:20] Because I don't, it's the firm position of the department that the

[3:31:25] exclusive, the argument that the other side is asserted that the exclusive means by

[3:31:31] lawfully ensuring compliance is you have to go before the code compliance special

[3:31:36] magistrate is completely imagined. There is no law that says that.

[3:31:46] But I'd also that there were some stray remarks regarding

[3:31:50] exactions, or maybe rational nexus, which is a component of exactions, I think that was

[3:31:56] in the basis of appeal, exactions referred to or request by the government for something new

[3:32:01] and exchange for permanent approval.

[3:32:05] Here, an example of an unlawful exaction might be if you're

[3:32:09] applying to build a shade structure in the government requires a five-mile bike path.

[3:32:19] It's not

[3:32:20] action, arguably, I would dispute whether it is necessarily an

[3:32:24] exaction, but there was a conservation easement that was required as a

[3:32:27] condition of the single family permit issuance and issuance of the

[3:32:31] certificate of occupancy for the single family home on the subject

[3:32:35] property. That conservation easement was agreed to by the developer.

[3:32:39] It's been reported of record for almost a quarter of a century. It's a

[3:32:43] bit exotic to assert that this is an unlawful ask given that this is

[3:32:49] of property right of the public selected government that's been in the land record index

[3:32:53] for over 25 years.

[3:32:56] I would also have that there hasn't been any argument pushing back on the Department's

[3:33:00] position that there's been a violation of the Clearing Limit, which is I believe condition

[3:33:04] 10, of the single-family permit issued for the home that's on this property.

[3:33:18] And I would also add that it's a bit exasperating to hear the Department's staff,

[3:33:23] So, or to see the basis of appeals, so boldly, exclaim that the department had a non-discretionary

[3:33:31] mandatory duty to approve this, notwithstanding what the department knew to be true.

[3:33:39] And conveniently omitted from the presentation, the other side's made to you today,

[3:33:44] the Appalence did sue mistolping in her individual official capacity in the circuit court

[3:33:52] parallel to this appellate litigation, and they requested what's called a riddle of

[3:33:57] mandamus, which is a court order forcing Ms. Tolpin to do something requested, and that's

[3:34:04] something was approved the permit. You don't have any discretion. You violated the law so

[3:34:08] badly we need a court order that says do your job. That was file I believe in late June and

[3:34:16] Circuit Court dismissed that lawsuit on July 29th.

[3:34:21] So I think that the arguments that you've heard today are overreaching, many

[3:34:25] order relevant, and they conveniently side-step that there are multiple mechanisms

[3:34:30] through which compliance with the land development code and comprehensive plain can be

[3:34:34] achieved.

[3:34:41] I would add also there was reference to the stone case this pivot's back to the statute

[3:34:46] limitations are formed, the repealed Section A-37.

[3:34:51] In a more recent case from the 16 judicial circuit, it's the matter of seven-eight investments

[3:34:55] LLC versus Monroe County, 16 judicial circuit court case.

[3:35:00] Number 24-AP-009-K issued on June 12, 2025. In it, the court held that the repeal of that provision section-8-39, or the sum call of the sexual limitations, the former sexual limitations, was a procedural change rather than a substantive change in law.

[3:35:23] And I quote, quote, Section 8-307's repeal conferred no changes, elipses to no

[3:35:30] pardon me, quote, Section 8-307's repeal conferred no changes to elipses substantive

[3:35:36] rights and duties, and quote.

[3:35:40] And the circuit court cited the decision of Walsh on behalf of AKP versus Department

[3:35:44] of Children and Families, 393 Southern 3rd, 718, pinpoint sites 723, Florida 4th, DCA,

[3:35:51] 2024 and parenthetically noted that that decisions stood for the proposition that remedial

[3:35:58] statutes relating to remedies or mode of procedure which do not create new or take away

[3:36:02] vested rights, but only operating further into the remedy or confirmation of rights

[3:36:06] are existing, do not come within the lead conception of a retrospective law or the general

[3:36:11] against retrospective operation of statutes.

[3:36:14] I think what I've heard today even though I think it's irrelevant because this is an appeal

[3:36:18] of a decision by the planning and environmental resources department in the permitting context

[3:36:23] and not a prosecutable prosecution before the co-complised special magistrate.

