8.a TO2597 - An ordinance of the City Commission of the City of Tamarac, Florida, amending Chapter 10, Article 4 of the City of Tamarac Land Development Code, entitled "Development and Design Standards," by revising Section 10-4.4, entitled "Landscaping and Tree Preservation," to clarify and strengthen the city's landscaping and tree preservation regulations, to enhance consistency in their interpretation, application, and enforcement, and to expand the purposes for which tree preservation trust funds may be used; providing for severability; providing for conflicts; and providing for an effective date.

[8.a TO2597 - An ordinance of the City Commission of the City of Tamarac, Florida, amending Chapter 10, Article 4 of the City of Tamarac Land Development Code, entitled "Development and Design Standards," by revising Section 10-4.4, entitled "Landscaping and Tree Preservation," to clarify and strengthen the city's landscaping and tree preservation regulations, to enhance consistency in their interpretation, application, and enforcement, and to expand the purposes for which tree preservation trust funds may be used; providing for severability; providing for conflicts; and providing for an effective date.]

AND ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 10, ARTICLE 4, OF THE CITY OF TAMARAC LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, ENTITLED DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN STANDARDS BY REVISING SECTION 10-4.4 ENTITLED, LANDSCAPING AND TREE PRESERVATION.

THE CLARITY TO CLARIFY AND STRENGTHEN

[00:05:01]

THE CITY'S LANDSCAPING AND TREE PRESERVATION REGULATIONS TO ENHANCE CONSISTENCY IN THEIR INTERPRETATION, APPLICATION, ENFORCEMENT, AND TO EXPAND THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH THE TREE PRESERVATION TRUST FUND MAY BE USED, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

IT DOESN'T SEEM THAT WE HAVE AN APPLICANT, SO WE'LL BEGIN WITH THE STAFF.

>> GOOD MORNING.

>> FOR THE RECORD, MAHER MANSOUR, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF COMMON DEVELOPMENT. WELCOME BACK.

YOU'VE BEEN AWAY FOR A COUPLE OF MONTHS.

WHILE YOU WERE AWAY, WE WERE WORKING HARD ON GETTING THESE THINGS DONE FOR YOU.

THE FIRST ITEM WE'VE PRESENTED TODAY IS, AS YOU JUST MENTIONED, TEMPORARY ORDER 2597, TEXT AMENDMENT TO SECTION 10-4.4 LANDSCAPING AND TREE PRESERVATION.

WE'RE AMENDING SEVERAL PLACES IN THE ORDINANCE. LET ME MOVE ON HERE.

>> IF I CAN INTERRUPT. I'M NOT SURE. IS YOUR MIC ON?

>> IT'S NOT ON. CAN YOU HEAR ME?

>> I CAN HEAR YOU BETTER NOW.

>> LET ME SEE. I'M GOING TO START WITH THE TIMELINE, HOW WE CAME ABOUT TO BE HERE TODAY.

IN FEBRUARY 2023, STRATEGY PLANNING, THE CITY COMMISSION DIRECTED STAFF TO PURSUE LOCAL PROGRAM AUTONOMY.

UNTIL THEN, THE TREE PRESERVATION AND LANDSCAPING ORDINANCE WAS THAT OF BROWARD COUNTY, AND WE ARE ENFORCING THAT.

WE ARE DIRECTED TO PURSUE OUR OWN PATH, AND WE DID THE RESEARCH.

WE COMMUNICATED WITH BROWARD COUNTY.

WE DID EVERYTHING THEY REQUIRED, INCLUDING BASICALLY TO BE AS STRINGENT AS THEIR ORDINANCE.

WE COULDN'T BE ANY ANY MORE LENIENT.

WE COULD BE MORE STRINGENT THAN THEM, BUT THAT WAS THE BASIC REQUIREMENT.

IN JUNE 2023, THE CITY COMMISSION ADOPTED THE ORDINANCE ON SECOND READING.

THEN IN AUGUST 2023, WE RECEIVED THE NOTICE OF COUNTY MUNICIPAL CERTIFICATION FROM BROWARD COUNTY, AND WE ADOPTED AND WE BEGAN ENFORCING OUR OWN ORDINANCE.

IN THE PAST TWO YEARS, SO IT'S BEEN TWO YEARS, WE'VE BEEN IMPLEMENTING AND ENFORCING THE ORDINANCE TO THE BEST OF OUR ABILITY, AND WE'LL BE DOING A GOOD JOB AT IT.

TODAY, IT'S AUGUST 2025, AGAIN, AND WE COMING TO PLANNING BOARD FOR SOME NECESSARY AMENDMENTS THAT WE NOTICED DURING THE PAST TWO YEARS.

WHY WE'RE DOING THIS, THE BACKGROUND.

MAINLY, WE SAW THAT THERE WERE SOME COMPLAINTS FROM RESIDENTS ABOUT A FEW ITEMS AND FROM DEVELOPERS ACTUALLY ABOUT SOME AMBIGUITIES.

WE AGREE WITH THEM.

THERE WERE SOME GAPS IN DEFINITIONS.

JUST FOR YOUR INFORMATION, WHEN WE ADOPTED THIS ORDINANCE, JUST FOR THE SAKE OF SIMPLICITY, WE BASICALLY COPIED AND PASTED BROWARD COUNTY'S ORDINANCE.

OVER THE PAST TWO YEARS, WE NOTICED THAT THERE WERE A LOT, I DON'T WANT TO SAY DISCREPANCIES, BUT SOME VAGUENESS IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ORDINANCE OR THE ENFORCEMENT STRUCTURE OF IT.

WE WERE ALSO NOTICED THAT FOR THE BROWARD COUNTY, THE WAY THAT WE'RE DISBURSING THEIR TREE PRESERVATION TRUST FUND IS SOLELY FOR PUBLIC PROJECTS.

WE DID OUR RESEARCH.

WE FOUND OUT THAT OTHER CITIES IN BROWARD COUNTY AND ELSEWHERE IN FLORIDA DO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THESE FUNDS TO SUPPORT.

THEY HAVE TO BE TREE RELATED OR LANDSCAPING RELATED, BUT THEY DO USE THESE FUNDS TO SUPPORT PRIVATE PROPERTIES AS WELL.

BASICALLY WE'RE TODAY HERE TO CLARIFY SOME TERMS, ELIMINATE AMBIGUITY, STRENGTHEN ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS, IMPROVE CONSISTENT INTERPRETATION, AND BROADEN THE TRUST FUND USE TO INCLUDE PRIVATE PROPERTIES.

THE ORDINANCE ITSELF IS A BALANCING ACT BETWEEN WHAT WE CAN AND CANNOT DO.

THERE ARE SEVERAL THINGS THAT WE ARE PREEMPTED BY THE STATE.

WE CANNOT ENFORCE BECAUSE THEY'VE ALREADY PLAID IT IN PLACE, AND THEN BROWARD COUNTY INSISTS ON BEING AS STRINGENT AT THEM.

WE GOT AWAY WITH BROWARD COUNTY.

WE'RE ALREADY ARE AS STRINGENT AT THEM.

NOW WE HAVE TO BALANCE IT WITH THE STATE REQUIREMENTS.

FOR INSTANCE, THE STATE SAY THERE'S NO PERMIT OR FEES FOR SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES, IF OWNERS, IF THEY WANT TO REMOVE A TREE THAT HAS A DIAMETER OF LESS THAN 18" DBH, DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT.

THAT'S FINE. HOWEVER, IN THE CITY LIKE TAMARAC, WHERE WE HAVE LANDSCAPING ORDINANCE WHERE WE SPECIFY WE SHOULD HAVE TO AFTER 2018, TWO TREES IN THE FRONT AND THREE TREES IN THE BACK.

IF SOMEONE COME AND ALL THEIR TREES ARE LESS THAN 18", THEY CAN REMOVE THEM AND THEY DON'T NEED A PERMIT.

BASICALLY, THAT'S WHAT IT'S SAYING.

HOWEVER, TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE STILL COMPLYING WITH THE CODE THAT SAY THERE SHOULD BE A CERTAIN NUMBER OF TREES, WE'RE ASKING THOSE RESIDENTS JUST TO APPLY FOR A FREE REMOVAL PERMIT.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO CHARGE THEM WITH ANY FEE.

HOWEVER, WHEN THEY APPLY, WE WOULD TELL THEM, WE DO THE INSPECTION.

[00:10:02]

WE KNOW IF YOU REMOVE THE TREE, THEN YOU ARE SHORT TWO TREES, FOR INSTANCE, AND YOU HAVE TO PLANT THEM.

THIS IS THE MAIN THE FIRST ONE.

THE SECOND ONE WOULD BE UN-REMEDIED HAZARDOUS TREES ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.

THE WAY THE STATUTES SAY NOW IS THAT A PROPERTY OWNER CAN HIRE ON THEIR OWN ACCORD A CERTIFIED ARBORIST OR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, AND THEY CAN WRITE THEM A REPORT AND SAY THIS TREE IS DANGEROUS AND NEEDS TO BE REMOVED.

THEY DON'T NEED TO COME TO US. THEY DOCUMENT IT WITH PHOTOS AND THEY REMOVE IT.

THAT'S FINE. WE'RE NOT GOING TO CHALLENGE THAT.

WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS, IF AN OWNER HAS SUCH A TREE AND REFUSES TO REMOVE THAT TREE, WE HAVE THE SAME RIGHT TO MAKE THEM REMOVE IT, BASICALLY.

THIS IS WHY WE'RE AMENDING THAT PART AS WELL.

WE'RE GOING TO IMPROVE CLARITY.

