PonceInletFL - 03/19/2008 Town Council Minutes

Town of Ponce Inlet

TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES

Regular Meeting of March 19, 2008

1. CALL TO ORDER: Pursuant to proper notice, Mayor Epps called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 4300 South Atlantic Avenue, Ponce Inlet, Florida.

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Epps led the attendees in the Pledge of Allegiance.

3. ROLL CALL:

Council present:

Mayor Epps, Seat #1

Councilmember Goudie, Seat #2

Vice-Mayor McCormick, Seat #3

Councilmember Hinson, Seat #4

Councilmember Sturno, Seat #5

Staff Members Present:

Ms. Blissett, Town Manager

Ms. Cassady, Town Attorney

Ms. Clauss, Assistant Town Manager/Deputy Clerk

Mr. Gunter, Public Works Supervisor

Ms. Konchan, Planning Consultant

Mr. Joulani, Interim Development Services Director

Ms. Richard, Associate Planner

Chief Scales, Fire Chief

Chief Thomas, Police Chief

4. ADDITIONS, CORRECTIONS, OR DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA: Add a prelude to item 14-A as 5-A, add a request for authorization to perform low level flights for surveying and spraying from Mosquito Control as 12-H, and move item 12-B to 14-B.

5. PROCLAMATIONS, PRESENTATIONS, AND AWARDS:

A. Presentation of donation for the purchase of a wheelchair for Ponce Preserve from the Pilot Club of Daytona Beach, Inc. Ms. Janet Potter, president of the Pilot Club, presented a check to Mayor Epps for this in the amount of two hundred twenty-five dollars. Mayor Epps presented a Certificate of Appreciation to Ms. Potter.

B. Presentation for SPARC Run 2008. Barbara Davis introduced Natasha Craig, a child who exemplifies the special children this run is aimed at raising funds for. Young Miss. Craig modeled a t-shirt for this event and handed out flyers for the run. An item is on the agenda for later in the meeting to request a waiver of the payment for the costs of Town services necessary in the performance of this run.

6. BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS:

A. Presentation of Eagle Scout project proposal to install bat boxes throughout the Town, as recommended by the Parks, Recreation and Tree Advisory Board. Eagle Scout Eddie Maliszewski gave a presentation showing the benefits of bats to the area and requested authorization from Council to build these boxes for them and no cost to the Town. Council agreed to this request.

B. Appointment to the Historic and Archaeological Preservation Board. Ms. Blissett stated that Seat #3 was vacated by the resignation of Tom Gannaway in July 2007. This seat has been vacant since that time, as the alternates for this board have declined to take full time positions. An application was recently received from Raul Rio. The Board reviewed this application at their March meeting and voted unanimously to recommend his appointment. Mr. Rio was present and expressed his long held interest in history, historic preservation, and now the history of the Town in particular. Mayor Epps opened for public comment. Seeing none, Mayor Epps closed public comment. Councilmember Goudie moved to APPROVE the appointment of Raul Rio to the Historic and Archaeological Preservation Board, seconded by Councilmember Hinson. This motion PASSED 5-0 with the following vote: Councilmember Sturno – yes, Councilmember Hinson – yes, Vice-Mayor McCormick – yes, Councilmember Goudie - yes, and Mayor Epps – yes.

