CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
CITY HALL ANNEX
TUESDAY
7:00 PM
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER: The Chair called the meeting to
order at 7:00 P.M.
ROLL CALL:
Council Members Present:
Mayor Pro Tem Bob Hoog
Council Member Buzz Petsos
Mayor Rocky
Randels
Council Member Shannon
Roberts
Council Members Absent:
Council Member Leo
Nicholas
Others Present:
City Manager
City Clerk Susan
Stills
City Treasurer Andrea
Bowers
Building Official Todd Morley
Stormwater Administrator Jeff Ratliff
PRESENTATION:
Mayor Randels called on Ms.
Judy Hale to present the 2007 Spring Beautification Award. Ms. Hale called on Ms. Marcia Lambert of
Mayor Randels announced the
Annual Trash Bash on Saturday, April 21st. Mr. Hale requested that volunteers meet him
at
CONSENT AGENDA:
1. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of
Mayor Randels asked if any
Council Member, staff or interested party desired to remove Item No. 1 for
discussion.
Attorney Garganese noted a
correction on page 5, in the second paragraph to strike the word diligence and
insert the word process which read that, “the City acted with due diligence.”
A motion was made by Ms. Roberts and seconded by Mr. Petsos to Approve
Consent Agenda Item No. 1 as amended.
The vote on the motion carried 4-0 with voting as follows: Mayor Pro Tem Hoog, For; Mr. Nicholas, Absent;
Mr. Petsos, For; Mayor Randels, For and Ms. Roberts, For.
CONSIDERATIONS:
2.
Motion to Approve: Appropriation of Funds for the Buchanan/
Mayor Randels explained how the
City would lose the $100,000 Community Development Block Grant [CDBG] towards the
project at Buchanan and Orange Avenues if it did not proceed without the
anticipated Federal Emergency Management Act funding. Mr. Ratliff explained one of the City’s
options to accept the CDBG of $100,000; however, the City would need to
contribute $74,900. He stated that the
project would be completed within a few months; however, the City would
contribute more in Option 2. Mayor Randels clarified that Option 1 would accept
the $100,000 CDBG and the City would contribute the remainder. He informed that if the City received the
FEMA grant, if would not occur for another year. Mr. Petsos expressed his favor to accept the Option
1 and to accept the $100,000 CDBG and he stated that the funding for the
remaining costs would come from the Stormwater Utility Fund.
A motion was made by Mr. Petsos and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Hoog to
Approve Option 1: Appropriation of Funds for the Buchanan/
3. Motion to Approve: Counter Offer on the Kabboord and Marder
Properties.
Mayor Randels explained that
this counter offer was for property to the north of City Hall where the
Atlantic Veterinary office was now located.
Mayor Randels explained further the Enterprise Car Rentals contracted
for the property; however the City expressed an interest and Mr. Kabboord
offered $2 million for sale. Mayor
Randels informed that the City had two MAI Appraisals performed and the City
Council then counter offered $1.5 million to Mr. Kabboord for the property;
however, Mr. Kabboord subsequently counter offered $1.92 million for the
property. Mr. Kabboord explained how he
had a contract from
Mayor Randels informed that the
property purchase was considered for the Sheriff’s Office. He explained how there were few lots
available for public safety purposes.
Mayor Randels explained some of the benefits such as the properties
being sold by one owner and the high visibility. Mayor Randels stated that the property
purchase would tie in the campus plan for the Library, City Hall, Recreation,
and Public Safety buildings. Mayor
Randels pointed out the opportunity for separate access for Sheriff’s Office
personnel. He also stated as a strong
point that the majority of the City’s service calls were on the east side of
State Road A1A. Mayor Randels related how
the Architects recommended purchasing a building which would allow for the
convenience of staff transfer during the new building construction. Mayor Randels also pointed out that the
Sheriff’s Office was open on the weekends and offered 24-hour, 7-days per week
service to the public. Mayor Randels spoke
on these as some of the benefits. He summarized
that the Council’s task was to decide on the purchase.
