Ready? Let's call the meeting to order. Please rise and pledge the flag to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation
indivisible with liberty andice for all. >> Thank you. Would you call the role please Renee? >> Commissioner Green here. >> Commissioner Canfield >> here. Commissioner Orwin >> here. Vice Mayor Stanley here. >> Mayor Morgan >> here. >> Also present and participating today are town manager Dunham CFO by master Chief
Jones and myself and our attorney Brett. I don't last name. I'm so sorry. >> Just for the record, the attorney is I'm sorry the manager is Nazaro, not Dunham. >> Did I say Dunham? >> Old habits.com. >> Sorry. It's just a habit. You know, you
miss you miss one meeting and >> Oh, yes, that's right. You were >> That's what happens. Trey, >> we've been presented with the minutes from our last meeting on March 13th. Are there any additions, changes, deferrals, questions, or a motion? >> Motion to approve the minutes from the
last meeting. >> Second. >> Renee. >> Commissioner Green. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Canfield. Yes. >> Commissioner Orwe. Yes. Vice Mayor Stanley. >> Yes. >> Mayor Morgan. >> Yes. Mr. Nazaro, any changes to the agenda? Yes, sir. We do have one addition under 8
A we'll have uh under the town manager reports number five C turtle lighting which will be handled by our town clerk. >> Okay. Turtle lighting item five under section 8.
Very good. Uh our next meeting will be May 8th at 9:00 a.m. for anyone who wishes to attend. Also, we will have our second town hall meeting, our evening town hall meeting, 5:30 on April 22nd. The last one last month was well attended and and and worthwhile. Uh it's
a casual setting for people to kind of ask questions, raise issues that are of some concern in a different setting than a formal commission meeting. So, I urge you all to attend. Uh we're honored today to have Senator Lori Berman and Representative Rob Long here. Lori,
would you uh like to come up and tell us what you've been doing? >> Okay, good morning everyone. So good to see you. Um so as I think many of you know, we have term limits in Florida and you get to you can do eight years in the House, eight years in the Senate. I have
done both and I am now at the end of my term. Um and I will be done in November. So, this is probably my last meeting with all of you. Um, very happy to represent you. It does. And the really good news is I'm here with Rob Long, who's my our one of our newest
colleagues in the house. And so, he's just starting his eight years. And it's good we're here together. So, you'll have some great continuity. Um, when I do these reports, I like to give you an update on what we did in preeemption in the in the state this year. And I have
to tell you, it was a really awful year. We only in terms of preeemption, we only passed about 200 bills and um I would say at least 10 of them had some variation of preeemption in them. Um so
you've got your work cut out for you. Just a couple um of the important ones. Um we did change the sovereign immunity limits and it is now um $350,000 for an individual and 500,000 per
incident. So you if you do get sovereign immunity claims they probably will be for a higher amount and also your insurance on the sovereign immunity may rise because the increases in sovereign immunity. I will tell you I was the um
Democratic minority leader this past year and I met every week with the League of Cities and they worked really hard to take some bills that were really horrendous and make them a little more tolerable. And this was a prime example in the House. They tried to put a
million per incident and I think 500. So they got it to 350 and 500 which was a compromise. Um other things that you're specifically preempted on, you can't um you you can't um regulate gas leaf
blowers. Um and you can't um have any policies which are considered net zero policies for carbon emissions. Um so if you do anything that's based on a carbon admission like a greenhouse gas issue,
it has to be done for an economic reason and not for an environmental reason. >> Um >> can I just ask you about the gas blowers because it's an issue that has come up several times. we were going to revisit it. Uh, regarding electric uh blowers, >> you what what is the
>> you probably could not mandate electric blowers the way the it's in the um Department of Agriculture bill, believe it or not. That's where they put the preeemption in. Um, but I think you would probably not be able to. I'll I would check with your attorney, but I think you're going to be limited on
being able to say it has to be electric. um probably have to, you know, look into that a little more, but I think it's going to be a problem. Um, uh, the other big area that we focused on was, uh, and we spent an
inordinate amount of time instead of thinking about things that affect affordability and people's wallets, things like property insurance, which we did nothing on, we spent time passing a uh, very big bill saying that cities and
counties cannot have any diversity, equity, and inclusion policies. So um you can't have anything in your policies any kind of training on those issues and if you are going to spend government money on a particular group or ethnicity
there are very clear there are not clear guidelines actually we put in many many exceptions for instance if you wanted to support black history month there is an exception and the exception is based on the fact that it's a federal holiday um
but like St. Patrick's Day is not a federal holiday. So if you're going to give money to a St. Patrick's Day parade or something like that, it's questionable. And and in that particular statute, if you do so, you can be personally is it personally liable? What? There there is
>> males. >> Oh, right. Charged with >> Yes. So So it's pretty serious. Um unfortunately, we spend a lot of time on these cultural war issues instead of on things that we should be doing in Tallahassee. Um I'm gonna let uh my
colleague talk about some of the other preeemption things we did having to do with zoning and land use. There's a >> you know the important one we're concerned about. >> What what's the >> you know the big one that we're worried about which is uh what came out of the house and when >> which one is that about homesteaded
property? >> Oh property tax. I mean Oh yeah. Yeah. And we will talk about property tax and you can talk about what the house did and I'll tell you guys what the Senate did. So >> yeah, happy to. First of all, good morning uh mayor and uh commission. Great to be here. This is my first time presenting in front of this group and
I'm in a way uh taking the torch from Senator Burman, although you will have another senator here next year as well, but you'll see me again at least. Um so I think you went over most of the preeemption bills, Senator. So 803 is the one that um dictates
that any money that that you guys have coming in that's revenue from permitting you have to you can only use for permitting. You can't use that for any capital improvement projects. For instance, uh we just did a presentation in Delray. They were planning to use some of their permitting funds to um
basically fund a um annex to their development services and create a new structure to move some staff into there. They can no longer do that because of the way that uh the state is now telling them how they can use those funds. So, as the senator sort of mentioned, the theme of this session really was how can
we do as much as possible to preempt local governments. Not sure how we got to that point, uh but that's where we seemingly are. Uh the silver lining uh funny enough is that we had such a dysfunctional relationship between the House and the Senate that not that many
bills made it through. And luckily the Senate killed a lot of the worst bills, but some unfortunately did still make it through. Uh, one of the ones that did get killed, however, was the uh, property tax bill that was passed out of the House, which um, the gist of that was it would have phased out all
homesteaded uh, property taxes um, with some carveouts for school district, but I'm not sure if that one even had carveouts for law enforcement. I don't believe it did. Law enforcement and uh, for and firefighters. So, it was a really bad bill. uh many of us argued against it and uh there was no
implementation strategy for it and um there was no real plan on how to backfill that revenue for our cities. Um luckily again that bill did not get heard in the house so it's dead. However uh we are going back for multiple special sessions. We're going back in a
week to discuss congressional redistricting officially but there are rumors that the call will be expanded. Is that the right terminology? uh to include uh property taxes. Uh we still have a budget to figure out. We have about a $ 1.4 billion dollar uh
difference between the House and Senate budgets. We have to work that out. And there's also rumor that there could be an AI uh special session as well to talk about AI. Um so we still have some stuff to work out. Um like I said, it was very dysfunctional. I think Senator Burman,
you referenced that there were 1,900 bills filed. Only about 230 passed through both chambers. only 20 some have made it to the governor's desk so far. So there's still a lot of unfinished business, but historically this was a very unproductive session. In some ways,
that's a good thing given uh the theme of how do we preempt local governments as much as possible. But I will leave you with a couple I always like to end on a positive note, which is tough right now, but there's a couple good things that happened. Um let me just find Oh yeah, coastal resiliency, which was
Senate Bill 302. It's an important bill for for coastal towns like um like Gulf Stream here. Um basically the gist of it is uh it allows the state to develop guidance and promote nature-based coastal coastal protection solutions. So
more greenbased natural solutions to beach erosion and things like that. It promotes that and starts to build more of a structure around it. And it gives you as a city more tools and alignment for resilience planning and funding opportunities. and that's I believe in conjunction with the the D. And so that
we we do consider that a good bill and it's a step in the right direction. And the other one um I want to talk about um was a a really great bipartisan moment that we had this session. It involves my predecessor which was um Representative
Joe Cassello who is a former Boon Beach commissioner who passed away last July. And I actually um you know I ended up in a special election and and served out what would have been his last year in the legislature before he turned out. And uh Joe Cassell was also a former
firefighter and he had put some language in the bill several years ago regarding PAS which are the forever chemicals I'm sure you guys have heard about. These are the chemicals that end up in our groundwater, end up in our bodies and are almost impossible to get back out. They're linked to heightened rates of
cancer. There is a particular type of foam uh that firefighters train with called alf foam and it has a lot of PAS chemicals in it and it's been linked to a lot of uh health issues with firefighters. It has been banned federally but a lot of states like
Florida still have stockpiles of it that are being used and so states have begun to phase it out as well. Joe had written up some language back in 2022 to do exactly that. Didn't make it through. we were able to work across the aisle to bring that language back and add some
into a bigger bill that then also gives some language on how to dispose of it and phase it out more quickly. And that bill ended up being called the Joe Cassello Act and it passed unanimously through both the House and the Senate. Um there was a big standing ovation uh for for Joe during that. Um, it was a
really emotional moment for a lot of us and it was a great way to honor Joe and it would have been his last year there and a great way to and and frankly it's a really important bill for our firefighters. So, that was another positive thing that happened this session. So, I'll leave it with that and if you all have any questions Yeah, go
ahead. >> I want to just do a brief little follow up on a couple things. Um, so what I didn't say and I usually say um is that we didn't do a budget um which is the one responsibility that the legislature has. Um, so we will be going back as as
the representative mentioned, we're $1.4 billion apart, which for $115 billion budget is less than 1%. So we're we're close on the numbers and I actually have a little insider information than I heard. We're we're on the numbers. It's the allocation of the numbers that
they're having problems with. So the number is not as much of a issue as how the money will be allocated. Um, the other thing I want to say is we we absolutely anticipate a property tax special session as you just heard. Um,
all different ideas still ruminating. We're hearing things like raise the homestead exemption. Right now it's 25,000. Raise it to, you know, some number. I would keep hearing like a 100,000. Um, other ideas about about portability. Right now, we do have some
portability for your property taxes, but it's limited to 500,000. So, it's not really effective, especially in a county like Palm Beach County where homes are, you know, millions of dollars. Um, you know, I support there are some idea
ideas that we could potentially support, but we have to see the details and we know that when this comes up and it does have to be on the ballot. It anytimes you change property taxes, it will be on the ballot. It'll be on the ballot in November. And I'm just urging all of you
to educate yourselves because we need to see what what is going to be the impact. Does it mean that your um firefighters won't be there in in as the timely a manner? Does it mean your streets won't be paved? Does it mean that your trash won't be picked up? Does it mean that
your parks will have to be closed? So, those are all issues, you know, which when we see what the final product is, we all need to educate ourselves about. And um the final thing I do want to end a little bit on a little happier note also. Um so, I know I t I think I talked
about this last year. We do have occasionally bills that are a little more light in nature. Um, and for the second year in a row, we've tried, but we're unsuccessful in getting the flamingo to be one of the state birds. So, we still have the the mocking bird.
