FORT MYERS BEACH

LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MEETING

JANUARY 13, 2004

Town Hall-Council Chambers

2523 Estero Boulevard

FORT MYERS BEACH, FLORIDA

I. CALL TO ORDER: The regular meeting of the Fort Myers Beach Local Planning Agency was called to order on Tuesday, January 13, 2004 at 12:00 Noon by Chair Betty Simpson.

Members present at the meeting: Anita Cereceda, Jodi Hester, Harold Huber, Nancy Mulholland, Jane Plummer*, Betty Simpson, Roxie Smith, Jessica Titus, and Hank Zuba.

*Arrived late.

Excused absence from the meeting: None.

Staff present at the meeting: Town Manager Marsha Segal-George, Community Development Director Dan Folke, Lee County Division of Planning and Zoning representatives John Hagan, Jerry Murphy and Pam Houck.

II. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: All those present assembled and recited the Pledge of Allegiance. The invocation was given by Harold Huber.

III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES, December 9, 2003 and December 16, 2003:

It was agreed to defer approval of the minutes until after the Public Hearings to allow time for discussion.

IV. REORGANIZATION OF THE LPA – DISCUSSION BASED ON COUNCIL’S ACTION TO DELAY REAPPOINTMENT:

Town Manager Marsha Segal-George was asked to comment on this item. Normally this group would reorganize and elect a new Chair at this time. However, Council voted to delay reappointment of the LPA because the issue of the election date being changed had been raised and it was felt that the new Council members who are being elected should have a say in the appointment and/or reappointment of LPA members. After the election, which will be in March or, in the case of a runoff, April, the LPA members will be reappointed at that time. Town Attorney Richard Roosa is working on amending all of the applicable ordinances. Currently, the ordinances provide that all committees will be appointed and/or reappointed in January. This issue might be readdressed at the next Council meeting. Ms. Segal-George and Ms. Simpson asked the membership how they would like to proceed.

Harold Huber asked if a problem would be created in the event the current LPA were to reorganize now, and do so again in March or April. Ms. Segal-George explained that it could create a problem.

Jane Plummer asked why all the other committees were reorganized and not the LPA. Ms. Segal-George replied that this had not been specifically addressed, but that all the other committee appointments are for one year, and the LPA members have terms. It was also pointed out that there were more applicants for the LPA than there were vacancies, and this was not the case on any of the other committees.

Anita Cereceda agreed with Councilman Thomas’ position on postponement of LPA appointments. She is in favor of retaining the status quo until after the election. Mr. Huber pointed out that for legal reasons, inasmuch as the ordinances have not yet been revised, the reorganization should proceed at this meeting, and a second one be undertaken after the elections.

Nancy Mulholland felt that the ordinance should have been changed in advance and that Council should reconsider.

Roxie Smith agreed with Ms. Mulholland that the ordinance should have been changed before the action was taken. Ms. Segal-George advised that the members are legally seated on the LPA under the present conditions. Some of these issues had not been considered when the election date was changed to Spring. There is nothing that specifies that reorganization be done today. Ms. Smith expressed concern that the LPA members be independent and not dependent on whomever appointed them for guidance in making decisions.

Jodi Hester questioned what the legal implications on cases being heard within the next several months. She has asked Mr. Folke to obtain an opinion from Mr. Roosa. Ms. Segal-George referred to the ordinance which created the LPA and advised that it provides for members to serve until another appointment is made, so while a member is up for reappointment, the fact that the Council did not act does not make their seat illegal. Ms. Hester expressed the opinion that the LPA should reorganize now as specified in the ordinance, and if necessary, again in March or April.

*Jane Plummer arrived at this time.

Ms. Plummer pointed out that Bay Oaks Advisory Committee has terms, and Ms. Segal-George explained that this is not a Town committee, but a County one. The County grants the Town the appointments; it is not formed by a Town ordinance.

