![youtube image](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/wCMZBuxpnjk/mqdefault.jpg)
►
From YouTube: Board of Commissioners December 12, 2022
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
B
C
C
A
Okay,
before
we
get
started,
we've
got
I've
got
one
announcement
item
four
as
deferred
to
a
date
to
be
determined
item.
4A
is
a
ordinance
2022-22.
Application
has
to
do
with
the
Land
Development
code
Amendment
concerning
annexations
and
we'll
decide
when
that's
going
to
come
back
to
us,
but
that
needs
additional
work.
A
Also.
What
we're
going
to
do?
We've
got
a
mixed
agenda
this
evening.
We've
got
the
City
attorney
discussions
this
evening
and
also
about
a
half
a
dozen
Land
Development
code
ordinances
that
we
need
to
go
through.
Those
ordinances
were
deferred
from
last
week
when
we
ran
late
into
the
evening
and
probably
would
not
have
done
Justice
to
them.
If
we
were
to
listen
to
them
at
that
time,
so
we're
going
to
do
that
tonight,
but
let's
go
to
public
comments
first
and
then
we'll
go
to
the
City
attorney
categories
and
discuss
those.
E
E
He
shall
receive
the
blessings
from
the
Lord
and
righteousness
from
the
god
of
his
salvation.
This
is
the
generation
of
them
that
seek
him
that
seek
thy
face,
so
joke
of
oh
Jacob
Selah,
lift
up
your
hands.
Oh
you
Gates
and
be
lift
up
ye
Everlasting
doors
and
the
king
of
glory
shall
come
in
now.
I'm
gonna
just
speak
briefly
on
something.
E
I
spoke
about
the
other
night,
because
I
really
think
it's
important
that
we
kind
of
look
at
that,
especially
if
we're
doing
land
use
and
LDC
and
comp
plan
amendments,
as
I
mentioned
last
week
and
Renee
and
even
Janine
can
test
it.
The
amount
of
time
they've
had
to
put
in
extra
with
regards
to
a
lot
of
the
things
that
have
been
going
on
fees.
Are
we
charging
enough
to
recover
our
staff
time
either?
E
E
F
F
Thank
you,
Janina
Lewis
procurement,
Services
director,
honorable
mayor
Board
of
Commissioners
good
evening.
First,
let's
start
with
the
RFP
for
the
special
counsel,
Attorney
Services.
We
still
have
two
that
gave
proposals
and
they
are
still
in
contention.
So
that
will
be
among
your
discussion
this
evening.
As
for
the
second
one,
the
RFP
for
the
City
Attorney
Services.
As
of
this
morning,
we
had
two
firms
that
requested
to
be
removed
from
the
selection.
The
first
one
is
wall
Grant.
They
asked
to
be
removed
based
on
the
schedule
of
the
number
of
boards.
F
They
would
need
to
attend
in
2023.
They
didn't
feel
comfortable
that
they
would
be
able
to
support
support
all
of
those
boards,
as
did
Saxon
Gilmore.
They
made
the
same
reference.
They
would
not
be
able
to
support
that
number
of
boards
with
the
number
of
Personnel
in
The
Firm,
so
that
leaves
one
proposal
still
out
there,
which
is
Eunice
salesman.
F
A
Okay,
so
what
we're
going
to
do
is
we're
going
to
take
them
one
at
a
time.
The
first
is
the
special
counsel,
Attorney
Services.
The
number
two
is
the
City
Attorney
Services
and
number
three
is
a
litigation
attorney
services
and
we're
going
to
go
through
each
one
and
complete
those
before
we
go
to
the
next.
G
So
after
review
and
our
conversations
and
so
forth
that
we
had
last
week,
I
really
don't
have
any
questions
or
anything
of
for
either
of
the
of
the
applicants
but
I'm
fine,
I
I
tend
towards
the
investigative
quality
of
Carlton
Fields,
so
I
think
they've
they've
shown
that
that's
what
they
do
and
that's
what
they're
good
at
and
that's
what
they
they
want
to
do.
So
that's
that's.
H
Thanks
mayor
Carlton
Fields
as
well
just
a
I,
don't
know
who
would
be
in
charge
of
this
part
of
it,
but
the
fact
that
the
individual
representing
Carlton
Fields
said
they
would
be
open
to
negotiating
travel
time
and
meeting
times.
I
think
it
was
what
it
was
so
whenever
that,
if
this
is
selected,
this
is
something
that
I
would
like
to
try
to
make
sure
it's
hammered
out.
Yes,.
F
H
A
I
Thank
you,
mayor
I,
also
Carlton,
Fields,
And,
I,
tossed
back
and
forth
truthfully
of
on
price
as
well
and
the
question
that
I
have
that
I
don't
know
if
it's
answerable
is,
if
all
the
evidence
is
there,
and
we
don't
know
that
in
this
special
investigation,
then
I
do
believe
either
party
either
attorney
could
find
and
bring
us
an
evaluation.
I
But
if
it's
not,
then
I
have
issues
with
it.
So
I
I
also
have
concerns
about
negotiating
the
price
down,
because
price
was
an
issue
as
well,
but
I
also,
remember
you
saying
that
getting
to
the
bottom
of
it
was
the
most
important
thing
which
I
also
agree
with
so
I'm
going
to
go
along
with
the
vote.
As
long
as
we
can
do
some
negotiation
with
it.
J
A
You,
let
me
I'm
going
to
say
a
few
things,
and
and
and
and
really
I,
don't
know
who's
watching
or
anything
like
that.
But
this
is
for
the
purpose
of
anyone
watching
generally
I.
A
You
know
we
we
know
about
what
the
cost
would
be
about:
160
000
for
Carlton,
Fields
and
and
if
you
recall
some
of
the
memoranda
in
the
past,
you
know,
for
example,
the
one
thing
I'm
having
a
hard
time
with
is
usual
is
we're
fighting
our
own
residents
in
in
the
litigation
with
we're
with
Morgan
the
Morgan
group
fighting
against
our
own
residents,
which
I
have
an
issue
with
so
I've
reached
out
to
try
and
talk
to
the
Morgan
group
myself
just
to
see
if
there
was
something
that
we
could
come
to
an
agreement
on.
A
There
was
no
meeting
there.
There
was
basically
no
response,
and
then
it
took
some
time
to
get
our
attorneys
to
actually
respond
to
to
basically
approach
the
Morgan
group,
at
least
their
attorneys,
to
see
if
there's
some
agreement
that
could
be
made
some
settlement
as
well,
for
example,
to
abandon
the
project
and
that
sort
of
thing
and-
and
you
received
a
memorandum
to
that
effect-
it's
still
attorney-client
privilege
until
the
litigation
ends
all
the
litigation
ends.
But
it
gave
you
some
money
amounts
of
money
that
was
in.
A
Spends
a
lot
of
time
on
this
and
and
also
and
it's
just
basically
a
distraction,
it's
a
distraction.
It's
something
that's
hanging
out
there
with
the
city.
Commission,
it's
a
thing!
A
That's
hanging
out
there
with
with
many
many
many
residents
and
it's
a
thing,
that's
hanging
out
there
with
the
the
city
staff
and,
quite
frankly,
we
need
to
put
this
thing
to
rest
one
way
or
the
other,
and
there
is
no
doubt
in
my
mind
that
it's
cost
the
city,
several
million
dollars
alone
in
just
wasted
effort,
time
distraction
lack
of
being
able
to
move
forward
on
some
of
the
initiatives
that
we'd
like
to
move
forward
on,
because
we're
continually
deal
with
this
thing.
A
So
when
you
compare
that
sort
of
situation
to
a
hundred
and
sixty
thousand
dollars,
160
000
doesn't
amount
to
much
in
that
regard.
The
other
thing,
too,
is
that
Carlton
Fields
is
a
preeminent
law.
Firm
and
I
know
some
of
you.
You
know,
there's
some
questions
out
there
as
far
as
exactly
what
happened
and
Carlton
Fields.
A
The
of
the
actions
that
took
place
was
done
correctly,
and
the
worst
thing
could
happen
is
if
we
do
some
kind
of
a
special
counsel
review
and
there's
a
recommendation
to
go
forward
with
some
kind
of
action
in
this
commission
chooses
to
move
ahead
with
that
action
and
that
assessment
by
the
law
firm
was
wrong.
That's
not
what
we
want,
so
we
need
to
have
absolute
confidence
that
what
comes
out
of
the
special
counsel
is
correct
and
I've
got
the
confidence
in
in
Carlton
Fields
again
because
of
their
depth.
A
Primarily,
if
you
look
at
them
as
far
as
a
regional
qualifications
or
top-tier
and
land
use
and
zoning,
and
that's
the
sort
of
thing
we're
going
to
be
dealing
with
largely
and
also
the
legal
malpractice
is
another
one.
Concerning
a
lot
of
the
communications
that
took
place,
the
propriety
that
we've
talked
about
and
things
and-
and
you
know
we'll
see
what
the
the
special
investigation
comes
back
with
so
I'm
comfortable.
Moving
ahead
with
Carlton
Fields
I,
don't
have
an
issue
with
the
money.
A
I
recognize
it's
a
lot
of
money,
but
given
what
we've
already
the
the
the
the
distress
that
this
issue
has
caused,
the
city
I
think
it's
worth
getting
this
thing
behind
us
one
way
or
the
other.
So
with
that
I'd
like
to
have
a
motion
and
a
second
to
nominate
on
approve
Carlton
Fields
as
a
special
counsel.
G
A
What
do
you
want
us
to
do?
Do
you
want
us
to
choose
as
far
as
the
RP
goes,
the
that
the
RP
winner,
if
you
will,
is
Carlton
Fields
or
do
you
want
us
to
authorize
negotiating.
F
F
That
would
be
the
intended
awardee
with
move
forward
to
negotiate
contract.
Okay,.
H
A
You
you
I'm
Ms,
Lewis
I,
think
my
I
I
think.
Well,
you
have
to
have
an
affirmative
vote
to
identify
someone
I,
don't
think
it
goes
to
the
next
person
go.
F
Ahead
and
clarify
that
at
this
point,
if,
if
your
choice
is
Carlton
Fields,
that
would
be
the
choice
to
go
to
negotiate
with.
If
you
choose
to
go
to
the
second
firm
on
the
list,
you
could
do
that.
That
is
your
option.
F
I,
don't
I
mean
it's
technically
up
to
the
board,
how
they
want
to
do
it.
If
you
want
me
to
come
back
with
the
final
of
the
contract
that
we
try
to
negotiate,
we
could
do
that.
You
could
give
me
parameters
of
the
negotiation
what
you're
looking
for.
We
could
set
that
as
well.
This
meeting,
it's
up
to
you.
I
I
A
A
Quite
frankly,
if,
if
you
want
my
my
assessment
at
this
point,
I'm,
whatever
is
done
in
terms
of
a
special
counsel,
has
to
be
absolutely
correct
and
we're
dealing
those
that
are
going
to
be
involved
in
interviews,
Henderson,
Hill,
Henderson,
Ward
and
also
trast
agnal,
a
very
seasoned
law
firms
they've
been
around
for
a
long
time
and
whoever
we
have
interviewing
them
has
to
be
equally
experienced
in
terms
of
the
interviewing
process
and
and
I'm.
Not
so
sure
one
of
them
would
not
have
an
attorney
representing
them
in
those
interviews
as
well.
A
So
it's
going
to
be
a
different
sort
of
of
environment
that
the
interviews
are
going
to
take
place
and
I
don't
want
to
assume
the
simplest,
and
it
could
be
very
complicated
and
I
think
because
of
that,
if
we
ultimately
don't
go
with
Carlton
Fields,
we
need
to
kind
of
rethink
the
you
know.
The
the
attorneys
that
are
that
were
left
obviously
would
be
Mr
wall
on
this
firm,
so
I.
A
H
Yeah
I
just
got
a
quick
comment
out
of
the
selection
here.
I
think
Carlton
Fields
is
by
far
the
the
way
to
go.
I
think
the
city's
going
to
be
well
served
in
the
situation,
as
I
mentioned
before
in
past
meetings.
I,
don't
agree
with
the
special
counsel.
So
that's
why
I'm
not
going
to
vote
in
favor
of
it
tonight,
but
I
think
this
election
is
there?
Okay.
A
You're
going
to
vote,
no
is
what
you're
saying
yeah
yeah
the
other
thing
too.
Commissioner
couliosh,
do
you
have
any
comments
or
no
okay?
The
other
thing
too,
commissioner
Eisner,
you
mentioned
as
far
as
the
information
being
there.
The
only
thing
that's
there
right
now
is
those
emails
that
were
identified
that
were
given
to
me
by
the
clerk's
office
as
as
kind
of
a
from
a
search
that
was
done
for
somebody
in
the
past.
There's
a
whole
lot
of
other
information
that
hasn't
even
been
looked
at
and
I.
A
Think
that's
where
and
I
I
know
of
some
of
that
other
information
as
well,
and
that's
where
the
expertise
of
carbon
feels
to
your
point
specifically
as
far
as
that
information
being
there
and
and
maybe
I
misunderstood,
there's
much
more
information
that
has
to
be
looked
at
than
just
that.
So,
okay,
roll
call.
Please.
B
B
B
G
Unfortunately,
I
wasn't
entirely
satisfied
with
the
one
applicant
remaining,
so
they
probably
wouldn't
get
my
vote.
I
think
we
need
to
rebuild.
A
Okay,
commissioner
Carr.
H
Yeah
Mary
couple
things
that
I
would
like
to
at
least
discuss.
There's
two
applicants
that
withdrew
their
applications
for
the
City
Attorney,
Services
I,
don't
know
entirely
I
just
know
they
can't
attend
all
the
meetings.
For
whatever
reason,
one
of
the
things
I
think
is
important
to
make
sure
that
when
an
RFP
is
going
out,
we
they
everyone,
knows
what
they're
applying
for
and
knows
when
the
meetings
are.
H
Don't
know
if
that's
possible
or
not
so
if
City
attorney
is
based
in
another
part
of
the
city
or
I'm,
sorry
other
part
of
the
state,
can
they
attend
via
Zoom
to
still
give
their
counsel
still
represent
at
the
meeting
that
could
be,
it
might
be
something
we
need
to
find
out.
As
a
board,
but
right
now,
I
do
have
a
concern.
Although
I
respect
the
applicant
and
his
experience
individually,
I
think
he
is
I
think
the
experience
there
speaks
a
lot.
H
I
think
the
whole
firm
as
a
whole
is
the
problem
that
I
have
it
with
there's
no
backup
with
the
city
of
experience.
So
if
there's
other
City
attorneys
that
were
there
that
were
I
feel
like
they
were
qualified
I
think
that
would
I
would
feel
better.
But
currently
the
way
that's
set
up
I
don't
feel
comfortable
with
selecting
The
Firm.
That's
there
right
now.
If
there's
other
City
attorneys
like
I,
said
I,
think
that
would
be
a
different
story
and
then
also
with
the
the
split
between
the
the
Golf
port
meetings
in
this
meeting.
H
I
just
want
to
I
think
we
need
to
vet
it
out
a
little
bit
more
and
maybe
have
a
little
more
of
a
if
we
go
through
if
we
go
through
an
lrfp,
an
opportunity
to
kind
of
hash
some
of
these
details
out
before
it
really
comes
back
to
the
board
as
an
interview
process.
Okay,.
A
H
I
I
Two
candidates
remove
themselves
if
anybody's
interpreting
or
expecting
to
have
six
people
jumping
in
next
time,
they're
Delirious,
so
I
I,
don't
understand
why
that
would
be
the
case.
He's
more
than
qualified
his
firm
is
qualified.
I
He's
actually
been
in
a
position
where
he's
helped
us
with
litigation.
He's
stepped
up
to
the
plate
when
other
attorneys,
let
us
down
with
those
there
were
accusations
made
by
commissioner
Carr
that
he
doesn't
report
to
the
board
I,
don't
like
individual
Commissioners
speaking
for
me,
I'm
the
board
you're
the
board
you're
the
board.
If
he's
you
know,
if
he
didn't
report
to
commissioner
Carr,
that's
an
individual
issue,
but
I
am
going
to
vote
for
Mr
salesman.
I.
I
J
I
yeah
I
would
I
think
Mr
salzman's
firm
is
is
good,
but
we
also
discussed
potentially
picking
one
firm
for
each
category
and,
if
that,
if
that
was
the
case,
I
did
have
there.
J
There
was
another
section
that
could
be
for
up
for
discussion,
but
with
the
way
the
situation
is
in
the
the
two
firms
withdrawing
from
the
the
proposal,
I
think
could
be
in
the
best
interest
of
the
city
for
us
to
do
our
due
diligence
just
to
put
another
RFP
out
and
and
retain
his
firm
for
the
temporary
services
for
right
now
for
City
Attorney,
Services,
okay,.
A
Thank
you,
I've
worked
with
Mr
Salzman
a
bit
now
and
I.
Don't
have
an
issue
with
Mr
Salzman
I.
My
concern
is
similarly
like.
We
need
a
little
depth
in
terms
of
personnel.
A
A
I
was
able
to
speak
to
Mr
O'reilly,
the
city
manager
of
Gulfport,
who
spoke
very
highly
of
Mr
salesman,
but
also
basically
asked
them
who
other
than
Mr
Salzman
works
with
them,
and
he
said
he's
the
only
one
he
covers
it
all
and
that's
four
boards
we've
got
five
and
that's
going
to
be
nine
boards
a
month
that
have
to
be
covered
and
that
and
that,
for
me,
I
think,
is
given
the
amount
of
work
that
we
have
as
far
as
just
ordinances
and
and
the
various
boards
and
in
the
Specialties
in
each
board.
A
I
think
it's
a
whole
lot
for
one
person
and
then,
of
course,
when,
if
there's
any
issues
with
Mr
salzman's
absence,
who
would
be
covering
those
sort
of
thing,
the
other
thing
too
is
Mr.
O'reilly
spoke
very
highly
of
Mr
Salzman
as
a
litigator
as
well.
I
asked
him
about
that,
and
so
you
know
you've
got
to
Champion
there
with
the
city
manager
there
in
Gulfport.
A
So
the
one
thing
that,
with
all
three
presentations
made
the
other
day-
and
it
wasn't
just
as
I
said-
I
spoke
to
Ms
Lewis
before
this
morning,
actually
late
last
week,
and
what
I
think
we
were
missing
is
the
fact
that
the
City
attorney
is
not
just
this
commission's
attorney.