Mayor Randels pointed out that
Mr. Kabboord’s original offer was $2 million. He stated that the City submitted
a buyer offer of $1.5 million. He noted
that in the Council packet Mr. Kabboord included his contract for the Marder properties
of $825,000 and if that were subtracted from the original offer, $1.085 million
remained. Mr. Kabboord was paying
$274,499 per lot for the Marder properties to compile the package and his lots
were $219,000 each. Mayor Randels said
that after removing Mr. Kabboord’s fixed costs,
$1.085 million would remain.
Ms. Roberts stated that the
normal process would be to counter Mr. Kabboord’s counter-offer. Mayor Randels reminded that Mr. Kabboord had
a contract offer in hand for Enterprise Rent-A-Car. Ms. Roberts clarified that the contract with
Mr. Petsos proceeded to point
out that the Stottler property was not adjacent to the City Hall campus and he
was not in favor of another car rental facility. He concluded that for those
reasons he would consider a counter offer.
Mayor Pro Tem Hoog pointed out the advantageous benefits of using the
Kabboord property in the City Hall master plan.
Mr. Petsos pointed out that the City would need to return to this
juncture again in future years due to insufficient space. Mayor Randels
explained how the City has been working with Architects Design Group who
performed a Space Needs Analysis up to the year 2025. Mayor Randels noted how the current Sheriff’s
Office was 7,000 square feet with a need for 15,255 of square feet. Mayor Randels pointed out that the Stottler,
Stagg building at 6,280 was smaller for the Sheriff’s Office than the existing
building. Mayor Randels summarized that
the consensus was for a counter-offer.
Ms. Roberts explained to Mr. Petsos that Mr. Kabboord presented the
property as a complete package and the adjacent property was independent and if
the City did not accept the offer the properties would return to separate consideration.
Mr. David Kabboord, owner of
Kabboord Properties, stated that he placed the Marder property under contract in
order to simplify the purchase process. Mr.
Kabboord informed that he had a leasing contract with Enterprise Car Rentals
for 5-years with two, 5-year extensions.
Mr. Kabboord stated that he put together reasonable prices for the
City’s consideration. Mr. Kabboord informed that he negotiated his best offer
for the Marder properties for the package. He said that the Council could make a
counter-offer; however, his price was firm.
If the Council had any further questions he was available.
Mayor Randels stated that he
was amenable to the $1.95 million. Ms.
Roberts expressed the need for a counter-offer in good faith to the
community.
Ms. Roberts made a motion to counter-offer for $1.75 million. The motion failed for lack of a second on the
$1.75 million counter-offer.
Ms. Roberts mentioned the two
appraisals and expressed it to be mindful of those on behalf of the
community. Mr. Petsos pointed out how
the property would benefit the campus design.
Mayor Pro Tem Hoog stated that he was aware of the appraisals; however
he was thinking of the City’s future. Mr.
Petsos suggested and Mayor Pro Tem Hoog agreed to counter offer for $1.825
million. Ms. Roberts went on record
stating that the $1.825 million counter-offer was too high for the City. The City Manager and the City Attorney would
draft a counter-offer proposal. Mayor
Pro Tem Hoog expressed to Mr. Kabboord that if there were any way he could help
the City it would be greatly appreciated. Mayor Randels publicly thanked Mr. Kabboord
for his assistance in transferring a certain individual from one property to
another.
A motion was made by Mr. Petsos and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Hoog to Counter-Offer
at $1.825 million. The vote on the
motion carried 4-0 with voting as follows:
Mayor Pro Tem Hoog, For; Mr. Nicholas, Absent; Mr. Petsos, For; Mayor
Randels, For and Ms. Roberts, For.
