meeting on Thursday, July 9th at 9:30 a.m. Please silence your cell phones. Mr. Hart, please call the role. >> Member Bobby, >> present. >> Member Axelrod, >> present. >> Member Mendelson, >> present. >> Member Pal, >> present. Vice Chairperson Davids
>> present. >> Chairperson Rosen >> present. >> Town Attorney Ruben >> present. >> And Roger Brown is absent. Thank you. >> All rise. We shall do the pledge of
allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
>> Is there a call for a motion to accept the agenda as presented? >> So moved. Second. Second. >> All in favor say I. I. Moving on. Are there any corrections to the minutes from June 11th, 2026?
>> No. >> Hearing none. May I have a motion to approve the minutes as presented? >> Motion to approve the minutes as presented. >> Second. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> All opposed. All right. There's no swearing in of the
public since there's nobody. >> No public. Um unfinished business. The proposed ordinance regarding the encroachment of a hard surface beyond the property line in order to provide access to a seaw wall dot or abundant inter coastal
waterway beach area. Recommendation to the town commission. I refer this item to town planner, Miss Allen. >> Good morning, Ingred Allen, town planner. Um I
pressure. Um, on August 14th of 2012, the county, you all made a recommendation to the commission to amend the code to allow for hard services pass to adopt. That's the motion read and the ordinance before you addresses that by access to the the
service. uh a board member who's a sponsor of B1 suggested his narrative that he wanted to expand on that initial recommendation by fourth to allow hard services to each edge located outside the owner's property line and this would
be specific to copies that are longer right away and again the ordinance addresses that your on 2026 the commission used to be an introduction to consult they conduct an ordinance for them. It was just a pure
pure concept. The motion was to have the funding board pick up the issue and review it consistent with the ordinance process flowchart. Staff then prepare the draft ordinance which is for you today. And I do want to know there's been no change to the ordinance since you all initially saw saw it at the May
2026 vaccine. Um, now the hard surface recommendation, if you recall, was as a result of a special exception uh that was approved for the property at 2564 South Ocean Boulevard, a dock, and a boat lift. Now, the seaw
wall cap commenced um and that's not typically what we see for seaw walls, especially when there's not an existent seaw wall. Um, bears do not have an existent seaw wall. Um what we typically see is seaw wall at the property line or more typically you have an existing seaw wall that remains 18
inches in front of it. You have the new allows for services to the property line um or the seaw wall whichever is for the land property line was for their land. So as a result staff with those conditions that they provide sage again it's not
something common that we see property line >> the wall cap was 2 feet and then from the property line was 3 feet by int have a power with that diagram if you all like you know show you those once
again as pressure I'll be >> please yes pressure. So, here's the 25 and this is what started it all. Um, let me a little pointer here. You'll see here is the property line. Okay. Um, here is the
cap. So, this is the two feet that I was mentioning earlier. That's where their cap starts. Here you have the measurement from the property line >> to the sele new one is 3 feet in. So then obviously this area is beyond the propert. This is where we
asked them to do the saw or artificial serve and um this is just showing their existing condition. Remember they had a rip wrap and these were going to be removed. Um I referenced in your memorandum we asked the applicant at during development review why aren't you putting the seaw wall right at the property line? There's no existing seaw
wall there, but they wanted to follow this rock rip wrap. So, um, again, the code doesn't require, you know, there's when you put in a seaw wall, it's a seaw wall cap and dock at a maximum of 8 ft. It's not measured from any particular
point. And then here we have the other uh seaw wall designs that we see. This is 4203 tranquility. This is typically what we see, right? This is an existing seaw wall. Here's the property lineup here. I know it's a little bit hard to see, but it's in your packet as well. This is an
