REGULAR AGENDA

Application No. LDR-22-040 A Request to Amend The Village of Indiantown Land Development Regulations to Revise the Terms of Service and Means of Appointments.

]

DONE. OKAY ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU . ALL RIGHT. SO UM, I'M FOR OUR REGULAR AGENDA. WE HAVE ITEM FOUR, WHICH IS GOING FIRST APPLICATION NUMBER. LD R THAT'S 22-40 A REQUEST TO AMEND THE VILLAGE OF INDIAN TOWN LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. TO REVISE THE TERMS OF SERVICE AND MEANS OF APPOINTMENTS. SO OKAY. AND MADAM CHAIR. I'LL BE HANDLING THIS ITEM. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AH ACTUALLY, WHOEVER'S DRIVING THE COMPUTER COULD YOU BRING UP THE, UM, REVISED VERSION OF THE ORDINANCE I SENT OUT LAST NIGHT. THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE THE MOST SELF.

SO BOARD MEMBERS. GOOD EVENING. UM AS I MENTIONED BY THE WAY IN MY EMAIL LAST NIGHT, I HAVE BECKY VOTES MY LAW PARTNER AND MY MOTHER ON THE ZOOM CALL AS WELL TONIGHT I'M GOING TO HAVE

[00:10:04]

TO STEP OUT OF THE MEETING AT ABOUT 6 52 STEP INTO ANOTHER MEETING IN BECKY WILL BE STAYING ON WITH YOU. AFTER THAT SHE'S BEEN PRACTICING LOCAL GOVERNMENT LAW FOR 49 YEARS, SO YOU'LL BE IN MUCH BETTER HANDS THAN ME. AND AH, BUT I WAS HOPING TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THIS ITEM BEFORE THAT TIME. SO THIS ITEM THAT'S BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS A REQUEST TO, UM, AMEND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS REVISING MATTERS RELATING TO THE TERMS OF SERVICE AND APPOINTMENTS OF THE MEMBERS OF YOUR BOARD OF THE P C. A. B. UM DANIEL, ARE YOU ABLE? OR I'M SORRY, DARREN. ARE YOU ABLE TO BRING UP THAT? UH REVISED ORDINANCE OR DO YOU HAVE IT? THEY'RE WORKING ON IT. OKAY AND IF YOU DON'T HAVE IT THERE YOU ALL HAVE A COPY. UM ON PAPER AT YOUR AT YOUR SEATS THERE.

IT'S GOING TO TAKE YOU THROUGH THE BASICS AND THE ORIGINS OF THIS BASICALLY AT EACH OF THE LAST TWO MEETINGS OF THE VILLAGE COUNCIL, THERE WAS DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION. BY THE VILLAGE COUNCIL TO VILLAGE STAFF TO START THE PROCESS GOING THROUGH OF MAKING SOME REVISIONS TO, UM THE TERMS AND APPOINTMENT PROCESSES AND QUALIFICATIONS FOR MEMBERS OF THE P C, A. B AND JUST SO YOU ALL AS A REMINDER ANY REVISION TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. UM HAS TO GO THROUGH THE PLANNING ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD, WHICH SITS AS THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE VILLAGE COUNCIL. IT ULTIMATELY THEN GOES BACK TO THE VILLAGE COUNCIL AS AN ORDINANCE, AND THEY WILL REVIEW IT AND ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AFTER TWO READINGS.

SO, UM THE DIRECTION THAT STAFF ARE THAT STAFF WAS ULTIMATELY GIVEN BY THE VILLAGE COUNCIL IS UM. IMPLEMENTED IN THE REVISED DRAFT ORDINANCE THAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU THIS MORNING OR THIS EVENING, I WILL GO THROUGH THE BASICS OF WHAT THOSE CHANGES ARE FOR YOU. FIRST CHANGE IS, UM RATHER THAN ALL SEVEN MEMBERS OF THE P C. A B BEING APPOINTED BY A VOTE OF THE VILLAGE COUNCIL.

FIVE OF THE P C. A B MEMBERS WOULD BE DIRECT APPOINTED BY INDIVIDUAL VILLAGE COUNCIL MEMBERS. OKAY THE OTHER TWO REMAINING MEMBERS OF THE P C. A B WOULD BE APPOINTED BY MAJORITY VOTE OF THE VILLAGE COUNCIL. THE WAY IT OCCURS NOW, SO WE'D HAVE FIVE DIRECT APPOINTMENTS AND TWO VOTED ON BY THE VILLAGE COUNCIL AS A WHOLE. UM THE TERMS OF THE P C MEMBERS UNDER THE DRAFT VERSION YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU WOULD FOR THE FIVE DIRECTLY APPOINTED MEMBERS RUN CONCURRENT WITH THE TERMS OF THE VILLAGE COUNCIL MEMBER THAT APPOINTED THAT BOARD MEMBER. OKAY AND THEN FOR THE OTHER TWO, UM UM, BOARD MEMBERS THEY WOULD SERVE ON TWO YEAR TERMS ON A CYCLE THAT WOULD COINCIDE WITH THE ELECTION CYCLE EFFECTIVELY. THOSE TWO A, A FOUR, THOSE TWO BOARD MEMBERS TERMS WOULD BE UP. UM BASICALLY COMING INTO THE ELECTION AND WOULD BE SUBJECT TO BEING FILLED AGAIN AFTER A NEW VILLAGE COUNCIL IS SEATED. UM. THE MOST SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE TO WHAT WE HAVE. UH AS COMPARED TO THE CURRENT PROVISIONS IN YOUR L. DRS IS BASICALLY THE REMOVAL OF THE REQUIREMENT THAT AT LEAST FIVE MEMBERS OF THE P C. A B MUST BE RESIDENTS OF THE VILLAGE. OKAY. UM THERE IS ADDED BACK IN IN THIS VERSION, A REQUIREMENT THAT THE CHAIR AND THE VICE CHAIR OF THE PC ABE MUST BE RESIDENTS OF THE VILLAGE SO THAT I WOULD SUGGEST TO YOU IMPLICITLY, UM AH MAKES IT SO THAT AT LEAST TWO MEMBERS OF THE P C A B MUST BE RESIDENTS, BUT, UM BASICALLY THE REQUIREMENT TO BE A MEMBER OF THE P C. A B WOULD BE, UM, THAT, UH. THE CURRENT ONE YEAR RESIDENCY OR ONE YEAR, OWNER OF A BUSINESS LOCATED WITHIN THE VILLAGE. UH AND THAT WOULD THAT WOULD APPLY , UM, ACROSS ALL THE MEMBERS AND THE IF YOU RECALL PREVIOUSLY THERE WAS A LIMITATION THAT ONLY UP TO TWO MEMBERS COULD BE NONRESIDENT BUSINESS OWNERS. SO

[00:15:04]

THAT IS A SUMMARY OF THE CHANGES IN THE DRAFT. THAT IS A BEFORE YOU TONIGHT AS WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS PREVIOUSLY AND AS I MENTIONED JUST A MOMENT AGO, UH , YOUR ROLE IS TO REVIEW THIS AND ALTERNATELY, UH, TAKE ACTION TO VOTE ON A RECOMMENDATION TO THE VILLAGE COUNCIL. AND THEN THAT RECOMMENDATION WILL BE TRANSMITTED TO THE VILLAGE COUNCIL AND THEN ULTIMATELY, THEY WOULD DECIDE WHAT THEY ADOPT AFTER A 1ST AND 2ND GRADE. AND I'D BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. I HAVE A QUESTION. YES, MA'AM. UM. IF YOU HAD REQUIRED THAT THE VICE CHAIR AND CHAIR BE RESIDENTS, BUT YET EACH OF THE FIVE MEMBERS CAN APPOINT ANYONE THEY WANT TO WHETHER THEY'RE A RESIDENT OR NOT. WHAT'S THE GUARANTEE YOU'RE EVEN GOING TO HAVE TO MEMBERS THAT ARE RESIDENTS? I MEAN, I CAN ENVISION WHERE YOU DON'T HAVE TO. HMM. AS IT'S CURRENTLY DRAFTED. WHAT WOULD END UP HAPPENING IS IF WE WERE IN A SITUATION WHERE THERE WERE FIVE NON RESIDENTS. A SINGLE RESIDENT AND A VACANCY. I WOULD ADVISE. IF IT WAS A DIRECT APPOINTMENT.

