[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6164232,"mediaKeyId","5429381-65a1c501a03d39109f75701ee77b9669","parentId",5429381,"title","Planning board upholds staff decision to rescind stop-work order for dock at 3411 West 15th Street; petitioners plan DEP appeal","audioSeconds",3460,"startMs",1692770,"endMs",5153040,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5429381-65a1c501a03d39109f75701ee77b9669&start=1692&end=5153","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5429381-65a1c501a03d39109f75701ee77b9669/thumbnail_1692770.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6164232/Panama-City/Bay-County/Florida/Planning-board-upholds-staff-decision-to-rescind-stop-work-order-for-dock-at-3411-West-15th-Street-petitioners-plan-DEP-appeal","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6164232-55eeec376bab10171cb1090a8f86bd8b/orig.mp4?Expires=1775998778&Signature=ZC76n8juXnqqT1UmS1yNgF6ubFSLxeZ5OLyDJKurOED4nepu~JrMOg36bym-fYwQBWg~hH93Ru9DVtkHP-cNbuuzD7Qv~v4LZVc8TQmlIUgFQJysevr3DkX4yYaIoNI2F-hFaCak12odxJtR6Xe0Mpn8LLrHm4m1qH9O-J8UgIq0GwpjOsIqAHQfP4iJJR~JIxaXYxSGDRq68GkjVQaMIXt59rhrZ27BrUoYuZSHtkO44P9KmnHb7ITifu~ncIVFavcO8y6mHfoqvB8bSNX12GjOg8fOrbz6lwPOboOtr9Ftk2DZ8wNwzaFjHpA2RC20m8zHIoso18WKxKlwDPwSpw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Panama City, FL","date","2025-07-18T22:02:12Z","article","The Panama City Planning Board on July 14 voted 5–0 to affirm city staff’s May 23 decision to rescind a stop-work order on construction of a dock at 3411 West 15th Street, allowing the owner to continue work pending the outcome of an administrative appeal to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).

City staffer Michael Fuller opened the record and summarized the administrative review that led to his decision to rescind the stop-work order. He cited the Unified Land Development Code provision requiring that a dock “shall not impede the flow of water, nor navigation,” and told the board the applicant had provided updated plans showing the constructed dock extends 246 feet rather than the 260 feet shown on earlier drawings. “Based on this, we had no other reason or justification to leave the stop‑work order in place,” Fuller said, and he offered to answer board questions about ULDC §110-4(g) and other permitting checks.

Four petitioners opposed the rescission and presented evidence: Joe Popsall (petition filing/affected party), Captain Joe Popsall (same speaker), Captain James Pick, Sterling Anderson, Nick Trudell and others who described repeated use of the Lake Huntington channel and testified that the newly constructed dock impedes navigation under certain wind and tide conditions. Petitioners said the permit application drawings submitted to DEP and to the city were inaccurate, that construction had been staged with moved channel markers, and that parts of the boathouse were constructed inside submerged aquatic vegetation (seagrass). “We maintain that the dock has been constructed in the entrance and exit channel for Lake Huntington,” Joe Popsall told the board, and petitioners said they have an administrative hearing on the DEP permit pending in September.

Petitioners produced sworn testimony from three U.S. Coast Guard‑licensed captains who said they regularly transit the channel and that, under some conditions, the dock would impede navigation. Captain James Pick described long experience in the channel and said that winter low tides combined with wind can force vessels into the deepest portion of the channel; he said the dock’s placement could require vessels to plane to avoid grounding during some tides.

The dock owner, David Bowers of Nest Egg Strategies, and his contractor presented surveys, DEP and city permits, and aerial imagery. Bowers said the project had DEP and city permits, that his consultants performed seagrass and boundary surveys and that the structure was built consistent with the permits. “We have a permit that's active with the FDEP,” Bowers told the board, and he said he and his team had worked with DEP and city staff during construction. He also played video footage and photos showing boats transiting past the boathouse and said there remained clearance for navigation.

Environmental consultant Bethany Womack of Cypress Environmental testified that the DEP general permit used for the project prohibits mooring structures over seagrass and that, if DEP’s administrative hearing finds the general permit was issued based on incorrect information about seagrass location, DEP could rescind the permit and require a different, more scrutinized permitting route that would have required U.S. Army Corps of Engineers review. Womack said that under the DEP general-permit rules a roofed boathouse is not permitted over seagrass.

