The September 2025th meeting of the Local Planning Agency of the City of Dunedin will now come to us. The Local Planning Agency is an advisory board of citizens appointed by the City Commission. This board is comprised of volunteers who represent the thoughts and concerns of the community. The purpose of tonight's meeting is to make recommendations to the City Commission regarding each item on the agenda. Except for Item 1C, tonight's format will be as follows. I will introduce each item on the agenda, after which the City Representative will present information about it. Thereafter, the members of the Local Planning Agency will have an opportunity to ask questions of the City Representative. Finally, anyone from the public may come forward. Those from the public wishing to provide comments will need to please approach the lectern, state your name and address, and then utilize the microphone at the lectern in order for their comments to be recorded. Individual public speakers will be limited to three minutes of speaking time, and we kindly request that speakers are respectful of the countdown clock. Citizens speaking on an agenda item or during citizen comment will not engage in loud, boisterous, or disruptive conduct. Please don't. Any speaker that has continued inappropriate or irrelevant comments will be requested to relinquish the podium by the chair. The first item on the agenda is to approve the July 9th, 2025 LPA minutes. Are there any corrections, additions, or deletions to be made? Does it look like it? Hearing none, do I hear a motion to accept the minutes as submitted? So moved. It has been moved and second to accept the minutes as submitted. All those in favor signify by saying... Aye. Thank you very much. This just says public input on this? Yes, any time you vote on an item. Oh, okay. Is there any public input about our minutes? It doesn't sound like there any, so we're closing public input. That's new, isn't it? No? I don't remember doing that before. All right. Ordinance 25-07, amendments to the city's floodplain management regulations. Well, good evening. Joseph DePosqua on behalf of Community Development. And so what I have for you tonight is just a brief overview of our ordinance. So 2507, this is amendments to our floodplain management regulations. Essentially, you may or may not know, but in July, a new law was enacted. And Chapter 25-190, Laws of Florida, that became effective July 1st. And what essentially it does is it requires, by state law, that the cities, any city or county municipality can no longer have a cumulative substantial damage or improvement rule on the books. So in the city of Dunedin, we've had for about 10 years now a five-year cumulative. And so that has to, essentially by law now, that has to go away. So the primary function of the ordinance you're considering here this evening is to just simply remove that. And in doing so, there's a couple other housekeeping items that I'd like to point out that we're going to be doing. So, again, we're going to delete the language that has to do with the conflict with the new state law. We're also deleting language in 105.21.2, and that's because these are requirements that are now in the Florida Building Code. And what I mean by that is when we adopted them, and I provided the previous ordinance 15-40, when we adopted those, we were a little ahead of the game. At the time, there was not a requirement for a one-foot free board in Florida. There is now, and there has been for some time. So we're going to go ahead and just remove that as a local technical amendment. The law, Florida Building Code, requires that. And then the last items you'll see are just a number of reference changes from the previous version. When this was originally adopted in 2015, the reference to definitions was in a different section of the Florida Building Code. So we've just simply made that modification. So we're referencing the correct section of the Florida Building Code. And so what I provided you is a copy, of course, the ordinance, the laws of Florida that were adopted and went into effect on July 1st, the previous ordinance you can kind of see by comparison, and then, of course, the other backup to support that. And so with that, I'll, you know, that's really this and somewhat of a housekeeping item, but I'll be glad to answer any questions you may have. So we're essentially wanting to conform with the state law. Is that correct? Well, yes, and what I mean by that is we've already, starting July 1, we've already started doing this in practice operationally. But this is cleaning up our code, essentially. Yes, sir. Thank you. Joey, can you go through the 50% threshold? Once you cross that threshold, what does that mean? And if I understand with this new code that it doesn't matter how much money you may have put in the house in the recent history under the new law, as long as it's under that 50% of the current value, you can just go ahead and do whatever you need to. But what's the over 50%? What's the impact of that? So let me go at it two different ways, just so we're fully, so I'm kind of clear as to what we were doing versus what we've been doing since July 1st. So with the five-year cumulative, if you did a series of projects over, let's say, a two- or three-year period, the cumulative value is added together. And if it equal or exceeds 50% of the market value of the building, then you have to bring the building into compliance with the current regulations. What this does is goes back to the base requirement that each project on its own, so an improvement or a damage repair, if that does not equal or exceed 50% of the value of the building, then, you know, you can go forward. If it does, then you have to bring it into compliance. So if you exceed the 50%, you just always have to bring the building into compliance. It's just now we're not looking back at, it's been referred to as a look-back period. We're not allowed to do that any longer. Each permit, if you will, will stand