[3:36:28] I think that I heard some comments that something along the lines of the, this would be an

[3:36:37] improper retrospective application of what used to be a time bar to prosecution. Obviously it's irrelevant,

[3:36:45] but the decision from 7-8 Investments LLC, which is more recent than the storm decision from this circuit court,

[3:36:53] stands for the clear-eyed proposition that it's not the repeal does not operate improperly retroactively.

[3:37:00] It's a rule of procedure, not a substantive rule of law.

[3:37:07] I think I only have a few questions for Mr. Berenzoid to redirect some of his earlier testimony, and then I'll be available for any questions.

[3:37:14] Mr.

[3:37:20] Bernstein, were you doly authorized by the building official to issue the stop or order that we've reviewed today?

[3:37:29] No additional questions unless you have any other questions for myself or Mr. Bernstein.

[3:37:37] Commission, do you have any questions?

[3:37:47] I see the finger up.

[3:37:48] Yeah, I'm sorry.

[3:37:50] Your reading section 110-9.

[3:37:52] I also caught in there.

[3:37:54] You mentioned code compliance proceedings, but also it does say.

[3:37:57] Playing director may suspend development review entirely for such a partial or may choose to proceed with the review of a development application but impose conditions on such development approval requiring resolution of outstanding code violations on the certainly cases.

[3:38:14] So if there is an inherent code violation on the subject partial prior to or concurrent with proposed development,

[3:38:22] you know, I mean, reading that, it's like, well, I'm not necessarily, the plan director has a discretion if a code violation is discovered,

[3:38:32] regardless of if there's a code case or an haunted is the planning department's ability to suspend development, any kind of development,

[3:38:42] until, but you guys are, but there are also states that you're also willing to make a deal for lack of a better term.

[3:38:51] Yeah, in terms of the usual parties can get to where both everybody needs to go.

[3:38:57] Correct, the professional staff tried multiple times to help as the testimony today revealed,

[3:39:02] to know a veil and said they got sued twice.

[3:39:05] You know, the Y of things matter, the laws that issue were enacted by the democratically

[3:39:10] accountable, elected government of the public, those are the laws of the Department

[3:39:16] forces.

[3:39:18] You know, the professional staff don't get rewarded for saying, no, they get criticized and

[3:39:22] sued.

[3:39:23] It doesn't make their life more difficult, but that's their charge as public servants to apply

[3:39:27] the laws enacted without fear or favor.

[3:39:30] You know, bad law comes from easy cases made hard.

[3:39:33] This case is straightforward as a matter of jurisdiction and on the merits

[3:39:37] So we do request that you both dismissed this appeal as fatally jurisdictionally and timely and

[3:39:44] That you also affirm and uphold through separate motion. The department's determination is correct on its substance on the merits

[3:39:57] And of course that relate the

[3:40:00] The first request I made refers to the untimelyness, which I think has been adequately sussed out, but Section 102-185, Plan A and C make very clear.

[3:40:16] So that the, sorry.

[3:40:18] If I might just contribute briefly to this, Section 102-185, you know, as I mentioned before, evergreen air law, air clear case law in Florida provides that.

[3:40:30] Private and members of the public run constructed notice of the contents of the law of

[3:40:35] a county or city.

[3:40:37] The notice of the right to appeal is imputed from the notice that is presumed that one

[3:40:45] is presumed to have of the laws of the county.

[3:40:48] That is the notice.

[3:40:50] The notice is the enactment and codification of the mechanism to appeal is the notice.

[3:40:56] Ford a lot, deems property owners on constructive notice of the contents of their codes.

[3:41:04] What is a relevant content of the county's code for purposes of the jurid-fatal jurisdiction,

[3:41:10] jurid-discional defectiveness of this appeal?

[3:41:13] It's section 102-185, which says, quote, the planning commission shall have the authority

[3:41:17] to hear in the side appeals from any determination, decision or interpretation by any administrative

[3:41:24] official with respect to the provisions of this land development code or comprehensive plan.

[3:41:28] And the standards and procedures here and after set forth, and it provides a few exceptions

[3:41:33] for flood-playing management appeals to store preservation appeals, which are their own

[3:41:38] have their own processes spelled out in elsewhere in the code.