existing seaw wall and cap that's going to remain. And then here's a new seaw wall. Um, so there's obviously going to be a little bit of a gap. You can't put a new seaw wall on top of an of an existing seaw wall. As you all know, FDP allows the new seaw wall to be 18 in
above. So, we have I mean, it's reasonable to allow people to put a surface there. Um the building official has advised me some people have put hard surfaces, some have put porous pvious surfaces. Um again it's reasonable to do that. Um and then here we have another
example of another seaw wall that we've seen uh 4320 in coastal their seaw wall um their original seaw wall the ex is still there was actually within their property line. Okay. and then they put their new seaw wall. You could see their cap, part of their cap is actually on
their property line and the seaw wall itself is along the property line. So we have instances like that. I know in Belledo we've seen some seaw walls that are within the property line. So just to uh give you all a little bit of perspective there. Um I'll go ahead Bobby. I know that he had some
additional comments that were in your packet. So I'll give him the floor if you >> chair. Do you want me to go through my comments or do you want to say something first? Why don't you summarize your comments really short and then we can since we have no public comment if
anybody else has any questions but why don't you go first. Right. >> Great. I uh did send out a little packet to everybody. Um so hopefully you had a chance to look through that. Um my reason for writing all that is I was just trying to avoid any unintended
consequences. So there is this 18-inch rule which I think is a good rule. and stop someone from building a wall in front of a wall in front of a wall in front of a wall and I'm not sure if the 18 in fully applies to us meaning could someone in Highland Beach do a wall in front of a wall in front of a wall in front of a wall but um I had pulled some
Jupiter language I thought was really interesting um where they allow a one time only 18 in out front and the most important thing that I sent around was really some graphs because the original language that was in this ordinance
really didn't address certain things. One thing, when a property is set back versus its surrounding properties, if it's set back and it's moving it out a little further just to match the uh line, the water line of the surrounding properties, there's not really a privacy
issue. That's one thing. But more importantly, on on the 18 in, if you put a wall 18 in further out in front of the existing wall, a seaw wall cap is 24 in wide. So it's 12 on either side. So
we're talking about a 6 in strip of land that we're making a big deal out of. I don't think for a 6-in strip of land we should tell them they've got to do grass. Now if someone says if there's some special exception or a special situation where someone's putting a wall
really far out, okay, makes sense. Let's have something that has to do with pvious services, grass, sod, something like that. But for a six inch strip, it seems kind of silly to make a rule to um require it to be impervious. And that was the whole point of why I was trying
to show these illustrations. >> Thank you. Is anybody >> I have a question. I I'm like I don't I don't know much about this. So what are you trying to amend the ordinance that's in front of us that we're voting on or
what and change it somehow? I mean, and if you were like, what would the words be? Because I'm much better with words. >> Sure. >> Um, so my thought was yes, to amend and expand the ordinance to leverage the language in Jupiter. That seems to be working pretty well, which is everyone
can have a if we're allowed to do this, and if you know, the attorney says we're allowed to do this, but >> you're allowed to do a one-time new seaw wall in front of an old seaw wall, uh, as much as 18 in out. And if there
is that little strip of land at six inches, we're not going to require that to be saw. But if you're going anywhere beyond that, then we can go with what the ordinance says. That was my point. >> Okay. Ingred, you said something about
FDP and seaw walls. Does it affect what he just said? >> Both back in September, we had the issue with the Senate Bill 180. We can't be more restrictive. So this issue of the seaw wall
that so we can't make any type of amend by the senate bill. >> Okay. >> What's important was reviewed by sufficiency was not the issue with you. So, am I correct if I said
this is good for now and if in 2027 when we're allowed to be more restrictive, we want to revisit it and then put in your language, we could do that, but I don't see how you could violate what you can't do for now.