on its own merits. It's, you're welcome. Can you give me, like, a real, I mean, you know, I read this, substantial improvement repairs to a structure includes cumulative, substantive improvement. But give me a real- Microphone, please. Give me a real-time example. Just make up one. Sure. But I want to know how it really works. So I can do it from, I'll do it very quickly from both perspectives. Obviously, if people want to improve their home, they want to do an addition, they want to do a renovation, a remodel, rehabilitation, and their building is sitting in a flood zone, a special flood hazard area that's typically an A or a V zone. Then we get the market value of that building. Let's just say for brown numbers, it's $100,000. I know that's ridiculous these days, but let's just say $100,000. That means your improvement project cannot equal or exceed $50,000. Otherwise, you are considered a substantial improvement, and you would have to bring the building into compliance. The same scenario happens if it's damaged, like with the floods. It's the building's condition prior to the damage. And again, if it was worth $100,000, and it costs more than $50,000 to repair it, then you would be substantially damaged. And you'd have to go back and meet all the codes. Correct. And what we're talking about is elevating the building. Right. So that means you're going to have to elevate it, right? Yeah. And so the fundamental difference, obviously, for most people's common knowledge is when you don't comply, it's because your living floor is below the base flood elevation. So you're restricted by the 50% rule. Well, thank you. You're welcome. Hey, Joey, one more question. I noticed the state law added this historic structure line in here. What is an alteration that could preclude a structure's continued designation as a historic structure? So what that essentially means is that anything you would do to the building that would delist it from whatever historical list it's on. So clearly, if you took a craftsman home and you decided to slap modern metal frontage on it, that would be an alteration that would not be consistent with the requirements, usually, of the historical district. What you're basically talking about is doing something to significantly impact the historic significance of that structure. And most of the time, it's because you've done something to the outside of it. Okay. And that could be unique based upon the historic designation requirements for that landmark or district. Yeah. And, of course, we wouldn't want to encourage anything that would detract from the historic significance. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Something you've centered on also when you're speaking, you keep on stating the building. The actual property has nothing to do with that. It's simply the value of the building, correct? That's a great point. Yes, sir. So it's the value of the structure, excluding the land, and any special features, such as a swimming pool, fences, landscaping, retaining walls, seawalls, things that are not part of the primary structure. Those do not count. So it is the primary building. Thank you. That's a great point. Thank you. That's a good point. Anybody else? Super. We are open for public input. Does anyone from the public wish to speak? See anyone? So we are closing public input. Can we get a motion for this item? I'll make a motion to approve Ordinance 2507 as written. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? The vote passed. Thank you. Okay. Okay. We move on to a more formal session now. While the local planning agency is not a quasi-judicial board and therefore has no final decision-making, our procedure for quasi-judicial items are structured in a quasi-judicial manner for the benefit of those who come before it. There's got to be a better way to say that. The commission will be the ultimate quasi-judicial decision-making authority. The item on our agenda tonight that is quasi-judicial in nature is item 1C and the format will be as follows. I will introduce each item after which the city representative will present information about it. Thereafter, the members of the LPA will have the opportunity to ask questions of the applicant. Finally, anyone from the public may come forward. Those from the public wishing to provide testimony about the item will need to approach the lectern, state the name and address, and then utilize the microphone at the lectern in order for their comments to be recorded. Individual public speakers will be limited to three minutes of speaking time, and we kindly request that speakers are respectful of the countdown clock. Finally, both the city representative and the applicant will be provided any final comments. Upon conclusion of each public hearing, the LPA will consider the evidence before it and will vote on the agenda item. That voice vote is the rendition of the order of the board, and there will be no written decision by the board. Anyone in the audience who wishes to give testimony to any items on the agenda would need to be sworn in by the city deputy clerk. The clerk will now swear in all persons wishing to speak or give testimony to tonight's quasi-judicial agenda item. Do you swear the testimony you are about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. Has anyone had expert communications regarding this item? No. Thank you. Application LUPZO2025-001. The floor is yours. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, Joseph DePasqua on behalf of the Community Development Department. So, yes, I'd like to do a brief presentation on this application. Application LUPZO2025-001. So, a little bit of information about it, the application here. Then, the petition you're considering this evening for recommendation of the City Commission is for a land use plan amendment and a rezoning request. The applicant and owner is the Golden Acres RO Association Incorporated. The representative is Jonathan James DeMonte Esquire. Mr. DeMonte is here this evening. The street address of the property is 150, excuse me, 1050 Main Street, Dunedin, Florida, 34698. And the property size is 0.53 acres. What you'll see there to the right of the screen is I just tried to orient you with where the property is in relationship to the mobile home park. Regions Bank, which probably most folks are familiar with. And there's a restaurant that's had a bit of turnover in names, but there's a restaurant there on the corner as well. A little bit of background. So, the image you're seeing to the far left, that is the mobile home park, the Golden Acres Mobile Home Park in its entirety. It's 23.38 acres. It's including the parcel we're discussing here this evening. And you'll see it outlined there in yellow. You'll also see the enlarged view where you can see a close-up of the property we're discussing here this evening. Again, the property is 0.53 acres. And some of the background information, the applicant purchased the property in June of 2020. In 2023, the residence that was on the property was demolished. And the property has remained vacant ever since. As you can see from the images, the aerial images we provided here, the property is essentially landlocked, meaning it doesn't have any access from either Main Street or Robin Hill Lane. And so, the access is through that arrow. You'll see the two-sided arrow there. It's through the mobile home park, the private streets. Therefore, the applicant is wishing to unify this property by changing the land use plan category and the zoning district designation to match the rest of the Golden Acres Mobile Home Park. And the applicant's use and ultimate use of the site is to be part of the common area for the park. And no additional mobile homes are planned for this property. And Mr. DeMonte can speak to the technicalities of why that's important on what the owners can do with the site. And so, this is the same image to the left where you can see there's a star there. And what we provided you, a little street view, you can see what the parcel looks like today. That's a driveway that used to lead into the home that's been removed. And you can see it's basically just a relatively flat grassed area that's fenced in. So, the first item you're looking at is an ordinance for the land use amendment. And again, they want to change the property from a retail and services called R&S to residential low medium. And as you can see from the image to the right, the property is outlined in red. And you'll see the area that is sort of the light tan or the light brown color. That's the RLM. The entire park is sitting in that land use today. And they, of course, would like to change this property to match that. And then you'll see that currently the red is the retail and service as it sits today. And staff finds that that land use plan amendment is certainly consistent with our comprehensive plan and the countywide rules. And then sort of this is just giving you some idea of a sort of a side-by-side between what's there today or what the land use is today versus what's proposed. As you can see, retail and services allows a number of commercial uses. Retail, it's a more intense use. The dwelling units per acre allowed at 24 units per acre. It's got a little larger floor area ratio than what you would find. This is typically a commercial land use. And then the proposed is residential low medium, which is 10 units an acre. And essentially, primary uses on it would be residential, as the name obviously indicates. Moving to the rezoning. Again, you'll see from the image here the applicant would like to have the zoning match the mobile home park, which is the zoning is MH, mobile home. That's the green area. Right now, being FXM, they would like to change it to the mobile home. When it comes to rezoning, the city does have criteria in the code. And within the staffing, we have provided the analysis of those criteria. There's seven items that have to be examined. And essentially, we've gone through that from a staff. And we are recommending approval of the rezoning from form-based medium to mobile home as being consistent with the criteria in the land development code. And again, going from a relatively more intense commercial mixed-use zoning to mobile home, which essentially allows mobile homes and accessory uses associated with mobile homes and mobile home parks. And so you'll see that here, the Ordinance 2509. The form-based medium is a high density with a myriad of mixed uses, retails, offices, row homes, apartments. It does allow a great deal of uses. And they want to move it, of course, to the much less intense mobile home, as I said, so to be consistent with the rest of the park. And again, the mobile home allows just that, mobile homes and associated accessory uses. So that said, staff recommendation is to approve, have the, is the recommendation to the LPAs that the LPA recommend to the City Commission approval of Ordinance 2508. And that would change the land use plan category of this property from retail and services to residential low medium. And then Ordinance 2509 is to change the zoning district designation of the property from form-based medium to mobile home. And if this recommendation will move forward to the City Commission on October 9th for first reading, the next action after that, as you probably recall with a lot of our land use, is that this has to go to the county for approval. And so that will be sort of the next action after first reading. The staff will transmit that to Forward Pinellas. It'll go through what's called a Tier 2 amendment process. And then once that process is completed, it'll be brought back to the City Commission for their second and final reading. And we're going to bring back the zoning and the land use at the same time. So that'll be re-advertised once we get through that process. And we do expect that to happen perhaps later this year, but if not, maybe early next year, depending on the timing of the county meetings. And with that, that concludes my