7. PUBLIC HEARINGS / QUASI-JUDICIAL MATTERS:

A. Request for tree removal permit from Craig Gittner for the property located at 4716 South Peninsula Drive. Ms. Richard explained that the applicant, present for this meeting, has submitted an application to construct a single family home on the above property, which is located seven lots south of Happy Tails Dog Park on the west side of Peninsula Drive. The lot was cleared of invasive Brazilian peppers last year in order to help the Applicant situate the house on the site. As the plans are currently drawn, a total of seven (7) specimen oak trees will be removed in the footprint of the house, driveway or proposed pool or within five feet of the footprint. These include four which require your approval pursuant to Section 8.3.E.1 of the Land Use and Development Code: one measuring 12” DBH, one 17” DBH, one 18” DBH, one, 19”, one 21” and one 32” DBH. The removal of the 10” DBH oak and 13” DBH palm requires only staff level approval. Upon initial review of the site plan, it was determined that the proposed footprint of the house was set back farther than the required by code. The Applicant then revised the plans by moving the house forward five feet to lessen the effect of building on the 19” and 32” oaks in the rear yard area. The Applicant does, however, plan to construct a pool in the rear yard and has agreed to revise the pool plans by shifting the pool to the north in an attempt to retain the 19” and 32” oaks. At this time, he is requesting your permission to remove those trees, with the understanding that they will remain should it be feasible to merely trim the trees rather than remove them completely. Volusia County Forester Craig Jones visited the site on Thursday, March 13^th. He noted that the 10” tree in the driveway is not healthy. It was his opinion that the branch on the 32” oak that grows to the east is in declining health and its removal would not cause a problem to the rest of the tree. He also said that the branch growing to the south is dead and can be removed. Arborist Don Spence was also present and stated that the roots should be cut cleanly by hand, with no heavy machinery used. His suggestions are consistent with the requirements Section 8.3.F.1.g of the LUDC. The Applicant has agreed to shift the footprint to the south to retain the 18” oak at the northeast corner of the house while remaining within the required side yard setback which is a minimum of 8’. A revised site plan will be submitted prior to approval of the building application. Section 8.3.G provides guidelines for the relocation of trees, giving first priority to relocation of trees 8” in caliper or smaller. Given the size and location of the 32” tree, the topography of the lot and the lack of on-site relocation area, it is not likely that relocation would be successful. Replacement trees for all trees removed are required by Section 8.3.G.b. (1) of the LUDC. The criteria for the removal of historic or specimen trees as specified in Section 8.3.E of the LUDC are as follows: When a specimen or a historic tree, as defined, is to be removed by the footprint of a principal or accessory structure (inclusive of all land use classifications), the applicant shall make reasonable effort to reposition the footprint of structure(s) to save the tree. The applicant must make a showing that the footprint of the principal or accessory structure cannot be relocated on the lot without requiring removal of the specimen or historic tree. The community services director and/or Town council shall consider whether the structure(s) can be reasonably repositioned to avoid removal of the tree. The Applicant has moved the footprint of the house forward on the lot and plans to move the footprint to the south to retain the 18” oak at the northeast corner of the house. He has stated that it is his intention to retain the 19” and 32” oaks in the rear yard by moving the house to the east and the pool to the north and trim branches rather than remove the tree if possible. No specimen tree in parking or driving areas shall be removed unless it is physically impossible to provide alternative locations for such facilities. The Town council may consider granting a variance reducing or waiving parking standards to avoid removing or damaging a specimen or historic tree. Where removal cannot be avoided, measures, including but not necessarily limited to the use of tree wells, root pruning, concrete pavers, turf block, root drainage systems, subsurface soil stabilization systems, special fill procedures and restrictions, may be required, as appropriate. There are two specimen oaks in the footprint of the driveway measuring 10” and 12” DBH. Flipping the footprint of the house would to save these trees, but would result in the removal of a 9” and the 18” oak he has moved the footprint to save. As previously mentioned, the Volusia County Forester noted that the 10” is not healthy. Every attempt shall be made to avoid placing a building, retention or storm water management/drainage facility, parking area, or any other improvement which requires the removal of a specimen tree. Where it is necessary to place any of the above improvements in close proximity to a specimen tree, the Town shall require improvements including retaining walls, tree wells, root pruning, concrete pavers, turf block, root drainage systems, subsurface soil stabilization systems, special fill procedures and other restrictions as may be required by subsection 8.3.F or deemed appropriate by the Town. This lot drops in elevation from 11.47’ at the sidewalk to 3.41’ in the center of the footprint, which will require some fill to be placed prior to construction. The house will be built with stem walls and the natural grade of the designed protection zone will be maintained and tree protection measures will be taken in accordance with the requirements of Section 8.3.F. Referral of all applications for the removal of historic and/or specimen trees shall [be] made to the parks, recreation and tree advisory board. The application shall be referred at the next scheduled meeting of the parks, recreation and tree advisory board for their comments. If no meeting is scheduled or held within 31 days from submission of a substantially complete application, no referral is required. A complete application for tree removal was received on Tuesday, March 4, 2008, one day after the last scheduled meeting and 35 days prior to the next scheduled meeting of the Parks, Recreation and Tree Advisory Board. Referral to that Board was not made prior to approval by Town Council, but a copy of this information will be provided to them at their April meeting. Referral comments and review by a certified arborist or licensed landscape specialists may be obtained by the community services director at his/her discretion to determine the probable age, health, rarity or environmental value with respect to the relative importance of preserving the specimen tree. Volusia County Forester Craig Jones and Don Spence of Native Florida Landscapes both visited the site and offered comments on the tree’s health and protective measures to be taken, as noted previously. Staff recommends approval of the removal of the 10”, 12”, 17” and 21” oak trees, the moving of the footprint of the house and pool to protect the 18”, 19” and 32” specimen trees as required by Section 8.3.E of the LUDC, with the understanding that replacement trees will be planted prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Staff also recommends approval of the removal of the following branches from the 32” oak in the rear yard: the dead limb growing to the south and the declining limb growing to the east. Replacement is required for all trees removed during development. The total of replacement trees required in this case would be twenty (20) if the 18”, 19” and 32” trees are retained and thirty-six (36) if those trees are removed. Mayor Epps opened for public comment. Seeing none, Mayor Epps closed public comment. Vice-Mayor McCormick moved to approve the request in accordance with staff’s recommendation, seconded by Councilmember Hinson. This motion PASSED 5-0 with the following vote: Councilmember Sturno – yes, Councilmember Hinson – yes, Vice-Mayor McCormick – yes, Councilmember Goudie - yes, and Mayor Epps – yes.