4. Motion to Approve: Annual Audit for the Year Ending
Andrea Bowers, City Treasurer, stated
that the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report [CAFR] included the time period
of
She referred to the Management
Letter which was the City Manager’s document and was un-audited; however, it
was reviewed for consistency with the financial statements. The report on Compliance and Internal Control
was tested for compliance with laws, regulations, contracts, and grants. Internal Control was also reviewed for risk
assessment. No instance of
non-compliance and no material weaknesses of internal control were found. Ms. Clayborne referred to Pages 85 through 90
in the Management Letter. She noted that
the only two comments were repeated in the current year which related to new
accounting and audit standards.
Ms. Clayborne reported on the
anticipation of a Code of Ethics due to the Enron activities and next year’s
audit approach would reflect that change. The City Council was encouraged to present a
Code of Ethics for inclusion in the Personnel Manual. This would establish written proof of ethical
expectations. Ms. Clayborne referred to
an Approved Vendor List which would allow for solicitation and purchasing from
approved vendors upfront using the list.
This would leverage the City’s purchasing power, coordinate control of
the purchasing process, allow for greater efficiency, and was considered by
many to be a “best practice.”
Ms. Clayborne referred to Fund
Balances on page 16 of the document. She
pointed out how the City has maintained a benchmark of 64.98 percent in the
Unreserved Fund Balance. The firm
anticipated a policy of set asides for 2.5 to 6 months. Ms. Clayborne referred to Long-Term Debt per
population of $15 per citizen below a benchmark of $227 per citizen. Ms. Clayborne reviewed Governmental Fund Debt
Service versus Expenses.
Ms. Clayborne reviewed Governmental Fund Revenues by Source and pointed out how
the properties of previous years were coming online for inclusion in the City’s
property tax rolls and the valuations have increased over the years as well as
the tax base. She informed that the City
Council was challenged with finding other revenue sources. Ms. Clayborne informed that charges for
services have remained relatively stable.
She noted that although building permits were down, miscellaneous
revenue such as investment income had increased with more money available for
investments. Ms. Clayborne referred to
Governmental Fund Expenditures and noted Public Safety which includes Fire,
Police, and Building Code Officials as the City’s largest expense. The other areas of City government have
maintained a fairly stable base.
Ms. Clayborne referred to the
Sewer Fund and noted a small fee deficiency in the revenue stream for the Sewer
Fund. She explained how historically the
Sewer Funds in the governmental industry was self-sustaining. Ms. Clayborne
reminded that the City would want to realize enough to cover operating expenses
and then set aside for Capital replacement. Mayor Randels noted how the Council took
corrective action and pointed out how the expenses versus revenues leveled out over
the last three years. Ms. Clayborne
related that the numbers were evidenced from maintenance efforts such as the sewer
pipe slip lining project that helped to maintain the infrastructure and allowed
the City to handle its sewer capacity. Ms.
Clayborne stated that the City had much capacity remaining for its sewer
system. She stated that the City
infrastructure was sound.
Mayor Randels pointed out that
the City to this date had no bonded debt.
Mayor Randels stated that in 2004 the tax millage was $3.45 per
thousand, $3.37 per thousand in 2005, and $3.00 per thousand in 2006 and again
in 2007. Mayor Randels stated for the
record that the date for the paving project would begin on Monday, April 30th. He informed the audience that the Council set
aside enough funding to perform the paving project to mill, grade and place
crowns in the road.
Mayor Randels referred to the
auditors suggestion to establish a Fund Balance Policy to set aside funding for
a specific purpose. Ms. Clayborne
explained how a formal policy would provide a written intent and would keep a
future Council from denigrating the funds and would assist the current Council
with setting priorities. Mayor Randels also referred to the auditor’s
advisement of a Qualified Vendors List.
Ms. Bowers clarified that the City Manager would still approve large
purchases. Ms. Roberts stated that the Qualified
Vendors List was done at the Federal level and the Vendors had to meet certain
quality standards. Mayor Randels
encouraged the audience to seek out the CAFR for information on the City’s
finances. Ms. Clayborne noted that the
statistical section was re-structured due to the Government Accounting Standards
Board 42. She also noted that trend data
presented in three and not ten years; however, each year’s data would be added
until the City reached ten years under the new procedures.