WE SAID THAT ENHANCED TREE REMOVAL LICENSE STANDARDS, AND THAT APPLIED TO SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES.

WE NEED TO STRENGTHEN TREE PROTECTION AND UPDATE MAINTENANCE REGULATIONS.

THERE WAS ALSO SOME VAGUENESS ABOUT PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, WHICH IF YOU HAVE LANDSCAPING OR TREES AND THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR IT.

IN THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCE, IT'S SOMEWHERE ELSE, WHERE WE SAY THAT WE BROUGHT BASICALLY WHAT WE ALREADY HAD IN PLACE, BUT FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY, WE ADDED IT TO THE TREE OF PRESERVATION ORDINANCE.

IT'S THERE NOW.

WHEN AN APPLICANT OR RESIDENT ASK, WE CAN TELL YOU JUST READ IT IS THERE.

AGAIN, EXPAND THE ELIGIBLE USE OF TREE PRESERVATION TRUST FUNDS TO INCLUDE PRIVATE PROPERTY.

I'M GOING TO GO OVER THE CHANGES NOW, AND THESE ARE THE SECTIONS THAT ARE GOING TO BE CHANGED.

WE'RE ADDING DEFINITIONS.

WE CHANGED A LITTLE BIT THE TO LICENSE REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS.

THE PRE-PRESERVATION TRUST FUND, GENERAL REQUIRES FOR ALL LANDSCAPING, AND WE DID SOME CLEANUPS.

WE FOUND A MISTAKE HERE OR THERE, OR SOME INCONSISTENCY OF SOME WORD THAT SHOULD BE THERE.

WE JUST ELIMINATED THAT ONE.

I'M GOING TO READ THESE BECAUSE THESE ARE NEW DEFINITIONS.

THESE WERE NOT IN OUR ORIGINAL, SO ALL OF THEM ARE UNDERLINED FOR SUCH.

FOR INSTANCE, WE'RE DEFINING HAZARDOUS TREES, AND THE HAZARD TREE MEAN ANY TREE THAT POSES A THREAT TO PUBLIC SAFETY, PROPERTY, OR THE LAWFUL USE OF LAND.

THIS INCLUDES TREES THAT CREATE A SAFETY HAZARD TO PEDESTRIAN OR VEHICULAR TRAFFIC, OR THAT MAY DISRUPT PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICES, TREES THAT ENDANGER EXISTING BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES, OR OTHER IMPROVEMENTS, TREES THAT OBSTRUCT REASONABLE ACCESS TO A LOT OF PARCEL.

PROVIDED THE PROPOSED ACCESS COMPLIES WITH APPLICABLE REGULATIONS, DISEASE TREES THAT THEY'RE IN THAT THREATEN THE HEALTH OR SAFETY OF MORE OF PEOPLE, BUILDINGS, IMPROVEMENTS OR OTHER TREES.

TREES SIGNIFICANTLY WEAKENED BY AGE, STORM, FIRE, OR OTHER INJURY AS DETERMINED BY THE DIRECTOR, SUCH THAT THEY PRESENT A DANGER TO PERSONS OR PROPERTY OR TREES THAT PREVENT THE LAWFUL DEVELOPMENT OF PHYSICAL USE OF A LOT OR PARCEL.

THIS DEFINITION IS THERE.

IT'S A BEST PRACTICE DEFINITION.

IT'S USED BY OTHER CITIES.

WE MAKE REFERENCE TO DANGEROUS TREES IN THE CODE, BUT WE NEVER WE NEVER DEFINED WHAT THEY ARE.

NUISANCE TREES MEANS ANY NON-NATIVE PLANTS OR TREES AS DETERMINED BY THE FLORIDA EXOTIC PEST PLANT COUNCIL THAT ARE ALTERING NATIVE PLANT COMMUNITIES BY DISPLACING NATIVE SPECIES, CHANGING COMMUNITY STRUCTURES OR ECOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS, OR HYBRIDIZING WITH NATIVES.

THERE IS A LIST WHICH ALREADY IS ADOPTED BY REFERENCE IN THE PREVIOUS ORDER BEFORE WE DO THE AMENDMENT.

HOWEVER, WE MAKE REFERENCE TO NUISANCE TREES, BUT WE NEVER DEFINED IT IN OUR CODE.

AGAIN, THIS IS A STANDARD DEFINITION OF A NUISANCE TREE. PROPERTY OWNER.

WE GOT THIS FROM ANOTHER SECTION OF THE CODE JUST TO HAVE IT HERE.

PROPERTY OWNER MEANS THE PERSON OR PERSON SHOWN ON THE COUNTY REAL ESTATE TAX RECORDS AS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY.

FINALLY, THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, AGAIN, IS IDENTIFIED IN THE ENGINEERING SECTION, MEANS ALL STREETS, ROADS, ALLEYS, LANES, WATER, OR OTHER PUBLIC WAYS WHERE THE PUBLIC HAS THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL OR WHICH ARE OPEN TO USE BY THE PUBLIC.

THE NEXT CHANGE WOULD BE ABOUT THE THREE REMOVAL LICENSE REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS.

THIS IS THE EXCEPTION.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHEN PROPERTIES ARE EXEMPTED FROM APPLYING FOR A THREE REMOVAL PERMIT.

EXEMPTIONS FROM LICENSING, WE HAD PREVIOUSLY PRESERVED RELOCATED TREES, HISTORICAL OR SPECIMEN TREES.

IF I'M A PROPERTY OWNER OF A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME AND I HAVE A TREE THAT WAS PLANTED AS MITIGATION FOR A TREE THAT I'VE CUT BEFORE, THIS TREE I NEED A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT, AND I NEED TO HAVE IT APPROVED, EVEN IF IT'S A SMALL TREE.

AGAIN, THIS IS BASICALLY A REQUIREMENT BY BROWARD COUNTY.

SECOND HISTORICAL OR SPECIMEN TREES, HISTORICAL TREES ARE THOSE DETERMINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION TO HAVE HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE, AND SPECIMEN TREES ARE NATIVE TREES, BUT NOT FRUIT TREES, NATIVE TREES THAT HAVE A DIAMETER OF 18" OR MORE AT THE BREAST HEIGHT.

[00:15:03]

WHAT WE ADDED HERE IS TREES THAT IF REMOVED WILL RESULT IN THE PROPERTY NOT SATISFYING THE MINIMUM TREE QUANTITY REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED IN TABLE 10-4.6.

THAT BRINGS ME TO THE ORIGINAL CONVERSATION WHERE IF THE PROPERTY IS DEFICIENT IN THE TREE COUNT, THEY CANNOT JUST KEEP REMOVING TREES.

THEY NEED TO HAVE A MINIMUM.

THE WAY WE'VE BEEN ENFORCING IT UNTIL NOW, AND WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE HOMES, SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES THAT WERE BUILT PRIOR TO 2018.

WE'RE STILL ADHERING TO THE OLD CODE, ONE TREE IN THE FRONT, TWO TREES IN THE BACK.

HOMES THAT WERE BUILT AFTER 2018 ARE AFFECTED BY THE NEW CODE, TWO TREES IN THE FRONT, AND THREE IN THE BACK.

IF I HAVE MY HOUSE IN 1975, AND I HAVE ONE TREE IN THE FRONT, TWO TREES IN THE BACK, AND I DECIDE I DON'T LIKE THAT SMALL TREE, IF I REMOVE IT, I NEED TO PUT ANOTHER TREE.

THAT'S WHY YOU'RE ASKING, I'M NOT GOING TO PAY FOR IT? THERE'S NO FEES INVOLVED IF IT'S LESS THAN 18".

THAT'S WHAT WE ADDED HERE BECAUSE SOMETIMES THE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE AWARE THE STATE TELLS ME THAT I CAN'T REMOVE A TREE WITHOUT TALKING TO YOU EVEN.

THAT'S WHY WE'RE SAYING, WE ARE NOT GIVING YOU THE PERMIT TO REMOVE THE TREE.

WE ARE GIVING YOU THE PERMIT THAT WE INSPECTED AND WE FOUND THAT YOUR PROPERTY IS COMPLIANT OR IS NOT COMPLIANT.

>> THE TREE PRESERVATION TRUST FUND, JUST AS I SAID BEFORE, WE INCLUDED THE PROVISIONS THAT IT CAN BE USED FOR OTHER PURPOSES AND LET'S READ IT ALL.

TREE FUND EXPENDITURES, MONIES AND TRUST FUNDS SHALL BE EXPENDED, UTILIZED, AND DISPERSED FOR THE PLANTING OF TREES, AND ANY OTHER ANCILLARY COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PLANTING OF TREES IN THE CITY, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO PLANTING TREES, AND REMOVING HAZARDOUS TREES ON REAL PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY, SUPPORTING TREE MAINTENANCE AND PRESERVATION ACTIVITIES, FUNDING EDUCATIONAL OUTREACH PROGRAMS, PROVIDING TREE GIVEAWAYS TO RESIDENTS TO PROMOTE LONG TERM CANOPY PRESERVATION, AND TO COVER THE EXPENSE OF RELOCATION OF TREES TO PUBLIC LANDS.

EXPENDITURE FROM THE TRUST FUND SHALL BE RECOMMENDED BY THE DIRECTOR AND SHALL BE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ADOPTED CITY POLICIES AND PROCEDURES.

WE ADDED THE PROVISION FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY.

WE DID NOT SAY ONLY SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES, AND THIS WAY WE CAN ASSIST EVEN HOAS IF THEY HAVE SOME HARDNESS.