[3:41:41] In section 1-2-185, parentheses states, a notice of appeal in the form prescribed by the

[3:41:47] planning director must be filed with the county administrator and with the office or department

[3:41:52] rendering the determination, decision or interpretation within 30 days of that determination,

[3:41:59] decision or interpretation. Failure to file, and this is, I think, the lock stock language

[3:42:05] here. Failure to file such a peel shall constitute a waiver of any rights under this land

[3:42:11] development code and comprehensive plan to appeal any determination, decision or interpretation

[3:42:16] made by an administrative official.

[3:42:21] That language is unfairly debatable and you certainly

[3:42:23] don't need a law license to define what it means. So, all landowners are unconstructed

[3:42:29] notice of the contents of the code. Those are the contents of the code. This appallant

[3:42:35] was unconstructed notice of this code provision. This is the mechanism in which to appeal.

[3:42:41] And that's the law Florida. That's not the department saying this is, you know, by Fiat.

[3:42:52] I guess, and then also with the grant of conservation easement, there's another whole

[3:42:57] other legal documents associated with that.

[3:43:00] It's all intertwined.

[3:43:01] There's the permit, the conditions, the certificate of occupancy.

[3:43:05] It works sort of as a web of instruments that work in concert with each other.

[3:43:13] Because, you know, my problem is that I see that the appellant points, like, you're holding

[3:43:17] up my vath, my kitchen remodel for organic concentrations, but then my other, my other head,

[3:43:25] on my other side of that is fixed the conservation

[3:43:28] movement.

[3:43:29] It needs to be where it was agreed to upon.

[3:43:31] So that's where I'm like, both things

[3:43:33] need to be true and need to happen.

[3:43:36] If we heard on the floor right now,

[3:43:38] that the appellants would obtain or obtained

[3:43:42] and approves environmental restoration permit,

[3:43:46] none of this would be necessary.

[3:43:48] So I think that the leads a bit buried in that.

[3:43:50] It seems like the principle we're standing on

[3:43:52] is the right to continue doing development and violation

[3:43:56] of the land-evalent codes prohibition on a legal unpermitted

[3:43:58] land clearing.

[3:44:00] But regardless of who was done by,

[3:44:02] and that's the unfortunate part.

[3:44:03] Correct.

[3:44:04] And again, that's the binding case law of not just Florida,

[3:44:07] but indeed from Monroe County.

[3:44:13] I got no other questions right now.

[3:44:14] Unless far, do you have some stuff to add, please?

[3:44:18] Yeah, yeah, please.

[3:44:18] I have a question for you or someone.

[3:44:25] Is there a code complaint violation going on, as we said?

[3:44:29] there is no court compliance case there's no court compliance case

[3:44:33] just wait a minute

[3:44:34] I haven't said anything but I don't see where he's remotely competent to answer questions

[3:44:38] he's finished

[3:44:39] yeah that's that's that's the part

[3:44:41] what's the part

[3:44:43] thank you

[3:44:44] let's

[3:44:45] be professional

[3:44:47] and that would be to get an answer from the court to the person that I asked

[3:44:51] he's not a representative he's not authorized to represent the court compliance department

[3:44:55] that is hopefully out of order. He's not competent to answer that question.

[3:45:00] And why are you asking the appellants? We have to all do respect. We're going to not have an answer. We have here is an objection on the floor. So stay your objection and then we'll have it dealt with by the commission. The objection is to fall. Number one, council is council not a witness. Number two, he's not an authorized representative of the code compliance department.

[3:45:31] Okay, so now we need to rule on the objection as he's made an objection, he's made a response to your judicial panel, so you need to rule on the objection, and then if you overrule the objection, then he continues if you sustain the objection, then he's done.

[3:45:50] And this is a decision for the panel.

[3:45:53] It's not, it's not, it's not yours.

[3:45:55] It's the need three votes to either sustain or to overall.

[3:45:59] But let me go back to the beginning.

[3:46:00] I just asked him with question.

[3:46:03] I'm just a 40 procedure.

[3:46:05] Okay, that's.

[3:46:06] I'm not.

[3:46:06] If I could, you recognize them and you've got an objection.

[3:46:09] If we need to vote, you need to vote on the objection.

[3:46:13] To do a procedurally proper, you need to rule on the objection and either take.

[3:46:17] Mr. Smith's submittal or sustain it and Mr. Smith's submittal is disregarded.

[3:46:25] That's how we do procedure.