I WOULD ADVISE THAT, UM THAT COUNCIL MEMBER AND I'D ADVISE THE WHOLE COUNCIL, UM, THAT MY LEGAL ADVICE WOULD BE YOU HAD BETTER, UM WHEN YOU MAKE YOUR APPOINTMENT, YOU HAD BETTER MAKE THAT ONE RESIDENT. THAT'S ABOUT AS AS GOOD AS WE'VE GOT WITH THIS, UM, WE MIGHT YEAH, IT MIGHT BE ONE OF YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS TONIGHT THAT YOU UH UM. THAT YOU MAKE IT MORE CLEAR THAT AT LEAST TWO MUST BE VILLAGE RESIDENTS, AS OPPOSED TO IT BEING IMPLICIT BUT AGAIN, UM I WOULD SORT ITSELF OUT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS. I'D LIKE TO MAKE SOME COMMENTS. GO RIGHT AHEAD. UM, THIS IS NOT. HARD DECISION FOR ME. I DO NOT SUPPORT THIS. UM I SEE IT AS A DISENFRANCHISEMENT OF THE RESIDENTS OF INDIAN TOWN. THE LINE THAT REQUIRES THE ONE YEAR RESIDENCY HAS BEEN STRUCK THROUGH THE LINE REQUIRING THAT A BUSINESS OWNER BUSINESS BE LOCATED WITHIN THE VILLAGE HAS BEEN STRUCK THROUGH TO DISENFRANCHISE SOMEONE. IS TO DEPRIVE THEM OF THE RIGHT TO VOTE. WE VOTE ON THIS BOARD AND WE USE OUR VOICE ON THIS BOARD. TO DISENFRANCHISE SOMEONE IS TOO BROAD DEPRIVED THEM OF THE RIGHT OR OR TO DEPRIVE THEM OF A RIGHT OR PRIVILEGE. AS A RESIDENT. I FEEL THAT SERVING ON THIS BOARD IT'S WHEN I SHARE WITH ALL RESIDENTS AND I DEFINITELY VIEW IT AS A PRIVILEGE. THE ADJECTIVE DISENFRANCHISED, DESCRIBES A PERSON OR A GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO ARE STRIPPED OF THEIR POWER. AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THIS PROPOSAL WOULD DO. WHEN YOU TAKE SEATS AT THE TABLE AWAY FROM RESIDENTS AND GIVE THEM TO PEOPLE. WHO DO NOT LIVE HERE WHO ARE OUTSIDE THE BOUNDARIES OF THE VILLAGE. YOU'RE STRIPPING INDIAN TOWN RESIDENTS OF THEIR POWER. DID WE INCORPORATE TO GIVE OUR SEATS AND OUR ABILITY TO VOTE TO PEOPLE WHO DO NOT LIVE HERE? NO.

DISENFRANCHISEMENT OF RESIDENTS IS ONLY ONE REASON WHY I DO NOT SUPPORT THIS. THE OTHER STRIKETHROUGH IN PARAGRAPH, A THAT TIES ALL SEVEN TO THE ELECTION CYCLE, RATHER THAN TO THE TWO YEAR AND THREE YEAR TERMS THAT WE HAVE NOW. FURTHER POLITICIZES THE BOARD. INCREASED POLITICALIZATION OF THE PIZZA BOARD IS ANOTHER REASON I DO NOT SUPPORT THIS. THE PROPOSED CHANGES WOULD RECREATE ALSO CREATE A FASTER TURNOVER. AND LESS EXPERIENCED MEMBERS EXCEPT FOR THE DEVELOPERS AND COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE AGENTS WHO WILL SEEK OUR SEATS FOR THEMSELVES OR THEIR PROXIES. THERE IS THE POTENTIAL FOR FOUR OR FIVE PEOPLE ON THIS BOARD TO BE CHANGING, WITH EACH ALTERNATING ELECTION CYCLE. ALL THE TRAINING EXPERIENCE, HISTORICAL KNOWLEDGE WOULD BE LOST. I DO NOT SUPPORT THIS PROPOSAL BECAUSE ALL OF THE

[00:20:02]

EFFORT AND GREAT EXPENSE OF TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE WOULD BE LOST, AND THE CONSEQUENCE WOULD BE A WEAKER, LESS EXPERIENCED. BOARD MEMBERS. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A DIFFERENT RECOMMENDATION TO THE VILLAGE COUNCIL. MY POSITION IS THAT ALL FIVE VOTING SEATS ON THE PC? A BOARD MUST BE RESIDENTS. AFTER ALL, WHO DOES THIS BOARD SERVE? RESIDENTS. WE ARE HERE TO SERVE RESIDENTS AND NOT ANYONE ELSE. THE CHANGES IN EXHIBIT A PARAGRAPH A SHOULD BE RESTORED. IS WHAT I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO DO WITH THESE CHANGES. HAVE A QUESTION. AS WELL. WHEN, WHEN, WHEN THE WHEN SHE'S FINISHED. CONTINUE THE RESIDENCY REQUIRED REQUIREMENTS SHOULD BE STRENGTHENED TO MAKE CLEAR THAT SOMEONE USING ZOOM DOES NOT CONSTITUTE HAVING A BUSINESS WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE VILLAGE. EVERYONE ON THE BOARD MUST HAVE A PHYSICAL ADDRESS WITHIN THE VILLAGE. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. AH AT THE PROPER TIME AFTER YOU'VE HAD TIME TO CONSIDER WHAT I'M SAYING THAT UM, AND MAYBE MR VOS AND STAFF WILL HELP ME WITH THE LANGUAGE AND THE STEPS, BUT I'D LIKE TO MAKE THREE ADDITIONAL CHANGES. THREE CHANGES, LANGUAGE GOVERNING THE PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD SHOULD BE RESTORED WITH ALL SEATS, ALL FIVE SEATS REQUIRING RESIDENCY.

NUMBER. TWO USING ZOOM DOES NOT CONSTITUTE BEING THE OWNER OF A BUSINESS LOCATED WHEN THEY BUILT IN THE VILLAGE. ALL BOARD MEMBERS MUST HAVE A PHYSICAL ADDRESS WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE VILLAGE. AND NUMBER THREE I'D LIKE TO ADD ONE OTHER RECOMMENDATION. THE CURRENT RECUSAL LIMIT THAT WE HAVE OF FOUR PER YEAR. AH THAT REQUIRED NOTICE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

THE FORM EIGHT B THAT WAS JUST READ TO US. THE DISCLOSURE FORM. THAT SOMEONE HAS A SPECIAL PRIVATE GAIN OR LOSS. THAT THEIR BUSINESS OR BUSINESS ASSOCIATE HAS A SPECIAL GAINED OR LOST BE REDUCED TO TWO. IT SHOULD BE REDUCED FROM 4 TO 2. I WOULD LIKE INPUT FROM IN THE FORM OF EMOTION AND ASSISTANCE FROM EVERYONE ON THE BOARD. OKAY UM, MR SAIYAN, MADAM CHAIR? YES. I ONLY WANTED TO OFFER. ONE CLARIFICATION. UH THAT AND I SHOULD HAVE MENTIONED IT BEFORE THIS. THIS WAS ACTUALLY A REFINEMENT IN THE REVISED VERSION. THAT, UM, THAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU ALL ON PAPER. UM THAT WAS SENT OUT LAST NIGHT. UH MISS PRESSLER IS CORRECT. THE PREVIOUS INITIAL VERSION DID STRIKE THROUGH. THE ONE YEAR RESIDENCY OR BUSINESS OWNER LOCATED WITHIN THE VILLAGE LANGUAGE. I WAS ABLE TO GET A LITTLE BIT FURTHER CLARIFICATION. UH ON WHAT WE'RE IMPLEMENTING THERE, AND AS A RESULT OF THAT, THE REVISED VERSION THAT LANGUAGE REMAINS INTACT. STILL DOES EVERYTHING ELSE I MENTIONED HERE, SO IT'S NOT A COMMENT ONE WAY OR THE L. OTHER ON ANYTHING THIS? PRESSLER JUST SAID JUST THAT ONE PIECE.

UH, THAT SENTENCE IS BACK IN THERE. OKAY? PERSONAL CLEAR ON THAT. SORRY COULD COULD YOU GIVE US A LINE ITEM ON WHAT? WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO IT'S JUST A LITTLE HARD FOR ME TO FOLLOW, YOU KNOW, FROM ONE COPY TO THE NEXT, WHICH LINE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. ABSOLUTELY MISS RUSSELL.