There was general agreement that the LPA should reorganize at this time. Ms. Simpson asked for a motion for Chairman, and explained that currently she and Roxie Smith are co-Chairs and take turns every other meeting.

MOTION: Nancy Mulholland made a motion to re-nominate Ms. Simpson and Ms. Smith for co-Chairs of the LPA for another term. Motion was seconded by Jane Plummer.

DISCUSSION: Ms. Simpson and Ms. Smith indicated their willingness to serve for another term.

VOTE: Motion was passed by unanimous vote.

V. PUBLIC HEARINGS:

1. VAR2003-000062 KENT/COOK POOL DECK REPLACEMENT. A request for 2 variances in the RS (Residential) zoning district from LDC Table 34-1; a] from the minimum side setback of 10 feet to allow a side setback of 6 feet; and b] from the required 25 foot waterbody setback to allow a waterbody setback of 21 feet. The subject property is located at 710 Matanzas Court.

Ms. Simpson read the case and opened the Public Hearing at this time. Those wishing to give testimony were called forward and sworn by Ms. Segal-George.

Harold Huber reported that he had visited the property and had ex parte communication with the applicant.

Ms. Simpson verified that the applicant had not appeared previously before the LPA and explained the details of the procedure for Public Hearings.

Terry Kent of 710 Matanzas Court came forward as the applicant. He presented the County report, copies of which were provided to the members. He explained the applicable dimensions and the orientation of the house on the lot. He said he is willing to cut the deck if the pool is allowed. He took issue with a statement on the County report that granting him a variance may set a precedent. Mr. Kent provided photographs and explained that the lot is heavily covered with vegetation so that he has no water view. He referred to Chapter 34 of the Land Development Code which he understands permit non-roofed structures up to 5 feet of the seawall. He also referred to Exhibit B and advised that he owns 6½ feet of the canal outside the seawall.

Jane Plummer asked whether when he purchased the property it had been disclosed that the pool was put in without permits. He said there had not been such disclosure. The property was advertised as a pool home. She asked whether a survey had been provided at time of purchase, and he replied that the survey he provided had been for the purpose of the loan.

Mr. Huber advised that he had visited the property and that it was a heavily vegetated lot, and if the pool had to be moved to the front yard all the vegetation would have to be removed. The pool is located in the most logical spot, but this pool has been replaced without a permit by the applicant.

Mr. Zuba verified that the applicant had purchased the property in 1999 and asked whether there were any exceptions shown on the title policy, and Mr. Kent replied that there were none. So there were no indications of non-conformance other than a notation that the pool and deck were not included on the tax rolls.

Ms. Plummer asked whether it was necessary to obtain a permit for an above-ground pool, and John Hagan of Lee County Division of Zoning replied that he has verified that a permit is required.

Jessica Titus said that she had been advised that the County does not tax above-ground pools. Mr. Hagan did not know whether this was correct. Ms. Smith asked whether the County had always required permits for above-ground pools, and Pam Houck of Lee County Development said that this was correct.

Mr. Kent advised that on his appraisal report the pool was listed as personal property.

John Hagan from the Lee County Division of Zoning gave his Staff Report dated December 29, 2003 as Staff’s analysis of the request. Based upon the findings and conclusions they have recommended denial of the variance. He referred to the 5 findings that must be met in order to grant a variance, and said that Condition 2, special and exceptional circumstances, are not necessarily the applicant’s fault because it appears he inherited the problem when he bought the house with the existing pool. The Property Appraiser’s tax rolls were examined, which show the house and some decks built in 1957, but he referred to Exhibit B of the Staff Report which says that the Property Appraiser’s records do not show the deck as it exists today, indicating that this was done without the proper permits. From the survey provided by the applicant, there are 31 feet from the seawall to the back of the house, which would allow for a 6 foot deck which would still meet the waterbody setbacks. Mr. Hagan referred to other dimensions as well which were the basis for recommending denial. With respect to the 6½ feet into the canal that the applicant says he owns, Mr. Hagan explained that this subdivision was platted in 1954, and since then a seawall was constructed which is not on the property line.