[3:46:28] State the objection.

[3:46:30] The objection is too full.

[3:46:32] Number one, Mr. Smith is not a witness.

[3:46:35] Therefore, he cannot testify to the existence or non-existence of a case open by the Monroe County Code Compliance Department.

[3:46:42] The second objection is that, Mr. Smith is not authorized to speak on behalf of the Monroe County Code from the West Department.

[3:46:51] That is a fact that is not a question of law.

[3:46:55] Mr. Smith has been retained to provide legal arguments for his client in support of their theory to reverse the decision of the department.

[3:47:03] But he is not a witness and he is certainly not a witness authorized to testify.

[3:47:07] You're done with your objective.

[3:47:08] In Bartman, are you done with your objective?

[3:47:10] You're done with your objective?

[3:47:11] You get sort of, you get stressed bond, and then you all decide.

[3:47:14] That's the way this works.

[3:47:15] All right.

[3:47:16] There's called, there's an exception to, there's an immisibility exception for public records.

[3:47:23] So, in the curriculum, we're very well at the public records exception, right?

[3:47:27] That public records are admissible or the lack thereof.

[3:47:30] So, if there's a code compliance case that they're claiming is there, let's pull that code compliance case.

[3:47:37] out in a minute because there is in one. So I can't provide you a code compliance case that

[3:47:43] does not exist. And so they're going to continue. So there's a code compliance case, but there's

[3:47:48] not. And so the public records are set exception provides that if I can include state on your record

[3:47:55] that there is no case. And unless they provide that record, then there is not.

[3:48:00] I'm sorry I'm going to have to reply to that. The public records exception applies to documentary evidence.

[3:48:05] there is no public record before you, this has been woefully misrepresented and I'm really

[3:48:12] shocked by council's route. It is I really can't believe but I just said okay so we've had

[3:48:17] one side and another side and a reply you can take more if you want or you can just take a vote

[3:48:22] and rule on the objection now we can move on. I would like to take a vote.

[3:48:30] The vote would be

[3:48:30] sustain or overruled, sustain would be in favor of the county, will rule be in favor of Mr. Smith.

[3:48:37] We take a motion for that, please.

[3:48:40] Motion to sustain or overall.

[3:48:45] Which do you choose to make a motion for anybody?

[3:48:48] I move that we sustain the objection by the county.

[3:48:51] Do I have a second?

[3:48:54] Second.

[3:48:56] Mr. Anderson.

[3:48:57] Any further discussion?

[3:49:00] I don't have a discussion.

[3:49:01] I mean, parts simply stating that there's no case that he's aware of, that's all I heard.

[3:49:14] Yeah, we're still going to have to rule one of these things.

[3:49:16] That's not in race and it's been, it's in front of you.

[3:49:20] It's motion seconds.

[3:49:21] So now you need to either discuss or debate and then whether or not sustain or horrible.

[3:49:26] And if you sustain it, you have to disregard the facts asserted.

[3:49:30] by Mr. Smith, and if it's overruled, then you take what he said into evidence.

[3:49:36] We have a motion, we have a second.

[3:49:42] To sustain the objection of the county, is the motion as far as I understand?

[3:49:46] Yeah, the motion is to sustain.

[3:49:49] And a second, we have a second.

[3:49:57] All in favor?

[3:50:00] Aye. Aye.

[3:50:05] No.

[3:50:07] You checked. In favor. In favor. So, would you call the roll? Let's make this simple.

[3:50:16] The motion is to sustain.

[3:50:18] The county's objection.

[3:50:22] No.

[3:50:24] Mr. Thomas? Yes.

[3:50:27] Mr. Nugien?

[3:50:29] Did you call for discussion?

[3:50:31] We already did that.

[3:50:35] Mr. Anderson? Yes.

[3:50:36] Chair Dean. Yes.

[3:50:42] Okay. Now we're moving on. May I ask the chair a question?

[3:50:48] Is there a

[3:50:48] code compliance against the defendant or whatever the position is?

[3:50:57] The hall is not the defendant.

[3:51:02] Is there a compliance issue? Yes.

[3:51:04] We've discussed a little earlier by Jay and there were questions that were asked

[3:51:09] of him, and I just trying to remember correctly, was after the discussion that was on,

[3:51:17] was there a closed complaint of five.

