Planning Board Members Concerned Over Canopy Report to City Council

Nanette Rivera would bring forth her and several other Planning Board Members “distaste” with how their views on the issue of “boat canopies” were conveyed to the Marco City Council recently.

“Councilors seem confused as to the definition of the permanent versus temporary nature of these devices. This was not how the discussion went before the planning board. That is not how it was to be reflected to council by this board. Furthermore, after considerable searching, I failed to find the state statute which was referred to as the basis for the city staff’s justification for imposing their definition regarding the permanent nature of the installation of those canopies,” said Rivera. 

Board member Rivera was concerned where the planning board should be going from here regarding the “misrepresentation of the board’s intent” regarding this issue.

Both David Vergo and Nanette Rivera were bothered by failure of City Staff to accurately relate the vote of the Planning Board regarding the boat canopy issue.

The city’s attorney for the planning board would attempt to cut off the discussion regarding the issue, but Board Member Rivera and several others would insist that there was a problem here. The attorney would attempt to move forward, saying that it was not on the agenda. Rivera would point out that it was part of “board communication,” and that this was the only way it could be discussed in the open due to “sunshine law” stipulations.

Board Member David Vergo would also voice his concerns regarding how the Board’s discussions may have been misrepresented to the council at the August meeting. At that meeting several councilors questioned Dan Smith’s report to council, and because of his report and a majority of council’s concerns, the report from Smith would fail to find a majority in favor by the Council.

Board member Mike Hogan would also voice his concerns. “When I was quizzed by Council Members, I reported to them that the Planning Board vote went the opposite way from what was reported to them by the Director of Community Affairs,” said Hogan. 

Another Board Member, Geoff Fahringer, was quite explicit when he said. “My mother could take one of these things down without a problem. There is no way that it is permanent. We discussed this and there is no way that information was presented to the council,” said Fahringer.

Due to a procedural issue, more than one meeting has passed by the city council since this issue occurred due to summer scheduling of meetings. Due to the cancellation of the Planning Board meeting by staff it became impossible to have the discussion now being held on September 1. The attorney for the board would explain that their hands were therefore tied due to the procedural rule. 

The Board’s Attorney will review the matter and a written report will be forwarded to the Board and it will be placed upon the Planning Board’s agenda at their next meeting.