Ms. Cereceda asked for clarification regarding the waterbody setback inasmuch as the property line goes into the canal. Mr. Hagan replied that the Code provides that the waterbody setback be measured from the seaward side of the seawall. Measuring from the seaward side, the applicant could construct approximately a 6-foot wide deck, and the County felt this would be reasonable. Ms. Cereceda pointed out that requiring the applicant to remove an existing structure should be taken into consideration, and Mr. Hagan replied that this had been considered.

Ms. Mulholland asked specifically whether a permit was required when the applicant made repairs to the deck in 2001, and Mr. Huber replied that he understood that the entire deck had been replaced. Mr. Hagan was of the opinion that a permit should have been obtained. There was discussion about an 8-foot portion of the deck that was apparently part of the original structure.

Ms. Cereceda asked whether the Town had placed a stop work order, and Mr. Hagan was not clear on this point. Dan Folke advised that he believes the violation was issued after the work had been completed. If they were in the process, a stop work order would have applied.

Ms. Plummer inquired for an explanation of a stamp on Exhibit B, which was provided by Mr. Hagan. She also referred to certification of the survey and asked whether the applicant might have recourse from the title company.

At this time Ms. Simpson opened the meeting for Public Comment. There being none, Public Comment was closed and the applicant was asked to return for further comments.

Ms. Kent referred to the dimensions and location of the seawall, and mentioned that they have 13 grandchildren, which was the reason they wanted a larger deck.

Ms. Cereceda asked the applicant how long it took to replace and rebuild the deck, and Mr. Kent replied it had been about 2 years. She also asked at what point had he been in the construction when he received notification from the Town that he was doing illegal work, and Mr. Kent replied that the work was almost completed, which is where it stands now. Ms. Cereceda asked what is left to do, and Mr. Kent replied that several boards and deck lights remain to be done. The deck is currently functional and in use.

Mr. Huber asked when the pool had been replaced, and Mr. Kent advised that it was after the flood in September 2001 when the liner floated out and exposed other problems.

Roxie Smith asked for clarification of the time frames concerning construction of the house, installation of the original pool, purchase of the property, and replacement of the pool. She verified with the applicant that he had started work on the new deck at the same time the pool was replaced, and that the work had progressed almost to completion over 2 years without notification of any violation. He continued work until being notified by Mr. Crabtree that he was in violation, which was within the last 3 or 4 months. Since that time he has done nothing.

There was a question about an existing 8-foot deck which was part of the original house, and Mr. Kent explained that he was told by the County that an extension of this deck would not be approved as it was not in compliance, and he has no future intention to pursue expansion of this portion of the deck.

Mr. Kent stated that the only purpose of his variance request is to keep what is now existing.

Mr. Hagan added that if the LPA considers approval, some conditions be applied limiting improvements to what is existing, and also cutting off a portion of the 8-foot deck as the applicant has indicated he is willing to do.

Dan Folke added that the violation was issued in June 2003.

Harold Huber advised that he had visited the property in the morning and that upon examination he is in favor of allowing the applicant to keep the pool, with the provision that a portion of the deck be removed on the South lot line so that the deck is only on 3 sides of the pool. He explained that the present location is the most logical place for the pool, because by putting it in front all the mature trees would have to be removed, damaging the appearance.

Ms. Cereceda said that she would be willing to allow the applicant to keep what he has now, addressing the issue of degrees of compliance. She felt that the applicant should either be allowed to retain what he now has or be required to take it down, with no reference to removal of anything else that is existing. She referred to the widespread damage caused by the flood at the time the applicant’s property was damaged.

Jessica Titus agreed and also asked a question of the applicant concerning dimensions of the deck.