Mr. Boucher thanked Ms. Bowers
and her staff for managing the financial processes. He advised that going forward the City was in
a healthy financial standing; however, in light of the State property tax
reform the City needed to remain mindful of large expenditures. Ms. Clayborne credited Ms. Bowers for
continued work on the audit in the aftermath of the roof collapse in the
Finance Department. Ms. Roberts asked
Ms. Clayborne if she had any examples from other cities of a Code of Ethics as
well as Vendor practices. Ms. Clayborne
affirmed that examples were available to the firm.
A motion was made by Mr. Petsos and seconded by Ms. Roberts to Approve
the Annual Audit for the Year Ending
DISCUSSION:
5. Resort Dwelling Units.
Mayor Randels informed that the City Attorney has drafted an ordinance on
the issue. He related the Council’s
concern for the neighboring properties as well as an owner’s property rights
for use. Mr. Boucher summarized that the
draft ordinance prohibits resort rental dwelling units in the R-1, R-2, and R-3
zoning, with an amortization compliance scheme.
At the previous meeting the Council accepted public input; however, this
meeting would provide for Council’s input before accepting public comment. Mayor Randels explained that the zoning code
of R-1 through R-3 had a different meaning in the Florida Building Code. He stated that R-1 zoning in the Florida
Building Code included transient dwellings, and R-2 and R-3 related to
permanent dwellings. Mayor Randels
clarified that the Council’s discussion included one through four unit
dwellings.
Mr. Morley stated that discussion would relate to one through four units only. Mayor Randels referred to Chapter 509,
Section 242, Item (g) from the Florida Department of Business and Professional
Regulations that defined resort dwellings.
Mayor Randels read the definition.
Mr. Morley stated that dwelling unit was synonymous with a dwelling
house and a time share owner expressed his concern at a previous meeting;
however, the definition was presented to clarify the previous four conditions
and he asked the Building Official bring out this point for clarification. Attorney Garganese stated that the proper
way to read it was that it applied to one, two, three, or four family dwelling
houses or dwelling units. Mr. Morley
agreed that he would read it that way as well.
Attorney Garganese stated that throughout the evolution of this process, the
State licenses a certain type of commercial establishment called a resort
dwelling. This ordinance says whatever the
State licenses, this is where it could be located in the City pursuant to the
City zoning code and that is why the definition in the Code and the definition
in the Statute were the same. Mayor
Randels asked if there were any reason to change City code section 110-486, relating
to the prohibition of renting of less than seven days. Mr. Morley responded
that that was in additional restriction in the City code.
Mayor Randels pointed out that the term might give anyone in the hotel
industry some concern since the code reads that it shall be unlawful for any
person to rent a dwelling unit for less than seven days.” Attorney Garganese stated that one would
refer to the definition of dwelling in the Zoning Code in Section 110-1. A dwelling unit was defined as, “one room or
rooms connected together, constitution a separate independent housekeeping establishment
for owner occupancy, for rent or lease, and physically separated from any other
rooms or dwelling units which may be in the same structure and containing
independent cooking and sleeping facilities.”
Mr. Boucher clarified that Section 509.242 defined hotels and motels as
public lodging establishments not dwelling units. Attorney Gargenese pointed out that there was a
separate definition in the City’s zoning code for hotels which means, “a
building or combination of buildings in which lodging was provided and offered
to the public for compensation and duly licensed pursuant to Chapter 509 under
single ownership and operation, etc.” Mayor Randels concluded that the language
would exclude hotels which rent by the day.
Mayor Randels summarized that the next step would forward the ordinance
to the Planning and Zoning Board for review.