DO YOU HAVE THE PRINTED VERSION ? THEY HANDED OUT? YES EXHIBIT, A REFERRING REFERRING TO, UM LINES 96 TO 98. THAT LANGUAGE IS NO LONGER STRUCK. OKAY THANK YOU HAD BEEN IN THE PREVIOUS VERSION. YEAH. SO ARE YOU. SO ATTORNEY VOTES THAT LANGUAGES IS STILL THERE MEMBERS SHALL SERVE WITHOUT COMPENSATION. WITH A MINIMUM ONE YEAR RESIDENCY. THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO ARE EITHER THE ARE THE BOYS SHOULD CONSIST OF AT LEAST NO, IT'S IT WAS. IT WAS THE THAT THE SENTENCE YOU WERE JUST READING ABOUT. THEY HAVE TO EITHER LIVE BE A ONE YEAR RESIDENTS IN THE VILLAGE OR ONE YEAR BUSINESS OWNER WITHIN THE VILLAGE THAT REMAINS THE IN THIS REVISED VERSION, THE REQUIREMENT THAT AT LEAST FIVE RESIDENT MEMBER THE FIVE MEMBERS BE RESIDENTS IS

[00:25:02]

STRUCK. OKAY IT WAS JUST CLARIFICATION OF ONE LITTLE POINT THAT MISS PRESTON WAS SAYING IT WASN'T ADDRESSED TO THE ALL THE REST OF IT. OKAY? IT I'M SORRY TO FOLLOW UP. UM SO THIS HAS BEEN RESTORED 96 TO 98. OR IS IT STRUCK? THAT'S CORRECT. NO, IT'S. IT'S THERE IF YOU HAVE THE IF YOU HAVE THAT REVISED VERSION BEFORE YOU THERE IT IS NO LONGER STRUCK. OKAY BECAUSE HERE THE REVISED VERSION, I BELIEVE WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT THE REVISED VERSION. IT'S IN BOLD BLACK. I THINK I'M I'M LOOKING AT THE SAME THING. YEAH IT'S STILL IN THERE. OKAY WE ALL GOT THE SAME THING. OKAY YOU CLEAR? UM BOARDMAN PRESSLER. WELL. I DO UNDER I UNDERSTAND THOSE LINES. UM THEN AGAIN, I WANT TO BE REAL CLEAR THAT THAT WAS JUST ONE LITTLE CLARIFICATION. IT'S NOT. IT'S NOT HER ARGUMENT FOR OR AGAINST ANYTHING ELSE, MISS PRESSLER SET WRESTLERS OPINION ABOUT THE WHOLE MATTER IS HER OPINION, SO RIGHT? OKAY OKAY. BOARD MEMBER SAID HI. YET MY QUESTION WAS ACTUALLY JUST TO THAT POINT THAT WAS JUST DISCUSSED, AND I JUST HAD A ADDITIONAL QUESTION. UM WITH THIS CHANGE IN LANGUAGE. THEY CAN, IF WHEN THEY APPOINT SOMEBODY THEY CAN STILL APPOINT. OUR RESIDENT OR BUSINESS OWNER. SO IS THAT CORRECT? SO JUST BECAUSE THEY NOW HAVE THE ABILITY TO APPOINT MORE THAN TWO POSITIONS. WHOEVER IS APPOINTED COULD STILL ELECT A RESIDENT. THAT'S THAT'S CORRECT. YEAH IT IT COULD END UP BEING THAT ALL SEVEN MEMBERS ARE RESIDENTS. OKAY THERE. THERE'S NOTHING AT ALL PROHIBITING THAT, OKAY? I HAVE A QUESTION. UM, GO AHEAD. OKAY, MY QUESTION. UM I SEE IT'S RED, AND, UM IT'S UNDERLINED.

OKAY, HERE, IT'S GOING BACK. I SEE WHAT? WAIT A MINUTE. LET'S SEE. NOW IT'S CROSSED. I'M IN A I GUESS. A QUANDARY HERE ABOUT THE BE APPOINTED FOR TWO YEAR TERMS. UM WELL, I MY QUESTION IL THAT ARE NO LONGER UM THEY HAVE BEEN REMOVED. THEY'RE NOT ELECTED AND THEY WERE NOT ELECTED. SO THE SO ARE THEY STILL ARE WE STILL UNDER THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE MEMBERS THAT THEY'RE APPOINTED OF THE MEMBERS THAT APPOINTED US. THAT ARE THERE ARE NO LONGER ELECTED OFFICIALS HERE, SO THOSE POSITIONS WITH VACATE BECAUSE THERE ARE NO LONGER IS THAT WHAT I'M TO UNDERSTAND. THAT THAT'S RIGHT. LET LET ME I'LL BE REALLY PLAYING ABOUT ABOUT THE EFFECT OF THIS AND THE SAME. THE SAME EXACT DISCUSSION WAS HAD WITH THE VILLAGE COUNCIL. UM IT. IN IN THE VILLAGE COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING THIS REFORM AS IT'S WRITTEN HERE, IT WOULD, IT WOULD REALLY WORK. THE TERMS OF ALL SEVEN SEATS ON THE PC A BIG OKAY , AND THEY WOULD ALL BE UM, SUBJECT TO APPOINTMENT UPON IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS AND WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IS, UM YEAH. IT MAY END UP BEING THAT THE CURRENT VILLAGE COUNCIL MEMBERS MAY A POINT SOME OF YOU INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE CURRENTLY ON THE P C. A B OR THEY MAY NOT. THIS MAY RESULT IN A REORGANIZATION OF THE HUMAN BEINGS WHO SIT ON THE P C. A B AFTER IT'S APPROVED, DOES DOES THAT. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? YES IT MAKES SENSE. WHAT YOU SAY? I DON'T AGREE WITH IT. BUT YES, IT MAKES SENSE. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, UM OKAY? PERSONALLY I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHY THE LINE THE BOARD SHALL CONSIST OF AT LEAST FIVE RESIDENT MEMBERS AND NO MORE THAN TWO BUSINESS OWNERS. WHY IS THAT LINE STRUCK? THAT LINE STRUCK BECAUSE THAT IS THE DIRECTION THE VILLAGE COUNCIL GAVE TO PREPARE. UH AN ORDINANCE TO PRESENT TO THE P C. A. B THAT STRUCK THAT SENTENCE. UH, OTHER SECOND QUESTION UNDER ON THE SECTION, LAND DEVELOPMENT ROLES.

11 5 C, UM THERE IT DOESN'T SAY HOW MANY WORK QUEUES ALS A PERSON CAN HAVE. CAN WE REDUCE THAT FROM THE FOUR THAT WE HAD BEFORE 22? YEAH THE FOUR THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS NOT IN SUBSECTION C. IT'S ACTUALLY REFERENCED IN SUBSECTION B. OKAY SO THAT'S WHERE IT'S OR BOARD DUE TO CONFLICT INTEREST ON FOUR DIFFERENT APPLICATIONS WITHIN ONE YEAR PERIOD OF ONE YEAR. IF

[00:30:04]

UH YOU WERE GOING TO RECOMMEND A CHANGE, THAT'S WHERE YOU'D MAKE IT JUST YOU'D STRIKE FORWARD AND YOU CHANGE IT TO THANK YOU. YES. OKAY, UM MAN. GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE IN ATTENDANCE, SO I WAS JUST LIKE TO GIVE MY INSIGHT ON THE DISCUSSION. UM I BELIEVE THAT WELL. I WOULD HAVE TO DISAGREE TO SOME THINGS THAT, UM BOARD MEMBER, RENITA SAID. BUT ALL IN ALL, I DO AGREE WITH SOME OF THE VERB. IT'S THAT'S IN THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BEFORE US. HOWEVER I THINK THAT THE FURBISH NEEDS TO BE CLEAR ON THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTS THAT WOULD BE SEATED ON THIS BOARD. SO WHEN WE TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION ON WHAT DIRECTION WE WOULD WANT TO TAKE IN REGARDS TO OUR RECOMMENDATIONS SOMEWHERE IN THAT WE NEED TO BECAUSE I HEARD THAT YOU WANT TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION. I THINK THAT WE SHOULD UM, BE VERY SPECIFIC WITH HOW MANY SEATS WE NEED FOR OUR RESIDENTS BECAUSE. THE PEOPLE WHO ARE BUSINESS OWNERS AND THE VILLAGE. DON'T LIVE HERE. SOME MAY AND BUT SOME DON'T SO WE CAN'T. WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO JUGGLE. MM OR BE IN THE BLIND OF HOW MANY RESIDENTS WOULD BE ON THIS BOARD. THAT SHOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE KNOW UP FRONT . SO I WOULD I WOULD WANT TO SEE THAT, UM AND I RECOMMENDATION. THAT'S ALL FOR NOW. OKAY? UM. MY COMMENT IS THAT IF WE RESTORED THE LANGUAGE BACK TO WHAT IT WAS , AND THEN MADE THOSE THREE CHANGES, YOU KNOW TO CLARIFY THAT, UM, THE FIVE SEATS, OF COURSE, HAVE RESIDENCY FIVE THEN AND THAT ZOOM DOES NOT CONSTITUTE BEING A BUSINESS OWNER BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE HAVE APPARENTLY THOUGHT YOU COULD UM AND THEN THE THIRD ONE THAT THE RECUSAL LIMIT BE REDUCED FROM 4 TO 2. WOULD YOU? HOW WOULD YOU FEEL ABOUT THOSE THREE CHANGES RESTORING IT TO THE LANGUAGE AS IT WAS, AND THEN UM. WELL, I GUESS IT WOULD BE THE TWO AMENDMENTS THEN TO, UM TWO CHANGES. ATTORNEY VOTES. THAT THAT'S FOR, UH. THAT'S THAT'S WHY YOU GUYS GET PAID THE BIG BUCKS, RIGHT? YEAH THAT'S FOR YOU ALL TO DECIDE. SHE UM, UH, MISS PRESSLER CAN CAN MAKE A MOTION TO THAT EFFECT. AND UH, SOMEBODY SECONDS THAT YOU ALL CAN DEBATE IT. OH, GO AHEAD, MILEY. SO I WOULD LIKE TO JUST SINCE WE'RE HAVING A DISCUSSION. I'M ASSUMING, UM, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO, UH. SPEAK US SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO JUST MENTIONED. SO WE NEED TO WALK. I'M IN. I'M NOT IN SUPPORT AND THE WITH THIS ENTIRETY. HOWEVER I DO AGREE WITH THE LANGUAGE AND IN SECTION A FROM LINE 86. TWO LINE 90. SEE MAYBE SIX. SO EACH DIRECTLY APPOINTED MEMBERS SHALL SERVE A TERM THAT COINCIDES. THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE I EVEN AGREEMENT WITH THAT. YEAH, ME TOO. WELL YOU'LL HAVE THE TURNOVER, YOU KNOW, HIGHER TURNOVER AND LOSS OF EXPERIENCE AND TRAINING AND HISTORICAL KNOWLEDGE THAT WE'VE GAINED JUST SINCE WE STARTED, WHICH HAS BEEN HARD ONE UM, AND IT ALSO JUST CONSIDER IT DOES POLITICIZE MORE POLITICIZED THE BOARD. YOU'RE NOT ALL GOING ON A TWO YEAR OR THREE YEAR TERM. YOU'LL GO ON AND OFF AS ELECTION EVERY ELECTION CYCLE, RIGHT WEAKENS THE BOARD. BUT EVEN IF WE STAYED, HOW IT IS NOW THERE'S STILL NO GUARANTEE THAT WE WOULD BE READ. APPOINTED APPOINTED TO THE BOARD AT THAT TIME, SO I WOULD JUST SAY THAT I'M I THINK IT YOU WOULDN'T BE AS FREQUENT. YOU KNOW, IT WOULDN'T BE AS FREQUENT. YOU'D HAVE YOUR THREE YEAR TERM, YOU'D HAVE YOUR TWO YEAR TERM. WHEREAS IF WE IF WE WERE TO GO WITH THE VERB IS THAT THEY HAVE HERE IT WOULD BE FOR FOUR AND TWO. KNOW WHAT THEY'RE SAYING HERE. IS THAT NOT MR BUFFETT? WHO WHOEVER APPOINTED YOU IF THERE ARE NO LONGER APPOINTED WELL, IF THEY'RE

