FORT MYERS BEACH

LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MEETING

APRIL 16, 2002

Town Hall - Council Chambers

2523 Estero Boulevard

FORT MYERS BEACH, FLORIDA

 

 

 

I.          CALL TO ORDER

The meeting of the LPA was opened by Chairman Betty Simpson on Tuesday, April16, 2002, at 12:00 p.m..

            Members present at the meeting:   Anita Cereceda, Nancy Mulholland, Jane Plummer, Betty Simpson, Harold Huber, Jodi Hester and Chairman Roxie Smith.

            Excused absence from meeting:   Hank Zuba and Jessica Titus

Staff present at meeting: Town Manager Marsha Segal-George, Deputy Town Manager John Gucciardo, Dan Folke and Bill Spikowski.

                       

II.         INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

            Invocation was made by Chairman Betty Simpson.  All assembled and recited the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

III.        PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS

            None.

 

IV.        PUBLIC HEARING ON 3 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS: 1.  Application 2002 TEXT- annual updating of the 5-year schedule of capital improvements; 2) Application 2002-2-TEXT - Reconsider plan amendment 2002-2- TEXT, which had tightened the plan’s Chapter 15 provisions guaranteeing perpetual development rights on most substandard lots; 3) Application 2002-3-TEXT- Revise the Recreation Element to establish policies regarding public acquisition of beachfront land.      

            Bill Spikowski, Planning Consultant for the Town, came forward.  He expressed that they are required by state law to put the Town’s 5-year schedule of capital improvements into the Comprehensive Plan.  It was formulated the previous summer during the budget process.  This is a routine amendment and is ratifying what was done last September.

 

            MOTION:          Made by Roxie Smith and seconded by Anita Cereceda to recommend to the Town Council adoption of Application 2002-1-TEXT - annual updating of the 5 -year schedule of capital improvements.  Motion passes unanimously.

 

            Discussion:       Town Manager Segal-George expressed that in August the new CIP will be brought to the LPA. 

 

            Bill Spikowski spoke regarding Application 2002-2-TEXT.  Several who were on the LPA two years ago are familiar with this item.  He explained that they are reexamining the same amendment from two years ago.  At that time Mayor Dan Hughes had proposed that the Town greatly tighten the restrictions that let substandard lots remain buildable, even though they did not meet current regulations.  The original 1999 Comprehensive Plan was very lenient, because it was basically the same language adopted by the County in the mid-1980's.  Since this time a number of property owners have had their development applications turned down as a result of this amendment.  When the Town Council heard these on appeal, they felt it would make sense to look at this issue again.  This is the reason it is before the LPA today.  He is not recommending that the LPA make any change. 

            He reviewed the options with the LPA.  Option one would be to repeal the change, which would go back to the more lenient regulation.  Option two was discussed by Town Council and would keep the rule where it is, but specifically authorize some level of variances or appeals to be considered.  This sounds good, but to try and determine what the rules would be is the difficult part.  He included in his memo the standard variance criteria.  He does not find these to be very applicable in this case.  He did try to come up with some ideas of variance criteria that would make sense, but he came up dry.  Possibly, the LPA might have some ideas today.   Option three would keep the rules basically the way they are, but change the numerical criteria.  The current plan declares as substandard any lot less than 7,500 square feet.  This is the standard lot size that has been required to develop new lots in the county for the last 20 to 25 years.  There is nothing magic about 7,500 square foot lots.    This number could be changed.  Option four pertains to what kind of criterion might make sense.  This is the opposite of the variance rule.  It would be looking at all the possible lots this rule applies to, and decide which ones they would not give breaks too.  

            Today the LPA will need to take public input and decide if they would like to recommend a change to the Council.  He expressed that he has received a number of phone inquiries on this item.   

            Harold Huber commented that every lot owner has the option of bringing up comments now, but he sees no reason to make a change.  Each person has the right to bring in and ask for a hearing.

            Bill Spikowski replied that they do not have this right.  The criterion in the rule is specific.  On investigation you either meet them or do not.  Two people who did not meet the criteria then appealed the decision.  The Town Council did have to admit that the rule did apply to these people.   Some sympathy existed, but the Council was unable to let them go on the basis that the rule did not make sense.  One case is actually pending litigation as a result of this. 