>> Right. And if we can't do the Jupiter rule now because of Senate Bill 1A, that's fine. But one of the things we still can do is say, "Okay, if there is this 6-in strip, if you if you're with inside of the 18 in of the new seaw wall, and you're going to have this 6-in
strip, and by the way, if they have a wider cap, they might have no strip at all. We're not going to make that impervious, but anything beyond that, which is a pretty standard thing, we're going to require it to be impervious because right now we have a ordinance that requires something a bit ridiculous, like a literally a strip
this wide of grass. Realistically, are there any um owners trying to do this right now that would be trying to do it before 2027? that one example that I showed you where you have an existing seaw wall and then
a new one within 18. I've discussed this with the reasonable to let people to put a hard surface there. Again, we have >> okay surface there. So, we're allowing that because it's reasonable. There's an
existing seaw wall there. So the reality is that this language in this ordinance allows for >> I'll call it your your six inch concern because it is reasonable. Is that correct? >> No, it's actually it's the opposite. >> Exactly. Well, but my point is it
doesn't the ordinance doesn't address it, but there's enough discretion from the building department in order to address it. >> I think it's the opposite, Ingred. Uh, please correct me, but I believe if the ordinance language is held to the exact
language and someone puts an 18-in wall, new wall out in front of an existing wall. >> No, I get that. I understand that part. But if there's just one little piece, the question is, and Len maybe I'll you >> I I think the issue is we've allowed it.
Now, as member Bobby said, technically the code does not allow it. So even if it is 6 in according to how the code excuse me reads now you would have to have a it couldn't be a hard surface. >> So let me ask you this. Should we just
defer? Well I guess my question is it's July >> and should we just defer this? Len, is there a downside? I I guess I'm asking from a legal standpoint as well as a practical standpoint. Is there a
reason to go through with this right now or should we agree to defer? >> I mean, this was something that everyone decided to move forward with. So, Ingred wants to >> um if I could just add >> motion that you all initially made that
you wanted access to a dock via hard surface that was provided. Then, Mr. Bobby wanted to expand upon that and add some sort of access outside the property to a beach area. So now this is a whole other
where again it could wait till 2027 but what was the actual recommendation it's in there and that was the initial you know that that's that 2564 property is what initiated all that. just >> access to a data
>> to clarify if we do this right now essentially no harm no foul we're doing exactly what we said we wanted to do and then when 2027 comes in and the new Senate bill is in effect we can create a
new issue to either amend or supplant this >> I mean you could always simpler I'm sorry >> no no go ahead I well I was just going to say you could always amend later, but go ahead. >> There's an even more elegant, simple solution on this, which is most of the language is great. However, we just add
in there that if the wall is 18 in in front of an existing wall and you have a 6-in strip of land, we're not going to require that 6in strip of land to be. >> The difficulty with that, Greg, is what is if it's six and a half, >> right? >> Well, what if it's seven?
>> Okay. and that from a I hate to I hate to use this but from a drafting standpoint that's sort of a an unmititigated disaster >> or you measured it from a slightly place. >> So I guess my suggestion is and I look
for input from everybody else is that we approve this ordinance as it is and agree to put it an amendment on the agenda when the new Senate bill is in effect which I assume is January 1st. No, no, no. It's through October of
2027. October one. >> So, a year and a half. >> Okay. So, basically, we do this now and then amend when we can. I just have a big concern, which I think others may, that when you put in a specific number,
if you're a little bit off or you measure a little bit wrong, um, you're going to have issues. >> I think your logic is sound in that. However, I hate ordinances with silly unintended consequences. So, there is probably a more elegant way to fix this
cuz a lot of the language again does make sense. But, there's some stuff in here that is I mean, there's no other way to say it. Stupid. >> Greg, I have an issue with what do you mean when you say you want a hard surface going down to a beach because
the beach is going to be lower. So, to me, that's going to be a staircase going down. >> Correct. So what it is >> that would be the only thing that should be hard because you >> you got to be far enough away for your boat. >> So the the beach is a bad definition.
It's not a beach. So what um Ingred was reflecting on that property is it's rip wrap, right? Rocks, a rock a rock area like the the piece uh the property she showed up there. So yes, there would be a stairway that would go down into the water or something like that and having a hard surface to get you to the
stairway. That's what we're talking about. But again, that's a that's a one odd consequence in the >> But I also have an issue with going three feet out beyond >> the seaw wall. >> But no one's debating that.