Board members questioned staff and the parties about survey methods, whether the city had performed a depth survey during winter low tides, and whether an as‑built survey had been filed with the city; Fuller said the city had not received an as‑built survey, and code compliance had used a police boat depth sounder for a site check in May. Counsel explained the limited scope of the board’s review: the board’s job was to decide whether staff’s rescission of the stop‑work order was correct on the land‑development criteria before the board, not to make final determinations under DEP jurisdiction.

After rebuttal from the petitioners and the owner, board members discussed the record and whether DEP’s pending appeal meant the board should defer. Ultimately the board voted to affirm Fuller's rescission of the stop‑work order, with members saying the DEP appeal and an as‑built determination could be dispositive in the coming months but were not determinations the board could resolve at the hearing. The chairman noted that a written order affirming the board’s action would be prepared and that parties would have 30 days to appeal the board’s decision to circuit court.

Petitioners said they will pursue the scheduled DEP administrative hearing in September and indicated they may seek legal remedies if DEP rescinds the general permit; staff and the owner said they will comply with any requirements from DEP or the city and noted that continued work is at the owner’s risk if later found out of compliance.

Recorded roll-call votes on the motion to affirm Fuller's action were: Board Member Carroll — yes; Board Member Stamps — yes; Board Member Barker — yes; Board Member Rich — yes; Chairman DuBauer — yes. The motion carried 5–0.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City of Panama City Planning Board Meeting 07142025","oneSentenceSummary","After a multi-hour quasi‑judicial hearing, the Panama City Planning Board on July 14 affirmed city staff’s decision to rescind a stop‑work order for a dock at 3411 West 15th Street, allowing construction to continue while the project faces an administrative appeal to the Florida DEP.","taxTitle","Panama City, Bay County, Florida","taxId",4834,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6164236,"Planning board tables variance request for 19 Cherry Street to August meeting after applicant absence",363,1307370,1670700,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5429381-65a1c501a03d39109f75701ee77b9669&start=1307&end=1670","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5429381-65a1c501a03d39109f75701ee77b9669/thumbnail_1307370.jpg","/articles/6164236/Panama-City/Bay-County/Florida/Planning-board-tables-variance-request-for-19-Cherry-Street-to-August-meeting-after-applicant-absence","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6164236-83836d5ee001243a008158f043253cea/orig.mp4?Expires=1775998778&Signature=YMVsshc0q76r5K8wIVN~eiM1shYhF~nXfOJKnnv86H-s2AjfzgfnTXPxxNNp8y8nHyqyNT02rkviGXDPPlzrrOI-UwjWe7-SE-8Q1LEQxBJJ0dJAyl42AetZsdToMi0KnQ~yjeRmemKS3~dKciqi-W32XtXQdSTgMTGr3pTzJOsfA~Q8xR~oIhuI9O1fNoFDlfDZGmMAfHXxZFOzLTwDJEic71yvfN~IoKfhx0lJNRQ3RWOMEeEbJoLklgGDQ8bCE6D0-YFi9gLE77hLQ~ybxNAbDsvlnq3woJyEsMmzTPAj19K7HzyCXOKcDyar8wUqsU0tBTdKQRQVngCmJdC3bw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Planning Board on July 14 tabled a variance application for 19 Cherry Street to the August 11 meeting and directed staff to contact the applicant and request the owner’s presence. The applicant, listed as Stefan Grancheroff, requested relief from minimum setbacks in the GC-2 zoning district to bring an existing structure and a proposed east-side expansion into compliance.

Staff described the request as a reduction to a three-foot setback where the GC-2 standard requires five feet at the east side (a relief of two feet) and said the structure’s current rear setback is already approximately three feet. Board members expressed hesitation because the applicant was not present and some details of the proposed expansion — including the purpose of the expansion and who would occupy or operate from the space — were not clarified on the record. One board member said it would be “ideal if the property owner was here.”

Because variances are final decisions of the Planning Board (they do not go to City Commission), members opted to table the item so staff could secure the owner’s attendance; the board set the date certain for the next Planning Board meeting on August 11, 2025, at 4 p.m. The motion to table passed on a recorded vote of 5–0.