[00:35:04]

APPOINTEE IS SERVING FOUR YEARS , THEN ACCORDING TO THIS LANGUAGE, IF I'M INTERPRETED, INTERPRET, IF MY INTERPRETATION IS CORRECT, IT WOULD BE ON THE PC A FOR A TERM OF FOUR YEARS.

WOULD I NOT BE IF YOU'RE IF YOU'RE A PERSON IS NO LONGER AN OFFICIAL YOU WILL NOT BE. THAT'S WHAT ACCORDING THAT'S WHAT THIS IS SAYING. THE QUESTION, MR BOTH . IF YOU'RE ABLE TO ANSWER THE QUESTION. IF WITH THE LANGUAGE THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US IF I WAS APPOINTED BY A PERSON WHO HAD JUST RAN IN OUR LAST ELECTION, AND THIS WAS THE LANGUAGE THAT WE WERE UTILIZING.

WHAT I SERVE FOR YEARS. ON THIS BOARD. IF THE PERSON WHO PUT ME IN THIS POSITION IS ON A FOUR YEAR TERM. THAT THAT'S RIGHT. YEAH, EVENTUALLY, EVENTUALLY, WHEN ALL THIS STARTS ROLLING AND FOLKS ARE APPOINTED IN, UH, FOLKS WOULD EFFECTIVELY THE FOLKS APPOINTED BY THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE FOUR YEARS ON THEIR TERM. JUST ELECTED WOULD GET FOUR YEARS. OTHER FOLKS APPOINTING RIGHT NOW WOULD HAVE TWO YEARS. BUT WHEN THEY COME AROUND AGAIN, UH, THOSE SEATS WILL BE APPOINTED FOR FOUR YEARS AND IT ROLLS ON FOUR YEARS FOR FIVE OF THEM. FOR THE OTHER TWO.

IT'S ON TO SO ULTIMATELY WHEN IT ALL GOES ROLLING, YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT. THOSE WOULD BE FOUR YEAR TERMS FOR THE FIVE OF THEM AND THEN TWO YEAR TERMS FOR THE UNDER TWO SO THAT THAT WOULD BE WHY I WOULD BE IN AGREEMENT WITH SECTION A WITH THE LINES I INDICATED. EVERYTHING ELSE YOU SAID. I WAS COOL WITH THAT. THAT'S JUST MY THOUGHT. OKAY ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? OKAY. MHM HIGHER. PLEASE DON'T DO THAT. UM I DON'T KNOW. YOU KNOW, WE COULD TABLE THIS AND GET A CLEAN COPY, SO WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON. BUT, UM I'M COMFORTABLE, I GUESS EITHER WAY, ACCEPTING THAT LANGUAGE THAT AS YOU PROPOSED WHAT IS HERE, UH, AND ADDING THE TWO AMENDMENTS THAT I PROPOSED ABOUT ACTUALLY HAVING A PHYSICAL ADDRESS HERE AND THAT ZOOM DOES NOT QUALIFY. AND THEN THE THAT, UH, REDUCING THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST FROM 4 TO 2. OH, YEAH.

YOU MEAN FIVE OR ALL SEVEN. EVERY FIVE SPEECH SHOULD BE. I DON'T KNOW NOW. ON FIRE SEATS.

I'M VERY SORRY I CAN'T HEAR IS WHOEVER SPEAKING MY MIC WAS OFF, SO I WAS I WAS UM, MR ANITA? WHAT? BOARD MEMBER ANITA WAS, UH , WE WERE DISCUSSING HOW SHE WOULD PROPOSE HER, UM PERVERT WHAT SHE WAS SAYING HER VERY BIG AND I WAS PRETTY MUCH YOU KNOW, ADDING TO WHAT SHE SAID AND SAYING THAT I WOULD PREFER THAT SHEET INCLUDE THAT THERE SHOULD BE FIVE SEATS. UM, SPECIFIED FOR RESIDENTS. WITHIN THE VILLAGE. UM I GUESS I COMMENT. WOULD YOU ACCEPT THAT ALL SEVEN MEMBERS BE RESIDENTS OR BUSINESS OWNERS PHYSICALLY WITHIN THE VILLAGE? BUT AS IT IS NOW, FIVE RESIDENTS AND TWO SEATS WOULD BE FOR BUSINESS OWNERS WITHIN THE VILLAGE. OKAY, THAT THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE NOW. OKAY IT'S A RESTORATION OF THE LANGUAGE RIGHT FOR THAT PORTION OF YES.

OKAY, MEMBERS ARE HIGH. I JUST LIKE TO SHARE JUST A PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE AND YOU GUYS CAN DISAGREE WITH IT. BUT SOME OF THE BUSINESS OWNERS DO PAY REAL ESTATE TAXES HERE. SO THAT'S UH, JUST SOMETHING THAT THEY CONTRIBUTE TO THE COMMUNITY. YOU'RE FREE TO DISAGREE WITH THAT, BUT, UH, MR TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION. OKAY? ANY MORE COMMENTS. UM MR ATTORNEY BOWS.

UH NO, NOT NOT AT THIS TIME. HAS Y'ALL BEEN HAVING VERY GOOD DISCUSSION? HAS THERE BEEN A MOTION MADE? IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU ALL BEEN JUST SORTING THROUGH TERMS WHICH WE JUST WANTED TO. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY IF YOU HAD ANY COMMENT THAT WE ALL CLEAR, AND I WANT EVERYBODY TO BE HEARD, SO WE JUST NEED A MOTION. NOW YOU GOT A COMMENT. OTHER QUESTIONS, ACTUALLY. I DO HAVE ONE NOW. I JUST THOUGHT OF IT. I APOLOGIZE. I DO HAVE ONE CLARIFICATION. I BELIEVE I UNDERSTAND WHAT MISS PRESSLER IS SAYING ABOUT, UH, BASICALLY THE AMENDMENT WOULD BE

[00:40:02]

OWNER OF A BUSINESS PHYSICALLY LOCATED WITHIN THE VILLAGE. I UNDERSTAND YOUR REFERENCE TO ZOOM, NOT COUNTING OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WORKS AS LEGAL LANGUAGE TO PUT IN, BUT I THINK THE ADDITION OF THE WORD PHYSICALLY LOCATED ACCOMPLISHES WHAT YOU'RE WHAT YOU'RE GOING FOR. UM. I THOUGHT WE HAD THAT LANGUAGE NOW, BUT IT DOES STILL DOESN'T SEEM TO WORK.