Attorney Garganese clarified that the Council would discuss the item first. Ms. Roberts referred to page 2 of the
Ordinance and questioned the case law precedent. She stated that some residents had expressed
concern with subjecting themselves to any case law. Ms. Roberts asked the City Attorney if there
were case law that the City should be taking into consideration. Attorney Garganese responded that there was
much case law and probable opposing view.
He proposed that some individuals would claim a vested right and they
would have to meet certain criteria in case law. Attorney Garganese brought out that one of the
things that this Ordinance does was allow anyone who was duly licensed have an
opportunity to continue and that was for purposes of protecting someone who may
claim to have a vested right. Attorney
Garganee stated that it might not be on point; however, they could extrapolate
from another case.
Ms. Roberts also referred to the bottom of Page 2 and read the text
verbatim. She questioned if the language
covered all of Council’s intent. Ms.
Roberts raised this as a discussion point as it related to the safety interest
and the residential character. She asked
were there any other considerations. Mayor
Randels pointed out that the safety aspect was the driving point of the
ordinance. Ms. Roberts referred to Page
6 that referred to in C-1, low density, commercial district the following uses
and structures are permitted which includes resort dwellings duly licensed by
the State. She asked if the City would also
want to include some language for those resort dwellings that have been
licensed by the State.
Attorney Garganese explained that if someone came to the City and desired
to operate a new resort dwelling in the C-1 zoning district, it would be a
permitted use provided that it was licensed by the State. In addition, even though it was not stated,
if it required a change of occupancy, they would need to comply with another
section of the code, such as building and fire codes. Ms. Roberts questioned
for clarification that Section 110-332 still allowed for some safeguards. Attorney Garganese responded that nothing
abrogates any of the other applicable codes.
The operation could be duly licensed by the State; however, if the
building failed the building and fire prevention code requirements, the
building could not be occupied as a resort dwelling. It would be unlawful.
Ms. Roberts stated that all those who were licensed as of
Attorney Garganese explained that in order to show or demonstrate
compliance with Section 110-121 it would require that the Building Official and
the Fire Chief sign-off . They are the only persons with that authority under
those applicable codes to make those determinations. The City Manager would have to rely on those
two other officials to verify non-conforming use status. He could not make those determinations on his
own. Ms. Roberts stated that the language might need simplification for the
public’s sake; however, she had no suggestions at this time. Attorney Garganese explained that there were
other silent overlapping codes. He recommended amending the language to read,”
upon verification that a non-conforming resort dwelling use status exists,
under Subparagraph (b) above, the City Manager shall... ” Mr. Petsos asked it the language could be
clarified to state a change of use. Mayor
Randels stated for the record that discussion was under Page 6, Section
110-485, Subparagraph (b) and to insert the language, change of use.
Mr. Morley pointed out that he was referring to a change of occupancy. Attorney Garganese clarified that technically
it was a change of occupancy. Attorney Garganese explained that Mr. Petsos was
correct in saying that a change of use results in a change of occupancy
classification under the Building Code which then calls for different
requirements. However, not all changes
of use result in changes of occupancy classifications. Ms. Roberts asked if the Council planned to
leave the language as stated or provide for some clarification.
Ms. Roberts referred to Section D, and she recommended a Section D,
Number 3 that would read, “the City determines that the dwelling does not meet
the safety requirements or Certificate of Occupancy standards.” Mr. Morley replied that the Fire Department
would add this to their list of items for annual inspection. Ms. Roberts expressed her concern with
waiting for a State inspection. Ms.
Roberts explained that a citizen had expressed that there were some undesirable
practices and these units should be automatically changed by the City. Attorney
Garganese explained that if a resort dwelling became a chronic violator, then
those dwellings would be eliminated.