            Dan Folke prepared a memorandum to explain the process he went through.  The big question was how many properties would be effected?  The property appraiser’s office printed out an aerial photograph and identified parcels which were comprised of multiple lots.  This list identified 476 parcels that are made up of multiple lots.  He went through the map and identified the parcels that would require the minimum use determination.  The parcels he eliminated immediately were Bay Oaks and the pool.  These were made up of 30 or 40 original lots.  The likely hood of this public land becoming private residence is not likely.  He also eliminated parcels where large condominiums existed.  He went to the street, which would need the MUD, and he counted the number of existing structures on these parcels. He then counted the number or original platted lots.   The math was completed and the information which comes out would be the number of additional units that could potentially be built, if the minimum use determination was issued.   They come up with the possibility of 230 additional dwelling units.  This is an estimate.  One assumption he made was that each structure he identified is a single family home.   The final assumption is that multiple parcels, which consist of a lot and a ½, could be purchased by someone, assembled and reconfigured back to the original plats.  Two types of situations exist where the rule would effect what could be done. 

            Dan went on to comment that you could have one parcel that is comprised of two whole platted lots.  An existing structure sits in the middle of this parcel.  The rule does not allow them to move the structure or remove it.   The second type of situation involves the purchase of multiple parcels and to reconfigure them back.  He feels that it is important to distinguish these two scenarios.  Of the 230 units, 93 of them would result from the first scenario.  The remaining 137 units would result from someone purchasing multiple parcels and reconfiguring back to the original lot lines. 

            At this point Chairman Simpson asked for public input.

            Brian Cross who lives at 5230 Estero Blvd. came forward.  He thanked the LPA for the opportunity to speak today.  He commended the Council for amending the plan to stop the development of substandard lots.  He expressed that this strikes at the very issue no one wants, which is density.  He would like to LPA to remember the rights of the property owners that are adjacent to these substandard lots.  These changes effect his property and could potentially create a much worse situation in the future.  He urges the LPA to stand fast and retain the existing Comprehensive Plan requirements regarding substandard lots. 

            Beverly Grady came forward and indicated that there are many Fort Myers Beach property owners who own contiguous property.  They have a right to a dwelling unit on each of those platted lots, except in one instance. This instance would be the change made by Council with ordinance 00-15, if a structure crossed a lot line they then lost a dwelling unit as of this date in November 2000.  These would be the 93 property owners that Dan Folke mentioned in his memo.  Today if you own two lots and they are vacant you get two dwelling units.  Today if you have two lots with a dwelling on one and the other is vacant you have two units.  If both have two exiting units on it, you can build back with two units.  She commented on Dan’s memo and indicated that he divided it into what exists today and what could be.  The 93 are families or property owners who had two or more whole lots and by this change lost a unit.  If they were put back to where they were in November 2000 they would get back their 93 units.  She feels that the amendment should be tailored to only recognize those who had and owned a platted lot and have this apply to those people only who had their rights taken away. 

            Diane Easterbrook provided a handout to the LPA.  She is present today to ask the LPA for the return of something that has been taken from them.  Since 1991, she and her husband David have lived at 123 Bayview Ave..  For the first six years they rented with the first option to buy.  In 1997, they purchased the property.  It was not purchased for just the small cottage, but mainly for the land it sits on.  They knew that the land was platted and recorded as two legal building lots.  The plan was to move the cottage to one of the lots, improve the cottage and live in it until they could afford to build their dream home on the second lot.  Her neighbors can attest to their intentions.  When they finally were able to carry out their plan, they discovered that three months earlier the Town had changed the law without warning or notice to them or others.  Their land was down zoned.  Imagine how they felt.  She expressed that their lots are not substandard and they highly resent this terminology.  She explained that they have received many sympathetic and outraged responses from neighbors and friends.  Realistically, she does not believe that correcting this problem will create a substantial increase in the number of homes on the beach.    They are respectfully asking the LPA to choose Option one.  The thought of having to beg for a variance to accomplish what they could formally do by right appalls them.  To adopt other than Option one would be discriminatory.  She thanked the LPA for their time and patience.

            Jerome (Jerry) Burner of 120 Bayview came forward.  He reported that 23 years ago they bought two lots with the specific intent of developing them individually.  His neighbors, Mark and Diane Easterbrook, bought their property with a specific intent of splitting it when they could afford to do this.  He knows that they are no longer allowed to do this.  He feels that they should go to Option one.  He does not feel that this will add to the density of this island that much, considering all the high rises going up.  He wished they would reconsider and go for Option one or repeal it totally.

            Jane Plummer was shocked with the taking away of property rights.  A purchase of property is one of the largest purchases a person makes.  They do not do this without consideration.  She does not feel that this is fair.  She is very much in favor of returning this to Option one, because the majority of lots platted in 1925 up to 1960 are 50 x 100 or less.