LET ME SEE. IT DOES NOT SAY PHYSICALLY LOCATED. IT SAYS WITHIN THE VILLAGE. UM. LOCATED IT SAYS THE OWNER OF A BUSINESS LOCATED WITHIN A BUILT THE VILLAGE YET WE HAVE CONFLICT OF INTEREST PAPERS WITH AN ADDRESS IN PALM BEACH GARDENS. YEAH. AND WE WE'VE DISCUSSED THAT MATTER AT AT GREAT LENGTH. UM, I THINK I THINK ADDING THE WORD PHYSICALLY GIFTS TO GET TO THE GRAB THEM AND AT LEAST IN GOOD PART OF WHERE YOU'RE CONCERNED LIES. OKAY, PHYSICALLY LOCATED.

PHYSICALLY LOCATED WITHIN THE VILLAGE. THAT THAT WAS THE ADDITIONAL WORD. I WAS. I THINK, UH, EFFECTUATE WHAT? YOU'RE WHAT YOU'RE GETTING AT. OKAY, I ENTERTAIN A MOTION. UM OTHER QUESTION. I'M SORRY. GO AHEAD. MR BOSE. YES UM, WHEN YOU SAY A BUSINESS HOW DO WE CLARIFY THAT ? THAT DOES NOT MEAN THE OWNER OF A LOT. I MEAN, WE HAVE PEOPLE ALL OVER THE COUNTRY WHO OWN A LOT OR AN ACRE OR WHATEVER HERE AND THERE THAT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A BUSINESS. LOCATED PHYSICALLY LOCATED WITHIN THE VILLAGE. YEAH, UM. UH, I MEAN, SOMEONE WHO OWNS A RENTAL HOUSE HERE IS NOT A BUSINESS LOCATED. THEY'VE RENTED, YOU KNOW, MAYBE A BUSINESS, UH, HAS IS RENTING A STRUCTURE THERE. THE BUSINESS. NOTHING I UNDERSTAND. AND I'M REALLY SORRY. I'M I'M RUNNING UP AGAINST MY TIME WHERE I'M I'M GONNA NEED TO STEP OUT. UM THEY DID. THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE COULD BE. COULD BE A LONG CONVERSATION OF ITS OWN. UM. I DON'T I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'RE ALL TOOLED UP TO DEAL WITH THAT ADDITIONAL ISSUE BEYOND WHAT WE'RE WHAT WE'RE THE CHANGE IS PRESENTED TO YOU ALL TONIGHT TO REALLY GET INTO THE WEEDS ON THAT. WELL, IT'S BEEN A PROBLEM. YOU KNOW, SINCE THIS BOARD WAS FORMED ALMOST AND IT HASN'T BEEN CLARIFIED AND UM I JUST I FEEL LIKE WE'VE BEEN VERY WEAK ON THIS ISSUE. I THINK IT SHOULD BE CLARIFIED AND I DON'T KNOW. MAYBE WE NEED A CLEAN COPY TO VOTE ON. SO WE TABLE IN THIS UH HUH. TABLE UNTIL NEXT MONTH. UNTIL WE CAN GET YOU KNOW YOUR YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS. AND WHAT HAVE YOU? WELL I'D LIKE TO KNOW THE FEELING OF THE REST OF THE BOARD. WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE A CLEAN COPY TO VOTE ON OR OR DO YOU FEEL CONFIDENT ENOUGH TO THAT YOU COULD VOTE NOW? OKAY, HOLD ONE SECOND. LET ME HEAR FROM TOO HIGH. I DON'T. MADAM CHAIR. MHM I DO NOT WANT THE FACT THAT I MUST STEP OUT OF HERE IN A MINUTE TO IN ANY WAY PUSH YOU ALL TO, UM TO TABLE THIS, UM AH! I'M GOING TO BE VERY PLAIN ABOUT IT. AND I'M NOT TELLING YOU. YOU MUST NOT TABLE IT. I DON'T KNOW THAT IT WILL BE TAKEN WELL TO TABLE IT UNLESS THERE'S A COMPELLING RISK. UM AND. SO I DON'T I DON'T WANT. I DON'T WANT YOU ALL TO CUT OFF DISCUSSION OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT . BECAUSE I MUST STEP OUT. I WOULD ASK YOU TO PLEASE GO AHEAD IF THE REST OF THE BOARD. WANTS TO DISCUSS. UM PRECISELY HOW ONE WOULD CLARIFY, UM, BUSINESS LOCATED WITHIN THE VILLAGE. UM UH, PLEASE HAVE THAT DISCUSSION WITH BECKY. UM IF THE IF THE BOARD DOES NOT WANT TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION RIGHT NOW, I'D SUGGEST YOU'VE ALL HAD VERY GOOD , UM, PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATION ABOUT OTHER MOVING PARTS OF THIS ENTIRE THING AND YOU MAY BE ABLE

[00:45:04]

TO COME TO A RECOMMENDATION. YOU CAN VOTE ON. I HAVE A RECOMMENDATION. OKAY. THANK YOU.

ATTORNEY VOTES WE'RE GONNA HEAR FROM MEMBERS TO HEIGHT RIGHT NOW . GO AHEAD TO ANSWER YOUR PREVIOUS QUESTION. I MEAN, GIVEN WHAT WE WERE PRESENTED WITH TODAY VIA EMAIL YESTERDAY, AND THIS PRINTED COPY. I THINK IT'S CLEAR. I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE IS STILL CONFUSED, BUT I THINK THAT IT'S AT LEAST CLEAR IN TERMS OF THE RED LINE AND WHAT'S LEFT IN AND WHAT'S LEFT OUT. BUT JUST IF YOU'RE PULLING THE BOARD, OKAY, THANK YOU, SIR. OKAY UM, WE COULD REQUIRE A BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT AT THAT PHYSICAL ADDRESS. OKAY, CLARIFY. THAT IT REALLY IS A BUSINESS LOCATED WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES AND NOT JUST A LOT. OR, UH, YOU'RE RENTING SOMETHING OR YOUR MORTGAGE. SOMEBODY'S COLLECTING A MORTGAGE. WHATEVER. YOU HAVE TO HAVE A IN MARTIN COUNTY. YOU HAVE TO HAVE A BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT ANYWAY TO DO BUSINESS ANYWHERE IN MARTIN COUNTY, SO YOU WOULD HAVE TO EVEN AN IN HOME BUSINESS OR ANYTHING. YOU HAVE TO HAVE A MARTIN COUNTY BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT. AT THAT PHYSICAL ADDRESS. OKAY UM, IS THERE ANY MORE DISCUSSION? MHM, GO AHEAD, TURN THE BALLS. SO I WOULD SUGGEST THAT LANGUAGE COULD BE, YOU KNOW, APPARENT THEORETICAL, UM AND AGAIN. MY OFFICE IS ULTIMATELY GOING TO BE WRITING UP THE RESULT OF YOUR BOAT HERE, BUT IT WOULD PROBABLY LOOK SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF UM, YOU KNOW, OWNER OF A BUSINESS PHYSICALLY LOCATED FOR MINIMUM ONE YEAR WITHIN THE VILLAGE, UH, AND SOMETHING LIKE A PARENTHETICAL THAT SAYS, AS EVIDENCED BY MARTIN COUNTY BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT. UM YEAH, FOR AN ADDRESS WITHIN THE VILLAGE. OKAY? OKAY? YEAH, OKAY. I LIKE THAT. OKAY. ANY MORE DISCUSSION? WE'RE READY TO MOVE ON THIS. ALRIGHT SO, UM, NEED EMOTION. WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT THE CHANGE THAT MILEY UM UH CHRISTA MILEY, MISS MILEY PROPOSED AND KEEP THAT LANGUAGE AT THE TOP. THAT WE, UM ADD THED REQUIRING A MARTIN COUNTY BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT AT THAT PHYSICAL ADDRESS FOR THE BUSINESS. THAT WE CHANGE THE 4 TO 2 RECUSALS IN THE PERIOD OF ONE YEAR. AND, UM I LOST TRACK OF THE OTHER ONE. AND THEN I BELIEVE IT WAS THAT THE, UH THE BOARD'S CONSISTENT LEAST FIVE RESIDENT MEMBERS AND NO MORE THAN TWO BUSINESS OWNERS BE REINSTATED. YES. OKAY? OKAY, SECOND IN A SECOND. HMM I'LL SECOND OKAY, MADAM CLERK. ARE YOU JUST WRITING ALL THAT DOWN, OKAY. BOARD MEMBER PRESSLER. YES SORRY. IS IT NOT OPEN FOR DISCUSSION BEFORE WE VOTE? THE CHAIR. NO IT'S NOT. WE ARE REALLY DID A LOT OF DISCUSSION ON IT. I MEAN, WHAT RESERVED A COUPLE? YES. GO AHEAD. I'M SORRY. I THOUGHT WE WERE DONE. I HAVE TO STEP OUT. SORRY. I DO HAVE TO STEP OUT NOW. BUT I WOULD RECOMMEND, UM, DISCUSSION PRIOR TO TAKE THE ROLL CALL THAT OKAY? ALRIGHT UM MADAM, MADAM CLERK. JUST GIVE US ONE MINUTE. OKAY? YOU HAD A COMMENT. YEAH IN TERMS OF THE CHANGING THE TO TALK FOR 4 TO 2. UM, I THINK THAT THAT'S TOO SMALL. I THINK THAT THERE IS IT'S A SMALL VILLAGE AND YOU NEED TO HAVE FOUR. YOU KNOW, ALL OF YOU ON A HOUSE IN THIS VILLAGE, AND IT'S EASY TO BE CLOSE TO ANOTHER PROJECT OR PART OF A ZONING CHANGE THAT COULD ACTUALLY AFFECT EACH AND EVERY ONE OF US , AND I DON'T THINK THAT FOURS AND UNREASONABLE UM SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I WOULDN'T AGREE TO IN THE MOTION. UH UM. THE BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT IS OKAY.