Ms. Roberts called for a third point that would allow for that action. Attorney Garganese stated that if the Council
adopted additional performance standards at some point, certainly those would
be included, but broader. Ms. Roberts
stated that if the State’s recourse were to not renew the license that might be
immediate and the City needed to take immediate action if an unsafe situation
exists. Mayor Randels asked the Building Official what the City would do if the
occupancy was exceeded. Mr. Morley
replied that Code Enforcement was the first step and the City would call the
State and the annual renewal cycle would be interrupted.
Ms. Roberts expressed that the City should add a third prerogative to
take action. She stated that when safety
was involved the Council should take immediate action to remedy the
situation. Attorney Garganese advised that
the Council might want to include this with Code Enforcement violations. He requested to
give this consideration. Attorney Garganese explained that there were other
situations in which the City might desire to take immediate action even so far
as to seeking a Court injunction. In
other types of situations wherein over a period of time someone becomes a
chronic nuisance, perhaps a penalty of a loss of non-conforming-use status could
occur. Ms. Roberts recommended after the
passage of this Ordinance an allowance of 60 to 90 days for those who did not
have an opportunity to apply the right to apply. Mr. Petsos stated that he disagreed with that
view in that this placed a commercial establishment in a residential
community. He said that this would not
only allow continuance of existing operations but also add new ones.
Mayor Pro Tem Hoog asked for someone to explain the difference between
someone renting by the day/ week/ or month as an industry or an individual
renting their property in a residential district. He agreed with more time for people to come
into compliance. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog also
stated his favor with a nuisance ordinance. He stated that the Council would
drive people underground; however, the rentals would continue. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog re-stated for someone to
convince him of the difference between someone renting in R-1 and R-2 by the
month and someone renting in the commercial district by the week. Ms. Roberts stated that safety was her number
one concern and there was a statistical reporting that demonstrated the safety
difference for a short term rental.
Mayor Randels clarified that Ms. Roberts was pointing out that a
transient rental classified a different characteristic. Mr. Morley read that a higher potential of
risk occurred within group the R-1 transient.
He stated that the R-3 permanent, single-family was more stable in that
these occupants were more familiar with their surroundings. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog pointed out that seeking
the fire exits was a priority for any person in a transient situation such as a
hotel room. Mr. Morley replied that the
difference was familiarity levels and familiarity bred safety. Ms. Roberts expressed concern on behalf of
the residents absent from the meeting who had concerns with the neighboring
transient population and its different environment and she stated the concern
with safety in the different nature of the transient weekly rental. However, the resort dwelling definition
called for less than 30 days which provided some degree of stability.
Mayor Pro Tem Hoog stated that he resides in a single-family home
adjacent to rental property. He informed
that due to the high-dollar cost of resort rental properties, he did not feel
that transient accurately described these people who were in no way indigent. Ms. Roberts noted that she resides next to the
Ron Jon’s
Ms. Roberts stated that they could testify first hand of a lack of a quiet,
residential community for those who live at
Mr. Petsos replied to Mayor Randels that there were at least three
Council members in agreement on the issue in discussion. Ms. Roberts stated that she requested for
more time for those who did not have an opportunity to apply for operation;
however, she emphasized that the Council needed to move forward and take steps
to preserve the City’s quality of life. Ms.
Roberts expressed that the Council could either have a beachside resort city or
a residential city and she concluded that not taking prevented steps would
allow for a beachside resort city. Mr.
Petsos informed that there were more units than were disclosed. Ms. Roberts stated that the City was setting
the tone and this would set a precedent that the City was moving toward a beach
resort community. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog
replied that there was no difference if a resident were renting property.
Ms. Roberts stated that she did not fault the investors for using the
property for investment purposes; however, she emphasized the need to set
parameters. Ms. Roberts stated that if
an investor was allowed to operate 30-day rentals in an area other than C-1
zoning, this was allowing for a change.
Mayor Pro Tem Hoog stated that residential rentals have existed
throughout his time of living in the community and it has not changed. Mr. Petsos stated that the City could either
honor its mission statement and remain a residential community or proceed to
become a resort rental community. He
stated that the City needed to abide by the State statutes. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog responded that
establishing the type of residential community that was being proposed would
not allow for people to rent their property.