A
The
the
thing
that
I
don't
know
is
is
I've,
even
though
I've
had
good
conversations
with
Mr
Salzman
I,
don't
know
what
is
for
sake
of
a
better
word
is
bedside
manner
is
sitting
here
next
to
us
and
then
also
the
same
thing
with
the
other
boards
and
I
suspect.
It
would
be
very,
very
professional,
but
I'd
I
would
also
like
to
confirm
this,
because
this
is
going
to
be
for
us
a
long-term
commitment.
A
A
We
talked
about
perhaps
Ms
Lewis.
As
far
as
how
do
you
solve
that
problem,
as
far
as
seeing
somebody
in
action
and
perhaps
any
you
know
in
an
rnp
request
that
some
video
be
provided
of
that
attorney
in
action
at
whatever
City
commission
meeting
or
whatever
board
that
there
are
and
then
also
which
I
think
finally
caught
up
with
everybody,
is
the
Matrix
of
all
of
our
boards
and
then
also
if,
if
a,
if
one
attorney
isn't
going
to
cover
all
of
them,
then
what
other
attorneys
in
their
in
that
firm?
A
That
is
competing
for
the
City
Attorney
Services
would
be
there.
And
if
there
are
other
City
attorneys,
they
would
have
to
be
here
as
well.
So
we
could
see
who
they
are
and
perhaps
interview
them
as
well
as
part
of
the
process
that
would
be
all
submitted
as
part
of
our
an
RP.
A
That's
what
I
I
would
like
to
see
in
the
future.
Also
I
know
that
we
didn't
advertise
the
the
RP
on
the
the
Florida
bars
website.
As
far
as
potential
commissions
for
Attorney
Services.
We
didn't
do
that
I'm,
not
sure
who
we
did
I,
think
we.
We
got
some
fine
firms
that
responded
to
the
rfps,
but
I
think
we
could
have
gotten,
maybe
a
little
more
exposure
as
well
in
that
regard.
A
As
far
as
at
this
point
as
again
we're
down
to
one
applicant
I,
don't
want
to
be
put
in
a
position
to
to
basically
take
what
is
left
I'm
sure
Mr
Salzman
would
be
able
to
help
us
I,
just
don't
know
whether
long
term
that
would
be
viable
with
all
the
activity
and
work
he's
got
with
Gulfport
and
the
work
that
he
would
have
with
us
and
and
of
course,
the
litigation
that
he's
doing
for
us
right
now.
I
A
No
I
mean
that's
interesting.
We
we
Ms
Lewis.
That
was
the
first
thing
that
we
talked
about
Ms
Lewis.
If
we
did
another
RFP,
but
she
came
back
and
said
that
may
not
be
too
practical
and,
for
example,
if
we
have
two
meetings
a
month,
let's
say:
let's
say
you
go
out
to
you're
talking
about.
Have
Mr
Salzman
sit
in
right
now
for
not
right
now,
but
as
far.
A
F
A
G
But,
and
also,
we
also
need
a
litigation
attorney
so
right.
K
J
Yeah
I
mean
I
I'd
like
to
see
another
RFP
in
it
and
hopefully
at
a
good
faith
to
maybe
the
city
manager
can
work
on
with
Mr
salesman
for
another
temporary
extension
for
the
time
being,
and
maybe
we
could
get
our
probationary
period
in
in
that
time.
If
it,
you
know,
requires
us
to
switch
a
day
of
a
boc
meeting
I'm
all
for
it.
You
know
whatever
it
takes
to
try
to
get
that
probationary
period,
but
I
would
like
an
RFP
to
just
see
some
other
firms
apply.
A
F
Okay,
I,
don't
technically
have
the
full
day
in
front
of
me,
but
we
entered
into
the
interim
agreement
with
Yuna
Salzman,
roughly
mid-october,
and
we
did
a
90
day
originally
with
an
option
to
extend
another
90
days.
So
if
we
do
October
or
November
December,
so
roughly
mid-January
we'd
have
to
go
into
the
extension
portion
for
another
90
days.
It
takes
us
about
April
time
frame.
Okay,.
A
A
A
I
I
believe
we've
hurt
ourselves,
this
long
being
with
interim
attorneys.
I.
Think
it's
better,
and
this
is
my
take
that
Mr
Salzman
try
this
for
x
amount
of
time
and
see
if
it's
something
that
he
could
handle
and
we
could
handle
I
appreciate
what
he's
done
as
far
as
the
litigation,
but
because
we
had
a
situation
prior
where
the
attorney
possibly
was
doing
the
work
of
the
attorney
and
litigator.
We
had
issues
with
that.
I
I
spoke
with
jadina
about
the
possibility,
since
in
the
presentation
we
had
Mr
Salzman
say
our
litigation
is
not
much
now
I
understand
on
this
rfps.
We
can't
appoint
him
to
both,
but
there
is
a
possibility
that
we
can
keep
them
on
as
a
litigator
and
also
have
them
on
as
an
interim
time
limit
to
see
how
he
works
out,
and
then
we
have
an
attorney
here.
I
That's
present
he's
very
familiar
with
our
situation
and
we
have
coverage,
and
this
is
he
gets
to
see
if
he
likes
the
way
we
are
and
we
get
to
see
if
we
like
the
way
he
is,
and
at
that
point
we
would
also
just
about
be
coming
into
a
new
board
as
well.
So
that's
that's
my
take
on
it.
I
This
to
me
makes
common
sense
and
it's
a
wise
maneuver
to
do
to
try
to
readdress
another
RFP
and
then
put
it
put
it
out
and
try
to
get
feedback
and
then
schedule
you're
talking
about
a
couple
more
months,
which
is
gives
us
next
to
no
advice
for
anything
else
that
we
need
to
have
just
because
we
have
a
special
counsel
coming
up.
We
still
need
to
have
advice
on
how
we
are
going
to
handle
our
day-to-day
basis.
You
know
running
of
the
city,
so
that's.
A
So
I
understand
and
and
I
I
think
your
your
comments
are
well-meaning
and
and
I.
Think
and
I
don't
want
to
speak
for
the
commission
but
I
I.
Don't
know
that
that's
going
to
change
anybody's
mind!
That's.
A
And
if
we
want
to
move
forward
with
an
RP
I
believe
vice
mayor
your
lights
on,
do
you
have
anything
else?
You
want
to
say.
G
Yeah
I,
just
you
know,
adding
on
to
Mr
Eiser
commissioner
zeiser's
statement.
We
have
the
facility
right
now
to
extend
general
counsel
agreement
with
Mr
Salzman
for
another
three
months.
It
would
take
us
up
to
the
April
time
frame.
It's
not
what
I
heard
that's
correct,
which
in
effect
would
give
us
the
same
period
of
time
to
feel
each
other
out
as
we're
going
through
another
round
of
of
searches
anyway.
A
Deal
Ms
Lewis
if
yeah
I'm
going
to
ask
you
I'm
sorry
is
there?
Are
there
any
other
comments
in
order
to
put
the
City
Attorney
Services
out
to
bed?
We
have
to
reject
all
of
all
proposals
and
then
cancel
the
RFP.
Is
that
correct?
Is
that
the
terminology
to
use
yes.
F
We
we
would
re-solicit.
Yes,
we
would
cancel
the
current
RFP,
reject
all
the
bids
and
resolicit
with
revamp
scope
of
work
and
evaluation
factors.
A
E
I
think
you're
coming
to
a
logical
conclusion,
as
far
as
not
the
quality
of
Mr
salzman's
service,
but
the
ability
to
basically
cover
all
the
meetings
and
if
you
go
out
for
a
new
RFP
you're
going
to
have
new
guidelines
that
y'all
can
discuss
and
during
that
time
Mr
Salzman
can
work
out.
E
L
E
M
Good
evening
I'm
John
colianos
1020
Peninsula
Avenue
I'm
I'm
confused
by
the
whole
conversation
you
you
all
made
the
point
all
of
you
obviously,
except
for
commissioner
Eisner.
You
made
the
point
that
that
the
remaining
firm
didn't
have
the
staff
necessary
for
coverage
and
now
you're
entertaining
conversations
about
a
test
drive.
M
Do
you
think
you
heard
that's
what
I
was
kind
of
hearing
hey?
Let's
try
him
out,
but
then
you
guys
all
made
the
point
that
he
didn't
have
the
staff
necessary.
So
I
didn't
understand
where
this
conversation
was
going
entertaining
the
test
drive
so
I
I
would
I
agree
that
that
you
should
reject
the
the
RFP
as
it
is
now
and
put
it
out.
Okay,
but
to
test
drive
a
firm
that
you
have
all
said,
doesn't
have
the
capacity
didn't
make
any
sense
to
me.
D
A
Jump
are
there
any
public
comments
from
by
remote
access.
C
A
L
Yes,
thank
you
may
only
thank
you.
Commissioners
Robert,
rockwine,
755,
North,
Lake,
Boulevard,
sorry,
I
can't
be
there
tonight
kind
of
congested
head,
cold
and
such
but
felt
it
was
important
to
comment
that
I
feel
that
recasting
a
wider
net
and
assessing
what
you
catch
in
that
both
in
quantity
and
quality
would
be
the
best
course
of
action
with
this
I
think
that
the
RFP
was
not
probably
sent
out.
You
know
to
as
many
venues
that
attorneys
are
used
to
searching
for
that.
L
It
could
have
been
and
no
fault
to
the
staff
with
that.
This
is
something
that
that
hasn't
been
done
for
a
long
time,
but
the
ability
to
use
Mr
Salzman
in
the
interim
will
give
you
you
know,
as
as
was
previously
commented,
a
a
good
test
drive
and
that's
two-sided
both
for
him
to
see.
If
he
can,
you
know,
pedal
fast
enough
to
cover
all
the
bases
or
you
know
if
the
like,
you
said,
is
bedside
Manner
and
such
is
appealable
to
especially
the
Board
of
Commissioners.
L
So
I
think
you
have
the
opportunity
to
have
your
cake
you
needed
to
for
a
change
with
this
and
I.
Would
suggest
doing
both
retaining
Mr
salisman
for
the
additional
90
days
and
also
recasting
that
RFP
to
the
other
venues
like
the
bar
association
and
such
thank
you
very
much
and
have
a
good
evening.
Thank.
A
A
Yes,
for
the
record
commissioner
kulianis
commissioner
elect
Juliana,
so
I
know
very
well,
so
sometimes
I
might
little
throw
a
Barb
at
him
while
he's
still
a
commissioner
elect,
but
I'm
sure
things
will
be
different
once
he
gets
up
here.
So
let's
go
to
the
next
item,
which
is
litigation
attorney
services
and
we're
going
to
do
the
same
thing
start
out
with
vice
mayor
a
lot
we've
got.
Let
me
just
go
with
this
right
now.
This
one
is
the
one
that
we've
got.
A
The
Miss
Lewis
did
Mr
scaglione
withdraw
from
this
no.
F
A
Okay,
so
we've
got
Eunice
Salzman
Mr
wall,
Saxon
and
Clark
Hill
I
believe
still
in
the
running
on
this.
So
let
me
go
to
Vice
Miller
Lund.
First.
G
So
after
listening
last
week
and
consideration
and
reading
through
everybody's
excuse,
me
RFP
responses
several
times,
I'm
still
of
the
Mind
that
we
should
select
unit
Salzman
for.
H
Yeah
I
just
want
to
bring
up
something.
That's
in
the
charter,
at
section
18
of
the
City
attorney.
We
don't
currently
have
a
City
attorney
sitting
on
our
board
right
now
to
be
able
to
opine
on
this,
but
there's
a
I
think
it's
the
second
sentence.
It
says
the
City
attorney
shall
defend
the
city,
it's
its
officers
and
employees
and
litigation
involving
the
city
when
no
legal
conflict
exists
report
to
the
same
Board
of
Commissioners
and
shall
prosecute
violations
of
city
ordinance.
H
The
City
attorney
or
a
representative
from
the
city
attorney's
office
shall
attend
an
advise
all
closet,
additional
board
meetings
of
the
city,
so
I
do
I
think
we
have
three
qualified
firms
to
pick
tonight
for
litigation.
100
percent
am
I
comfortable
with
what
our
city
Charter
says
about
City
Attorney,
Services
and
litigation
I'm,
not
comfortable
with
that
right
now
and
I.
H
Don't
have
anybody
to
bounce
it
off
of
either
so
with
that
I
think
we
almost
need
to
put
a
pause
on
this
one
to
go
along
with
maybe
the
RFP
or
see
if
we
need
to
put
these
together
reach
out
to
one
of
the
city.
One
of
the
Attorney
Services
to
have
them
opine
on
what
the
the
charter
actually
says
from
a
legal
standpoint,
I
think
that
would
probably
be
the
best
Avenue
to
take
in
this
situation
tonight.
H
So
with
that
I
mean
I,
do
like,
like
I,
said
all
all
three
of
the
firms
that
are
I'm,
sorry
for
the
firms,
I
felt
comfortable
with
the
three
that
are
that
are
in
our
presence
tonight
to
select
from
but
I'm
just
not
I'm,
not
there
with
our
city
Charter.
Yet.
A
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Eisner.
I
Should
be
short
and
sweet
unit
salesman
is
the
route
I'm
gonna
go
I
like
what
he's
done
so
far
with
litigation
and
I
have
no
issues
with
him.
Continuing.
J
A
Okay,
well
the
couple
of
things
one
if
we
choose
to
go
with
Mr
Salzman
and
we
enter
into
a
contract
as
a
permanent
litigator.
All
these
contracts
are
at
the
at
the
discretion
of
the
commission.
It
could
be
terminated
at
any
time.
I
mean
that's
typically,
the
way
we
do
these
contracts
I,
don't
think
it
would
be
any
different
in
this
case.
A
Secondly,
as
Mr
salesman
said,
there
isn't
a
whole
lot
of
work
right
now,
for
litigation
and
and
and
I
I
would
hope
that
he
would
be
interested
in
this
contingent
on
getting
some
clarification,
as
commissioner
Carr
brought
up
in
the
future.
A
The
only
other
thing
that
and
I
think
is
Mr
Salzman
himself
referred
to
I.
Think
your
your
proposal
was
was
a
a
retainer
I,
think
that,
and
you
recommended
that
at
this
point
to
go
based
on
hourly
rates
and
so
I
think
that
other
than
that
would
be
the
same
drill
that
we
would
go
through
with
Mr
Salzman,
as
we
would
go
through
Carlton
Fields.
As
far
as.
A
And
then
negotiating
a
fee
for
that,
an
hourly
rate
for
that
and
and
we'll
see
how
it
goes
it
I
mean
this
is
the
best
I
think
that
we
can
do
at
this
point.
I
don't
have
an
issue
with
Mr
Salzman.
The
one
thing
that
he
is
doing
for
us
right
now
is
the
the
north
ankle
I'm.
Sorry,
not
North
I
include
Harbor
properties,
issue
with
Morgan
group
versus
in
city
of
Tarpon
Springs
versus
concerned
citizens.
A
A
And
then,
of
course,
the
contrary
to
what
our
our
our
Charter
says,
the
City
Florida
League
of
cities
assigns
their
own
litigator
or
legal
representative,
for
whatever
the
cases
are
involving
lawsuits
against
the
city,
so
I
understand
what
you're
saying
and,
and
maybe
that
needs
to
be
reconciled
as
well
and
quite
frankly,
if
we
need
an
interpretation
of
the
charter
and
unlike
what
we
did
before,
we
changed
it.
A
We're,
unlike
asking
the
City,
attorney
his
opinion,
and
we
would
reconvene
the
charter
review
commission
and
ask
them
to
provide
us
an
opinion
and
I
would
suspect
it
would
be
an
opinion
given
the
circumstances
and
then
also
at
the
very
next
election.
We
would
probably
have
some
amendment
to
that
provision.
A
If
that's
what
the
charter
review
commission
says,
if
you
recall,
we
had
a
an
issue
over
the
internal
auditor,
where
I
thought
it
was
fairly
clear,
but
that
the
city
shall
have
an
internal
auditor,
but
a
City
attorney
in
the
past
interpreted
that
as
not
necessarily
a
full-time
City
attorney
or
internal
auditor.
Nor
does
do
they
have
to
be
a
city
employee,
and
this
last
City
revision.
I'm.
Sorry,
commission
actually
amended
that
put
it
to
the
residents,
it
got
changed
and
we've
got
Mr
pulos
who's.
A
Our
internal
auditor
now
so
I
understand
what
commissioner
Carr
is
saying
and
we've
got
to
be
careful
on
these
matters,
but
as
of
right
now
we
don't
have
a
City
attorney,
we're
going
to
go
out
to
for
new
RP
and
and
put
that
out
the
proposal,
and
so
we
may
be
talking
about
this
once
we
choose
a
City
attorney
in
the
April
time
frame
of
2023.
Would
you
agree
with
that
part?
Okay,
vice
mayor
alone?
Yes,.
G
I
haven't
had
a
chance
to
actually
read
all
the
code
that
that
commissioner
Carr
brought
up,
but
unless
that
section
says
all
litigation
and
all
of
of
the
job
duties
described
for
them,
I
think
we're
safe
with
the
charter
right
now.
If
it
doesn't
say
all
that
means
we
can
have
more
than
one.
A
You
know
I
is
again
I
don't
want
to
get
into
interpreting
the
charter
this
evening.
I
think
we've
got
a
solution
in
front
of
us.
O
Simple
Solution
is
to
just
get
an
attorney
general
opinion
present
the
question
to
the
attorney
general.
We
brief
it
and
they
give
us
an
opinion
as
to
your
concern,
it's
relatively
straightforward
and,
and
that
way
you're
not
looking
at
anybody
else,
who's
trying
to
give
the
opinion
for
their
own
purpose
or
or
whatever
you're,
getting
it
an
independent
so
that
that's
always
an
option
to
look
at,
and
it's
relatively
quick.
A
C
A
The
other
thing
we
will
we
need
negotiation,
negotiating
free
fee
structure
with
that
as
well.
I
think,
which
would
be
different
and
I
think
what
was
submitted
by.
H
Admit
that
that
there
is
a
negotiation
for
the
hourly
verse,
retainer
fee.
A
Okay,
is
there
an
amendment
on
the
second
on
that
second.
A
N
Tonight
you
couldn't
appointed,
for
instance,
Mr
Salzman,
to
two
positions
because
of
the
way
the
bid
went
out,
you
got
Janina
working
on
another
bid
with
some
criterias.
