►
From YouTube: Punta Gorda Isles Canal Advisory Committee 01-18-2022
Description
Punta Gorda Isles Canal Advisory Committee 01-18-2022
A
A
B
C
C
B
D
B
E
D
B
Good,
but
welcome
we'll
have
fun.
The
only
announcement
I
know
about
is
that
the
meeting
for
february
is
not
going
to
be
on
monday,
as
it
normally
is,
but
on
the
following,
tuesday,
the
22nd
at
1
30
because
of
the
president's
day
holiday.
So
does
anyone
now
know
that
you
will
not
be
here
on
february
22.
C
B
We'll
do
the
best
we
can
all
right.
Thank
you.
Leah
now
comes
the
time
for
public
comments.
This
is
for
general
items
not
for
any
of
the
special
petitions
which
are
going
to
be
considered
later
on
in
the
agenda,
so
for
comments
for
the
good
of
the
order.
If
there's
anyone
here
wishing
to
speak,
we
could
do
that
now.
C
So
if
you
are
wanting
to
comment
on
a
special
permit
today,
then
you'll
want
to
wait
to
talk
at
that
time.
But
if
you're
talking
I'm
wanting
to
comment
on
just
the
agenda
material,
you
can
go
up
to
the
podium
and
speak
looking
for
a
procedure
about
adding
a
sign
in
the
canal
system.
Where
would
that
apply?
Okay,
you
can
do
it
under
comments,
yes
and
state.
Your
name
yep.
Yes,.
C
A
E
A
D
G
A
Yeah
from
my
understanding,
we're
not
allowed
to
place
signage
on
private
pilings
that
questions
come
up
in
the
past
and
I
don't
believe
it's
in
our
the
city's
sign
ordinance.
So
we
would
have
to
put
it
on
a
normal
marker
or
a
normal
another
piling
and
we'll
have
to
do
it
per
the
fwc
regulations.
And
I
don't
know
those
by
heart,
but
we'd
have
to
dig
in
and
find
out
exactly.
You
know
where
they
determine
this
would
be
a
good
place
to
when
and
how
can
I
make
a.
B
A
D
B
F
B
B
Thank
you.
Any
other
public
comments
on
non-special.
Permit
questions,
nope,
all
right.
Let's
go
to
approval
of
minutes.
You
have
before
you
the
november
15th
minutes.
What
is
your
pleasure?
I
move
that
way
pass
mr
hannan
moves.
Thank
you,
mr
president,
seconds
any
discussion,
all
those
in
favor,
please
say:
aye
aye.
Any
opposed
motion
carries
unanimously
under
reports.
Please.
B
C
All
right,
so
anyone
intending
to
offer
testimony
in
today's
proceedings
please
stand
and
raise
your
right
hand,
do
you
solemnly
swear
or
affirm
to
tell
the
truth,
the
whole
truth
and
nothing
but
the
truth
in
today's
proceedings,
when
you
are
ready
to
speak,
please
step
to
the
podium
state,
your
name
and
indicate
you've
been
sworn
just.
So
you
know
this
is
another
statement
I
have
to
read
before
speaking
from
the
audience
is
not
permitted.
C
B
A
All
right
and
I'm
in
kathy's
absence
so
for
the
record
gary
dishing
I'm
going
to
go
through
those
reports
and
things.
If
you
have
any
questions
on
these,
let
me
know
and
I'll
get
with
kathy.
If
I
can't
provide
an
answer
so
we'll
start
with
our
financial
reports
for
november
and
december
any
questions
on
those.
H
A
Right
from
my
understanding,
what
kathy's
been
doing
is
as
soon
as
she's
done,
with
the
assessment
this
year,
she's
out
on
the
boat
right
now
doing
the
assessment
actually,
and
when
that
all
that
data
comes
in
I'll
process,
the
data
generate
her
a
basically
a
chart
of
all
the
lots
or
all
the
bad
segments
of
sea
wall
that
she
needs
to.
Look
at
she'll
then
start
developing.
The
list
of
the
work
program
so
should
be
by
the
end
of
the
summer
before
they
get
kicked
off
for
the
fiscal
year.
A
I
think
it's
six
to
eight
weeks
before
the
our
october,
one
start
date
of
the
fiscal
year
that
gives
mcg
time
to
notify
the
people
that
are
right
out
of
the
gate
that
fiscal
year.
So
I
would
say,
sometime
in
the
summer,
we
will
have
a
list
together
or
she
will
have
a
list
together
of
those
locations.
B
Other
questions
on
seawall
replacement,
just
I'll,
not
a
question,
but
from
time
to
time
the
issue
of,
as
mr
diaz
said,
notification
of
the
the
property
owners
comes
up
and
we
have
talked
about
the
need
to
give
as
much
advance
notices
possible
to
all
property
owners
and
the
methodology
that
we
use
as
opposed
to
simply
publishing
it.
Perhaps
some
more
direct
notice
as
early.
A
A
A
Capital
improvement
program:
do
you
have
any
questions
on
those
all
right?
I
do
know
that
our
field
work
has
been
done
on
the
spoilsite
channel.
They've
got
the
bathymetry
done.
They
did
the
they
dove
it
just
at
the
end
of
the
seagrass
season,
so
they
were
identified
that
there
was
very,
very
sparse
patches
of
or
not
even
patches,
just
a
couple
little
sprigs
here
and
there
seagrasses.
A
A
B
It's
just
for
the
sake
of
particularly
the
new
members
that
whole
schedule
of
going
for
the
seawall
rip
wrapper
permits
gives
you
an
idea
of
how
many
hurdles
one
must
go
through
in
order
to
be
able
to
do
what
you
guys
do
starting
back
in
september,
and
that
doesn't
even
show
stuff
that
happened
before
september
of
20.
correct,
yeah
yeah.