Mayor Randels concluded that every resident in
Mayor Randels replied to Ms. Roberts that she purchased in a condominium
community over which the City had no rights.
Ms. Roberts stated that a number of residents expressed their concern
that a weekly rental environment was constructed after their purchases. She expressed the thought that she purchased
with the intent of residing in a residential community. Mayor Randels stated that he was not in
agreement with prohibiting residential resort dwellings to the C-1 zoning
district. He stated it was their
legitimate legal right. Ms. Roberts replied that the Council would be taking
away for the permanent resident a quality, quiet residential community when
weekly rentals were allowed next to them. Mayor Randels replied that that was an
enforcement issue. He replied that at
this time not all have the right legal requirements for operation; however, he
was not in favor of eliminating someone’s property rights.
Ms. Roberts related the difficulty of contacting the Building Official,
Code Enforcement, or the City Manager to address behavioral problems with the
transient rental dweller who leaves the area before the problem can be
addressed. Mayor Randels responded that the weekly renter was actually the
weekly owner because they own the property for that length of time if it were a
time share. Mr. Petsos said that the
adjacent residents had to tolerate the transient vacationer. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog related how he notified
the police to address behavior problems with neighboring renters. He explained how a strong enforcement ordinance
would allow for the issuance a citation.
Ms. Roberts explained that the challenge for the residential owner was
the fact of a transient situation that required action every week which disturbed
the quality of life for that resident.
Mayor Pro Tem Hoog explained how identifying problems beforehand would
mean a violation would occur if the renter did not adhere to the established
rules.
Ms. Bea McNeely, Planning and Zoning Board Chairperson, reviewed that in
1998 the Board developed the hotel ordinance to cover every base using strict
requirements. She asked why at this
point there was continued discussion on hotels. Mr. Petsos stated that this
would allow for mini-hotels throughout the community. Ms. McNeely informed that the Board discussed
the requirement for hotels in order avoid a plethora of small hotels such as
bed and breakfast’s and sideline establishment.
She noted how the Board set its focus on what the City would allow
instead of identifying what was not acceptable.
Mayor Pro Tem Hoog stated that a single-family home renting on the beach
was not defined as a hotel. Ms. McNeely opined that the Council was the elected
officials and the final decision rested with the Council. Mr. Petsos reminded Ms. McNeely that legally
the Planning and Zoning Board were required to review zoning issues prior to
the Council’s decision. Mayor Pro Tem
Hoog stated for the record that he did not desire to be a party in removing the
rights from a property owner. Ms.
Roberts concluded that a no vote was costly to the City in its residential
mission. Mr. Petsos stated that the
Planning and Zoning Board had heard all of the input from the citizens and the
Council.
A motion
was made by Mr. Petsos and seconded by Ms. Roberts to forward the Resort
Dwellings Ordinance to the Planning and Zoning Board. The vote on the motion failed 2-2 with
voting as follows: Mayor Pro Tem Hoog, Against;
Mr. Nicholas, Absent; Mr. Petsos, For; Mayor Randels, Against and Ms. Roberts,
For.
Attorney
Garganese clarified that the motion failed until the vote could carry by
majority.
Ms. Roberts requested to place the item on the item for the next City
Council meeting.
The following
items would be deferred to the next City Council Agenda for discussion.
6. Central
7. Administrative Appeals Related to the
Zoning Code of Ordinances.
8.
Mayor
Randels announced the Guns and Axes Charitable Softball Tournament on Saturday,
April 21st, at
AUDIENCE TO BE HEARD:
There was no additional comment from the audience.
REPORTS:
Due to the lateness of the hour, there were no reports.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further
business the Chair adjourned the meeting at 10:00 P.M.
________________________________
Rocky
Randels, MAYOR
________________________________
Susan Stills, CMC, CITY CLERK