regular meeting Thursday, August 14th, 2025 to order at 9:30 a.m. Uh, roll call. Member Bobby, present. Member Pal. Member David, present. Member Axelrod,
present. Vice Chairperson Rosen, present. Chairperson Mendelson, present. Town Attorney Ruben, present. Thank you. Okay. Uh, let's do the pledge of allegiance. I aliance to the flag of the United
States of America to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay. Um, do I have a motion to approve the
agenda? Some move. Second. Second. Okay. All in favor? Hi. Okay. Um, swearing in of the public with the heart. Anybody here from the public speaking?
And please raise your right hand. By the authority vested in me as a notary of the state of Florida, do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. You may be seated. Okay. Approval of the minutes. I read
them. They looked okay to me. Anybody want to make a motion? I move we approve the minutes. Okay. Sir. All in favor? I I Okay. Unfinished business. Proposed amendments to the town code of ordinances regarding the town's
comprehensive plan based on the evaluation and appraisal review. Um, our last meeting carried this over. We had some comments and I assume that you're here to discuss. Yes. Okay. So,
uh, chair, actually, I'll start. You're gonna start. Okay. And then I'll give Emily the floor. Uh, town planner Allen, we'll start. Thank you. Uh, yeah, I just wanted to recap for anyone watching the memorandum that's on page eight of your packets. So, as you just indicated, um, if the
board recalls, you all had that meeting on July 10th. Uh, you did consider again the proposed amendments. Uh this is an update to the town's comprehensive plan. It's based on that evaluation appraisal review that was done by the town's planning consultant inspire. Um the board right you moved to continue the
item to today and you wanted staff to bring back the change language for consideration. A discussion by the board at that July meeting included flexibility in the process of doing affordable housing, not encouraging assisted living or small market uses and not encouraging buses on state road A1A.
So based on this discussion, Inspire provided you some revisions to the goals, objectives, and policies. These start on page eight and go through page 10, and Emily will go over those in in just a moment. Um, I also wanted to note there were other nonsubstantive uh revisions that were made. Uh, these
include a cover sheet and a map outline that were added to the future land use map series. That's on page 108 and page 109 of your packets. And on the existing land use map, uh the town houses of Highland Beach Condominium on the map that was provided to you at the July 10th meeting, the existing land use was
shown as recreation open space, which is an error. Um the existing use is based on the principal structure, which is as you all know, residential multif family. So that was changed on existing land use. As you know, on the west side of the parcel, it's an open area with a bench and a seaw wall. So, I talked to
Emily about it and she's like, I think the GIS person initially saw open spice and kind of went with it, but it was caught. Um, there were just some other again uh non-substantive changes to three policies. So, I'll just show you those on a PowerPoint. Okay. So, right here you have uh the
existing policy. It's in our coastal management conservation element. It's currently policy 2 uh 1.5. Um, so it was provided to you at the July 10th meeting. Now, I highlighted that yellow area. This last sentence was provided to
you at the July 10th meeting in a strikethrough. But when you look at the original policy, that last sentence was not in the original policy. It ended up just being a note by the consultant. They added a note. Again, it was provided to you as strikethrough. So, you could see at the bottom there, I
provided how the policyy's provided to you in your packets today. That last sentence is gone. Okay. Can you read that? I can't read it. Oh, I could go ahead. You want me to read the h how now? Oh, the highlight reads, "The town shall annually review
construction permits to ensure compliance with this objective." Again, that's not part of the original language. So, you can't strike through things that are not originally there, right? Okay. Yes. And just to add on to that, like during the editing process, it was something we might have just like
relocated and then off to. Okay. So we talk that as we participate. Yeah. Okay. Good. Um the next one here, this is a another coastal management uh element. You could see how it currently exists in our comprehensive plan. It's objective 1.3. It was provided to the planning board on
July 10th. And again, the yellow areas, the the words that are now going to be removed. Um you could see it's uh coastal management policy 2.1.10. So you have the word property was strike through on the July 10th packet and of
the town code of ordinances. Now that whole sentence is new so there shouldn't be a strike through right. Um so in the policy how it's provided to you today in your packets you could see that the word property was removed and of the town ordinances uh code of ordinances that
was removed. And I'll just add um for the flood plane management regulations, we do have flood plane re uh management regulations in our code, but we also have flood plane regulations or flood plane management regulations that are in part of FEMA and part of the Florida building code. So it's not specific to
just our code of ordinances. So I just want to give you a little backup on that. And then just one more. Um again, this is another uh policy that's currently in our coastal management element. You can see on the top that's how the policy originally reads in your July 10th packet. That policy was struck
through and you could see that a new policy which is in the capital improvements element was created policy 1.3.6. Um that policy shouldn't have been struck through because it's carried over to this new capital improvements element. And then you could see uh what
is provided to you today at your uh at the August 14th packet in the packet that policy 1.5.3. it's no longer struck through and you could see the same policy that was provided to you that capital improvements policy is exactly the same as it was provided to you in
July. So again, just some minor changes there. Um with that said, I'll go ahead and give the floor to um Emily again. She's the project manager uh for this um update to our comprehensive plan. Um, and we also have uh in Zoom uh Chris
Darity who's the principal planner for inspire who's able to chime in as needed. So I'll give Emily the floor. Going to be sharing this working. Yeah, you're Thank you. Good morning planning board
members Emily. I am a planner for entire making collective and project manager for this project. Um online we have Chris Gordy who's principal planner principal of our firm as well as principal in charge of the project.