FOR INSTANCE, SOMETIMES THEY HAVE A HAZARDOUS TREE ON A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME OR IN THE HOA THAT MUST BE REMOVED, AND WE'RE TELLING THE COURT COMPLIANCE TELLING THAT THIS TREE IS DANGEROUS AND NEEDS TO BE REMOVED.

THIS WAY, AT LEAST THE DIRECTOR HAS THE ABILITY TO PROVIDE SOME RELIEF, AND THAT IT'S A COSTLY PROCESS TO REMOVE ALL LARGE TREES.

THIS WAY, AT LEAST WE HAVE THE CAPACITY TO DO THAT.

ALSO, FOR CLARIFICATION PURPOSES, TO NUISANCE WE ADDED THE ALL TREE SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFY AS SCHEDULE 1 OF THE FLORIDA'S INVASIVE SPECIES COUNCIL, LIST OF INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES AS MAY BE AMENDED.

THIS IS A LIST OF NUISANCE TREES.

IF SOMEONE HAS A NUISANCE TREE ON THEIR PROPERTY, THEY CAN GO AHEAD AND REMOVE IT.

AT THE SAME TIME, THAT WILL ALLOW US THAT WE STILL NEED TO MAINTAIN THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF TREES ON THAT PROPERTY.

ANY TREE THAT IS IDENTIFIED BY THE FLORIDA INVASIVE SPECIES COUNCIL IS ADOPTED BY REFERENCE.

WE TAKE ALL THAT.

THE TREES LISTED ABOVE ARE MORE LOVE FOR SOUTH FLORIDA.

NOW WE HAVE A COMPLETE LIST.

ANY TREE THAT IS ON THE LIST OR THERE CAN BE REMOVED.

LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE.

ALREADY, I DON'T WANT TO SAY DIRECTLY IN THE ENGINEERING SECTION, BUT IT IS THERE.

WE'RE ADDING IT HERE BECAUSE IT CAUSED CONFUSION TO RESIDENTS NOT TO HAVE IT.

ALL LANDSCAPED AREA SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A LIVE, HEALTHY, AND GROWING CONDITION, PROPERLY WATERED AND TRIMMED ACCORDING TO THE STANDARDS BELOW.

THERE WAS AN A AND B ALREADY.

WE ADDED THIS. ACTUALLY, AT THE SEA, WE MODIFIED IT A LITTLE BIT.

LANDSCAPING SHALL BE MAINTAINED TO MINIMIZE PROPERTY DAMAGE AND PUBLIC SAFETY HAZARDS.

ALL PROPERTY OWNERS SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING ANY UNPAVED PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ABUTTING THEIR PROPERTY, INCLUDING KEEPING GRASS, WEEDS, AND OTHER VEGETATION TRIMMED TO A HEIGHT, NOT EXCEEDING SIX INCHES ABOVE THE GROUND LEVEL.

MAINTENANCE SHALL ALSO INCLUDE THE REMOVAL OF LIVING, DEAD OR DECAYING PLANT MATERIALS, TRIMMING OF LOW-HANGING BRANCHES, AND THOSE OBSTRUCTING STREET LIGHTING, AND AFFECTING REQUIRED SIGHT DISTANCE STANDARDS, AND PRUNING OF ROOT STRUCTURES TO PREVENT DAMAGE TO PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND/OR INFRASTRUCTURE.

THIS LANGUAGE HAS ALREADY BEEN IN OUR CODE SOMEWHERE ELSE.

WHAT WE ARE SAYING HERE BECAUSE THERE WOULD COME TO US, WHY IS PUBLIC SERVICES FORCING ME TO REMOVE THIS TREE OR TO PRUNE THIS TREE OR TO TRIM THE ROOTS.

[00:20:04]

THIS IS THE WAY IT IS, ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS.

I'M ONE OF THE UNFORTUNATE ONE WHO HAVE TREES LIKE THIS AND ADJACENT TO THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, WHERE I ALWAYS HAVE TO KEEP THESE TREES MAINTAINED UP TO A CERTAIN LEVEL.

WE ADDED THAT HERE, NOT ONLY IN THE ENGINEERING SECTION, BUT IN THE TREE PRESERVATION ITSELF, ORDINANCE.

HERE'S THE ONE WE TALKED ABOUT, IT'S A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNER HAS A RIGHT TO REMOVE A TREE, IF DEEMED DANGEROUS OR HAZARDOUS.

WE'RE SAYING BASICALLY THE SAME THING FROM THE OTHER PERSPECTIVE.

IT'S UNLAWFUL FOR A PROPERTY OWNER TO ALLOW ANY HAZARDOUS TREE OR ANY PART THEREOF TO REMAIN ON THE PROPERTY.

A HAZARDOUS TREE SHALL BE REMOVED WHEN IN THE PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT OF A CERTIFIED ARBORS RECOGNIZED BY THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF ARBORICULTURE, OR A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT LICENSED BY THE FLORIDA BOARD OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE.

THE TREE IS DEFECTIVE, DISEASE, DYING OR DEAD.

POSES A HIGH RISK OF STRUCTURAL FAILURE THAT PRESENTS A DANGER TO PERSONS OR PROPERTY OR IS CAUSING DAMAGE TO PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PROPERTY OR STRUCTURES, WHERE SUCH DAMAGE CANNOT BE REASONABLY ADDRESSED BY ANY MEANS OTHER THAN REMOVAL.

THE DIRECTOR SHALL HAVE THE FINAL AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE TREE QUALIFY AS HAZARDOUS UNDER THIS SUBSECTION.

IN THE CASE OF AN OPEN COURT ENFORCEMENT ACTION, WHETHER A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT SHALL BE REQUIRED.

AS I SAID, DURING THE PAST THREE YEARS, WE'VE LEARNED A FEW THINGS FROM OUR INTERPRETATION OR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ORDINANCE.

WHEN WE GO AND TELL AN HOA THAT YOU HAVE A TREE IN THE COMMON AREA THAT IS CAUSING DAMAGE TO ONE OF THE RESIDENTS, WHICH WE HAD SEVERAL TIMES.

SOME OF THEM COMPLY IMMEDIATELY, A COUPLE RESISTED AND SAY, YOU CANNOT FORCE ME TO DO THAT.

ACTUALLY, WE CAN. BUT THE DEFINITION WAS A LITTLE BIT TWISTED.

NOW WE ARE SAYING IT CLEARLY, AND AGAIN, WE'RE ADOPTING SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN DONE BY OTHER CITIES.

NO, IF JUST IN CASE, THE PROPERTY OWNER JUST KEEP IGNORING THE FACT THAT THIS TREE NEEDS TO BE REMOVED EVEN AFTER GIVEN A CITATION, WE CAN MAKE THEM REMOVE IT.

IF THERE'S NO OTHER SOLUTION THEN REMOVING THE TREE.

IF IT CAN BE PYRAMIDED IN OTHER WAY, FINE.

AS I SAID, WE HAD SEVERAL EXAMPLES OF THIS HAPPENING.

FORTUNATELY, THEY ALL COMPLIED IN THE END.

I'M NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH ALL THIS.

YOU ALREADY KNOW IT. THIS IS CONSISTENT.

WE NEED TO DO THIS.

IT MAKES SENSE. IT'S ALIGNED WITH OUR STRATEGIC GOALS, GOAL NUMBER 1, AND GOAL NUMBER 4.

TAMARAC IS VIBRANT, AND YOU KNOW THAT, AND IT'S WELL MAINTAINED AND WANT TO KEEP IT THIS WAY.

ACCORDINGLY, THE DIRECTOR OF COMMON DEVELOPMENT, RECOMMENDS THAT THE PLANNING BOARD FORWARD A FAVOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COMMISSION FOR THE PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 10, ARTICLE 4, ENTITLED DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN STANDARDS, SECTION 10-4.4, ENTITLED LANDSCAPING AND TREE PRESERVATION, TO CLARIFY AND STRENGTHEN THE CITY'S LANDSCAPING AND PRESERVATION REGULATIONS, TO EXPAND, TO PROMOTE CONSISTENCY IN THE INTERPRETATION, APPLICATION ENFORCEMENT, AND TO EXPAND THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH TREE PRESERVATION TRUST FUNDS MAY BE USED.

THIS ITEM IS SCHEDULED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE CITY COMMISSION ON FIRST READING AT ITS AUGUST 27, 2025 MEETING, AND ON SECOND READING AT THE SEPTEMBER 10, 2025.

I'M READY FOR ANY QUESTIONS, IF YOU HAVE.

>> THANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC THAT LIKE TO ASK THE QUESTION? IF SO THE FLOOR IS NOW OPEN? IT IS 9:29.

THERE'S NO ONE HERE TO ASK A QUESTION.

THE FLOOR IS NOW CLOSED AT 9:29.

ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD?

>> I DO HAVE A SMALL QUESTION.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION. IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, IF THE CITY OF TAMARAC MOVES A TREE OFF A PRIVATE RESIDENTS PROPERTY OR IS FORCED TO, WHO PAYS THE COST OR WHO DOES THE COST GO TO?

>> FIRST, IT'S NOT A SIMPLE PROCESS.

FIRST, IT NEEDS A FULL ARBORIST REPORT DOCUMENTING THAT IT MUST BE REMOVED, AND THEY HAVE TO STAKE THEIR REPUTATION AND THEIR PROFESSIONAL OPINION.

IT'S REALLY THEY ARE SAYING THIS TREE MUST BE REMOVED, AND THEY ARE LICENSED BY THE STATE, BY THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF ARBORICULTURE TO GIVE THE PROPER REPORT.

WHEN THAT IS DECIDED, IT GOES TO THE DIRECTOR TO MAKE THE FINAL DECISION.