Um, unfortunately, but uh, right. Yeah. For the flamingo. >> So, happy to take any >> Yeah, happy to take any questions. Thank you. >> Uh, any questions? I think you've done a very thorough job, but I just want to thank you for all your service. Uh,
Senator Lauri to Senator Berman, uh, you've been a great advocate for for local government and, uh, we really appreciate all your efforts and we wish you the the very best. And Rob, carry the torch. >> Yep. >> Okay. Thank you very much. >> You all
uh, okay. Uh, anyone else wish to speak? Public comment. All right, let's move on then. Um, town manager's CIP update. Uh, thank you, mayor. Uh, so during the past month, the contractor grouted the
old water man to abandon it, patched several holes with asphalt, and completed some asphalt driveways, and also worked on completing several punch list items from phase one to attempt to reach final completion for that phase. Although the focus has largely been on phase one, in the coming weeks they'll
move from phase one to phase two. Current targets for substantial and final completion have not changed uh in according to the contractor from our meeting on Wednesday looking at late April for substantial and late May for final. Um also just by way of an update,
I received correspondence from resident Bryce Nantis at 3377 Gulfream Road that voiced several concerns. They were they were general as it related to drainage in the core which I addressed in my response letter dated April 8th which I provided a copy to uh the commission. He
also had uh two uh other concerns. Uh the first one the corn outside the police department uh which although I believe that the striping that we installed did improve things. I do recommend we widen uh but also work with the little club to determine what their traffic volume will be given the recent
improvements that added several parking spaces and amenities to their croquet and pick pickle ball courts. The timing of this work will be after the little club completes their project on the course to minimize damage to the town's new roads and curbing but before the start of Gulfream school in the fall. So
that final work will not be done by roadway but will be uh later on by a separate contractor. uh but it will be finished in that area in a way that is acceptable to the town and our engineers prior to close out. So whatever is there after project closeout will be revised
after uh the little club completes completes their project and we'll work with them on that. The other issue was flooding at the intersection of A1A and C road. Uh so I reached out to our engineers and they believe that a swale in that area is appropriate. So they
reached out to the DOT to get approval for that type of work because it is in the DOT rightway. While doing that, I also asked them to look at the intersections of County Road and Lake View, which also have some ponding as well uh to help u improve conditions on those entrance entrances to town as
well. So obviously once we have the DOT's attention, we want to try to address uh all those roads even though they're outside of the the current uh CIP. >> Did you say county? >> Count county and A1A. And then Lake View, >> but there's water collection on other
roads, too. Lake View. Um, should I I know the engineers and the contractors say that once the second lift is put on, that water will drain away and you won't have ponding um
at Light View, Banyan, um, Gulf View. Is have the engineers reviewed that again just to confirm? Should that be added to this request to DOT as well? So, I know I've I've um we've got Robert
Ernest, our inspector here. Um and we've we've talked about this a lot and the belief is still from our engineers that um just specific to CER and A1A, the elevation is matched and there will be a crown in the road. So, it will there
will not be they're saying there will not be water on the road. Um but they also mentioned that specific to Sea Road there is water collection that runs south for from a number of multif family properties um interestingly enough um
Wayne Beach was doing some hydrant flushing up a few properties down and it was just sheet flowing down A1A to C road and then it was collecting and it doesn't really move far from CO south right so that it kind
of levels off so I don't want that to be a collection point for A1A. So that's why they believe that the swailes are appropriate to sort of trap some of that water. So even though the road is going to be the high point, I don't want to collect on either side and and cause a problem or degrade that uh that new
asphalt. That's going to be same for the other intersections as well. >> Okay. Those other other roads don't have the sloping uh multif family home driveways either, which is what's feeding so much water to C road. Uh okay. Um anything else on CIP, Mr.
No. Uh, like I said, Robert Ernest is here if you have any questions. Otherwise, we can move on. >> Uh, any questions? Okay. Um, Private Sewer, you want to update us on the billing and clerical uh, work that we we may consider doing? >> Uh, yes, sir. So, you've been provided
with a memo from the town attorney that appines that the town cannot take on billing and clerical responsibility for the private system since it is privately owned and we cannot use municipal funds for that purpose. I did talk to Bob Suede and he relayed that their current billing administrative tax tasks are
handled competently uh with the person they're using now and the concern seems to be at least now focusing on assisting them with certain decisions regarding upgrading and maintenance of the system over time like when they you know they're asked to put in a new pump or
reroute something they kind of want us to try to assist with some consulting there. I think that's going to run into the same issue that we have with not being able to uh assist them with the clerical and billing matters. So, you
know, I can work with them more, but right now we're kind of at a standstill with our attorney saying that we can't get more involved with the sewer. Um I did try to determine whether or not town hall, the police department or public works were on the private system so we could maybe be involved as a member, but
we are not. So it is really, you know, the town really does not have any involvement with that system. >> You know, there are a lot of people on that system now that that weren't I mean, it's growing and the golf clubs on the system. I mean, would it be beneficial for them to kind of have their own group to ma to help manage the
two that do now? I mean, reach out to other people to help >> um run the like a run it like a little privately owned business. I mean, because so many more people join than used to be part of it, >> right? I mean, it has grown significantly over the years
>> and so I don't know if people know they can just jump right in, >> but I think that's part of uh Bob Suede and and Joe um Mcool's problem. They can't get anyone to step in and they
would love to get off that board, but uh >> well anyways, we're we're restricted in what we can do uh legally. So, u uh and that's been reported to the >> to the corporation overseeing that sewer. Um all right. Next, let's move to
uh uh the feral cats, which is a persistent issue in town. >> Nazaro. >> Uh thank you, mayor. So, Oliver should have gotten a letter uh for myself discouraging the feeding of strayer feral cats in discussing the town's TNR,
which stands for trap, neuter, vaccinate, and return program. Uh this humane approach involves safely trapping feral cats, spaying or neuting neutering them to prevent reproduction, vaccinating them against disease, and then returning them to their environment or in the event of wildorn kittens. They
normally do try to uh put them up for adoption who can be um domesticated. Um over time, this method helps stabilize and gradually reduce feral cat population while improving overall health of a cat colony. Uh most recently the town revived our TNVR program in
2024 due to feeding issues on County Road where we do not believe that um the individuals were a proper steward of of a cat colony or outdoor cats and they were reproducing at an alarming rate. Um since October of 2025, the town's TNVR
provider has trapped 15 cats or kittens. Again, this is only isolated on county roads. We're looking at I think 10 single family and five multif family properties and that's just what he's been able to trap since October. Uh however, several residents of County Road has have questioned his
effectiveness as of late. So Renee and I met with a TNVR provider who's a 501c3 nonprofit. Uh and we're looking at swapping to that new provider and hoping to make more of an impact on that area. Um you may have noticed if you drove drove by County Road or looked out
behind Town Hall um the property that's on uh for discussion later at 4220 North County has been cleared significantly of underground vegetation. So ideally that provides them with less uh place to um to hang out and may be easier for the
trapper to get involved. Um, just by way of u talking about a little bit about our pet ordinance, letting cats be outdoor cats that roam the neighborhood is not permitted in Gulf Stream is allowing an animal off your property uh without a leash. For example, if it was a dog is a violation of the town code.
Uh so in addition to swapping out our TNBR contract, I've asked the town attorney to outline an appropriate enforcement mechanism, whether it be a citation hearing before the special magistrate or if there are some changes that they recommend. That is currently in process. uh and they're looking at
some other municipalities and what is on the books there and what's been successful and has not. One example that I talked to Paul Lions about um kind of jokingly is our our current fine uh and our ordinance is $25, but that was from 1978. So adjusted over time that would
be $125 if you know with inflation uh in today dollars. So there there probably a number of changes that will come and that will be put forth by ordinance in a in a forthcoming meeting. But in the meantime, we are going to, like I said, swap out our TNBR contractor and uh and
take some more aggressive steps on uh controlling the cat population on County Road. >> Well, the main area is County Road. Um now that the foliage on the one property has been removed, that should help. But down at the uh Bath and Tennis Club tennis courts is also an issue. And I
think you've looked into that, have you not? >> So, we have. So, I I went down there with the um Truly All Cats is the nonprofit that we're looking at partnering with and we walked down to the west side of the parking lot where
there are, I guess, some feeding bowls. They were empty, which is how you were supposed to operate. You're only supposed to feed them and not leave food out because that can attract, you know, other uh non-cats animals. Uh we had three cats that immediately walked up. one was a little bit shy, but three cats
that immediately walked up were friendly. We could see that their ear was tipped, which means they're part of the TNBR program. Um, so that those at least those three cats um are, you know, under control and are not going to be reproducing because they have been u you
know, appropriately um taken care of under that TNVR program. It was not us. It may have been a resident or a private individual, but that seems to be an issue that's that's under control. And those cats are just kind of um you know,
>> why do the cats have to be returned? >> That is >> Is that a law? >> Yes, sir. >> They can't be relocated. So, in talking to our provider, they've indicated that cats that are very friendly, they they do consider taking them and putting up
for them up for adoption because they may have struggled to survive in the wild as opposed to a feral cat who is completely wild, cannot be domesticated, and really does need to be returned. So, we're looking at, you know, working with them within how they suggest uh to uh to
put up for adoption in the event that they feel like that's appropriate, like if it's a younger cat who hasn't been socialized, something like that. Whatever we do will be within the requirements of the law and making sure that the cat population is healthy um
and declining through natural aging and not reproducing. >> We are a stickler for the rules. That's for sure. you know, down near the tennis courts, those cats, they get fed and I think they're neutered and all that, but is there any way we can re re put them
somewhere because I kind of feel bad for them because a lot of times they don't get fed. >> I mean, I'm just curious what the language of that law is and whether you could interpret >> the return and it may perhaps a broader geographic sense. >> Anyway, let maybe send that over to me
when when you had a chance. Let me take a look at it. uh because just bringing them back, you know, they're a health hazard. Uh you've got uh all the issues with cat scratch fever. We have a lot of little kids here and they still kill the birds.
So, but anyways, you've done a great job really looking into this. Thank you very much. Let's move on to Coina Stone Street markers. >> And I know that Renee had looked into that. So Renee, would you like to update the commission on that? >> Sure. Anthony um Beltran, as y'all know,
tried and could never get them clean. So, mayor asked me to look into getting a company to clean them. I called several local companies to no avail. And I found a company outside of the county who specializes in cooking a stone. So, I asked him uh on a time frame of how
often they needed to be clean if we if we asked them to clean them. And he said that it was determined by the amount of sunlight they get, how much moisture they take on. inorganic staining like hard water deposits from irrigation all play a role. Generally speaking, he said the black and green fungus, bacteria,
moss, and tannins usually come back in 12 to 18 months. So he said uh he would just get them restored for now, then in about a year or so do an assessment to determine how often they would need to be cleaned. So we have booked him to clean them on April 21st. He will come in, clean them in a day. He will take
before and after pictures while he is here. >> Great. Um good. see how that that works out. Um and and also Renee, the next item is turtle lighting, which I think you're involved with. >> Yes. All right. So, sea turtles are protected on federal, state, and local levels within the county, but the county
is the one who enforces the lighting ordinance with fines ranging from $150 to over a thousand per violation. So, we received our first lighting survey um last at the end of last month, and there were 20 offenders. Seven of them were
multifamily. And so I have called every one of them or emailed them. Everyone was super kind for about three of them who, you know, were a little belligerent about they're not going to turn their lights off. Um, so I I asked them to either replace them with amber or LED
long long wavelength lights, which is what they suggest. Um, and they said that they would look into that, that they weren't promising me anything because they feel safe with the lights on um on the beach. So, I did that and uh but they have told me the most recent is there's already eight leatherback
nests on the beach uh already and which is uh leatherbacks are one of the most u uncommon species that are um endangered. So, >> uh what what time period did you >> March 1 to October 30th?
>> May. Uh I mean with respect to getting lights changed out because uh our residents need to know this is state and and this is state law uh federal law and and the county is responsible for enforcing it and my understanding is
they enforce it with vigor. Um heavy fines um and we want to keep them out of our town. We don't want our residents being subjected to, you know, those high-handed efforts. >> Most of them changed them already immediately. They've called me and told me that they've changed them.
>> Okay. >> Um except for the the two. And so I um I asked the turtle >> people, I don't even know their turtle conservation uh to call her and give her some suggestions of what she could do and the lighting she could do. But I did
make them aware that this was a courtesy call from the town. >> We are trying to not get the county involved. >> Okay. I mean, let's let's I'm sure we'll hear from the conservation people again, perhaps in another four weeks. >> Yeah, they're going to do another one at the end of April. They'll walk out and see who's
>> and then we'll have to sit down and decide how to to go forward with it. Uh thank you, Renee. Uh okay. ARPB meeting, our next uh meeting is April 23rd at 8:30 a.m. Anyone who wishes to attend, there'll be no August meeting, by the
way. Uh finance report. Um, who wants to take that one? Mark. >> Uh, you have the report in front of you for March 31st, 2026. Uh, everything is trending as normal. I just wanted to note one thing that we'll probably be
bringing forward formally to close the penny sales tax fund, which that that's the infrastructure s tax that ended on December 31st, right? >> And the town should be receiving or funds under that. So, >> how much did we receive on average?