Oh thank you. Um, as a quick reminder, Inspireplace Making Collective was founded back in 2022 and is home to more than 30 professionals specializing in planning and landscape architecture, as you can see on this slide. And so, at the July 10th meeting, our
team had walked through the amendment process and provided a summary of the draft update. And through that discussion, the board had recommended revisions to several objectives and policies, also known as GOPs. The revisions fall under the future land
use, transportation, and housing elements and focus on topics such as affordable housing, density, redevelopment potential, and transportation policy elements. Board members, as we understood, had mentioned that some housing policies felt overly
rigid um and had suggested more flexible language. Concerns were also raised about references to ALFs, small markets, and public transit on S on State Road A1A. specifically whether those had aligned with the town's um character and preferences.
At the conclusion of the meeting, the board had recommended uh for staff to return today, August 14th, with a recommendation to revise some of the text. The first change is to objective future land use element 1.1, which is found on
zero on page 0 of 55. The purpose here was to clarify the intent of the original language. As you can see highlighted in yellow on this slide, which is um 0.9. Um the change was the change involved that the town will
promote the maintenance of a safe and efficient level of traffic service on state road 81A to help reduce congestion related impacts such as noise levels and air pollution and to preserve the overall quality of life in the town.
Excuse me. Emily, can I I really can't read that. Can you tell me where it is in our packet? Because we we have different pages. We don't have the objectives. We have the the actual language. If you go to page eight of your package, yes, from page eight to page 10 are all the
revisions that the board wanted. So, yeah, you'll follow it. You could see on on page nine, actually, the future lane use uh 1.1 starts on page eight, but the actual revision that Emily's talking about is at the top of page nine. You see number nine, the new language that
um Inspire worked on, it's double underline for anything new, right? To distinguish between the original changes that were provided to you on June 10th and any new deletions are provided by a double strikethrough bolded. So a double
strikethrough bolded so you could again distinguish between initial strikethroughs that were provided to you in on July 10th and what is provided to you today again based on inspires revision. So it'll help you see the boldest stuff is the new stuff that um inspires uh providing to you today.
Yes. So just to repeat I can I can read it out again the new language. So we um edited we drafted it to become promote the maintenance of a safe and efficient level of traffic service on state road A1A to help reduce congestion related
impacts such as noise levels and air pollution and to preserve the overall quality of life in the town. So this one was just you know helping clarify the language cuz it was a little bit confusing as it was originally um written down. Okay.
All right. So the next policy is flu uh policy flu 1.1. And so this part this policy was part of uh like just a greater conversation that the town um will be having. Uh no direction was provided but I thought we
could um talk about it again today. And the language that we proposed was the town may work towards allowing existing buildings to redevelop or substantially redevelop at their original densities in order to one maintain a stable population and tax base and two
encourage its older building stock to rebuild or substantially renovate to meet current building code and safety standards. Additional standards such as maintaining existing heights or footprints may be considered in the land development code. So currently um there are situations
where existing buildings can't redevelop at their original density. So that's why we incorporated this policy is um on the first line it says existing buildings to redevelop or substantially you said redevelop. Should that be
renovate or redevelop? Um it says renovate. It says renovate here but when she read it she said she said redevelop. Yeah. Oh, sorry. A redeveloper. That's Yeah, that's what I want to know. Which Oh, sorry. I have the um the the zoom
and I think it was hiding it. So, I by mistake. It is renovate. Yes, it is renovate. That's fine. I wonder if there's a way to hide this. Uh okay, perfect. All right. Um so, next is policy flu 1.1.7.
Um and this was a new policy that we had proposed um originally. Um but when the planning board chair had requested it to be removed. Um and it was originally request um it was originally put in there based on demographic analysis and internal discussions that we had through
our team and with staff um particularly addressing the density um as part of the town strategic priorities plan. And the idea was really to reflect um lower population projections due to limited redevelopment potential under current
density provisions. Um, so that's why it's showing as um it's underlined, but we struck it through for this um recommendation. All right. The next policy that was drafted or and edited was T uh transportation 1.1.4.
And so here we removed encourages and supports as requested. It now reads as the town may consider expansion of present area transit service to include service along State Road A1A where consistent with community preferences and in coordination with the Florida
Department of Transportation and regional transit providers. The town may disseminate schedule information, route maps and bus stop locations to residents if such service is implemented. The next policy that was edited was
housing policy housing. Oh yes. Rather than go back and do if we could do just the one thing if it talks about bus stop locations and I know this is sort of nami pami but could it just be
uh transit service locations because it may not be buses it might be golf carts at some point. It may be self-driving cars at some point. Okay. So just so that it it contains the the broader language for the next 20
years rather than bus stop maybe just a transit service stop. I agree. It was announced this somebody sent me a thing this morning in Bokeh whatever coastal new whatever that is that uh the Bokeh whoever they are who decides things is implementing a
self-driving shuttle between Royal Palm and Meisner Park. So, so you know, if it just says transit service, I think that'll cover us and be broad enough. Okay. Okay. Yeah, I definitely think and when you make your motion for your recommendation, you can add that.