We
submitted
we're
still
working
out.
A
Yeah
we
submitted
to
the
agencies
december
4th
of
2020
and
army
corps,
just
finally
determined
it
was,
you
know,
worthy
enough
to
get
moved
to
the
next
phase,
which
is
off
to
national
fisheries
services,
and
that's
been
after
on-site
meetings
and
conference
calls
and
resubmitting
just
item
after
item
after
item.
So
it's
it
definitely
is
a
very
difficult
thing
to
get
something
permitted.
D
B
B
Brian,
while
you're
getting
ready,
I
had
an
occasion
to
talk
to
the
city
clerk's
office
with
respect
to
this
particular
request
and
potential
conflicts
of
interest.
Since
the
isle's
yacht
club
is
a
favorite
place
of
a
lot
of
people,
and
I'm
pretty
sure
we
have
members
here
and
the
question
was:
does
membership
in
the
isles
yacht
club
constitute
a
conflict
and
the
advice
that
I
was
given
was
no,
because
you
do
not
have
a
financial
gain
or
loss
position
with
respect
to
this
kind
of
decision
making.
B
B
G
Right
for
the
record
brian
clemons
public
works
I'd
like
to
introduce
application
number
ccsp
22-2021
by
davis,
johannesson
on
behalf
of
the
isles
yacht
club
inc.
The
subject:
property
consists
of
tracks,
q
and
r
of
a
puna
gorda
isles,
replat
recorded
in
platt
book
8
page
23
public
records
of
charlotte
county
florida
also
identified
as
1780
west
marion
avenue.
G
This
project
has
gone
through
the
city's
development
review
committee
drc
process
due
to
the
complex
nature
of
the
project.
Those
comments
from
the
drc
were
included
as
part
of
the
agenda
packet
based
on
staff's
review
of
the
application
per
article
2
section
2-1,
e4
favorable
consideration
is
recommended
with
the
following
conditions.
G
I
I
So,
as
brian
clemens
discussed,
it's
right
located
off
west
marion
avenue,
it's
existing
wood
fixed
stock
with
a
wood
piles.
There
are
53
existing
piles,
33
existing
vessel,
marina
slips
and
a
dock
master
lighthouse
and
on
the
dock,
is
equipped
with
a
fuel
and
pump
out
station
that
their
members
have
access
to.
I
We
contracted
earth
tech,
marine
or
earth
tech,
environmental
to
do
a
submerged
resource
survey
and
they
conducted
or
concluded
that
there
are
no
environmental
resources
within
our
project
area,
just
a
muddy
bottom
and
we
also
conducted
a
discussions
with
the
city,
pontegorda
and
charlotte
county
manatee
protection
committees.
And
they
said
as
long
as
we
stay
within
existing
number
of
vessels.
I
J
B
J
100
year
event,
you
know
it's
going
to
raise
up
and
we
won't
have
the
pump
out
facility
and
fuel
facility
below
water.
So,
apart
from
bringing
this
up
today
for
ada
concerns
and
for
storm
concerns,
this
is
just
a
replacement
that
is
due
for
the
dock
regardless
and
we
are
looking
to
replace
within
the
existing
footprint.
So
this
had
easy
permitting
through
army
corps
dep
drc.
J
I
I
I
J
D
I
I
J
Yeah
here
you
can
see
our
utility
design
team
has
set
up.
You
know
performance-based
standards
here.
For
the
you
know:
subcontractors,
fire
subcontractors,
plumbing-
that
the
will
be
engaged
during
this
process
to
be
able
to
adhere
to.
There
is
a
new
peristaltic
pump
and
you
can
see
the
fuel
on
the.
J
J
I
Next
site,
please
so
far,
we've
received
a
nationwide
28
exemption
from
army
corps
of
engineer,
fdep
approval.
We
went
with
a
de
minimis
exemption.
We
received
approval
from
city
of
pontogorda
utilities
for
our
utility
plan.
We
received
final
approval
for
drc
and
now
we're
at
the
canal
construction
stage,
and
I
have
all
permanent
numbers
or
anything.
If
you
guys
request
that
information
for
your
research
and
if.
J
I
J
The
other
points
being
about
not
repeating
navigation,
that
iyc
owns
the
property
on
all
sides
here
and
that
measurable
area
of
the
canal
is
shown
to,
and
at
the
end
of
the
tdoc,
that
we
are
improving
the
aesthetics
and
the
functionality
of
the
facility,
so
that
there
should
be
no
benefit
to
the
neighborhood.
Hopefully
all
or
any
neighbors
present
agree.
J
I
Regardless,
okay,
you
want
to
go
through
oh
yeah
yeah.
The
first
would
be
we're
maintaining
the
number
of
existing
vessel
slips.
The
fuel
dock
is
to
be
for
day
use
only
not
permanent
along
the
strand
of
the
off.
Here
we
will
tame
all
fire
and
with
a
fiber
contract
yeah,
our
fire
contractor
will
receive
all
permits.
I
I'll
improve
all
improvements
shall
meet
city
upon
order
code
of
conduct,
property
owners
shall
be
responsible
for
maintaining
the
property
in
all
facilities
within
the
property,
in
a
clean,
orderly
and
sanitary
manner.
At
all
times,
and
any
and
all
light
lighting
shall
be
installed
on
the
subject
property
as
to
direct
such
light
away
from
adjacent
residential
areas.
I
I
I
D
E
D
A
I
I
J
D
D
J
Yeah,
that
is
effectively
the
factor
of
safety,
so
this
is
the
most
extreme
hurricane
event.