AND I JUST WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THAT EVEN WITH THE OPPORTUNITY TO A POINT OF BUSINESS OWNER, THE ELECTED OFFICIAL COULD STILL A POINT OF FIVE RESIDENTS SO EVERYBODY IS ENTITLED TO YOUR OPINION, AND I RESPECT THAT. BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE WHOLE BOARD IS DEFINITELY GOING TO BE ONLY BUSINESS OWNERS AND ONLY RESIDENTS. SO I'M DEFINITELY AGAINST GOING FROM 4 TO 2 OKAY WITH THE BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT. AND THEN I THINK THE BUSINESS PART OF IT IS OKAY IF THEY CAN STILL IF THEY WANT TO STILL DO FIVE RESIDENTS. THAT'S MY ONLY TWO CENTS, BUT OKAY? SO OKAY. OH

[00:50:10]

AND THEN THE PUBLIC COMMENTS. UM MADAME CLARK. NO, MADAM CHAIR. OKAY SO WE'VE WE'VE HEARD ALL THE ALL THE COMMENTS. WE'VE HEARD ALL THE DISCUSSION FROM THE BOARD. YOU STILL HAVEN'T OKAY? WE'LL TAKE 20 THING NOW. OH SORRY. THAT'S OK, SO WE'VE HEARD EVERYBODY'S CONCERNS AND COMMENTS, RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTION. AND WE STILL WE HAVE , UM, DOES SHE NEED TO REDO THE MOTION? UM MADAM CLERK. PORTIONS OF THE MOTION ARE CHANGING. NO CHANGE. ALL RIGHT. OKAY, SO, UM OKAY. PORTIONS ARE NOT CHANGING RIGHT? SO YOU CAN VOTE. HOWEVER YOU WANT TO VOTE, OKAY? WOULD IT'S UP TO YOU HOW I WOULD I'M I WOULD LIKE TO YOU GUYS CAN GO AHEAD AND VOTE AND MY GOALS. IT WOULD BE NICE TO SEE US, UH, INCORPORATE ALL COMMENTS AND THEN VOTE AGAIN. SO I UNDERSTAND WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR AND ALL THE COMMENTS ARE INCORPORATED. WELL SHE AND IN HER MOTION, SHE INCLUDED THE CHANGE FROM 4 TO 2. SO THAT'S WAS BECAUSE THAT'S THAT'S HER MOTION. THAT'S HER RECOMMENDATION. YOU DON'T YOU DON'T HAVE TO AGREE WITH IT.

YES, YOU CAN VOTE NO. YES MA'AM, YOU KNOW, BUT THE YOU KNOW THE MOTION. IS THERE UNDERSTOOD? UNDERSTOOD THAT THANK YOU. MR OKAY, SO IS THERE ANY CHANGE IN THE MOTION? UM WRESTLER? OKAY, MADAM CLERK. MEMBER PRESSLER. YES, VERSA. HAYEK. UH UM, NO TO THE COMMENTS I MADE BEFORE LIKE TO REDO IT DUE TO THE FACT OF LEAVING THE TWO AT FOUR. BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT IS OKAY.

AND THEN YES OR NO? NO OKAY. THANK YOU. YES, SIR. MEMBER WILLIAMS? YES. VICE CHAIR. MILEY YES, PALMER. OKAY? WE'RE DONE. MADAME CLARK. YES MADAM CHAIR. OKAY THANK YOU.

OKAY, UM. WE'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH APPLICATION NUMBER L D R. DASH 22-17. REQUEST TO AMEND THE

[3.

Application No. LDR-22-017 A Request to Amend The Village of Indiantown Land Development Regulations to Amend Live/Work Unit Parking Ratios

]

VILLAGE OF INDIAN TOWN LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS TO AMEND LIVE WORK UNIT PARKING RATIOS.

OKAY? GOOD EVENING, MADAM CHAIR JEFFERSON FOR THE RECORD COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR AS YOU MAY RECALL LAST MONTH STAFF BROUGHT TO YOU THIS SAME ITEM AND WE WENT TO MAKE REVISIONS THAT WE'RE SOMEHOW DELETED FROM THE STAFF REPORT. STAFF IS ESSENTIALLY PROPOSING THAT THE RATIOS FOR LIVE WORK UNIT BE REVISED. TO 1.5. WE'VE PROVIDED EXAMPLES THAT WERE GIVEN IN YOUR STAFF REPORT. AND I BELIEVE IT. MAYBE PAGE 18 IN YOUR PACKET. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE UM. SO AS PART OF THAT WE GAVE YOU SOME EXAMPLES OF HOW THE PARKING RATIO. FOR LIVE WORK WAS CALCULATED WITH THE TRANSITION CODE, AND THAT WAS THE CODE THAT WE HAVE PRIOR TO NOVEMBER. 12 2020. THE NEXT EXAMPLE. MHM IS THE CURRENT. CODE AND HOW IT WOULD BE CALCULATED. AND THE FINAL EXAMPLE SHOWS WHAT THE CALCULATION WOULD BE WITH THE PROPOSED AND THEN THAT THAT STAFF IS BROUGHT TO YOU TODAY. WAS EVERYBODY ABLE TO FIND THE TABLE. MM HMM. WOULD YOU REPEAT THAT? SORRY I COULDN'T QUITE HEAR. OH CERTAINLY. SO THE EXAMPLE THAT WAS PROVIDED IN YOUR STAFF REPORTS. WAS TO GIVE YOU SOME CONTEXT ABOUT HOW THE

[00:55:01]

PARKING RATIOS WITH THE CALCULATED IF A NEW APPLICATION FOR A LIVE WORK UNITS WERE TO COME IN UNDER THIS REVISED CODE. SO IN THAT TABLE, WE GIVE YOU THREE EXAMPLES. THE FIRST BEING THE TRANSITION CODE, WHICH WAS THE CODE THAT WE HAD. PRIOR TO NOVEMBER. 12 2020. I I'M PURPOSELY NOT USING THE SLIDE BECAUSE IT'S THE SAME THING YOU ALWAYS SEE WITH THE PROCESS AND THE APPLICATION AND WHAT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS, BUT I WANT TO PUT MORE FOCUS ON ON THE TABLE AND SO YOU CAN SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CALCULATED. PARKING SPACES THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED. DO YOU SEE THAT? YOU'RE TALKING. YOU SAID PAGE 18, RIGHT? IS THAT? WHAT YOUR PACKAGE RIGHT EVERYBODY MAKE SURE IN YOUR PACKAGE. SO YES, IT'LL SAY PAGE FIVE WITH THE BOTTOM, BUT IT'S PAGE 18. AND YOU'RE ALSO ALSO SEE PAGE 18 BECAUSE IT'S PAGE 18. IT'LL BE PAGE FIVE OF THE STAFF REPORT. BUT IT'S PAGE 18 IN YOUR PACKET. THAT SHOULD PACK IT IN ITS ENTIRETY IS NUMBERED. QUESTION. I'M SORRY. GO AHEAD. SORRY MISS BOWS. MAY I STEP OFF THE DIETS OR IS IT NOT YET? YOU NEED TO RECRUIT YOURSELF. PARDON ME. DO I? YES IF YOU HAVE A CONFLICT ON THIS, I WOULD DO THAT. OKAY. THANK YOU. I'M GONNA SIT IN THE AUDIENCE IS THAT ACCEPTABLE? YES, THANK YOU. SO IN IN THE PROPOSED CODE, ESSENTIALLY WOULD. BE APPROVING 1.5 SPACES FOR EACH LIVE WORK UNIT, AND THEN WE'D HAVE THE REQUIREMENT OF A HALF SPACE FOR EACH EMPLOYEE. SO IF A LIVE WORK UNIT WORK TO HAVE ONE ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES. BESIDES THE ACTUAL OWNER OF THE UNIT. IT WOULD BE A TOTAL REQUIREMENT OF TWO SPACES FOR ONE UNIT. RIGHT? IN THE EXISTING CODE. UNDER THAT SAME SCENARIO. THEY BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THREE PARKING SPACES.