[3:51:20] Has there been a formal issuance of the complaint, it's what I think the appellan is

[3:51:30] asserting, is that there has not been, but they are aware of it.

[3:51:35] Typically, and Devon, you can correct me if I miss B, is that there is a code complaint, and then they have a certain amount of time to settle that complaint, and the county can put in a dollar amount or the special master can put in a dollar amount per day if that situation is not cleared up.

[3:52:05] And that typically motivates someone when that, because we've even taken property by using that position, so my feelings are that a solution has been offered here by let's give him and I don't disagree or dispute anything that Peter has said but what I'm saying it seems like there's a solution to this problem here.

[3:52:34] without all the complexity, and that if code compliant were to file the complaint and start running a dollar amount per day and give him some time to correct the problems that were created by the previous owner.

[3:52:53] And I certainly know that it runs with the land, the violation runs with the property.

[3:52:59] So they could start that code complaint and and then put give him a reasonable and on a time to correct the environmental problems of what the

[3:53:11] What had been created here, but also

[3:53:14] Allow him to get a permit to move forward, but he would have to

[3:53:19] Correct the problem that has been created by a previous owner that runs with the land

[3:53:25] So he inherited that when he bought the product.

[3:53:28] I'm mistaken, but I thought that there were two times that permits were turned down, and they never filed appeals.

[3:53:36] If they had an opportunity.

[3:53:38] It has nothing to do with the solution.

[3:53:41] If I could, if the chairman could get a word, the...

[3:53:45] What I have read in Assetain from the report and I guess the discussion, but I think from the actual staff report, is that...

[3:53:55] Levels of cooperation to avoid. There is to avoid code compliance. You try to resolve this at the lowest level, which is a good thing.

[3:54:08] And Commissioner Nujens Point, it's well known that my feeling about code compliance and fines.

[3:54:14] I think one of the earliest things that I was involved was the case.

[3:54:17] I think the funds were over a million dollars in the shelf at 38,000.

[3:54:21] That is not, it's a relative proportion of what that was settled, that is not a driver.

[3:54:32] I think Peter took the words out of my mouth before I could say it when he said,

[3:54:46] price house that you do a title search or whatever, to ensure that you know the compliance

[3:54:52] of the lot and how long this has been gone and that was not identified in the purchase.

[3:55:00] And that has been brought up and to your point about time. Well, I think it was brought up that it was said that we wouldn't be here right now, if simply the appellant would have, the property on it would have said, okay.

[3:55:18] This is recognized, and I is not compliant, getting just back to the conservation easement

[3:55:27] and let's work in mitigation strategy to restore and obtain compliance for that single aspect.

[3:55:35] The permit would be issued. The permit would be issued. We wouldn't be here if they've done that.

[3:55:40] All they would have done, and all this time, it only had to come for, we'd say, let's work the deal, let's work a mitigation strategy, and that permission would be issued. We wouldn't be here right now. That's it.

[3:55:51] Well, why didn't I do that? I don't know.

[3:55:55] Well, why, why didn't we, we the county motivate the person to sit down and do that by filing a complaint with the, with the,

[3:56:09] I think it's common knowledge and it's covered in the staff report of, I'm not mistaken,

[3:56:14] that's what a remedy would be to move forward with this permit to do a mitigation restoration

[3:56:21] plan.

[3:56:21] I think it's in the document that says that was a way forward, but they chose not to do it.

[3:56:33] Am I correct?

[3:56:35] Yes.

[3:56:35] That's all correct.

[3:56:37] And I think the beach point, he pointed that out again to say we wouldn't some of the words

[3:56:41] effect and I don't want to paraphrase this comment, but we wouldn't be here right now if

[3:56:45] they would have done that. That way was there, it was clear,

[3:56:53] and that's outside of all the

[3:56:56] other things we're talking about.

[3:57:00] That one thing could have, could have moved forward with this

[3:57:05] permit.

[3:57:08] So my point is, you know, it may be not relevant to this, but it personally

[3:57:14] Ron Deems, thinks themselves as they're ever, and attempt to achieve any compliance or restore

[3:57:21] the conservationism, but we're not here to discuss that.

[3:57:26] So, I'd like to make a motion.