You
know
what
we're
supposed
to
be
modeling
to
is
the
10.2,
and
so
anything
above
that,
for
the
top
of
pile
is
off
as
effectively
iyc
going
above
and
beyond
saying
you
know,
even
if
it's
a
500
year
story,
it's
the
dock
is
still
going
to
stay
attached
and
not
become
debris
and
a
liability.
B
B
H
B
H
D
G
The
applicant
is
proposing
to
construct
a
new
dock,
a
13
000
pound
four
post
lift
and
a
second
boat
lift
for
a
personal
watercraft.
The
reason
for
the
special
permit
application
is
that
the
second
boat
lift
is
not
permitted
for
single
family
lots
with
less
than
85
feet
of
seawall
per
the
submitted
drawings.
This
property
has
54
feet
of
seawall,
which
is
shown
on
the
drawing
the
canal
is
approximately
125
feet
wide
at
this
location,
and
so
just
so
everyone's
clear.
It's
this.
G
This
lift
that
the
the
personal
watercraft
lift
is
what
the
special
permit
is
for
and
based
on
staff
reviews
of
the
application
per
article
2,
section
2-1,
e4
favorable.
Consideration
is
recommended
with
the
condition
that
the
lift
remain
in
the
storage
position
over
the
dock,
except
at
top
the
time
of
launch
and
docking
of
the
personal
water
calf.
H
This
is
jake
dye,
I'm
with
kiesland
construction.
I
have
been
sworn
in
and
I
represent
the
whittakers
who
have
flown
in
at
great
expense
for
this.
This
meeting
this
is
kind
of
here
we
go
again
meeting
all
the
construction
is
within
the
45.
The
only
thing
that
requires
special
permit
is
the
fact
that
it's
the
second
boat
lift
for
a
piece
of
property,
less
than
85
linear
feet.
It
doesn't
have
any
effect
on
any
of
the
neighbors,
doesn't
affect
navigation
site
or
anything
else.
B
H
B
H
H
Has
a
remote
control,
so
the
operator
when
they
leave
on
the
jet
ski
can
hit
it.
It
goes
back
up
out
of
the
way
they
can
leave
in
the
water,
which
we
don't
recommend,
because
salt
water
will
corrose
aluminum
just
like
it
does
anything
else
and
swivel
back
on
the
dock,
or
they
could
leave
it
in
the
water,
whatever
they
want
to
do.
H
H
Practical,
the
the
practical
use
of
this
is
to
let
it
sit
on
the
dock
that
way,
it's
not
in
the
way
it's
supported
by
the
dock,
there's
a
certain
amount
of
weight
when
the
lift
is
out
it
cantilevers
that
that
weight
out
so
from
a
practical
standpoint,
keeping
it
over
the
dock
sitting
on
the
dock
is
is
a
good
practice.
All
right.
H
D
G
B
J
B
B
G
The
applicant
is
proposing
to
add
new
docs
to
the
existing
dock,
install
a
16,
000
pound,
lift
and
a
second
4
500
pound
elevator.
Lift
the
reason
for
the
special
permit
application
is
that
a
second
boat
lift
is
not
permitted
for
single-family
lots
with
less
than
85
feet
of
seawall
per
the
submitted.
Drawing
the
property
has
80
feet
of
seawall.
G
Based
on
staff's
review
of
the
application
per
article
2,
section
2-1,
e4
favorable
consideration
is
not
recommended
on
the
basis
that
the
two
lifts
in
combination
with
one
another
may
impede
safe
navigation.
I'll,
go
into
a
little
more
detail
on
this
one,
because
you
know
we
had
a
legal
opinion.
Recently,
we
kind
of
got
to
look
at
the
bigger
picture
of
what
may
be
going
on
with
or
what
may
go
on
in
the
future
with
neighboring
properties.
G
So
my
my
issue
is
first
this
this,
the
sixteen
thousand
pound
lift
based
on
my
research,
should
be
able
to
support
a
boat
in
the
mid
30-foot
range
and
then
plus
the
potential
of
the
that
length
of
the
outboards.
Add
to
that
that
vessel
so
and
then,
when
you
place
this
second
lift
here
that
a
vessel
cannot
access
that
dot
that
lift
from
the
north,
therefore
they
would
have
to
access
from
the
south
side.
H
H
I,
first
of
all,
I
think
we've
taken
hazard
to
navigation
to
all
new
levels
when
we
start
talking
about
this,
the
chapter
six
and
if
you
look
at
all
references
to
hazards
to
navigation
in
in
chapter
six,
hazardous
hazards
to
navigation,
apply
and
are
intended
to
apply
to
the
general
navigation
within
the
area
and
not
to
the
specific
area
like
this.
The
other
thing
is
the
comparison
between
these
two
properties
isn't
accurate,
because
it's
a
totally
different
situation.
H
Top
lift
the
north
left
here,
that's
an
elevator
lift,
so
there's
no
restriction
on
the
outside
that
boat
is
by
the
way,
is
a
rigid,
inflatable
boat,
a
rib.
It
can
come
and
go
any
direction.
It
can
come
in
from
the
side.
So
it's
navigation
is
not
an
issue.
The
purpose
of
having
the
southern
lift
come
in
from
that
end
is
to
get
the
two
boats
as
much
on
the
property
and
not
hang
over
into
adjacent
properties
any
more
than
absolutely.
Even
though
we
couldn't
go
across
the
vessel
limitation
line
anyways.
H
This
is
there's
60
feet
of
navigation
space.
There
60
feet
of
space
between
those
two
lifts,
and
if
you
went
into
a
marina
with
a
boat,
any
marina
with
a
30-foot
boat
or
a
32-foot
boat,
you
would
have
I
mean
that
would
be
overkill
for
the
amount
of
space.