>> I think it was about 90 grand a year >> that that town was receiving. And so, uh, we just need to close that account because it's no longer applicable. >> Okay. Um, all right. Uh, any questions? Uh, thank thank you very much, Mark. Uh,
Chief activity report. >> Mayor, Vice Mayor, commissioners, thank you. Uh, I've submitted a report for your review. If you would please accept that report. If you have any questions, I'll be more than happy to answer it. There's nothing unusual about the report, nothing that needs to be detailed or spoken about. So any questions, I'll be more than happy to
answer. >> Any questions to the chief? If not, we'll accept the report as submitted. Let's move on then to u uh items for the commission action. Uh section 7773. This is on the twotory structures that
we have been working with. The ARPB has provided us with uh several uh ordinance to to address the issues uh of street facing two-story homes and also side
facing two-story homes. Um Trey, do you want to introduce the issue? Um Mr. Lions is here. Perhaps he can address it as well. >> Yeah, absolutely. Thank you, mayor. So, um, as the mayor noted, we've been discussing at the ARPB for several
months the side setbacks for two-story homes as contained in 7073 C. So, uh, the entire entirety of section 7073 is reproduced in the the memo dated April 2nd. Um, sub paragraph A relates to the
percentage of the home that can be located on the uh, second floor. The second portion deals with the street facing sides and requires a certain um certain
architectural designs that um that impact that street facing side. It also has a waiver component which allows you to wave that um that requirement within B u if it's inconsistent with the home's architectural style and other and other things. Um again we're really focusing
on subsection C which is new construction of a second floor single family house within the core north south and place oscillate districts. So currently the requirements are for a 15% uh additional step back from the first
story elevation uh which is uh a taken as a percentage of the width of the home. So we had a discussion about this with the property that was approved at Banyan and Polo which located a significant part of the
or largely the second story was on one side of the the building and not centered. So currently the way that the code reads it sort of directs a wedding cake style uh home to be constructed where you have significant side setbacks
from the first floor elevation to the second floor which does provide for some light air uh and privacy uh for the uh for the adjoining neighbors. what the ARPB has suggested in reviewing this to allow some sort of flexibility which is
what the commission kind of indicated or what at least I indicated to the ARPB uh what the commission desired was some flexibility in design. So they looked at the code as it exists and took a sort of a boilerplate typical 100 foot wide lot
with a building that is as wide as possible uh which is uh which would be 70 feet wide uh which takes into account the minimum side setback on each side of 15 feet and uh the or 30% of the lot width. So again, we're looking at a
stereotypical 100 foot wide lot, 15 foot setback on either side. Uh within the current example, within the code and strikethrough format, a 70 foot wide home, the second story is required to be set back a minimum of 10.5 ft for a 70 foot wide building times 15% 10.5 from
each first floor side building elevation. So again, doing the math, you have a 20 foot, I'm sorry, a 15 foot side setback for the first floor, an additional 10.5 foot setback for the second floor, which would be 25 and 1/2 ft in that example uh side setback. So
they said if we want to provide some design flexibility for architects who want to locate the second story portion uh closer to one side or the other rather than have a wedding cake feature. They suggested that we amend the code to eliminate the outright percentage and
just go to a straight uh again following the desires of um of the code that was well thought out initially of 15% um of the width of the lot. um to that sort of established 25 foot setback from
the side lot line for the seconds story portion. Uh and that would be 30 feet for side lot lines because um I'm sorry for street side lot lines because there is an increased 5 foot setback for street facing side setbacks. So that is their recommendation. Uh something that
the commission discussed early on was also that maybe we would take the waiver uh aotment within subsection B and we would apply that to C. So that is also reproduced in the second half of the memo where we'd eliminate that second
half of um subsection B. We'd add a new subsection D which indicates that there's a waiver ability for subsection B or subsection C. The issue with uh as I see it with uh just allowing a straight waiver within subsection C is it eliminates the
requirement for a step back on the second floor. Um and I I don't think that the the the current commission or ARPB would would just sort of grant um waiverss uh you
know all the time. Uh, but it does bring back um and I'll just show how long I've been on u on the deis with with everyone here. Um, do we remember the discouraged items and how everyone was allowed three and we we looked at those and we said
you should really only be getting one or we should not just hand them out. Uh, so everyone just gets three all the time. So we ended up completely eliminating those because it just became that that everyone would always get three discouraged items every time. Um so I
would I would be cautious that that waiver would just mean well we can wave it because we have this ability under that subsection. So the, you know, the intent is to allow flexibility, but I don't want that to have a negative impact for the second story setback, you
know, down the line. Um, you know, with with a different commission or ARPB or or staff >> questions of town manager. It's a mouthful. Um, >> but clarifying, >> I like both of them to be honest with
you. uh town manager and I have talked about this and looked at it. The the new proposal works very well for smaller lots. The original proposal with the percentage works better with larger
lots. Um so I like both approaches. Um and and town manager and I discussed this last night. Um I think we should give consideration to to having a C and D and
it would be the greater the setback would be the greater of either the percentage basis or the flat 25 ft line. Think back to to some of the issues that have come before us. Ellis House is the
is the one really the driving force on this which had a you know fairly large lot but you know not that large. Um this this this new proposal would have would have confined it to a more defined
architectural style I think and could have gotten the same house but perhaps would have been designed just a little bit differently. larger homes uh particularly in the core, ones that are on the water, ones that have much larger lots uh and actually um there are a few
left in this in the in the core that this could apply to. The percentage approach, the original one that we have, I think would give a a more pleasing side setback as opposed to having this
long drawn out first floor section. Does anybody agree with that or or have any comments on it? So I guess what I'm saying I like them both. >> So yeah. So so to illustrate >> that and the impact on a larger lot. So
if you look at 3,400 Polo, the Coulter home that's under construction. It's 150 foot wide lot. If you eliminate the requirement to use a percentage, you can build a h home of that size where the
second story is 25 ft from the lot line as opposed to the percentage which would be a a larger percentage and would would would increase that that side setback. So, it it would continue to um require the home to be built more sort of
centered on those larger lots. So you're talking for a twotory basically like >> right this would only apply to to the two story and that that that um the setback for the second story
>> second story. So what you're doing is creating like a wedding cake for all the second stories. I mean >> that it's going to be like cookie cutter >> and that's that's the benefit of having the design flexibility that the ARPB
advocated for where you can put it some different um in different locations if you eliminate the current language which which does require a wedding cake style home which you know is very pleasing and we you know we've we've done it but
there is design similarity because we are requiring you to step in with that wedding cake 15% of the uh the width of the home >> to avoid the box look the the massing. >> Yes. >> Uh while still having features on it to
to break up the the wedding block wedding cake look. Um >> but really gets down to the architecture. I mean not I mean you can pick a two-story home total twotory and make it blacklike or you can make it
lovely. So it really just architecture >> because the home we're talking about was a corner lot, correct? >> Yes. >> Yes. Yeah. So the architecturally it worked in that scenario because of the layout of the house in the lot. I don't see it working if you've got homes on
each side having it off to one side. So having the flexibility is what I'm saying is is what's helpful in a situation like that. You have the flexibility on which proposal on the new the new language
>> that's a corner lots there's a few but >> yeah but we don't have many corner lots >> um >> oh yeah >> my point is we're not going to see a whole lot outside of the corner lot scenario but >> right so let's say the next one is not a corner lot I think that's where point D
on page three makes sense where there's some some flexibility for us to use discretion if it architecturally doesn't make sense. Right. Okay. >> What do you think? >> I think I don't know. >> I still think it depends a lot on the
architecture of the house. um how this all works. >> Yeah. Because I I don't think the language dictates that it has to be a wedding cake. Just the architect needs to use some creativity and design to deal with
the mat, but it doesn't dictate a symmetrical wedding cake. >> I think we're losing the concept. We don't want block style houses. And that goes back to architecture. and no matter how much we regulate, they can put in a block style house and then we're not going to be happy. Um, isn't there some
way we can define this architectural style like ginger not gingerbread but features >> means we you know we have these these broad discretionary elements in our code
that you cannot have >> uh excessive similarity >> or an excessively dissimilar look very broad-based. Uh so we have ammunition in the code to address this. Um
I I think it's it's hard to understand to be quite honest with you. Um so I I would I would not be in favor of of urging forward a motion on this right now. I just think it requires a little more thought. >> Um >> I agree with you. I mean I wish that I
we could work on it just a little bit. >> Paul uh please just uh by the way we have two other members of the architecture review and planning board Katie Orwine. Um
I'm not quite sure where to start but maybe I go back to the history. Um, back in 2015, the mayor uh was concerned and others were concerned about the second story being
large and booming over other people's properties. Uh and in order to address or analyze that subject uh we brought in architects Marty Miner urban planner
and the current code code was the one that was proposed. um due to the Ellis application there was some confusion as to what a code stated and so we tried to simplify the language
but let me get to the heart of the issue um the second soy setback is trying to address uh the privacy and the enjoyment of the adjoining properties
and I believe and I think the other members of the architecture review and planning board believe that you have to have a minimum to provide an adequate um separation of the properties um for privacy for
um natural light for air flow. So uh as a member of the architectural view and planning board the thing that's most critical in my mind is maintaining um an adequate separation
defined by an absolute number of feet. what you do in between that those parameters. Um, you know, I think there's a lot of arguments in favor of going different ways, but I think we should have a
minimum. And um otherwise you really there's a section of the code that addresses standards by which the ARPB and the commission are required to ensure that the
site plan does not negatively impact the adjoining properties for their use and enjoyment. And I think 25 feet on second story is a minimum. So those are my thoughts. I don't know
whether I can answer any questions. >> Yeah. But I I I do want to remind everybody that the process we uh undertook to address this issue previously we had numerous architects. we had Armani Monu
and at that time the commission unanimously also agreed with that conclusion. So you know it's a difficult subject but trying to find the right balance between protecting the community of existing
homes and an applicant who's wanting to build a new home. I think this is the right balance. So, >> no, I I agree and I I mean I think we all agree. Um I I like the minimum of 25
foot. However, I think in larger properties that's that's insufficient. Um and and that's why I like the original um percentage approach that you took. Um, and that that's why I'm kind of
advocating for a minimum of 25, but in certain cases of larger properties, we use that percentage to to actually increase the setback. Um, and then we still have the language that you've provided that gives us additional
discretion to avoid the wet, you know, house after house with wedding cake. Uh, it's not going to look right. and whether they move that to the side, put it in the back, whatever, it allows us flexibility to to to do that. So, I'm
not quite sure how that language would read, combining the two. That's my inclination. Um, I agree with you 100%. There needs to be a minimum and uh then you work from that. >> I mean, if my view is I I would
absolutely embrace what you're suggesting. Um, just keep in mind that one of the reasons we did suggest that we move away from that formula was, as Trey cited, uh, there's a tendency to force the
second story into the middle of the house, >> right? >> And, um, so you do get more of a wedding cake effect. And we thought that just establishing those minimum parameters where you could slide the second story
within that those parameters gave some architectural innovation uh flexibility. Um, one one other comment. I I I think that whatever code we adopt that it be fixed that the commission not
be able to or ARP for that matter the way the requirement. I think setbacks are the the other setbacks in our code. Uh there's no discretion given to the ARP or the commission and I think those are
minimums that are necessary. I hope so. Those are my comments. >> That takes away, >> Michael. >> No, >> that takes away D. >> Waving the requirements of SE
subsections B's and C if you can demonstrate features are inconsistent with the home style. Right. >> Yeah. I mean that you can't mitigate um the fixed amount
with architectural I mean you need a certain amount for visual um air flow etc. So um I think it should be like every other setback a minimum and you can't wave it.