presentation. What was previously on that plot? A single-family residence. And it's going to, well, what, and the request is to make it residential zoning, but you're not going to build on it. So the request is it's going to be a residential low-medium land use with a mobile home zoning. They have no intention of using it other than for common area of the park. And I think Mr. DeMonte can talk about what it would, in other words, there's no intention to put other more mobile homes on it. It's going to be used as common area. They've indicated things like overflow parking, picnic tables, and basic recreation area for the park. But I'll certainly defer to Mr. DeMonte for that. Please. Good evening. I'm Jonathan DeMonte. I'm counsel for Golden Acres, which is a resident-owned mobile home park co-op. Just briefly, the history is instructive here. In 1959, Walter and Roberta Hardin bought a parcel of property that includes all of what is now the mobile home park, the frontage where the bank and the restaurant is, the land behind it, that was all theirs. They ran a nursery there for a long time, from 59 until 68. In 63, they bought a house on the portion that we're interested in integrating back into the park, and they lived there for the rest of their lives. In 1968 to 71, the portion that is the mobile home park was built by the Hardins during that period. All the homes in there date from 68 to roughly 71. In 71, they created a right-of-way for themselves so they could get in and out of their lot they kept for their house. In 86, they sold the mobile home park to Brandywine, a real estate investment trust, which continued to operate it as a mobile home park. The Hardins retained the property that we're dealing with here where the house is. They converted their right-of-way into an easement, and that remained in place. In 1992, Brandywine wanted a cell. The residents exercised their rights under 723071 Florida statutes, the right of first refusal of mobile home tenants to buy their park, and they purchased the park. They converted it to a co-op. They had the option of condo co-op or HOA. As a practical matter, co-op allows them to meet the time frames under 723 of 71. I know that because I've done 40 conversions of tenants to residential home parks. The Hardins continued to live there. Mr. Hardin passed away in 2006. Mrs. Hardin continued to live there. She passed away. She did transfer the property into her trust. In 2015, the property was rezoned to the current zoning of FXM. I'm not sure Mrs. Hardin was even aware of that at that point in time, even though it remained their house and it was her homestead. It was their registered homestead since 1963. In 2019, she passed away. The residents took that opportunity to purchase the property from her estate. Her estate was represented by Deborah Bushnell, which you all probably know. I went to law school with Deborah. What a good friend of mine. And because it was a landlocked piece of property and the residents didn't want who knows what going through there, and because it was zoned commercial, they didn't want it converted to commercial, so they bought the house. However, the house was in very poor condition. It really hadn't had any work done on it since Mr. Hardin died in 2006, and again, it had been built in 63, so they just decided to demolish it at this point. We've already filed a unity of title with the property appraiser and the tax collector, so as far as they're concerned, it's now being taxed as a single parcel. Under 719, they were co-op under Chapter 719 Florida statutes, which would also be true of 718 Condo and 720 HOA. They cannot change the number of lots without 100% consent of every one of the lot owners, so the likelihood of them even being able to get 100% consent, I can tell you that I represent a lot of community associations. It's all I do, somewhere between 50 and 100 of them, and I can't get 100% of them to agree on the time of day, much less adding units. So they have no desire to add the units under 718 and 719 and 720. The only thing they can do with it legally is treated as common area, common amenities. So the only thing they can do with it is they can leave it as green space, or they could add amenities, but they'd have to apply to do that. They haven't decided on that because they don't have it rezoned yet, but they do have a committee. The president of the association will be here next time to tell you about that. Some of the items that are in consideration is to simply leave it as green space, and I think most of it will be left as green space. They've discussed they could use some overflow parking. I've done this several times with a number of different communities, and the kind of things they're usually looking at is to put picnic tables out there, maybe barbecue grills, horseshoe pits. A few of them have covered picnic tables and things like that. I have one community up in Port Ritchie right now who's looking at putting in pickleball courts, but they're $50,000 a piece, so I don't know whether that's going to happen or not, but they'd have to come back to you for that permission anyway. So whatever it is, it's going to be green space or amenities. It's never going to be anything else. Thank you. Questions? Do we have any questions for the staff or for the applicants? I just have one question for Joey. It looks like in 2015 that zoning changed to FXM. How would that happen, given that this was originally all part of the parcel that was the mobile home part? Part of it was carved out for their personal residence. How is it that that section would have been zoned differently than the rest of it, and potentially without their knowledge even apparently, it sounds like? Well, no, it wouldn't have been without their knowledge. The city would have, but I believe this was part of the city's rezoning of some of these corridors where they were, you know, FXM's a relatively new zoning district. When I say relatively new, 12, 13 years old. And I think it was part of