8. PUBLIC HEARINGS – ORDINANCES (Second Reading):

A. First reading / transmittal hearing of Ordinance 2008-01 (formerly 2007-15), amending the Town’s comprehensive plan. Ms. Cassady read this ordinance by title and confirmed that she had reviewed it for legality and form. AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF PONCE INLET, VOLUSIA COUNTY, FLORIDA; PROVIDING FOR LARGE-SCALE AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE TOWN OF PONCE INLET; AMENDING FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT, INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION ELEMENT, AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT; AMENDING TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ELEMENT AND RENAMING: “TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT;” AMENDING UTILITIES ELEMENT AND RENAMING: “SANITARY SEWER, SOLID WASTE, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, POTABLE WATER, AND NATURAL GROUNDWATER AQUIFER RECHARGE ELEMENT;” AMENDING COASTAL MANAGEMENT/CONSERVATION ELEMENT AND RENAMING: “COASTAL ELEMENT” AND “CONSERVATION ELEMENT;” DELETING CHAPTER X, “MONITORING AND EVALUATION PROCEDURES;” DELETING CHAPTER I, “INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW,” AND REPLACING WITH NEW CHAPTER I, “ADMINISTRATION AND INTERPRETATION;” REDESIGNATING PROPERTY KNOWN AS TOWN HALL, APPROXIMATELY 4.7 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHERN TOWN LIMITS BETWEEN ATLANTIC AVENUE AND PENINSULA DRIVE, FROM LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL; REDESIGNATING PROPERTY KNOWN AS WILBUR BAY WETLANDS, APPROXIMATELY 26.4 ACRES LOCATED WEST OF PENINSULA DRIVE AT THE NORTH TOWN LIMITS SOUTH TO THE CANAL NORTH OF OLD CARRIAGE ROAD, FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO CONSERVATION; REDESIGNATING APPROXIMATELY 16.3 ACRES OF THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS PONCE PRESERVE, LOCATED IN THE 4400 BLOCK BETWEEN PENINSULA DRIVE AND THE ATLANTIC OCEAN, FROM VARIOUS RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATIONS TO PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL; REDESIGNATING PROPERTY KNOWN AS RACING’S NORTH TURN RESTAURANT, LOCATED AT 4511 SOUTH ATLANTIC AVENUE, FROM HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL; REDESIGNATING APPROXIMATELY 8 ACRES KNOWN AS TIMUCUAN OAKS BOTANICAL GARDENS, LOCATED IN THE 4500 BLOCK OF PENINSULA DRIVE, FROM VARIOUS RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATIONS AND CONSERVATION TO PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL;REDESIGNATING APPROXIMATELY .9 ACRES KNOWN AS WINTERHAVEN PARK, LOCATED IN THE 4500 BLOCK OF ATLANTIC AVENUE, FROM HIGH-DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY TO PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL; ELIMINATING THE HARBOUR VILLAGE PUD DESIGNATION AND REDESIGNATING THE AREA WITHIN THAT PUD, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE AREA COMMONLY KNOWN AS FISHERMAN’S HARBOUR VILLAGE, LOCATED EAST OF ATLANTIC AVENUE BETWEEN 4525 AND 4679 ATLANTIC, BETWEEN ATLANTIC AVENUE AND PENINSULA DRIVE IN THE 4600 BLOCK, AND WEST OF PENINSULA DRIVE FROM THE HARBOUR VILLAGE GOLF & YACHT CLUB SOUTH TO THE 4700 BLOCK OF PENINSULA DRIVE AND INCLUDING THE COLLEY SUBDIVISION, CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 200 ACRES, TO LOW-DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY AND HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL, AND CONSERVATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAND USES THAT EXIST WITHIN THE PUD BOUNDARIES; REDESIGNATING THE APPROXIMATELY 5.57 ACRE COMMERCIAL AREA IN THE HARBOUR VILLAGE PUD KNOWN AS FISHERMAN’S HARBOUR VILLAGE, FROM PUD, APPROXIMATELY 2.82 ACRES ON THE EASTERN PORTION TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL, AND APPROXIMATELY 2.75 ACRES ON THE WESTERN PORTION TO MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTING ORDINANCES, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Ms. Cassady directed the public to the sign-up log in the back of the room for all who wanted to be contacted by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) regarding as this ordinance proceeds through the State process. Ms. Cassady reiterated from previous meetings that the Town has an agreement with DCA to complete the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) by May 1, 2008 and there is nothing illegal or unorthodox about the order of events regarding this large scale amendment transmittal and the EAR process. Ms. Konchan introduced this item by providing some of the background and a summary of this proposed comprehensive plan amendment (see attachment #1). Ms. Konchan referred in particular to the Brady property which has been under some discussion stating that there is no intent to prevent development of a single family home in their recommendation of designating this area as conservation, as this will not preclude that; access to this property is from a private easement through Harbor Village. Ms. Konchan referred displayed her memo dated October 22, 2007 (attachment #2) to collectively address some of the written citizen comments they had received. Councilmember Goudie referred to the visioning process of a few years ago and their current vision statement which is a product of that. He stated that following that process, they amended their comprehensive plan in 2003 to match this vision and crafted very specific language in establishing a riverfront overlay district and very deliberately prevented dry boat stack storage, as they determined this was not a compatible use with a residential area. They also very deliberately incorporated language as to the five thousand square foot limit. He expressed concern that the Council is being asked to make changes which will give developers a lot more opportunities than they have now. Ms. Konchan corrected a possible misunderstanding because the 2003 comprehensive plan amendments called for implementation of design standards, not the prohibition of boat storage or establish a limit of five thousand square feet as those were put in the land use and development code. Ms. Cassady referred to a question that has arisen throughout this process about requiring a development plan as part of the consideration of some of these changes. She stated that this is not the time to require that a developer submit a plan because the Council might then be making changes to match that plan instead of creating their plan independently – determining what they want and don’t want without this influence. Mayor Epps stated that her thoughts regarding dry boat storage have changed over the years for a few reasons: 1) her support for working waterfronts, 2) on a peak day they are only looking at twenty percent use, and 3) the manatee protection plan encourages dry boat storage. Mayor Epps opened for public comment. Barbara Davis, 4871 Sailfish Drive, she lives adjacent to the ROD and also owns a vacant lot on Sailfish. She said that until now these changes have not been final and addressed her objections: the final copy of the merged plans was not available until 10:45 this morning; she believes that this Council is not ready to make this transmittal at this point because there have been many emails sent today; the Town has adopted changes without doing the EAR of the prior Comp Plan, even though Department of Community Affairs (DCA) said in their October 21, 2007 letter that we can legally do this, but questioned if they to do this ethically. She said Council is putting the cart before the horse and read from Florida Statutes regarding the process. She again said that while DCA may allow you to do this, morally Council has an obligation to Town citizens. She also objects to the Planned Waterfront District (PWD) and spoke about inconsistency with the Land Use and Development Code. She believes the PWD will allow large condos or Town homes in her back yard and asked why density is included in the comp plan. James Morris, 420 South Nova Road, Daytona Beach, represents Inlet Harbor and Lighthouse Boatyard, submitted written objections (attachment #3 and accompanied by written objection from Gary Comfort) to the Town on their behalf. He briefly explained that the objections offered on behalf of Inlet Harbor relate to a denial of legal protection of their properties and an improper designation of their conservation property. He agrees that the PWD would only apply to Pacetta. Ed Gunn, 4350 Candlewood Lane, as a citizen and resident agrees with Ms. Davis and is present to speak on behalf of the Lighthouse Association. He said that unfortunately, the Lighthouse Overlay District remains unwritten and the broad brush strokes do not properly address protection of the Lighthouse. He then read from an earlier letter submitted to the Town Council by the Lighthouse Association (attachment #4). Ann Caneer, 4928 S. Peninsula Drive, has lived here for the last 37 years, spent 18 years on the Planning Commission, 16 as representative to the Volusia Growth Management and just retired as Director of the Lighthouse. She thinks this is an absolutely horrible way to treat the citizens of Ponce Inlet; that the Council should be ashamed of themselves and should not be approved tonight. Bud Solano, 67 Beverly Hills, is on the Board of Directors of the Lighthouse Association and said he particularly objects to the riverfront commercial section, especially the 5,000 square foot language. Ginger Bayer, 55 Jennifer Circle, is a realtor and sells to people who love this Town the way it is and said Council is going to change it to something else. She believes that when Council opened the door to Pacetta, they opening the door to lawsuits. She said that she works are Inlet Cove Marina and said that when one boat goes out, you’re talking maybe seven parking spaces for one boat. She also hears that little boat mover all day long and thanks God she doesn’t live by it. The boat movers will still make noise even if the boat stacks are enclosed, and said the comp plan revisions would cause property values to be devalued due to massive, massive confusion with vehicles. She asked that they give it more thought before transmittal. Tom Gannaway, 95 Beach Street, said he is also a realtor and lives on Beach Street, one of the main roadways to the riverfront area. He believes that we do need a comp plan, perhaps it has flaws, but they can be addressed in the future. He is not here to argue against boat stacks or bands at a restaurant and is in favor of transmittal. Ann Gates, 4682 S. Atlantic Avenue, said she is here to speak in support of the transmittal. She believes that the property owners on Front Street deserve the opportunity to move forward. Peggie McClellan, 4327 S. Peninsula, said that Council has worked hard and long on this plan, and feels it’s time to get the comp plan passed. JoEllen Basile, 4740 S. Atlantic Avenue, Unit 3, submitted her objections in writing and said she agrees with everything Barbara Davis said. She said they have repeatedly asked for less than 5,000 square buildings and said it seems to her that one property owner is being singled out favorably. She spoke about the 143 Beach Street historic sites and scenic roads and feels they are incompatible with currently revised language. She said they can transmit without the contentious language. Finally, she said she has a moral compass that causes her to ask: can I sleep at night? She wonders how they can sleep at night if they transmit this document. She then thanked the Council for their efforts for this Town and said she hopes they sleep well tonight. Julie Davis, 87 Jennifer Circle, submitted her comments in writing. She said she is a long-time resident of Ponce Inlet and said we need to keep it a small Town. She is not against working waterfronts, but just wants it on a small scale, especially in the historic areas. She feels Council needs to take a hard look at our vision statement and said it is not too late to rethink and change their minds, reminding them that Council voted to demolish the Davis House and changed their minds after hearing from residents. Robyn Hurd, 4924 Sailfish Drive, said she and her husband live adjacent to the ROD. She then read from a prepared statement (attachment #5). Jay Merola, 111 Inlet Harbor Road, read from a prepared statement (attachment #6). Stan Demkoski, 4835 S. Peninsula, said he generally agrees with Mr. Gannaway. He said that as a retired executive, he appreciates the work done on the Comprehensive Plan and he feels the Town of Ponce Inlet has done a good job in balancing interests of residents and business. He has seen the waterfront improve over the last twenty years and feels that this progress should continue and should be environmentally sensible. He feels the amendments remove a