Am I clear on what I'm trying to articulate. >> Yeah, I'm just just trying to to combine both. Um,
maybe I'm not reading it correctly. I I think certainly we're we're getting there. Um, I I think it's would not be appropriate to try to rule on this right now. just don't have thought about it enough. I don't think
>> there are two issues. One, the formula. You know, he's using the new one and the old one or the greater of or combination thereof. And the second thing is whether you can wave out of it or not. Because if you don't have a waiver, then you drop into a variance which is almost never granted. It's a special circumstance where the other lot owners
>> and that's not that's unique to that lot I should say. So I don't just necessarily disagree with, you know, on the way getting rid of the waiverss. >> You you think we should have that? >> No, I don't think we should. >> Okay. >> Yeah, I agree with that. I think
>> as long as the formula is workable, you know, which is what the mayor's suggesting, right? >> For it's a little more flexible. >> Gives us a little flexibility. >> Well, I'm I'm happy for ARPB, me, any members that help you work through this issue. I think we're moving in the right
direction. All right, let's send it back. >> A separate we have a a couple models on this. >> Yeah, I agree. >> Yeah. >> I mean, typically when you get into the formulas in this code and other codes, of course, I don't like sighteline stuff. confusing, but typically you
have, not that we're going to go, we need like a couple miles based on the 70, but we're kind of vascillating between our example today is a corner lot. >> Yeah. Watch. >> Okay. And we're really there's, you know, the corner lots are, we deal with them quite a bit, but there's not that
many of them. And now we're talking about lots and lots of soy that are not corner lots. And then um >> right what we're focused on now came out of a particular application that won't be the next application. No. So we as as
the vice mayor said we need to have something that applies to >> Well, maybe you and I can sit down at least have some general discussion. >> That would be helpful. I >> I think we need examples too. I mean >> Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. because I
think it's hard to just have the wording and not see like one house versus another house as we go forward. >> Oh, I think visuals are always great. >> Yeah. >> So, we in >> So, I just want to apologize for this
not being more thoroughly vetted in the package because all of that was provided to the ARPB. We had several examples. We had the percentage of the second floor, the side setbacks uh for the uh uh the Gabau house on Gulfream Road. Um the
house that no one seems to like on old school that's very large. So a lot of our most recent applications we we had all those figures and those numbers and the setbacks and what it looked like. So you could actually see all right this is this is workable for this area. Let's just uh think about it and like do the
whole >> depending on what the agenda looks like do a whole because we have to you know if they're recommending something to us that we're voting on we can't start meeting about it off campus without being a public why don't we just have like a a more thorough presentation with the things up on the board I wouldn't
necessarily call it a workshop commission meeting if we're comfortable with it we could you know make a decision then or send it back but then we that general run be done We look at the videos. >> I'm being facicious sending it back. I mean, I'd be more inclined with what Joan said is to bring back a work the
the the working group to um you know, do some some computer programs, put you a variety of different applications where you kind of sit down at a table. uh you're not confined by the deis and the strictctures of your of you know Robert's rules of order and and and then
bring that back with the examples and a combination of these two codes sections you know with that recommendation >> I think examples are what we need I mean clear-cut examples >> we we as Trey cited we we looked at
different examples but I think what we ca can do is just do a graphic kind of presentation where that the second story would sit on on this formula because that's that's >> Do you have that all from the ARPB or do you need to reconvene a smaller group to
>> I think PowerPoint together and >> we do have our um our ARPB meeting later this month. We do have some applications. So, we can just add that as an item to the agenda with some sort of a presentation, have a discussion, and sort of um you know, if the ARPB has
any suggestions on how to change that presentation, we'll have them watch this video and our discussion, see what the issues are and try to address them all and then bring it back next month for the commission. >> You know, when you talked about airflow, too. I mean you have to take in landscape direction of the house whether
it's east west north south where is it located I mean >> and all I mean all these things >> you have to take all that into account >> it's not like we were three I mean and it's a real difference whether you know
what direction it is much more involved than just putting up a few homes looking at it because we have so many different we have you know a lot of different neighborhood districts. They're all different. And uh I know this only applies to maybe three of them, but still we have a variety of
different homes. County Roads a lot different than Plasos Alike. Uh the core itself has very different types of home and yeah, I think it I think it needs, you know, more evaluation. Well, ju just
as you you said it, mayor, as you review uh applications, um there's a lot of discretion. I don't know if that's the right term, but uh the the there's an opportunity to apply
various sections of the code as rel relates to architectural design. And so you can deal with some of these absolutes and there are absolutes but then it still has to fit within the architectural
standards and there's there's a lot of u helpful guidance in the code as to that. So if you see a building that you don't think because of the way it's sitting architecturally you can challenge it uh
under a lot of the provisions of the code. So, um I hear what you you want to do and we will do that. Um >> can I interject one more thing is because we have an architecture view board with alternates. Sometimes they're not the same. So I think we need to mandate everyone gets the plans from now
on and agrees with it because what happens is someone comes in for one meeting and looks at plans and then the next meeting it's a different group of people and I think some of that should be fixed too. Well, >> I'm not adding to your problems,
>> but I think that's a problem, too. >> Um, we are trying to address that as a conversation piece at the end of today's agenda. >> Okay, I'm ahead of myself. >> Before, can I take a moment to address a
different subject? >> Sure. >> Um, I I want to compliment uh the police department. And I have a couple of friends. One fellow and his wife were in a bad car accident on A1A and they were
so overwhelmed by the care and that the the the timing. They were right there. They were concerned. Uh they saw him the next day and they really appreciate it. Um, and then another uh resident, a good
friend, he had a medical incident and he and his wife felt so much more comfortable by the quick response and how the two officers handle it. So, I appreciate I mean, that's one of the most significant benefits we have as a
community. So, I want to be sure to convey that. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. We're we're very pleased with our police department. Thank you, Paul. Yeah. Um, okay. So the our consensus is let the ARP be revisit this consistent with
what we've discussed today and try to come up with u some sort of I I think a PowerPoint presentation would be more appropriate and to expand the number of of of homes and as Joan said landscaping
details water no water u a variety of different approaches so that we can get a better handle on what's, you know, what's the best approach to setbacks. Uh, okay. Uh, all right. Uh, ordinance 261.
This is the shutter ordinance, Mr. Nazara. >> Yes, sir. That's correct. So, this is the hurricane shutter uh ordinance. It's presented for first reading after discussion of the February meeting from several place olay residents. Of principal concern is whether to regulate shutters in season or to prohibit them
year round. So the language in the ordinance itself that you've been presented with relates to the seasonal restrictions while the language in the memo can be adopted to prevent storm shutters out of season as well except for 14 days before and after a tropical storm or hurricane watch or warning. So
the question is uh whether or not a resident can leave on uh May 1st, put up their shutters and then return December 1st and then remove their shutters. So if they're gone that entire time uh during the hurricane
season they could remain up but they would be required to be uh pulled down. Uh however um the some of our residents from place believe that it is more appropriate that we prohibit them year round except for only when uh a
hurricane is incoming uh and 14 days before and after that. The proposed ordinance does not differentiate between single family and multifamily. So, that's something that we may want to uh consider if we are
looking at a um year- round prohibition. So, I'm just presenting that to you for discussion. Does anybody wants to speak to address it from Plas? >> Brian, you you brought this issue to the
four. If you would come up to the to the stand, just state your name and address, please. Brian Isacson 2500 Avenue Ocel. So I don't think to do half the year and still have these shutters up. We've only
accomplished half of the problem, right? We left the other half fully exposed. I have photos of my phone of today that I'd be happy to share. I don't know how to share them up there, but fully shuttered up, fully back, front on
the waterway, the whole It just is an inappropriate look and it's not necessary. I don't really know what else I can say about it. I mean, why shut her up year round? >> Well, what about people who leave for
the season? >> And then house giver, housekeeper, come put them up, take them down. There's services out there. They're a dime a dozen that come out and put up shutters during the storm.
>> Um >> I know my parents always did that where they lived. They always had someone come up, bring in the patio furniture, do all that kind of stuff during the storms. >> A number of them are electric shutters. They'd have to get in the house to
activate them. Um, I'm I'm just thinking of uh like multif family homes. It just it just strikes me. Condos. Um >> I would think in today's day I can control all all of my window coverings
and everything right from my phone. I could do it sitting right over there and I could put my shutters up and down right now >> for electric shutters. I mean, that's just today how it is. I'm talking about the manual ones that were put up to the side of the house,
>> right? Um, no, the ones we've seen over Plaso that you're objecting to. Let's discuss this. I >> I have a lot of sympathy for this issue. I I think folks that are living here year round, they shouldn't they shouldn't have to feel like they're living in a boarded up community. If
you're going to own multiple homes, you should be responsible for maintaining them properly, which is it should look presentable the entire year. And if you need to protect yourself from the storm, you should have somebody go and and back down hatches. I think that's the responsibility of owning multiple homes
for me, my perspective. So that shouldn't subject those that are here year round to have to look at it. >> I would agree. Good point entirely. >> I would agree with Mike. I don't think you could state that any better. If you're gonna have multiple homes, you can there's plenty of means to take care
of that while you're gone. The one that's in in contention right now, they have a care a house careaker. He comes over and does the whatever around the yard. I mean, so they have somebody already that particular home. But I think this is bigger than just
that one home. The only thing I have is um two weeks before a storm is fine or you know when they first hear but if there's a hurricane the two weeks after could be a little problematic trying to get shoulders down or you know what's going on in the world. So that's the only
thing maybe a little bit longer to get >> extend that beyond 14 days. >> I just think 14 days after it might be a category three it's you know people are picking up debris. It it's a lot. >> Sure. Sure. Sure. If you don't have a caretaker, you go on the list just like the Just like the
>> a That's what I meant. >> The awning people get back to you to put your awnings up. I won't mention any of our our contractors downtown. If you have a storm in in July or August, they get to you in February. So, you're just the storm showing a little bit better. Obviously, if you have your own caretaker, depending on what you have,
whether it's a roll up or not, well, they can get there within a week or two. that some people may have either may be doing it themselves or they go on a list because they're using a service of some sort. >> Yeah, we can adjust the dates, the before and the after dates. Um I think
it's the idea of you can't just put them up six months, go away, leave them off, >> right? >> John, what do you think? >> You know what? I'm totally against them up year round. Um you know, I I you know,
>> one more idea. Oh, go ahead. >> Just a thought just jumped into my head. Um, is there a way to word it such that if your area has been impacted by this storm? Because let's face it, I mean, they put the warnings and the watches up very broad. Um, and not everyone gets
hit. It's very isolated where where the storm hits. It's generally the damage is from the eye of the storm for the most part. I've been in Florida since I was 5 years old and that's been my experience. Is there a way to word it such that if your area has been impacted by the storm
and NOA the NOA announces that where it impacted then you have more time to do your cleanup that make sense or no >> I mean sure reasonleness based on circumstances >> right yeah >> basic language
>> that's what I was trying to interject >> can I just jump in about the 14 days >> sure >> so in admin administering the code, we would have to notice someone's shutters not being up after 14 days. We would then have to give them a reasonable time
between 14 and 30 days to remedy that violation. We would then set them for hearing. So, in addition to the 14 days, they're getting a significant amount of time before we can even find them. Meanwhile, just notifying them of the corrective issue. And, you know, if if there are issues, I mean, listen, if you
know, town hall doesn't have a roof, we're really not going to be interested in people's hurricane shutters coming up or down. uh you know so you know I think that it it's important to know people obviously debris and everything all there are going to be all these other
issues um but in the the practical enforcement from administration side you know I don't I don't think that that the 14 days is going to be an issue it could realistically before we could find them it would probably be more like 30 or 45 days in the special magistrate would give them a reasonable time to comply so
then that you know we're looking at more and more time >> okay so you don't even need the additional language. >> The issue is, do you want this during season, which is what most towns do, or do you want it year round as as we've been
talking about? Um, Mike makes a good point that the people who leave for an extended period of time, it's a second home. And second homes come with obligations to the rest of the neighbors who it's
not a second home. They're living It's our main home and they are unsightly >> particularly in a in a world of high impact windows. >> Yeah. >> Right. We you know there's there certainly I don't have any shutters on my house. I'm hoping windows work. But
to me it's uh just respect for your neighbors. You know people live here year round. A lot of people live here year round now. We work here year round. Um, yeah. I you know what, because I've been here so long, people used to board up more and just leave and it was really
like you were living on a ghost town. >> Yeah. >> Um, so it's sort of unsightly. It's kind of scary. >> Yeah. >> But I don't I don't know how many I don't see that that much anymore. So I mean I agree with um boarding up all year. I mean >> it's just scary.
>> Yeah. I mean look what happened to that other property. the the what is it 20 I forget >> 2900 >> that >> and because that was all boarded up and shuttered up there were squatters in there. >> Yeah. >> Who knows on the inside, you know, is
everyone safe? Are there squatters? Nobody knows what's going on. >> Yeah. >> There's no signs of life, >> but it looks like abandonment. >> I don't think I have flexibility after it hits because it is hard to get people to come. um fix things or anything.
>> Sure. >> I mean, relin >> issue with some of this. It could be more than 45 days sometimes before you can get >> Yeah. I'm not concerned about taking it down. >> I'm concerned about putting it up. >> Oh, >> storms coming. As Tom said, you've got
companies that, you know, we just can't get to it. >> Yeah. >> Big storm coming. >> We have so many people we have to to do. We just can't get to the house today. I I think that's part of owning the house. Um I have a boat, right? Storm comes,
>> nobody's going to do anything for me but myself. I'm going to have to make sure I find somebody, pre-contract somebody. I have arrangements, strap down the boat, get it out of the water. Those are responsibilities that are put upon me to own the boat. You own the house. That's your responsibility.
I know you make a good point. Um, so you're for it? >> For it >> year round? Year round? >> I go year round. >> Year round. >> Yeah, you're around. As long as we don't punish people after a hurricane. >> Yeah, we've got reasonable enforcement mechanisms if there's special
circumstance. >> Yeah. Um, okay, good. I think that's the way it's going to go. How do we do this? We have a proposed uh ordinance, the original one which was just seasonal and and then a memorandum. >> We have to >> reddraft.
>> So what we could do is we could replace the the language with an ordinance 261 uh with the language in the memo starting 21 during the period beginning on May 1 and ending December 1st. storms, storm shutters, or hurricane protection devices on buildings which remain in place except for 14 days prior
to or following a tropical storm watcher warning or a hurricane watcher warning in effect for any portion of the town of Gfream during the period beginning December 1 and ending May 1. No storm shutters or hurricane protection devices on buildings shall remain in a closed secured position so as to block windows or doors except in the event of storm
conditions. So that would replace uh the language within 21 in the ordinance. >> Does that have to be redrafted and posted? Yeah, I have one more comment to make on this is some people leave town for two weeks or a month in the summer and they like to close up their house before they leave. >> How could we make a provision for those
people who are being, you know, they're gone for a month, they go on a cruise or whatever. Um, and they don't have anybody else. They do it themselves. I'm just trying to make it two weeks to a month. Um, >> they're trying to do it.
>> I'm just saying two weeks to a month. >> No. Well, by I mean, as Trey said, by by the time that complaint would be acted on, >> it's so they're going to board up their house and leave town for two weeks.