Okay. I just want to make sure that we're having because I clearly will not remember this. So, um, are there any other prior policies that anyone had a question or comment on? Okay, I'll move on to the next one which
is policy housing 1.5.5. Um here we revised the language to include as applicable and just made minor edits to clarity um since we are working on it. The policy now reads as the town shall coordinate comma as applicable with the US Department of
Housing and Development, Florida State Housing Initiatives Partnership Program uh ship and other relevant agencies regarding the facilitation of affordable and workforce housing within the context of the town's land use framework. Um,
do you think that's strong enough to give the town um and its current zoning the ability to
I mean I last time we spoke of we didn't want to be in a position where um the need to have uh affordable housing would require people's buildings not to be not to
continue or to be taken down or not to be allowed to renovate so as to make it that they would tear them down. And I just um I'm just throwing this out to everybody. Do you think it's flexible enough? Well, I think that part of that is there are regulations as to where affordable
housing can be. And if I remember correctly, part of that is it's got to be within a certain distance of like an industrial area or someplace where there is actually a lot of work and we don't have that here,
right? Which is which is why I think the as applicable sort of covers our Yeah, my change to if required or something. Yeah, I like Right. I like Yeah, I like the as applicable. What what's bothering
me is um to then you work with the other agencies regarding the facilitation of affordable and workforce housing within the context of the town's land use framework. That's a little vague. I
mean, I'd like it to be more within the context of the town's required usages, something like that, because of how if it's not close enough or whatever. I I think within the context of the framework is a little
vague. Okay. Um, what if we said then applicable framework or then required? I don't like framework. We don't like actual because the reason the reason for that is that this the the language of
the ordinance may change and one piece may change without the other pieces changing. Right? So, but I think you could say within the within the context of the town's um you know requirements or you know the
we could use at the time or um could also say if mandated something like that required mandated anyone these words but it should be right it's not strong enough it's not it's not that Highland Beach is going to require this it's that either Palm Beach
County the state or the federal government are going to require it. So, well, right. Yeah, but sometimes their language is not quite required. So, you need a little flexibility in there.
Well, see, I'm okay with that. But what's bothering me is that the regarding the facilitation of these kind of housing within the context of the town's land use framework. I would like it to say within the context of the ta
town's land use zoning requirements. I mean, I want the town, you know, they can go fight it, but I want the town's requirements at the time to be what
they're the context. I don't want it to be the framework. So, someone could always say, "Well, it's in the framework, but it's not in the actual um zoning requirements." That's what I'm looking for. So, that you can say, um, well, our zoning
doesn't allow for that because we're not near a facility, we're not near this, we're not near near that. And the county and the state can always fight you. I mean, I'd like to start in a stronger place for the town. Chair Mendelson, may I just add? Okay, I'm looking at the
town's permitted uses table. Um, so this is divided up by each zoning district. So we have many different residential types of uses depending on the zoning district, single family, multif family. There's nothing here about affordable. So I just want to keep make you aware of that.
Right. I know that I get the point, right? You have to have sometimes a commercial center, right? um certain transit u in order to trigger 40 but over time over time which helps with perhaps required the the rule may change
in the next 20 years. So the issue is and I I understand applicable is trying to refer over time to what's in place. So maybe what we say is applicable or then required. I'm not worried about the
asap. I'm I'm more interest I'm more interested in that last sentence. Okay. So, it's that the that the we're going to that we'll coordinate as applicable
to um facilitate affordable and workforce housing within the context of our land use framework. And I'd like it within the context of our land use laws,
zoning laws. And so, Madam Chair, that it starts with the towns, what the town has at the time. And if the US government says, well, we trump you. Okay, go to court and trump us. But I'd like it to not be so easy for them.
Okay. Chair, I believe uh Chris Darity from Inspire wanted to chime in on that. Okay. I I'm sorry. I'm not sure how to interject uh on the We hear you. We hear you. Okay. Excellent. Um could we just say uh in the within the context of the town's
land use regulations? Yes. Yeah. Or land development regulations maybe. We start with our regulations and everything flows from there. Perfect. We can definitely do that.