WE HAVE THE REPORT, BUT THE DIRECTOR WILL MAKE THE FINAL DECISION.

UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, THE PROPERTY OWNER IS THE ONE RESPONSIBLE FOR IT.

BEFORE WE ADDED THIS RECOMMENDATION TO BE ABLE TO DISPERSE OF THE TREE PRESERVATION FUNDS IN SUCH CASES, WE DID NOT HAVE THE OPTION.

NOW, AT LEAST THE OPTION IS THERE, AND THIS IS GOING TO BE AGAIN AT THE DISCRETION OF THE DIRECTOR.

>> IF A TREE IS FORTUNATELY MOVED BY THE CITY, THE RESIDENT OF THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME HAS TO BEAR THE COST.

>> IT'S ALWAYS BEEN LIKE THIS, YES.

>> JUST TO CLARIFY, WHEN YOU SAID TO BE REMOVED BY THE CITY,

[00:25:01]

THE CITY WOULD NOT ACCESS ANY PRIVATE PROPERTY, WE WOULD NOT BE REMOVING ANY TREES.

IF YOU'RE SAYING IF THE CITY RECOMMENDS THE REMOVAL, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, THEN YES, IF IT'S ON PRIVATE PROPERTY, IT WOULD BE BORNE BY THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER.

BUT ONE OF THE BIGGEST CHANGE WE MADE WAS TO THE TREE TRUST FUND AS MAHER WENT OVER.

WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT IN IMPLEMENTING THIS THAT WE WERE PROVIDING AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, SOME RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS.

THE CITY HAS TAKEN THIS OVER NOW.

I THINK WE'RE IN OUR SECOND YEAR OR SO.

>> THIRD.

>> WE'RE IN OUR THIRD YEAR OF ADMINISTERING THE TREE PRESERVATION LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE.

PRIOR TO THAT, IT WAS DONE BY BROWARD COUNTY.

IT WAS UNACCESSIBLE TO OUR PROPERTY OWNERS.

THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO TO BROWARD COUNTY TO GET A TREE PERMIT.

THREE YEARS AGO, WE WENT AHEAD AND TOOK IT FROM BROWARD COUNTY, AND IN ADMINISTERING IT, WE REALIZED AND MAHER CAN SPEAK TO THIS THAT IT'S BEEN QUITE A LOT OF COMMUNICATION WITH OUR PROPERTY OWNERS.

THE LEARNING PROCESS HAS BEEN VERY STEEP.

WE DO HAVE A LOT OF PROPERTY OWNERS THAT IN INSTANCES CANNOT AFFORD TO REMOVE TREES THAT MIGHT BE NUISANCE TREES OR OTHERWISE FROM THEIR PROPERTY.

IN THIS CHANGE, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE FUNDS THAT ARE BEING COLLECTED IN THE TREE FUND IN INSTANCES, MIGHT BE AVAILABLE TO PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS WHO WILL NEED TO REMOVE A TREE, BUT PROBABLY CANNOT FIND THE FUNDING TO DO SO.

THAT WAY, WE'RE ABLE TO ASSIST THEM.

YOU'RE PROBABLY FAMILIAR WITH THE MANY GRAND PROGRAMS THAT THE CITY HAS FOR OTHER INSTANCES, AND SO WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS WAS ALSO AVAILABLE.

WE HAVE NOT STRUCTURED ANYTHING YET, BUT WE HAVE JUST MADE THE CHANGE TO THE FUND.

IN THE FUTURE, WE'RE ABLE TO STRUCTURE SOMETHING THAT CAN BE HELPFUL AND A RESOURCE TO PROPERTY OWNERS WHO CANNOT AFFORD TO HAVE A TREE REMOVED FROM THEIR PROPERTY.

>> GOOD. SAJEEN. THANK YOU.

THAT WAS MY QUESTION AS WELL.

BECAUSE I'VE HAD A FEW CLIENTS WHO THEY HAVE HAZARDOUS TREES, AND IT NEEDS TO BE REMOVED.

BUT THEY'RE NOT WHETHER THEY DON'T HAVE THE MONEY OR THEY'RE LIKE, IT'S BEEN THERE FOR YEARS.

THE CITY DOESN'T ENTER PRIVATE PROPERTY.

IF THEY REFUSE, I GUESS THEY WON'T REFUSE THE CITY'S MONEY TO HELP REMOVE THE TREES.

>> THE INSTANCES WE'VE HAD IS THAT THEY JUST ALWAYS CANNOT AFFORD IT.

THEY'LL SAY I WANTED TO REMOVE.

THEY'LL PROBABLY HAVE SOMEONE WHO HAS GIVEN THEM A COST TO REMOVE IT.

>> THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS.

>> THEY CAN'T AFFORD IT. THIS GIVES US SOME LATITUDE TO CREATE A PROGRAM AND PROBABLY CAN GIVE A GRANT OR WHATEVER.

THAT PROPERTY OWNER WOULD STILL RETAIN A CONTRACTOR, SOMEONE TO COME TO CUT IT AND REMOVE IT, AND THEN THE CITY WOULD GIVE THEM THROUGH A GRANT PROGRAM, THE FUNDS TO DO SO.

>> THAT'S GOOD. I COMMEND THE CITY FOR THAT.

>> THANK YOU.

>> JUST TO GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE.

WE HAD AN HOA THAT HAD A TREE THAT WAS CAUSING SEVERE PROBLEMS TO ONE OF THE GROUND FLOOR UNITS WHEN THERE WERE FLOODING, WHERE THE TREE ROOTS INFILTRATED THE HOME UNDERNEATH THE FOUNDATION AND GOT INTO THE BATHROOM AND DID SEVERE DAMAGE, AND ALL WAS DOCUMENTED.

THEY JUST KEPT BIDDING THEIR TIME, YES, WE'RE GOING TO DO IT.

WE'RE GOING TO DO IT, AND IT TOOK MORE THAN SIX OR SEVEN MONTHS BECAUSE WE REALLY DID NOT HAVE THAT CLAUSE TO SAY, NO, YOU HAVE TO DO IT NOW.

NOW THEY HAVE TO DO IT.

IT WAS JUST AN HOA DECISION TO DELAY IT, BASICALLY, NOTHING ELSE.

>> MY OTHER QUESTION IS, I KNOW THIS IS ABOUT THE TREES, BUT WHAT ABOUT IRRIGATION? IS THAT TIED INTO THE TREE ORDINANCE?

>> PART OF THE IRRIGATION IS LIKE THE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE IS TIED TO IT.

WE DID NOT GET NEAR THAT.

PART OF IT IS IN THE ENGINEERING SECTION AS WELL.

>> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR VERY GOOD QUESTIONS. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> I DO HAVE ONE MORE. SORRY. YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT HOMES BUILT BEFORE 2018 OR GRANDFATHERED IN.

IF HOME THAT WAS BUILT BEFORE 2018 REMOVES THEIR TREES, DO THEY HAVE TO NOW GO WITH THE NEW ORDINANCE OR THEY'RE STILL GRANDFATHER FROM THE ONE INFRONT TWO IN THE BACK WHERE TWO [OVERLAPPING].

>> TWO TREES IN THE BACK AND ONE IN THE FRONT.

THE NEW ORDINANCE SAY THREE IN THE BACK AND TWO IN THE FRONT.

WE'RE STICKING TO TWO IN THE BACK AND ONE.

WE'RE STILL RESPECTING THAT IS PRIOR TO 2018.

>> THANK YOU.

>> ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION.

DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO MOVE FORWARD AS RECOMMENDED BY THE DIRECTOR?

>> SURE. A MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> SECOND.

>> CAN YOU TELL ME WHO SECOND, PLEASE?

>> JACQUES SECOND.

>> NIKOLE CLEARE?

>> YES.

>> SAJEEN BELL-CLARK?

[00:30:01]

>> MOTION TO MAKE A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COMMISSION PASS 5-0.

ITEM 8B, TEMPORARY ORDER 2598,

[8.b TO2598 - An ordinance of the City Commission of the City of Tamarac, Florida, amending Chapter 10, Article 5 of the City of Tamarac Land Development Code, entitled "Development Review Procedures," by amending Section 10-5.2, entitled "Summary Table of Development Review Procedures" , specifically Table 10-5.1 and Table 10-5.2, entitled "General Notice Requirements"; and amending Subsection 10- 5.4(J), entitled "Plat Approval," to designate the Director of Community Development as the administrative authority for plat and replat submittals, and to revise plat approval procedures in compliance with Senate Bill 784, amending Section 177.071 Florida Statutes, as set forth in Exhibit "A"; providing for codification; providing for conflicts; providing for severability; and providing for an effective date.]

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 10, ARTICLE 5 OF THE CITY OF TAMARAC LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, ENTITLED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS, BY AMENDING SECTION 10-5.2 ENTITLED SUMMARY TABLE OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES.

SPECIFICALLY, TABLE 10-5.1 AND TABLE 10-5.2, ENTITLED GENERAL NOTICE REQUIREMENTS AND AMENDING SUBSECTION 10-5.4J ENTITLED PLAT APPROVAL.

TO DESIGNATE THE DIRECTOR OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AS THE ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY FOR PLAT AND RE-PLAT SUBMITTALS, AND TO REVISE PLAT APPROVAL PROCEDURES IN COMPLIANCE WITH SENATE BILL 784, AMENDING SECTION 177.071 FLORIDA STATUTES AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A, PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION, PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

WE'LL HAVE THE STAFF PRESENT AT THIS TIME.