>> Yeah. No, no, there are permanent residents who will do that and and to be preemptive storm, they who knows what's out there, they board up. Um, >> I just don't want to punish those people who are trying to be responsible, leave for two weeks or a month and board up
their h because I know people who do that. >> They board up their house because they don't want people in and out, so they want to be in control and then they leave. Not me, but I do know people who do that. Do you know what I'm saying? >> I know what you're saying. Um >> Um,
and the time they um, you know what I'm saying? >> I do. I >> That's the only exception for this. a way to track that. >> Yeah, >> I'll just add, you know, for very particular circumstances like that because you can't account for everything in the code, right? um in addition to
the time they have with notice before going to hearing. If for some reason those deadlines sync up perfectly and it's a very unfortunate circumstance and the fines start running, the second they find out they come back, come into compliance. Let's say it's been seven, eight days, they can always move for a
fine reconsideration and plead those considerations to the >> um to the special magistrate and that could reduce those fines or extinguish them as long as that's what the code allows for. Well, I mean, if somebody leaves for two weeks or three
weeks or even four weeks, by the time a complaint is registered and you give them not, they'll be back. There wouldn't even be fines >> presumably. >> If it goes if they're gone for eight weeks, well, then that's what we're trying to address here. >> Well, no, I'm not saying eight weeks. I'm saying two to four weeks. I mean, is
there a way to come in and ask permission to put up their shutters before they leave? That's all I'm asking for two weeks. I I'm not asking for the summer or anything like that. Just they're going on vacation. >> Yeah. So, the question is, do you do you want to include language for a short waiver at, you know, staff permission or
or do you >> That's all I'm asking for is um staff permission for >> two four I I just hate people that get complaints and they're going on vacation. They've done what they're supposed to do and they don't want people in and out of their house >> and so they want to do it.
>> Manager can can issue exemptions. um you do it with contractors >> the the ability to I I just don't think that it would it would be an issue. You know, we'll we have to know we just just based on the
timing and what we're allowed to do >> uh within the code enforcement uh statutes. It would be, you know, we'd receive a complaint, we'd send them notice, 14 to 30 days to comply. If they don't, then we have to sync up with our special
magistrate, get a get a hearing set, and then the magistrate is typically going to say, "You need to come into compliance." And if they come into compliance within a certain amount of time, which they're likely going to be back, um, you know, the I guess the issue would come up is if, you know,
they're leaving for four weeks every year and they're kind of like a repeat violator, that's where it would, you know, it could be problematic. >> Yeah. But I agree with Joan on this one. Uh, I I I don't want a I don't want a resident to feel like they're in violation every time and their neighbors get angry at them. It It seems to me if
they're going to leave for a short period of time and they're being proactive um to, you know, protect their house, then they should be able to notify the town and get an exemption so they're not violating the code for a
short period of time. I mean, if they're leaving for eight weeks, no, that's not what we're we're not going to allow that. But um and then I think the residents can understand. But I don't think you should make a scuffle of our of residents who do this.
>> Well, I think I know I have hurricane impact shutters. This doesn't apply to me. But I do know some people put up their own hurricane shutters and they'll leave for a couple weeks and I think if we said, "Oh, you're going to go to SP." They'll feel like they're not being a good citizen and they'll get angry about
it as opposed to being responsible. >> That's all. Um, >> it's just I think it should >> people going on vacation in the summer. That's it. >> I think there should be some language added >> um that gives uh
the town manager the authority just as you do with contractors to give special exemptions >> under c certain circumstances. >> Um and that's how you would allow it. So, let's reddraft the the ordinance and
we'll we'll bring it back um for first reading. >> Great. Okay. Um >> do we need a motion to defer or No. >> Yes, for >> uh Well, it's being re It's going to be rewritten. >> That's fine then. I don't need to read it. >> Yeah,
>> we don't need a motion to defer it, do we? >> No, we'll come back. >> If it's coming back first reading, just make sure it's properly noticed. limit it to a month for your discretion. Limit it to two weeks or a month. I mean, I'm just trying to put some if you want more. >> I had I figured we would discuss it. I
have four weeks just in my notes. Yeah, we can change that. What is best? Um Okay. And I think that Yeah, that I think that balances the interests here. >> Do you agree, Brian? >> No. Yeah.
>> I love you, man, but no. You Yeah. Um, >> two weeks. I don't even see that. >> Let's see how it go. Let's see how it goes. Um, yeah, I there are some older people in this town who still have the
the shutter. I I could, you know, I've been here a long time. I agree with Joan. I I've seen a lot of people do this. So, um, >> I I see people they they literally leave for 10 days in the summer and they'll board up their house and then they'll come and unboard it or do the role. I
mean, just they feel safer leaving because their house is protected before they leave in case they can't get back and that's the only instance I mean that I'm not >> police department. >> Well, no, no, no. often the police, you know, aren't going to go into the house
and put down their shutters. >> If I'm leaving and I notify the police department, I'm going for a month. They actually walk around my >> Yeah. >> Oh, sure they will. >> They're not going to put up your shutters. Um, and these people, you know, I I I know how they think. Um,
they're they're older. They're concerned. They leave for two weeks and then a storm is notified. There's a storm coming. They don't come back because they're concerned. and in fact a storm does count. So I I think we have to be accommodating to all of the
various interests here while while addressing the primary concern which is the aesthetics in the town. Um anyways let we we can debate it again at the next meeting but we're gonna draft the language. I mean I didn't put this to everybody
else. This is just Jon and me. >> I mean what do you think? I I just happen to know some >> you disagree. We won't do it. No, my I guess my my little comments would be um my presumption is on some of the older residents that maybe their windows
aren't hurricane impact windows and this second level of of safety provides some comfort, per se. Newer homes, I I'm not even sure why they need hurricane shutters to be quite honest with you, but given the windows, but I'm I'm also
not a builder or an architect. Um, I said that my my house was built on I think in six or seven years ago. There's there's no there's no hurricane shutters on my house and um it looks the same whether I'm there or not. U but I do understand there's older housing stock
and you don't want to you don't want to create that problem. But I uh soon as you as soon as you create the window um you know people will will lock them down um whether they're 30 years old or or 70
years old, right? So um uh so I I I'd be for tighter than than uh than looser with the ability to to create some some exceptions, but I I do think it it opens up a window for folks just doing what
they want. Now, what do you guys think? >> Opposed, if there's a few exceptions like that, um I think the spirit of what we've been talking about regarding this is what's happening in Plas Sole, where they go up and just stay up. And even when some of these people come back to
town, they'll take the door off and maybe one of the windows, but leave the rest of the shutters up the entire time they're there. That's the spirit of what I think we're trying to accomplish here is to avoid that scenario. Yeah. If there's a few exceptions where people come and go for a few weeks, I I don't think that's going to be a huge deal.
Um, but it's having them up around and I would imagine the fire department would have something to say about it, too. I think you mentioned life safety. Um, so that's what we're trying to accomplish and that's why and echo what Mike said to if you're going to own the home, multiple homes that in a hurricane zone, you have
to have something to uh a plan in place. >> I don't think there are many people that this exemption would apply to. >> That's what I'm thinking. Yeah, >> but the ones that it does apply to, I'm sensitive to their concerns that uh What do you think, Tom? >> Um I think we should probably have the
exception the uh but this the group of residents were probably concerned about I think because as the housing stock and whatnot, window replacement and alternative I think this you're not going to need it. >> It's going to go away. >> You're not going to need it in some years.
I think um shutters are probably going to be obsolete someday with all the hurricane impact uh people >> do put shutters over their impact I know try to get an impact window replaced post hurricane or something it's pretty diffult but anyway >> can the language be tight enough
>> I'm okay with it but it doesn't it's I don't think it needs to be permanent you know eventually again with the housing stock and improvements you're not going to need it and then it'll just be taken advantage of >> yeah well it's you know the the language would be important so that it it doesn't
open itself up to >> so they can't >> abuse. But I I just I just don't I don't I see this is such a limited group that are going to do this. >> Um so would it be um would the commission entertain an
exemption that expired in 10 years unless renewed or something like that? So, we'd have that, you know, or do you want to just kind of leave it on and then we can always remove it down the line? >> Leave it on. >> I I think that you need to tighten the
words so it's specific for two weeks to a month. I mean, that is it. I mean, and tighten that up so that they can't take advantage of it. >> I think that's the um not to abuse what we're trying to do. Mhm.
>> Yeah. Let's work on that language. Rules can be done where it's not going to be abused at all. Okay. They'll literally have to come in here. >> Just for clarification, is the commission's request just to add the language about a limited waiver at the town manager sole discretion.
>> That That's what I was thinking. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> For the purpose of vacation or whatever. >> Yeah. I mean, I I and I think as long as it says at the town manager sole discretion, he can exercise your wishes. It doesn't even have to be more specific
than that. It can be his sole discretion and someone can come in before they're about to leave, >> state their purpose and reason. Hey, I'm about to have surgery. I'm going to be in the hospital for three weeks. Something like that's not vacation, but I assume the commission would make that limited exception as well. So, as long as there's discretion on his end, I
think that's fine. Um, what if we ch change? >> I'm I'm comfortable with that. >> I'm comfortable with you, but I don't know. >> I I think that that was the language I
was thinking of. Something very general. >> Okay. >> Totally deferring. If you get someone who abuses, we'll we'll know about it because we know the homes that have done, you know, have abused the situation and we know the people who who don't who are legitimately concerned
about leaving town for, you know, two weeks and a storm comes in. So, I I don't think it'll be a problem at all. I would just add that brief language. >> So, with that in mind, then I think um you're you're good to go to vote on this. We can the language isn't changing
it substantively. So you don't need to not vote on it, kill it and introduce a new ordinance. >> So we can vote on this with this one exception. >> Yes. And then we can you can look at the proposed language at second reading. It's not changing it substantively. So
notice wise you'd be okay versus restarting the whole wheel here on just a limited exception. >> Oh, okay. Well, let's do that. >> I'm good with that. Is there a motion for uh well if you have to read it? >> Yeah.
>> So uh >> well we're substituting the article 21 uh for the uh >> the added portion on article 21 on the the actual document and the memo >> which has to be read in. And then we're
you're adding that the uh you know what do you have notwithstanding the foregoing or something better than that that the uh you know a res a resident may may uh apply for a special exemption from the
town manager which may be granted and his his or her sole discretion >> some something along those lines. Yeah, that sounds good. The exact language doesn't need to be hammered out here, but as long as >> Does that sound good? >> Fine with me.
>> I'll second that. >> All right. U Miss Miss Basil, can you read the ordinance? >> An ordinance of the town commission of the town of Gulfream, Palm Beach County, Florida, amending the town code of ordinances at chapter 22, nuisances, article 2, unsightly, unsafe, or
unsanitary conditions. Section 2231 prohibited providing for severability providing for repeal of ordinances and conflict providing for codification providing an effective date on this first reading today April 10th 2026. >> Now ordinance 261 has been presented to
us on first reading as amended. Is there a motion to approve? >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Renee. >> Commissioner Green. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Canfield. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Orwin. That's Vice Mayor Stanley. Yes. Mayor Morgan. >> Yes. Okay. Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> All right. Let's move on then to resolution 262. U Mr. Nazaro. >> Uh thank you, mayor. So, you've been presented with resolution 262, which
relates to a termination and replacement of an easement at 2775 Avenue Ole. I do have attorney Lashley here from Jones Foster to handle that. His office has been working on the language within the uh the legal document. We also have uh
the uh the property owner and the property owner's attorney here to discuss some changes that they would like. We just wanted to get this teed up um because it's been discussed for for several months and um we just wanted this to be um
>> Well, just tell us what the original issue was and and why it's it's being addressed. >> Um so the original originally um the property owner was unaware of an easement located on their property. Uh this is originally lot 93 of the plat of
place ole. Um they were um as were a handful of other property owners on the north end that bordered 2900 Avenue Ole uh provided with uh a certain amount of property from that 2900 Avenue Olet property uh that become part of their
lot. So, um, this lot 93 is now the original platted lot, plus an additional, um, uh, piece of property that was originally part of 2900. As the commission probably remembers from, uh, a recent approval maybe a year or two ago that Mr.