Staff noted that the variance application materials indicated an expansion that would relocate or rely on water/sewer connections on the eastern side and that the footprint would remain the same for the existing building, with the application required so the property could proceed with renovation or expansion. The board’s direction asked staff to reach out to the applicant and to include any as-built or survey information and to confirm whether the expansion would cause additional encroachment beyond what is shown in application materials.

The applicant or owner must appear at the August meeting to present and answer questions; the board’s tabled motion specified the meeting date and room and included an instruction that staff attempt to contact the applicant in advance.","A variance request to reduce setbacks at 19 Cherry Street was tabled to the August 11 planning board meeting after the applicant was not present and board members requested the owner attend to explain expansion plans and as‑built details.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6164241,"Planning board recommends annexation and commercial land-use for parcel off Highway 90",83,1211250,1294720,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5429381-65a1c501a03d39109f75701ee77b9669&start=1211&end=1294","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5429381-65a1c501a03d39109f75701ee77b9669/thumbnail_1211250.jpg","/articles/6164241/Panama-City/Bay-County/Florida/Planning-board-recommends-annexation-and-commercial-land-use-for-parcel-off-Highway-90","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6164241-927b326ccde2987c0a157cb76037ae2a/orig.mp4?Expires=1775998778&Signature=EcNoNhr3Bp9K77jpzGFuT1TS9Wz-fzhF8HvM2MCTh5-3S5WuFoW~M0b62sU-zVRydJgz4USXnFvES0K~y9uNuuCOt~XWJzLqoYWlyYTHbhmIvAK7CX-ipbZQ-Eq81nLqRZI6KMj7tJLoWuHdz09htYdqQycz1NUa-ZAkYvWZeOYjBCBj-8g1SBMXp-AJYaD8XW0EQOsN3YOsgtUtdKwRK4A05G6wy-GO28oMBYvaSQYJ-RZ~ECfJYsE3vGXsRJ2~Jwve2SanwWzXuSXU2B0PSVdNz4o6AuUkytR9DUgHToo0bATj7bFT4OPY-MSIPv5kFB3HDklK8NKC7sxaBBspSg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Panama City Planning Board on July 14 recommended annexation of a 0.445-acre parcel off Highway 90 into the city and a land-use and zoning change to General Commercial (GC-2). The applicant was listed as Joseph Bishop of Flag Law Design Building, Inc.; the owner is North Star Church. The board voted to recommend approval and forward the matter to the City Commission.

Planning staff presented the application as case CPCPLN2020-572 and noted the parcel is currently in Bay County under a county commercial zoning; the request would bring the parcel into the city's General Commercial 2 district, which staff said is compatible with the existing county commercial classification. No members of the public spoke on the item at the Planning Board hearing.

A motion to approve the annexation and rezoning carried on a roll call vote. Recorded votes at the meeting were Board Member Pearl — yes; Board Member Stamps — yes; Board Member Barker — yes; Board Member Rich — yes; Chairman Neubauer — yes. Staff said the City Commission will undertake the formal annexation and zoning decision as required by ordinance.

The board's action was a recommendation; subsequent City Commission hearings will set the effective annexation date and finalize zoning. Staff indicated the application packet included aerials, location maps, and staff analysis; no additional conditions were recorded by the Planning Board at the meeting.