Yeah. framework to to regulations. Yeah. I mean, I don't doubt for a minute that politically whoever is doing whatever they're doing is gonna fight something we do. So, whatever. Okay. Uh, I had to
stop sharing. Let me go back. All right. Um, just takes a second. So, we were on policy. This was the Okay. So, next is policy housing uh 1.5.6. Um, and this one the planning board
chair had requested more flexibility in the policy. Um, so the town uh we wrote it we re rewrote it as the town may establish application and processing procedures for affordable housing development as appropriate through its
land development regulations. Okay, good. That's the same thing we just did. So you did it there. Okay. Yeah, they're um they're back to back. So I think they're just building on each other. Um the next policy is housing 1.5.7 and um also wanted more flexibility in
this policy and now reads as the town recognizes the benefits of affordable workforce housing and may support the implementation of relevant housing programs including the live local act as applicable. So that leads us to the remaining steps
in the amendment process. So um next depending on what your uh recommendation is we will have transmitt hearing for the town commission. The date is to be determined um and we will include your recommend your recommended requests. If the if the commission votes to transmit
the updated comprehensive plan will go to the Florida Department of Commerce. That takes about 60 days for agencies to review. Um based off of that we will respond to agency comments with staff if necessary and if they provide us comments. And then lastly for the town
commission adoption hearing and that leads us to our discussion. So if you have any questions um yes I welcome them. Does anyone have questions for Emily? Sounds like we interrupted her enough as we were going along. That's okay. They're they're good to
have them during um anything else before we make a motion. Okay. All right. I make a motion that we accept all the changes that um what's the name of your company? Inspire provid
provided with the further change in 1 uh what was yours? 1.5 1.1 1.1.4 four where we change bus stops to whatever transit businesses there is
and 1.5 where we change the word framework to regulations. Right. Right. Okay. Anybody second? Second. Okay. Would you like to call the role please? Thank you. Chairperson Mendelson. Yes.
Member David. Yes. Member Bobby. Yes. Member Pal. Yes. Member Axelrod. Yes. Vice Chairperson Rosen. Yes. Thank you. Motion carries. Good job, guys. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Emily. Did a good job with the revisions.
Thank you. Okay. Um, new business development order number PZ-25-28. Alana and Mel Vaselov. Application by William Thomas, Unlimited Permit Services, Inc. requesting a special
exception to install a 105 linear foot seaw wall and seaw wall cap, a 275q ft dock, and a 33,000 lb capacity boat lift for the property located at 2564 South
Ocean Boulevard. Town Planner Allen, do you have a presentation for us? I do. Just bear with me while Charlie does. There we go. All right. Um, as usual, I'd like to start off with uh some aerials of the property. Uh, the aerials
do start on page 152 of your packets. So, here we have the subject property. Um, on the top left there, you have your north arrow. So, this is kind of looking northward. Um, you could see, and I do reference this in the staff report, there's some existing dock pilings there. Um, there's also a moing piling
in the photo. Um, here we have another view of the subject property looking eastward. Again, you could see some of those remnant dock pilings. And here I found an aerial. This is off the Palm Beach County Property Appraisers website. This is an aerial
from 2020. I'm sorry. Um, Jacqueline, do you have the highlighter, the pen? Um, as you could see, uh, there's the actual dock that once existed existed there along with a wood pier, right? That act
you can access that dock with. And then, so that's 2020. And then here's the aerial from 2021. Again, this is all in your package. You could see that part of that dock is now uh gone. Um, yeah, right in this area, you could see
and some of those dock pilings are there now. Um, so just sort of an interesting comparison between uh the initial aerials that I provided to you from 2025 and then these last two from 2021 and 2020. Uh, these photos were taken by our building official on January 9th just to
give you all some perspective. Here you have that existing um, rip wrap. Um, and again, here's your north arrow down here. I'll just go through these quickly. Again, these are also in your packet. This is looking northward. There you see those remnant dock pilings.
Um, again, some of those remnants with the a little bit of a zoom in on the um, rip wrap. And this is looking northward. Um, you could see the pool there in the back. Um, so you have that retaining
wall that's on the plan that's going to remain. And right here, this starts the adjacent seaw wall to the south which belongs to the town houses of Highland Beach. And then again, this is looking southward. Again, this is that park area
that we talked about earlier with the ear, the um open space, but this is their seaw wall. Again, we're looking southward here. Um so, as the chair has already stated, this is a special exception request to install 105 linear feet of seaw wall and seaw wall cap.
It's a 275 foot concrete dock and a 33,000lb capacity. This is an elevator boat lift. Um, so they're going to remove the existing rip wrap according to their application along with remains of the previous stock the wood access pier, the boat lift and a mooring pile.