She
probably
needs
to
either
understand
tonight
or
before.
N
If
that
restrict
do
you
want
to
consider
if,
when
she
puts
out
that
bid
that
restriction
of
separate
attorneys,
there
has
to
be
a
decision,
whether
that
goes
out
in
the
second
bit
or
not
when
she
puts
it
out,
because
the
first
one
you
couldn't
appointed
one
person
to
two
of
those
the
way
it
went
out,
you're
starting
a
new
one,
did
you
want
to
put
a
restriction
in
that
or
not
or
open
it
up,
so
you
can
either
choose
the
same
one
or
choose
a
different
one
from
the
litigation.
A
Let
me
just
start
off
that
with
a
couple
of
comments
and
then
I'd
like
to
hear
from
the
other
Commissioners.
First,
we
when
we
first
set
up
these
RPS.
We
wanted
basically
a
separation
Independence
between
the
three,
not
commissioner
Eisner.
The
special
counsel
needs
to
remain
independent.
Mr
Schwartz
made
that
very
clear
that
they're
not
going
to
be
doing
any
litigation
because
it
would
incent.
D
A
Would
taint
the
objectivity
of
the
investigation
by
incentivizing
that
they,
if
they
do,
find
something
they
would
be
litigating?
So
we
that's
that's
the
clear
part,
so
there
would
be
a
separate
litigator
if
that
came
forward.
A
The
other
part
is
as
far
as
involving
that
in
the
City
attorney,
whatever
litigation,
if
any
comes
out,
I'm
sure
it's
going
to
be
very,
very
complex
and
I
think
it
would
take
a
whole
lot
of
concentration
on
whoever
is
going
to
be
the
litigator
in
order
to
deal
with
it
and
I
want,
from
my
perspective,
I'm
hoping
after
the
first
of
the
year
after
January,
actually
after
Epiphany,
and
everything
settles
down,
we'll
be
able
to
hit
into
some
kind
of
a
stride
for
moving
the
city
forward
with
new
initiatives
that
have
been
sitting
there
waiting
for
this
thing
to
get
behind
us
and
dealing
with
it.
A
So
you
know
I
know
what
our
Charter
says:
I
think
that
what
we
could
do
is
in
what
you're
saying
is
that
we
would
what
you're
saying
is:
when
do
we
put
this
RP
out
right?
Well,
it's
a
timing
issue
as
well.
N
A
The
question
if
Mr
salzman's
interested
in
that
I
mean
I,
I,
I
I,
don't
want
to
start
making
any
assumptions
here
this
evening.
I
think
the
the
question
is
very
simple:
do
we
want
any
litigation
at
this
point
involving
Anclote
Harbor?
A
The
special
counsel
comes
out
and
says:
look
there
really
doesn't
look
like
there's
going
to
be
anything
we
we
are
going
to
recommend
some
policies
and
things
like
that.
Then
it
may
be
easier
to
have
the
litigator,
as
we've
always
done
part
of
the
law
firm.
As
a
City
attorney,
although
I'm
not
sure
I'm
completely
comfortable
with
that,
given
I
I,
just
it
it's
I,
don't
know
how
much
interaction.
A
The
worst
thing
you
can
have
is
have
two
attorneys
in
the
same
Law
Firm,
one,
the
litigation,
one,
the
City
attorney
and
then
disagreeing
about
how
to
go
forward
in
a
lawsuit
and
and
that's
my
concern-
there's
got
to
be
one
person
that
is
in
charge.
That's
responsible,
I!
Don't
want
to
put
this
commission.
This
is
why
I
think
of
this
way.
I.
Think
of
that
way,
and
the
other
person
says
I
want
to
go
this
way.
What
do
you
think
I?
Don't
think?
That's
a
fair
question
to
this
commission.
A
We're
not
attorneys
and
and
I.
So
I've
got
a
little
concern
about
that.
So
I,
don't
I,
wouldn't
mind
waiting
a
while
before
we
make
that
next
before
we
put
that
RP
out,
maybe
after
the
holidays
in
January
and
then
and
then,
let's
reevaluate,
where
we
are
at
that
time,
I
don't
know
how
long
it
takes
to
get
the
city
I'm.
Sorry
a
State
Attorneys.
It's
the
state
attorney
right
attorney,.
N
A
Attorney
general's
opinion,
as
far
as
the
this
Charter
provision
that
we've
got
but
I'd
like
to
embark
on
that,
certainly
prior
to
in
the
next
week,
or
so
if
we've
got
time
recognizing
the
holidays,
but
as
soon
as
we
can
get
that
to
the
attorney
general
and
let
them
work
on
that
and
get
back
to
us
on
that
as
well
and
see
what
they've
got
to
say
before
we
go
out
for
an
RP.
That
way
we
can
address
what
city
manager
lacource
is
talking
about.
G
You
know
I'm
of
a
mind
that
litigation
these
days
takes
a
certain
amount
of
rigor
and
focus
and
I'm
not
completely
satisfied.
Nor
have
I
ever
been
completely
satisfied
that
a
general
City
attorney
firm
can
both
litigate
and
advise
at
the
same
time,
I
think
those
things
are
somewhat
aligned,
but
but
not
totally,
especially
in
today's
somewhat
rather
litigious
area,
so
I'm
of
a
mind
to
keep
them
separate.
G
If
you
want
to
ask
the
question
of
the
the
Attorney
General
with
regards
to
the
City
attorney
Clark
with
Section
18
of
our
our
city
Charter,
that's
that's
one
thing
it
says:
shall
it
does
not
say
will
which
means?
There's
some
flexibility
in
there
I'm
sure
the
Attorney
General
will
will
probably
back
up
my
statement
there.
G
H
Yeah
two
things:
I,
don't
think
Eunice,
Salzman
and
Jensen
should
be
disqualified
from
applying
for
the
City
attorney
City
City,
Attorney,
Services
I
think
he
he's
heard
tonight,
though,
if
he
were
to
apply
that
he
would
need
to
strengthen
I,
guess
the
his
staff
and
then
from
an
RFP
standpoint,
I'm
fine,
with
sending
it
out
next
week
as
long
as
staff
is
here,
are
working
on
it
and
then
putting
in
the
end
of
January
reply.
J
I
do
agree
when
it
when
it
comes
to
I
believe
both
vice
mayor
and
Carwin
comes
to
a
commissioner
Carr
to
get
an
rfpl
as
soon
as
we
can.
But
we
understand
our
timing,
but
have
it
stay
open
until
late,
January,
early
February,
just
to
it's
the
New
Year
holiday
season?
Most
you
know
firms
companies
really
don't
get
back
into
the
group
of
work
until
mid-January.
J
You
know.
So
that's
something
to
consider
I
just
want
to
make
sure
we
have
just
as
much
exposure
and
for
advertising
to
get
all
the
people
to
apply
as
possible.
But
mayor
you
did
bring
up
a
good
point
and
some
regarding
maybe
a
separate
litigation
if
something
were
to
come
out
of
any
type
of
findings
with
the
ankle
Arbors.
So
that
would
be
something
I'd
be
open
for,
but
I
think
Mr
salzman's
firm
is
is
great
for
overall
for
litigation
for
long
term
for
the
city,
for
usually
everything
we
handle.
A
Okay,
so
what
does
this
all
mean?
We
don't
put
the
RP,
we
put
the
RP
out,
but
don't
don't
close
it
until
somebody
said
I.
Think,
commissioner,
you
said
January,
but
we
could
extend
the
contract
till
April
I
think
we
should
get
some.
You
know
if
it
doesn't
hurt
anything,
we
could
get
an
opinion
from
the
attorney
general.
As
far
as
this
it.
G
Doesn't
hurt
anything
it's
mid-January,
commissioner
coulias
is
dead
on
when
he
says
now
is
not
the
time
to
put
an
RFP
out
there.
Okay
I
think
you
get
response,
but
I
think
we
want
to
be
as
broad
as
possible.
I
mean
I
know
we
did
demand
star
and
so
forth.
We
might
want
to
publish
in
some
legal
affiliated
Publications
just
to
widen
our
scope,
but
the
time
to
prepare
that
to
change
the
RFP
or
decide
whether
this
RFP
should
be
exclusionary
or
not,
etc,
etc.
We've
probably
a
couple
of
weeks:
it's
Christmas
time.
G
A
Miss
Lewis,
you
want
to
come
up
here
and
give
us
a
hand
here.
F
The
City
attorney
we
did
30
days
just
based
on
all
the
factors
of
being
the
City
attorney.
The
other
two
we
did
I
think
was
15
days
because.
L
I
A
Got
we've
got
two
law
firms
under
retainer
for
City
Attorney,
Services,
Mr,
salzman's
firm,
helped
us
out
in
an
emergency
basis
with
Miss
Miss
cast
Elite
casting
I'm,
sorry
gastilygi
and
for
a
couple
of
meetings.
But
that
was
as
a
result
of
the
Vos
from
pulling
out
of
zacharach.
N
I
A
Okay,
well,
let's
cut
to
the
chase
on
all
of
this,
because
I
I
don't
want
to
sit
here
and
Chase
ourselves
around
the
tree
on
this
stuff.
I
I
think
basically
there's
a
question
of
whether
a
litigation
attorney
can
also
be
the
City
attorney.
That's
number
one!
It
was
suggested
that
we
go
to
the
attorney
general
for
an
opinion.
That's
number
two
I
think
that's
generally
a
good
idea
to
do
that.
I.
I
A
Number
three:
we've
got
two
law
firms
that
are
already
on
retainer
for
City
Attorney
Services
that
have,
in
my
opinion,
have
served
as
well.
You'll
see
a
little
bit
of
that
handiwork
tomorrow,
night
and
so
I'm
comfortable
with
continuing
on
the
way
we're
doing.
Mr
Salzman
has
been
selected
as
a
litigating
attorney
this
evening,
we'll
be
getting
some
exposure
and
being
able
to
talk
to
him
and
things
of
that
nature.
I.
Think
at
this
point
we
need
to
decide.
When
are
we
going
to
put
this
RP
out
for
the
City
Attorney
Services?
A
And
then
when
are
we
going
to
close
it
all
this
other
stuff?
With
regard
to
Mr
salesman?
You
know
doing
this
and
doing
that
and
and
is
is
great,
but
let's
get
the
work
done
tonight
and
then
between
now
and
the
time
we
decide
on
the
City
attorney.
We'll
have
ample
time
to
discuss
this
again.
So
two
questions:
when
do
we
want
to
send
the
RP
out
the
new
RP
on
City
Attorney
Services.
H
A
N
Again,
it'd
be
be
realistic
with
what
we
have
getting
it
out
by
the
you
heard
when
the
ending
date
was,
but
when
real
is
you've
heard
what
they've
they've
said
for
a
new
RFP
and
the
things
to
add
with
your
other
duties,
you
have
to
do
for
the
end
of
the
year.
When
do
you
think
it's
a
reasonable
time
for
you
and
give
yourself
the
leeway
of
time
the
reasonable
dates
you
can
get
this
on
the
market.
F
Packaged
together
so
that
we're
clear
on
the
direction
of
the
evaluation
factors
that
you're
looking
for
just
to
make
sure
that
you're
you're
getting
the
most
out
of
of
the
written
information
in
the
submittals
and
then
also
when
they
come
to
interview
that
you're.
You
know
you're
getting
all
the
information
up
front
that
you
really
need
so
I
I.
Think
the
first
of
the
first
week
of
January
I
could
have
everything
ready
to
go
and
to
put
out.
We
could
do
certainly
31.
F
Third
and
go
into
the
first
week
of
February
sure,
and
then
you
know,
I
think
that's
enough
time
for
professional
firms
to
understand
our
requirements.
A
lot
of
people
are
aware
of
what
a
City
attorney
you
know
generally
the
scope
of
the
service
as
far
as
them
putting
their
submittal
packages
together.
That's
what
takes
the
most
time
for
firms.
D
A
Days
and
I
just
I,
don't
know
how
long
it
takes
if
it's.
If
this
commission's
interest,
if
you're
not
interested,
we
need
to
know
that
now,
if
you're
not
interested
in
getting
an
attorney
general's
opinion
on
the
charter,
if
you're
interested
in
it
I,
don't
think
we're
going
to
get
anything
back
in
by
January
on
that.
G
A
I
I
honestly,
don't
understand
what
the
urgency
is.
I
mean.
We've
got
interim
contracts
that
take
us
through
April,
the
middle
of
April
I
I.
You
know
I
just
want
to
do
this
right.
I,
don't
want
to
rush
through
this.
This
is
going
to
be
an
attorney.
That's
going
to
be
sitting
next
to
us
for
at
least
mine.
Next
to
and
I
you
know,
God
willing,
my
next
two
and
a
half
years
and
I
would
hope
that
you
know
those
of
you
that
run.
A
A
A
I
A
motion
to
for
30
to
45
days.
H
A
I
B
A
Okay
again,
thank
you
all
for
everyone's
cooperation
this
evening.
If
these
things
could
get
a
little
bit
frustrating
and
we
all
maintained
our
composure
and
I
very
much
appreciate
that.
A
That
all
right,
the.
A
A
We're
going
to
move
on
to
item
four
and
what
we're
going
to
do.
This
is
Land
Development
code,
smart
code
and
comprehensive
plan
amendments,
and
these
are
the
first
readings
these
were
deferred
from
last
week.
There's
there's
eight
of
them.
One
has
been
deferred,
which
is
item
a
to
a
date
to
be
determined
which
leaves
a
seven
and
so
we're
going
to
take
these
one.
At
a
time,
I
I
talked
briefly
with
Ms
Vincent
before
the.
A
A
The
only
thing
that
we've
got
is
I
mean
if
you
want
to
go
online
to
City
commission
agenda
I,
don't
you
mean
a
paper
copy
mayor.
A
A
Code
amendments
Land
Development
code,
amendments,
City
manual
course,
a.
P
Thank
you
good
evening,
mayor
and
commitment
vice
mayor.
Yes,
sir.
O
Ordinance
2022-23
an
ordinance
of
the
city
of
Tarpon,
Springs
Florida,
amending
the
city
of
Tarpon,
Springs
code
of
ordinances,
appendix
a
comprehensive
zoning
and
Land
Development
code,
article
12,
section
205.00,
General
Provisions,
providing
for
severability
providing
for
inclusion
in
the
code
of
ordinances
of
the
city
of
Tarpon,
Springs,
Florida
and
providing
for
the
effective
date
of
this
ordinance.
That
is
ordinance.
P
Thank
you
again.
This
is
Ordnance
2022-23,
just
a
little
bit
of
a
holistic
background
on
these.
The
development
of
these
took
place
over
several
workshops,
both
with
the
planning
and
zoning
board
for
the
area
and
putting
recommendations,
as
well
as
with
the
Board
of
Commissioners.
So,
hopefully,
I've
been
able
to
address
the
these
issues
that
were
deemed
you
know
a
little
more
urgent
than
waiting
for
the
comp
plan
and
other
things
to
be
done.
So
with
that
ordinance
2022-23.
This
is
the
first.
P
The
annexation
ordinance
that
was
prior
to
this
was
deferred.
The
Planning
and
Zoning
Board
wanted
to
do
some
additional
work
on
that.
This
particular
ordinance
is
addressing
the
lack
of
Direction
in
Our
Land
Development
code
when
you
have
multiple
application
types
for
a
single
projects.
So
if
a
project
needs,
for
example,
land
use,
map
Amendment
or
rezoning,
or
they
need
a
conditional
use
of
variance
or
plan
development
it,
it
seeks
to
provide
some
guidance,
that
is
at
the
discretion
of
the
city
manager.
The
way
this
is
written
as
to
the
order
of
those
applications.
P
We
can
specify
that
a
future
land
use
map
has
to
stand
on
its
own
and
can't
be
lumped
in
with
a
bunch
of
other
applications
for
the
same
project
that
might
confuse
the
issue
when
you're.
Just
looking
at
the
the
merits
of
just
changing
the
land
use
plan
itself
and
the
comprehensive
plan
we
provide
for
some
order
of
operations.
If
you
have
a
site
plan
that
also
requires
a
variance
the
as
well
as
historic
preservation
board
approval.
P
So
hopefully
you've
had
a
chance
to
review
this,
and
if
you're,
if
you
have
any
questions,
please
let
me
know
the
Planning
and
Zoning
Board
did
review
this,
and
there
was
one
minor
change
on
subparagraph
E4
I,
just
reworded
project
that
the
site
plan
to
be
project.
So
with
that
I'll
stop
and
answer
any
questions
you
might.
A
Have
okay,
let
me
go
to
public
comments.
Are
there
any
public
comments
this
evening
on
this
particular
item,
Mr
Chomp?
Are
there
any
public
comments
by
remote
access.
G
Renee
I'm
trying
not
to
be
too
picky,
but
I
did
read
through
pretty
thoroughly
on
Section
e
number,
two
where
it
says
preliminary
plan
development
must
be
approved
prior
to
final
plan
development
and
or
may
not
appear
in
the
same
agenda.
G
My
personal
belief
is
I,
don't
really
like
seeing
them
both
on
the
same
agenda
at
all,
so
I'm
wondering
why
the
ore
is
there.
It.
P
Does
give
the
option
so
it
could
be.
You
could
have
an
instance
where,
if
it's
a
fairly
small,
you
know
project
where
you
know
it's
very
cut
and
dry,
then
there
may
not
be
any
harm.
So
again,
this
was
written
to
be
at
the
discretion
of
the
city
manager
or
designee.
So
there
is
a
little
bit
of
flexibility
built
into
it.
P
G
My
preference
would
be
to
have
the
ore
removed
similar
comment
on
Section
e
item
five.
As
far
as
both
quasi-judicial
and
legislative
applications
being
done
on
the
same
agenda,
I.
Don't
think
that
should.
N
A
H
A
I
Commissioner
Eisner
thank
you.
Mayor
I
also
have
an
issue
with
what
is
it
E5
as
well
and
I'm?
Glad
Vice
may
have
brought
it
up
I'm
in
agreement
to
what
he
said.
I
don't
see
that
it
should
appear
on
the
same
agenda.
A
I
agree,
commissioner:
kulias.
J
Well,
I
thank
vice
mayor
for
being
able
to
catch
it
and
it
I
know
there
could
be
small
projects
where
it
that,
may
you
know,
expedite
the
the
application,
but
just
for
the
security
of
you
know
just
boards
not
taking
advantage
of
that
I'd
like
to
agree
with
the
vice
mayor
as
well
on
on
both
e
two
and
five.
