CITY OF SARASOTA Development Review Division Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY October 11, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Planning Board Dan Clermont, Chair Members Present: Michael Halflants, Vice Chair Members Shane LaMay, Terrill Salem Planning Board Daniel Deleo (Recusal From Vote/Meeting) Members Absent: City Staff Present: Mike Connolly, Deputy City Attorney Lucia Panica, Director, Development Services Department Myra Schwarz, General Manger, Development Services Alison Christie, AICP, Development Review Chief Planner Daniel Ohrenstein, Assistant City Engineer John Nopper, Coordinator, Public Broadcasting Karen Grassett, Sr. Planning Technician, Development Services Amanda Cisneros, Development Review Coordinator 9:10:41 A.M. I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL PB Chair Clermont called the meeting to order. General Manager Schwarz [acting as the Planning Board's s Secretary] called the roll. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE DAY There were no changes to the order of the day. IV. LAND USE ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC HEARINGS NOTICE TOTHE. PUBLIC: At this time anyone wishing to speak at the following public hearings will be required to take an oath. (Time limitations will be established by the Planning Board.) A. Reading ofthe Pledge ofConduct Secretary Schwarz read the Pledge of Conduct. Attorney Connolly administered the oath to those wishing to speak at today's meeting. Discussion ensued regarding the process for today's meeting. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 11, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 2 of 9 Attorney Connolly stated Florida Statutes require thatl he state the date, time, and location of the second required public hearing at this public hearing; and stated the City Commission public hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, 12/5/23 at 9:00 a.m. in the City Commission Chambers, City Hall, 1565 1st Street. Attorney Connolly discussed the difference between legislative and quasi-judicial public hearings; and noted the public hearing today is legislative. Further discussion ensued regarding the process for today's meeting and the implications of a potential 2/2 vote by the PB members. The PB agreed by consensus that refresher presentations from the applicant and opposition were not necessary; and that the applicants, opposition, and staff would be allotted 15 minutes response time each. Attorney Connolly pointed out the PB members could ask questions during the response times. 9:23:43 A.M. B. Legislative Public Hearings 1. Quay Development Agreement Amendment (301, 401, 468, 555 & 601 Quay Commons) [Continued From 3/8/23 and 4/12/23): Development Agreement Application No. 23-DA-01 is an application seeking approval to amend the Quay Sarasota Development Agreement to allow for submission of a Block Site Plan application reflecting vertical development over Quay Commons between Blocks 1 and 9. The entire Quay Sarasota site is approximately 14.69 acres and is located within the Downtown Bayfront (DTB) zone district and a Future Land Use (FLU) classification of Downtown Bayfront. (Alison Christie, AICP, Development Review Chief Planner) Citizen Input: PB Chair Clermont called upon the citizens that had signed up to speak at the public hearing that was held on March 8, 2023 but were not called upon before the public hearing was continued. The following were called but not present: Julie Forestier, Ben Kaplan, Chris Voelker, Abraham Morgentaler, Phil Grande, Deborah Rossard, Barbara Ackerman, Richard Harris, Bob Rothbard, Terri Allen, Debra Nordstrom, Jason Hughes, Jeff Cianci, Bill Moore, John Lagrega, Steve Gelernter, Margaret Wise, Steve Johnson, Angus Rogers, Emile Gauvreau, Noreene Storrie, Wes Storrie. PB Chair Clermont called upon the citizens that had signed up to speak at the public hearing that was scheduled for April 12, 2023 but were not called upon because the public hearing was continued. The following were not present: Olga Hanlon, Donna Moffitt, Christopher Ying, Steven Konstadt, Juliet Mullan PB Chair Clermont called upon those that signed up to speak at today's public hearing. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 11, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 3 of 9 9:27:42 A.M. Ms. Donna Cubit-Swoyer appeared and stated her opposition noting the departure from the original plans; and stated the structure is unsightly and unfriendly. Mr. Frank Burzik appeared and stated the HOA documents state the air rights belong to the residents; said he opposes the tunnel; noted the potential negative impacts on property values; and stated his concerns that a precedent would be set. Mr. Burzik called for one minute of silence in honor of the current world events. Mr. Jeff Kinkead appeared and presented a graphic depicting the original proposal for Quay Commons; stated developers need to be held accountable for promises made; stated he relied on the promises made in 2016 when purchasing his unit; and stated the developers are using tactics to intimidate residents into not opposing the proposal. Mr. Benjamin Krause