Mr. Zuba referred to other recent cases in which property owners are told after the fact that they should have obtained permits and asked about the issue of precedents.

Mr. Huber said the owner had had a conversation with the neighbor on the pool side, who had voiced verbal approval. Mr. Huber said he would agree with Ms. Cereceda and that the deck and pool should remain unless there were a complaint. There was discussion with Staff about setting a precedent.

Jodi Hester expressed concern that the LPA be consistent with its decisions, and agrees with Staff.

Jane Plummer said she would be in agreement if the applicant had created the situation, but in this case the situation was inherited. The applicant did everything correctly at the time of purchase to insure that he was obtaining a legal property. In this case, the applicant is replacing rather than creating. She felt that each case that comes before the LPA is considered individually, and therefore no precedent is set in any decision.

Ms. Hester pointed out that the Land Development Code was provides specific directions for rebuilding after a disaster, which she feels applies in this case.

Ms. Cereceda felt it was unlikely that others would take advantage of the situation and build first and obtain variances later. She also pointed out that the applicant inherited a property that was not in compliance. She feels that there is no detriment to the community or the neighborhood by approving this variance.

Ms. Plummer asked what Staff would recommend for conditions. Mr. Hagan replied that approval should be limited to the existing structure as depicted on Exhibit B with the condition that the owner eliminate a portion of the deck so it is set back 6 feet from the property line.

Ms. Mulholland expressed the opinion that a decision be based on what the LPA would decide if a request to build the deck were to come before it at this time.

Ms. Smith also referred to the fact that the owner inherited a problem through no fault of his own. She pointed out that after a storm many owners will make repairs without obtaining permits.

Mr. Zuba was concerned that there were other recourses to an applicant such as this one who had no knowledge of non-compliance. Ms. Cereceda agreed but felt that this case was appropriate for a special exception since the applicant had no knowledge that the property was noncompliant when he purchased it. Ms. Smith asked whether Mr. Zuba would consider an action contingent on the applicant’s providing his survey and title insurance policy to prove non-disclosure. Mr. Zuba said he would prefer to have factual information but was not sure this would be appropriate. Ms. Plummer made some remarks to the effect that Realtors must rely on information provided by sellers.

Dan Folke pointed out that the applicant has asked for a 6-foot side setback, which has been advertised.

MOTION: Motion was made by Jane Plummer to approve the variance of a] and b] with a minimum side setback of 10 feet, to allow the side setback of 6 feet and for the required 25 foot waterbody setback to be allowed 21 feet, with the added conditions that this is limited to the existing structure as proposed on Exhibit B and that whatever is required to accomplish the 6-foot setback be eliminated on that side. Seconded by Roxie Smith.

DISCUSSION: Harold Huber expressed concern that the lattice work would be replaced, and Ms. Plummer agreed to make this a part of the motion, that it be reassembled as it exists at 6 feet. Ms. Smith agreed as the second.

VOTE: Motion was passed by a vote of 5 to 4. Those opposing were Hank Zuba, Anita Cereceda, Jodi Hester, and Nancy Mulholland.

This case will go to Town Council on February 9, 2004 at 9:00 A.M.

2. DCI2003-00051 SHEILA F. WATTS IN REF. TO SANTOS BED & BREAKFAST. A request to rezone 5335 +/- square feet from Santos to Residential Planned Development (RPD), with deviations, to allow the conversion of 3 dwelling units in an existing multiple-family building to 8 Bed & Breakfast guest units. The subject property is located at 1321 Santos Road.

Ms. Simpson read the request and opened the meeting for Public Hearing on the case. Those wishing to give testimony were called forward and sworn by Ms. Segal-George.