            Roxie Smith agrees with Jane to some extent that something inadvertently has been done, which perhaps infringes on one’s property rights.  She favors Option two. This still gives control to a degree yet it perhaps removes the unfairness of taking away peoples property rights.  She personally owns homes on 50 foot lots.  She would have a problem with leaving the standard of 7,500 square feet.  She feels that they need to reduce this standard. 

            Town Manager Segal-George explained that the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code effects property rights.  One of the major pieces of the Comprehensive Plan was the removal of property rights attached to the sand for the whole island.  She feels that the LPA in their discussion needs to start from the understanding of what the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code does with regard to peoples property.  Statutory rules exist with regard to how notice, comprehensive planning and comprehensive plan changes and amendments were made. 

            Jodi Hester understands that the property rights are effected, but the majority of people who have a single family home over two lots are not going to tear it down and separate.  She would like to see anyone who currently owned property in November 2000, and wanted to take the option to separate  have this opportunity until a date specific (year 2004).  It will then come into play where they keep the same thing that was passed in November of 2000.   

            Bill Spikowski asked Jodi what she would ask someone to do by the year 2004?  Tear the house down?  Jodi replied that they would have to follow thru with their plan in order to get it done.  Bill Spikowski will call this Option five.  This option would allow a grace period. 

            Anita Cereceda is not comfortable with any of the options provided by Bill Spikowski.  She expressed that this started with Dan Hughes when she was on the Council.  She agrees with the Town Manager and expressed that this is what comprehensive planning is.  The goal of the Comprehensive Plan was to control density where they could.  She explained that she believed the heart of Dan Hughes’ concern was speculative development.  She does not feel it is fair to tell the Easterbrook’s they cannot have what they had in the past without giving them some opportunity to conform.  She likes Option five and would like to see Bill Spikowski create some language to allow this.     

            Harold Huber expressed that they would only be worrying about those property owners who owned the property on November 21, 2000.  He wanted to be sure that this is part of the language.

            Nancy Mulholland feels that Jodi came up with a very good idea and she is in agreement. 

            Jane Plummer commented that the Historical Society is trying to keep some of the 50 foot lot cottages.   She feels that part of this island is the cottage style house and not the trophy houses.  She is unsure of the Easterbrook’s time frame, but each person has their own time frame for their plans.  She is not in agreement with Option five and does not feel it is fair for the LPA to give a time frame.  If a person is financially not able to go through with their plans they will lose their rights. 

            Anita questioned if the date was eliminated and everyone who owned property on November 21,2000 was exempt, would this be acceptable?  Anita could go along with this.

            Jodi disagrees very strongly with the unlimited time. 

            Harold is in agreement with the intention of the LPA.  He feels the time frame is a little short and should be 2005.

            Anita clarified the intent of Jane Plummer.  When the property changes ownership it will not go to the new owner.  This option will not run with the land.

            Jane replied that she does not feel there should be any time limit.  If any limit will be imposed, it should at least stay with the property owner that owns it at this time.  If they purchased two lots, it should remain two lots.  She feels it is unfair to take-away property rights.  

            Town Manager Segal-George suggested that Bill Spikowski put some language together and another session will be scheduled.  Bill replied that this discussion has been very helpful.  He feels that some of the options in #4 make sense, but the concept of option five be added and combined.  He commented that this would be better than the variance approach.  Discussion was held regarding the time to bring this back to the LPA.

            Town Manager Segal-George suggested May 14TH.  Anita indicated that she would be away on this date.  She would like the LPA to figure a day this could be heard, so that she could be present.  These matters are important to her.        

            Town Manager Segal-George will make arrangements to have this item on the May 21st agenda.

            Jane Plummer asked Bill what he is planning on writing for this new condition?  Bill replied that he is suggesting a combination of Option four and five.  The people who owned in November 2000 would have some time to move or rebuild.  The lots which have eroded or do not have house frontage would not be treated the same way. 

            Jane asked about the lot and one half’s that are not built on?  Dan Folke replied that they could only do one before the rule change and they can only do one today, unless you assemble other parcels. 

            Jodi thanked Mr. Cross for coming up.  She would like to see him come forward again to make the same comments.  She expressed that this has effected him and others on the island, and should also be considered.

 

            MOTION:          Made by Harold Huber and seconded by Jodi Hester to continue this matter until May 21, 2002 at noon.  Motion passes unanimously.