So
the
ability
to
be
able
to
maneuver
in
the
property
owner
could
maneuver
in
and
not
violate
the
vessel
limitation
line,
but
because
of
the
way
the
structure
limitation
line
is
he's
got
even
extra
space
to
be
able
to
use
to
maneuver.
H
H
H
B
H
H
Yeah,
if
you,
you
can't
really
see
too
much
of
it,
but
the
the
adjacent,
the
property
to
the
north.
They
come
and
go
from
a
different
direction
as
well,
so
there's,
but
there
there
are
two
things
that
require
special
permit.
One
is
part
of
that
structure
is
outside
the
the
vessel
limitation
line
for
the
elevator
lift,
and
then
there
are
two
lifts
less
than
85
feet.
So
that's
the
reason
for
the
special
permit.
Let
me
just
clarify.
B
And
saying
it
a
different
way,
if
I
was
to
bring
in
this
inflatable
boat
with
the
new
dock
as
it's
proposed
and
simply
tie
it
up
to
the
dock,
it
would
sit
in
the
same
footprint.
It
would
sit
in
the
same
footprint
so
a
without
a
special
permit,
but
with
the
new
dock
as
as
proposed,
you
could
bring
a
boat
in
there
and
be
well
within
the
birthing
limitations.
H
It's
also,
you
know
it's
important,
not
that
important,
but
interesting
to
note
that
the
elevator
lift
has
no
structure
on
the
outside,
so
that
doesn't
limit
the
boat
and
how
you
can
come
in.
You
can
come
in
from
the
north,
the
south.
You
can
come
straight
in
from
the
the
canal
and
and
turn
float
onto
the
to
the
lift.
So
that's
a
that's
a
pretty
easy
issue
to
to
deal
with.
D
H
Inflatable
boat
is
really
too
large
for
the
rotating
pwc
lift
it's
it's
too
large
and
too
wide
to
be
able
to
sit
on
top
of
the
dock.
It
would
be
a
nice
option,
but
it's
too
wide
to
sit
on
the
seven
foot.
Dock
he's
got
an
existing
dock
now,
so
we're
not
gonna,
take
it
out
and
put
in
a
ten
foot
dock
and
those
are
really
made
for
pwcs.
They
have
short
bunks
and
there's
just
too
much
distance
on
to
to
do
that.
D
D
B
B
D
Just
as
a
point
of
clarification,
when
I
went
over
this
and
I
looked
at
it,
I
said
I
can
understand
the
reason
for
the
recommendation
to
not
approve,
but
that
was
because
I
didn't
understand
the
structure
of
the
second
lift.
Having
heard
that,
I
don't,
I
don't
see
the
the
navigational
problems
that
that
I
had
originally
thought.
I
did
so.
You
know
that's
just
my
feelings.
B
Other
comments,
I
I
would
agree-
I
was
not
so
much
on
the
navigation
issue,
but
on
cramming
a
lot
of
stuff
on
a
narrow
property,
and
this
isn't
particularly
narrow,
but
it's
not
and
that
if
we
had
two
lifts
on
all
of
these,
it
would
be
a
very
busy
place,
but
that
was
with
your
the
same
sort
of
thinking.
I
thought
this
was
a
formal
lift
sticking
out
into
the
water
with
filings,
so
the
clarification
definitely
helps
so
I'm
certainly
in
favor
of
this
at
this
point,
any
other
discussion
on
this.
D
B
D
B
B
G
G
G
G
So
then,
after
further
conversation
about
her
not
receiving
the
mailings
seven
days
prior
to
seven
business
days,
so
she
didn't
have
seven
business
days.
Basically
it
was.
It
was
suggested
that
we
recommend
granting
her
intervener
status,
but
we
had
to
coordinate
with
the
applicant
mr
holt
to
see
one
if
he
objected
to
the
intervener
status
and
two.
If
he
wanted
a
continuance.
Based
on
this
new
information,
we
did
receive
an
objection
from
mr
holt.
He
did
not
request
a
continuance
based
on
that
information.
G
B
Okay,
just
to
I
guess,
a
couple
of
procedural
bits
here:
let's
do
the
first
one.
First,
the
letter
that
you
are
referencing
was
sent
by
ferrara,
I
think
emailed
through
the
city's
folks
to
each
of
us
and
it
is
appropriated
under
the
procedures
for
each
of
us
to
acknowledge,
having
received
it
and
read
it.
So
I
would
ask
if
you
have
all
received
it
and,
if
so
say
aye
aye
aye
anybody
didn't
receive
it.
B
Did
you
okay?
So
in
this
case
mr
sullivan
does
not
recall
receiving
it,
it
would
have
come
in
an
email
about
a
week
ago
give
or
take,
and
did
you
all
read
it,
and
if
so,
please
say
I
and
everyone
has
acknowledged
reading
it,
except
for
mr
sullivan,
who
didn't
receive
it
so
that
at
least
puts
it
on
the
record.
B
B
G
B
H
G
B
B
D
B
So
we
have
before
us
the
question
of
whether
we
are
granting
intervenor
status
to
ms
hornback
and
mr
hall.
Oh
okay,
and
you
would
have
a
chance
to
speak.
Let's
get
it,
let's
decide
whether
we're
going
to
have
a
motion
to
do
this
and
then
we'll
have
the
discussion.
So
what
is
your
pleasure
on
intervener
status
so
that
we
can
have
a
a
discussion.
B
D
H
B
E
I'm
dr
patricia
hornbach
and
I
wanted
the
intervenor
status
because
I
wanted
adequate
time
to
present
my
appeal
to
the
hearing
committee.
That's
it
I
didn't
think
3
minutes
was
going
to
be
necessarily
at
adequate
time
and
I
knew
any
more
time
over
that
period
of
time
was
at
the
discretion
of
the
chairman.