Matt Uhle came forward representing the applicant. He appears in support of the Staff Recommendation for approval for a CPD with conditions, with the exception Condition 4, for which they will propose alternative language. He passed out documentation to the members and Staff consisting of four different exhibits. The last item is the proposed alternative to Condition 4. He explained that the property is an old platted lot located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Palermo and Santos. He described the structure currently located on the property and the surrounding residential and commercial uses. The property is in the Santos zoning district, which was RS-1 under the old regulations but is now a mixed-use zoning district which permits a range of commercial and residential uses, which is part of the justification for this request. He described the history of the property, which is also addressed in the Staff Report, as background information. Similar to the preceding case, there were violations prior to the present owner’s purchase of the property. There have been attempts to abate the violation by returning the property to three units instead of four. However, the Town did not agree that this would abate the violation. There have been appeals of the Staff recommendations, and the matter is now before the Circuit Court on appeal. The applicant’s intent has always been to convert to a Bed and Breakfast, which they agree is appropriately accomplished under the new regulations. Mr. Uhle referred to and described the Master Concept Plan documentation. The footprint and interior size of the building will not change if this application is approved. It is not an expansion of the square footage, but rather a conversion of an existing use to another use. He referred to some proposed minor external changes which are intended as aesthetic improvements. He referred to the existing condition schematic and the Master Concept Plan showing the improved version and described both the existing and proposed interior layouts. The number of bedrooms will remain the same, but some of the kitchens will be eliminated. Approval is requested because (1) the revised building will be more attractive; (2) the conversion will not result in any new bedrooms and will not accommodate any more people than the building currently does; (3) the second exhibit, which includes letters and petitions signed by people in the surrounding area, shows there is significant public support within the neighborhood for this proposal; and (4) the Town has identified the Santos District for multiple uses. They concur with Staff recommendation to approve this request as a CPD rather than an RPD. The reason for requesting a change to Condition 4 on the Staff Report is that the language only requires that Staff review the elevations and approve them. Mr. Uhle feels there should be more specific standards, and this is what has been provided in the exhibit. Some language has been added to address the setback requirements and clarify the different elevations.

Ms. Smith asked about the visibility of the north and south elevations, which will not change. Mr. Uhle advised that there is such dense vegetation that these elevations would not be visible from any viewpoint.

Mr. Huber asked whether the proprietor lives there now, and Mr. Uhle advised that a proprietor will be in residence as required by the Land Development Code. Mr. Huber also had some confusion concerning the renderings which Mr. Uhle attempted to explain.

Mr. Zuba asked about the occupancy level of the current structure. Mr. Uhle replied that his client rents out three units but did not have a figure. Concerning parking spaces, there are 7 spaces on the property itself plus 4 spaces shown on the site plan as potentially being vacated. As a result of changes to the elevation there would be 2 additional spaces on the property, which is a total of 9 spaces for 8 units and is one space in excess of what the Land Development Code requires. Mr. Zuba inquired about the proposed usage as concerns water and sewer usage and density, and how this approximates the current usage.

Jessica Titus asked for clarification of the current owner’s name and a different name shown on one of the letters from Bob Beasley, asking that Mr. Perillo’s request be granted. Mr. Uhle explained that there have been some changes in ownership, and that Mr. Perillo is a business partner of Mrs. Watts. Richard Watts, Trustee is deceased. Ms. Titus also asked about identification of the parking spaces, which Mr. Uhle explained was to identify a deviation.

Ms. Cereceda was concerned with the different versions of the renderings. Mr. Uhle explained that after the request had been submitted and reviewed, he became aware that the proposed renderings might not comply with the setback requirements. So to the extent there is a conflict between the rendering and the setback figures, the rendering would control. Ms. Cereceda did not agree with this but would concur with the rendering if dimensions were included. Mr. Uhle asked for time to confer with Mr. Perillo to determine dimensions, and there was agreement that these figures should be made available. After conference, Mr. Uhle advised that his client would suggest a 10-foot street setback. This is a dead-end street without much traffic, and this is consistent with the Town’s policy of getting commercial buildings closer to the street.