>> I mean that to me that's adding three feet all across the front of your property. >> I'm not debating that either if it is out beyond everyone else, right? If for some reason that property is way set back to the two surrounding properties and they're just coming out to where the other properties are, that doesn't seem
like that's that big of a deal. It's a lot of things to write. this if this if it what what if you just right now make it how it was the issue that if you had a dock and you wanted to walk on a
hard surface to the dock, why don't we just put it back to where it was and then next year when you can do it, we can take and you can take out all this stuff that you don't think makes sense and then you'll go, "Well, what about this and stairs and this and that?" That
way it'll be real simple for the dock on a hard surface and then we can address it or you guys can address it next year when >> Let me just follow up. Does that mean Eileen that you are recommending that we
approve this in its present form? >> No, I would approve it with the just the the dock because that seems part the dock access. Yeah. Like if you have a I get I mean even I who don't even deal with this stuff can understand if your
property ends here and your dock is over here you might want to walk on something that your feet weren't sinking into. Right. I mean that that's the point. Okay. >> Right. So right now that's what it provides for either for to get to a dock to get to a seaw wall that or a seaw
wall and a dock combo or to get a stairway to some sort of beach area. >> So it does more than just a dock. >> Yeah. So right now it says dock seaw wall beach area. >> You just made a dock right now and then we could debate all the other stuff. >> Well I I think you'd want to include
seaw wall too cuz sometimes people use their seaw wall in combination with the dock. >> Okay. >> I mean you can take out the beach if you want but again I don't know. Do we have anyone with a beach? If you take out a second definition of beach,
>> yeah, I guess >> if it's not harming anybody, I guess the question is, do you delay this yet again another 30 days for an edit or do you approve it as is knowing that beach is kind of immaterial?
>> You approve it and say with the edit that no can't do that. >> Got to vote again. that have features. >> So, with that said, >> I think you could do the edit. Um, Mr. Rubin, couldn't they do the edit in their motion? Absolutely. Edit the ordinance. >> Yeah, if there's something you want to change that you can do your motion to
approve subject to whatever the change you might want, you know, want might want to make. >> Do you want to do that? >> Uh, and Ingred, uh, I'm going to just add Oh, sorry. >> Um, there was also the in this ordinance the measurement from the property line.
We were talking about all that. That was another issue that I brought up as well. >> Yeah. >> So, there was a there's there's a bunch of unintended consequences in this order. >> I guess my concern is to edit on the fly
>> is a bad idea for this one >> is not a good idea. >> Yeah. So to me to me the question is do we approve this right now subject to amending as we go forward
knowing that it has to come back up or do we not approve this right now and leave it open and essentially up to people coming to the building department
and seeking I Yes. And exceptions that we would then have to address as part of planning. >> Yeah. And listen, it's a it's a tough one, too, because there is a bunch of stuff in here beyond forget the 18 inches, but even beyond that, Ingred was working to change something on where we
measure from. She's actually looking to change it different from what we all discussed in the original working group meetings. So, I don't think she realized why we said it the way we did originally. Greg, >> there's a there's measurement problems in here. So, Greg, I guess I'm asking
what is your opinion? Do we wait or do we approve this knowing that we're coming back? Because if you're suggesting that there's more than one edit, I personally think that that's a a massive disaster to try and edit on the
fly. I >> I completely agree with you. I think about this stuff all the time and I wouldn't even want to take a crack at that. So my my my opinion is ready aim fire not ready fire aim and take the time get it right address any consequences and then we'll fulfill something.
>> So your suggestion is you would vote against this at this point? >> Yes ma'am. >> Okay. Um I I I don't know that I would Yes. I agree that it would be too too cumbersome to try to like on the fly
change language. Um I don't know in its current format that I would vote for it either. Um and I have one other comment to add. Um have we ever defined or does this define anywhere what exactly a hard surface is? >> Because you know compacted dirt
compacted dirt is that a hard surface? >> Um I don't think so. Yeah. Is compacted gravel a hard surface? Because you can use certain types of gravel compacted and it will play like a hard surface yet it's not a >> Yeah. It's not a fixed surface hard surface. But if you look at page 11
in the ordinance um where it says uh section 30-66 C1A, it says walkways, patios, and other hard surfaces for walking, gathering, sittings, but um I wouldn't necessarily say a per
se a definition, but >> well, you know, if I just think about like I don't know, you go to a a park with walking trails. Yeah, >> there are ones that are just compacted dirt. There are ones that have dirt with, I don't know, mulch on it. There are ones that are just packacted gravel.