[3:57:29] We're ready with making a motion completed if you've completed, come and say it right once,

[3:57:36] one of these times, if you've completed your deliberations and you've concluded hearing from

[3:57:42] those signs, I'm asking your questions, and you've concluded your deliberations, then it's

[3:57:47] appropriate to make a motion.

[3:57:50] Are there any other comments on our belief that there's two motions that need to be made?

[3:57:55] And if I could just go through that, we've got to go through that together, right?

[3:58:00] Okay.

[3:58:00] Rose Perth Cutham.

[3:58:02] So we'll take a one at a time.

[3:58:05] I move to dismiss the appeal pursuant to the above for going jurisdictional defect.

[3:58:11] And I think I can put these together and uphold the adverse written failed determination of the department.

[3:58:19] We put the two together.

[3:58:22] I would further vote them separate.

[3:58:24] But because I think you're co-mingling two issues and it's very likely event this will get appealed further.

[3:58:31] I'd be likened to the two things separate.

[3:58:33] How would we request we split them up?

[3:58:35] Okay, so I would like to dismiss this appeal.

[3:58:40] Is your first motion?

[3:58:41] Yes.

[3:58:44] Do we have a second?

[3:58:46] I'll second.

[3:58:47] Second.

[3:58:48] Commissioner Anderson.

[3:58:50] Please call the roll.

[3:58:55] Commissioner Scarf Alley.

[3:58:57] No.

[3:58:58] Commissioner Thomas?

[3:58:59] Yes.

[3:59:00] Commissioner Naja?

[3:59:01] No.

[3:59:02] Commissioner Anderson?

[3:59:03] Yes.

[3:59:04] Chair James?

[3:59:05] Yes.

[3:59:06] Hold on.

[3:59:07] The second one's mute.

[3:59:08] No.

[3:59:09] I think you need to vote on that.

[3:59:10] I'm going to give him a really good advice.

[3:59:13] So I'm going to ask him to rule in the alternative.

[3:59:16] and based their second, and you know what the second motion they like to make.

[3:59:21] Okay, then I make the second motion to uphold the adverse written failed determination of the department.

[3:59:29] We have a motion, do we have a second?

[3:59:31] I'll second.

[3:59:32] Have a second.

[3:59:33] Commissioner Anderson.

[3:59:36] Any further discussion?

[3:59:40] Hearing none, please call the roll.

[3:59:44] Commissioner Scarpelli?

[3:59:46] Yes.

[3:59:48] Commissioner Thomas?

[3:59:49] Yes.

[3:59:49] Miss Nure Neja? No.

[3:59:52] Miss Nure Anderson? Yes.

[3:59:54] Charadines? Yes.

[4:00:01] Thank you. Thank you.

[4:00:06] Okay.

[4:00:09] Board discussion. Anything to discuss? Board?

[4:00:14] Press on a break, right? I don't want to get in the way of that. Gross management comments.

[4:00:22] No comments, chair.

[4:00:23] Okay.

[4:00:28] With that said, I just want to, if, if, should Tom hasn't passed out yet, I want to thank

[4:00:34] you for your support today, and especially another congratulations on being the county's

[4:00:40] employee of the court extremely well deserved, I must say, and especially attentive to the

[4:00:46] commission, planning commission, proceedings, and the Superstar and all the other meetings

[4:00:54] you attend.

[4:00:55] And I echo commissioner, shoals, kudos for you, Jethon, that you're everywhere, and

[4:01:05] you do everything and you're extremely professional, well-deserving.

[4:01:08] So thank you for waking up in the morning.

[4:01:11] And with that, this meeting is adjourned.

[4:01:14] Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[4:01:23] This

[4:01:50] is the story of a boy who didn't talk for a long time.

[4:01:55] The boy liked things to always be the same.

[4:01:58] Any changes would scare an upset him.

[4:02:01] The unknown was an unfriendly place.

[4:02:08] Boy was very sensitive to lights and sounds,

[4:02:13] so he built secret hiding places where they

[4:02:15] couldn't get in.

[4:02:18] The boy didn't like looking people in the eye.

[4:02:21] He wasn't trying to be me, and it just made him feel uncomfortable.

[4:02:26] Sometimes, your flap is arms. It's getting in again.

[4:02:30] One day, I found out I had something called autism.

[4:02:33] My family got me help. Slowly, I found my voice.

[4:02:37] And learned all the way, I could live with him.

Planning Commission Hearing

Agenda

Transcript