number of ambiguities and represent a good balance, saying it is basically the outline and you have to look at reasonable people doing reasonable things. Finally, he stated that he supports comp plan transmittal. Diane Hand, 119 Inlet Harbor Road, said eight years ago when they moved here, they bought land across from beautiful conservation land. When they moved in Inlet Harbor’s boat stacks were in accordance with regulations and within a few months another stack was added. She spoke about the canal dredging, called EPA and found that they were in violation. Then came their clearing of Brazilian peppers, have asked many times who is on watch, and as time passes there is no buffer between their houses and the questionable development that is underway. The neighborhood has asked how they can be part of the process, they are not against developers, but are against how the original vision is being discarded in favor of what the developers want. The vision calls for a primarily residential community, with small scale business to serve the community and she asked what’s happened to the vision. The requested changes being discussed award the developers with no consideration to the residents adjacent to these lands. We are not against working waterfronts, but there are issues that need to be addressed, and removing the prohibition against boat storage units with no size limitations is ridiculous. Additional boat storage units on Inlet Harbor Road would be disastrous to the neighborhood. She has recently begun researching marine fires which destroy everything around them. She cannot understand how these proposed changes can be considered as any type of personal benefit for the citizens and asked them to consider what is right for the citizens. Rich Van Rensselaer, 4880 Sailfish Drive, lives adjacent to the area being talked about. He feels that the Town’s vision is being stepped on and quoted from his letter submitted to Town Council regarding changes, disagrees that they are broad strokes. He added comments regarding the Mayor’s earlier email response regarding the visioning being our guidepost and said he feels that once we start treating our laws as guideposts we are wrong. He claimed they had hundreds of people at the visioning meetings and said their voices should still be heard. He said when he bought his property, dry stacks were not allowed and he has a problem with proposed changes allowing them. He told Council that they need to keep their eye on all the people who helped out with this. Larry Fornari, 4926 Sailfish Drive, submitted his comments in writing (attachment #7) and mentioned highlights. He agrees with everything said except by those who spoke in favor of transmittal. Marian Schlaupitz, 50 Pompano Drive, first visited many years ago when the lighthouse was the biggest attraction and it still is. She moved to the area in 1984 and to Town eleven years ago. She understands the residents’ concerns and feels that the biggest development in Town is residential in nature. She thinks it’s unfortunate that we can’t be reasonable in our approach to business, saying that all of our business that are now considered working waterfronts have been here for years and while their complexion has changed, there are more people visiting than there were in the past. She is in favor of the amendments to the comp plan, believes that current businesses have improved their properties and said we should all try to work together. Michael Ramsey, 47 Beach Street, said he agrees with the lady who spoke just before him, and is in favor of the comp plan. Kris Derr, 148 Bounty Lane, said she communicated with Council a little over a year ago regarding a 14’ concrete wall built on her street. She tried to fight this and was basically told that the code is open to interpretation by the Town planner. She said that everything that is ambiguous is open to interpretation and wondered if we are opening ourselves to a lawsuit. She then commended Mr. Goudie’s comments and asked that ambiguities be cleared up. John Trumpy, 4514 S. Peninsula, is in favor of the new comp plan. He believes that in order to have a working waterfront it has to be economically viable. Don Kraska, 55 Ocean Way Drive, serves as the Chair of Planning Commission and has attended many of the LPA meetings in addition to the Commission’s meetings on the Comp Plan. He feels a good job has been done and the plan should be transmitted. He assured those present that the Planning Commission will work to do everything possible to make revisions to the LUDC benefit both residents and developers. He urged residents to attend future meetings and voice their opinions. Morgan Bond, 109 Inlet Harbor Road, thanked the Mayor, Mr. Goudie and Ms. Blissett for responding to his emails. He agrees with Barbara Davis, Diane Hand, Jay Merola and Robyn Hurd and wanted to say that he is terrified of the mentality that he believes he sees from some of the council members. He does not object to people making money, but urged them to think outside the box and be creative, saying he believes we have to give something in return if we are taking something away. He is angry about the desecration of the conservation area on Inlet Harbor and asked the Council not to put the cart before the horse. Rhonda Glasnak, 4518 and 4511 S. Atlantic, is a commercial owner and resident of Ponce Inlet, thanked them for their work on the comprehensive plan, thanked them for reconsidering and changing Racing’s North Turn’s land use designation from multi-family residential to commercial. On the subject of the Pacetta property, she believes they have done a really nice job and the property looks better then it has in some time. She believes the Town needs to be fair to both the residents and the business owners; they (Pacetta) have a huge investment, as do all the commercial owners. The Town needs to strike a balance to make it feasible for commercial owners to survive. Barbara Lavelle, 4867 Sailfish Drive, agreed with Barbara Davis and Robyn Hurd. She thanked Mr. Goudie for sticking to his heart. She works with Ginger Bayer (at Inlet Cove Marina) and can’t hear conversations with clients while in the office, but said when driving prospects on Beach and Sailfish they see the beauty. She dislikes having to tell them about the possibility of 5,000 square foot buildings in the commercial are at the south end of Town. She believes developers have due diligence periods and shame on them if they don’t get the information needed, saying their lack of due diligence is not the residents’ problem. She said the people deserve respect of the Council. Due to continued interruptions to the meeting by clapping after many speakers following repeated warnings from the Chair, Mayor Epps instructed the Sergeant of Arms to clear the room and stated that one speaker at a time would be allowed in for the continuance of this item. Immediately following this order, a ten minute recess was taken at approximately 8:45 p.m. Upon reconvening, Ms. Cassady then read procedures of behavior at Town Council meetings and asked that the audience maintain decorum. Mayor Epps said that we encourage public participation and asked that the audience respect the fact that this is a business meeting and we must be fair to all present. Gary Comfort, 85 Ocean Way Drive, said that he has had more than ample time to address the comp plan, wasn’t going to speak until Ms. Derr spoke. He feels that there is a sentence regarding B-2 that is ambiguous and asked that the method of determining floor area for boat stacks be added to alleviate that resolve that ambiguity. Frank Emmerich, 4626 Riverwalk Village Court, said he supports the transmittal of the comp plan. Jeff Powell, Oak Hammock Court, and is in favor of the changes. Tami Lewis, 108 Ponce deLeon Circle, has lived in Town since 1986 but first visited in 1959. She has participated in many civic boards, including Council, Charter Review and Visioning Committee, and said that this Town has done a lot of wonderful things over the years. She stated that she didn’t live here and serve over the years only to be quiet on the issue of a PWD. She understands that things change and grow, but disagrees with the PWD and asked that Council dump the PWD and go ahead and transmit. Vic Petrenko, 151 Bounty Lane, said nobody is impacted more than he is because the boat yard is in his back yard. He feels that Council members spent an afternoon on his back patio, they would change their minds. Simone Johnson, Front Street, said she loves Ponce Inlet and feels very fortunate to own such beautiful property with a group of family and friends. She read a prepared statement (attachment #8). Alan Watts, Cobb & Cole, 351 East New York Avenue, DeLand, said we have gone over these issues many times before tonight’s meeting. He spoke about the perceived division between residents and developers, and reminded everyone that the people he is working for are also citizens of Ponce Inlet and spoke about the passage of Amendment One and the taxes paid by commercial properties. He thanked the Council for their professionalism during the process, thanked Mr. Comfort for his work, and said that the plan as written provides an avenue that Town can, but does not have to, take in the riverfront commercial district with trade offs to benefit to all. He offered that there has been dry storage on Sea Love Boat Works for at least twenty years if not longer, and the question is what the best method of dry boat storage is, saying that they have asked for the right to present plans which include dry boat storage. He then thanked the Council for their attention. Mayor Epps closed public comment. Vice-Mayor McCormick thanked everyone who participated in this process over the last three to four years; we did not get to where we are now lightly. He stated that the comprehensive plan presently in effect allows all the activities that have been objected to tonight and they need to remember that the comprehensive plan applies to all and protects all and it is only to that level of detail. Councilmember Goudie thanked everyone for coming out to dispel the illusion that this is only opposed by a handful of people. Councilmember Hinson thanked everyone for coming out and making their comments but they have had numerous public meetings and have had very little turnout until tonight. He stated that he votes according to what he thinks is best for the Town and referred to the manatee protection plan which encourages dry boat storage and noted the small percentage of use impact that would actually have. Councilmember Sturno thanked everyone for coming out and voicing their opinions. So much work has gone into the creation of this amendment and he thinks they should approve it. Councilmember Sturno added that he wants to go on record in opposition to the Charter limitation for rebuilding over thirty-five feet and feels they should be proactive and address this fairly before they find themselves facing this issue, should one or more of these buildings be damaged beyond the established percentage threshold. Mayor Epps stated that she appreciated everyone coming out tonight and was very glad that most of this document is agreed upon – they have a very small area of disagreement. The EAR is being done appropriately as eighty to ninety percent of this process has been reviewing the previous comprehensive plan. She stated that they did not do a full review of their comprehensive plan in 2003 but simply made a large scale amendment to one area of it. She reiterated her position that the comprehensive plan is a broad brush of their intent for the Town and the land use and development code is where the details of that should be placed. Ms. Konchan addressed some of the citizens comments of this evening by stating that a final clean copy of the comprehensive plan has been posted on their website for at least ten days and the only changes within that time were those made at the Local Planning Agency meeting which was held on March 12^th – but those have been available since the day after. Regarding statements referring the establishment of the floor area ration, she stated that this should be done for commercial in the land use and development code just as it is done for residential. Ms. Cassady referred to some of the comments made tonight as taking sections of the amendment out of context but that when it was placed in context and other sections reviewed, most all of the matters were already addressed within. Vice-Mayor McCormick moved to APPROVE the first reading of Ordinance 2008-01, seconded by Councilmember Sturno. This motion PASSED 4-1 with the following vote: Councilmember Sturno – yes, Councilmember Hinson – yes, Vice-Mayor McCormick – yes, Councilmember Goudie - no, and Mayor Epps – yes.