So
I
wanted
more
of
a
guarantee
that
I
had
adequate
time.
That's
it
all
right.
B
K
Hi,
I'm
brian
holt
pe
I've
been
sworn
I'm
I'm
the
applicant
along
with
my
wife,
mary
lou,
and
we
we'd
ask
you
to
to
not
grant
intervenor
status.
If
you
want
to
offer
her
more
than
three
minutes
five
minutes.
Ten
minutes
we're
we're
not
suggesting
curtailing
her
time,
but
the
legal
aspects
associated
with
intervenor
status.
I
I
think
we
should
follow
the
law
and
the
law
says
seven
days
and
the
city
did
its
due
diligence.
K
I
did
my
due
diligence
in
putting
forth
the
application
the
hornbacks
have
known
about
this
application
beginning
in
early
november.
I
I
delayed
my
application
to
what
I
would
made
the
december
meeting
in
order
to
give
them
time
to
review
my
information.
They
were
provided
my
application
earlier
drafts,
because
I
knew
there
might
be
a
potential
problem
here.
I
wanted
to
give
them
time
and
hopefully
we
could
work
it
out
ahead
of
time.
K
I
received
no
substantiative
feedback
on
that
and
then
finally,
I
just
needed
to
move
forward,
and
then
we
were
notified
after
the
seven
days
that
that
they're
seeking
this
and
that
I
received
my
letter
in
plenty
of
adequate
time.
There
was
a
sign
in
my
yard,
right
after
the
first
year
you
advertised
on
the
in
the
paper.
I
assume
so
they've
had
due
diligent
time
and
if
you
run
the
risk
of
of
making
the
seven
days
meaningless.
If
it's
done
fortunately
go
ahead,
would
you
care
for
anything.
D
B
E
I
did
exactly
what
I
was
supposed
to
in
the
time
period
that
I
had,
and
mr
holt
is
right
that
he
gave
me
some
information
material
about
thanksgiving
time
and
I
looked
at
it
and
I
said
I
don't
know.
I
need
to
have
some
captains
that
are
experienced
in
the
area
and
the
navigational
problem
to
come
in
and
look
at
the
area,
and
I
don't
did
not
able
to
get
anybody
doing
that
time
period
to
do
it.
So
that's
the
reason.
Nothing
else
further
was
discus
discussed.
E
K
E
B
All
right
well
before
this
is
the
question
of
granting
intervener
status,
which
is
simply
to
allow
dr
hornbach
to
have
up
to
30
minutes
to
state
her
case
on
the
permit
before
us.
We
have
yet
to
hear
a
presentation
from
mr
holt,
which
we
will
get
first
as
to
what
he
wants
to
do,
and
then
we
will
have
discussion
of
it.
So
now
it's
really
defining
how
much
time
dr
hornbeck
has
to
take
her
case.
D
H
D
B
B
B
Clear
for
those
who
opposed
would
you
propose
a
motion
to
grant
intervener
status?
Please
some
move.
Mr
kanabi
moves,
mr
ludwig
seconds
any
further
discussion.
All
those
in
favor
of
granting
intervener
status,
please
say:
aye
aye
and
opposed
motion
carries
unanimously
all
right,
so
we
have
intervener
status.
B
B
G
G
Again
for
the
record
brian
clemens
public
works,
I
would
like
to
introduce
application
number
ccsp
25-2021
by
brian
holt
of
lot
24
block
145,
section
12,
also
identified
as
5036
key
largo
drive.
The
applicant
is
proposing
to
construct
a
dock,
a
four
post
boat,
lift
and
a
walk
and
a
walk
board.
The
reason
for
the
special
permit
application
is
that
three
of
the
pilings,
a
portion
of
the
boat,
lift
and
a
portion
of
the
walkboard,
are
outside
the
structure
limitation
lines
per
the
submitted
drawings.
G
G
Based
on
staff's
review
of
the
application
per
article
2,
section
2-1,
e4
favorable
consideration
is
not
recommended
on
the
basis
that
the
provided
drawings
indicate
that
the
neighboring
vessel
at
50,
5024,
key
largo
drive,
may
be
in
conflict
with
the
vessel
on
the
proposed
lift,
and
that's
as
you
can
see
here.
This
is
what's
provided
to
me
so
when,
as
a
you
know,
as
a
vessel
gets
on
that
lift,
I
don't
know
that
I'm
there's
a
potential
of
a
conflict.
So
at
this
point
I'm
I
do
not
recommend
favorable
consideration.
K
Addressing
the
the
question
of
of
the
lift
and
and
the
boat,
the
vessel
is
clearly
encroaching
into
our
water
for
this
property
and
what
I
wanted
to
do
was
was
come
before
the
board
and
establish
the
property
lines,
the
vessel
limitation
lines
and
then
move
forward
with
a
with
a
boat
lift
that
will
fit
on
here.
Now
I
worked
with
the
city
kind
of
jumping
back
to
our
application
here,
there's
six
criteria,
and
would
this
be
in
harmony
with
the
general
and
purpose
of
the
subsection
for
the
accord?
K
True
true,
the
proposed
site
plan
safest
and
most
harmonious
way
to
moor
a
vessel
large
enough
to
navigate
charlotte
harbor.
The
only
real
way
to
get
of
a
vessel
into
this
property
is
to
come
bow
in
in
some
configuration,
whether
it's
along
the
boat
limitation
line
is
shown
as
along.
The
other
boat
limitation
line
is
shown
or
straight
in
there's
really
no
other
way
to
lift
a
boat
in
here,
and
one
needs
to
assume
that
a
a
vessel
of
similar
size
may
someday
soon
be
moored
down
to
this
side.