D
J
B
J
J
A
O
Ordinance
2022-24
an
ordinance
of
the
city
of
Tarpon,
Springs
Florida,
amending
the
city
of
Tarpon,
Springs
code
of
ordinances,
appendix
a
comprehensive
zoning
and
Land
Development
code,
article
8,
amended,
section
122.12,
hurricane
shelter,
impact
study
and
article
9,
adding
section
149.00,
Coastal,
High,
Hazard
area
development
regulations
and
section
149.01
c
h,
a
design
standards
providing
for
severability
providing
for
inclusion
in
the
code
of
ordinances
of
the
city
of
Tarpon,
Springs,
Florida
and
providing
for
the
effective
date
of
this
ordinance.
That
is
ordinance.
P
Thank
you.
This
is
ordinance
2022-24
before
I
go
into
this
one.
I
do
want
to
announce
that
when
attorney
Kardashian
reviewed
this,
the
original
title
did
not
include
the
addition
of
section
14901
and
so
we're
going
to
need
for
part.
She
said
that
we
could
go
ahead
and
have
first
reading,
but
we
will
need
to
defer
the
second
reading
tomorrow
night
till
after
we
can
re-advertise
and
bring
it
back
in
January,
so
just
want
to
get
that
into
the
record.
P
P
If
you
recall,
you
know,
if
you
hit
a
certain
threshold,
you're
required
to
do
a
hurricane
impact,
shelter
analysis
as
part
of
a
development
proposal,
so
the
first
part
of
the
ordinance
is
actually
tightening
that
section
of
the
code
up.
So
that's
122.12
I
do
want
to
call
specific
attention
to
when
the
Planning
and
Zoning
Board
reviewed
this.
They
did
recommend
approval
with
some
amendments
and
under
subparagraph,
a
the
previous
threshold
for
triggering
a
hurricane
shelter
impact
study
requirement
was
50
units
or
more.
P
They
recommended
that
it
be
10,
reducing
that
to
10
units
or
more
so
that's
how
it's
reflected
in
the
in
the
code
Amendment
this
evening,
the
we
we
recommended,
including
the
the
shelter
analysis,
shall
be
performed
based
on
a
category
33
hurricane
impact.
If
we
recall
in
the
past
we
didn't,
we
didn't
have
a
bright
line
as
to
what
standard
or
you
know
what
size
of
a
hurricane
do.
We
really
want
to
look
at
when
we're
trying
to
determine
shelter
impact.
So
a
category
3
is
a
major
hurricane.
P
So
that's
that's
what
we're
recommending
be
added?
We
were
removing
for
the
data
sources
to
do
the
study
we
removed
the
third
party
and
data
sources,
specifically
the
Private
Industry
Association
reports.
We
wanted
to
stick
with
accepted
governmental
agencies
that
deal
with
evacuation
studies
and
needs.
P
These
are
completely
new.
These
are
largely
modeled
after
the
city
of
Saint
petersburg's
ordinance.
They
are
the
only
other
city
that
I'm
aware
of
in
Pinellas
County.
That
has
these
these
additional
standards
for
development
in
the
coastal
Hazard
area,
so
at
a
high
level,
any
kind
of
multi-family
development
or
or
Townhomes
single
family
attached
any
project
that
of
that
type,
that
is
also
within
the
coastal
High
Hazard
area
at
a
minimum,
has
to
build
to
a
to
a
base,
flood
elevation
plus
three
feet
and
they
have
to
build
to
the
next
higher
wind
load
standard.
P
P
So
that's
kind
of
the
high
level
of
what
this
set
of
set
of
new
standards
are.
Are
we
did
coordinate
this
with
our
floodplain
coordinator,
as
well
as
our
building
department,
to
make
sure
that
we
weren't
going
too
far
and
being
too
restrictive,
I
mean
I'm
concerned
about
you
know
just
it
doesn't.
It
could
potentially
have
an
impact
on
you
know
on
developers,
and
we
may
hear
about
that.
But
given
what's
happened
with
you
know
earlier
this
year
and
you
know
where
we,
where
we
sit
as
a
community.
P
We
think
this
is
a
good
inclusion
in
the
code
and
again
it
is
only
for
multi-family
and
single
family
attached.
So
I'll
stop
there
and
I'll
answer
any
questions
that
you
might
have.
Okay,.
G
Hi
Renee
I
had
trouble
with
this
whole
section
Ben.
Forgive
me
for
not
being
able
to
have
the
time
this
week
has
been
active
for
me
to
get
back
to
you,
but
I'll
try
to
be
brief.
G
P
At
least
it's
telling
the
story
of
where
these
came
from
and
what
the
origin
and
what
they're
based
on
so
they've
been
vetted.
You
know,
but
no
I
mean
it
doesn't
have
to
be
there.
G
Yeah
I,
just
you
know
it
was
just
a
I.
Looked
at
it
and
went
I,
don't
even
know
why
we're
mentioning
them
on
the
fourth,
whereas
where
it
says
extensive
lands
located
within
the
cha
that
are
also
I'm,
not
quite
sure
why
the
also
is
needed
there.
D
G
G
Okay,
so
further
on,
on
page
two,
we
mentioned
the
most
recent
U.S
census
or
Florida
Statistical
Abstract,
the
U.S
census
is
done.
Every
10
years
is
the
Florida
Statistical
Abstract
done
more
frequently.
P
That's
original
language
I
think
the
statistical
abstracts
generally
come
out
on
an
annual
basis,
so.
D
P
G
G
G
Well,
it
doesn't
say
that
it
says
well
yeah,
it
does
say
most
recent
you're
right.
Excuse
me,
okay,
so
in
section
c
it
says
the
study
should
provide
solutions
for
mitigation
where
a
shelter
deficit
is
projected,
and
so
this
is
probably
a
a
personal
approach
to
all
this.
G
But
from
my
point
of
view,
there
is
no
mitigation
for
not
having
actual
physical
shelters
period.
If
you
don't
have
room
to
put
people,
you
don't
have
shelters
if
I've
paid
into
something
or,
for
example,
provided
on-site
space
or
provided
funds
for
training
volunteers.
That
doesn't
help
me
if
I've
got
people
with
nowhere
to
go.
It
doesn't
help
me
whatsoever.
What
am
I
supposed
to
tell
my
people.
The
shelters
are
all
full,
but
we
paid
into
raising
a
row.
I
mean
that
does
that's.
That's
no
help.
I
just
I
just
failed
to
see
this.
G
G
It
seems
to
be
revised
because
I,
don't
think,
there's
an
excuse
for
not
having
a
place
for
your
citizens
to
go
because
some
developers
paid
into
some
fund
or
educated
somebody
or
or
gave
somebody
something
it's
just
just
not
realistic,
I
mean
I
know
it's
a
nice
way
to
let
them
out,
but
I,
don't
think
they
need
a
door
number
two
or
three
or
four
or
five.
That's
my
personal
comment,
so
you
know-
and
you
know
things
in
the
Land
Development
called.
G
Let's
say
I
mean
it's
been
there
for
a
while,
but
it
says
you
know
direct
payment
of
a
shelter
mitigation
fee
to
the
city
of
Tarpon
Springs.
We
don't
have
a
shelter
in
the
city
of
Tarpon,
Springs
anymore.
We
had
one
then,
but
what
are
we
supposed
to
do
with
a
direct
payment,
now
coordinate,
sheltered
to
put
it
towards.
G
So
I
I
don't
know
this
whole
thing
from
from
my
point
of
view
is
needs
a
total
rewrite
from
from
that
perspective,
moving
on
to
the
coastal
High
Hazard
area
development,
section
I'm,
assuming
where
it
says
new
construction
of
residential
dwelling
units
also
applies
to
residential
family,
or
is
it
just
town,
homes
and.
P
P
But
this
section
is
meant
for
applicable
person.
You
know
for
application,
it's
really
meant
to
it.
Well,
it's
not
meant.
It
applies
to
new
multi-family
construction
and
single-family
attached.
Townhomes,
okay
in
the
coastal,
Hazard
area
and
I
did
apologize.
I
put
a
coastal
Hazard
area
map
in
front
of
everybody's.
G
But
the
clarification
just
missed
me,
I
guess,
as
I
said,
I
didn't
have
a
whole
lot
of
time
to
go
through
this,
because
it's
been
kind
of
hectic
when
we
say-
and
we
refer
to
under
14901
B,
where
we
refer
to
three
feet
above
the
minimum
FEMA
a
BFE
or
the
FEMA
500
year,
flood
elevation,
which
one
is
more
restrictive.
In
your
opinion,
it.
P
There's
no
there's
no
bright
line
there.
That's
actually
that
language,
the
or
the
FEMA
500
year
flood
elevation
was
actually
added
by
our
floodplain
Management
Consultant
that
we
work
with
for
things
like
our
Coast,
our
well
for
those
ordinances
and
regulations.
P
So
it
there's
no
there's
no
standard
as
to
which
may
be
higher.
I
honestly,
don't
know
the
answer
to
that.
P
The
it's
just
so
that
for
folks,
the
FEMA
FEMA
Maps
do
not
take
into
consideration
Coastal
storm
surge
events
as
but
they're
really
riverine
and
rainfall
type
of
events.
So
you
so
you
do
kind
of
have
two
different
two
different
things
happening
here.
So
that's.
Why
that
we
picked
up
the
500
year
500
year,
flood
plain
and
added
that
to
this,
so
that
we're
kind
of
covering
both
both.
G
Angles
I
understand
and
then
with
B.
G
Subject:
I,
don't
know
one
two
to
fourteen:
where
did
these
come
from,
because
these
are
really
are
not
anything
that
mitigates
or
protects
people
from
from
building
in
high
flood
areas?
It
just
makes
things
maybe
nicer.
I
I,
just
don't
understand.
They're.
P
They're
largely
resiliency
measures
and
again
I.
This
is
this-
is
based
after
St,
petersburg's
ordinance,
so
they're,
you
know
the
intent.
There
was
to
really
to
address
the
short
term
of
the
physical
structures
being
built
and
elevated
to
higher
wind
loads,
but
also
their
long-term
sustainability
goals,
of
reducing
CO2
emissions
and
increasing
solar
and
things
of
that.
So
it
was
a
two-part.
D
P
P
G
G
H
Thanks
mayor
I
think
the
three
feet
above
base
flood
is
the
best
thing
we
could
do
at
minimum.
I
think
it's.
It
makes
complete
sense.
I
think
it'll
also
help
out
our
rating
as
a
more
of
a
I
forget
what
what
Megan
does,
but
what
she
does
with
the
fire
and
the
planning
department
or
permit
department
is
going
to
go
a
long
way.
A
couple
of
things
I
just
want
clarification
on
Section
149,
Item
B.
H
H
H
I'm,
not
sure
if
that
puts
the
city
not
in
compliance
and
at
that
point
I
just
it
would
be
nice
to
understand
that
a
little
bit
more
and
I
don't
need
to
answer
tonight
and
then
the
other
question
would
be
pertaining
to
the
public,
the
raw
sewage
plant,
where
they
process
the
reclaimed
water.
Does
that
fall
in
that
category
as
well
too?
No.
P
Solid,
it's
it's
we're
talking
about,
essentially
garbage
handling,
typically
or
your
treatment
plants
are
going
to
be
located
at
fairly
low
low,
okay,
Low
Places
in
your
in
your
municipalities.
All.
H
Right
and
then
item
number
e,
it
talks
about
new
construction,
multi-family
residential
dwelling
units.
You
mentioned
something
about
Townhomes,
so
it
would
a
duplex
fall
into
into
this
category.
No.
Is
that
a
separate?
What's
that
categorized
a.
P
Single
family
and
duplexes,
actually
single-family,
duplex
and
Triplex
would
not
excuse
me.
Triplex
wood,
single
one
and
two
family
is
a
separate
category,
so
it
would
not
apply.
Triplex
is
an
up
wood.
H
Okay,
a
couple
questions
I
think
the
vice
mayor
alone
actually
asked
a
couple
good
questions
about
the
hurricane
impact
mitigation
allowed
or
not
allowed.
If
the
mitigation
was
just
completely
wiped
out,
and
then
it
comes
back
and
says
for
a
category,
three
Pinellas
County
is
at
its
capacity
until
more
hurricane
shelters
are
provided
at
that
point,
it
doesn't
matter
what
developer
comes
before
us
that
they
would
have
no
ability
to
to
propose
a
project,
then
greater
than
10
units
is
that
right.
P
It
says
the
study
shall
provide
solutions
for
mitigation
where
a
shelter
deficit
is
projected.
So
these
this
laundry
list
undersea
are
things
that
the
city
could
accept
as
mitigation
when
shelter
space
is
demonstrated
that,
when
there's
a
demonstrated
need
for
shelter
space,
that's
the
way
the
ordinance
was
originally
written.
P
H
You
be
able
to
contract
like
with
another
building
a
property
owner
in
the
area
to
say:
would
you
contract
for
a
hurricane
shelter
absolutely
by
Pinellas
County?
Look
down,
okay,
I've?
Okay,
that
that
helps
me
understand
that
better
in
149-01
I
think
it's
great
to
have
those
design
standards
within
the
Colossal
High
Hazard.
It
really
helps
make
the
projects
become
a
better
project
overall
and
then
from
a
sustainability
standpoint.
I
think
it
makes
a
lot
of
sense
as
well
too
so
I've
gotten
the
problems
with
those
ones.
Thank
you.
I
Thank
you,
mayor
I'm,
going
to
ask
you
about
149
B
2.
First
number,
two
I
just
don't
understand
how
this
has
any
correlation
for
being
in
a
coastal
High
area
install
the
cool
high
reflectance
roof
I
mean
that
is.
I
P
This
was
again,
this
was
this
is
a
policy
decision
of
the
board.
If
you
do
not
want
to
include
long-term
resiliency
measures,
then
we
can,
we
can
take
them
out
it's.
You
know
that
that
you're
you're
you're
trading
off
the
ability
for
somebody
to
be
able
to
actually
build,
and
we
get
some
sort
of
a
long-term
benefit
out
of
doing
so.
The
resiliency
measures
are
the
long
term
as
opposed
to
just
the
short
term
and
getting
a
you
know,
a
stronger
building,
that's
built
into
a
base,
flood
elevation
of
plus
three.
I
P
I
I
Don't
understand
why
it's
there,
but
moving
on
number
eight.
You
have
installed
no
fewer
than
two
operable
windows,
but
yet
it
doesn't
say
where
they
could
be
placed.
So
you
could
put
two
operable
windows
in
one
room
and
if
there's
a
flood
that
you
can't
get
out
or
a
fire,
you
can't
get
out
you're
kind
of
stuck
so
we're
not
giving
any
jurisdiction
to
where
these
windows
are
I.
P
Think
the
operability
of
the
windows
is
more
of
a
when
the
power
goes
out.
You
can
open
the
windows
and
actually
get
cross
ventilation.
I,
don't
know
that
it
was
as
much
related
to
Ingress
and
egress,
although
it
could
serve
both
purposes.
We
have
separate
egress
requirements
under
the
Florida
building
code
already
so.
I
I
I
I
P
I
I
Don't
get
that
but
move
on
to
number
13,
because
this
one's
really
good,
you
have
utilized
mold
resistant,
Building
Materials
in
all
kitchens
and
baths
such
as
fiberglass
based
drywall
fiberglass,
face
drywall
is
only
used
in
wet
environments
in
like
a
bathroom,
it's
not
used
throughout
the
house,
so
it
should
say
something
like
green
board
to
purple
board
or
something
like
that.
P
Are
building
of
folks
reviewed
this
and
didn't
recommend
that
we
change
it?
I
mean
it
does
say:
Building
Materials
in
all
kitchens
and
baths
such
as
it's
not
it's
a
for
example,.
I
So
I
might
understand
that
this
you,
you
just
can't
put
any
carpet
in
there
at
all.
I
A
I
I,
just
don't
understand
why
they're
there
and
they
should
be
clarified
before
we
kind
of
you
know,
vote
on
it.
It's
I
think
this
particular
whole
section
needs
a
little
bit
more
work
to
it,
but.
J
Renee
regarding
the
this
plus
three
item:
how,
and
was
this
mirrored
off
of
Saint
Pete
as
well,
actually.
P
Theirs
was
plus
four
we
when
I
spoke
with
our
building
official
about
it
and
the
potential
you
know
ramifications.
We
we
agreed
that
plus
three
was
a.
It
was
a
better,
a
better
measure
to
start
with
at
this
point
so.
J
Okay
and
does
does
that
discourage
development?
Does
it
encourage
just
smart,
safe
development,
for
you
know,.
P
It
just
it's
it's
it's
not
so,
instead
of
being,
you
know
able
to
build
a
project
at
baseball
at
elevation
plus
one
now
they
have
to
add
two
more
feet
of
free
board.
If
you
will
so
you're
going
to
be
less
vulnerable
to
storm
surge
and
and
flooding
events,
you
know
in
a
lot
of
these.
In
some
cases
you
know
the
particularly
vulnerable
areas
that
are
in
also
in
velocity
zones
are
going
to
have
to
build
even
higher
than
that
anyway.
P
So
it's
hitting
some
of
those
those
Middle
Ground
territories,
where
you're
in
the
you're
in
the
Evac
Zone
you're
in
a
you're
in
a
you
know
a
storm
surge,
vulnerable
area.
You
know
popping
those
up,
but
to
three
you
know
plus
three:
it's
it's
not
only
protection
of
residents.
There's
they
should.
Ideally
they
should
still
be
evacuating,
but
it's
protecting
the
structure
and
the
contents.
J
Answer
your
question
I
want
to
it's
basically
well,
this
type
of
rule
discourage.
D
P
When
you
start,
you
know
they're
already
doing
this
in
other
parts
of
Florida,
and
so
it's
this
isn't
you
know
the
the
additional
wind
loading
is
not
a
you
know
in
Miami-Dade,
it's
even
higher,
so
I
mean
developers
and
Builders
know.
You
know
that
this
is
not
uncommon.
Stuff.
Okay,.
J
So,
and
regarding
how
we
were
how
we
had
the
list
under
149.01
subsection
b
1
through
14.,
do
we
and
I
may
have
overlooked
it?
Do
we
have
numbers
where
it
says?
If
you
meet
a
certain
amount
of
homes,
then
you're
required
to
reach
or
require
to
have
so
many
options
and
at
what
point
do
these
options
become
requirements?