Um, I did provide on page 147 of your packets in the memorandum, the FTP and and AR army corps authorizations. Um there's two uh FTP permits that um correspond to this request and then the Army Corps permit. It's all on all that they're requesting is on that one Army
Corps permit. Um I did note that there are some dimensional discrepancies between what the applicant submitted to FDP and Army Corps and what they submitted to us which is the 11 by7 plans that are before you. So again on page 147 I provided you a table to
highlight those discrepancies. I'll just go through those quickly. So with regards to the seaw wall elevation um FDP and Army Corps on their authorizations the seaw wall is at 6.2 6.21 ft on the 11 by7 plans the seaw
wall elevations at 7 feet and that is because in our code as you all are probably very very well aware um seaw walls uh on the west side of A1A have to be at base elevation or higher. Now the current base elevation for this property is 7 feet. Last year it was six feet
pending seven. So now it's actually at seven. So that's where they raised it. Um the dock square footage. So on the FDP and Army Corps, their dock was approved at 8 feet in width. So it was a total of 440 foot dock. On the 11 by7
plans again before you today, that dock is at 5T. Why? Because in January of 2025, we had accessory marine facility and seaw wall regulations that were adopted. And there's a provision in there that says that the seaw wall cap, right, and the dock can't be more than 8
feet combined. Um, so their seaw wall cap is at 3 feet, which means they can only have a dock at five. Um, so they revised it. Um, as you can see on the plans, so their dock is now 275 square feet. I do want to note, I advised the applicant during development review,
they can go for a variance. Any applicant, any property can submit for variance. Uh, they decided to just reduce the dock. Okay. Um, let's go ahead and, uh, look at some of these plan sheets. Again, these are in your packet, the 11 by17.
Got it there. Uh, this is the survey of the property. And here you can see on the survey, even on the survey, they show some of those existing dock piles. And here you have the existing. Here's the rip wrap. I just wanted to mention
to you, I did measure this based on the scale. And the rip wrap width does vary. It's anywhere from approximately 4 feet in width and in the northern part a little bit like about 8 feet. Again, that's just an approximate. And here you have the proposed plan. Uh
so you could see obviously the uh the dock here, the boat lift, and then here's the seaw wall. The applicants also proposing a 10-ft uh seaw wall return on both sides. And here you have the seaw wall and dock plan view. And here you have the seaw
wall section. Now I do want to bring to your attention that um the seaw wall cap is two feet from the property line. Um I had initially asked the applicant during review of the application why they are putting it 2 feet from the property line
and I'll quote their response. Um they said that the proposed seaw wall location is consistent with the pre-existing hurricane damaged rock wall. Now Army Corps and FDP approved the ccap at 2 feet from the property line. As the board knows, we have some seaw walls in the town that are within
the property line, some are without. You know, typically we see SEAW walls along the property line. Um, you could see that the applicant is also uh proposing uh some fill in that area as well. Um, but again, when you look at that new provision that was adopted in January
2025, the seaw wall cap width and the dock width max at eight, it's not measured from the property line or measured from the seaw wall base. is just 8 ft. So they're in compliance with the code, but I just want to bring that to your attention.
Um so uh with regards to the boat lift, when you look at the um lift detail here, uh the top of the lift is at 6'6 in the lift is not higher than this the um the superructure of the boat when lifted. So
they're in compliance with that. Um, and you'll also see, and actually, let me go back a little bit. Uh, this particular property is, uh, zoned residential single family. So, they have to have the 25 foot set back. I think I just lost my
second just lost my point. That's Oh, there it is. on the proposed plan. Um you'll see here they have a 25 foot setback that and you know in compliance on on both sides of
the property. Uh so a little bit more on the fill. They're filling in 1,360 square feet. And let me put up that detail so you could see that more clearly. Um you could see that um 360 square ft is from the property line
westward and then you have 1,000 square feet from the property line eastward. Um I did provide some language from our code on page 148. This is uh chapter 14 and you all have seen some landfill requests in the past. uh they have to
get a permit uh from the commission. So um if approved by the planning board on special exception, we did put a condition of approval that they obviously have to get the landfill request approved by the commission. Um so the proposed plans that again are
before you they're stamped July 24th, 2025. Uh staff finds that they are consistent with the special exception provisions of the code were applicable. They're consistent with the town comprehensive plan. Um now if the board showed a grant approval staff does recommend the following conditions of
approval. Uh number one is sod or artificial turf shall be placed from the property line to the seaw wall cap. So we added this or I added this provision because we have a provision in our code that's section 30-66 C1A and it says when you abut a waterway
uh you can have a hard surface for walking, sitting and gathering to the property line or the seaw wall whichever is further landward. So in this case you can see the property line is further landward than the seaw wall. So this area right here, it's two feet um from
the property line to the seaw wall cap. They can't have a hard surface there. Um the planning board, you all don't approve pavers, but this is more of a proactive condition of approval that the applicant has to put either sod or some
sort of turf. Again, this will be called out a building permit, but we don't want to have the scenario where the applicant's like, well, the planning board approved it. So, we wanted just to call out that condition of approval. And then the other one is of course contingent upon the commission approving
the landfill permit. Um, I'll be glad to address any questions. We do have part of the um authorized agents team here to address any questions. Yeah, I I'm not sure I understand what you said about that two twoft area. Me neither. Can you can you maybe translate that for
somebody that's a little naive about this? Yeah, no problem. So, see they're filling in this area, right? Um, again, what they fill it with as far as the the the surface, it's probably going to be pavers here. Maybe the authorized agent can elaborate on that,
but we just want to be sure because again, um, the provision in our code reads, you can't have a hard surface. So, if they pave to the sea to the seaw wall cap, you can't have a hard surface past the property line. Well, so help me. How would they how
would they get Well, it's going to be fill, but that on top of the filler has to be like a sod or some sort of turf. It can't be a hard beaver. You would if you were walking out to the boat. This I'm just trying to visualize. If you were walking out to the boat, you would walk along the pavers and then
there would be some grass or then you got to step up because they've they increase the elevation up to the seaw wall cap and the dock and then get and be able then to reach the boat. Correct. The boat has a lip that makes it correct. Got it. Yeah.