B. Second reading / adoption of Ordinance 2008-02 (formerly 2007-30), amending the Code to create a procedure for the application and permitting of special events. Ms. Cassady read this ordinance by title and confirmed that she had approved this for legality and form: AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF PONCE INLET, FLORIDA, CREATING CHAPTER 51, ARTICLE I, IN THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE TOWN OF PONCE INLET, FLORIDA, RELATING TO SPECIAL EVENTS; DEFINING “SPECIAL EVENT”; CREATING A PROCEDURE FOR THE APPLICATION FOR AND PERMITTING OF SPECIAL EVENTS; PROVIDING FOR THE APPEAL OF DENIAL OR REVOCATION OF SPECIAL EVENTS PERMITS; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Ms. Blissett stated that this ordinance is now presented for second reading (after one year in the making and five first readings) and asked if Council had any questions. They did not. Mayor Epps opened for public comment. Ronda Glasnick, 4545 South Atlantic Avenue, requested the Council consider not enacting this ordinance. Jeff Powell, 4618 Oak Hammock Court, stated that he did not think they needed this ordinance. Mayor Epps closed public comment. Ms. Blissett stated that this ordinance has been fully reviewed by staff and area businesses and addresses everyone’s concerns – staff needs some established criteria. Councilmember Hinson moved to APPROVE the second reading / adoption of Ordinance 2008-02, seconded by Councilmember Goudie. This motion PASSED 4-1 with the following vote: Councilmember Sturno – yes, Councilmember Hinson – yes, Vice-Mayor McCormick – no, Councilmember Goudie - yes, and Mayor Epps – yes.