So
the.
P
Way
it
reads:
projects
containing
up
to
100
units
shall
provide
so
up
to
100
units.
You
have
to
provide
one
of
those
additional
features.
P
Projects
containing
over
200
shall
provide
one
additional
for
every
additional
50
units
so
as
a
project.
So
basically
every
50
units
you're
going
to
kick
in
another
one
of
these.
So
would
you
ever
do
I,
don't
think
we
would
ever
hit
where
you
would
have
to
do
all
of
these
no
way
I
mean
you're,
probably
talking
you
know
two
or
three
at
the
most
yeah.
J
Okay,
now
do
you
well
if,
when
I
think
of
100
unit
projects
that
to
me
it's
a
big
project,
do
you
think
one
option
is
enough
because
I
just
want
to
encourage
you
know
as
we're
trying
to
protect
the
coastal
height
Hazard.
We
want
to
encourage
the
best
smart.
You
know
quality
development
as
possible
and
I
think
what
you're
trying
to
do
is.
You
know
accomplish
that,
but
do
you
think
One
requirement
of
these
options
for
every
hundred
and
then
after
200,
every
50
units?
We
kick
in
another
requirement.
J
That's
a
good
Pace!
That's
a
good
measuring
tool
for
it.
P
We
don't
really
have
a
litmus
test
on
this,
so
I
mean
you
know.
If
you
wanted
to
be
a
little
more
conservative
and
back
those
numbers
back
down,
and
then
we
can
see
the
impacts
of
those
down
the
road
and
always
revisit
them.
You
know
I
think
it's
easier
to
to
be
more
restrictive
now
and
lighten
up
later
on.
P
J
Okay,
but
I
would
just
like
to
see
you
know
just
the
most
quality
smart
development
as
we
build.
You
know
as
things
come
across
in
it
and
if
that
means
having
to
kick
in
some
of
these
options
with
lower
amounts
of
you
know,
housing
or
thresholds
I
would
be
interested
in
looking
into
that,
because,
at
the
end
of
the
day
we
don't
want.
J
We
want
developers
to
have
Smart
development
in
Tarpon
Springs
in
in
safe
ways
and
if
there's
some
options
here
that
aren't
necessarily
reflective
of
flooding
or
you
know
in
the
coastal
High
Hazard,
but
help
to
increase
you
know
or
and
maintain
or
help
improve
the
quality
of
the
life
of
those
people.
Shortly
after
you
know,
a
disaster
or
storm
I
I
think
be
beneficial.
So
that's
where
I'd
like
to
see.
Maybe
the
threshold
come
down
a
little
bit,
because
we
don't
know
how
many
50
or
100
unit
projects
are
coming
up.
J
We
don't
know
how
much
you
know,
I,
don't
think
we
have
too
much
green
space
left
for
so
many
big
projects,
but
maybe
that's
just
something
for
this
board
to
consider
in
helping
you
know,
developers
maintain
those
thresholds
with
certain
requirements.
J
N
Thank
you
because,
from
a
staff
aspect,
I
know
again
we
got
so
many
things
going
on.
Besides
competent,
we
got
resiliency
and
stuff.
It
seems
like
there's
a
lot
of
question
about
this
resiliency
stuff,
and
is
this
able
to
go
forward
without
the
resiliency
measures,
and
then
we
look
more
as
we're
doing
the
resiliency
plan
and
stuff
of
bringing
these
back
later
or
this
this?
N
What
is
the
disadvantage
of
giving
the
commission
sustainability
committee
more
time
more
examination
to
look
at
these
if
there
seems
to
be,
you
know
some
issues
with
this
I
know
we
tried
to
put
it
all
in
together
when
we're
doing
it,
but
we
maybe
tried
to
put
too
much
into
this
package
instead
of
dealing
with
the
issues
that
we
heard,
the
commission
wanted
to
deal
with.
I
think
we
just
threw
in
another
label
with
resiliency.
That's
early,
it's
early
in
the
other
cities.
N
P
This
remove
so
under
149.01
B
after
the
first
sentence,
which
ends
at
the
next
higher
wind
Zone
risk
category
of
the
building
code.
If
you
stop
there,
that's
just
requiring
all
multi-family
and
single-family
I
mean
excuse
me,
multi-family
and
single
family
attached
projects
to
develop
at
the
plus
three
and
the
next
higher
wind
mitigation
category
under
the
under
the
building
code.
P
You
can
strike
everything
under
that
and
we
can
revisit
that
at
another
time
if
you
like,
or
you
know,
and
that
way,
you're
just
we're
just
basically
looking
at
base
flood
elevation
and
wind
and
wind
mitigation
in
the
next
higher
category.
A
P
O
J
A
I
want
to
ask
a
couple
of
questions
too,
but
let
me
go
to
before
you're
not
going
to
get
off
that
easy.
Commissioner
Carr
go
ahead,
yeah.
H
Thanks
mayor
I
just
want
to
point
out
a
couple
things.
Although
I
know
this
board
wasn't
in
your
mouth,
but
it
didn't
seem
like
the
board
was
in
support
of
the
ankle
Harbors
project,
but
it
was
a
fight
to
get
a
lot
of
these
different
resilient
things
added
to
the
project.
H
So
it
puts
more
strengths
or
it
puts
more
I
guess
you
would
say,
criteria
on
development
and
the
coastal
High
Hazard
area,
which
I
think
everybody
does
it
once
we
really
don't
want
to
see
Heavy
density
there.
So
it's
gonna,
it's
probably
going
to
prohibit
some
people
from
wanting
to
develop
there,
which
I'm
not
going
to
put
words
again
in
your
mouth,
but
that's
what
it
seems
like
you
want
as
a
board
and
at
the
start
somewhere.
H
So,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
I
think
this
is
a
great
thing
that
the
city's
really
trying
to
adapt
and
it's
our
first
step
overall
and
and
to
do
it
in
the
coastal
Hazard
area.
It
makes
I
think
a
great
step
in
that
direction
overall,
but
I
I
would
remember.
I
would
recommend,
based
on
what
I've
seen
and
based
on
the
different
things
that
I've
worked
with
over
the
past
six
years.
H
As
a
commissioner
in
seven
years,
our
four
years
on
a
planning
zoning
board
before
that,
it's
difficult
to
get
the
developers
to
do
anything
additional
they're
going
to
want
to
do
Baseline,
no
matter
what
so
they're
going
to
come
in
and
do
the
they
want
a
nice
project
but
they're
going
to
put
as
few
parking
spots
in
there
and
they're
not
going
to
put
any
special
amenities
other
than
what's
sellable
to
their
residents
and
so
remember
when
they're
they
develop
and
then
they're
gone.
H
So
whatever
you
get
from
a
best
project
and
if
it's
100
rooms
just
think
that
there's
Redevelopment
opportunities
as
well
too,
you
don't
want
to
focus
just
on
land.
That's
open
today,
you're
looking
at
pieces
of
land
that
have
businesses
there
today
that
can
be
purchased
and
combined
with
other
Parcels
to
make
a
larger
project
a
lot
of
that's
happening
down
in
clear
water.
So
just
be
aware
of
that
as
well
too.
H
So
you
may
not
see
a
large
tract
of
land
it's
available
today
from
raw
virgin
land,
but
then
they
could
buy
a
bunch
of
land
too.
So
just
something
to
be
aware
of
and
I
think
it's.
If
you
want
to
table
it,
that's
fine,
but
I
think
we're
missing
an
opportunity
here
to
add
it
to
our
code
here.
That
would
really
be
a
benefit
to
our
to
our
residents
in
the
city.
D
G
I,
actually,
don't
want
to
see
a
table
dial
there,
because
I
I
like
most
of
it.
What
I
think
is.
We
should
bifurcate
149.01
after
section
B
when
it
when
it
says,
starting
with.
In
addition,
I
think
the
remaining
section
of
B
needs
to
be
thought
over,
so
I
would
be
most
I,
don't
know
willing
to
to
go
forward
with
this
without
that
particular
section.
After
an
addition,
C
seems
to
be
okay.
It's
just
that
I'm
struggling
with
with
the
resiliency
factors
being
in
there.
G
I
I
really
think
we
need
to
look
at
keeping
those
kind
of
things
in
our
code,
but
finding
a
better
place
to
put
them.
From
my
experience,
looking
at,
what's
going
on
with
resiliency
efforts
around
the
country
and
so
forth,
a
lot
of
cities
are
putting
in
resiliency
stuff
into
their
codes
and
through
their
building
requirements,
there
seem
to
be
leaving
them
separate
and,
in
some
cases,
incentivizing
developers
towards
doing
that.
In
other
words,
if
you
do
this,
we
will
lessen
our
impact
fees
and
we'll
lessen
this
of
what
it
encourages.
I
Us
Ms
Vincent,
it's
not
you
but
go
ahead.
I
didn't
have
issues
like
I
said
with
it.
It's
all
good
building
practice
I,
just
don't
understand
why
you
would
have
it
under
Coastal
High,
Hazard
areas
and
not
have
it
across
the
board.
If
you
want
to
have
no
mold
to
mildew
in
someone's
kitchen
and
bath,
it
should
be
in
all
buildings,
no
kitchen
and
bath.
I
If
you
think
that
it's
putting
that
in
is
going
to
stop
what
happened
down
in
Fort
Myers
when
the
water
was
rushing
through
the
house,
I
guarantee
you
every
single
one
of
those
walls
that
are
mold
and
middle
do
resistant
were
cut
out
because
it's
growing
mold
between
the
studs
and
the
walls
and
all
of
that
stuff.
So
that's
why
I
just
don't
understand
why
it's
just
put
there.
This
should
be
something
in
the
permit
department
for
old
buildings.
I
A
J
I
I'd
like
to
move
forward
as
it's
written.
Let's
get
something
in
there
with
the
part
the
vice
mayor
was
referring
to
in
subsection
B.
In
addition,
I
would
like
to
see
some
lower
threshold
numbers
once
we
start
getting
50
100
units.
These
are
Big
projects
and
commissioner
Carr
did
bring
up
a
good
point.
Multiple
properties
can
be
purchased
to
create
some
type
of
land
use
change.
If
necessary
and
I'd
like
to
get
this
forward,
and
you
know
we
got
some
time
to
come
back
and
and
change
things.
A
I
think
this
is
good
I
think
Ms
Vincent
needs
to
be
patient
with
us,
and
the
this
is
our
first
Excursion
into
some
new
area
and
the
the
questions
I
had
were
not
as
detailed
as
what
the
commission
did.
A
The
other
part
is
when,
as
far
as
modeled
after
Saint
Pete,
these
thresholds
as
well
are
those
St,
Pete's
numbers.
I,
know
the
plus
three
actually.
P
I
think
I
actually
did
back
them
down
from
Saint
Pete's
numbers
because
it's
Saint
Pete
they're
building.
You.
A
A
The
mix
here
so
right
and
then
you
know
River
Bend
and
those
sort
of
things
are
more
typical
for
us
and
and
I
think.
The
idea
of
resiliency
is
good.
I
think
that
it's
it's
better
to
have
it
than
not
to
have
it
and
I.
Don't
know
that
Builders
would
object
that
much
to
it,
given
the
cost
of
things
as
they
are
now
when,
when.
A
I
was
going
to
ask
you:
I've
got
one
question:
I,
don't
want
to
forget
when
we,
when
we
have
that
list
in
the
house
or
the
14
items
or
whatever
they
are
we
let
the
developer
pick
from
that.
Is
that
correct.
A
Okay,
you
know
the
one
thing
that
I
would
like
to
see
and
I
think
this
kind
of
hits
on
a
little
bit
of
what
you're
hearing
here.
I
I
think
the
idea
of
having
a
a
threshold
is
good,
100,
200
300,
and
then
they
need
to
do
one
two
or
three
or
whatever,
but
I
think
that
list
also
should
be
taken
somewhere
as
a
compendium
and
I
think
the
TRC
should
decide
based
on
site
specific
information.
L
A
Understanding
our
area
and
what
we
see
as
the
real
needs
and
problems
are
in
a
certain
area
and
and
and
and
that
could
be
worked
out
at
the
TRC
level.
That
way
the
concern
I
have
is
that
commissioner
Eisner
may
be
fixed
on
on
mold.
A
Vice
mayor
may
be
fixed
on
some
power
aspect
to
it.
Commissioner,
coulia
may
be
interested
in
something
else,
and
and
we've
got
a
developer,
telling
us
what
we
want
and
there's
been
many
times
when
the
commission
has
said
well
wait
a
minute.
This
is
what
we
would
prefer
you
do
and
they
they
basically
say
yeah.
We
don't
have
any
problem.
We
just
we're
told
to
pick
two.
A
We
picked
two,
but
you
know
we
just
did
the
either
the
cheaper
ones
or
the
ones
that
we
thought
that
might
be
okay,
but
if
you've
got
a
better
idea,
we'd
like
to
hear
it,
that's
what
I
hear
from
coming
from
Commissioners
from
developers,
so
maybe
that
would
be
some
thought
that
way
that
list
that
you're
talking
about
could
be
updated
by
our
sustainability
committee
from
time
to
time.
Have
them
review
it
or
something
like
that.
A
A
P
A
P
A
So
I'm
not
so
sure
that
that's
a
good
idea
either
have
to
do
that
every
time
something
new
might
come
along
for
something
as
minor
as
that,
and
then
that
could
open
up
the
can
of
worms
as
you're,
seeing
tonight
with
discussions
that
we've
been
doing
since
the
1990s.
Well,.
A
I
A
Think
you
got
my
point
and
the
lastly
St
Pete's,
okay,
but
and
I
understand
they've.
You
know
they
they're
I,
know
from
a
sustainability
perspective,
we've
kind
of
kind
of
done,
some
things
that
they've
done,
we've
adopted,
or
at
least
we've
looked
at
what
they're
doing
we're
doing
a
lot
of
the
same
thing
that
they're
doing
at
least
with
a
star
framework
I
believe,
is
how
we
started.
But
do
you
know
I
know
you
read
a
lot
and
you
seem
to
be
up
on
things?
Is
there
any
city
in
Florida?
P
A
lot
when
Saint
Pete
was
developing
their
ordinance.
They
did.
They
did
a
lot
of
background
research.
What's
happening
in
Florida,
doesn't
jump
out.
A
lot
of
some
actually
the
city
of
Norfolk
was
was
a.
P
A
was
it
was
a
highlight
in
in
this.
Their
research
is,
you
know
a
few
years
old
now.
I
can
definitely
go
back
and
and
pull
pull
what
they've,
what
they've
done?
Nothing's
jumping
to
my
to
my
brain,
you
know
I
I
tend
to
to
focus
on
what's
happening
in
Pinellas
County
versus
you
know.
Well,.
D
A
You
know
you
shouldn't
be
too
shy
about
jumping
out
of
the
1990
approach
and
and
getting
into
something
a
little
more
new
age,
I
guess,
if
you
will,
that
makes
more
sense
for
us,
because
a
lot
of
things
we're
going
to
have
to
depart
from
the
way.
We've
always
done
things
and
looked
at
look
at
other
Alternatives.
If
it's
going
to
make
sense,
I
mean
and
then,
on
the
other
hand,
don't
get
me
wrong.
It's
not
like
we're
40
built
out,
and
this
is
going
to
have
a
huge
impact
on
us
moving
forward.
A
P
And
the
the
research
and
the
the
methodology
that
Saint
Pete
came
up
with
actually
went
through
the
Planters
advisory
committee.
It
went
through
Ford
Pinellas.
It
went
through
several
labor
layers
of
review
because
they
were
using
it
a
little
bit
differently
and
that
they
are
actually
tying
the
ability
to
increase
density
in
the
coastal
Hazard
area,
because
so
much
of
one
of
their
community
redevelopment
areas
got
swept
up
in
the.
If
you
know
every
couple
of
years
the
map
gets
updated
and
it
creeps
a
little
farther,
and
so
it
was
really
hindering
their
Redevelopment
efforts.
P
A
Okay,
lastly,
you
know
you
you've
made
certain
references
and
you're
absolutely
accurate.
These
are
policy.
You
know
this
is
the
policy
board.
We
make
policy
and
things
and
I
think
some
of
the
things
that
we've
gotten
into
a
little
bit
are
non-policy
sort
of
things
and
and
I
know
that
the
pnz
board
has
looked
at
it
and
I
think
what
we're
going
to
wind
up
doing
is
sending
this
back
to
the
PNC
board
before
the
second
reading,
or
should
we
have
to
do
that?
P
P
I
I
guess
I
actually
would
like
the
Planning
and
Zoning
Board
to
see
it
because
candidly,
they
were
extremely
enthusiastic
about
this,
this
ordinance,
and
so
now,
if
we're
going
to
back
it
down
or
change
it
I
want
them
to
know
about
it
and
get
their
input.
I.
N
Hold
your
feet
again
and
I'm
conservative
on
all
the
resiliency
and
sustainability
stuff,
and
you
know
I
and
I-
think
remembering
Saint
Pete
I
think
we
did
back
a
lot
of
those
down,
because
when
Saint
Pete
does
something
you
usually
have
to
back
it
down
a
little
bit
because
they're
more
to
the
extreme
and
you
usually
to
be
smart
and
see
how
things
work
you
usually
have
to
back
it
down.
I
think
we
we
did
most
of
that.
N
A
N
A
Delay
at
first,
what
I
was
suggesting
is
to
pass
it
on
the
first
reading
and
then
you
know,
take
a
look
at
your
changes
and
then
you
make
the
call
as
far
as
whether
you
want
it
to
go
back
to
PNC
I.
Think
Ms
Vincent
knows
the
sensitivity
and
where
the
B
and
Z
board's
head
is
these
days,
and
and
you
know,
if,
if
you
make
the
wrong
call,
these.
L
A
So
I'm
done
with
my
comments:
does
anybody
have
anything
else
to
say
all
right?
Why
don't
we
have
a
motion
to
approve
with
a
second
on
the
first
reading
and
then,
if
you
want
to
add
anything
to
that
fine
but
I,
think
Mrs
Vincent's
got
a
lot
of
Rudder
orders
already
from
us
tonight
that
she's
going
to
work
on
it.
Would
you
agree
with
that?
Okay.
A
Just
a
motion
to
approve
ordinance.