A
A
K
K
So
our
it's
our
stance,
the
vessel,
is,
is
in
the
way
and
how
this
might
look
is
it.
I
don't
know
if
it's
possible
to
zoom
in
on
that,
but
you
can
see
what
I've
done
there
is
if,
if
the
neighbor
to
to
our
south
were
to
do
exactly
what
the
hornbacks
are
currently
doing,
there
would
be
virtually
no
navigable
water
and
I
wouldn't
even
use
the
word
navigable.
K
I
think
I
think
mr
dye
had
it
right
as
we're
confusing
mooring
and
docking
with
with
navigation
the
city
code,
section
six
defines
navigation
as
a
center
of
channel
with
25
feet,
either
way
in
this
particular
basin.
We're
you
know
340
feet
across
we're
a
long
ways
away
from
the
navigable
channel.
What
we're
dealing
with
here
in
this
little
corner
of
the
of
the
basin
is,
is
mooring
and
docking,
and
we
want
to
have
egress.
K
E
I'm
saying
that
since
mr
holt
is
addressing
two
separate
issues
and
that
this
issue
that
he's
addressing
right
now
will
directly
affect
his
application,
I
ask
that
I'd
be
able
to
respond
to
this,
so
that
when
you're
looking
at
the
application,
you
will
have
information
to
make
your
decisions
based
on
that.
Otherwise,
there's
going
to
be
some
erroneous
information
that
you're
going
to
be
presented,
that's.
G
K
It's
sort
of
it's
not
flowing
the
way
I
intended
it
to
because
of
the
the
the
status
you
just
recently
we
got
into
the
the
the
con
the
the
conflict
with
the
neighboring
vessel
earlier
on
in
the
presentation
I
intended
to
brief
you
on
what
we
intended
to
do
and
then
get
in
with
the
the
trespass
into
our
water.
So,
let's.
E
B
K
K
The
hornbacks
have,
I
measure
their
vessel
at
roughly
48
feet,
or
so,
if
you,
if
you
measure
the
distance
between
here
and
here,
it
shows
about
46
feet
on
the
center
line
of
their
current
vessel,
there's
also
an
anchor
that
I'm
not
sure
if
it
shows
in
this
aerial
photo
or
not
it's
hard
to
tell
it's
all
white
here,
but
there's
a
there's
an
anchor
with
it
sticks
out
another
couple
of
feet.
You
can
see
it
here.
K
H
Here
is
something
that's
acceptable
to
us
and
I
I
just
don't
see
us
taking
into
consideration
the
the
intrusion
across
the
boat
limitation
line
is
being
relevant
to
us
now.
It's
definitely
relevant
to
him,
yeah,
okay
and
and
I'm
sensitive
to
that,
but
it
just
doesn't
seem
like
we
got
a
dog
in
that
fight.
B
K
K
K
K
K
This
is
this
is
a
survey
that
was
conducted
in
the
spring
by
target
surveying
they.
They
reconfirmed
this
friday.
They
they
pinned
both
locations
along
the
water
line.
This
is
just
the
only
part
I
did
here
is
is
draw
on
this.
This
outline
here
this
this
layout
is,
is
assuming
any
one
of
the
four
major
marine
contractors
could
build
this.
What
you're
looking
at
here
is
a
dock.
That's
10
feet
because
there's
one
particular
contractor
that
uses
10
foot
precast
these
piles
may
be
concrete.
K
They
may
be
wood.
We
haven't
signed
a
contract
with
any
of
the
four
major
ones
yet,
but
we'll
use
one
of
the
the
four
big
ones.
The
reason
I'm
handling
this
myself
is
is
I'm
I'm
passionate
about
it,
and
when
I
was
when
I
was
obtaining
layouts
from
these
these
companies
and
quotes
and
such
you
know
it
was
taking
a
while
to
get
these
things
coming
in,
and
I
wasn't
sure
how
fast
this
would
go.
K
K
K
K
B
H
Mr
holt
did
you
consider
flipping
this
so
that
the
entrance
would
be
more
from
the
right
now,
it's
almost
directly
from
the
from
the
east
flipping
it
so
that
your
entrance
would
be
more
from
the
north
than
the
east.
I
guess
I'm
looking
at
the
property
to
the
south
and
and
I'm
thinking
about
the
adjacent
property
to
that
and
then
a
large
boat
that
goes
right
up
to
the
boat
limitation
line.
I'm
just
thinking,
I'm
you
know
brian's
getting
in
my
head
here
on
this
navigation
hazard
stuff.
K
K
B
E
E
E
E
E
E
The
red
line
is
the
total
included
angle,
not
a
whole
lot
of
difference,
but
it
makes
a
whole
lot
of
difference
on
these
angled
lots.
So
much
so,
we've
been
there
12
years.
I
brought
this
along
with
me.
Just
in
case
on
november
6
2014
with
a
previous
owner,
we
had
this
exact
situation,
come
up
on
the
vessel
limitation
line.
E
Code
enforcement
came
out
and
they
looked
at
it
and
they
said
we
were
in
compliance
with
twice
the
code
enforcement
has
been
out
and
when
they
use
the
total
included
angle,
we
have
no
problem,
but
if
you
use
the
extended
property
line,
you're
taking
away
quite
a
bit
of
distance
on
the
angled
lot,
and
that
would
put
our
bow
sprit
over
the
line,
the
anchor
out
there.
If
that's
any
problem
with
mr
holt
fine,
we
can
take
the
anchor
off.
It
doesn't
have
to
hang
out
there.