FOR THE SAME ONE UNIT. UNDER THE OLD CODE, THE TRANSITION CODE. THE 1.5 SPACES WOULD HAVE BEEN ALL THAT'S REQUIRED. AND THEN. ONE SPACE PER 300 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA. BECAUSE. THAT CALCULATION. REVERTS OVER TO THE SIZE OF THE UNIT AND HOW MUCH OF THE UNIT WOULD BE USED FOR THE ACTUAL BUSINESS. YOU COME OUT AT NEARLY THE SAME AS YOU WOULD WITH TODAY'S CODE. AND STAFF HAS SEEN THAT WITH THE ONE PROPERTY WE HAVE WITH LIVE WORK UNITS. THAT THE SPACES ARE OFTEN EMPTY.

THAT THEY'RE NOT NECESSARY IN TERMS OF THE TYPES OF BUSINESSES THAT ARE CURRENTLY BEING RUN AT THIS ONE PARTICULAR SPACE. HMM AND IN BEING FAIR WITH THE CODE THE WHOLE IDEA OF THE PARKING FOR THE DOWNTOWN. ZONING DISTRICTS. IS TO MAKE IT MORE WALKABLE AND THE LIVE WORK UNITS ARE ONLY PERMITTED. IN THOSE DISTRICTS WHERE WE WANT TO HAVE LESS PARKING, LESS CONCRETE AND MORE PEOPLE WALKING AND USING TRANSPORTATION LIKE BUS OR UBER ONCE WE GET MORE POPULATED BIKES AND, UH. GOLF CARTS EVENTUALLY WILL HAVE SOME GOLF CART LINES IN THE VILLAGE. SO THIS WAS THE JUST GIVE YOU SOME COMPARISON. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT REALLY A DIFFERENCE OF THE HALF SPACE

[01:00:06]

BETWEEN WHAT STAFF IS PROPOSING AND WHAT THE CURRENT CODINGS. BY AND LARGE, I WOULD SAY THAT THAT'S THE BIGGEST EFFECT THAT WE'RE. MAKING ON THE PARKING CODE. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT YOU APPROVED THIS APPLICATION. WHAT WE NEED FROM THE BOARD TONIGHT IS A RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL. TO APPROVE. DENYING OR YOU CAN. AS YOU DID, WITH THE LAST ONE APPROVED WITH CHANGES.

WITH THAT. I'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS. YES, I HAVE A QUESTION. I UNDERSTAND THAT WELL LOOKING FUTURISTIC, LEE BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE UBER LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T WRITE BYTES. UM I THINK SOME PEOPLE DO WALK. WE DON'T HAVE TRANSPORTATION HERE, YOU KNOW. SO, UM. I'M JUST, UH I'M AT A LOSS. I KNOW IN THE IN THE BIGGER IN A BIGGER MUNICIPALITY . WE HAVE ALL OF THESE AMENITIES AND I KNOW FUTURISTIC LEE. WE'RE THINKING ABOUT GROWTH. AND I GET IT. I'M JUST LOOKING AT WHAT WE HAVE NOW, UM, HERE IS, UM. AT THE PROPOSAL, OKAY AT THE PROPOSED VILLA TRACK REGULATION , YES, SPACE PER EMPLOYEE 0.5. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT ONE. SO 0.5 IS THAT HALF OF WELL, SO IT'S REALLY IT'S A CALCULATED TOTAL. AND I KNOW THAT THE HALF SPACES CAN BE CONFUSING FOR SOME , BUT WHAT HAPPENS IS YOU'RE ESSENTIALLY SAYING ONE SPACE FOR EVERY TWO EMPLOYEES. ONE SPACE FOR EVERY TWO AND PLOY EASE. I THINK WHAT? UM. SO I KNOW WE DON'T WANT, UM. CONCRETE CITY HERE. I GET THAT WILL LOOK LIKE IF WE IF WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF LAND RUNNING OUT OF PLACES TO PARK ONCE WE EXCUSE ME BUILD UP. I APOLOGIZE. BUT I HAD TURNED IT OFF. UM. I'M JUST I GUESS MY I'M JUST, UM A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT. IF WE IF THE WAY THAT WE'RE LOOKING TO BUILD, ARE WE GONNA BECOME LIKE OTHER? LET'S JUST TAKE BROWARD COUNTY, FOR INSTANCE, WHERE EVERYTHING IS ALL BUILT UP THAT SOME LAND HAD TO BE. WE WIND THEM HAVING OR EVEN PALM BEACH COUNTY. WE WIND UP HAVING PARKING GARAGES. FOR LIVE WORK. SINCE WE YOU KNOW, WE CAN WE IF THIS PERSON I DON'T KNOW, IT'S JUST IT'S JUST A CONCERN OF MINE. AND I'M JUST HOPING THAT WE DON'T GET SO BUILT OUT THAT WE DON'T HAVE PLACES TO PARK. THAT'S THAT'S MY MAJOR CONCERN. ALL RIGHT. WELL.

I'D LIKE TO, UM, SAY A FEW THINGS. UM EVERY PERSON WHO RENTS A LIVE WORK CAN HAVE UP TO TWO EMPLOYEES. RIGHT. THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS IN SECTION 34.9. NUMBER THREE BE UP TO TWO EMPLOYEES OR CONTRACTORS OTHER THAN MEMBERS OF THE IMMEDIATE FAMILY. EVERY DWELLING. I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT, BUT LIVE WORK DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN IT'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE RENTAL AT SOME POINT IT MAY OR MAY NOT BE RENTAL. UM SO I JUST DON'T WANT YOU IN YOUR MIND TO JUST THINK THAT THEY'RE ONLY RENTAL UNITS BECAUSE THERE MIGHT BE A CASE WHERE IT'S JUST SOLD THEIR SOLD ONE BY ONE AS A LIVE WORK UNIT, AND THEY'RE OWNED BY THE OCCUPANT. THAT COULD BE THE CASE. WELL, THE ONE THAT YOU KNOW, I'M GOING TO REFER TO THE RECUSAL APPLICATION EIGHT. B UM , IS A PROPOSED TO BE TWO STORIES RIGHT? TWO FLOORS. OF LIVE WORK. THAT'S THE NEXT STORY. THE RECUSAL. WELL THE REASONS FOR THE RECUSAL UH, I BELIEVE GOES BEYOND THAT. I APOLOGIZE. I DIDN'T READ THE FORM. YEAH, AS IT WAS FILLED OUT THE WELL, THE WHAT WE'RE

[01:05:03]

FOCUSING ON TODAY IS THIS LANGUAGE THAT STAFF IS PROPOSING . I DON'T WANT TO CALL OUT A SPECIFIC PROJECT. IF YOU WANT TO DO THAT. THE PROPOSED PROJECT, WHICH I HAVE IN ALL OF MY PRESENTATIONS. IT'S TWO STORIES . 16 APARTMENTS, 16 LIVE WORK UNITS, OKAY. UM FOR EVERY DWELLING THAT WE HAVE. EVERY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. THERE'S TWO. TWO REQUIRED SPOT SPOTS. UM TWO REQUIRED PARKING SPACES JUST FOR THE RESIDENTS. AND THEN YOU HAVE. WHEN YOU HAVE LIVED WORK, YOU'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE UP TO TWO EMPLOYEES OR CONTRACTORS. AND THEN YES, I SEE. YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE AT LEAST PLUS ONE SPACE PER EMPLOYEE. AND THEN YOU HAVE CUSTOMERS. CLIENTS SUPPLIERS YOU CAN HAVE UP TO 30 VISITS PER WEEK FOR THAT. AND I JUST DON'T SEE THAT A ONE IN A SHARED SPACE WILL ACCOMMODATE THAT AT ALL. I THINK YOU'RE JUST GONNA HAVE CONTENTION BETWEEN RESIDENTS AND CONTENTION IN THE COMMUNITY. I CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AND WHAT I WILL SAY TO THAT IS THAT WE ALSO REQUIRE GUEST PARKING, SO IN ADDITION TO THE PARKING REQUIRED PER UNIT AND THEN PER EMPLOYEE. FOR EACH UNIT. WE ALSO REQUIRE THEM TO MAKE SPACES PARKING SPACES FOR GUEST PARKING. AND. WITH THE TRANSITION CODE. THE TRANSITION CODE ACTUALLY DID NOT REQUIRE GUEST PARKING. IN THE CURRENT CODE. IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 20 UNITS LIVE WORK. THERE IS A REQUIREMENT FOR A HALF SPACE. FOR THE 1ST 20 UNITS. AND WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING FALLS THAT WILL REMAIN. THE GUEST PARKING RATIO IS NOT BEING TOUCHED. SO IF DEVELOPMENT IS BELOW 20 UNITS, THEN YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO PROVIDE THAT. NO, IT'S FOR THE 1ST 20 UNITS. SO IF THERE'S ONLY THREE RIGHT IF THERE'S ONLY 16 OH THAN 16 WOULD FALL IN THAT REQUIREMENT, YES, SO THEY HAVE TO HAVE HOW MANY? UM I'M JUST NOT REALLY CLEAR TO ME YET. SO WHO WOULD HAVE TO HAVE? HOW MANY ? HOW MANY? HOW MANY PARKING SPACES WHICH YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE PER UNIT. SO IF WE'RE IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE CURRENT CODE, THEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ASSUMING THEY HAVE ONE EMPLOYEE.