H
A
A
O
Number
20
2225
an
ordinance
of
the
city
of
Tarpon,
Springs
Florida,
amending
the
city
of
Tarpon,
Springs
code
of
ordinances,
appendix
a
comprehensive
zoning
and
Land
Development
code,
article
12,
section,
209.00
and
209.01
conditional
uses
and
review
criteria
providing
for
severability
providing
for
inclusion
in
the
code
of
ordinances
of
the
city
of
Tarpon,
Springs,
Florida
and
providing
for
the
effective
data.
This
ordinance,
that
is
ordinance
number
2022-25,
read
by
title
only
on
first
reading.
The
second
reading
will
be
December
13
2022..
Thank.
P
So
this
is
Ordnance
2022-25.
This
is
the
first
ordinance.
This
is
specific
to
the
Land
Development
code,
speaking
to
conditional
uses,
there's
another
ordinance
later
on
from
the
comprehensive
plan
that
talks
about
the
conditional
uses
related
to
commercial
General
and
Commercial
limited
so
they're,
two
different
ordinances.
This
particular
ordinance
again
is
amending
the
Land
Development
code.
P
There
were
ordinance
changes
back
in
2019
that
I've
tried
to
address
and
essentially
roll
back
where
you
that
it
allowed
for
additional
use
to
be
separate
from
a
site
plan,
which
is
what
you
saw
happening
with
the
hotel
project.
You
were
getting
a
conditional
use,
but
not
you
know
the
full
nuts
and
bolts
site
plan
that
change
was
put
in
in
2019,
so
basically
we're
rolling
that
back.
P
We
are
adding
review
criteria
and
the
ability
to
provide
conditions
regarding
protecting
public
health,
safety
and
Welfare
that
was
absent
from
the
code
as
it's
written
today
and
then,
starting
with
sub
paragraphs
in
there
are
changes
related
to
trying
to
make
a
trying
to
get
good
Clarity
on
what
happens
when
a
conditional
use
that's
in
operation
was
legally
established,
ceases
versus
something
that's
been
approved.
A
conditional
use
disapproved
and
hasn't
yet
become
established
and
when
those
expire
so
I'll
leave
it
at
that.
P
Hopefully,
if
you
have
questions
on
the
language
I,
can
you
know
we
can
talk
through
those
and
really
just
trying
to
bring
clarity
about
when
you
have
to
do
a
new
application.
A
A
Thank
you
vice
mayor
long.
G
First
of
all,
Renee.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Thank
you
for
doing
this.
I
do
have
one
question.
It's
on
subsection
n,
where
it
says,
except
for
governmental
action,
impedes
access
to
the
site.
Could
you
elucidate
on
that?
Please
all.
P
P
G
So
does
that
include
legal
stays
if
we
put
a
stay
on
a
project
as
we've
done
with
Anclote.
O
G
I
think
that
was
my
only
oh
on
I'm,
sorry
on
209.01
standards
of
review,
section
f,
it
says
compliance
with
the
adopted
level
of
service
standards
can
be
demonstrated
if
necessary,
should
cannot
be,
should
be
demonstrated.
O
P
G
P
P
G
H
You
ever
under
section
209
item
n,
and
this
would
fall
into
number
one
I
believe
it
is
yes,
so
this
is
the
area
where
it
talks
about
there's
a
conditional
use
currently
in
place.
If
the
applicant
gets
a
licensed
business
license
reissued,
my
question
would
be
what
happens
if
the
business
decides
or
forgets
to
re
like
renew
their
business
license,
and
it's
been
expired
for
multiple
years.
H
J
Yes,
we
discuss,
and
back
in
that
section
end
when
it
comes
to
basically
the
government's
government
actions
impede.
Would
that
also
include
like
a
pandemic
or
a
natural
disaster?
Hurricane
a.
P
J
And
I
mean
I
just
want
to
thank
you
for
rolling
back
some
of
these
items.
I,
you
know,
I,
believe
you,
you
put
it
with
its
best
intention
to
you,
know
just
look
out
for
the
overall
well-being
of
the
city
and
I'm
willing
to
support
it.
All.
Thank
you.
A
I've
see
I've
had
conversations
with
Ms
Vinson
on
this
one,
the
you
know,
I'm
satisfied
with
everything:
the
public
health
safety
welfare.
That
would
allow
us
to
add
some
Provisions
or
conditions
to
the
conditional
use
that
correct.
H
Thanks
mayor
and
I,
don't
want
to
put
you
on
a
spot
in
this
one,
but
and
maybe
you
could
help
me
out
so
what
would
happen
if
this
is
adopted
after
the
second
reading,
and
you
have
multiple
conditional
use,
applications
that
are
out
that
have
been
approved
already?
Where
does
it
fall?
Is
it
current
s
take
place
right
away,
or
would
there
be
some
type
of
grandfathering
and
I?
Don't
know
how
many
are
out
there
or
what
that
number
even
looks
like
I'm
just.
P
D
O
Subject
to
it
pending
so
ones
that
have
already
been
approved,
obviously,
in
essence
are
grandfathered
in
prior
to
the
ordinance
taking
effect.
Okay,.
A
A
G
G
A
Next
is
item
e
ordinance
2022-26,
and
this
has
to
do
with
the
Mobile
Food
Trucks
Mr
salesman.
If
he
could
read
the
ordinance
by
title,
Please
ordinance.
O
2022-26,
an
ordinance
of
the
city
of
Tarpon,
Springs
Florida,
amending
the
city
of
Tarpon,
Springs
code
of
ordinances,
appendix
a
comprehensive
zoning
and
Land
Development
code,
article
4,
section
56.00,
temporary
uses
and
section
56.05
mobile
food,
dispensing
Vehicles
temporary,
providing
for
severability
providing
for
inclusion
in
the
code
of
ordinances
of
the
city
of
Tarpon,
Springs
Florida
and
providing
for
the
effective
date
of
this
ordinance.
That
is
ordinance
number
2022-26
read
by
title.
Only
on
first
reading,
the
second
reading
will
be
held
December
13
2022..
Thank.
A
You
Mr
Salzman
city
manager
of
the
course.
N
P
Right
we
had
a
few
things.
We
were
trying
to
correct
with
this,
so
under
5605.
Excuse
me,
sub
paragraph
b.
We
added
the
language
that
refers
to
what
an
actual
special
event
is
that
that's
a
separate
ordinance.
So
we
these
things,
have
been
beginning.
Temporary
uses
and
special
events
have
been
getting
conflated
for
years,
so
we
tried
to
draw
a
bright
line
there,
just
a
cleanup
for
the
areas
where
we've
already
allowed
mobile
food
trucks
to
operate.
P
P
So
then
the
the
real
meat
of
this,
though,
is
the
ability
for
an
individual
or
a
business
outside
of
all
the
other
regulations
to
apply
for
a
temporary
use.
Permit
that
would
be
reviewed
by
the
technical
Review
Committee
to
have
a
you
know:
to
have
a
food
truck
on
the
property
for
some
sort
of
an
event
like
a
birthday
or
I
I.
P
Don't
know
you
know
a
wedding
whatever
and
so
we've
for
for
for
businesses,
we've
essentially
carved
that
out
as
up
to
four
times
per
calendar
a
year
90
days
between
events,
minimum
and
the
event
can
be
up
to
two
days.
So
you
can
put
the
food
truck
out,
for
you
know
a
weekend
or
Friday
or
Saturday,
and
it
has
to
go
away
and
it
shouldn't
show
up
again
for
at
least
90
days
and
then
for
residential
property.
P
A
Okay,
are
there
any
public
comments
on
this
Mr
jumper?
Are
there
any
public
comments
by
remote
access.
A
G
Mayor
Alone
again
I
applaud
the
accommodations
I've
been
waiting
to
see.
This
I
have
a
couple
of
small
questions
under
temporary
use.
In
section
c,
it
mentions
that
temporary
structures
are
not
required
to
comply
with
District
setback
requirements.
I
wasn't
quite
sure
what
district
meant.
G
Okay,
that
just
wasn't
apparent
to
me,
so
that
was
just
a
question
on
my
half
back
to
the
generator
Clause
I
noticed
the
conflict.
G
You
have
5605
section
A
says
that
the
Mobile
Food
dispensing
vehicles
can
only
operate
between
7
A.M
and
10
P.M,
and
yet
you
say,
generators
can
only
be
run
from
10
a.m.
To
9
P.M.
P
P
P
G
Stuff
out
of
that,
that's
that
maybe
in
congress
with
with
whatever
otherwise
than
that
I'm
perfectly
happy
with
the
whole
thing.
It
did
cause
me
to
read
some
other
permitting
conditions
so
when
I
wanted
to
bring
up
something
I'm
I'm
a
little
relation
to
this,
we
just
had
a
a
city
parade
where
people
were
throwing
candies
to
the
kids
on
the
side
of
the
street,
which
is
interesting,
but
it's
specifically
not
permitted
in
our
permit
conditions.
G
P
G
P
G
P
To
just
to
the
point
of
the
hours
of
operation
for
the
generators,
specifically
I,
don't
want
generators
in
a
residential
neighborhood
going.
A
H
H
H
From
my
standpoint,
I
think
it's
important
to
have
the
opportunity
to
have
food
trucks
at
a
brewery.
I
don't
drink
beer,
but
I
like
going
to
breweries
and
hanging
out
and
I.
Think
it's
it's
a
nice
attraction
to
go
to
a
brewery.
I
know
people
will
go
to
breweries
and,
in
my
opinion,
would
go
to
a
brewery
more
often,
if
there's
other
Alternatives
there,
instead
of
having
to
leave.
H
That
was
one
of
the
discussions
that
the
board
had
when
this
was
discussed
a
few
years
back
with
the
old
board,
but
I
think
the
option
for
the
breweries
and
the
restaurants
to
have
a
food
truck
is
an
important
thing
outside
of
the
special
approval
that's
being
discussed
tonight.
H
I
do
think
90
days
is
a
little
too
long
as
well
too,
for
a
business.
So
it's
once
a
quarter
or
so
it
would
be
nice
to
give
some
more
flexibility,
I'm
fine
with
once
a
month
or
every
30
days,
something
along
those
lines
from
my
standpoint
and
then
my
other
question
would
be
Renee.
I
don't
know
these
details
off
top
of
my
head
is
TRC
meet
monthly
and
then
how
early
do
you
have
to
get
an
application
in
to
meet
with
the
TRC?
Do
you
know.
P
P
H
A
hundred
dollars
I
just
think,
that's
a
lot
then
I
understand
there
needs
to
be
a
process,
I
mean
if
we
go
through
like
a
garage
sale.
Permit
we
go
and
you
could
get
it
pretty
much
a
day
of
I.
Think
I
almost
would
say
that,
if
you're
having
it
on
a
personal
property,
if
there's
some
type
of
validation,
you
could
go
through
and
check.
There
hasn't
been
a
an
event
on
this
property
in
the
past
30
45
days,
it's
not
no
longer.
H
H
I
would
say
it
kind
of
needs
to
fall
into
the
same
category
for
the
garage
sale.
Permit
I.
Think
TRC
is
going
a
little
too
far
for
like
a
personal
birthday
party
at
someone's
house.
If
they
want
to
have
a
food
truck
parking,
their
front
yard
or
their
driveway
I
really
think.
H
There's
a
there
needs
to
be
a
better
opportunity
here
with
that,
but
I
do
I,
do
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
put
special
events
at
businesses
or
things
along
those
lines,
but
I
would
like
to
see
the
breweries
added
and
I
think
from
the
personal
standpoint.
We
need
to
pull
it
back
a
little
bit
more
and
not
be
so
restrictive,
although
this
allows
it
to
go
on
a
personal
property.
I
think
TRC
is
a
little
much
of
a
requirement.
Thank
you.
I
You
mayor
I
also
agree
that
the
TRC
is
a
little
much
for
the
you
know,
personal
property
and
I
didn't
know
it
was
a
hundred
dollars.
I
think
it
should
be
something
like
25.
That's
my
take
on
it.
I
also
do
agree
that
it
should
be
at
allowed
at
breweries.
N
P
N
N
I
Well,
as
and
now
I'm
going
to
bring
up
a
touchy
subject,
I
would
like
to
see
down
the
road
having
the
ability
to
have
some
sort
of
a
contract
with
a
food
truck
to
have
it
at
Sunset
Beach
as
well,
there's
no
place
unless
people
bring
their
own
food,
so
I
think
they
should
also
be
liable
for
any
papers,
or
you
know
debris
that
goes
blowing
around,
but
they
have
it
at
Fred,
Howard
Park
I
mean
not
every
kind
of
food
truck
but
and
I
don't
know
whether
we
should
make
it
where
it's
a
three-month
deal
or
just
a
six-month
contract.
N
That
would
be
another
area
to
note
and
and
and
look
at
later,
because
we've
we've
batted
it
back
back
and
forth
and
we
remember
some
of
the
nightmares
that
it's
caused
and
we
got
enough
things
we
we
kind
of
don't
we
can
bring
up
that
subject
again
and
bring
it
back
and
talk
about
it.
Everything.
I
Has
good
and
bad,
but
it's
got
to
be
monitored.
The
other
thing
I
was
going
to
also
bring
up
is
rather
than
putting
restrictions
on
the
time.
A
generator
can
run
why
you
know
they're
silent
generators
that
you
could
be
standing
right
next
to
and
not
even
know,
they're
on
so
I
think
that's
more
of
a
safety
and
less
disturbance
for
people
than
to
put
time
frame,
because
I
would
want
to
hear
it
during
the
allowable
hours.
If
it's
just
going
to
be
a
noisemaker
I
would
prefer.
I
Because
they
make
very
high-tech
four-stroke,
silent
generators
and
they're
all
combustible,
but
it's
just
they're
the
ones
that
you
sound
like
there's
a
lawnmower
running
all
day,
and
there
are
those
that
you
don't
even
know
that
are
on
you'd
have
to
be
on
top
of
it.
So
you
could
put
that
restriction
in
because
I
don't
really
think
that
it
should
be
any
time
during
the
day,
just
annoying
somebody
all
day,
long.
N
D
I
P
I
You
know
when
you
go
along
first
Friday.
Most
of
them
have
the
proper.
You
know
I
think
it's
two
thousand
dollars
for
a
nice
unit.
If
you
want
to
go
to
Harbor
Freight
and
buy
one
for
four
or
five
hundred
dollars,
it's
going
to
be
a
noise
maker,
so
I
mean
it's
just
that's
the
bottom
line.
If
you
want
to
utilize
it
in
in
and
around
area
of
residence,
you
buy
the
proper
unit.
That's
just
what
I
think
it
should
be
done
like
that.
So.
D
D
J
I
would
agree
with
commissioner
Carter
and
commissioner
Eisner
regarding
private
events,
or
you
know
wanting
to
have
a
a
food
truck
at
for
your
your
child's
birthday
being
able
to
come
apply
for
the
city
for
a
permit
and
and
hopefully
get
it
in
a
day
or
two,
it
would
be
really
convenient.
I
would
think.
Hopefully,
no
one
tries
to
take
advantage
of
it
to
a
point
where
they're
you
know,
feeding
the
general
public
from
you
know
private
property.
J
That
could
be
an
issue,
but
we
want
the
convenience
of
being
able
to
obtain
that
permit
a
little
bit
sooner.
I
think
the
the
TRC
application
that
would
just
delay
and
maybe
cause
some
frustration
for
someone
trying
to
have
an
event.
Regarding
the
will.
This,
for
example,
they're
on
private
property,
a
special
event
comes
through
if
they
apply
for
a
food
truck
they're
only
allowed
to
have
one
food
truck
if
it's
an
acre
or
less.
P
No
different
different
different
sections
so.
D
P
Acres
threshold
is
that's
where
we
carved
out
those
areas
of
the
city
where
food
trucks
can
operate
on
a
daily
basis,
and
we
put
a
threshold
in
that
you
could
have
one
per
parcel
so
like
at
Lowe's
or
where
you
know
what
that
that
is
different
than
what
we're
talking
about
the
temporary
use,
you're
you're.
Basically,
you
can
have
one
okay.
D
P
J
Now,
for,
for
example,
The
Epiphany
Glendy
celebration,
if
it's
happening
at
Craig
Park,
they
would
be
allowed
to
have
as
many
food
trucks
on
the
property
as
potentially
they
could
fit
through.
J
Now,
if
the
same
celebration
were
to
be
held
on
private
property,
hence
being
the
the
the
hall,
would
they
still
be
able
to
have
as
no.
N
What
they
would
do
is
like
they
did
this
time
in
in
taking
a
portion
of
city
street
and
put
in
for
a
special
event,
and
that's
what
they're
doing
this
time
to
put
those
food.
The
extra
food
trucks
on
that
portion
of
the
street
blocked
off
with
you
know,
permission
so
right
now,
they're
taking
oh
shoot,
I'm,
forgetting
the
street
I
drive
on
Cyprus
yeah,
they're,
they're
they're
blocking
off
a
portion
of
that
by
using
the
city
street.
They
have
to
go
through
the
special
event
process.
N
J
And
then
the
reason
why
I
bring
that
up,
because
it's
the
most
recent
one
but
but
I'm,
also
trying
to
look
for
a
look
out
for
other
events
in
the
community
and
you
they
may
be
big
scale.
Events
on
private
property
I
don't
want
to
necessarily
put
the
city
in
a
spot
to
have
a
give
up.
A
piece
of
you
know:
Road
or
property,
to
be
able
to
get
around
having
those
type
of
food
to
have
more.
B
J
P
Right
now
it's
written
as
property,
slash
parcel!
So
if
there's
multiple
Parcels
in
there
I
think
that's
open
to
debate
as
to
how
we
would
interpret
that.
J
Okay,
I,
just
don't
wanna
I,
don't
want
any
big
private
property,
be
able
to
just
stack
as
many
trucks
as
they
want
through
there,
but
I
would
like
for
them
to
have
the
opportunity
to
apply
for
a
special
permit
to
for
any
special
event
to
have
more
than
one
truck
on
a
property
of
a
private
event.
So
those
are
just
my
thoughts
on
it.
Thank
you.
A
Yeah
I
I
think
that
I
mean
if
you
kind
of
explored
a
lot
even
strip
malls.
There
are
stores
or
not
some
me-
they
may
be
individually
owned,
but
they
don't
own
the
parking
and
that
the
parking
is
commonly
owned
and
so
the
like
a
Condominium
Association.
A
If
you
want
to
have
a
food
truck,
if,
if
unit
110
wants
to
have
a
food
truck
because
of
a
party
they're
having
in
their
unit
they're,
probably
going
to
have
to
get
the
homeowners
association
to
apply
for
it
because
they
don't
own
the
parking
lot
the
homeowners
association
has.