Lashley's office handled for us as well. We had an abandonment, a similar issue with an abandonment of that easement on 2900 and a replacement of an easement for our water line that now goes through Bluewater Cove uh exits uh in between two of the final lots there on the south
and then services the barrier island through uh their seaw wall and under the inter coastal. Uh so that exact same easement as is at issue here. Uh there's been a dispute as to whether or not that easement exists. Um, you know, there was some delays on my part and uh the
homeowner's attorney part to get this uh to heat up a little bit sooner. Um, they were provided with some documentation. Uh, they did not agree that the the easement exists. Um, so I got Jones Foster involved. They did a title report. Old Republic did see that the
easement that was part of 2100 originally does exist on the property. They still dispute that. Um so that's um you know just lot lot of disagreement about uh this this parcel and the easement. However, there is agreement that we want to abandon that easement if
it does exist and grant a replacement easement that handles our water line. So, the water line that runs on the east side of this property along the the property line, which was part of an original platted easement um turns from the feeder line that still goes on part
of the 2900 property uh and through the east side of their property and services the entirety of place. uh in the future as part of our capital improvement project, we may look at relocating that line depending on its age and condition uh to more easily service it, but that
has not been done yet. So, we do still uh need to have some sort of easement instead of just abandoning everything. So, this is critical infrastructure that services place oscillate that we uh that currently exists there. And with that, I can hand it over to Mr. Ashley or
>> so that there was some confusion as to whether there was an easement. The the owners of the property felt it either was not an ement or it was not clear the town felt it was. So you're asking us to to abandon whatever that old easement
was and establish a new detailed easement so that everyone agrees as to what that easement is. >> Yes, sir. That's correct. >> Um Okay. >> Yeah. And just to add to that, um the easement agreement that you have in your
backup material today was the latest draft we had at the time. The materials for this needed to be prepared. However, um Carly Madison at my office and the property owner's attorney have been going back and forth since that draft and exchanging some additional red
lines. Um, the long and short of it, my understanding after speaking with Mi Miss Madison, who is the one handling the day-to-day negotiations on it, is the draft you have in your packet is really the most um includes a couple provisions that
we feel the town would be conceding in order to show some good faith effort here to come to a resolution. Um my understanding is that draft was not accepted by the property owner and um you know we'll hear from the property owner and specifically what additional
what they're looking for but um for as far as our office is concerned I'm not sure we're willing to recommend any additional provisions be added to the draft that you all have. >> I mean it's an easement. >> Yes. >> It's just an easement. >> Agreed. There's some unique requests
being asked of by the property owner. Um, and I can tell you specifically provisions five and six regarding restoration and notice are unusual provisions, not consistent with the town's easements that we did add uh, as
a concession to try and accommodate the property owner here with some of the nuances of this property. However, they're requesting additional things beyond that and the town attorney's office isn't comfortable recommending the acceptance of anything beyond that by the town. But again, the property
owner and council's here to present. >> Okay. 8 and 1/2t wide ement >> or we just down to restoration and noticeing those clauses a little more. >> Um I'm not exactly sure because this is very fluid of what's
uh hear from the property owner. Members of the commission, I'm David Becker. I represent the Mers who are the owners of the property. Uh, Miss is here as well. Um, Miss has prepared a summary which I
think is going to be very helpful for the commission to really analyze this. I will go over those points and and go over what is a very short history of this property in a very bullet bullet point format. But uh so that the so that
the commission understands where we're coming from. But to get to the end of the story, as Mr. Lashley uh pointed out, we have gone back and forth and we're actually pretty close. We can get into the whether or not there's an
easement or not. And we can explain to you why. We contend there was never an easement because the commission really never even uh or the town, not the commission, the town um never realized that this water line
really ran under the property. But let's put that aside for a second because I want to get to the I really want to get to the bottom line so the commission can can do what what is rife. Um, we have had several title companies look into this and nobody can find this easement
for this waterline that runs directly along the east side of the property. Um, taking it from that standpoint, we are willing to give to the commission or give to the town an 8 and 1/2 ft easement has been requested, which can
then follow that line and and give the town the access to the water line that it would need a as in a typical easement. But all we are really asking for and where this where the line of disagreement comes from is we just want
the town to take responsibility for this water man that we don't believe the town knew was there until last year when our contractor discovered it and take responsibility that if something happens to that line, if it
bursts, if it needs maintenance, if it needs repair, if it needs to be moved, that the town simply come in and restore the property to where it is. The proposals and where the source of disagreement between um the town's
outside council and the mers is that um the the town is only willing to in effect repair the sad. I mean let we're talking about just putting the the grass back. I'm going to put put it in simplistic terms and not take
responsibility for other structures on the property. So if if if the commission will allow uh Miss has this summary that I can just go through quickly. She has a copy for each of you if if it's permissible to present that to you.
>> It is probably should have had it before the meeting. However, >> yeah, we were hoping to have this resolved before the the meeting. Uh we only prepared it. We only were able to complete preparing it yesterday. So I I agree with you. We should have had it to you before, but we were hopeful that we
would reach a resolution and we did not. Um what the summary shows and I'll go through it quickly is that um back in 2019 there were a um the owner of Stanton
Optical came in and he was going to buy the lot and the lot adjacent to it on the east side and build a home over the entire uh lot crossing both lots which would have then put this water line underneath
the home. Um, the mention of this water line never came up during any of those proceedings. The the town ultimately denied that request because of the setback issues, the size of the of the property, uh,
some zoning and and and other issues, but this waterline was never was never brought up. Um, we fast forwarded to November of 2022 and at that time the uh it was the Deco
home and um the ARPB in the town approved uh the full architectural and site plans. There was landscaping and and hedge layouts. Um there was a septic tank laid in the
ground. There were other um structures that were put in this property, some of it within 5t of this water line, others within 15t of the water line. And that um no mention of this water line with water main is ever presented. Those
structures were approved and were installed. Um, fast forward now to March or or April of 2024. Uh, just two years ago, the MERS came in, they bought the property. Um, the
only issue that came up was this HOA landscaping issue. Um, there was no water main line disclosed. Um, the Mer uh ended up purchasing the property, started construction site plans. Mrs.
Mrs. has been before this commission numerous times over this property. Um site plans were approved, construction was approved. Uh air conditioning lines and units, pool equipment was all laid in the property somewhat close to this
water line. This water line was not discovered until the contractor discovered it last last April. uh and found it and as a matter of fact
had to go out and hire a company to map this water line that runs along the east side of the property. Doesn't even run in a straight line uh and had to go in and and dig holes to to actually map out this line to present to
to the town. Um as Mr. As Arrow has pointed out, uh, we've gone back and forth on this issue for a much longer time than has been necessary. The MERS have spent, um, good deal of time, good deal of effort, and
unfortunately added significant expenses for, um, their contractor for for um, plans for sketches of this waterline um, title reports. We've gotten two
separate title companies, well-known title companies, Steuart Title and Delray Title, have presented um documentation to show that there was never an easement for this property. So, all we are asking for is we're
willing to give the town the easement. That that's not in in dispute. We've come to an agreement that we're going to give you an 8 and 1/2t easement. We just want the protection with all the structures that are already in this easement already in near the water line in that would be within this easement
that if there's a problem, the town's going to take responsibility and not just go in, dig up something, do some repairs, destroy some of their equipment, say, "Okay, we'll put back the grass and that's it." That's what's not acceptable to us. We're willing to work with the town. We want to we want
to reach uh an agreement. We don't want to end up having this dispute where we we don't want to have to go to court to prove we're right or you're right about this easement. All of that would become academic if we could just get the commission to agree that you will take
responsibility for any damages that are caused by any either any repair, maintenance or uh line uh breakage that happens on this easement. So, I just have to provide a few points
of clarity. Um, so first and foremost, I have a title search report um from Old Republic that our firm sought and was issued in February 3rd of 2026. I wish I had more copies. We we can make more copies where this easement is expressly
acknowledged in this report from Old Republic. So, um, the dispute of whether it's there or not, I don't, you know, from the town's perspective, I don't see that there's a valid dispute. Um, you heard that it may have been known or unknown, that doesn't mean that it was
or was not there validly recorded in the public records, right? Because at the end of the day, that's what this title research shows. And where that easement is is where the current property sits. So, it would be in their best interest to also agree to
move this interest. it wouldn't be granting a new a new easement because there already is a one even though there seems to be a dispute over that. So, it's somewhat the town agreeing to move its current easement. The second issue is the area of the new easement. There
is a masonary wall built on the property and that is, I believe, the the structure that the property owner is concerned with any damage to. um where if there's a new easement granted, where there's a masonary wall that the town
has no interest in, if that somehow got damaged during the use, ordinary use of an easement, they wanted the town to be responsible for maintaining or repairing that, which um the town attorney's office just does not recommend agreeing to. Um so I I think those few points of
clarity help shed some light on the issues and disputes and kind of what the property owner's request is here. Municipalities don't typically indemnify residents on easements, do they? >> No. >> Tom, where where's the uh where's the wall?
That's not on the obviously it's a sketch and not a survey. We know that for the east. Is the wall actually in the east? Is it next to it just to the west or I don't have a regular boundary survey of the asbuilt of the property? >> I think Miss Her probably knows best how to describe it. >> That would be helpful if I had an
asbuilt of the entire property. I don't know why we don't have that. So, uh, there is a masonry wall that was constructed from the garage to the side property line. Uh, Anthony Beltran was aware of that and counseledled the builder not to build the masonry wall. Uh, but that was approved as part of
zoning. Um, so, uh, you know, everyone was kind of aware. Of course, the town is aware of the existence of the water line, having relocated the water line when there was an abandonment when Mr. Snavely owned the property previously. Uh there was a water line that ran and biseected the middle of the property. So
we reconnected that to its current connection on the 2900 um uh the 2900 main line that now runs south uh from the northeast side of the property straight down uh in its current
location. So also there is a 12 foot side interior setback for minor accessory structures. Uh so there will be no way uh that we would ever approve any structure structure being built concrete pad air conditioning generator anything in the area that is proposed
for the easement. So there's no value loss for the property owner having this easement on their property because the easement is not buildable through our zoning code either. Um, if I just might respond, and I don't want to get in too deep into the weeds
of of what titles from or what deeds from 1945 and 1975 state, but essentially the claim that the town has this easement comes from a deed that didn't even involve the town. Um, that's
where their claim of an easement. So why we're here is because we from our perspective we're granting an easement that that doesn't exist. There were there was a utility easement that ran east west on the property. This is a
water man that ran north south and I think that's where some of the the confusion comes in. But um I'll I'll let Miss address this masonry wall. >> Yeah, thank you. Good morning. Um I think the frustration for us is that um
you know we lived in the community. We lived at 800 Canary Walk. We built that house uh years ago when Dan Stanton was going to build a home across both lots. And our question is if there was an easement in a water man, why did ARPB and the commission review and only
denied according to the record his home to be built on top of this water man? um if if they knew about it, that wouldn't make any sense if if the town knew about it. And then the gentleman that we bought the lot from came and had full uh
ARPB approved drawings um commission approval to build his home and have permanent structures within 5 ft of this water man. It's never shown up on a survey. I mean, we had Delray Title do a title investigation. We had Steuart Title do a title investigation. My title
insurance is with Old Republic. They can't find an easement. So, I don't know where the confusion is, and we're okay with that. We've been willing for the last 12 months to grant an easement to the town, but the town approved a fence that goes along that line. Uh hedges that go along that line. Um our propane
tank is below ground within feet of that of of this water man. All these things were approved by the town. And if we knew about it, why were they approved to be so close to the water man? I mean, there's a lot of decently sized, you know, structures there. Also, it's not
even as much about us as it is my neighbor. I mean, if something happens with that, the water's going to flow downhill. His home was built in 197. We're much higher than him, and we could be liable for that if the town doesn't take responsibility. So, all we're asking for, this masonry wall is just a
wall that is the gate that goes on both. It's like a wing wall on both sides of the house, but it right goes right up ab butt to the water man, but there's a fence there. There's major landscaping. We are two weeks out from finishing this house, and we've been trying to get this
done with the town for 12 months, and this it's been a lot of argument back and forth about whether there is or is not an easement. We've done our due diligence. Three companies couldn't find it. Fine. We just want to have protection if something happens with this water man. Now, Mr. Mr. Nazaro has told us that the water man's in great
shape. It's newer. They're thinking about relocating it at some point. That's great. But in the interim, I can't sell my home. I can't even, you know, live in the home and feel good about it if something happens with this water man. And we are listing the home in the next week. So, we can't even
legally sell it. So, there'll be delays selling our home because there's no easement, a property easement in place. And we've had a water mane going through, in our opinion, trespassing the property since we've owned it. And we don't want to get in the weeds on that either or go to court. We just want to in good faith negotiate an easement that
protects the items that were approved to be placed next to the water man. >> I don't know how there could be a difference between this. The title recording either shows it or it doesn't. >> Yeah. I don't know. I have mine here. I have all three. The only thing it shows up is an HOA easement we have for the
Kusia hedge. HOA put in some Kusia. >> Our town attorney is telling us that the title search shows the >> it shows it. We were told it shows a deed and a deed does not make an easement. I have all the title reports here from Delray and Stewart. I don't have the one from Old Republic because I didn't think it would come up, but they
they handled our title insurance. I had to go to them for a claim and they said there's no easement there. >> About the site plan for >> not on the site plan, not on any surveys. There wasn't it's not on the Stanton survey from 2019. It's not um from the Deceio survey of 2022. Not to
invoke Chad, but Chad owned the lot. And I called him before we bought it and said, "Should I know anything?" He didn't know about our water man. At least that's what he told me. He said there was an HOA easement. So it doesn't matter at this point. It's there. But we just want some protections if something happens to this water man. We built it just a brand new home on it.