But but the not hard surface. I mean, does that mean you like sink and it's like Oh, no. It's all filled. It's going to be filled. It's just what you put on top of it, right? It can't be per our coat a hard surface like pavers. Okay. So, what is it like fake grass or
something? Yeah. Turf, sod, something soft, right? because we you're not supposed to have a continuation of your, you know, rear patio to the seaw wall. That's what we're asking is in that I'll call it that grassy area, that hill area. If it rains and you go out to the
dock, that's going to compact. Correct. Well, it's going to be right. I mean, grass drains, it percolates, right? It's going to be compacted. So, it shouldn't sink. It should be fine. Yeah. Shouldn't sink, but it will it will be affected by a heavy rain.
Yeah. Right. Might be turf. Yes, it's a Yes, it's all filled. Maybe we should ask the applicant's representative what they're planning to put there. You got to swear me. Yeah.
Yeah. He usually sleeps here. By the authority vested in me as a notary of the state of Florida, do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Um with being a Marine, as you all know,
right? Um no, what we're going to do in in that whole year, it's going to be back with clean fill material, sand, dirt, you know, something like that. And it's going to be compacted as we go. Put in 12 in, compact it down. Put in 12 in, compact it down for the whole thing. So
when the sod or the pavers finally go on, it's already compacted in as dense as it can get. So when it rains and you got a good solid grass, real grass or turf, either one, it's not really going to compact anything more. Just like you
know your backyard, it's not going to when it rains your backyard doesn't go down. What about erosion of that that packing, you know, the the fill? Will that occur over time or I understand erode too. Well, that's what I'm asking is
because you're Does it stay in place because it's between uh between the new seaw wall and the old retaining and the old it it it will stay in place. Yeah. And if we put the new wall in, right, it's going to stay in place. Okay. And you seal it up. So nothing should That's my only question is if you if you
compact it, I understand, but the question is longevity and permanence. That that was really my question. Well, he said if he puts it in right and of course he's going to and you know where we put everything. Yeah. Okay. I would think if there would be any
concern it would be with the existing wall, but it's just going to go back into the earth behind the existing wall. there's underground water movement in again if there's any if there's any issue with something that would um potentially have
a crack a leak a hole that water could could intrusion could you know promote something it's going to be the true but I mean we're not going to find out right right yeah so I I can answer that question for you um having an internal wall and then an
external wall if you think every property only has an external wall anyway the internal wall can only add to it. It can't detract from it in any way because a uh a regular property has a wall and then it's all dirt. So you have water intrusion no matter what. Uh with
that internal wall, it can only be additive even if it's slightly additive. It can't possibly take anything away from it. So if anything, it's almost like a wall behind a wall which will just stop dirt from moving as much. Anyway, if I may add to that conversation, when
this item, if it's approved by the board, goes to building permit, it has a structural engineering review at building permit. So, we outsource our structural engineering review. So, I just want to make you all aware that the structural component, the review of that is done at building permit, but they like our work, too.
Okay. Any other questions? Uh, I have a series of questions. Chair series. Go ahead. Great. Um, Ingred, this is gonna be actually be for both of you. So, but Ingred, I'll start with you. Um, I understand why you recommended the solder artificial turf. This is a topic
you and I and the team went through when we were doing all the marine accessory ordinance changes. And one of the things we talked about is that it's a bad idea to have sod or artificial turf all the way across the back because if you're going from your property to your boat, you either have to go across hot
artificial turf or you have to go across grass and even if it's dry grass, you're then taking grass onto your boat off your boat. You want to have a hardcape path to a dock. So, if we're going to give them the extra land, let's give them the extra land and let's let them have a hardcape that goes all the way to
the dock as we do at every other property. Or if we're not going to give them the extra land, that's fine, but let them still have the hardcape. But it's a bad idea to have artificial turf or grass all the way across the back of the property. It's it's unnecessary. Uh so, I would suggest the board considers
um not doing that part of it. Uh let's see. We've got a bunch of other things here. But could I a code requirement? Code requirement. They need a variance. It's a code requirement. We're for a Right. But that's for the excess land. If it's excess land, right?
If it's beyond the property line. She said it is. If it's not beyond the property line, we don't have that issue. It is beyond the property line. I understand that. But what I'm saying is for a regular property, someone puts in a seaw wall, a dock, and a boat lift.
They can have hardscape that gets them from their house to their boat lift. They can walk on pavers or concrete or travertine or whatever it's going to be. Right. Again, that's not the way the code reads though. Our current code doesn't allow that.