And then there are ones that are asphalted. And so what is the definition? And there are ones that are just grass >> and the rubber pvious ones now too where it's like rubber but actually takes water through. >> So I'm just, you know, I'm just trying to avoid again confusion about what is
do we need to define what is a hard surface? Is it you know some type of a fixed hard piece that doesn't come apart like concrete? >> Well, it does continue on non forest based materials although forest pvious base materials are
encouraged. >> Okay. >> provision gets in a little bit of detail there. >> Are there any other comments? >> It seems to me that approving this and then changing all these makes no sense is a mistake. I think we have to hold
and get to the all these changes and then approve everything. So, I would vote against it also. >> Okay. Any other comments? >> No, I I agree that I would vote against it now because >> So, the real issue >> put it into effect if you know you're going to change it and if there are
things in the pipeline that might want to be added in otherwise you wind up with a hodge podge and nothing works. >> Exactly. So the real issue is do we call up for a vote and ask whether anybody would vote to recommend this
and then we all we all vote the way we want. >> Wouldn't it be better to like delay it? Yeah. And let >> and let the and let Ingred's department work on it and bring it back and see if there's something that we could accept because
>> Well, and I'm happy to do work but it rejected it. I guess I guess the problem is this is the third extension and I guess >> is there a limit? >> No, but >> there's no limit. But the question is what it is that we really want to
approve and what what I'm hearing and correct me if I'm wrong, Len. What I'm hearing is much of what would be desirable can't be done until the new statute is in effect. Well, you couldn't do that
18inch limitation the new until the stat the statute expires. But the I what I'm a little confused about is what what do you want? I understand what Mr. Bobby wants to use, but what do the do the rest of you agree with Mr. Bobby's
changes that it or is there something else that you're concerned about? I just that's what I before we can reddraft, we need direction. >> I'm concerned. It's not that I'm concerned with Mr. Bob's changes. I think it's so definitional what he's
asking to change that it needs a lot of work to figure out what it is he's wants to change put in a statute language that you know chair I would humbly request Ingred and I have done working groups in
the past on these things where we just sat down and figured out okay this is something makes total sense this is something we got to deal with. we could actually then bring it back and say these are the things that are obvious that are great. These are the things that are challenges. Let's take them one by one. What do we want to do? And then
we actually come out with a real good ordinance. >> So I guess from a procedural standpoint, Len, >> yes ma'am. >> Do we defer or >> you could continue it yet again if that's the board's desire. You can continue it another month and allow time
to maybe >> or another two months because >> or another two, however long you want to, but >> yeah, if Ingred's willing to sit down and work on it with me, I'd love to do it. >> Does anybody disagree with that approach? >> David, I wouldn't do
not telling. >> I'm just looking at you all at the access that's in the ordinance, >> right? the um >> I think the issue of the need to yeah and that's fine and that's fine. Um again we have Mr. Bobby's narrative
which clearly his initial narrative which kind of dictates how this played out but um if you all >> again don't agree then you know we can record >> rather than vote to not approve this can we all vote Mr. the heart to um
adjourn and wait for amendments len >> or it dep you want to continue it to next month or do you want to just not take any action and have us bring it back? >> I would bring it back next year. >> Then we'd have to readvertise. Yeah, we don't need a motion. Then we could then
when it comes back we could just readvertise it. That's fine. >> All right. >> If that's our we'll send it back. or working group and readvertise. And
is there not there being no new business under announcements? The next meeting is scheduled for August 13th, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. This meeting is adjourned as of 9:59.