>> And that that's that's the difference here is that is that if there was in fact an easement, then yes, I could understand the town's position. Well, we have we have easement rights and we don't do A and B and C. But if you're wrong and we have pretty strong evidence
we believe that shows are wrong then that this water main which we believe town didn't know about and did not have a proper easement became and is a trespass especially with the site plan approval and the construction that's been done since then
that it would be a trespass. So all we're asking for is we we want to work out an agreement, but we just want the protections that that the commission can go outside perhaps its normal routine because now it's got to correct a problem that that would not normally
exist if there was in fact the the the more typical easement rights. M I'm sympathetic to your position, but as a commission, our town attorney is telling us number one, the easement was there. it's documented. Number two, we you know, municipalities do not
indemnify residents for uh easement related issues. So, as a commission, I don't know how we can obiate those two statements. And while I'm sympathetic to what you're saying, obviously, you wouldn't have put
all this time and and effort into it if you didn't believe it. And I must say, that's where I'm a little perplexed. property rights are usually pretty well documented. >> I I agree with you about that. But in this case, we think we
the the claim of the easement, there's never been a document produced that says here's an easement to the town for water manes and and utilities. The deeds do not the the easement documents do not say that. They're relying on
>> and unfortunately we don't have anything. We don't have any of your stuff. We don't have the the the title search that our attorney's talking about. Um >> yeah, I mean >> I don't know how we can move on this to be quite honest with you. Uh except to
accept what our our staff and our attorneys are telling us. Your thoughts, Tom. This is your field. >> Well, we don't uh we don't know what some other comment if this case is heading to some sort of legal dispute, but I mean I think we should bring it
back. So we're arguing over some reservations and some 1935 deeds which you know but again it can move past that. I think you're just we're negotiating over an identification whether there's none which is standard
to when we do have an easement right and we just put in a what a 48 inch pipe between two houses on Gream Road which we had a documented easement for um you know whether we uh try to appease the the homeowner or not or whether we stick
to our normal form easement agreement. >> Yeah. If there's a case, if there's a case, either the judge is going to rule on it or there's going to be there's going to be mediation, right, Brett? That either works or it doesn't, then there's a >> certainly >> then there's a case which >> but we don't have the documentation to
make our own independent. >> We can't decide anything today, but we do have a lot more of the information from both our our town attorneys and from the property owner and their attorney. So, >> so I think what the hope was was that there would be a resolution as to this
easement when it was put on the agenda and as well as town manager said to kind of tee it up and let the property owner speak and let the commission hear um what the issue was. My recommendation based on the fact that you know I followed up with Miss Madison who's the one handling the day-to-day negotiations
on Thursday yesterday saying where are we? Um there wasn't a definitive easement agreement um in place. So, I was going to recommend to you today that we can't agree to anything and if there was any direction the council wanted or any specific provisions added that you
were comfortable with um we could draft that up, work that out. Um that doesn't seem like that's the solution and it seems like you just want more background and an agenda item at the next um commission meeting to give you all everything that is you're looking for to
make a decision, right? >> Yeah. So, if you're setting aside the easement issue, Okay. You know, it's more likely than not that the parties will agree to an easement, right? It'll be there. It's a water main whether there's one there or not. We'll move past that. But I mean, we need the
as built. I know you all are building a house. You live there. But we need to know exactly what's in the in the whether we do anything or not. We need to know exactly what's in the eel, what's next to it, which will be the underground tank, the wing wall, and the landscaping
uh and chain link fence. and uh you know so everyone can take a look at what's actually there and it's probably most of it's on the site plan but we don't remember all the site plans you know they come through here you know a year or two later and then um and then uh and then come back I mean there's options
there's really option A, B or C which you know the attorneys can articulate that they know what those are. We'll take a look at it the next meeting. >> Yeah. And hopefully in that I mean for some guidance I mean there's you all know what those are. You stick to the form, >> you say, "Okay, this is a unique
situation." You know, the town will replace sod and other stuff with a finite cost inflation notwithstanding, you know, a cap at 25 or 50,000, whatever it is, which is not usually ever done, >> right? >> Or or there's a, you know, a C option, but um
>> right. And that as as you vice mayor, obviously know that runs with the land andification. So it's not just, you know, unique and stops when this property owner sells that that runs with the land and that water line will get old. >> Yeah. Blanket identification is probably
not going to be optimal. No one's, you know, I don't think the commission's going to agree to that or advise it. >> Um, you know, that's never done and that's too open-ended. Um, and then, um, yeah, I mean it's hopefully the attorneys can get together and and work
this out. You know, I realize it's it's gone 10 or 11 months, but >> it's going a long time. I'd like to see your >> I mean, I have I can show you drawings of our home and where the line is and the structures. Actually, I have copies for everyone if you want to see them. Um I think our frustration is it's been 12
months. We've asked for documentation of an easement. No one's ever produced an easement document to us. >> I'm told that it's >> No, no, it's a title search. >> There's a deed that they're saying they're using as an easement. There's no easement document like we have a landscaping easement with the HOA fully
documented in all the title searches. >> Well, as the vice mayor said, I'd like to get your entire packet. Haven't seen it. >> Absolutely. >> Your packet. Haven't seen it. >> No, I apologize. We just had two days notice that we were being invited. >> We can take a look at this and study it in more detail and and revisit this.
>> I mean, you came. It's good to hear from you. We, you know, we got a little presentation of the facts on the record and we have time. make that a little preliminary review from everybody before we see all the materials and we bring it back and you know hopefully we can come to a reasonable resolution without have having some sort of case.
>> We appreciate it but we're listing the home in a week and we our house is not marketable because nobody's going to buy a home with a water man next to it and no easement in place. So, you know, we we're trying to do this the right way with the town. We have been for 12 months, but we're kind of at the end of
our rope here that we need a judgment. We will probably have to go for litigation on this because we just we can't do the back and forth anymore. We've tried for 12 months in good faith. I mean, Mayor Morgan, I reached out to you. >> Yep. No, we've talked a couple times. >> We've talked a couple times and I know, you know, everybody's doing their best,
but um you know, you it's our the water man's here and all our structures are here. And if you look at the Stansen home that was approved, there's no way anybody knew there was an easement when they were going to approve this blue structure to go over this red water man. It just doesn't make any sense. So, you
know, again, we're happy to give the town easement. We just want the items that may be damaged to be protected based on the items that were approved by ARPB and commission to be installed. That's all we're asking for. >> Um, because of the time-sensitive nature of this matter, as indicated by Miss,
that's why it was placed on the agenda with an agreement that was as far as the town attorney was willing to go, which is commercially reasonable and completely in conformance with best practices. We also gave some additional concessions regarding notice and restoration. So because of that, I felt
like it was appropriate to not only have heard this, but also approved it provided that the mers uh are are imminently going to sell the property. So that would clear up any title issues and there would be a a clear path forward to post the property for sale to
bed regardless of whether or not there's an ement there or not. We're abandoning it if it exists. We're granting an easement and then any future owner will be provided with those restoration and notice requirements that the mers were advocating for. >> And that's true for marketing your house for sale. If that is your concern, us
adopting this uh this resolution for the easement would would allow you to do that. Um, as long as it passes the sniff test with a lawyer who I'm sure, you know, somebody paying what they're going to pay for this home is going to have, you know, a legal team that's going to
review documents and it would have to be >> I I I think we're all in agreement. We'll we'll defer to you on this. If you want us to to approve what is recommended by our attorneys so that you have an easement documented allowing you to sell your home and avoid the concerns
that you have, we will do that. If you would rather not do that, we will defer. >> No, I'd like to do that, but I'm going to wait, you know, on my council's adisement as to what is in it. The issue of granting the easement has never really been disputed in terms of we're
willing to to give the town eman. >> Well, I know, but you want us to adopt language that would have indemnification in >> Well, I I don't know that you could call it it's not a complete indemnification. I could read a short paragraph if commission wants to hear us. I well, we're not going to be adding language to
it anyways, but I would ask >> you can tell me if I'm wrong, but my opinion on this is we will give you the easement so that you can market your house today as proposed or we will defer until next month so you can provide us
with your information. We can get more more information on it as the vice mayor said and then make a decision next month. at this point just to move this matter forward. So the the property owner has not agreed to the conditions but uh we would be making that initial
offer by approving this resolution. So we would have sort of taken care of our responsibility and making sure the mers have marketable title and if it's their choice not to adopt that but to seek additional items that would be their decision and their responsibility
for any delays with >> what you're saying is go ahead with this. Go ahead and modify it if necessary. Another quick we can approve the resolution saying we've approved this easement as presented >> and whether or not the property owner wants to agree to execute the easement
reported you know that's up to them at this point >> which I >> exactly and one point of clarification just for everyone's purposes this document is to put their concerns at ease but the town's position is not that their that their property in its current
condition is not marketable because they don't believe that there's currently easement in place because we do believe this is just to again work in good faith to kind of appease their concerns. That's just to clear up the record.
>> Um that makes sense. Well, then let's um let's read resolution 26-2. A resolution of the town commission of the town of Gulfream, Palm Beach County, Florida, authorizing and directing the mayor to execute a termination and replacement of easement agreement with
Adrian PH and Christina Sutton as trustees of the Mer family revocable trust dated September 18th, 2024 and providing for an effective date of today, April 10th, 2026. >> Resolution 26-2 has been read. Is there a motion to
approve? I move to approve. Second. Uh, Miss Bas. >> Second. >> Commissioner Campfield. Yes. >> Commissioner Earthwin. >> Yes. >> Vice Mayor Stanley? >> Yes. >> Mayor Morgan? >> Yes. >> Okay. Did we lose them? We lost them.
Okay. Um, let's move on then to U. Construction trailers. Mr. Nazaro. >> Thank you, Mayor. So, we have a request for a construction trailer at 35 Polar Drive. Uh there is a recitation of the uh town code 4227 regarding issuance
of permits for a construction trailer sub paragraph D um that requires the town commission to approve any construction trailers. Uh so this is being presented to you. There is a site plan indicating where the construction trailer will be there on the page. It is
going to be on the um sorry north west corner of the lot. Looks like approximately 10 ft from the property line. I don't Is there anyone here to present? Oh, okay. We have someone here to present on behalf of the the Ellis res.
>> Yeah, Jeremy Sloan of Sloan Construction building the house. >> Yes. Hey, good to see you. Good to see you, too, >> Mayor. I did look up the requests for construction trailers. Yes. >> Since 2016, there have been eight requests >> since 2000. >> 16 in 10 years.
Um there have been eight. >> Yeah. Okay. Uh yeah, sorry. >> No. Um this is just a simple request if it I mean we're our intent is to make it a little bit more efficient to build the beginning stages of construction. There is a cabana on the property or being
proposed on the property. Um as you all know in the rear of the of the property uh which we will use for our office once it is constructed. Um but that will take at least you know four to six months. So, we'd like to put a small construction trailer just as an office at the front of the property in the
meantime if we would be allowed to do so. Um, I'll be I don't really see the need for a construction trailer to be quite honest with you. >> Okay. >> Um, we don't have many. That's why I asked Miss Basil to look it up. usually
on larger properties, ocean front, where they're, you know, not obtrusive. This is right on Polo Drive. Um I I I don't I don't see a need for it. >> We're not going to make a big thing of this. It was one of those that if we could put it there, we would. If not,
then we'll certainly defer to the other commission. >> Work with it. >> Yeah. I mean, the location's not optimal. right next to the adjacent homeowner. >> We we didn't have a better op a good option anywhere on the property, which
is sort of why we placed it where we did on the site plan. >> Then you're on a very visible corner, >> but it's really not, like I said, it's it's not something that we need to, you know, >> this project's going to be obtrusive enough. >> I and I understand it's a hot topic for
>> the town. So, I'm not in support of it. Um, Rob, >> I agree. I mean, if you've got a proposed solution just a few months down the road, I think we can >> forward without the trailer. >> Totally fine. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> No problem. Um, okay. Well, thanks. Um, >> do you want to make a motion to reject the request just for the record? >> Um, yeah. Is there a motion to reject the >> uh motion to deny the request for a uh
construction trailer at >> second? >> Mr. K finished the motion. >> I'm sorry, >> Vice Mayor Stanley. Yes, >> Mayor Morgan. >> Yes. Thank you.
Um Okay. Sorry. end up putting the wrong piece of paper up there. Uh, there was another issue to be decided. I'm sorry. Did my papers go? Yeah, I didn't need the agenda.
>> I'm sorry. I got I got it underneath every all these papers. >> All right. This is uh next was discussing amending the code because we had some so infrequent use of these construction trailers as to whether they should actually come up to the town
commission. uh or be decided by staff or the ARPB. Um we we we kind of broached this subject a little while back. I I think today's probably a perfect example of why the uh
founding fathers required the commission to do it. Um because really you have to count and it's whether they're necessary and whether they're visually obtrusive particularly in the
core or poss county road small narrower areas. Um any thoughts on it? >> Not really. Just from staff's perspective, it is, you know, um the applicant will ask for
it and we'll tell them they have to go to the commission and you know, they, you know, hehaw, why can't we just get this approved at the staff level? I guess given that Renee has indicated that we've had less than one a year for the last 10 years, it's probably appropriate to continue in addition to
what we just saw, uh we probably continue to have it u sent directly to the town commission. Um the issue of course is that with staff approval there is absolutely zero notice at least with going to the town commission there is notice through the agenda. Not that
that's I mean that's something it's not direct notice to all the adjoining property owners but it's probably something that staff would have said it's only four months you know can you put it somewhere else okay great and we would have really just approved that. So having some additional oversight with uh five smart minds instead of one you know
half okay town manager making those decisions uh is probably beneficial again just given the fact that it is not something that we commonly see. It wouldn't really help anything to continue to have it reviewed by the commission >> reserved for major projects and major builds.