E
E
E
The
yellow
enhanced
lines
are
the
structure
limitation
lines
and
the
red
hatch
lines
are
the
structures
outside
the
structured
limitation
lines,
so
you've
got
two
pilings
to
the
north,
one
piling
to
the
south,
the
majority
of
the
lift,
as
well
as
the
majority
of
the
walkway.
When
you
don't
hatch
these
in
it,
doesn't
look
like
that.
Much
is
outside
the
structured
limitation
line,
but
once
you
hatch
it
in
and
you
look
at
it,
the
majority
of
it
is
outside
the
limitation
line.
E
E
E
The
navigational
route
to
utilize
to
move
our
boat
is
to
utilize
the
brow
thrusters
to
rotate
the
bow
away
from
the
dock
in
a
counterclockwise
direction,
rotating
the
boat
into
open
water.
So
we
can
then
move
it
forward.
As
you
can
see,
this
navigational
path
is
clearly
blocked
by
the
two
north
polings,
in
the
lift,
with
the
limited
and
blocked
space,
a
collision
will
eventually
occur
if
you
take
that
boat
and
try
to
spin
it
around
you're
not
going
to
be
able
to
do
it.
E
If
you
look
at
the
bottom
of
it,
it's
a
picture
of
our
boat
and
our
boat
is
a
heavy
trawler
weighing
46
thousand
pounds.
You
can't
push
it
off
from
a
piling
with
your
hand
and
has
significant
windage
due
to
the
height
of
the
seaboards,
even
with
bow
thrusters.
The
variance
creature
creates
such
a
limited,
open
water
that,
with
the
slightest
breeze,
the
possibility
of
a
collision
is
significant.
E
E
E
E
E
E
At
the
time,
in
the
top
of
the
drawing
the
blue
line,
marked
property
line
is
the
property
line
and
is
clearly
extended
to
create
the
vessel
limitation
line.
If
the
total
included
angle
were
used
to
draw
the
vessel
limitation
line,
the
pilings
would
even
the
pilings.
The
two
outside
north
polings
would
even
be
outside
those
lines
which
demonstrate
that
the
pilings
are
in
an
extremely
obstructive
placement.
E
The
insert
at
the
bottom
is
the
illustration,
from
the
code
chapter
6
showing
how
to
calculate
the
vessel
limitation
line,
the
yellow
is
the
property
line,
and
the
red
is
the
total
included
angle.
Although
the
degree
change
is
small
in
the
restricted
waters
of
the
angled
lots,
it's
very
significant,
significant
to
navigation,
it's
significant
to
where
that,
where
your
boat
is
placed
again,
this
miscalculation
has
resulted
in
even
the
north
polings
being
outside
the
vessel
limitation
lines,
which
is
not
even
addressed
in
this
various
applications.
E
E
Previous
votes
have
been
docked
at
30-50-36
key
largo
drive,
mr
holt's
address
over
the
12
years.
Our
boat
has
been
at
our
dock.
These
boats
have
been
28
foot
in
length
and
slightly
larger
and
have
all
docked
parallel
to
the
present
dock
at
5036
key
largo
drive,
the
arrangement
has
created
no
navigational
storage
problems,
even
when
we
have
experienced
hurricanes
during
that
time
period
and
required
no
variance.
E
E
This
markedly
endangers
our
boat
and
ourselves,
as
these
structures
are
directly
in
the
rotational
path
needed
to
navigate
to
and
from
our
dock,
as
well
as
trapping
our
boat
into
the
dock
in
bad
weather.
Due
to
the
increased
need
for
open
water
necessary
to
navigate
under
these
conditions,
criteria
c
would
not
impede
navigation,
as
previously
presented
above
and
supported
by
exhibits
from
the
variance
application.
E
I
believe
this
variance
application
does
the
exact
opposite
of
this
criteria.
If
granted,
the
obstacles
constructed
under
this
variance
would
almost
guarantee
property
damage,
as
well
as
personal
safety
issues.
A
collision
in
such
limited,
open
water
will
occur
given
time
and
conditions
for
all
the
reasons
I
have
previously
presented
we're
not
trying
to
deny
mr
holt
dockage,
but
we
are
asking
for
denial
of
the
application
because
it
does
not
what
we're
asking
for
does
not
prevent
him
to
have
his
boat
at
the
dock.
E
This
is
an
overlay
of
his
boat
in
that
position
and
that's
the
bow
sprit
you
see
overlying
there,
which
this
does
not
block
the
navigational
path
of
either
boat
and
no
structures
are
outside
the
structured
limitation
lines.
This
dockies
has
been
utilized
for
the
past
12
years
with
success
for
all
homeowners
and
no
variance
required.
This
would
include
the
homeowner
of
the
presently
vacant
lot.
E
E
E
This
is
very
similar
to
the
request
and
variance,
but
brings
everything
forward,
so
that
structures
are
almost
entirely
within
the
structured
limitation
lines
and
markedly
reduces
the
impediment
to
navigation
in
exhibit
six
again.
The
yellow,
enhanced
lines
of
the
structured
limitation
lines
and
the
red
hatched
areas
are
the
structures
outside
the
structured
limitation
lines.
If
you
would
compare,
exhibit
one
the
variance
request
to
exhibit
six
there's
a
marked
difference
between
these
two
and
would
greatly
affect
navigation.
E
In
conclusion,
this
variance
is
simply
not
acceptable,
as
it
does
not
meet
three
of
the
six
criteria
and
creates
dangerous
navigational
issues
for
both
property
and
persons.
Also,
the
variance
is
not
even
necessary
for
documents
at
50,
36
kilo,
largo
drive,
as
alternatives
have
functioned
in
the
past
and
other
new
alternatives
exist.
E
H
H
H
H
B
H
B
B
E
G
H
G
A
Yeah
for
the
record,
gary
disher,
one
quick
thing:
there
are
certain
places
in
the
in
the
subdivisions
where
the
platted
lot
line
does
fall,
where
it
does
in
that
in.