Harold Huber asked how this would affect the 19’3” figure and the deck dimensions. Mr. Uhle explained that his client is willing to comply with whatever the LPA decides. Mr. Uhle is attempting to avoid an approval that will not be workable.

There was a question about the dimensions of the porch on the rear, and Mr. Uhle made a rough guess of 8 feet. It was pointed out that the rendering only shows a porch on two sides.

There were more questions and discussion about the deck dimensions, setbacks and parking spaces.

Ms. Cereceda expressed concern with the vagueness of the presentation and said that while she has been in favor of this project from its inception, she does not want to see it jeopardized by failure to provide enough information.

The Staff Report was presented by Jerry Murphy of the Zoning staff. He entered the report into the record with the following revisions: On Page 2, under Condition 2B, site development regulations should be the same as for the Commercial Resort, (CR) Zoning District, not residential multifamily. That district, like the Santos district, has a 10-foot street setback, which Mr. Murphy believes addresses all the concerns regarding how the deck will be positioned. Mr. Murphy was of the opinion that Staff’s Condition 4 is superior to Mr. Uhle’s proposed revision to this Condition. On Page 3, prior to Town Council reviewing this case, as long as the LPA is comfortable with this elevation and the conceptual extension of the deck as shown on the Master Concept Plan, the applicable dimensions and measurements should be made available. If the LPA is not comfortable with such conceptual understanding, then the case could be continued and brought back with specific dimensions. He pointed out that it is intended to work with the applicant inasmuch as this will be an improvement to a property with a odious past.

Mr. Huber clarified that the proposal is for a total of seven guest units upstairs and a proprietor’s unit on the ground floor, and there is a requirement for the proprietor to occupy the eighth unit. It is possible that the owner will employ a manager rather than personally occupy it himself. If the owner or his agent were not in residence, the units could not be available for rental occupancy.

Ms. Plummer asked about the reasons for recommending approval as a CPD rather than an RPD, and Mr. Murphy explained that it was intended to be clear that this is of a commercial nature. There were also different street setbacks in CPD and RPD, and it was felt this was more appropriate.

Ms. Cereceda recalled Mr. Zuba’s question about increase in intensity of use and asked whether there could be more than 18 people in occupancy, as referenced in the application, with the use of rollaways. Mr. Murphy replied that the Code does not address number of occupancy, but that the rooms are so small that this is unlikely. He said that the County is comfortable that this is an appropriate solution for a property that has had issues in the past.

Mr. Zuba returned to the issue of density, and Mr. Murphy explained that the Code and Land Use Plan do not regulate persons, but dwelling units. Parking spaces also again came under discussion. Fire code and safety issues were also addressed. These would be reviewed before any permits would be issued. Commercial building regulations would have to be complied with, and changes could conceivably be required, but there would be no changes in setbacks. A review by Staff would insure that renovations are consistent with what has been presented to the LPA and Town Council.

Dan Folke addressed the subject of occupancy and said that current code does not specify maximum occupancy. The only definition is under “family,” which specifies 5 related individuals.

Ms. Smith felt that in a Bed & Breakfast, occupancy will be more closely governed because of on-site occupancy.

At this time Ms. Simpson opened the meeting for Public Comment. There being none, Public Comment was closed.

Mr. Uhle came forward on behalf of the occupant to discuss the subject of occupancy.

Mr. Zuba asked if there were any objection regarding the note and revisions as referenced by Mr. Murphy. Ms. Smith verified that the applicant agrees to leave Condition 4 as worded by Staff.

Ms. Plummer complimented the Staff Report.

Jodi Hester verified that the applicant had been the party requesting 8 feet as the rear setback. Specific measurements related to the stair and deck will be provided prior to Town Council’s review of this request.