A
So
this
is
what
I
think
our
staff
kind
of
does
and
thinks
things
through
and
and
then
of
course
nothing
is
it's
not
a
perfect
world,
of
course,
if
Ms
Vincent
and
the
staff
can't
handle
it,
then
this
gentleman
sitting
next
to
me
does
and
then,
if
he
can't
handle
it,
we
hear
about
it.
Okay
and
that's
the
way
it
works
and
usually
after
some
hand
ringing
and
stuff.
Something
usually
works
out.
A
So
I
I'm,
okay,
with
with
with
what
we're
proposing
right
now
with
the
one.
But
let
me
before
I
get
started.
Let
me
go
to
commissioner
Carr
again.
H
P
We
we
do
so.
Let
me
even
though
it's
a
TRC
review,
we
don't
have
to
operate
that
as
a
a
sit
down
come
to
a
TRC
meeting
review.
We
can
do
what
we
call
like
a
Desktop
review,
so
we
get
it.
We
send
it
out
to
the
TRC
members,
we
collect
any
comments
and
then
we
can.
We
can
administer
them
that
way,
so
you're
not
having
to
wait
a
month
to
get
a
permit.
P
P
H
Okay
and
then
the
other
at
the
other
facet,
can
we
adopt
a
fee
and
this
the
way
it's
written
proposed?
Can
we
adopt
the
fee
in
this
so.
P
This
is
all
under
the
temporary
use
section
of
the
ordinance
and
in
the
fee,
section
of
the
ordinance
temporary
uses
forever
and
a
day
have
been
a
hundred
dollars.
So
that's
what
we've
charged
you
know
if
you
want
to
carve
out
a
separate
fee
within
this
or
an
exemption
for
the
fee
for
residential
or
yeah.
P
P
D
N
N
D
A
These
places
don't
have
private
property
that
they
can
put
the
food
truck
on,
and
that
was
always
the
issue
so
and
it
makes
that
you
know
that
you
you're
creating
a
class
there.
A
The
Ms,
Vincent
and
I
already
talked
about
it.
Have
you
given
any
more
thought
to
that
four
times
90
days?
No
sooner
than
90
days,.
P
You
know
we
we
just
kind
of
kind
of
did
the
quarterly
approach.
You
know
four
or
four
times
a
year.
If
you
wanted
to
provide
flexibility,
I
mean
no.
P
Well,
we
could
say
once
per
quarters
and
then
the
separate
as
long
as
you
know
now,
you
know
the
order
may
be
separated
by
you
know,
15
days
or
three
days,
if
you
well
this
quarter
in
this
quarter,
I
mean
that
way.
It
gives
you
a
little
more
flexibility
about
the
four
times
per
year
or
you
could
just
say
four
times
per
year.
Yeah.
A
90
90
days
times,
four
is
360
365
a
year,
and
if
you
do
it
90
days,
then
90
days,
then
90
days,
it's
like
you
lock
yourself
into
any
subsequent
events
based
on
the
90
days
and
I
mean
there
might
be
a
once.
You
think
about
that,
a
little
bit
we're
not
going
to
solve
that.
N
I
think
we're
worried
about
just
the
continuous
impact
that
somebody
wanted
to
do
consecutive
ones.
You
know
the
noise
of
a
birthday
party
neighborhoods,
all
right,
maybe
for
one
weekend
to
put
up,
but
then,
if
you
use
four
consecutive
weekends,
maybe
it's
bringing
that
90
day
in
between
down,
maybe
bringing
it
down
to
60.
N
P
A
Yeah
we'll
bring
it
back
yeah,
so
is
that
pretty
much
it
on
this
or
I'd.
H
I
mean
I
from
the
business
side.
I
still
think
60
days,
I
think
some
more
flexibility,
we're
there
I'm
good
with
30
days
in
the
in
the
neighborhood,
but
I
would
even
I'm
for
bringing
the
60
day
down
even
further.
Okay.
J
I
I
also
don't
see
you
know
you
could
make
it
four
times
for
non-residential
two
times
residential
whatever,
but
I.
Don't
understand
why
it
has
to
be
90
days
apart.
Well,.
A
Whatever
what
I'm
getting
at
is
I
I
think
at
the
90
days
is
I.
Think
everybody
agrees
it's
a
little
too
rigid
and
I
think
the
city
manager
was
just
trying
to
keep
a
nuisance
from
happening,
and
so
30
days
is
fine.
60,
it's
whatever.
If
y'all
want
30
I,
don't
have
any
issue
with
that.
I
hear
three
people
saying
30
days
right,
commissioner
Carr,
you
were
on
30
days,
so
there
you
go
30
days,
okay,
crazy,.
A
G
Then
go
ahead,
we're
legislating
in
a
vacuum
here,
regardless
of
what
you
or
I
or
whatever
else
thinks
the
applications
are
going
to
come
in
from
businesses
that
want
to
do
this.
Is
anybody
here
got
an
idea
of
what
the
business
is
might
want?
Is
it
suitable
for
them
to
be
30
or
60,
or
do
we
care
well.
M
N
A
I
think
the
idea
don't
get
me
wrong.
I
I
think
what
we
did
was
we
restricted
them
too
much
way
too
much
and
now
we're
just
loosening
it
a
little
bit
we're
going
to
learn
a
little
bit
from
it.
If
we
get
complaints
from
it,
then
we
can,
you
know
we
we
can.
The
staff
will
figure
out
what
to
do
and
maybe
come
back.
N
About
to
see
how
we
can
get
the
fee
fast,
you
know
what's
the
fastest
way
to
get
it
when
this
goes
in.
If
you
want
that
fee
to
be
lowered
and
normal
people
are
doing
10
a
different
thing,
we'll
try
to
work
out
our
best
mechanism,
it
might
take
a
little
longer.
We
have
to
do
two
January,
but
we'll
work
on
that
other
aspect.
D
N
We've
told
you
the
fast
track:
we
we
can
do
it
the
fast
track
method
and
still
keep
the
same
Integrity
of
the
process
and
still
get
get
it
out.
We'll
we'll
hope.
People
give
us
at
least
a
couple
weeks
of
notice,
but
we
have
the
ability
to
Fast
Track
if
we
need
to
and
we've
we've
done,
that
on
tense.
We've
done
that
on
other
ones
and
just
processed
it
through
or
call
people
just
call
the
special
one
together
to
get
it
done.
So
we
we
get
it
done
for.
N
A
Good,
okay,
I'm
good
anything
else,
all
right.
We
need
a
motion
and
a
second
and
were
a
couple
of
changes
that
we
made
with
regard
to
the
timing
on
this
thing,
and
also
you
could
work
in
there,
that
the
city
manager
will
look
at
the
mechanism
for
reducing
the
free
and
bring
that
back
to
us
as
soon
as
feasible.
Yes,
motion.
I
P
J
H
A
H
L
N
Again,
there's
some
things
that
it's
not
going
to
be
yeah
we'll
do
that.
But
we
have
to
look
at
things
about
their
capability
of
part.
There's
a
lot
of
things,
criteria
we're
going
to
work
on,
but
we
will.
We
will
commit
tonight
to
bring
that
portion,
but
to
look
at
it.
Look
at
all
the
frame
of
it.
Look
at
things
and
bring
back
one
specific
to
that.
B
A
A
Yes,
okay,
this
book,
Dr,
Buca,
Valas,
you're
next.
Finally,
all
right
ordinance,
2022-27
application
concerning
a
smart
code;
Amendment
the
hotel,
height
Mr
salesman.
If
you
could
read
the
ordinance
by
title,
Please.
O
Ordinance
2022-27
an
ordinance
of
the
city
of
Tarpon,
Springs
Florida,
amending
appendix
B
of
the
city
of
Tarpon,
Springs,
code
of
ordinances,
a
transit-based
infill
code
for
the
Sponge
Docks
and
community
redevelopment
area
by
amending
tables.
5B
I
think
that's
one
or
is
it
I
I
can't
one
through
five
b:
twelve
specific
Transit,
Zone
height
standards
for
and
section
4.5.2
accessory
unit
maximum
area
providing
for
severability
and
providing
for
an
effective
date.
That's
ordinance,
2022-27,
read
by
title
only
on
first
reading.
Second
reading
is
December
13
2022..
Thank
you.
Mr.
P
So
ordinance
2022-2
-27-
this
largely-
is
about
reconciling
the
hotel
Heights
that
were
called
out
in
the
special
area
plan,
which
is
really
kind
of
like
the
mini
comp
plan
for
the
Community
Development
Area
and
Sponge
Docks
and
the
actual
smart
code.
So
if
you
recall,
we
had
a
bit
of
a
circular
reference
where
one
referred
to
the
other
and
with
no
clear
distinction
over
what
ruled
the
day.
P
So
what
we
have
done
is
updated
all
the
tables
and
essentially
anywhere
where
the
special
area
plan
calls
out
a
specific
height
allowance
or
recommendation
for
hotel
Heights
that
it
exceeds
what
those
character
districts
would
allow.
We
basically
have
specified
that
that
has
to
be
done
by
conditional
use,
so
there's
nothing
arbitrary.
It
needs
to
come
to
the
board
Planning
and
Zoning
Board
and
Board
of
Commissioners
to
get
approved
for
anything
above
the
district
height.
That's
already
called
out
for
a
hotel.
P
The
other
piece
of
this
is
we
have
an
inconsistency
for
accessory
dwelling
units
between
the
smart
code
and
the
regular
and
the
Land
Development
code,
and
so
we're
just
reconciling
that
and
increasingly
allowable
square
footage
for
an
accessory
unit.
From
500
to
600
square
feet
within
the
smart
code,
and
that
keeps
it
consistent
with
the
other,
the
Land
Development
code,
so
I'll
stop
there
and
answer
any
questions
that.
A
K
A
P
A
Go
to
public
comment:
Dr
bukavalas.
D
P
A
A
Q
D
P
So
the
the
hotel
project
set
on
an
assembly
of
parcels
only
part
of
it
was
a
hotel
at
five
stories
would
have
been
permitted
by
right.
The
other
portion
of
it
was
on
a
parcel
where
the
hotel
was
a
conditional
use,
and
so
it
was
because
of
the
conditional
use
review
that
we
were
pulling
in
that
that
that
you
know
it
became
a
compatibility
type
of
review.
P
Q
Okay
good
to
know
because
I
was
going
to
say,
I'm
a
little
bit
at
a
disadvantage
because,
as
I
was
trying
to
prepare
for
tonight,
there
wasn't
really
an
active
link.
You
know
to
what
this
was
about
and
what
it
was
going
to
say
and
I
know
you
had
to
reconcile
what
you
were
actually
talking
about.
But
I
would
like
to
say
at
this
point.
Q
You
seem
to
have
an
opportunity
with
this
ordinance
to
either
go
with
it
with
some
of
these
things
as
they
are
or
to
take
some
other
things
into
consideration,
and
one
thing
I
would
like
you
to
take
into
consideration
is
that
we
have
the
RFP
is
out
now
for
the
Greek
Town
Vision
plan
to
come
out,
and
that
is
going
to
be
followed
by
guidelines
for
the
district,
which
hopefully
will
also
put
certain
conditions
on
the
district
we
saw
when
we
went
through
all
of
that
stuff
with
the
hote
tell
for
months
and
months
and
months
which
hopefully,
we
never
have
to
go
through
again.
Q
So
I
would
like
you
to
consider
the
possibility
of
putting
in
there
somewhere.
You
know
that
that
all
of
these
things
might
be
somehow
have
to
also
take
into
consideration
what
the
guidelines
are
specifically
for
the
historic
districts.
I
think
that's
one
way,
one
easy
way
to
resolve
things
rather
than
just
say
it
can
only
be
this
much
in
in
the
Sponge
Docks
area,
but
to
go
by
what
is
what
is
recommended
for
those
particular
historic
districts
and,
let's
see
any
anyway.
So
hopefully
you
will
have.
Q
You
can
have
the
opportunity
to
do
that
within
this
within
reviewing
this
ordinance.
Q
That,
yes,
it
looks
like
probably
within
six
months.
There
will
be
guidelines
ready,
hopefully
for
your
review
and
adoption.
So
and
what
I'm
saying
is
you
may
not
want
to
adopt
an
ordinance
now
you
know
or
amend
an
ordinance
now
that
just
may
have
to
you
know
might
be
changed
or
you
might
want
to
change
six
months
out.
Okay,
so
thank.
A
G
I'm
actually
happy
to
see
this
I
had
a
little
difficulty
in
the
fact
that
when
we
got
to
the
the
actual
Transit
code
outlines
and
stuff
like
that
everything
kept
referring
to
you
know
what
special
area
planned
that
wasn't
included
with
the
backup,
so
that
was
kind
of
a
loss
of
meant
extra
work,
which
was
okay
except
there's
like
12
of
these.
G
P
Could
be
the
conditional
use
could
actually
in
certain
districts
could
be
even
less
than
that?
I
don't
have
it
memorized.
The
discrepancies
in.
P
G
So
conditional
use
puts
it
back
into
our
yes
wheelhouse.
Yes,
sir
right,
rather
than
is
there
any
transects
left
that
are
buy
right
as
far
as
four
to
six
floors
buy
right
for
a
hotel
or.
G
H
Help
clarify
for
me
covered
parking.
Is
that
considered
a
floor
covered.
H
Okay
up
to
14
feet:
Max
is
what
it
looked
like
on
most
of
them.
Yes,
so
it's
three
stories
unless
it's
conditional
use
and
that
would
come
before
the
board
and
then
it
could
be
evaluated
at
that
point
if
it
fits
the
neighborhood
or
if
it's
a
correct,
okay,
all
right.
So
if
something
was
to
look
at,
for
instance,
Pinellas
Avenue
and
DOTA
canis
you're
on
a
highway
there,
some
taller
buildings
are
in
the
area
that
could
be
viewed
at
a
little
bit
different
than
obviously
down
the
West
End
of
the
Sponge
Docks.
I
Thank
you
mayor
in
the
smart
code,
Transit
code,
there's
a
little
couple
of
words
there
that
I
know
I,
don't
know
if
we've
dealt
with
that
adds
to
the
confusion,
so
you
have
T3
being
one
to
two
story
with
some
three-story
you
have
T4
that's
two
to
three
story
with
a
few
taller.
I
I
Is
there
anything
we
can
do
with
that,
because
then
you
have
T6,
which
is
four
stories
so
with
a
few
shorter
buildings.
So.
P
And
that's
really
that's
a
that
is
a
standard,
smart
code,
reference
document
and
it
does
mean
to
reflect
the
ranges.
It's
not
you
know
the
the
detail,
that's
in
the
detail
of
each
of
these
cut
sheets,
where
you
get
your
specifics
of,
but
in
a
general
smart
code,
it's
a
standard
code.
If
you
will-
and
those
are
the
you
know-
the
recommended
ranges
in
those
districts
or
there's
t-zones
and
we
have
gradations
within
those
T-Zone.
So
I
wouldn't
put
too
much
stock
in
that
because
it's
it's
it's
the
more
General.
I
Yes,
because
I
did
look
at
each
one
of
them
and
each
one
of
them
had
that
red
highlight
of
conditional
use
on
each
one.
So
that
gives
us
that
flexibility
is
what
you're
saying.
I
So
I'm
I'm,
okay
with
it
it's
just
this
particular
thing.
I
would
like
to
see
at
some
point
cleared
up.
It
doesn't
have
to
be
today
it's
just
when
you
have
things
like
this.
It
causes
confusion,
I'd
rather
be
more
definitive,
whether
it
be
wording
of
one
to
two
story.
You
know
three
to
four
story.
Four
to
five,
however,
it's
to
be
so
that
we
just
don't
have
where
people
could
misconstrue
what
what
I
understand
is
written.
That's
all
that's
my
only
comment.
Otherwise
I'm
gonna
I'm
happy
that
we're
dealing
with
this
okay,
commission.
P
Memorized,
let's.
H
P
The
one
District
where
it's,
the
t4b,
residential
plus
industrial,
under
the
building
height
for
principal
building,
it
says
three
to
four
stories:
Max,
that's
another
one
that
we
might
want
to
look
at,
but
then
it
has
the
footnotes.
P
J
Nuances
in
these
things,
and
that
commissioner
card
did
elaborate,
that
there
could
be
a
property
on
you
know
the
the
veganese
or
you
know,
Pinellas
Ave,
where
sure
could
be
higher
than
three
stories,
would
come
for
conditional
use
in
front
of
the
board.
I
I
think
it's
important
to
get
this
stuff
in
place
now,
because
who
knows
what
can
happen
in
six
months
and
we
can
always
modify
if
needed,
but
I
think
it's.
You
know
this
is
a
great
direction
for
For
What.
J
The
residents
want
for
what
we've
been
Guided
by
them
to
do,
and
just
hope,
there's
a
good
board
up
here,
making
those
tough
decisions
on
conditional
uses.
Thank
you.
A
I
I
agree
with
Dr
bukavalas,
but
I
think
for
tonight,
I'd
like
to
pass
this
or
at
least
get
in
place
to
get
rid
of
the
five
stories,
at
least
for
the
issue
that
we
had
down
at
the
the
Sponge
Docks.
That's
all
I
have.
A
B
J
A
Okay
item
G
comprehensive
plan
text
Amendment
concerning
the
future
land.
That's
ordinance,
2022-33
Mr
Salzman.
If
you
could
read
that
by
title.
O
Please
ordinance
2022
33,
an
ordinance
of
the
city
of
Tarpon,
Springs
Florida,
amending
objective
2.4
policy,
2.4.2
policy,
2.4.3
and
section
6,
definitions
of
the
future
land
use
element
of
the
comprehensive
plan
providing
for
other
modifications
that
may
arise
from
review
of
this
ordinance
at
the
public
hearing
and
or
with
other
responsible
parties
providing
for
severability
and
providing
for
an
effective
date.
That
is
ordinance.
N
P
And
for
the
record
second
reading
on
this
ordinance
and
the
next
ordinance,
since
these
are
comprehensive
plan
amendments,
those
still
have
to
go
to
the
state
and
come
back
so
it
will
probably
be
the
beginning
of
February,
so
we'll
just
have
to
re-advertise
these,
because
we're
kind
of
outside
that
60-day
certain
window
at
this
point
so
just
I
wanted
everyone
to
know
that,
so
all
right,
so
the
first,
this
ordinance
2022-33.