In
this
case,
it
looks
it's
very
similar
right
to
it.
We
didn't
run
the
plaid
ourselves.
That's
why
we
trust
engineers
to
do
the
drawings
and
he
did
it
based
upon
a
survey.
E
B
K
I
do
so
the
the
boat
limitation
lines
are
very
close
to
the
property
lines,
but
they
are
not
property
lines.
Vote
limitation
lines
are
per
the
code,
and-
and
this
was
all
done
in
autocad-
and
these
all
these
drawings
you're,
seeing
on
all
these
pages,
they're
all
linked,
it's
it's
the
same
drawings
with
different
views
so
and
and
as
you
move
from
sheet
1,
you
see
the
overall
view.
So
this
shows
you
how
it
all
sits,
how
it
reacts
with
other
boats
in
the
area.
K
So
you
can
get
a
sense
of
how
we'll
dock
on
an
egress
in
an
ingress
on
the
second
sheet
shows
you
a
little
bit
more
of
a
zoomed
in
view,
but
it
is
the
exact
same
drawings.
This
is
just
a
different
view
of
lines
in
cad
they're,
not
different
lines,
they're,
just
a
different
presentation
of
it
in
a
print.
D
B
B
G
K
H
K
K
D
H
G
H
K
K
I
mean
this
isn't.
My
survey
was
done
by
target
surveying
and
I
I
just
I
just
attached
the
layer
that
shows
the
layout
on
here,
but
you
can
see
how
it
fits
here
and
we're
not
guessing
it's
not
a
hand-drawn
sketch.
It's
not
a
sketch
over
aerial
photography
that
somebody
just
traced
in
autocad.
It's
it's
a
real
survey.
B
Materially,
I
don't
think
given
what
I
saw,
that
there
would
be
posts
outside
the
45
and
what
she
has
said
by
arguing
that
the
angle
is
wrong
is
that
the
posts
would
now
be
outside
not
only
the
45,
but
also
the
the
boat
limitation
line.
I
think
that's
the
way
I
heard
her
and
what
you're
saying
now
is
no.
These
are
accurate.
This
is
this.
K
B
K
D
E
E
The
other
thing
I
would
say
is
an
aerial
photograph
has
to
be
totally
perpendicular
to
the
object
that
it's
photographing
to
be
accurate,
so
aerial
photographs
other
than
showing
items
is
not
correct
to
use
for
measurement.
All
of
that
aside,
that's
really
minutia
that
we're
getting
into,
and
I
know
that
I
caused
some
of
those
minutia.
E
But
the
point
is
the
majority
of
what
he's
requesting
is
outside
the
structure
limitation
lines.
It
does
prevent
us
from
moving
our
boat
in
and
out
without
danger.
There
are
other
alternatives.
This
particular
application
doesn't
meet
the
criteria
to
allow
his
adjacent
neighbors
to
have
adequate
uses
of
their
property
in
their
boat
without
endangering
themselves.
B
G
D
D
B
B
E
C
E
E
Okay,
I'm
not
present
for
today's
public
hearing.
My
neighbor
patricia
hornbach
has
agreed
to
read
the
following
texts
to
convey
my
concerns
regarding
the
proposed
project
and
to
request
additional
documentation
for
said
project.
I
appreciate
being
recognized
by
the
committee.
I
wish
to
request
additional
documentation
for
clarification
of
the
following
articles.
Inc
indicated
in
capture
six
vessel
docks
and
waterways.
E
E
E
E
The
vessel
exceeds
25
feet.
Water
wood
from
the
seawall
will
propose
project,
comply
with
section
2-1-7
and
will
impede
safe
navigation
in
close
quarter
situations
between
vessels.
The
proposed
project
illustration
indicates
a
two-foot
aluminum
walk.
Is
this
lumen
walk
a
floating
dock?
If
so,
the
walkway
may
not
comply
with
section
2-110.
E
The
proposed
project
will
not
comply
with
section
2-1
e
4,
a
through
f.
I
have
stated
my
position
regarding
the
criteria
in
a
letter
previously
forwarded
to
brian
clemens
public
works,
engineer
city
of
punta
garda
florida,
which
will
explain
the
concerns
in
depth.
I
request
that
the
letter
in
question
be
presented
to
the
committee
so
as
to
express
the
concerns
with
respect
to
the
four
mentioned
section.
I
condensed
this
letter
into
this
bridge
version
to
be
within
the
time
constraints
that
I
have,
for
which
I
will
be
recognized
before
the
committee.
E
However,
if
the
request
is
not
possible
and
denied
by
the
committee,
my
purpose,
in
short,
is
I
feel
the
proposed
project
does
not
meet
the
criteria
listed
in
2-1
e
for
a
through
f
in
closing
the
drawings
and
illustrations
provided
by
a
sense
signal.
Llc
are
inaccurate
and
incomplete
and
do
not
indicate
the
proposed
site
dimensions
properly.
With
regard
to
proposed
structures
or
adjacent
properties,
I
request
a
revised
site
plan
that
is
complete
and
accurate
and
a
working
drawing
of
the
proposed
project
as
well.
Thank
you
two
minutes,
56
seconds,
all
right.
B
B
H
G
G
K
H
C
B
B
H
I
think
I
think
the
city
engineer
has
done
a
masterful
job
painful
at
times
to
the
contractors,
but
he's
done
a
really
good
job
of
of
requiring
drawings
and
detailed
information.
That
answers
every
question,
and
I
would
just
ask
them
to
you-
know-
make
sure
that
applies
to
what
we're
doing
here,
that
we've
got
all
of
the
same
information.