They're all major builds, but you know, scope and size and also, you know, something that might be 28 to 30 months, >> some of the larger crop >> and when looking at them through the years, they were all mostly on the beach, >> mostly on the ocean. And we have ocean
ones that don't have >> Yes. >> huge property project. So, >> yeah. Um, we we don't need a motion on this. Was it was just up for discussion. Uh let's move on then to the demolition permit at 4220 North County Roads. A code enforcement issue, Mr. Nazaro.
>> All right. Thank you, Mayor. Um so there have been complaints about the property um on uh County Road uh being overgrown and the structure fairly dilapidated. It has been vacant for several years uh after it was purchased
um maybe three or four years ago. There has been significant progress made clearing out a lot of the underbrush, not any of the trees, but remedying some of the issues within the nuisance um I'm sorry, the uh code enforcement violation. However, they would still
need to bring down the house. Uh miss the property owner has indicated that he is ready and sort of on the five yard line with an application that he believes will be submitted to the ARPB during the May meeting. uh there just was not enough time for them to get on the April meeting. Uh so that would
remedy all of the uh code enforcement issues. So we just wanted to bring this up for discussion because it was kind of a hot topic issue in addition to um feral cats on County Road. This was something that was a vocally complained about and we agreed from the town's perspective that that there was a
nuisance uh that existed there. Again, that is being remedied somewhat uh given the um some of the underbrush that's been removed. And we do have someone here um we we oh hiding in the back uh just
to uh provide some sort of an update as far as where they are and what their plans are for the property. And I believe we also received uh like a preliminary site plan for the property showing that they are um kind of getting there and that was provided at the um on
the deis uh this morning. Yeah. Um, hi, good morning Valeria Drake. Um, one of the landscape architects working with this property and like Drake mentioned like there was a major clear up of the site this u earlier this week.
None of the major trees were removed. Everything was low just to clear up the space and help out with any like he said feral cats or anything that is living in that area. And um yeah, we're working on finalizing the site plan now that we have a better
visibility of the trees and like see we're trying to preserve as much as we can. I know there's a lot of history on this property, but um we're getting rid of all the things that are not beneficial for the street and we we're
aiming to do the best for this property. >> Uh this is in code enforcement. So, the process now is to go to the ARPB with your plans, both architectural and landscaping. Correct. >> Correct. And we're going in May. >> In May.
>> Okay. So, depending on what other items we have uh through code enforcement. I have been driving through a place south with the the president of the homeowners association and some other individuals with our public works director uh looking at some potential nuisance issues and those that haven't been
remedied will be cited. So, we can always throw that on there at a future meeting in the event they do not make the the May submitt meeting. Renee and I have reached out to the the architect, I guess, for a pre-application meeting just to address some of the issues that we see with the site plan. Um, you know,
if you're looking at it, we do have a two and a half car garage facing the street. You know, some minor concessions that we would like adjust that to where the um, you know, if the public works building looks at a threecar garage, I don't think that we're going to be very upset. Uh, since this property borders the the town hall property, um, you
know, some sort of things like that. But it is a an extremely large property is just over half an acre. So, there will be potentially a very large house uh if this is approved on County Road. I think it's uh the F permits up to maybe 7,000.
It's it's almost as large as 3,400 Polo, the construction that Mr. Coulter is undertaking. So, imagine that house on County Road. That's kind of what we're potentially looking at to replace. >> That would really stand out on County Road. There have been there have been a lot of
not a lot but there have been a handful of redevelopment. Uh we have uh the Endrris house uh on a on a smaller lot on the e uh east side of the house of the uh of County Road and then uh some redevelopment a little bit further north
with uh a very um large impervious uh paper driveway um and redevelopment there. So it has changed the sort of the character of County Road a little bit. um with less of the tree canopy and this will of course you know continue to impact that road as there is
redevelopment with uh you know current you know property values. I believe this is a very very old home. It is you know probably the size of a postage stamp compared to what we're going to uh be seeing on there. So um you know it is I believe the largest lot on county road
you know at half an acre. So it's just that's just that's kind of what's there. Uh this is part of the north south district. Um certainly county road is unique. The south district includes uh you know Drifwood Landing and Pelican Lane and you do have a a lot of largest
not a state but you know very large properties in Driftwood Landing as well. So um I've never been a huge fan of the north south district because there were those are really two distinct sort of separate areas. Uh but that's um you know that's
the zoning district uh that they're in. >> Okay. Uh but for our purposes uh we're being updated on what uh you're planning to do uh with the landscaping and have already done frankly removed all of that undergrowth. Correct. >> Correct. Yeah. All the trees will
require permit which we're going to go through the process. >> Okay. Great. Look forward to seeing your your plans. Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh then let's move on to uh the underground electrical feeder installation for our storm water pumps.
Um Chief, do you want to take this one? >> Sure. Um so as you all are probably somewhat aware the current electrical uh service for our underground pumps at Polo and Old School are fed directly from the electrical panel behind town hall due to the generator being located
there. Uh underground is approximately uh eight large scale number three electrical wires that run in a single conduit as well as a low voltage uh set of wires that also run in a separate conduit. During the construction along
Gulfream Road and some drainage insulation, uh roadway dug up a uh conduit that contained part of the electrical that is required for those pumps to operate and damaged that service line. Also, although there's
some dispute about whether or not um they did the damage, uh the town does have uh photographs of the damage and and the equipment that did the damage. Uh however, nobody knew at that time that it was a service line for the pumps. So there was some thought that
maybe the electrical line that was there may not be in use. And so I think that's maybe why it wasn't addressed early on. Um that's when Anthony Beltran was still our public works director. Obviously when he left I kind of um acquired this project because I didn't want to see
those pumps continue to be lacking the power needs that they need to operate. And obviously the commission had also purchased new pumps that needed to be installed there. So without proper electrical uh the new installation of pumps is kind of useless. So currently
we have enough electric to run one pump uh at that location and one pump is running. Um, but it it's not an efficient operation and with the storm season approaching, I would like to obviously see us get that repaired and get those pumps installed so that we're
100% prepared for summer months. >> All right. Well, we've got two bids. You're recommending American Lightings. >> Yes, sir. And the main difference between the two is one was going to do underground boring uh and the American Lighting company said they're going to
do manual digging instead. So, that's the cost difference that you see. Interesting. >> Comments, questions. >> It's a motion to approve. >> I move to approve American Lighting. >> Second. >> $72,576.
>> Uh, is there a second? M. Basil. >> Commissioner Canfield? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Worthwine? >> Yes. >> Vice Mayor Stanley? >> Yes. >> Mayor Morgan? >> Yes. >> Is Roadway going to be held accountable? So yes, I was going to say we have provided roadway with an opportunity to
perform the work themselves. If they don't perform the work within 30 days, uh we will pull the trigger on that because we are coming up on the rating season. So we did give them a drop dead uh deadline in our Wednesday monthly meeting. So uh you know if they either say we refuse, it's not our responsibility, whatever it is, we'll go
ahead and move forward and we'll settle this at project close out determining who's responsible. We we've also estimated that the damaged area could be up to 825 feet, but it could also be as short as 40 feet. >> And if we find that it is as short as
40t, then the costs that were proposed would be drastically reduced. So this is a worst case scenario. >> So that's a max. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Uh very good. All right. Let's move on uh to reappoint and appointment of ARPB members. Um Miss Basil, do you
want to identify these members? Three of the ARPB members are up for a new three-year term. They have all agreed to it. Paul Lions, Katherine Orwin, and Tom Smith. Um, one alternate is up for a new three-year term. Terry Power. And again, she has agreed to another three-year term.
>> Uh, any discussion or motion to approve their reappoint? >> Uh, motion to approve as presented. >> Second, >> Miss Basil. >> Commissioner Canfield? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Orwin, >> yes. >> Vice Mayor Stanley, >> yes. >> Mayor Morgan, >> yes. We have an alternate member >> that would be Ross Curtis. It's his uh
application was given to you and that is our suggestion. >> Um >> is there a discussion or a motion? >> I'll move to approve Ros Curtis as the new alternate to the ARP. >> Second, >> Renee. >> Commissioner Canfield. >> Yes.
>> Commissioner Orwin. >> Yes. >> Vice Mayor Stanley. >> Yes. >> Mayor Morgan. >> Yes. Um very good. uh ARPB meeting attendance. Um Renee, could you give us a summary of uh well, first of all, Mr. Nazar, tell us
what the code currently provides and then we'll go through some of the details. >> Sure. All right. Thank you, mayor. So what commissioner orwine had mentioned earlier about consistency of the board uh and regular attendance is kind of reflected in Rene's memo that shows that
we have a number of meetings um of 19 meetings only five had all regular meeting regular members present. So that shows that over a two-year period you know there was a a very different demographic I'm sorry makeup of those um of those seats. So it would be an
alternate here less than a full board here. Uh you know so some issues currently we allow um ARPB members to meet to miss up to four uh four meetings within a 12-month period. So again without a meeting in August you're
looking at allowing up to four out of 11 meetings a year. So, we were hoping to reduce that as proposed in the red line from uh from four or more meetings uh with with or without an excused absence to to three and then eliminate the
excused absence language because the excused absence language includes absence from Palm Beach County. So, a lot of our our ARP members previously uh would fly home. I think Paul Lions at some point did as well as um Curtis
Roach and some others. So they they showed their commitment to to the ARPB and that if they were going to be um out of town or had vacation schedule or something, they would fly back uh into Palm Beach County. Um so we're just hoping that we can sort of reinforce the
fact that, you know, our ARPA members take the responsibility for attendance seriously and commit to attending, you know, the vast majority of meetings every year. Um, so this would still allow uh flexibility with missing uh multiple meetings, for example, if you're not here over the summer and then
we don't have an August meeting. Uh, and that is why we increased the alternates from two to three within the past few years. Uh, but we're just looking to or proposing maybe uh to tighten up the attendance requirements, especially given the fact that, you know, you can
have excused absences that can really allow you to miss a significant number of meetings, >> right? uh and they only have 11 meetings to begin with, but if you're going to make a commitment to the ARPB, it seems to me you should make the meetings. Um, you know, even three is is is actually
even generous. Um, so I I'd be in favor of this change. >> I I agree. >> You know, because people it's it's gotten so lax a lot of times you can't get enough people even with the alternates. So that's not a good look for us for the town.
>> You made a good point today. we're getting a different group reviewing applications. So, you're kind of getting a different view. It's not a consistent uh group. Um >> yeah, I don't think that's fair to the applicant really.
>> Um so, anyways, uh I think we want to do this. If you would please >> change to the change. Fabulous. >> We need a change. >> We'll do. Okay. U very good. Uh any comments? Well, then thank you all for coming. It
was a long meeting. Yeah. Yes. >> Mr. Mr. Snavely. >> You come on up. You come on up >> before we close out the meeting >> here for the last three hours. U I have a question. Um and it goes to the ARPB
and it goes to the board. um when we just witnessed what the armors were doing uh or the problems that they're having. My question is when there's a site plan approved or a landscape plan
approved, who is responsible for the accuracy of the survey that's submitted to the ARPB and ultimately to you folks? Um, and the reason why I'm asking this question uh is Mrs. Mer was
uh talking about the only easement she was aware of was the landscaping easement that the uh plus a sleigh HOA has on her property. And I found that interesting because it
was never shown on any plans for a landscape plan approval or for ARPB approval. So what has occurred is we have a problem now with the armors
because uh they have ignored the landscape maintenance agreement that we have on the property. So, I think that maybe if that easement had been shown on the survey when the landscape plan was
approved, uh it could have been noted that they were denying our access or our easement to maintain our hedge that we that we put in along with the civic association however many years ago it was. Um so,
>> yeah, >> it's a question, >> right? Um Trey, what? No, sure. how they normally handle it. >> No, it's interesting that um the property owner mentioned that that was one of the easements that did show up on the property, but it I don't believe it was on any of the surveys that were
submitted. Yeah. >> By her. So, um you know, the you know, the property owner is responsible to provide an accurate survey. Certainly, the town has our own records for our own waterline surveys, you know, everything like that. We have
our asbuilts that we're working to upgrade update. Uh certainly we'll with the the core project we'll have all new water lines we'll have all updated as built so we'll know exactly um you know our infrastructure and where it is. Um.