appeared and stated he strongly objected to the proposed structure/tunnel; stated the proposal was not originally anticipated, Quay Commons was to be a park like setting with buildings on each side; stated his opposition to the additional density the developer would acquire; and stated he relied on the original plan when he purchased his unit. Mr. David Tao appeared and stated his opposition noting the changes to the community; stated Quay Commons was billed as a tree lined street; stated his opposition to the tunnel; and urged the PB to follow the plan that was approved in 2016 and deny the request. Ms. Diane Bray appeared and stated her opposition noting she relied on the original plan when purchasing her unit; stated the proposed tunnel presented a safety issue; and said two buildings are originally proposed should be sufficient. Ms. Marsha Walsh appeared via Zoom and stated her opposition to the proposal stating the Bay Park area would be compromised. Ms. Kristen Kurland appeared via Zoom and stated she opposes the alteration to the GDP that would allow for the combining of the structure; said the development would have an impact on the community's character, infrastructure, and quality of life; stated the proposed structure would block the views to the Bay Park; and said the proposal is inconsistent with the Downtown Master Plan. Ms. Margo Miller appeared via Zoom and stated she purchased her unit in 2021 based on the original GDP; and stated she opposes the amendment as it will create a wall between Bayso Condominiums and the Bay Park. Ms. Tamara Logan appeared via Zoom and stated her opposition noting the proposed structure would dwarf the Bay Park; stated height should be measured in feet versus stories; and said the proposed structure does not fit into the area. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 11, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 4 of 9 Mr. Paul Vigliante appeared via Zoom and stated he purchased his unit in 2018 largely based on the drawings and the Bay Park; said the proposal will have a negative impact on property values and will destroy the views; and expressed concerns regarding traffic. Mr. Bill Dodds appeared via Zoom and stated he had no comments. PB Chair Clermont noted Mr. Peter Blanton has registered to speak via Zoom however is not eligible as he provided his input at the March 8, 2023 meeting. Mr. Chirag Patel appeared via Zoom and stated he had no comments. Mr. Greg Hengtgen appeared via Zoom and stated he had no comments. Ms. Donna Dysert appeared via Zoom and stated the proposal is wrong for the community; stated there are written promises that Quay Commons will be a common area with open space; said she relied on those promises when she purchased her unit; stated developers should be held to the promises they make; and requested the PB deny the request. Ms. Paula Mandel appeared via Zoom and stated she had no comments. 9:59:06 A.M. Opposition Rebuttal: Attorney Robert Lincoln, representing Quay Sarasota Block 6 Condominium Association, Inc., appeared and discussed the history of the application; noted staff recommended denial; discussed the reasons the PB should recommend denial; pointed out on-going litigation regarding the project; discussed the history of other developments within Quay Sarasota; stated the request is fundamentally inconsistent with promises the developers have made; and requested the PB recommend the City Commission deny the request. 10:14:32 A.M. PB Vice Chair Halflants, PB Member Salem and PB Member LaMay had no comments or questions. PB Chair Clermont questioned if Block 6 objected to their views being blocked, noting the construction of two buildings on each side of Quay Commons would also block views. Attorney Lincoln stated blocking public access to Bay Park was the issue. PB Chair Clermont questioned how public Quay Commons will be upon completion. Attorney Lincoln pointed out Quay Commons is currently a public access easement. Discussion ensued. PB Chair Clermont questioned if the objections pertained to the proposed structure or the building over Quay Commons. Attorney Lincoln stated two Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 11, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 5 of9 buildings, one on each side of Quay Commons, was always anticipated; and said there are no objections to that at this time. Discussion ensued. 10:22:31 A.M. Applicant Rebuttal: The applicants requested the PB recess briefly due to technical issues. The Planning Board Took a Nine Minute Recess 10:31:37 A.M. Attorney William Merrill, Attorney G. Matthew Brockway, and Architect George Scarfe appeared. Attorney Merrill reviewed the request stating that it clarifies that development above Quay Commons is allowed; discussed previously approved minor amendments to the GDP; and said the existing Development Agreement already permits the request. Attorney Brockway discussed previous minor amendments to the GDP and combining of blocks that have been approved. Attorney Merrill reviewed Sections 8 & 13of the Development Agreement and definitions contained in the Zoning Code; said the applicants did not appeal the determination that their proposal constituted a major amendment to the GDP because the Development Agreement already allowed for the construction above Quay Commons; and suggested staff determined the request to be a major amendment due to the amount of opposition. Attorney Brockway pointed out the Planning Board will consider the associated Block Site Plan in the future. Attorney Merrill noted the applicants had agreed to a breezeway height of 24'. 