No, I could read it to you. Sure. I thought we had that in there. I thought this was one of the things we debated. Read it to you. So, it's section 30-66 C1A. says, "Walkways, patios, and other hard surfaces for walking, gathering,
and sitting shall be constructed of porous pvious base materials no closer than four feet to the property line provided the height of the area does not extend more than 4 in above the finished grade." And here's the part that applies in this case. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this was the new language that was adopted in
was 2021 or 2022. See, it was 2021. This is the new language from 2021. Now withstanding the foregoing when such walkways, patios or other hard services abut a waterway, canal or lake, such hard services may be constructed of non-porous non-pervious
base materials. Although porous b porous pvious based materials are encouraged and may encroach up to the property line or seaw wall abuing the w the water whichever is further landward so long as adequate on-site drainage as prepared by a registered design professional is
provided for such hard surfaces. Right? So for a regular property, my backyard, right, I can go I can have a path that goes from my house to my dock that goes all the way to the edge of my property line. Correct or no? That's it depends where your property line is,
right? So it's a seaw wall. It just depends on the configuration. But in this case, and I'll be happy. Assuming my seaw wall's right on the property line, so I can have a hardcape all the way, right? you have a seaw wall right on the property line then you know you're it's a seaw wall or property line whichever is for their landward if they're both on
the same then you're good right but this one comes out that's I understand that but that's what I was just saying it's if we're let's either give them the opportunity to not have the extra land and have the pavers the point is you always want to have a hardcape that goes all the way to where
you're getting to on a dock you don't want to have to walk over artificial turf or grass if you're getting What we're doing is we're I understand what the code says, but we're coming up with a bad final decision just from a uh you
know daily use perspective because we're getting tripped up on the code. Is there any other surface with your expertise that you would recommend that's not a hard surface? No. But what we should do is when you when we were all in the working group, we talked about that we should always have some sort of hardscape that someone
can get to a dock on and then we would have per permeable in um surface on either side. And we even talked about a 50% in the middle of the property and then the two 25% sides or the side setbacks or something or at least give them an 8 foot wide path something to get them all
the way to the top 21. I I think you know you don't look at every single nuance of each property, right? So that now we have a little bit of a we have a property with with a little bit of nuance here. So the code section it's a bit but Greg maybe we I mean it is the code.
So I think maybe if we want cuz it seems weird to me too that you're walking up to your boat and all of a sudden you can't finish that heartscape. It's a foolish result. But so why don't we suggest to the commission that that be amended? Can we are we allowed to do that?
Well and I'll let Len chime in on that. But by the time that gets right, you can recommend it, but that's months and months and months, right? But we could for the future for going forward so that it makes more sense. You could recommend that that be changed going forward. It's not going to impact this application unless they want to
wait months. He doesn't seem to care. That's what I'm or maybe you do. He doesn't care. Okay. For purposes. Go ahead. So he doesn't care. So for purposes of this because the code is what the code
is I think we have to do what the code says and if the if the applicant wanted to try and get a variance he could but I don't think he wants to. So maybe we should focus on trying to go forward and make this a a revision that makes it
better for the future. If I can add and maybe Mr. Rubin could chime in. I don't know that they they can get a variance because when you look at the variance criteria, it's for a dimensional requirement. Okay. So, they don't care anyway. So, it was just the right on that I believe. Yeah. I haven't looked at in
a while, but it's just dimensional just with or without your conditions. Correct. Um, again, this condition, it is based on a requirement. Now, typically I wouldn't put a condition that's a regulation of the code, but given they have to go to permit, we wanted to be sure. Again, as I said earlier, it's
more of a proactive step on staff's part to let them know. But yeah, it's a code regulation and we typically wouldn't provide a condition of approval on a code regulation, but we just wanted to be sure everyone is aware uh once you go to building permit that, you know, they don't they can't say, well, the the planning board approved this, but we
have this additional regulation, which would typically be taken care of during zoning review of the permit. So, okay, understood. Okay, great. Thanks, I've got a few other questions. Um the dolphin piling is that coming out that's getting pulled. Okay, great.
You'll have to sir. Yeah, you're going to have to come up to the mic, state your name if you're going to testify. How you doing? Jeff. Jeff what? Um Jeff Eden. Okay. I represent Mr. Male Vessel and Helena. Okay.
Uh we've been trying to get this permit for this uh with Army Corps of Engineer. It took three and a half years. We want to give them their backyard back. Uh the reason why the dock was destroyed, there was a boat that ran into it and that and then we tried to repair it,
got a permit. Permit got lapsed from the contractor that they hired wasn't showing up. So the permit expired, but we had to do a new permit, new dock, which B&M we hired what, three and a half, four years ago. It was a while ago.
So we've been trying to get with Army Corps of Engineers. They finally got approval. Now we're here sending it to the city. We just want this backyard back. That's it. Okay. So, whatever we have to do to get it to pass, we just need it done. Understood. Okay. So, what
a few more questions. Yeah. Okay. Um the seaw wall that's going in the new seaw wall, the north side, does that match the existing seaw wall of the adjacent property? We're moving out a few feet beyond the property line. It looked to me like it basically matches
distance into the water from the neigh neighboring north property. I believe it matching properties on both sides. Both sides. Okay, great. Uh, next question. I know you're doing elevator lift 33K. Uh, if you look at
the property, it's it's a pretty beachy property, right? Is there a dredge permit that's planned? Are you going to do some dredging as well so you can get that lift into the water? I know. I I didn't do the permitting on this one. The guy that did is out of town. Is that Bill? That's Bill. So, I got volunteered for this.