This
is
the
second
ordinance
regarding
conditional
uses
that
I
alluded
to
earlier
this
evening.
P
This
is
specifically
amending
the
commercial
General
and
the
commercial
limited
future
land
use
map
categories,
and
what
this
essentially
does.
This
is
where
we
had
the
written
into
the
comprehensive
plan,
the
ability
to
apply
for
a
conditional
use
for
residential
development
up
to
15
units,
to
the
acre
so,
and
that
just
a
little
history
of
why
it
was
written
this
the
way
that
it
is
when
the
county-wide
county-wide
plan
rules
were
first
drafted.
D
P
Know
secondary
uses
like
residential
and
things
of
that
nature
and
they've
gone
to
what
we
have
now
our
threat
or
acreage
thresholds.
So
what
I
have
done
is
I've
updated
the
ordinance
to
basically
remove
res
the
conditional
use
reference
altogether,
so
there's
no
conditional
use
anymore
and
then
and
in
place
of
it,
essentially
put
a
acreage
threshold
for
residential
development
in
both
of
these
districts.
So
if,
let's
say
it's
a
20
acre
parcel
of
land,
that's
his
own
has
a
land
use
of
commercial
General.
P
You
could
only
put
residential
on
up
to
five
acres
of
that
of
that
property.
Beyond
that,
you
would
have
to
apply
for
a
map,
a
land
use
map
Amendment
to
something
that
would
support
to
a
residential
medium
or
something
of
that
nature.
So
that's
the
way
it's
structured
and
the
county-wide
plan
rules.
P
Now
that's
what
I'm
proposing
just
for
these
two
of
these
amendments
to
the
commercial
General
and
the
commercial
Limited,
when
we
do
the
overall
update
to
the
comprehensive
plan
that
we're
working
on
we'll
probably
apply
those
same
types
of
Standards
through
the
rest
of
the
categories,
but
for
now
I'm,
focusing
on
the
the
two,
the
two
that
were
of
of
issue
immediately.
So
with
that
I'll
stop
and
I'll
I'll
answer
questions
on
this.
D
A
Everybody's
gone,
Mr
jump.
Are
there
any
remote
access
comments.
G
H
Thanks
mayor,
Renee
I've
got
a
question:
it's
a
objective:
3.3
policy
3.32.
H
H
P
J
I
I
just
wanted
to
ask
Renee.
As
we
talked
about
you
said
these
two
items
required
immediate
attention
and
there's
some
certain
items
or,
or
you
know,
amendments
that
that
could
require
that
attention
sometime
in
the
future.
When
do
you
think
we
should
address
those
those.
P
Will
be
I
will
pick
that
up
with
the
overall
comprehensive
Plan
update,
we'll
we'll
be
restructuring
all
the
future
land
use
map
categories
to
bring
them
a
little
more
in
into
into
line
with
how
the
county-wide
plan
map
structures
the
categories
for
their
uses
and
thresholds,
and
things
of
that
nature.
Okay,.
J
J
B
A
Yes,
that's:
okay:
item
h,
ordinance,
2022-32,
comprehensive
plan
text,
Amendment
future
land
use
and
Coast
element;
Mr
Salzman.
If
you
could
read
that
by
title
Please.
O
Ordinance
2022-32
an
ordinance
of
the
city
of
Tarpon,
Springs
Florida,
many
Coastal
High,
Hazard
area,
policies
of
the
future
land
use
element
and
Coastal
management
element
of
the
city
of
Tarpon
Springs
comprehensive
plan
providing
for
other
modifications
that
may
arise
from
review
of
this
ordinance
at
the
public
hearing
and
or
with
other
responsible
parties
providing
for
severability
and
providing
for
an
effective
date.
That's
ordinance,
2022-32,
read
by
title
only
on
first
reading.
Second
reading
is
unknown.
A
Thank
you,
Mr
Salzman,
Vice
Mr,
the
course.
Yes.
P
P
So,
all
right,
so
this
ordinance
is
specifically
focusing
on
the
coastal
Hazard
area
policies
of
the
comprehensive
plan.
So
again,
this
kind
of
matches
up
with
what
we
were
discussing
with
the
Land
Development
code,
so
the
first
major
change
under
policy
3.3.1
the
objective
there
is
limiting
Coastal
planning
area
population
densities
to
what
can
be
safely
sheltered
or
evacuated.
P
This
policy
originally
only
applies
to
applied
to
future
land
use
map
amendments
and
increasing
density
by
a
future
land
use
map
amendment
in
the
coastal
Hazard
area
I've
expanded
that
language.
Now
to
where
it
reads
it
says
the
city
shall
deny
future
land
use,
map
amendments,
zoning
map,
amendments,
including
plan
developments
or
conditional
use
proposals
which
would
result
in
an
increase
in
residential
density.
P
P
P
This
particular
policy
should
have
been
updated
when
the
previous
policy
was
adopted
when
all
these
correct
these
balancing
criteria
that
were
put
in
under
policy
3.3.1,
so
we're
trying
to
make
this
policy
now
kind
of
match
up
to
what
took
place
then
So
within
again,
specifically
within
the
community
redevelopment
area,
you
can
potentially
increase
density
for
mixed
use
projects
with
residential
above
ground
floor
only
and
then
you
have
the
criteria
to
review,
and
then
we
added
the
four,
which
is
the
reference
to
the
coastal
Hazard
area,
design
standards.
P
So
again,
if
that's
something
that
we
don't
think
is
baked
enough,
we
may
want
to
revisit
that.
As
you
know,
along
with
that
that
policy
again
trying
to
show
that,
within
the
within
the
community
redevelopment
area,
that
designated
area
allowing
for
projects
to
at
least
develop.
P
This
is
this
policy
is
about
restricting
the
use
of
public
investment
in
such
as
roads,
water,
sewer
and
infrastructure
that
would
subsidize
new
private
development.
We've
expanded
that
to
be
very
clear
that
even
if
the
developer
pays
for
that
construction,
if
we're
inheriting
it
that
that's
not
that's,
not
acceptable
use
because
we're
having
inheriting
long-term
maintenance
and
expenditure
of
public
dollars.
So
we
wanted
that
to
be
crystal
clear.
P
P
So
it
expands
the
language
and
says
we're
strictly
infilling
vacant
Parcels
in
the
coastal
Hazard
area
to
five
dwelling
units
per
acre
where
a
shelter
deficit
is
demonstrated,
and
then
we
add
the
language
for
a
category
three
or
higher
hurricane.
In
lieu
of
this
limitation,
the
city
may
allow
development
up
to
the
current
maximum
allowed
by
the
existing
future
land
use
map
designation
of
the
parcel
subject
to
Hurricane
shelter,
impact
mitigation
and
Coastal
Hazard
area
design
standards.
P
H
Can
you
touch
one
more
time
on
the
Striking,
the
prohibiting
future
land
use
density
increases.
P
P
A
little
bit
out
of
out
of
uncoordinated,
so
policy
3.3.2
used
to
basically
say
the
city
shall
prohibit
future
Landings
density
increases
within
the
coastal
Hazard
area
period.
That
was
the
policy
and
then
the
next
sentence
within
the
community
redevelopment
area
or
an
area
designated
with
an
approved
special
area
plan.
P
A
density
increase
for
prod
residential
above
ground
floor
may
be
considered
subject
to
meeting
one,
so
that
was
the
entire
policy,
and
so
when
they
put
in
3.3.1,
it
made
three
point
that
first
sentence
of
3.3.2
out
of
Step,
because
really
it's
this,
this
policy
3.3.1
kind
of
replaced
that
it
didn't.
It
was
no
longer
an
absolute
prohibition
on
increasing
density.
P
C
P
Subject
to
it
says
that
the
city
May,
at
their
sole
discretion,
consider
approving
such
amendments
based
upon
it,
balancing
the
following
criteria,
as
are
determined
to
be
applicable
and
significant
to
the
subject.
Amendment,
and
then
you
have
a
through
H
that
language
is
straight
out
of
the
county-wide
plan
rules,
it's
identical
and
that's
the
same
criteria
that
they
use
to
If
you're.
Looking
at
the
lar
at
the
higher
level
county-wide
plan
map,
that's
the
same
criteria
that
they
use
when
considering
an
increase
in
density
in
the
coastal
High
Hazard
area.
P
H
I
So
it
says:
restrict
public
Investments
such
as
roads,
water,
sewer
infrastructure,
which
would
subsidize
new
private
development
and
Coastal
High
housing
areas.
So
are
they
saying
in
coastal
High
Hazard
areas?
You
cannot
put
sewer
pipes,
water
pipes
or
are
they
liable
for
them
the
rest
of
the
time
that
that
building
or
structure
is
there
because
it
clearly
states
we're
not
going
to
be
doing
it.
P
And
that
was
the
that
was
the
that
was
the
question
mark
I
was
trying
to
bring
closure
to
so
we
clearly
have
a
policy
that
says:
restrict
public
investment
in
the
coastal
Hazard
area.
You
know
those
things
now
it
we
can't
100
do
that.
We
have
a
lot
of
infrastructure,
that's
in
the
coastal
Hazard
area.
Now
that
we
can't
just
ignore
so
you
know
so,
but
new
investment
into
those
areas
was
all
is
still
a
question
mark
as
to
what
you
know
it
says
restricted.
So
we
shouldn't
be
doing
that
with
City
dollars.
P
The
the
problem
I
was
having
is
okay.
What
if
a
developer,
is
very
willing
to
build
a
brand
new
development
and
they
want
to,
but
it
requires
Public,
Water
and
Sewer
infrastructure
to
be
constructed
into
it,
they're
going
to
do
all
that,
but
we're
still
going
to
inherit
it,
so
that
was
so
the
acceptance
of
privately
constructed
utilities.
You
know
we
added
that
as
to
to
round
out
that
policy.
I,
don't
think
I
answered
your
question
not.
I
A
P
I
P
P
I
A
D
P
With
it
that
way,
yes,
so
I
mean
comprehensive
plan
policies
are
a
higher
level,
they're,
not
law.
They
are
to
be
interpreted
and
applied.
You
Know,
Your,
Land
Development
code
or
your
strict
ordinance,
as
it
says,
Thou
shalt
or
shalt.
Not.
So
there
is
a
hierarchy.
There
restrict,
doesn't
necessarily
you're
right,
it
doesn't
mean
prohibit
those
are
different
words.
So,
even
before
you
know,
we
didn't
prohibit
public
investment
in
the
coastal
Hazard
area,
precisely
because
we
already
have
a
lot
of
investment
in
there
and
we've
got
to
maintain
a
lot
of
it.
P
A
I
A
I
I
think
the
that's
where
the
balance
gets
in
and
that's
the
problem
I
have
because
you
could
restrict
it
and
you
feel
the
way
you
do
and
there's
something
else
in
the
com
in
the
project
that
kind
of
throws
the
balance
in
the
other
way,
so
that,
on
balance,
even
though
that's
what
the
policy
says,
we
can't
do
it.
We
wind
up
doing
it
anyway,
because
it
ameliorates
and
helps,
in
other
words
that
there's
a
balance
that
this
is
so
strong
over
here
that
satisfies
what
we
really
need
for
our
community.
A
It
out
balances
it
offsets
what
the
Restriction
is
that
with
regard
to
putting
Utilities
in
the
coastal
High
Hazard
areas.
That's
why
I
don't
like
the
the
the
the
balancing,
but,
as
you
said
that
that's
in
the
counties
they
use
that
terminology
in
the
county-wide
plan
I
would
hold.
Is
that
correct
or
there's.
P
Other
that
list
of
balancing
criteria-
yes,
that's
straight
out
of
the
county-wide
plan,
I
think
generally
I
mean
the
the
restrict
public
Investments,
such
as
roads,
water,
sewer
infrastructure,
which
would
subsidize
new
private
development.
The
coastal
Hazard
area
I
mean
that's,
that's
pretty
cut
and
dry.
You
know
we
shouldn't
be
spending
City
dollars
to
put
in
a
sewer
pipe,
that's
going
to
serve
a
project
in
the
coastal
High
Hazard
area,
The,
Next
Step.
What
I
had
what
I've
added
in,
including
the
acceptance
acceptance
of
privately
constructed
water
sewer
roads?
P
You
know
that
might
be
a
bridge
too
far
to
be
honest,
but
it's
I
didn't
want
there
to
be
a
question,
because
this
is
something
that's
already
come
up,
and
you
know
what
constitutes
public
investment
and
so
I
was
trying
to
provide
a
bright
line
there.
You
know
if
the
developer
wants
to
build
it
and
they
you're
going
to
have
an
association.
That's
going
to
maintain
it
now,
maybe
maybe
to
put
a
fi.
You
know
to
put
a
nail
in
it.
You
know
they
need
a
a
bond
forever.
P
A
I
I,
just
to
finish
up
the
the
the
it
does,
give
you
some
authority
to
deny
something
if
you
want
to,
but
the
the
for
me,
the
danger
is
this
terminology
balance
and
Ms
Vincent
I
was
going
to
ask
you.
The
your
friends
at
the
county,
I
mean
your
colleagues
that
you
worked
with.
Is
there
anybody
there
that
understands
this
concept
of
balance
other
than
it?
It
provides
a
political
kind
of
I
mean
to
me.
It
smacks
of
a
political
thing.
You
can
go
this
way.
You
can
go
that
way.
A
You
can
argue
some
one
way
or
the
other
and
I,
but
I
don't
know
if
there's
a
criteria
that
you
can
apply
to
this
balance
to
in
fact
determine
that
the
project
is
balanced.
Let's
say:
there's
two
counter
competing
policies:
you've
got
a
project;
it
it
heavily
favors
one.
It
doesn't
do
much
for
the
other,
but
you
apply
this
balancing.
A
P
I
mean
it,
you
know
in
some
instances
there
may
be
I
can't
think
of
anybody's
comprehensive
plans
where
they
have
like
that
specific
of
of
a
criteria
I
mean
I
can
tell
you
in
applying
comprehensive
plans
at
the
city
at
the
county.
They're
you're
always
going
to
have
competing
policies,
and
it's
the
job
generally
of
this
board,
then
to
tease
those
apart
and
and
decide
which
policies
are
going
to
take
more.
D
A
You
go
all
right
if
there's.
G
G
G
G
P
P
P
P
G
H
So
the
policy
3.1.2,
that's
in
the
coastal
management
element,
it
talks
about
the
the
roads
and
different
aspects,
but
the
other
part
that
I
want
to
talk
about
is
like
the
wetlands
portion
of
it.
For
this
is
the
example
that
I'm
thinking
of
is
off
mirrors
in
the
West
Winds
development.
It
was
developed
by
a
developer.
H
Then
you've
got
a
significant
amount
of
wetlands
that
are
owned
by
I,
guess,
you'd,
say
a
non-defunct
I,
don't
know
what
it
is
a
corporation
that
built
a
neighborhood,
but
now
is
no
longer
there.
So
you
have
a
significant
amount
of
wetlands,
that's
not
really
being
maintained
by
anybody.
You've
got
overgrowth
Brazilian
Peppers.
The
neighborhood
doesn't
want
to
take
it
on,
and
now
it's
just
kind
of
sitting
there.
So
with
that
aspect,
is
there
an
opportunity
to
for
the
city
to
take
that
over
in
future
developments?
H
If
it's
not
plotted
to
the
HOA
which
I
think
at
times,
you
may
have
done
some
language
where
the
HOA
automatically
takes
over
the
Wetland
portion
of
it
or
the
right-of-way
areas.
I,
don't
know
I'm
just
I'm
thinking
that
one
through,
because
that
one's
a
little
unique
that.
N
N
H
H
H
A
Okay,
if.
J
A
Okay,
thank
you
both
of
you
there's
no
further
discussion.
Roll
call
please,
commissioner,.
C
A
B
A
Did
we
miss
anything
tonight,
I
think
that's
it.
Okay,
Ms
Vincent,
these
last
two
we're
not
going
to
see
those
again
until
February
or.
A
All
righty:
let's
go
to
board
and
staff
comments;
major
Ruggiero,
anything
nope;
okay,
let's
see
management.
Of
course.
Yes,
sir
Miss.
H
I
just
want
to
say
thank
you
to
Mr
Salzman
for
stepping
in
as
a
City
attorney
tonight.
I
enjoyed
your
comments
and
I
think
you
did
a
great
job
advising
the
boards
I
appreciate
your
comments
tonight.
Thank.
A
You,
commissioner,
Eisner.
I
J
The
Christmas
parade
was
awesome.
Thank
you,
Mr
salesman
for
sitting
in
for
today's
meeting.
Thank
you
staff
for
all
the
hard
work
on
all
these
all
these
changes
that
we're
coming
up
with.
We
know
it's
a
lot
of
work
and
just
just
we're
getting
a
lot
of
stuff
done.
It's
a
good
thing.
Thank
you,
mayor.
A
Thank
you,
I
just
want
to
continue
thanking
I
mean
we
just
honestly
towards
the
end
with
moving
in
the
holiday
seasons.
There's
just
a
huge
amount
of
effort,
that's
going
into
just
keeping
up
with
the
holidays,
and
we've
still
got
more
to
do
and
and
then
we're
not
going
to
be
really
out
of
the
woods
until
after
January
6th
and
we've
got
a
couple
of
large
community
events
coming
up
here
towards
the
middle
of
December
and,
of
course,
with
Epiphany
on
the
sixth,
so
I'm
very
proud
of
what
we're
doing.
A
As
far
as
staying
on
top
of
that,
I
can
tell
you
that
Crowds
Are,
just
phenomenal,
there's
I've,
never
seen
them
this
large.
But
what's
most
important,
is
everybody's
got
a
smile
on
their
face
in
these
crowds.
So
it
means
a
lot
and
it
kind
of
tells
you
of
of
the
mood
of
the
community
and
and
realizing
that
we
still
got
a
lot
of
work
to
do
with
ironing
out
some
of
these
issues
that
we
dealt
with
this
evening.
A
D
A
January
Mr
Salzman.
Thank
you
for
your
patience
in
listening
to
us
and
putting
up
with
the
city
attorney
discussions
and
reviews
and
evaluations.
I
think
the
city
manager
hit
the
nail
on
the
head
and
he
said
what
we
haven't
done
this
in
26
years.
So
anyway,
it's
a
learning
experience
for
all
of
us.
That's
all
I
have
meeting
you
didn't.
Have
anything
right.
Did
I
ask
you
if
you
had
anything
I'm,
sorry,
nothing.