10:46:35 A.M. PB Member LaMay questioned why the minor amendment denial was not appealed to the Board of Adjustment (BOA). Attorney Merrill stated the applicants did not feel the BOA was the appropriate body to consider the issue, they want to go through the process that will get them before the City Commission. Discussion ensued. PB Member LaMay questioned if the applicants agreed with the statement in a Zoning Code Confirmation letter the City issued regarding combining of blocks. Discussion ensued regarding the applicability of that to the proposed DA amendment. PB Member LaMay asked why the associated Block Site Plan has not moved forward. Mr. Scarfe stated the applicants are waiting for a decision on the proposed DA amendment before moving forward. PB Member Salem had no questions. PB Chair Clermont noted the on-going litigation regarding air rights and pointed out that the Block Site Plan in not under consideration at this time; and questioned how many total units were proposed and how many have been sold. Mr. Scarfe stated there are 123 proposed units and approximately 80 of those have already been sold. PB Chair Clermont questioned why combine the blocks when more units could be constructed in two separate buildings; noting the opponents have stated they would not object to two Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 11, 2023 at 9:00 a.m, in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 6 of 9 separate structures. Attorney Merrill noted the Block Site Plan will come before the PB as a quasi-judicial matter and that is when the specifics will be decided; noted the applicants had assumed the minor amendment would be approved; and stated the clients prefer the current design. Discussion ensued regarding the benefits of constructing one building versus two buildings; the site plan review process; and if proffers would be appropriate in a legislative matter. PB Chair Clermont asked for the applicants' thoughts regarding comments made by an Architect under public comments. Mr. Scarfe discussed the history of architecture in Sarasota pointing out many of the historic master plans depict buildings being constructed over roadways. PB Member LaMay asked if services would be consolidated in the one building. Mr. Scarfe stated one ramp, two porte cocheres, and a separate utility driveway are proposed. Discussion ensued. PB Member LaMay pointed out the original presentations focused on living streets and asked what the applicants felt the meaning of living streets is. Mr. Scarfe stated that in urban planning that is a room; and stated the proposal creates a unique outdoor space with a ceiling. Discussion ensued. PB Vice Chair Halflants presented a graphic of the breezeway at The BLVD noting the comparison to the proposal. Discussion ensued regarding the ability of a living street to thrive under those conditions. 11:25:34 A.M. Staff Rebuttal: Alison Christie, AICP, Development Review Chief Planner, and Daniel Ohrenstein, Assistant City Engineer, appeared. Chief Planner Christie stated the discussion today relates only to the proposed additional language in the Development Agreement; said the comparison to the driveway connection for Blocks 4 & 5 is not valid noting Blocks 4 & 5 were always anticipated to be combined; pointed out Quay Commons was never intended to go through Blocks 4 & 5; discussed previous minor amendments to the GDP; stated Blocks 1 & 9 were never anticipated to be combined which is why it was considered a major amendment; reviewed the timeline for the proposed development of Blocks 1 & 9; said staff disagrees that the proposed development will serve as a gateway noting the proposed design disrupts key site lines and linkages between other downtown areas and acts more as a funnel; pointed out that while the applicants have stated the project would allow for denser development in the downtown area, fewer units are proposed than would be permitted, and those unit are larger; discussed the shadow affect of the proposed structure; said staff feels the pedestrian experience would suffer rather than be enhanced; stated maintaining lush landscaping under the ceiling is not viable; pointed out meaningful café space could be created without building over the road; presented a graphic depicting the potential massing if the proposed amendment is approved versus what the massing would be under what is currently allowed; and stated the representations the applicants have made regarding the site plan are not guaranteed, noting the site plan approval process is separate from this process. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 11, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 7 of 9 Assistant City Engineer Ohrenstein stated Driveways "C" & "D" were optional as part of the original plan while Driveway "B" was not; stated the proposed green area under the building does not count as pervious for stormwater purposes; pointed out existing retail uses in the Quay; said the functionality of the proposed terminated vista could not be determined with elevation drawings and presented graphics depicting samples of terminated vistas; stated outdoor rooms are typically open to the sky, have street walls, and contain no dead zones; presented graphics depicting samples; and stated the walkability of the area is difficult to determine without a site plan. Development Review Chief Planner Christie pointed out the proposed site plan that is under review depicts a garage, a drop-off area, and a trash area for each side, noting that it is not a reduction from what two buildings would require. 11:39:46 A.M. PB Member Salem had no questions. PB Member LaMay questioned why Blocks 2 & 3 were required to reduce the maximum height from what is allowed to be combined. Attorney Connolly stated that was specifically authorized by the Development Agreement. PB Member LaMay noted the city is not getting anything in return under the proposal being considered. Discussion ensued. PB Vice Chair Halflants questioned what the PB'srole was. Development Review Chief Planner Christie the PB is being asked to make a recommendation to the City Commission for a policy change. Discussion ensued. PB Chair Clermont stated the GDP minor amendment that allowed Block 6 to incorporate part of the Waterfront District should have been deemed a major amendment; and questioned why it was deemed a minor amendment. Development Review Chief Planner Christie stated the Waterfront District is Block 10; said there are permits in process for restaurant and retail uses on Block 10; and pointed out the portion added to Block 6 is public space. Development Services Director Panica appeared and stated Block 61 needed the space for their access ramp; stated the area incorporated into Block 6 was designated to be a street and is now a driveway; said the intent of the Waterfront District remains the same; and pointed out the Development Agreement allows for changes in the width of streets and driveways. PB Chair Clermont stated his concern was not with the access points, his concern is the change should have been deemed a major amendment; and questioned if Quay Commons is a private road. Attorney Connolly stated a public easement was granted as part of the street vacation process. PB Member Salem questioned if Quay Commons is a public street. Attorney Connolly responded that it is a public easement that is maintained privately. PB Member Salem asked if any special events held on Quay Commons would have to go through the City's special event permitting process. Attorney Connolly confirmed that was correct. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 11, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 8 of 9 PB Member LaMay stated his concern is the adjacent versus abutting issue. Attorney Connolly clarified that the issue is irrelevant because there is a pending site plan, the Development Services Director has made two determinations that combining Blocks 1 & 9 and building over the right of way was not authorized by the Development Agreement and therefore not a minor amendment; said the only way to make that change would be through a major amendment which requires a quasi-judicial public hearing before the PBand CC;and stated the applicants chose to request an amendment to the Development Agreement which is a legislative process rendering the issue of adjacent versus abutting irrelevant. 11:52:49 A.M. PB Chair Clermont closed the public hearing. PB Member LaMay stated the question is whether it would be good policy to approve the Development Agreement amendment; said based on the testimony and the fact no proffers are offered in return for the amendment he does not feel enough justification has been provided to allow the building over the road; and noted the open space would be a gateway to the Bay Park. PB Vice Chair Halflants stated the proposed scale is inadequate to be a gateway to the Bay Park; said it would feel as if one was waling under a parking garage; said the main question is if there is any public benefit; and stated he did not think there is any public benefit. PB Member Salem stated the amendment would allow the developers to sell the space over the street; and noted the developers are the only ones that would gain anything. PB Chair Clermont stated he likes the building; said area residents are concerned about views being blocked; discussed other buildings in the Quay that are large scale and block the view from US 41; stated the breezeway would provide shelter and would provide for a dramatic view of the Bay Park when exiting the Quay site; and stated he supports the proposed amendment. 11:59:47 A.M. PB Vice Chair Halflants made a motion to find that Development Agreement 23-DA-01 is inconsistent with Section IV-1506 of the Zoning Code and recommend denial to the City Commission. PB. Member LaMay seconded the motion. The motion passed 3-1 with PB Chair Clermont voting no. Attorney Connolly restated that the City Commission public hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, 12/5/23 at 9:00 a.m. in the City Commission Chambers, City Hall, 1565 1st Street. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting October 11, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 9 of 9 V. CITIZEN's INPUT NOTICE' TO THE PUBLIC: At this time Citizens may address the Planning Board on topics of concern. Items which have been previously discussed at Public Hearings may not be addressed at this time. (A maximum 5- minute time limit.) There was no citizen input. 12:01:06 P.M. VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. June 13, 2023 The minutes were approved by consensus as presented. 12:01:27 P.M. VII. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY STAFF Items presented are informational only (no action taken). Any issue presented that may require future action will be placed on the next available agenda for discussion. 1. Potential Special Meetings on 1/17/24 & 1/24/24 Regarding Mixed-Use Zone District ZTA Secretary Schwarz stated Planning Department staff has requested the PB hold a special meeting regarding the proposed Mixed-Use Zone District ZTA on either January 17, 2024 or January 24, 2024. After discussion the PB agreed to hold a special meeting on January 24, 2024 at 1:30 p.m. 12:04:09 P.M. VIII. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY PLANNING BOARD Items presented are informational only (no action taken). Any issue presented that may require future action will be placed on the next available agenda for discussion. There were no topics by PB members. IX. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 12:04:21 p.m. luye Sly - Laulaoak Myra Schwarz Dan Clermont, Chair General Manager and Secretary to the Board Planning Board/Local Planning Agency FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME--FIRSTI NAME-MIDDLEI NAME NAME OFE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMIESONAUTHORITA, OR COMMITTEE DEL LE DANIEL FLANNING SCARI MAILINGA ADDRESS THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMESION,AUTHORIYA OR COMMITTEE ON DR. WICHISERVE IS AUNIT OF: 1733 SOVTH s CITY OCOUNTY OOTHERI LOCALAGENCY CITY COUNTY NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: SARASOTA SARASOTA TTY of SARASOTA DATE ON WHICHVOTE OCCURRED MYPOSITIONIS: O 23 a ELECTME APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee, It applies to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have à conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which would inurei tol his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also MUST ABSTAIN from knowingly voting on a measure which would inure to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the parent, subsidiary, or sibling organization of a principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies (CRAs) under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and offiçers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acré, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting Inj that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law, A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or cârying on a business enterprise with the officer as. a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE. BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you are not prohibited by Section 112.3143 from otherwise participating in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature, of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whethèr made by you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: You must complete and file this form (before making any attemp! to influence the decision) with the person responsible for reçording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes, (Continued on page, 2) CE FORM 8B EFF. 11/2013 PAGE 1 Adopted by reference in Rule 34-7.010(1)), F.A.C. APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST DAAJ DELED hereby disclose that on OCTOBER Ith 20 Z3: (a)A AI measure came or will come before my agency which (check one or more) inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, oR d msle epibpaln @ Slumlan inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, inured to the special gain or loss of by whom I am retained; or inured to the special gain or loss of which is the parent subsidiary, or sibling organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: Cait nola o-he One fowle dovelgns, OR 62 uge clenl A 12 at Shdlon nest ork mepiant pola Tomnts nolleb-o One Pvk. erle lhfre, pLh Fh.sit. Sahn & mgt Aete yay F 112.3143/ mys hm ahp If disclosure of specific information would violate confidentiality or privilege pursuant to law or rules governing attorneys, a public officer, who is also an attorney, may comply with the disclosure requirements of this section by disclosing the nature of the interest in such a way as to provide the public with notice of the conflict. < ol 3 23 - Date Filed Gignature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES $112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. - PAGE 2 CE FORM 8B EFF. 11/2013 Adopted by reference in Rule 34-7.010(1)), F.A.C.