WELL THEY'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE UP TO TWO. SO I MEAN, IS EACH UNIT GOING TO HAVE TO NEGOTIATE? HOW MANY EMPLOYEES ARE MY UNDERSTANDING? ACCORDING TO THE WAY I READ THIS SECTION IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT RULES, B THREE B IS THAT ALL OF THEM CAN HAVE UP TO TWO UP TO TWO EMPLOYEES OR CONTRACTORS OTHER THAN THE MEMBERS OF THE IMMEDIATE FAMILY. YES. SO. THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE DISCLOSED AT THE TIME THAT WE'RE REVIEWING THE SITE PLAN. MOST OF OUR CALCULATIONS ARE BASED ON ASSUMING ONE EMPLOYEES, SO WE'RE LOOKING AT 3.5 SPACES FOR EACH UNIT. WHY WOULD IT BE CALCULATED AS ONE EMPLOYEE WHEN THEY'RE ALLOWED UP TO TWO WOW. MEMBER PRESSLER. WE YEAH. WHILE WE'D LIKE TO SEE WHERE YOU INTO THE FUTURE, EVEN IF THEY SAID THEY WOULD HAVE TO. AND THE ONLY END UP WITH ONE THING YOU HAVE TO MUCH PARKING. AND THAT'S NOT SOMETHING WE WANT. WELL RIGHT NOW WE ONLY HAVE TWO SPACES PER UNIT. LET'S ASSUME EBOLA SOME THEY GET THE FULL TWO EMPLOYEES . SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT 4.5 SPACES. WHAT WAS THAT WORD? HOW DO YOU ADD UP TO 4.5 SPACES? BECAUSE YOU WOULD HAVE. TO SPACE IS REQUIRED FOR THE FIRST FOR ONE UNIT. PLUS TWO ADDITIONAL SPACES FOR EACH EMPLOYEE. THAT'S FOUR. AND THEN THEY'D HAVE TO HAVE A HALF SPACE SO 4.5 SPACES FOR EACH UNIT. THERE'S 10. IT'S 4.5 TIMES, 10. WELL AND IN THE PROPOSED IT WOULD BE 2.5 SPACES.

I'M SORRY. UM. THREE SPACES PER UNIT. IF WE'RE ASSUMING THERE'S TWO EMPLOYEES THREE SPACES PER UNIT IN THE CURRENT RULES. NO. THE CURRENT RULES ASSUMING TO EMPLOYEES IS 4.5 PER UNIT. WHAT

[01:10:04]

STAFF IS PROPOSING. ASSUMING THERE'S TWO EMPLOYEES. WOULD BE THREE SPACES PER UNIT. HMM. UM.

WELL, THEN, IF YOU HAVE IN IN OUR CHART ON THAT EXHIBIT A I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THE LIVE WORK UNITS DON'T SAY THREE PARKING SPACES. THREE SPACES. IT SAYS TWO AND WE'RE REDUCING IT TO 1.5. IT'S. TOO PLUS EMPLOYEE PARKING PLUS GUEST PARKING. YEAH, CURRENTLY. YES YES, AND IN THE PROPOSAL IS TO REDUCE THAT TO 1.5. YES. SO IT WOULD BE 1.5 PLUS WHAT? PLUS ONE FOR AN EMPLOYEE FOR TWO EMPLOYEES, ONE FOR TWO EMPLOYEES AND ONE FOR TWO EMPLOYEES. RIGHT WHICH IS THAT FAR RIGHT COLUMN. SO FOR TWO EMPLOYEES. IT WOULD BE ONE ADDITIONAL SPACE AND THEN THEY'D HAVE TO PROVIDE AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ONE UNIT. I HAVE SPACE, SO THAT IS 1.5. PLUS ONE IS 2.5 PLUS. ANOTHER HALF IS THREE. WHERE DOES THAT? WOULD YOU MIND REPEATING? WHERE DOES THAT SECOND HALF SPACE COME IN? COME FROM PARKING REQUIREMENT, OKAY.

YOU HAVE MORE PRESENTATION. THAT'S IT. NO MOUNTAIN CHARGER. I'M DONE. YOU DON'T OKAY? ARE THERE ANY MORE COMMENTS? CONCERNS. ON THIS ITEM. YOU'RE DONE. UM, REMEMBER PRESSLER. I AM. I'M JUST NOT COMFORTABLE WITH REDUCING THE PARKING, YOU KNOW, UM, I DON'T I JUST DON'T SEE IT WITH THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC UM AND WE DON'T HAVE A WALKABLE BIKE BY KABLE. WE DON'T HAVE BIKE PATHS. YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT AT THAT STAGE. MAYBE THIS COULD BE CONSIDERED A LITTLE LATER ON. BUT RIGHT NOW, I DON'T THINK WE EVEN HAVE ANY EVIDENCE OF WHAT HAPPENS WHAT REALLY HAPPENS IN LIVE WORK UNITS. UM, I THINK IT'S PREMATURE. UM, I MEAN, IF THERE ISN'T ANY DISCUSSION, I'D MAKE A MOTION TO DENY THIS APPLICATION. OKAY? MOM, UM. AND COMING TO ENTERTAIN HER EMOTION THAT I WOULD SECOND OKAY? ALL RIGHT, UM MADAM CLERK. OKAY MEMBER. SORRY IN THE PUBLIC COMMENTS, MADAM CHAIR, OKAY. THANK YOU, MA'AM. BOARD MEMBER, PRESSLER. ON THE MOTION TO DENY YES. MEMBER WILLIAMS. YES. VICE CHAIR. MILEY YES. CHAIR. PALMER. YES. OKAY WE ARE READY FOR OUR

[DIRECTOR'S REPORT]

DIRECTOR'S REPORT. WELL IT'S A RATHER BRIEF REPORT FOR THIS TIME AROUND. YOU RECEIVED YOUR.

INFORMATION ON THE ATTENDANCE RECORD TO DATE. AS WELL AS THE UPCOMING PROJECTS. THAT ARE CURRENTLY ONLINE. THINGS ARE GETTING VERY BUSY HERE IN THE VILLAGE. WE I HAVE AT LEAST THREE PROJECTS THAT ARE UNDER CONSTRUCTION. YOU'VE GOT PROPOSALS FOR ADDITIONAL ONES THAT WE'VE MET WITH AND HAD A FORMAL PRE APPLICATION MEETING AND WE'RE WAITING FOR THEM TO OFFICIALLY APPLYING. OKAY? THANK YOU SO ANYTHING THAT. WE RECEIVED IN TERMS OF UNITS. WE ARE SEEING QUITE A BIT OF SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS AS WELL AS TOWN HOMES. AND WE ANTICIPATE. TO SEE EVEN MORE AS THE MONTHS GO BY, IN TERMS OF TERRA LAGE, WHICH YOU APPROVED ALMOST A YEAR AGO.

THEY HAVE NOT PULLED ANY PERMITS . AS OF YET, BUT WE'RE HOPEFUL THAT THEY'LL BE BREAKING GROUND BEFORE THE YEAR IS OUT. THAT'S PRETTY MUCH ALL I HAD, MADAM CHAIR. OH I DID WANT TO ANNOUNCE

[01:15:07]

IF YOU DIDN'T SEE IT. THAT WE HAVE TO CANCEL THE STRATEGIC PLANNING SESSION. IS THAT BECAUSE AT THAT POINT, UM WE'LL HAVE TERM APPOINTMENTS THAT HAVE TURNED OUT AND WE MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE THE NEW APPOINTMENTS AT THAT TIME, SO WE'LL PUSH IT OFF UNTIL THE FULL BOARD OF SEVEN HAS BEEN APPOINTED AND WE KNOW WHO IS GOING TO BE SERVING. WITH THAT YOUR NEXT MEETING IS NOVEMBER. 3RD AND. CURRENTLY WE HAVE POSSIBLY ONE APPLICATION. THAT CONCLUDES MY REPORT.

ALRIGHT BEFORE WE ADJOURN. ARE THERE ANY CONCERNS OR QUESTIONS? ANYTHING FOR THE GOOD OKAY? THAT'S IT.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.

REGULAR AGENDA

Oct 06, 2022 Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board

REGULAR AGENDA

Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download Selected Item