C. Second reading / adoption of Ordinance 2008-03, establishing requirements within the Code regarding the execution of contracts with indemnification clauses. Ms. Cassady read this ordinance by title and confirmed that she had approved this for legality and form: AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF PONCE INLET, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR AUTHORIZATION OF CONTRACTS CONTAINING INDEMNIFICATION PROVISIONS BY RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL; PROVIDING THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE TOWN MANAGER MAY EXECUTE CONTRACTS CONTAINING INDEMNIFICATION PROVISIONS; PROVIDING THAT ANY INDEMNIFICATION PROVISION EXECUTED OR CONSENTED TO IN VIOLATION OF THIS ORDINANCE IS ULTRA VIRES AND VOID; PROVIDING THAT ANY REMAINING PORTIONS OF A CONTRACT CONTAINING AN ULTRA VIRES INDEMNIFICATION PROVISION SHALL REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT; AMENDING SECTION 2-1 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE TOWN OF PONCE INLET TO CLARIFY INDEMNIFICATION BY THE TOWN FOR COUNCIL MEMBERS, BOARD MEMBERS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS CONSISTENT WITH FLORIDA LAW; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND CONFLICTS; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION, AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Ms. Cassady had introduced this item at their regular meeting in January and Council had agreed that it was prudent to adopt an ordinance of this nature to protect them against inadvertently indemnifying parties that should be liable. Mayor Epps opened for public comment. Seeing none, Mayor Epps closed public comment. Councilmember Goudie moved to APPROVE the second reading / adoption of Ordinance 2008-03, seconded by Councilmember Hinson. This motion PASSED 5-0 with the following vote: Councilmember Sturno – yes, Councilmember Hinson – yes, Vice-Mayor McCormick – yes, Councilmember Goudie - yes, and Mayor Epps – yes.