Okay. Um I don't know if the the D and the Army Corps include drudging or not. I didn't see it in there and I didn't see drudge plans. Yeah, I didn't see it in the packet. Um but obviously that that lift's got about three feet. Uh
the beefy lift. Yeah, exactly. So, you need to get be able to get that probably 5t into the water in order to get a boat on and off of it. And you have beach outside of that rip wrap. So, there's probably going to be something like that needed. They would have to just go back to the DP and Army Corp to get the dredge permit.
Yep. If I can just add to it, um on the uh Army Corp permit on page 196 of your packets, they talk about um the filling of 52.5 square feet of the tidal wetlands. Um, I don't know if that that's the between the cap and the
Oh, okay. I'm sure if that would dredging, but So, is that something that you would want to add as a condition or that they get the dredge permit? Okay. I I don't think we necessarily have to add it because I haven't been out to the property. There could be, you know, the
beach could be wider in both sides and they're putting the lift in the center. So, I don't want to force them to do something that they may end up not needing. I'm just highlighting it because it's something they may have to think about doing. I don't know what the rule is on that, but if they're going to be dredging and they're doing fill, if they're allowed to use that fill for the
front the dredging fill to go behind the prop, you're not allowed to do that then. Okay. So, doesn't Well, but got it. Uh, that's the end of my questions. Okay. So, um I think where we are, unless
anybody has any further questions or discussions, is that they've complied, but there's a couple conditions. One is they need their building permit. One is that they need to not put hardscape in
that two feet. And is there any other conditions that you raised? Just on page uh 148 of your packet, the two are listed. 48 of my packet. The commission for the uh Yeah, you'll have to go before the commission for the but
for the right the commission for on the code between the property line and the cap where we can't do hardcape. It said something about there as long as we had drainage. Does that mean we could do hardscape if we put drains in there? I mean it does it does say hardcape only
to the property line or the seaw wall whichever is further land work. doesn't talk anything about I thought it did when you wrote that because it mentioned drainage. Yeah, that was up to the property line and that's what I was arguing for. It makes sense to have hardcape so you can actually get to your documents.
Okay. So, um as Ingred points out, the the two conditions if we were to approve this that would come with it are on page 148 of our packets. So, do I have any motions on this?
I move that we approve this application subject to the com conditions outlined by Ingred Allen. Okay. On page 148. On page 148. Okay. Um Okay. Do we have a second?
Okay. Second. Would you take the role, please? Member David? Yes. Member Pal? Yes. Member Bobby? Yes. Member Axelrod. Yes. Vice Chairperson Rosen. Yes. Chairperson Mendelson. Yes. Thank you. Motion carries.
Okay. So, my question is if we want to um start a process to uh make that code section clearer and more workable.
Um how would we start doing that? I think you would do if that's what the board wants, you'd recommend someone would do a motion to recommend to the town commission that they consider amending that provision to allow Heartscape even if it's past the property line. I was going to say on page 126 of your
packets, I had the ordinance flowchart. I added it in there for the comprehensive plan um amendments so you could see uh right the ordinance initiation. It could be an advisory board initiation, right? and then right it would go to the commission as an
introduction. So that's the the flow of how an amendment to the ordinance would go. Okay. Greg, would you like to make the motion? Um yeah, I would be thrilled to uh I make a motion. Ingred, I need to say that I'm going to sponsor it or someone's going to sponsor it. We have
have a sponsor. Correct. Yeah, I think that's something possibly the commission would uh discuss. Um, I guess you can make your motion that you would like to see it. That's up to that, but can decide. No, that I'm happy for you to do it. Okay. Uh, I make a motion that we
propose to the commission to change the ordinance to allow for hardscape even past the property line from a home to a dock. And I also make a motion to request to be the uh person sponsoring that change.
And did I think you need to put the thing you want to change. What's the reference of the code section, Ingred? Yeah, it's um section 30-66 C as in Charlie 1A. Okay. Can you put section 30-66
C as in Charlie 1A? Right. Okay. That's what we're proposing to amend. Okay. Do I have a second for that? Second. On uh could you read the role, please? Member Bobby. Yes. Member David.
Yes. Member Pal. Yes. Member Axelrod. Yes. Me. Vice Chairperson Rosen. Yes. Chairperson Mendelson. Yes. Thank you. Okay. So, um I was supposed to close the
public hearing, but I didn't. So, I am. And, um okay, we have announcements now. August 21st at 1:30, there's a town commission meeting. September 9th at 1:00, there's a special magistrate
hearing. And September 11th at 9:30, the next planning board meeting. um I will not be here and Eve will be taking over. So anyway, um I adjourn the meeting at 10:29.
Be mindful.