 

            Bill Spikowski went on to comment that the Town is trying to acquire the Newton Estate.  The most likely funding source is the Florida Communities Trust.  One of their charges in using this public money is that they want to help local communities implement their Comprehensive Plan.  Purchasing the Newton property is completely consistent with the current plan.  The scoring matrix that Florida Communities Trust uses gives extra points for a project that helps implement the plan.  The Newton property was not available when the plan was created.  He expressed that his language makes it more explicit.  This adds two new policies and amends four existing policies.  He feels through this change it  will greatly help their chance of obtaining funding to purchase this property.

            Roxie Smith complemented Bill Spikowski on his narrative. 

            Chairman Simpson questioned if anyone from the public wished to address the LPA.  None was heard.

 

            MOTION:          Made by Jane Plummer and seconded by Nancy Mulholland to recommend to the Town Council the revision of the Recreation Elements to establish policies regarding public acquisition of beachfront land.  Motion passes unanimously.                    

 

V.         LPA MEMBER ITEMS

            Anita Cereceda - Appreciated the LPA’s assistance in changing the date for the Comprehensive Plan Amendments, so she could attend.

            Roxie Smith - Asked the result of the sign ordinance?  Town Manager Segal-George replied that the Council is giving the LPA six months to make recommended changes to the sign ordinance with regard to A-frame signs, offsite signs and second story businesses.  The sandwich signs must conform with the definition and only one per business.  The signs must be brought in at night and the business owner must submit a sign permit at no cost.  She expressed that this will put a lot of work on Town Staff.  Offsite signs will be used very sparingly with permission from the property owner.  The signs need to be professionally done.  She received permission with flexibility for the second floor businesses to try and come up with options.   Ginny Ross will take digital pictures as each permit comes in.  It was unanimously approved.  She will be liberal with the sandwich signs, but will not be for the offsite signs. 

            Jane Plummer - Asked if the LPA will be vacationing for part of the summer?  Town Manager Segal-George replied that Council will have three meetings in June.  They are taking off all of July.  Councils’ first meeting back will be August 26th.  In the past the LPA is taken down at the same time.  The LPA is usually brought back in August.  She suggested bringing them back on August 20th.  The LPA would be down the whole month of July.  She is unsure about June at this time. 

            The LPA decided on August 27th as the start back date. 

            Harold Huber - Will be gone from May 15th until August 3rd.  He will be present at the May 14th meeting. 

            Betty Simpson - Will miss the May 14th meeting.  She will be back for the meeting of May 21th.

            Asked about Seafarer’s?  Town Manager Segal-George replied that the Developers Agreement was approved.  The Master Concept Plan was approved and amended.  This was approved 3 to 2.  Bill replied that the three buildings on Estero Blvd. are approved.  The hotel building on Crescent is shown on the Master Concept Plan, but he does not have enough parking for it.  If he wants to build that building he must come in for a parking deviation.  The zoning resolution was approved 3 to 2, but on the Developers Agreement it was unanimous.  He is also giving substantial right-of-way donations in the Developers Agreement. 

            Anita commented on the hearing and indicated that she was angry.  As people approached the podium they were interrupted and questioned about their residency.  There are only two places which require residency, which is the Council and LPA.  Everywhere else they have welcomed expert testimony from outside the county and have included as many people that have wanted to participate.   She expressed that there is hatefulness regarding the ability to care about the community, if you do not live on the south end of the island. This upset many people including herself.     

           

VI.        PUBLIC COMMENT

            Diane Easterbrook came forward and expressed that their needs to be unlimited time for those landowners.  A time limit is a hardship.   She explained when they bought their home in 1997 within one year David was in a car accident.  The next year he was in school full-time, and it took them until January 2001 because of these happenings.  These events were unplanned.  This time limit is difficult for a family to accomplish.  She expressed if this is limited to only the present owner when the property owner sells you are still down zoning their lots and taking away the value.  This homeowner will still bare the burden.  It is not a perfect world and things do happen to people. 

            Brian Cross came forward and expressed that the LPA should keep in mind all situations are not created equally.  His situation is different from the Easterbrook’s.  He really appreciates their consideration.

            Jane Plummer commented on the time frame.  She feels the LPA should look at how time frames work and the relevance of A-frame signs with regard to tearing down houses and rebuilding them.      

 

 

 

 

 

 

VI.        ADJOURN

            The meeting was adjourned at 1:45 p.m.. 

 

Respectfully Submitted,

 

 

Shannon Miller

Transcribing Secretary