The Planning Department will transmit the record to the City Commission for the required public hearings.","The board recommended annexation of a roughly 0.445-acre parcel owned by North Star Church into Panama City with a General Commercial land-use and GC-2 zoning; no public opposition spoke at the hearing.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6164246,"Planning board recommends rezoning 1410 Wilmot Avenue to Neighborhood General to allow four-unit building",780,232550,1013520,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5429381-65a1c501a03d39109f75701ee77b9669&start=232&end=1013","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5429381-65a1c501a03d39109f75701ee77b9669/thumbnail_232550.jpg","/articles/6164246/Panama-City/Bay-County/Florida/Planning-board-recommends-rezoning-1410-Wilmot-Avenue-to-Neighborhood-General-to-allow-four-unit-building","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6164246-47a1ba68f37f784d1d340f59c280545f/orig.mp4?Expires=1775998778&Signature=Lh4RuzmNoNcbjDAasp-qrv45gMW8q1b4-4RITKNcPtaTaI3cxJAJ9rAxDfqWpyo5HVpk2z8u-THOFC-lZECmxjLdq3-dmxXq3Co53-Zmv1zX-MfpECFS2R-lKRJEMHxLfPuKMfwo8su-tUZrmffJTn-2t4wHGRLTK3RfMVlrWuA-WNgBLGz8T0GKciT3AX3gVNtguYW0ne4Q-6QCsrmAg3hVJ8K7Yl4tygvnr-K~5lx29Cjcq-IdkglAYmmuXAW6CLfgOJiJ49j~EZ3TTUmmCe8wOM0LiCV8~Dp7LEevU157iH~XQeSpNPn-nwajDC2v9-jlv087HRj5GttQ9yRcYg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Panama City Planning Board on July 14 recommended that the City Commission rezone 1410 Wilmot Avenue from Neighborhood Residential to Neighborhood General, a change the applicant said would allow a quadplex in an existing church building and create additional on-site parking. The board’s motion to recommend approval passed on a roll call vote.

The applicant and owner was identified as Gennaro Medrano; Tony Medrano spoke to the board as an applicant/representative and described plans to convert the larger portion of the existing building into four units while leaving the adjacent single-family house intact. “It's going to be all built together…in the back is where the parking space will be,” Tony Medrano said, describing an intention to place parking behind the building to reduce street parking pressure.

Neighbors and nearby residents opposed the rezoning at the Planning Board hearing, saying the change would permit nonresidential uses and increase traffic and pedestrian exposure on a street without sidewalks. Robert Gilmore, who lives at 1406 Wilmot Avenue and said his family moved into the neighborhood in 2018, told the board that Neighborhood General zoning allows uses beyond multifamily housing — including daycare, corner stores and other commercial uses — and that change would threaten the area’s “walkable neighborhood” character. Gilmore asked whether rezoning the church parcel would also rezone the adjacent house; staff and the owner said the application addressed the parcel(s) as they are currently titled and that a parcel split could be done to keep the house on a different zoning classification if the owner chose to do so.

Planning staff said parcels adjacent to and across the street from the site are already zoned Neighborhood General, and noted that Neighborhood General allows all uses allowed in Neighborhood Residential plus additional institutional and commercial allowances. Board members asked whether the quadplex could be accommodated without rezoning; staff said Neighborhood Residential allows only two dwelling units per parcel and could not accommodate the four-unit plan without rezoning. During discussion the owner said he would be willing to split the parcel so the house could remain single-family while rezoning the portion with the church building.

The board took a roll call vote after a motion and second; recorded votes at the meeting were Board Member Carroll — yes; Board Member Stamps — yes; Board Member Barker — yes; Board Member Rich — yes; Chairman (recorded at roll) — yes. The board’s recommendation carries to the City Commission, which will hold the required public hearings (first hearing: Aug. 12; second hearing: Aug. 26) before taking a final decision.

The rezoning request was presented as case CPCPLN2020-5694; staff noted the application packet included the applicant’s materials and the neighborhood plan district context. The board’s action at this meeting was a recommendation only; final authority for rezoning rests with the City Commission.

Planning Board members and staff emphasized during discussion that development approvals will still be subject to site plan review, setback and parking requirements at the development stage, and that any departures from permits issued by other agencies (for example, dredging or state permits on waterfront projects discussed later in the meeting) are addressed separately in their respective processes.

The matter now moves to the City Commission for public hearings in August.","The Panama City Planning Board voted to recommend rezoning of 1410 Wilmot Avenue from Neighborhood Residential to Neighborhood General after the applicant said the site would accommodate a four-unit building; neighbors raised concerns about traffic, parking and loss of residential character.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning board upholds staff decision to rescind stop-work order for dock at 3411 West 15th Street; petitioners plan DEP appeal

Planning board tables variance request for 19 Cherry Street to August meeting after applicant absence

Planning board recommends annexation and commercial land-use for parcel off Highway 90

Planning board recommends rezoning 1410 Wilmot Avenue to Neighborhood General to allow four-unit building