>> GOOD MORNING, AGAIN, MAHER MANSOUR FOR THE RECORD.

THIS TIME IT'S A MORE STRAIGHTFORWARD OR SIMPLER.

IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE ARE PREEMPTED BY THE STATE, WE HAVE TO COMPLY.

FOR YOUR INFORMATION, YOU OVER THE COMING FEW MONTHS, YOU'RE GOING TO GET A FEW MORE OF THESE AND JULY 1ST, 2025, SEVERAL CAME INTO EFFECT THAT WE PREEMPT US FROM CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF WHAT WE WERE BEFORE DOING ON OUR OWN OR WHETHER IT WAS THE PLANNING BOARD OR THE CITY COMMISSION.

IN THE NEXT MEETING, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE ANOTHER ITEM COMING IN THAT WE HAVE TO COMPLY WITH STATE REQUIREMENTS, AND THIS IS ONE OF THEM.

IT'S A TEXT AMENDMENT TO LAND DEVELOP CODE ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 10, ARTICLE 5 OF THE CITY'S LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 10-5.2, SUMMARY TABLE OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES, SPECIFICALLY TABLE 10-5.1 AND TABLE 10-5.2 GENERAL NOTICE REQUIREMENTS, AND AMENDING SECTION 10-5.4J, PLAT APPROVAL TO DESIGNATE THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AS THE ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY FOR PLAT AND RE-PLAT SUBMITTALS, AND TO REVISE PLAT APPROVAL PROCEDURES IN COMPLYING WITH SENATE BILL 784, AMENDING SECTION 177-071 FLORIDA STATUTES.

>> SENATE BILL 784, EFFECTIVE JULY 1ST, 2025 REQUIRE THAT CITY DESIGNATE AN ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY FOR PLAT AND REPLAT APPROVALS, MEET SPECIFIC REVIEW TIMEFRAMES, LIMIT DELAY THROUGH EXTENSION REQUESTS.

THE PURPOSE IS TO STREAMLINE THE PLAT REVIEW PROCESS AND ENSURE CONSISTENCY AND PREDICTABILITY STATEWIDE.

BASICALLY, THE STATE IS SAYING, PLAT AND REPLAT HAVE TO BE DONE ADMINISTRATIVELY, NO LONGER GOING TO A PUBLIC HEARING, WHETHER THE PLANNING BOARD OR THE CITY COMMISSION, AND THE OTHER PROVISIONS THAT HAVE TO BE EXPEDITED, AND THAT THE CITY CANNOT SAY, EXTEND IT FURTHER UNTIL THE APPLICANT THEMSELVES CHOOSE TO EXTEND.

THE GOAL IS TO IMPROVE ACCOUNTABILITY AND ALIGN WITH STATE LAW AND INCREASE CLARITY AND PREDICTABILITY FOR APPLICANTS.

CHAPTER 10 NOW, ARTICLE 5, AMENDED TO ALIGN WITH SENATE BILL 784.

THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT IS THE DESIGNATED SOLE AUTHORITY FOR PLAT AND REPLAT REVIEW.

THE STATE CLEARLY REQUEST SOMEBODY TO BE IN THE CITY ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY TO APPROVE THESE PLAT APPLICATIONS.

PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY COMMISSION NO LONGER INVOLVED IN PLAT APPROVALS, WHICH WILL SAVE TIME.

JUST TO BE CLEAR ON IT, IT'S A CLEARLY TECHNICAL TASK TO DO A PLATTING AND REPLATTING, RATHER THAN SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE DISCUSSED IN DETAIL.

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW PROCESS NOW REQUIRED, UPDATE TIMEFRAME FOR NOTICE AND ACTION TO ENSURE CONSISTENTLY AND TIMELY RESPONSES.

THERE'S A SPECIFIC TIMELINE AND SPECIFIC NOTICE THAT NEEDS TO BE GIVEN TO THE APPLICANT, TELL THEM WHAT THE EXPECTATIONS AND WHEN THEY WILL GET THE APPLICATION.

AGAIN, THIS IS COMING IN MORE BECAUSE WE HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THESE TIMEFRAMES ON ALL DEVELOPMENT ORDERS.

AGAIN, IT WAS ANOTHER SENATE BILL THAT CAME AND PASSED IN JULY THAT GIVES US TIMEFRAMES THAT WE HAVE TO ADHERE TO.

TABLE 10-5.1 AND 10-5.2 UPDATED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS.

YOU CAN SEE IT HERE IN RED.

JUST IGNORE THE ONE AT THE BOTTOM PART FOR A SECOND AND IT IS IN THE MIDDLE,

[00:35:02]

WHERE IT SAY PLAT AND SAY REQUIRED, THEN WE ROOM DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE, IT'S NO LONGER REQUIRED.

THEN DIRECTOR NOT RECOMMEND IS NOW BASICALLY REVIEW AND DECIDE, AND IT DOESN'T GO TO THE PLANNING BOARD TO REVIEW.

IT DOESN'T GO TO THE CITY COMMISSION TO DECIDE.

THE ONE YOU SEE AT THE BOTTOM IS JUST SOMETHING WE CAUGHT WHILE WE'RE UPDATING THE TABLE.

IT REFERS TO THE TREE REMOVAL PER LICENSE THAT WE JUST TALKED ABOUT.

HERE IT MENTIONED TO GO TO MAKE REFERENCE TO BROWARD COUNTY TREE ORDINANCE.

WE'RE SAYING, NO, IT'S IN THE CITY.

IT'S INCIDENTAL TO THIS PAGE.

HERE'S THE NOTICE.

PLAT APPROVAL IS NO LONGER ON THE REQUIRED APPLICATIONS THAT NEED TO BE NOTICED, SO WE JUST DELETED THE WHOLE THING.

IN RED, UNDERLINED OR CROSSED, YOU WILL SEE THE CHANGES.

WE ADDED HERE FOR THE PURPOSE, CONFORMS TO THE BROWARD COUNTY LAND USE PLAN'S MANDATE, AND THEN THAT LOCAL GOVERNMENTS REQUIRE PLATTING, WHEREVER THE COUNTY LAND USE PLAN REQUIRES PLATTING, AND WE ADDED ENSURES COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW AND ESTABLISHES A PROCEDURE FOR THE CITY'S ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL PLATS AND REPLATS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH FLORIDA STATUTE 177.071 2025 AS AMENDED.

WE ARE SAYING WE'RE COMPLYING WITH THAT.

WHAT WE BASICALLY DID HERE IS WE REMOVED THE PROCESS WE HAD BEFORE, WHERE IT GO TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, AND IT GOES TO THE DRC PLANNING BOARD, CITY COMMISSION AND WE REPLACED IT WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY, WHERE IT REQUIRE US TO DEFINE WHO IS THE ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY, WHO WOULD JUST DEFINED IT HERE ON THE B.

ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY, THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, IS DESIGNATED AS THE ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY TO RECEIVE, REVIEW AND ACT ON ALL PLATS OR REPLATS SUBMITTALS.

DECISION SHALL BE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING.

APPROVE THE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED, APPROVE THE APPLICATION SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OR DENY THE APPLICATION.

THE DIRECTOR SHALL PROVIDE WRITTEN NOTICE, IDENTIFYING ALL AREAS OF NON COMPLIANCE, AND INCLUDE SPECIFIC CITATIONS TO EACH REQUIREMENT NOT SATISFIED.

WE ALSO ADDED APPLICATION SUBMITTAL, AND APPLICATION FOR PLAT AND REPLAT APPROVAL SHALL BE SUBMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 10-5.3 (D) (5).

A SUBMITTAL IS CONSIDERED COMPLETE WHEN ALL REQUIRED DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION HAVE BEEN PROVIDED.

THE REASON FOR DOING THIS, IF SOMEONE COMES IN AND SUBMIT AN APPLICATION FOR PLAT, BUT THE APPLICATION IS NOT COMPLETE, THIS IS NOT THE TIME WHEN WE ACCEPT THE APPLICATION.

WE HAVE TO NOTIFY THEM WITHIN A SPECIFIC TIME THAT YOUR APPLICATION IS COMPLETE.

BUT THE CLOCKS START TICKING WHEN THE APPLICATION IS COMPLETE, WHEN THEY SUBMIT EVERYTHING, INCLUDING FEES.

THE APPLICATION REVIEW, THAT'S D, WITHIN SEVEN BUSINESS DAYS OF RECEIVING COMPLETE PLAT OR REPLAT SUBMITTAL, THE DIRECTOR SHALL PROVIDE WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE APPLICANT ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT.

THE NOTICE SHALL IDENTIFY ANY MISSING DOCUMENTS OR INFORMATION NECESSARY TO DETERMINE COMPLIANCE WITH FLORIDA STATUTE 177.091, DESCRIBE THE APPROVAL PROCESS AND SPECIFY THE APPLICABLE APPROVAL SCHEDULE, AGAIN, THIS CAME FROM THE STATE.

WE HAVE SEVEN DAYS AFTER WE RECEIVE A COMPLETE APPLICATION TO INFORM THE APPLICANT ACCORDINGLY.

THEN FINALLY E, RESTRICTIONS UNLESS EXTENDED BY THE APPLICANT, NEITHER DIRECTOR NOR ANY OTHER OFFICIAL EMPLOYEE AGENT OR DESIGNEE MAY REQUEST OR REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO SEEK AN EXTENSION FOR TIME OR TIME FOR REVIEW.

WE CAN NO LONGER SAY THAT WE DID THAT, BUT JUST NOW WE ARE PREEMPTED FROM SAYING, WE'RE GOING TO GO NEXT MONTH, WHATEVER.