9. CITIZENS’ PARTICIPATION: Mary Hoss, 12 Kelly Bea Court, expressed concern about Resolution 2007-18 regarding quasi-judicial matters. She was disturbed that it took seven months for the Board of Adjustments (on which she serves as chairwoman) to receive this and when she cross-referenced it to the Florida Statutes, she found that the one to which it refers does not exist. Staff will look into the delay in sending this to their Board and Ms. Cassady will see to correcting the scrivener’s error with respect to the Statute number. Raul Rio, 71 Beach Street, stated that he is very disturbed by the recent activity at the Hasty burial site which was done without regard or Town approval. He requested further action be taken. Mayor Epps assured him that the Town was taking the appropriate action on this. Paul Brooks, 88 Jana Drive, stated that he has repeatedly been a victim of crime in the area of his home and the judge has now ruled in his favor this week regarding the two attempted break-ins and numerous trespass incidents. He stated that he has been dealing with this for over a year and that they have a competent police department but indicated they may be under-staffed.

10. ORDINANCES (FIRST READING) AND RESOLUTIONS:

A. Resolution 2008-03, encouraging the United States Department of Defense to award the contract to buy a new fleet of aerial refueling tankers to Boeing in order to keep the jobs and economic activity in America. Ms. Cassady read this resolution by title and confirmed that she had approved for legality and form: A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF PONCE INLET, VOLUSIA COUNTY, FLORIDA ENCOURAGING THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE TO AWARD THE CONTRACT TO BUY A NEW FLEET OF AERIAL REFUELING TANKERS TO BOEING, THEREBY KEEPING JOBS AND ECONOMIC ACTIVITY HERE IN AMERICA; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTING RESOLUTIONS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Ms. Clauss stated that Mayor Epps mentioned at their regular meeting in February that she had received a request through the Florida League of Mayors from the Mayor of Sunrise asking for support on this topic. This resolution was prepared as a statement of that support. Mayor Epps had since heard that this contract had now been awarded to the European based company and asked Ms. Clauss to contact the requesting party to confirm and determining if this was now a moot point. Ms. Clauss had done so and been advised that this contract had been awarded as heard but Boeing was appealing that decision and this resolution was now even more important to them. Vice-Mayor McCormick and Councilmember Goudie both expressed that they were against this resolution because the Department of Defense’s decision was based on sound cause – Boeing had demonstrated unethical behavior, inability to meet production requirements, and a much higher cost. Mayor Epps opened for public comment. Don Robinek, 4545 South Atlantic Avenue, stated that Boeing’s original offer was not even a purchase but a lease and the decision to go with the European based offer provided a seven billion dollar savings. He also noted that the production work will be performed in the U.S. so the concerns about the economic shift are not substantiated with the facts. Wayne Olive, 3 Kelly Bea Court, stated that he doesn’t feel this decision is any business of the Council’s. Gary Comfort, 85 Ocean Way Drive, stated that he felt passing this resolution would be a very poor decision as there are so many factors to be looked upon that one should not simply say “only buy American”. Council determined not to consider this resolution request any further.

B. Resolution 2004-04, supporting measure for “Green Local Government” through improved environmental performance and encouraging the State Legislature and Governor to do the same. This item was postponed to the April regular meeting due to time.

11. FROM THE TOWN COUNCIL

A. Councilmember Sturno, Seat #5, indicated he had nothing further to report.

B. Councilmember Hinson, Seat #4, thanked Councilmember Sturno for his support regarding the rebuilding of structures in excess of thirty-five feet as enactment of the strict adherence to the statement within their Charter would leave many homeless if a disaster did occur. Councilmember Hinson stated that they will vote on the topic of the proposed I-95 exit between Port Orange and New Smyrna Beach at the Metropolitan Planning Organization meeting on Tuesday, if anyone would like to attend.