MOTION: Motion was made by Jodi Hester that the LPA recommend Council approve Staff’s recommendation to deny the request for rezoning as RPD, but in the alternative to approve the rezoning from Santos to CPD with the conditions in the Staff Report dated January 5, 2004; Condition 4 is to remain as is, and rear setback dimensions for the deck will be provided prior to presentation before Council; and the note regarding removal of ROW as per Condition 8 before going to Council; and 2B Residential Multifamily be changed to Commercial Resort (CR) with deviations and the findings and conclusions. Motion was seconded by Anita Cereceda.

DISCUSSION: Mr. Zuba was concerned about the rear setback. Mr. Murphy advised that Staff will work with the applicant to revise Deviation 4 to reflect the Master Concept Plan with regard to the rear setbacks and provide greater specificity prior to taking the case to Town Council. There was lengthy discussion about this dimension. It was confirmed that Ms. Hester’s motion provided for presentation of the dimensions in question.

VOTE: Motion was passed by unanimous vote.

This case will go to Council February 9, 2004 at 9:00 A.M.

At this time Ms. Simpson entertained a motion for approval of the December 9, 2003 minutes.

MOTION: Motion was made by Jodi Hester and seconded by Roxie Smith to approve the minutes of December 9, 2003.

DISCUSSION: On Page 4, the Council meeting referred to will be January 26, 2004 instead of January 6^th.

VOTE: Motion to approve the minutes of December 9, 2003 with the above correction passed by unanimous vote.

MOTION: Motion was made by Jodi Hester to approve the minutes of December 16, 2003 with one correction. Motion was seconded by Nancy Mulholland.

DISCUSSION: On Page 2, “Ms. Foster” should read “Ms. Hester.”

VOTE: Motion to approve the minutes of December 16, 2003 with the above correction passed by unanimous vote.

VI. LPA MEMBER ITEMS AND REPORTS:

Roxie Smith reported that she had received a publication in the mail from an organization called Solutions to Avoid Red Tide, Inc. (“START”) which is apparently a movement in the coastal communities that the Town should be aware of. Ms. Segal-George advised that Staff is aware of this and intends to present it to MRTF. Ms. Simpson pointed out that it appears in today’s paper.

Jane Plummer said she was happy to see an officer down at the bridge but wondered why this isn’t started over Christmas. Ms. Segal-George said this is because no one is available. She has tried since early in December. It was verified that this must be a deputy or VOICE personnel. There are no VOICE volunteers from the Island, and most live at a distance. Ms. Plummer asked if this could be negotiated in the future, and Ms. Segal-George advised that there have been attempts but that no additional personnel are available for this purpose. It is hoped that some of the traffic solutions under way will have a positive effect. The difficulty has been in educating the public that some of these issues are not under Town control.

Ms. Plummer asked about the requirements to volunteer for VOICE, and Ms. Segal-George advised that this had been publicized and that the Sheriff had offered to conduct a class on the Island, but that no one from the Island volunteered. Efforts to recruit volunteers have been fruitless.

Betty Simpson said she is pleased that the alternating light is in operation.

Town Manager Marsha Segal-George advised the members that at the next LPA meeting on January 20, 2004 at noon the only case will be the Carousel case. Since this is a complicated case, this will be the only item for that meeting, but she cautioned the members that there is a heavy workload that is backing up in addition to the case load. She advised that as of now, no new hearing dates will be added. There will be no new Staff Report on the Carousel case. The applicant will be urged to present new information in advance if possible so that it can be reviewed prior to the hearing.

VII. PUBLIC COMMENT:

Bob Gaydos came forward and complimented the members on the conduct of the meeting. He reported on the upcoming Public Safety Fair on February 14, 2003 and asked for volunteers to donate blood. As a member of PSTF, he has been tasked with scheduling the Bloodmobile, and Lee Memorial requires a commitment of 15 volunteers. He has 10 at this time.

Mr. Gaydos said he has been a VOICE volunteer and advised that there is an intensive training program.

VIII. ADJOURN: Meeting was adjourned by Ms. Simpson at 2:40 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

Patricia L. Middlekauff

Transcribing Secretary