WE HAVE TO CLEARLY PROVIDE THE SCHEDULE AND TELL THEM WHEN WE ARE GOING TO GIVE THEM YES OR NO, BASICALLY AT THE BEGINNING, AND WHEN IT'S GOING TO BE APPROVED.

THERE'S A CLEAN UP COMING DOWN THERE BECAUSE THERE'S NO LONGER WITH BROWARD COUNTY, JUST THE COMMISSION.

IT'S NO LONGER BROWARD COUNTY COMMISSION.

IT'S JUST BROWARD COUNTY NEED TO BE NOTIFIED.

THIS IS IT. THESE ARE THE CHANGES, JUST ENFORCING OR IMPLEMENTING WHAT THE STATE ASK US TO IMPLEMENT.

RECOMMENDATION. THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, RECOMMENDS THAT THE PLANNING BOARD FORWARD A FAVOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COMMISSION FOR THE PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 10, ARTICLE 4, ENTITLED DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN STANDARDS, SECTION 10-4.4, ENTITLED LANDSCAPING AND TREE PRESERVATION, TO CLARIFY AND STRENGTHEN THE CITY'S LANDSCAPING AND TREE PRESERVATION REGULATIONS, AND TO PROMOTE CONSISTENCY IN THEIR INTERPRETATION, APPLICATION, AND ENFORCEMENT.

THE ITEM IS SCHEDULED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE CITY COMMISSION ON FIRST READING AT ITS AUGUST 27, 2025 MEETING, AND ON SECOND READING AT ITS SEPTEMBER 10, 2025 MEETING.

I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, IF YOU HAVE.

>> I THINK THAT SLIDE MAY HAVE BEEN MISPLACED.

>> WHICH ONE?

>> THE ONE YOU JUST READ. WE'RE VOTING RIGHT NOW ON TEMPORARY ORDINANCE 2598.

[00:40:04]

>> YES, YOU ARE. THAT'S MY BAD.

WE ARE VOTING ON, LET ME READ IT AGAIN, ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 10, ARTICLE 5, CITY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 10-5.2, SUMMARY TABLE OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES, SPECIFICALLY TABLE 10-5.1 AND TABLE 10-5.2 GENERAL KNOWLEDGE REQUIREMENTS AND AMENDING SECTION 10-5.4 (J), PLAT APPROVAL TO DESIGNATE THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AS THE ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY FOR PLAT AND REPLAT SUBMITTALS, AND REVISE PLAT APPROVAL PROCEDURE IN COMPLIANCE WITH SENATE BILL 784, AMENDING SECTION 177-071 FLORENCE STATUTES.

THAT'S WHAT WE ARE DOING.

>> YES. THAT'S HOW YOU KNOW I'M PAYING ATTENTION.

[LAUGHTER] THE FLOOR IS OPEN NOW TO THE PUBLIC.

DO WE HAVE ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC THAT WANTS TO MAKE A COMMENT ON ITEM TEMPORARY ORDER 2598 ITEM 8B? THE FLOOR IS NOW OPEN AT 9:47. DO WE HAVE ANYONE? THE FLOOR IS NOW CLOSED AGAIN AT 9:47 AM.

I DO HAVE A QUESTION, SO I'LL BEGIN WITH MY OWN QUESTION.

IS THE STATE REQUIRING THIS CHANGE? I THINK THAT'S WHAT I UNDERSTOOD.

>> YES.

>> THE STATE IS REQUIRING THAT THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE COMMISSION NO LONGER HAVE INVOLVEMENT, BUT IT'S THE DIRECTOR OF THE CITY THAT HAS THE DISCRETION?

>> TO SELECT STAFF MEMBER WHO WILL BE THE ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY.

>> I UNDERSTAND. MY UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THIS MEANS IS, IF THERE'S GOING TO BE A CHANGE OF SIZE OF A PLAT PLOT?

>> PLAT APPLICATIONS OR REPLATTING.

SOME PROPERTY OWNER COMES AND THEY NEED TO DO A PLAT APPLICATION, IT HAS TO BE ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED.

IT DOESN'T GO TO THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY COMMISSION.

>> IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WHEN THE PLANNING BOARD AND OR THE COMMISSION IS INVOLVED IN THESE DECISION MAKING, THE COMMUNITY IS COLLECTIVELY MAKING DECISIONS ON THE DIRECTION OF THE CITY.

IF IT'S NOW BEING LEFT TO THE CITY STAFF, IT'S NOW MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE DIRECTION OF THE CITY IS LEFT TO THE CITY STAFF.

>> IT'S NOT THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL. IT'S THE PLAT.

>> CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME WHAT THAT MEANS? MAYBE I MISUNDERSTOOD OR I DON'T UNDERSTAND RATHER.

>> THE PLATTING IS JUST A LEGAL DOCUMENT JUST TO DESCRIBE THE PROPERTY BASICALLY.

THAT DOESN'T REALLY NEED ANYTHING, THAT ADMINISTRATOR APPROVAL.

>> I UNDERSTAND.

>> STILL NEED TO BE REVIEWED BY BROWARD COUNTY.

>> I UNDERSTAND. ON THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S DESCRIPTION, WHERE IT SAYS, PLAT SUCH AND SUCH, LOT, SUCH AND SUCH?

>> YES.

>> THAT'S FAIR.

>> YES.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> THE PLATTING OF THE LOT IS NOT ANYTHING PHYSICAL, CORRECT? IT'S PURELY A RECORDING?

>> FOR THE CITY, FOR INSTANCE, IT'S OFTEN THAT THE COUNTY REQUIRES THAT THE PROPERTY BE REPLATTED OR PLATTED IF IT'S NOT.

AGAIN, THIS IS DONE BY SURVEYORS AND DONE BY STAFF TO REVIEW THAT EVERYTHING MATCHES WHAT'S ON THERE.

IT'S NOT A DEVELOPMENT PER SE.

THE DEVELOPMENT IS IN THE SITE PLAN.

>> WHAT WOULD BE AN EXAMPLE WHERE A LOT WOULD NEED TO BE REPLANTED?

>> SORRY?

>> WHAT WOULD BE AN EXAMPLE WHERE A LOT WOULD HAVE TO BE REPLATTED?

>> ROB IS WORKING ON PROJECT FOR POLLO TROPICAL, WHERE BECAUSE OF THE CHANGES TO THE ENTRANCE, BECAUSE OF CHANGES TO THE ACTUAL LAYOUT OF THE SITE PLAN, IT HAS TO BE REPLATTED.

THE SITE PLAN IS THE ONE THAT THE PLANNING BOARD MIGHT NOT RECOMMEND OR THE CITY COMMISSION MIGHT NOT LIKE, BUT THAT THE PLATTING ITSELF, WHICH IS A LEGAL REQUIREMENT.

>> BASICALLY, THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF YOUR PROPERTY.

>> YES.

>> GOT IT. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? AWESOME.

>> IN CORRECTION FOR THE RECORD, IS IT POLLO CAMPERO? YOU SAID POLLO TROPICAL.

>> WHAT IS IT, ROB? [LAUGHTER]

>> ROB JOHNSON, SENIOR PLANNER, POLLO CAMPERO.

>> WE HAVE SO MANY OF THESE CHICKEN PLACES.

[LAUGHTER]

>> THEY'RE ALL GOOD.

>> POLLO TROPICAL IS SUPPOSED TO BE REALLY GOOD.

>> YES.

>> CAN YOU SAY THAT IN THE MIC LOUDER?

>> I MOVE TO APPROVE THE TEMPORARY BOARD ORDER AS PRESENTED.

>> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A SECOND BY MISS MARA ENGLISH.

>> SAJEEN BELL-CLARK?

>> YES.

>> MOTION TO MAKE A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COMMISSION PASSED FIVE TO ZERO.

[00:45:06]

>> MADAM CHAIR, IF YOU ALLOW ME FOR A SECOND BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM, IT'S GOING TO BE PRESENTED BY AMIRA WOOTEN.

SHE'S BEEN AN INTERN WITH THIS CITY WITH THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PAST FEW MONTHS, AND SHE'S BEEN HELPING US THAT WOULD BE HER FIRST PROFESSIONAL PUBLIC PRESENTATION.

YOU HAVE TO KNOW THAT. SHE WORKED ON THIS ITEM HERSELF AND SHE'S READY TO DAZZLE YOU WITH HER PRESENTATION. THANK YOU.

>> I LOVE THAT FOR YOU.

LET ME READ THE DESCRIPTION. [LAUGHTER] ITEM 8C.

[8.c TO2601 - An ordinance of the City Commission of the City of Tamarac, Florida amending Chapter 10, Article 5 of the City of Tamarac Code of Ordinances, entitled "Administration", by amending Section 10-5.3 entitled "Common Review Procedures" by specifically amending Section 10-5.3(C) entitled "Pre-Application Neighborhood Meeting" to require pre-application neighborhood meetings to be open to the public, and to require actual notice to owners of properties within a townhouse, condominium, or timeshare development; providing for codification; providing for conflicts; providing for severability; and providing for an effective date.]

TEMPORARY ORDER 2601, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 10 ARTICLE 5 OF THE CITY OF TAMARAC CODE OF ORDINANCE, ENTITLED ADMINISTRATION BY AMENDING SECTION 10-5.3, ENTITLED COMMON REVIEW PROCEDURES, BY SPECIFICALLY AMENDING SECTION 10-5.3, SUBSECTION OR RATHER C, ENTITLED PRE APPLICATION NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING, TO REQUIRE PRE APPLICATION NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS TO BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC TO REQUIRE ACTUAL NOTICE TO OWNERS OF PROPERTIES WITHIN A TOWNHOUSE, CONDOMINIUM OR TIMESHARE DEVELOPMENT, PROVIDING FOR QUALIFICATION, PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. GOOD MORNING.

>> GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE. MY NAME IS AMIRA WOOTEN.

I AM AN INTERN IN THE PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT, AND I AM HERE TO PRESENT TEMPORARY ORDINANCE 2601, TITLED PRE APPLICATION NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING.

THIS PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDS CHAPTER 10, ARTICLE 5 OF THE CITY'S LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ENTITLED ADMINISTRATION.

IT SPECIFICALLY AMENDS SECTION 10-5.3 (C) ENTITLED PRE APPLICATION NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING.

THE PURPOSE FOR THIS TEXT AMENDMENT IS TO REQUIRE PRE APPLICATION NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS TO BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AND REQUIRE ACTUAL NOTICE TO OWNERS OF PROPERTIES WITHIN A TOWNHOUSE, CONDO OR TIMESHARE DEVELOPMENT.

BEFORE WE DIVE INTO THE AMENDMENT, JUST AN OVERVIEW OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING PROCEDURES SECTION.

THIS SECTION OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OUTLINES PROCEDURES FOR A PRE APPLICATION NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING.

THESE MEETINGS ARE REQUIRED FOR PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS, AS INDICATED IN TABLE 10-5.1, SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES.

THESE PARTICULAR APPLICATIONS INCLUDE SITE SPECIFIC COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS, PLAN DEVELOPMENTS, SITE SPECIFIC REZONING AND MAJOR SITE PLANS.

NOW, THE PURPOSE FOR THESE MEETINGS ARE TO EDUCATE RESIDENTS ABOUT PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS AND ALLOW APPLICANTS TO HEAR AND ADDRESS COMMUNITY CONCERNS PRIOR TO PUBLIC MEETINGS, AS WELL AS GIVE THE APPLICANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR THESE CONCERNS WHILE THE APPLICATION IS UNDER REVIEW.

THIS AMENDMENT WAS PROMPTED BY A RECENT COMMUNITY MEETING ON JULY 14TH HELD BY COMMISSIONER KRYSTAL PATTERSON OF DISTRICT 3.

THE MEETING WAS CALLED CONNECT WITH YOUR COMMISSIONER.

RESIDENTS AT THE MEETING RAISED CONCERNS ON THE REZONING APPLICATION FOR KINGS POINT, TAMARAC.

KINGS POINT, TAMARAC IS CURRENTLY ZONED AS A RC RECREATION, AND THE REZONING APPLICATION WAS TO MAKE IT TO A R3 MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO ALLOW FOR A HEALTHCARE CLINIC.

AT THE MEETING, RESIDENTS EXPRESSED THE FEELINGS OF FEELING UNDER INFORMED, A LACK OF TIMELY ACCESSIBLE COMMUNICATION, AND OVERALL INADEQUATE NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES.

AS A RESULT, COMMISSIONER PATTERSON EXPRESSED THE NEED FOR CLEARER AND MORE BROADER COMMUNICATED PROCEDURES.

IN RESPONSE, CITY STAFF REVIEWED CURRENT PRACTICES AND IDENTIFIED WAYS TO IMPROVE CONSISTENCY, ACCESSIBILITY, AND APPLICANT ACCOUNTABILITY.

THIS RESULTED IN THE PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT TO SECTION 10-5.3 (C) OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCE.

NOW ON TO THE AMENDMENTS.

THE AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 10-5.3 (C),

[00:50:02]

THE PRE APPLICATION NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING NOW REQUIRES NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS TO BE RECORDED.

IT EXPANDS PUBLIC NOTICE METHODS, INCLUDING DIGITAL DISTRIBUTION, AND ENSURES RESIDENTS HAVE TIMELY OPPORTUNITIES TO SHARE CONCERNS.

OF THE AMENDMENTS, WE HAVE ADDITIONS TO THE EXISTING CODE, WHICH INCLUDE AN AMENDMENT TO THE TIME AND PLACE, AMENDMENT TO POSTED NOTICE AND PUBLICATION, AND AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION WRITTEN SUMMARY OF NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING, AND THEN MINOR CHANGES TO THE SECTION MAILED NOTICE.

>> CONCERNING SECTION TIME AND PLACE.

THE ITEM IN RED HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE CODE, SO THE MEETING SHALL BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AND ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC MAY ATTEND THE MEETING.

THE MEETING SHALL BE RECORDED BY THE APPLICANT.

WE ADDED THIS TEXT IN RED.

SO TO PROVIDE AS A JUSTIFICATION FOR THE ADDITION OF THIS TEXT, IT RESPONDS DIRECTLY TO THE RESIDENTS COMMENTS.

ON THE JULY 14, PUBLIC MEETING, AGAIN, RESIDENTS EXPRESSED FRUSTRATION OVER LACK OF AWARENESS.

BY EXPLICITLY REQUIRING MEETINGS TO BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AND RECORDED, THE CITY ADDRESSES THESE CONCERNS, ENSURING THAT ALL COMMUNITY MEMBERS HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ATTEND.

FURTHER, THE RECORDINGS ALLOW RESIDENTS TO STAY INFORMED, EVEN IF THEY'RE NOT IN ATTENDANCE.

IN ADDITION, IT ENHANCES ACCOUNTABILITY IN PUBLIC TRUST.

RECORDINGS CREATE A VERIFIABLE RECORD OF WHAT WAS DISCUSSED AND WHAT CONCERNS WERE RAISED, REDUCING DISPUTES AND INCREASING TRUST IN THE REVIEW PROCESS.

IN ADDITION, APPLICANTS ARE HELD MORE ACCOUNTABLE FOR HOW THEY CONDUCT NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS AND HOW THEY COMMUNICATE AND HOW THEY RESPOND TO RESIDENT INPUT.

SO CONCERNING POSTED NOTICE IN PUBLICATION.

THE TEXT AND WRIT HAS BEEN ADDED.

THE CITY STAFF SHALL PUBLISH THE NOTICE ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE AND OTHER SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS. A COPY OF THE NOTICE SHALL BE PROVIDED TO MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION.

THIS AMENDMENT HAS BEEN ADDED TO STRENGTHEN PUBLIC ACCESS TO EXCUSE ME, JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS IS IT STRENGTHENS PUBLIC ACCESS TO TIMELY INFORMATION.

PUBLISHING NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING NOTICES TO THE CITY'S WEBSITE AND SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS ENSURES BROADER AND FASTER OUTREACH, PARTICULARLY FOR RESIDENTS WHO MAY NOT RECEIVE TRADITIONAL NOTICES OR MAILINGS OR POSTED SIGNS.

MANY MANY RESIDENTS RELY ON DIGITAL PLATFORMS AS THEIR PRIMARY SOURCE OF LOCAL NEWS, AND THIS UPDATE LEVERAGES THAT REALITY TO IMPROVE ACCESS AND AWARENESS.

SECOND, IT IMPROVES EQUITY AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.

DIGITAL PUBLICATION HELPS ENSURE THAT ALL RESIDENTS, REGARDLESS OF HOA MEMBERSHIP, GEOGRAPHIC PROXIMITY, OR MAIL RELIABILITY, ARE EQUALLY INFORMED.

IT SUPPORTS WORKING RESIDENTS, RENTERS, AND DIGITAL ENGAGED POPULATIONS WHO MAY OTHERWISE BE EXCLUDED UNDER TRADITIONAL NOTICE PROCEDURES.

LAST, IT PROMOTES GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY AND COORDINATION.

BY REQUIRING THAT A COPY OF THE NOTICE BE PROVIDED TO CITY COMMISSION MEMBERS, THIS AMENDMENT KEEPS ELECTED OFFICIALS FULLY INFORMED OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY IN THEIR DISTRICTS.

IT ENABLES COMMISSIONERS TO RESPOND TO CONSTITUENTS' CONCERNS OR ATTEND MEETINGS IF THEY'RE DESIRED.

SO MOVING TO OUR LAST ADDITION TO THE CODE.

SO TO WRITTEN SUMMARY OF NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS.

THE TEXT IN RED HAS BEEN ADDED.

NO PUBLIC HEARING SHALL BE SCHEDULED UNTIL THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED THE SUMMARY OF THE PUBLIC MEETING TO CITY STAFF AS REQUIRED BY THIS SUBSECTION.

THE SUMMARY OF THE MEETING WILL BE PRESENTED TO THE ADVISORY BOARD OR CITY COMMISSION BEFORE A PUBLIC HEARING.

OUR JUSTIFICATION FOR ADDING THIS SECTION.

BASICALLY, IT REINFORCES THE INTEGRITY OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS.

THIS PROVISION ENSURES THAT NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS ARE NOT TREATED AS A FORMALITY, BUT AS A CRITICAL REQUIRED STEP IN THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS.

[00:55:01]

IT GUARANTEES THAT COMMUNITY FEEDBACK IS OFFICIALLY DOCUMENTED AND CONSIDERED BEFORE DECISION MAKERS REVIEW OR VOTE ON A PROPOSAL.

SECOND, IT PREVENTS PREMATURE SCHEDULING, RECQUIRING A SUMMARY BEFORE A HEARING IS SCHEDULED CREATES CLEAR PROCEDURAL CHECKPOINT, IMPROVING PROCEDURES, AND ENSURING ACCOUNTABILITY.

LAST BUT NOT LEAST, IT PROVIDES DECISION MAKERS WITH CRUCIAL COMMUNITY INSIGHT.