C. Vice-Mayor McCormick, Seat #3, indicated he had nothing further to report.

D. Councilmember Goudie, Seat #2, indicated he had nothing further to report.

E. Mayor Epps, Seat #1, stated that a group called Floridian for Smarter Growth was now challenging the legislation proposed by Hometown Democracy.

12. CONSENT AGENDA

A. Approval of Town Council Regular Meeting Minutes – February 20, 2008.

~~B. Approval of Garden Club request to place signs and have fee waived.~~

C. Approval of contract for auditing services with Brent Millikan & Company for FY 07/08, 08/09, and 09/10.

D. Approval of declaring certain items as surplus property and authorizing the Town Manager to dispose of them in accordance with established procedures.

E. Acceptance of Echo Grant in the amount of $400,000 for improvements to Ponce Preserve.

F. Acceptance of Echo Grant in the amount of $223,195 for improvements to 143 Beach Street.

G. Approval of the Management Plan for the Wilbur Bay Wetlands, as approved by Volusia County of March 13, 2008.

H. Approval of authorizing Volusia County Mosquito Control to perform low-level flights in connection with their inspection and aerial application of insecticides for the control of mosquito larvae and adults in compliance with FAA regulartions.

Mayor Epps read the items A and C through H proposed for approval on the consent agenda. Councilmember Goudie moved to APPROVE items A and C-H on the consent agenda, seconded by Councilmember Hinson. This motion PASSED 5-0 with the following vote: Councilmember Sturno – yes, Councilmember Hinson – yes, Vice-Mayor McCormick – yes, Councilmember Goudie - yes, and Mayor Epps – yes.

Council extended the meeting for several five minute intervals from this point forward to take them to the end of the meeting.

13. OLD BUSINESS:

A. Discussion of 2008 Legislative Session – Town priorities and appointment of an alternate representative. Mayor Epps stated that she felt they should have an alternate appointed in the event that their primary, Councilmember Goudie, could not attend. Vice-Mayor McCormick was appointed by consensus as their alternate representative for the 2008 Legislative Session. Regarding their priorities, all agreed that the resolutions 2008-01 and 2007-05 expressed those, along with the issues noted by Mayor Epps at their special meeting held on January 30^th when she asked that they request the State Legislature make clear that the State cannot restrict the municipality’s ability to charge reasonable user fees, that the fines for poaching are extremely inadequate, that they need focus on protection of working waterfronts, and that properties should be valued on current use not highest and best use.

14. NEW BUSINESS:

A. Request for waiver of fees for Town services in the amount of $370.08 for the S.P.A.R.C. run. Ms. Blissett stated that this is a request for the waiver of the fees for the services of the Town police department for this run. Though this is not a Town-sponsored event, the Town Council has historically waived these fees each year but they have not waived fees for other runs which raise money for charitable donations. Ms. Cassady expressed concern regarding the waiving of fees because they have no criteria on which to base their decision. She encouraged them to consider a donation to S.P.A.R.C. instead, if they felt inclined to assist them with this. Barbara Davis, 4871 Sailfish Drive, was present to represent this request and expressed her appreciation if Council would consider this as a donation request. Mayor Epps opened for public comment. Seeing none, Mayor Epps closed public comment. Councilmember Goudie moved to APPROVE a donation to S.P.A.R.C. in the amount of $370, seconded by Vice-Mayor McCormick. This motion PASSED 5-0 with the following vote: Councilmember Sturno – yes, Councilmember Hinson – yes, Vice-Mayor McCormick – yes, Councilmember Goudie - yes, and Mayor Epps – yes.

B. Garden Club request to place signs and have fee waived. Vice-Mayor McCormick stated that he had requested this item be pulled from the consent agenda because it was essentially the same type of request as they received from S.P.A.R.C. since the application fees they have established are designed to recoup the cost of Town services. For the reasons in the previous item, staff recommended not waiving this fee but offered the donation option if Council was so inclined. Mayor Epps opened for public comment. Wayne Olive, 3 Kelly Bea Court, suggested they notify all of their area organizations of this policy. Mayor Epps closed public comment. Councilmember Goudie moved to APPROVE a donation to the Garden Club of Ponce Inlet in the amount of $50, seconded by Councilmember Hinson. This motion PASSED 5-0 with the following vote: Councilmember Sturno – yes, Councilmember Hinson – yes, Vice-Mayor McCormick – yes, Councilmember Goudie - yes, and Mayor Epps – yes.

15. FROM THE TOWN MANAGER. Ms. Blissett indicated that she had nothing further to report.

16. FROM THE TOWN ATTORNEY. Ms. Cassady inquired if the Town Council would like her to begin preparing an ordinance for a Charter amendment concerning the thirty-five foot height restriction as it applies to rebuilding after a disaster, to address non-conforming use in a different way. All agreed this should be prepared for their consideration for referendum.

17. ADJOURNMENT. Mayor Epps adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m. announcing the upcoming Goals Meeting scheduled for April 5^th, 2008 and the Regular Council Meeting of April 16^th, 2008 at 6 p.m.

Respectfully submitted by:

Jeaneen P. Clauss, CMC,

Assistant Town Manager/Deputy Clerk