those corridor rezonings. And they would have notified everybody. And, you know, the applicant's representative, and I talked about this, it's possible that they got notifications and just given the condition of maybe the owner at the time didn't understand maybe the ramifications. I really can't speak to what exactly happened. But I just know the city did, during that period of time from 14 to 15, was doing the form-based medium corridor rezonings. And this was probably identified. And there may have even been a belief that this was a good fit at the time. I certainly don't know, but it could have been. Okay. So Mr. Harding died in 2006. The rezonings was in 2015. Mrs. Harding died in 2019. She would have already been in her late 80s or early 90s at that point. We also have to, I didn't know her personally, but from what my clients have told me, and I agree, understand it's hearsay, but she probably didn't read it or didn't understand it. She was already in her mid to late 80s by that point. I have a question. So you're saying green space, that they can never build, like, bathrooms or a pool or, like, a little community center if they wanted, like, a gathering place. You're just saying green space. If they want to build a pool or put in pickleball courts or tennis courts, they'd have to come back and get permission to build that. Right. But they could. Like, they could build a house, but they could build, like, a community center there for people to go to, right? They already have one. They already have a pretty good-sized clubhouse. They've already expanded. They already have a pool, so they're not interested in any of that. Again, the items that are being floated is overflow parking, picnic tables, barbecue grills, and horseshoes. So far, that's it. Theoretically, yes, they could come back and ask you for permission to put a pickleball court on it. But it's all green space. I didn't know they had a community room. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Just one quick question. Who owns the white vinyl fencing that surrounds all of that between Regents Bank and the neighboring homes? Is that part of the mobile home park, or is that part of those businesses? I honestly don't know, but if you give me a second, it probably shows up on the survey. For my previous life, I'm going to say that's the mobile home park, because that actually carries all the way out to St. Chris and goes around the city property back there. Got it. Yeah, it looked like it was well-maintained and everything. So it made me wonder if it was the parks. Yeah. And then just to your point, Kevin, about the property itself, it was a separate standalone parcel back in the day. So when the zoning was changed, it was a standalone. So if you didn't know any different that the only way you could get to it was through the mobile home park, it just looked like a parcel of property, just like all the other parcels of property. I'm just, for the record, I'm looking at the survey. It does appear that some of the fence is on this parcel. Some of it is on the bank parcel. Some of it actually goes onto the parcel that is still part of the park. So, yeah. One last minor question. It says deed discrepancy. It looks like there's a skinny little strip in there that we're not sure whose that is. Does that get resolved in this process? It does not. No? So you'll notice it's outside the scope of the legal description of what we're talking about. The discrepancy is between this parcel and it would be between the bank parcel. And you'll see it's sort of, I'll call it a hiatus between the two. So it's not part of this. It's not in the legal description. Okay. Okay. Well, thanks. That was my one question that I did have. And then I just wanted to, you know, thank the representative for, you know, basically the history lesson that was provided there. You know, we all seem to think that even we know when we moved here, it's always been that way. But this shows you what it was like back in 1959 when they bought just a big chunk of vacant land and had a nursery on it and how, you know, over the decades that's changed. And so I appreciate the history lesson. So thank you. You know, hang on. I knew Walter and Roberta, yes. And so I appreciated that, too. You know, they did a lot. The Hardens were really pioneers. They were some of the first Dunedinites. Dixie Harden, her, you know, sister-in-law. I mean, so, you know, I think it's wonderful that you're unifying the property. You're saying you're doing that. And then it is going to be used. And you said that if they wanted to do something, they have to all agree that bought the mobile home park, right? Didn't you say that? If they decided they want to put in a pickleball or a swimming pool, do they all have to come to? If they want to put in more mobile homes, it requires 100% consent. Whatever they want to do to this parcel, they need at least a majority vote of the total number of membership. Okay. And right now they're split up about 20% on five or six different things. Right. Yeah. I get it. But if they want to build anything, they still need a permit from you. Yeah. So they would have to come back and say this is what we've discussed by majority of the ownership. And that is the plan. Yes. Okay. That's the plan. Yeah. Thank you. Yes. Yes, it's a 55 and over community exclusively. That's it for us? So then we are open for public comment. Is there anyone from the public that would wish to speak to this item? Doesn't sound like it. Are we ready for a motion? Motion both of them at the same time. Microphone. We can do both. So 20, 25, 08, and 09. Thank you. Well, motion to accept both of the changes. I don't have them right in front of me, which did you call out the right numbers? L-U-P-Z-O 2025-001, both 2508 and 2509. What he said. What he said. Yes. Yes. Thank you. And we have a second. Is that right? Super. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? The ayes have it. Thank you, everyone. We are done. Thank you. Thank you.