ADVISORY BOARDS IN THE CITY COMMISSION MUST CONSIDER THE PUBLIC'S CONCERNS.

QUESTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS AS A PART OF THEIR DELIBERATIVE PROCESS.

BY REQUIRING THE SUMMARY TO BE PRESENTED PRIOR TO THE HEARING, THIS PROVISION ENSURES THAT COMMUNITY VOICES ARE FORMALLY A PART OF THE RECORD AND INFLUENCES ANY POLICY DECISIONS.

SO MOVING ON JUST TO THE MINOR CHANGES, WE CHANGED MAY TO SHELL AND INSTEAD OF TO.

SO I'LL JUST READ THE FULL SECTION WHERE NEIGHBORHOOD LANDS ARE PART OF A TOWNHOUSE CONDOMINIUM OR TIMESHARE, DEVELOPMENT, THE NOTICE SHALL BE MAILED TO THE PRESIDENT OR MANAGER OF THE DEVELOPMENTS PROPERTY OWNERS, ASSOCIATION, AND INDIVIDUAL UNIT OWNERS.

OUR JUSTIFICATION FOR THESE REVISIONS FIRST, IT ENSURES BROADER AND MORE DIRECT RESIDENT NOTIFICATION.

CHANGING MAY TO SHELL MAKES THE DELIVERY OF NOTICES TO BOTH THE ASSOCIATION AND INDIVIDUAL UNIT OWNERS A REQUIREMENT, AND NOT JUST AN OPTION.

THIS ENSURES THAT RESIDENTS LIVING IN MULTI UNIT DEVELOPMENTS ARE DIRECTLY NOTIFIED, RATHER THAN SOLELY RELYING ON ASSOCIATIONS REPRESENTATIVE TO DISSEMINATE THE INFORMATION.

IT RESPONDS DIRECTLY TO PAST CONCERNS WHERE RESIDENTS IN TOWN HOMES OR CONDOMINIUMS REPORTED THEY WERE NOT MADE AWARE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS NEAR THEIR HOMES.

SO CHANGING THE WORD INSTEAD OR, USING THE WORD INSTEAD IMPLIES EITHER OR SCENARIO, POTENTIALLY UNDERMINING THE COMPLETENESS OF NOTIFICATION.

REMOVING IT AND REPLACING IT WITH AND MAKES IT CLEAR THAT BOTH PARTIES MUST BE NOTIFIED, ENSURING NO MISUNDERSTANDING BY APPLICANTS.

AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, THESE AMENDMENTS IT ENHANCES LEGAL DEFENSIBILITY AND ADMINISTRATIVE CONSISTENCY.

A CLEARLY MANDATED NOTICE REQUIRES TO BOTH A REQUIREMENT TO BOTH ASSOCIATIONS AND INDIVIDUAL RESIDENTS REDUCES THE LIKELIHOOD OF PROCEDURAL CHALLENGES OR CLAIMS OF INSUFFICIENT NOTICE.

AND THIS IS THE CRITERIA.

WE ALL KNOW THIS.

SO I'LL SKIP OVER THAT.

AND THE AMENDMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH OUR STRATEGIC PLANS.

THESE AMENDMENTS SUPPORT TAMARAC'S VISION OF BEING AN INCLUSIVE AND EQUITABLE COMMUNITY BY ENSURING ALL RESIDENTS CAN CONVENIENTLY HAVE ACCESS TO DISCUSSIONS CONCERNING THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND THEN TAMARAC IS VIBRANT.

A VIBRANT CITY, IT THRIVES ON ENGAGED RESIDENTS, THOUGHTFUL DEVELOPMENT AND HIGH QUALITY DESIGN, BY REQUIRING THAT MEETINGS ARE OPEN AND RECORDED, TAMARAC ENCOURAGES COLLABORATION THAT LEADS TO MORE ACTIVE AND WELL INTEGRATED PROJECTS.

THUS, IT IS THE RECOMMENDATION.

THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDS THAT THE PLANNING BOARD FORWARD A FAVOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COMMISSION FOR THE PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER TEN, ARTICLE 5, ENTITLED ADMINISTRATION SECTION 10-5 0.3 C, ENTITLED PRE APPLICATION NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING TO PROVIDE RESIDENTS.

WITH MORE NOTICE, OPPORTUNITIES TO ALLOW FOR GREATER DISCUSSION OF ISSUES AND CONCERNS REGARDING DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.

THE ITEM IS SCHEDULED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE CITY COMMISSION ON FIRST READING ON AUGUST 27, 2025, AND SECOND ON SEPTEMBER 10, 2025. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. GOOD JOB.

[01:00:01]

DO WE HAVE ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT? THE FLOOR IS NOW OPEN.

IT IS 10:06. IT DOESN'T SEEM THAT WE DO, AND THE FLOOR IS NOW CLOSED 10:06.

DO WE HAVE ANY PLANNING BOARD QUESTIONS? I HAVE A QUESTION.

>> I LIVE IN KINGS POINT AND EXPERIENCES.

IS THAT A CONFLICT IN TERMS OF ME VOTING OR AGAINST IT?

>> DON'T BELIEVE SO. NO. IT'S NOT A CONFLICT AT ALL.

>> EXCELLENT.

>> [INAUDIBLE] ASKING.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION. QUICK PRESENTATION, BY THE WAY.

SO THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING, IT'S ONLY INVOLVE CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE, CONDO, TIMESHARE IS NOT INVOLVING THE SINGLE FAMILY.

NO. THE SINGLE-FAMILY HOME.

>> ASK THE QUESTION AGAIN, PLEASE.

>> THE SINGLE-FAMILY HOME.

SO I KNOW IT'S PERTAINING TO TOWN HOUSE, CONDO TIMESHARE.

SO IT'S NOT.

>> NOT NECESSARILY. IT'S JUST THAT PROVISION RELATIVE TO AN APPLICATION THAT MIGHT BE IMPACTING THOSE CONDO TOWN HOME, SO ON.

THEN WE'RE PROVIDING CLARITY IN CASES SUCH AS THOSE, THEN THE NOTICE NEED TO BE PROVIDED.

SO THAT PROVISION JUST READS THAT WAY BECAUSE THAT'S THE ONLY PROVISION WE ARE ADJUSTING.

BUT AN APPLICATION CAN AFFECT ANYWHERE IN THE CITY.

SO, REALLY, THE TYPE OF APPLICATIONS IS LISTED.

THOSE ARE THE APPLICATIONS THAT NEED A NEIGHBORHOOD MEET IN.

FOR THIS PROVISION, WE'RE SAYING WHEN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD MEET IN IMPACTS OR IT'S CLOSE PROXIMITY TO CONDO, HOA, SO ON AND SO FORTH, THEN THOSE WOULD NEED INDIVIDUAL NOTICE, BUT IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY HAVE TO.

>> BEAUTIFUL. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR QUESTION. DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? THE PRESENTATION WAS PRETTY CLEAR, STRAIGHTFORWARD.

THE ASK IS PRETTY CLEAR AND STRAIGHTFORWARD.

DO WE HAVE A MOTION FROM THE BOARD TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION?

>> I HAVE A MOTION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION. THANK YOU.

>> DO YOU HAVE A SECOND?

>> I SECOND.

>> THANK YOU. SECOND BY SAGAN. JAQUE MIE?

>> AWESOME. WE'RE AT YOU.

>> THANK YOU.

>> YOUR POINT.

>> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I FOUND IT ON MY COMPUTER.

ITEM NINE IS QUASI-JUDICIAL IN NATURE.

[9.a TBO97 - Board Order approving/denying request for Site Plan Extension for Tamarac Day Care located at 7830 N University Drive, to allow for an additional twelve (12) month extension of the Major Site Plan approval (with conditions) for the construction of a new 6,204 square foot childcare facility building and associated 2,750 square foot play area.]

THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT WILL GUIDE THE PROCEDURE BEFORE THE BOARD.

ALL PERSONS TESTIFYING BEFORE THE BOARD WILL BE SWORN IN.

THE APPLICANT AND ANY AFFECTED PARTY WILL BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT EVIDENCE, BRING FORTH WITNESSES, CROSS EXAMINE WITNESSES, AND REBUT ANY TESTIMONY.

ALL EVIDENCE RELIED UPON BY REASONABLY PRUDENT PERSONS SHALL BE ADMISSIBLE, WHETHER SUCH EVIDENCE WOULD BE ADMISSIBLE IN A COURT OF LAW.

HOWEVER, IMMATERIAL OR UNDULY REPETITIOUS EVIDENCE SHALL BE EXCLUDED.

HEARSAY EVIDENCE MAY BE USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUPPLEMENTING OR EXPLAINING OTHER EVIDENCE, BUT SHALL NOT BE SUFFICIENT BY ITSELF TO SUPPORT A FINDING.

STATEMENTS FROM ATTORNEYS SHOULD ONLY BE CONSIDERED AS ARGUMENT AND NOT CONSIDERED AS TESTIMONIES.

ATTORNEYS FOR PARTIES ARE NOT SUBJECT TO CROSS-EXAMINATION.

THE BOARD HAS THE AUTHORITY TO REFUSE TO HEAR ANY TESTIMONY WHICH IS IRRELEVANT OR REPETITIVE.

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE MAY BE PRESENTED IN THE FORM OF A COPY OF THE ORIGINAL AND SHOULD BE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST.

ALL PARTIES SHALL BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW EVIDENCE, COMPARE COPIES WITH ORIGINALS, AND QUESTION PARTIES ABOUT THEIR EVIDENCE.

THE ORDER OF PRESENTATION SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS.