We are calling uh welcome to the planning board meeting of Thursday, June 11th, 2006. Can I ask everybody to please silence your phones? Echo. Uh,
I'll cover this. Let's start with roll call. >> Member Brown >> here. >> Member Bobby >> present. >> Member Pal, >> member David, >> vice chair versus David, sorry. Member Mendelson >> present.
>> Chair Rosen >> here. >> And member Axelrod is not present. Thank you. >> It's okay. >> Is he okay? With that, uh, let's all rise for 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 um to
accept the agenda as presented today? >> I move that we accept the agenda as presented. >> All in favor? I. >> Any opposed? >> All right. For those giving testimony,
please uh stand and raise your hands to be sworn in and and provide testimony for the application you are affiliated with. Mr. Hart, please swear in those giving testimony. >> 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. the minutes from last month's meeting. Are there any corrections to the minutes for the May 14th, 2026 meeting?
If not, uh may I have a motion to approve the minutes? >> I move we approve the minutes. >> Second, all in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? Let's move on. New business. The first
item is development order application number EZ26-6- SPX. This is an application by Eileen Gonzalez Reezy Permits LLC requesting a special exception to install a 24,000
pound capacity boatlet for the property located at 4304 Intra Coastal Drive. Does any board member have any exarty communications to disclose?
Hearing now? None. I now open the public hearing and will the town planner, Ms. Allen, please present the application. >> All right. Good morning. Uh, Ingred Allen, town planner. Uh, as usual, we'll go ahead and start with the, uh, aerials
for the subject property. This starts on page 12 of your packets. Uh so here we have uh the property at uh 434 Inter Coastal Drive and here you have the rear
of the CX lift uh and um as indicated by chair this is a special exception request install 24,000 capacity elevator build
on the capacity. >> Um I do provide on the bottom of page of your pack that two the planning board approved a special section to solve 4,000 capacity elevator. Uh so not quite sure what what
happened there. I will say that the 4,000 capacity the footprint was 85. When you look up the survey for this property for these plans 11 by 17 the existing it's just
um again property owner fac authorization from not required I provided the permit number um on page nitt submitted to FTP and sub to the town that everything matches up this correspondence in your package starting
on page 14 to the applicant uh reached out via email to let them know hey are both feet you're good with that. They corresponded that that's fine. So, let's go ahead and take a look
by 17. Here you have the survey. Here's that existing uh lift right there. And here you have you have the proposed conditions. So, you can the applicant providing here 25
foot setback this property zone residence RS according to the code and you have to have 25 set unless your lot width is 50 to 17 then it's 15%
on sheet number you can see that he lift from They're competition. Oops. Oh, sorry. Went too far ahead.
Wait a second. I'm going Oh. Sorry, something happened with this. Um, go back. Um, yeah, there we go. Yeah, I wanted to just mention this note
right here. Yeah, the applicant did not provide uh, you know, did the actual vote. I always stage um we do have uh the authorized agent here and I'm happy to address questions.
>> So at this point does any board member have a question for Miss Allen? Not hearing anything. Does the applicant or any representative of the applicant's
uh proposal have a statement to make? Okay. Are there any questions from the board or the applicant? Not hearing any. Are there any members
of the public who would like to comment on this application? Ma'am, hold on a minute. You have to stand up and come over to the microphone. >> Jackie, was she here to be sworn in?
>> Yeah, you had to be sworn in for >> Hold on a minute. We have to swear you in. >> Why not? >> So, raise your right hand. By the authority vested me is a notary of the state of Florida. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you are about to give is the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Thank you. >> So, we ask that you provide your name and address and advise that you have three minutes. Sure. >> So, >> my name is Rose Amataro. I've been living in this condominium, which is 4324
South Ocean Boulevard since 1980 when I bought it. So you could imagine how long this has been. I've been part of the community of course, but now I retired. So I'm going to be spending more time on
concentration of my property because what's happening is that the expenses are way too high for me as a 80year-old to keep up with. So I am going to be doing what they've done and that is so
the question is pertaining to this situation because I only have three minutes. Uh is this pertaining to all the houses there? Mine is only two houses away from that 4324 South Ocean.
Okay. So eventually when we do sell the the part that's on the water, is that going to apply? Because that was a triplex and it was also an association. Now it's going to be two. Correct. Am I understanding this correct?
>> Yeah, >> I think that's a different property. >> No, this is the property that's going up on the corner. >> That's not this one. >> It's the next one. We're at a different >> We're on a different You're you're asking questions about the next
>> the next one that's coming up. >> 4304. >> Okay. >> I'm going to look at this property, but the property that I was talking about, and it doesn't necessarily pertain to that particular, but right,
>> it is the same problem. It's a triplex now. It's a duplex. It's still being built. What happens to the waterway? Do they separate it in half? Can I do the same thing with mine? So, I have already
put a a u a call into a lawyer that does associations because I think this is an association. But no, >> this one is a how >> this is a home. >> Single family. >> This is a single family home. I think the one you're referring to is the next item on the agenda.
>> The next one. the one that's at the uh that an investor bought. >> So, I'm going to ask that you defer your comments and actually you'll get another three minutes. So, let us >> Thank you. >> All right. >> I appreciate it. My first meeting here,
so we welcome you. >> Just a starter. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> By the way, I met Natasha. >> Excellent. >> Wonderful. >> Do we have any questions from the board at this point? >> Okay. Can I sit? Yes. >> Yes, ma'am.
If the answer is no, the public hearing is now closed. And uh can we call the role, please? >> Need a motion. >> Make a motion. >> Madam chair, >> I move we approve development order
application number PZ-26-6- SPEX. >> Second. All in favor? >> I do. We have to go person by person. Sorry. >> Yeah, we just call the role on development applications. >> Individual. >> Uh, Vice Chair David,
>> yes. >> Member Mendelson, >> yes. >> Member Brown, >> yes. >> Member Bobby, >> yes. >> Member Pal, >> yes. >> Chairperson Rosen, >> yes. >> Motion carries. Thank you. >> Okay, moving on to the next item. It's your turn. [laughter]
Development order number PZ26-5- SPSS. This is an application by Tully Papus Randle Stuff Architects requesting site plan approval for a new twostory 5,636q
ft single family residence with a pool and spa for the property located at 431 Tranquility Drive. Do any board member have any exparte communications to disclose?
If not, I now open the public hearing. Town planner Allen, please present the application. Right. Um good uh good morning once again. We'll go ahead and start off with the aerials for this property. These are provided in your packet. Uh here we have
this is a corner lot. Um Um, here you have the front of the property. This is along Tranquility Drive. And here you have the side north lot. This is uh along Belo. And just to recap, this is a request for a site plan
approval to construct a new twostory 5,636 foot single family residence. This is with a pool and spa. Uh the the uh project includes six bedrooms and six baths as as well as two car garages. And um according to the property appraiser,
this existing home was built in uh 1982. So we'll go ahead and uh take a look at the 11 by17 plans. Uh so here you have the site plan. Um I know the details a little bit hard to see on the screen, but here you have the uh pool and spa. Obviously, this is the
actual residence here. Um, on the floor plan, you're able to see a little bit more of the detail. Here on the north side, you have the twocar garage. Here's a onecar garage. There's also a bedroom here, the kitchen. Uh, this is the second floor. I've gone ahead and put a red circle over the
additional five bedrooms here. Uh, this is a rendering. Uh, the front rendering is here on the top. So, this is how the home will look aesthetically. And this is how the rear of the home will look. And here you have the elevation. So here
you have the uh front elevation followed by the side elevation, the south side. This is the rear elevation on top and then the south north uh side elevation on the north on the bottom. This is the tree disposition plan. Um as
you can see there's a little table there on the top left. I put a little red uh bracket around it. Um, you could see that they're removing 11 bombs. Okay, none of these are designated specimen. And then when you go to their landscape plan, which is right here, uh, you go to
the next page, they have their planting schedule, and they've gone ahead and indicated that they're going to add nine new trees and 16 ponds. Now, let's continue on. We have irrigation plan. This is the irrigation
plan and we have a landscape lighting plan as well. That's it. Um, now I did talk a little bit about on page 58 of your packets about this side corner. Actually, let me back up and go
to the site. Oops. Just show you that area. So, right here is that um side corner yard. Um and when you you're on a corner, obviously you have to comply. And when you look at the code, it says
that the side corner yard has to match the setback of the front. So, the front setback is 25 ft. So, you have 25 ft right here as well. Um that's pretty much it for this uh particular request. We do have the applicants authorized agent here, Tali
Papus, and I'll be glad to address any questions as well. >> Okay. Does any board member have a question for Miss Allen? >> Is the existing home 25 ft set back on the side? >> Um, I'd have to check on the uh survey.
Let me >> No, there's plenty of homes in the in the town that may be, you know, non-conforming, but I have to check the survey. There's the property across the street that the this lady over here was referencing, the triplex that went to a
duplex, they got some sort of a variance because they were on the road. So, their setback was reduced. So, I just didn't I didn't I don't know what the difference is between that and the house directly across from it. >> They got a variance. Um they they're
excluded that there we have a code provision about the sideyard setback. when you read it, there's an exception. And I believe that property was an exception to it. >> Yeah. Because somehow that setback went actually covered the road also went into the road.
>> I'll have to look back at that. But if I remember correctly, actually, if you look at the definition of sideyard, you see how it says >> or some sort of setback difference. These are the exceptions and that property was one of the exceptions. So, they didn't have to have sideyard corner
setback. Now looking at the uh survey that's in your 11 by7 um let's see I can >> it is 25 feet. >> It is 25 ft. Thank you. >> 2510 2513. >> Well I for one being a neighbor I'm happy to get this ratinfested home uh
built. >> Okay. Does any other board member have any questions for Miss Allen? That being said, if the applicant would like to make a presentation, now is your chance.
Hearing none, uh, if there are any members of the public who would like to comment on this application, please come to the podium, provide your name and address, and you have three minutes to speak on this
application only. It's you. No, >> you know, >> you have to come up, >> right? >> Yes, ma'am. >> You still have to give your name and address again, though. >> Okay. Thank you. I got this letter
from from the board here to come in today. But I was thinking of the wrong property. I didn't know that you were going to be talking about all the other properties. This property is the one that I'm interested in. Correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, the the question is still the
same. Does this apply to all the uh houses that are on that block? >> In other words, >> apply >> where I live. It's two houses away from this one. So, I have waterway too, right?
>> And so, the dock is not that big. It's only 60 feet. But they throw they bought the whole thing. Throw down they threw them down the the three apartments that were there. There was an association for three apartments there. So is it allowed
to go down on the association to two? Because these are it's allowed. >> Can you speak up so we can get it into the record? Roger. It was mandated because of the zoning that they were only allowed to put two units on that location rather than three. So the three
was grandfathered in, but once they tore it down, they could only put two. >> That's so important to me what you just told me because I have to make my own decisions now at this point whether to sell the whole building together or two
apartments. >> Do you own the whole building? >> Yes, I did. I gave two to my kids. Two. So I own the other two. I own the association. I can make changes to the association. So what you said about grandpa,
>> I don't know if your property is the same as the other property, but that property size, the square footage of the footprint. >> They had they can only put up two units according to the current code. >> We all we always had four units. >> Yeah. But you may you may only be able
to three or two. You don't know. >> Yeah. I think you should not. You need to go to Ingrid and look at your property >> and see whether if you sold it and ripped it down, the new person could only have two or could still have three
or four. But she's the one that could tell you, not in this meeting, >> this is this is a density issue. So, I meet with residents all the time that are interested in possibly selling the property to see what you can get. So, by all means, um, you can meet with me and call the building department and we can
set up a >> Sure. >> Much appreciated. >> Thank you. Are there any other members of the public that have a a comment? >> With that, the public hearing is now closed.
Okay. Um, I refer this item motion. >> I thought to Mr. Reus. >> Motion. >> Okay. No. Yeah. >> Motion to recommend
>> approval of this plan. >> So move. >> Yeah. It's it's a final approval for this item. I think I think you're looking at the other one or or they missed something. But yeah, this just an approval. >> Okay. Second. >> A second.
>> Mr. Hart, will you take the vote? >> Vice Chairperson David. Yes. >> Member Pal. >> Yes. >> Member Brown. >> Yes. >> Member Bobby. >> Yes. >> Uh, member Mendelson. >> Yes. >> Chair President Rosen. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Motion carries.
>> All right. With that, we are moving on to item eight, unfinished business. We're going to try and go in order on this, gentlemen, if we can. The first item is the proposed ordinance regard
regarding the encroachment of a hard surface beyond the property line in order uh to provide access to a seaw wall dock or a budding intra coastal waterway. >> Um madam chair, you uh do you want to
follow the agenda? The agenda we're going to do the dune agenda. >> Oh then the dune protection is first. We're still on 7C. Yeah, >> you got me. >> Sorry. >> You're good. >> All right.
>> I'm sorry. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. What was in the other one? >> All right. We have proposed Yeah. We're up to the proposed ordinance for coastal dune protection amendments to section 6-127
chapter 6. section 3083 of chapter 30, code of ordinance and requests for the planning board to make a recommendation to uh the town commission. Um building official Mr. Reis,
it's all yours. Okay, board uh Jeff Ramos, building official, town of Highland Beach. And this is something that came up um just give you a little history. I'm
going to go over it. I have a presentation for you, but I'll just give you a little uh item here. What happened was we found something in the code of ordinances that
prohibits some lots from being buildable whatsoever. And unfortunately, this was hidden in a section that was specifically for seaw walls. So if someone was building something brand new
on the ocean but not doing a seaw wall cuz FDP wouldn't approve it or uh we had no reason to look there. So we found this and then found out that it was a primary section that applied regardless. We
conferred with town council to make sure uh and I I'll go over the rest of that with you right now. So, what we're trying to do is we're trying to fix this uh hopefully expedite this so that we could make these home uh these lots now
buildable to where they're technically right now they are not buildable because again you'll see let me get this up and running here with the presentation. Not see my screen is completely dark
here. I don't know what I'm looking at. Did you see the button? You kind of can't see. behind that. >> Oh, there it is. There it is. Okay, there it is. Now it pops up.
>> Okay. Um, so the town commission has directed staff and town council to develop an uh an ordinance that reconciles two conflicting sections of our uh town
code. One of them is in the structural component under building and the other one was in zoning uh for development. So, we found a conflict because the more restrictive one supersedes the
less restrictive one. And that's what we're trying to fix here. And what we're asking you to do is kind of review what was proposed, uh, evaluate it, make sure it's good with applicable
land use regulations, and then issue a formal recommendation to to the commission. Okay. Right now, we have a dune system and that's the for storm
surge. That's the town's primary defense that's subject to both ordinance sections. So this and FD because and I'm going to talk about explain what the coal construction control line is in a se in a second.
What's happening is homes are being allowed to be built in to the dune and that's no longer going to be allowed on many properties. Be because of this
or this town code that was discovered. And you have to literally be in 120 ft from the eastward side of that vegetation line before you can even go below 18 ft above sea level, which makes many
of these properties unbuildable. And again, I'm going to show you that because now we actually have some properties where the coastal construction control line has been moved so far to the west that even part of the right of way is east of the coastal construction control line, creating the
problem. When they do this, they will recently try to go below base flood elevation. And when they do that, they have to put in breakaway walls or they're supposed to put in breakaway walls. And what
happens with the breakaway walls is it just you've already compromised the dune and now the breakaway wall does its job so that the water can flow directly out onto A1A. So now storm surge will push out onto A1A. So, we're trying to balance
making these homes buildable and these lots buildable. So, right now under the building section in chapter six, there's an absolute prohibition, no construction east of the coastal construction control line. And
it says in no event, there's no variance, there's no exception. So for all of these properties that are mostly or all or even in some cases partially east of the coastal construction control line, you can't do anything. There's a 120 foot ocean ridge protection zone
where no excavation is allowed below 18 ft NAV without a seaw wall first. And this section, this building section overrides any other chapter in the town code. And it specifically says that. And this is the section that the
building department must apply during the building permit stage and it blocks what FD has approved and we're trying to remove that restriction. Now chapter 30 in zoning it it has the same beginning. It'll say protection of
Ocean Ridge and it's framed as a zoning level removal prohibition. It's more about what you can take out of the dune, but there's no absolute CCCL prohibition. It just refers to FD, which is consistent with the FD coastal
construction requirements. So, this is part of the, you know, part of the issue. Now, this is located in a zoning chapter where the applicants and design professionals normally look for development standards. So they see this
and they will design to it not knowing that the other section actually exists like we didn't know that the other section exists and it already has language that in that in the planning and zoning that defers
this to D and that would basically solve the problem. Okay. When you look at this, if you can see this photo here, the orange line that's very far to the west is actually the coastal construction control line. So,
all of these properties that you see here, including part of the rightway, is actually east of the coastal construction control line. And therefore, it would make every single one of these lots completely unbuildable,
>> which which is our problem. Is that the coastal construction line? >> Right. So, I'm going to go over that. What happened is in 1979 they came out with the original coastal construction control line and the town had this town
code in place and it made sense. What happened was in 1997 FD moved the coastal construction control line very far to the west. And when they moved it to the west, they never updated that portion of the
town code. And it's been sitting dormant like that since, you know, 1997. So that's what created the problem where we have unbuildable lots. So right now if we don't amend the code
um people will apply they'll have FD approval because it's east of the coastal construction control line. Um we'll look at it for engineering setback and do an assessment. They'll have a valid coastal construction control line
permit issued by D. They'll send it to the to the town and then under the unmened code, we have to reject it even though they have D approval. We want to fix that. Under the proposed one, there's going to be a valid if they have a valid permit
and it conforms with the D. D is going to issue the permit. They're going to give it to us and then we're going to look at it to make sure that it still applies with zoning setbacks and other requirements that we have including the building and planning. Okay? And that's
what we're what we're trying to do here. So under this proposed framework, FD approval is govern is like the governing standard while preserving the town's role as a compliance verifier, right, on planning, zoning.
And the problem we're having here is FD field review is conducted by individual reviewers who experience is variable and and we've seen that where we've had issues where we called FT and say, are you sure you meant to approve this? And then it turns into a conversation.
People get moved around into departments. And we have documented instances where material was removed from the ocean ridge during construction that in my opinion was questionable. They said, "Oh, we have
contaminated soil." So I said, "Oh, what did you find? Diesel fuel. What was in the contaminated soil?" PCBs. And he says, "Oh, no. there was some vegetation and some tree roots, >> you know. So then that was allowed. So triacel after triacle after triacle of
dump trucks removed earth from the ocean ridge. Um anyway, so what we do is we're going to confirm the conditions that FD we're going to kind of question it, make sure that it's good. Um FD does have very
specific requirements that are just standard cut and paste things that are in there. And then we still have to follow the Florida building code. We still have to follow the FEMA rules because we participate in a national flood insurance program. There are still
well over 2,000 flood insurance premiums uh flood insurance policies in place in the town of Highland Beach. And we still have to look at everything else. So sometimes what FD approves may not meet all of our requirements such as
planning and zoning and other things under the building code and under FEMA. Okay? And we want to fix this problem because of basically and I'm not going to take Len's component here, but legal exposure to the town. Everyone always hears Bert
Harris, you know, the town is making things more restrictive. We want to take that away. Um, so what we're going to do is we're going to basically consolidate all of these Ocean Ridge standards into chapter 30, which is what you see in the the proposed
ordinance, which is the pros the the proposed co code amendment via ordinance. Um the CCCL permit from FT is still the operative standard and in the past we required a seaw wall if they wanted to
go and exceed some of the requirements that we had that made these lots unbuildable. And one of the reasons why we have a problem is unless you have an existing structure that is in imminent danger of failure, FD will not allow you to build a seaw
wall on the ocean. And since I've been here, I've only had one installed and that was in front of six units uh because they were getting erosion and they were going to lose their pools and their back patios and so on and so forth. So that was allowed to go in. I've had conversations
with the man in charge of FDP who oversees the the reviewers question him. They are changing their what they call their armoring standards for how they're allowed, but they're not changing anything to allow people to basically put a a seaw wall in, which
would have kind of fixed these problems. And in speaking with one of the contractors who does build a lot in town, he said, "Boy, if they were allowed to do that," he goes, "Their homeowners would love that. Unfortunately, FD won't allow it unless,
again, it's an existing structure." So, a little bit of loss of of common sense. >> Uh, I have to I do have to actually make a bit of a change here because under here it says the minimum lowest floor at base flood elevation. It
replaces the 18 foot that's mandated by that section and we're reducing it all the way down to base flood elevation which is 12 or 13 feet, sometimes 11 to 13 feet. But the Florida building codes since the last two completed homes, the
last three completed homes on the ocean, they were able to put their uh garages at base flood elevation. Right now, since 2023, you're not allowed to go below design flood elevation, which is your base flood elevation plus one foot of
what we call freeboard. All right. So I am incorrect and I have to actually ask Len based on your conversation here uh to amend the word base flood elevation and change it to design flood elevation to be consistent with the minimum
standards under the Florida building code. So under the current town code we have problems with the 120 foot ocean ridge protection zone which makes these lots unbuildable. uh the minimum floor elevation of 18 feet. Again, it's great
for the dune protection, but it's not good for development. Uh and there's an absolute prohibition of being east of the coastal construction control line. And if you want to get around some of those, you have to put the seaw wall in, which you're not allowed to do. And we
mandate that you put the seaw wall in before I can even issue you a permit. So, it would really slow things down. This is again one of the reasons why we have to fix this. And there's absolutely no administrative relief on this. So, what we're looking to do is let the FD FD
um their CCCL permit govern the construction, set the minimum floor elevation to designed flood elevation, and I'm going to explain why because kind of don't have a choice. Um and then take that CCCL
prohibition that we have and again defer back to FD and the only time that we would require a seaw wall would be is we wouldn't it would be only if D required a seaw wall. Maybe they changed their rules in the future. So if FD requires a seaw wall
then of course we would we're going to reconcile chapter 6 and 30 and the FD will be basically be the relief mechanism to make this uh happy. Now this proposed code amendment is
consistent with SB 180. If you're familiar with Senate Bill 180, we have a kind of a moratorum until I think it's August of 2027 where we cannot change any ordinances to make them more restrictive. In every single instance here, we're removing the 120 foot rule,
making that less restrictive. We're removing the 18 ft rule, replacing that with DFE, design flood elevation. That again is a reduction because the DFE is lower. Um the absolute construction east is being removed. That's less
restrictive. And us having a mandatory seaw wall is being removed because FD won't allow it. So that also is more restrictive. So we're basically pulling out all the stops and that's it. So there's really no direct fiscal impact for the town itself
on this. It was prepared by the town council. I did check uh with some engineers on a on a few other items to make sure that everything was looking I guess anybody use the word copatic anymore
>> and that's it. So we're just recommending adoption of the proposed uh code amendment. And just so you know, I also checked with Ingred on this because this is consistent with our comprehensive plan uh under future land land use objectives, infrastructure
element drainage, and coastal conservation elements for preserving dunes. So, we're reducing restrictions, making lots buildable that previously were not buildable and still have things
in place along with FD to allow things uh to move forward. Uh, and I think that's it on that. Uh, but does anyone have any questions about this so far? I'm sure there's going to
be a million. >> Yeah. I first want to ask Greg about his memo because he said he has to leave in 3 minutes. >> No, no, no. I'm here till 10. >> Oh, you're till 10:50. Okay. Then I won't ask. But I I would like to know if this presentation changed anything in your memo.
>> Um so I'll ask him a question on that. >> Okay. Um garages. Um you didn't have garages in your language and that's what people are putting below grade. Are you making anything more restrictive with the now proposed changes you're planning on
making for garages? The garages have to be much higher now at base flood elevation than they normally did. >> No, we're we're taking it to where they can't build below 18 ft NAVD with 120 ft and we're allowing them to put the garage all the way down to design flood
elevation. So, like for example, the 4513, the two units that were built at the south, they were built prior to 2023 when there was a change that went from base flood elevation to design flood elevation and they were both put in at base flood elevation at to the garage.
So, they were good. They were good to go. The one up on the north end, the very large one, they actually complied because they have such a large lot. They were able to comply with every component with the 120 foot rule and everything else. >> Yeah. >> Right. The bigger problem starts to happen as we start going south in the
town of Highland Beach. You can still put your garages in into the dune. No one's saying houses have to be up on stilts. What we're saying is you cannot go any lower than design flood elevation. And I need to clarify a point here.
One of the reasons why I want to have design flood elevation or the main reason that I want to have design flood elevation in this section in chapter 30 because this is where the designers, the architects and engineers go before they
design something for someone. They see what the rules and regulations are. They see what the setbacks are and they make that design. Right now, under FEMA's rules, the National Flood Insurance Program, and the Florida Building Code, you cannot build that
garage below design flood elevation into the dune at all. and even some other rules uh with the coastal construction control line through FD because you cannot build
below base flood elevation or design flood elevation because when you do now since 2023 under the Florida building code, >> you have to create a breakaway wall and that breakaway wall has to by code by law
break away when waves hit it at 20 pounds per square foot. When you put them >> together >> into grade and you have all of that what's called unbalanced backfill against them, that will put anywhere from 80 to 110 pounds per square foot
against that. So now you're actually creating a a retaining wall, right? So you're actually creating a retaining wall which cannot be a breakaway wall. So, you can't do both, you know, and and when I
spoke with one of the coastal engineers who helped literally build the FEMA maps and is one of the most respected uh engineers, you know, and I was trying to see if there was a way around some of this. He said, you know, the maximum
pressure for this wall to break away is 20 PSI. He goes, "Even with six feet of back fill, you're already up to 80 pounds per or pounds per square foot, not PSI. You're already up to 80." He goes, "Jeff, 80 is more than 20." He
goes, "Like this is not even an issue." >> So whether or not you elect to put the design flat elevation and recommend to put that in the ordinance change for Okay. Um, it it's we're still we still can't
approve it anyway. we we just we just can't approve anything that goes below design flood elevation uh anymore because that forces them to put in a breakaway wall and you can't it's it's conflicting. You can't have a breakaway wall, you know, that's
also a retaining wall and structural. So, the two conflict and it's just it's an impossibility. >> There are a lot of breakaway walls in homes in Highland Beach. Why haven't they all broken away then based on what you just said? >> Because they're not really breakaway
walls because things were it I'll be honest with it was kind of the wild west here. >> Really? >> It used to be the wild up until about seven or eight years ago when when Marshall got here. It was like the wild wild west and they're not breaking away because they're not breakaway walls
>> and they're Yeah. They're designed to actually break into components. The other component is they're using >> they have used CMU. All right. uh concrete makes concrete blocks. >> Yeah. >> They're not allowed to be grouted. And here's the other thing. When you're in a wind zone that is above 150 miles an
hour, you're not allowed to use CMU walls for breakaway walls. >> We're in 170 mph wind zone for single family homes on the ocean. So, they can't even use them. So, if we just keep them to at building at design flood
elevation for the garage, which shouldn't be an issue. I went down. I found homes that were built 20 years ago with garages, you know, go up the driveway, boom, and they're they're currently above. They're at the design flood elevation now, and they were built 20 years ago, and this is on the south
end. Uh, so it can be done. It's a design issue. It's it's completely a design issue. There's ways to design your homes to make it work. If people are concerned about, well, my driveway is going to be too steep, you can put it at an angle. You can offset the garage back and then can lever out the home
over the top. So you don't use you don't lose any livable space. Okay. It's a design issue, but it's what's safer for the community because we can't allow them to build like that at all. >> So I'll answer I'll answer your question because I know you asked a question. So
the answer is no. Um this does not address it. So I talked to some engineers about this and that's where I got the this is a solution in search of a problem. There is no municipality in all of South Florida that does anything but the state
codes. There's no municipality that's having any problems with breakaway walls. >> And the state, do you mean FD? And >> yeah, >> the both the state and FDB. Okay. >> Because they both have a say in this. >> Okay. >> And we would be the only town now
raising this up where they can't have garages. [laughter] >> I'm a little Wait one second. Just I just need what need to ask you one thing and you too. If this ordinance was in effect since 1997
interfering with the other uh section 30 code what like what have we done for 30 40 years? I mean what so why would we do this now and not just go with the state
and the FD? It was neglected >> for all the years because it was never updated and there was terrible there wasn't they didn't have good enforcement and that's just the reality of it. There was a third party inspection agency that was doing we never had a full-time town
planner here. We never had a town. I remember all that you know and all these things >> and it was neglected. Even if you elect not, the reason why I want that in there is that the designers see it because what we don't want to have happen is that they look at the code, they look at chapter 30, they look
at everywhere else they have to to design something and then they come in for a building permit and we say you can't do that. And now our residents that we're trying to protect here have to pay to have this redesigned. That's why I want to put it there. I want to put it there basically for more transparency.
>> Okay. >> Because other towns just don't allow it, but they don't put it in their zoning code. >> Why wouldn't we just amend chapter 30 and say, "Please see this other thing when doing your thing and then they would know and it wouldn't have to be
redesigned twice and you wouldn't have to go through this whole thing." I don't >> This is what I'm trying to do. We're removing the the the overriding section six. Okay. Well, I don't know if Len could jump in on this one. >> I would leave. Okay. What I'm asking you
is, can you just leave it the way it is and amend section 30 to tell them to please make sure and look at section six so that they know all of our issues and that then it would just be the way it's
been for 30 years. Yes, >> we No, cuz section six really doesn't well section 6 is totally il doesn't comply with with existing state regulations because you can go, you know, east of the CCCL as long as you
get your D permit. I think what Jeff's trying to say is the design flood elevation, which is you're going to now, that's already in the flood plane regulations, but that's in a separate chapter. So it really has nothing to do with chapter 6. We kind of rectify the
chapter 6 issue. We sort of just took it out of there, put it in here. But he wants it in chapter 30 to know that you can't go go below design flood without then cross referencing the flood plane regulations, which everybody pretty much has the same one because FEMA mandated them,
>> right? >> And that's what I if I understand Jeff correctly, that's what you're trying to do. >> Yeah. I I'm trying to be as transparent so that there that [clears throat] homeowners aren't paying to have something redesigned because they get through planning and zoning and then
come to building and find out that under the flood plane, you you cannot build a breakaway wall below base flood elev uh below grade and have it function as a breakaway wall and have it function as a
retaining wall at the same time. It's it's the physics are impossible. So, >> so, so, so right. But the the issue is other towns and cities, they don't do what I'm asking to do, which is but they also don't allow the way people have
built here in the past years ago. And that's just so I understand if Len if we referred I'm sorry Jeff if we referred to the FEMA requirements
in this ordinance does that solve I think what what Greg is asking and what Jeff kind of wants to accomplish. I I think what we're hearing is sort of a a plain language
request. Um, so I don't object, Jeff, at all to what you're trying to do. So my question is, we're deleting the inappropriate part of of chapter 6.
>> Correct. >> Okay. We're referring to it in chapter 30, but Jeff is assuming, and I think correctly, that any designer would look at the FEMA regulations no matter what. So they would be subject to it. I think
what what we perhaps are leading towards is it's great for designers but it may not be for potential owners. So, do we set up sort of an orange light, if you will, in that statute
that says we have to defer or any owner, builder, designer also has to defer to relevant FEMA regulations because it's quite possible going forward, right, that FEMA
could change their rules. Is that am I missing something, Jeff? Any entity could change the rules at any time. Exactly. Right. The this particular code is also in the Florida building code. >> Okay. >> Right. And the Florida Building Code
refers to another standard called ASCE24. >> Okay. >> Okay. Um and then in there it's it's even more restrictive than the FEMA's rules on breakaway walls. Right. Okay. never intended. They don't have one
single uh reference. They don't have one single document in their uh technical bulletin number nine. They have nothing that shows any pictorial, any design or any discussion that shows breakaway walls below grade because it's an
impossibility. >> Okay. So, I think what I'm hearing, what I'm asking, and Len, you're probably the expert on this, is there a way to
reward this um to basically recognize the relevant other standards and then leave ourselves a loophole that says, "And in the event that any of these standards
change, So that it becomes um I I'll give you my an my analogy is it like the building code. So if you start to build something with the building code in 2026 and the building code changes in 2027, you're
grandfathered in. Correct? In other words, you don't have to amend what you're planning to do based on the new requirements in 27. I think what I'm asking is can we do something akin to that Len so that it's clear or at least
relatively clear in the beginning that when you start to build this is the rule these are the rules design level all the other requirements that are in the relevant statutes and then have sort of
the catchall subject to any future amendments or changes. Well, it it it's always subject to future amendments and changes, but I think I think what I if it would if the board would rather and I don't know how
Jeff feels about this. I mean, for lowest floor, we could just reference >> the lowest floor, you know, she'll be comply with all provisions of and we can reference the flood plane regulations and the Florida building code and just leave it at that without >> specifically saying design flood
elevation. Of course, it's sort of the same thing, but we can just cross reference those regulations if that would be better for the board. >> What I'm hearing is if we do that, it doesn't sound like we're out of line with anybody else. >> Yeah. I'll I'll just
>> Is that Greg? Am I Am I sort of getting it or not? >> I think we're getting Well, most of this comes around to the breakaway walls in the garages, right? So, 90% of what Jeff's talking about, you know, moving the control line, all that stuff. Like, totally agree. All that has to get changed. all makes sense. The issue
that's still not 100% fully clear to me on this is um Jeff has something against breakaway walls. I understand um no one else in the rest of South Florida does. And I'm talking engineers. I'm not talking homeowners and stuff like that.
So, my only point is we should not be forcing new homes to raise their garage levels to unnecessary levels because Jeff has a problem with breakaway walls and they're not a problem anywhere else with any other municipality. So, I just want to make sure that's
>> I'm going to let Jeff I don't think he's really saying that, but I do want to give him the chance >> of course to >> Yeah, maybe I'm misunderstanding. >> Okay, thank you. Um, these are the rules and regulations. It's not just my interpretation. It's
the interpretation in the Florida building code, the way it's written. It's in the FEMA regulations, in the FEMA technical bulletins, in the TBS that they have specifically on breakaway walls where they can be constructed, how they can be constructed, the different
methods that they can be constructed. Unfortunately, there's no way to construct them in the way that they're doing. So just because someone has done it in the past doesn't mean it was right. And we had enough of an issue with things not being properly enforced, which is creating these issues
that we're just trying to again what what I'm going to tell you is regardless of what's in the ordinance, when someone applies for a new permit, once they get the building review and the flood plane review, they will never ever get a permit issued if that basement, not
even, it's not technically not a basement, if that garage storage floor is below designed flood elevation because I can't legally do it. We can't just approve it because it's been customary in the past. So if So the
reason why I wanted to put design flood elevation because the design flood elevation always moves. As FEMA comes out with new firm maps, they change the base flood elevation. As the base flood elevation changes, it changes the design flood elevation. So it's a moving you
know it's always moving so that it's always being updated just like we did the same thing with the seaw wall heights we went to base flood elevation not design because seaw walls aren't part of the flood plane ordinance. So Jeff, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but
Len, I think where I'm suggesting is rather than have it specific to design level or using that language, are there codes that we could list ABC
under there that have to be part of the compliance which would meet your need? You don't have to put anything. >> Yeah, you do. >> Well, [laughter] the easiest thing to put is the actual design flood elevation so that now when
they're designing, they know what it has to be at. >> I get that. >> Yeah, >> I I get that. But >> I'm not the one spending the money to redesign it when it gets rejected. >> I I have a question. I'm sorry. >> I have another question, Len. >> Yeah. Yeah, we just delete this thing
that was added in 1979 that conflicts with our other code and everybody else's code. Just delete it and say that it's it was amended as recently as 2020, which is beyond me, but I >> but just get rid get rid of it. And then
if there's some clarification you want to do to the only one that's left that the designers and the homeowners have to look at, then we should put it in there because this this thing about um I saw your chart wh why we shouldn't why we
shouldn't just say that it's according to what FD says and we should go through our own I I I just don't see that. It's so convoluted. it it I I I think we I think we've let this issue sort of I think everything else is is pretty
straightforward. You know, we're just we're really deferring to FDP. We're taking out our prohibition about the CCCL. We're taking out the seaw wall requirement because that conflicts with FTP. It's I think it's just this one section. So when we talk about basement, we just say basement shall be permitted
subject to all applicable Florida building code requirements and flood plane regulations. I guess we could do the same thing for lowest floor, Jeff, if I don't know if you would have objection to that, but >> it it depends because the lowest livable floor absolutely has to be above
DFE, above the design flood. >> Understood. But that's but that's pursuant to the flood plane regulations. Correct. >> Correct. Correct. So, if we just cross reference them the same way we did for basement, wouldn't if we just say something like the lowest floor of all the buildings um and the final grade
whatever shall comply with all provisions of the you know the Florida building code and the flood plane regulations. >> Is it the same thing? I'm just I'm just trying to move forward. >> Why would we just get rid of the conflicting statute? >> Well, we did we we removed all that language from chapter 6 and we just want to
>> remove chapter six. Well, no. Now, we just we removed all the conflicting stuff from chapter six and we left the stuff that should be there about building. But I I guess the question that's my question, Jeff, is you know, would you be amendable to I know I know why you want the design
flood elevation there. I personally think it makes sense. Um but would it have the same net wouldn't it have the same net effect if we just cross reference the building code and the flood plane requirements? >> Yes. Yes. And then they just have to check with us before they make a decision to verify because the the
problem is is that there's still >> there's it comes down to there's one engineer >> who's the same one who submits things the same way. And I've spoken with the county. I've spoken with Delray Beach. I've spoken with Bokeh. I've spoken with multiple others. I've spoken with FEMA
on this. I spoke with our FEMA representative who helps us rewrite the ordinance and then get it approved by FEMA. and I spoke one of the the the top he doesn't work for FEMA but he's one of the top formerly used to FEMA engineers
about the situation and the reason again the only reason why I'm trying to do this is that if it's just design flat elevation which it's going to have to be anyway it's that it's right up front when they design so that they don't have to design because then they're going to think well I know that this guy will probably try
to do this and he'll send me he he'll design a a you a breakaway wall and it just it can't happen. >> But but [clears throat] to rewrite a whole thing for one guy who doesn't like to follow what he's supposed to follow. I mean look
>> then don't that's makes no sense to me. >> Len why can't we just do what every other town does? Every other town just says look at the state look at FEMA and it for them. Why can't we do that? Like we're this rewrite. We're doing all this extra garbly goop. >> And that's that's essentially what I was
saying. We but I think you know just to reference the lower floor whatever you know here we're just talking about the dune so it's very specific these are your dune protection >> and only in a flood zone and there are parts of the dune that aren't in the flood zone that's right it wouldn't apply >> in the VE zone if you're in an A zone an
AO zone you're in an X and X500 zone none of this applies this is solely for VE zones that require breakaway walls when you're below designed flood elevation but that's all this Wood breakway was was originally designed for houses on street
and on the and on the west coast. >> That's what this whole thing was for. And then at some point someone along, you know, said, "Hey, we can" and you had poor enforcement and you ended up getting it. Now people think it's normal and it's not >> right because it was designed so the water could flow through if you know that first story would just break away
and the stilts would hold the structure >> without affecting it. Right. >> I understand. With this in mind and subject to this discussion, Len, can we take another swipe at the statute? >> Can we can we take another swipe as this? I mean, I could I could revise it
sort of how I just sort of what we just took. >> We can just cross reference again if the board's not comfortable with design flood elevation being incorporated here. >> Let's get there, Jeff. We enumerate the various reasons. You still get there.
>> Well, yeah. I and I in Jeff's defense, I think Jeff was just trying to make it easier upfront so when people go to design according to the zoning code, they understand what the requirement is. It doesn't matter because they're still going to have to comply with the same requirements. So
>> it we can just cross reference the regulations if that's what the board's >> My point is I understand that Jeff is working, you know, to accommodate those that look at design and engineers. I think though if the lay person or future
buyer wants to look at it, it might help to have it a little differently. >> Perhaps >> in my opinion be more complicated because now they're going to have to be digging some >> and that may well be Jeff, but at the same point if it's enumerated
um you're not caught in the crosswinds of somebody that objects to your language. >> Yeah, >> that's perfectly fine. you're >> yeah don't want them to go >> okay even when you speak to me in plain English at least this would
>> would be there um Len I just think it may be the the a a different course to accommodate because I think Jeff's points are extraordinarily well taken and I think are important to comply with
and I think what we're trying to get to is language that makes it clear both to designers ers as well and engineers as well as to potential acquirers of property who are going to do this. Is that
>> so >> is that really what we're getting to? >> Yeah. I mean, it's working very well in every other town in South Florida. Okay. Right. To refer to just the state and I don't understand why we're doing anything different. Anything different we do or we add in is just making it more complicated and we keep getting
caught up in these little again. Jeff, it seems to me and and I personally agree with you that you don't want to have to deal with a homeowner coming in and saying, "I paid the architect to do this and now you're telling him he can't and now it's going
to cost me more because he has to." >> Exactly. >> Cuz it's not going to get approved below design flood elevation anyway. >> Why not just say that? >> That's what I'm trying to do. >> That's And I think >> That's all I'm trying to do. >> I think you're almost there, Len and and
Jeff. I just think the one addition and to your point Eileen, it has to be very clear that section six is has been um amended to delete its inconsistent requirement >> and that's already taken care of. I
think we're just down to whether you whether this board's recommendation is to reference the design flood elevation or not. >> So, it's I think that's really what we're down to. I mean, I think everything else everybody's fine with. It's just whether in this section we
reference design flood eleation or in this section we do the same thing as sort of we did for basement and say well you got to comply with flood plane you got to comply with the building code everyone does it's going to end up in the same net result because Jeff's telling you you can't go below design
flood elevation regardless so it's it's just how you want to present it so and and again it's just it's a recommendation of the commission >> the commission really wanted this fasttrack due to the legal implications that Jeff sort of referenced and I guess
we do have people waiting for permits to clarify this. Yeah. So my suggestion would be that if it's the board recommendation that okay you recommend approval and if the majority of the board wants that taken out and just referencing the standards then we'll present that to the commission. I mean
ultimately it's the commission's decision how they want to proceed. >> Right. I I just think that to if you have designers who can't once we take out the conflicting part of of section
six and it says you go to FEMA and FD and flood plane regulations, if they can't figure it out, then it's tough. You know, they come to you and you say no and it's and you go, "But it said the flood plane." And you know what that means? It's tough. Like it's just tough.
And if I may, the reality of it is, and this is I've been doing this for a really, really long time. Architects and engineers often don't want to be the bad guy. So, they will often
design what the customer wants and let the building department, let planning and zoning be the bad guy. >> This is what happens. And I'm just trying to stop. That's fine. it like it it's it doesn't matter, you know, and and I don't have anything against
breakaway walls whatsoever. So, I kind of take exception to your what I will call an accusation. I think it's inappropriate, uh, Greg, Bobby, but I don't have an issue. I think there's a place for breakaway walls. you can't
legally put them in in the way that they have historically in the past in some instances and certainly not in the future. So, we're just trying to stop that and be but that's fine. You it doesn't have to even be in there, but at one point they're going to get you know they're going to get stopped.
>> Okay. >> So, are there any more comments from the board? So now the question is is there a motion to approve this proposal either in its existing language
or subject to the modification to I'll call it elaborate on the separate uh provisions >> right for low >> make that recommendation to the commission I'll try a motion >> try [laughter] a mo because that's not
okay Um uh I uh make a motion to approve all of the um non-conlicting issues that we had with the exception of um anything related to um design flood
elevation. And in that situation, we're just going to reference FEMA and state. Before we go there, are there any comments from the public? Sorry. >> Thank you. Has he been sworn in, Jack? >> He does. It doesn't need to be for that. This is a ordinance. It's not an
application. >> My name is Joe Dearo. I own a company, a building company um in South Florida and I'm listening to, you know, the issues about elevations and flood plane. And the question I have for Jeff is um I
think FEMA and Florida building code in their regulations allow garages and vertical access below that Florida of its design flood elevation. Isn't that correct?
>> It is correct. But in a VE zone everything changes because you have to have a breakaway wall. And in addition to that, in addition to, and I wouldn't even discuss this, but since you're asking and you're opening up the door, in addition, FD has the Coastal Construction Control
Line 100year elevation line, their flood line, which for all of Palm Beach County, including obviously all of Highland Beach, is 15.4T 4 ft uh NGVD, which is the equivalent of 13.9 ft NAVD.
And they would require that if you were going to go below that level, even building above grade, that you have to have a breakaway wall. So that's even more restrictive
than FEMA. But you're talking about a VE zone. We're not talking about uh a zone AE zone. We're not talking about over here where we do it all day long. We approve stuff out on Belo Island and on the on the west side where every they
always put the garage below almost always put the garage below base flood elevation. You have flood vents. You have all these things. But as soon as you do that in a VE zone, it mandates the breakaway walls. >> Okay. What's wrong with breakaway walls? They're designed by an architect, an engineer. They're meeting all codes
>> that they're not meeting all codes. >> Well, you don't Well, they're designed by an architect or engineer. >> That doesn't mean that they're right. >> Who determines if they're right or wrong? >> I another engineer. >> Okay. An engineer does you you go by what the engineer says because they're the expert in that field and if they
design something, are you going to question a design by an architect or engine by an engineer? >> We do every single day. We do that and we send out plan every single day. >> You can't do anything about it. Oh, sorry. Oh, yeah. But if it's the issue that
>> But if it's designed to code by an engineer, >> but it's not to code. It's just a design that someone wants. >> Yeah, but it's designed by an engineer. He's licensed. >> So, anything for to to to design. That's what we hire them to do. >> It it doesn't work like that.
>> I have to tell you, I'm sorry, but I would go with our building department and not some engineer someplace else who's designing what a person wants. and they will play fast and loose every time. >> I'll take the opposite because an
engineer is licensed, stamps it, and has liability if they're wrong. Correct. >> But so does our building department has has to be consistent. >> Is there some like independent like if
the if you if he brings you something that he says is stamped by an engineer and you say I think it's totally wrong. Is there some independent person that you can go say like he says this and he says this and what's your opinion? Could we like put someone like that on a
>> Well, we do that every single day. Every structural design that comes in here, I send to another structural engineer for a peer review and 100% of the time they have comments and the structural engineer has to make changes. That's fair
>> because it's accepted and that's what and that's exactly what we do. >> Okay. So, >> so it's not an issue. We already sent it to another structural engineer for a peer review. >> So then for sure I wouldn't have problems and nobody should if that guy
comes in and says, "Well, now it's going to cost him more to redesign." Well, that's his problem. He, >> you know, that's his problem. Isn't that what the town's supposed to do? I mean, like >> you can't, right? And engineers are not allowed. They they also have limitations
of what they're allowed. They can't design a house out of matchbooks and say this is this is I I stamped it so it's good. >> I've been around the block with this way too many times. I've been an expert witness. It's >> okay. >> It's not it's just we're trying to
protect the town. We're trying to keep We're trying to get in CRS program with FEMA so we can lower flood insurance premiums here. >> Is this required in order to do that? >> It's not required. Yeah, it is because we have to make we have to meet the minimum standards. Okay, >> we have to enforce the minimum standards
in order to do that. So my question then less for you than for Len is does the wording as proposed today meet that requirement and if we clarify
it sort of in the method that Len just mentioned that wouldn't change that compliance issue. >> No, the the standards are the standards are the standards. I I think the issue is, you know, Jeff sort of wants to put it up front just because he feels like
that's a service to >> current and future town residents who are designing structures on the ocean front. So if they know up front, they won't have these issues of having to go back and redesign. >> And then the other issue is, well, why are we doing that? Cuz that's already required by flood plane, by building
code, and that's what we follow and that's statewide and we all follow the same standards. It's just it's just a wording issue. So it's it's so the recommendation of the board and the mo M Mr. Bobby did make a motion there. I don't believe there's been a second yet, but you know his his stance is well we
should just you know rely on those other regulations and not include the design. >> Was that your motion? I second that. >> Correct. >> All right. Now, all all I was bringing up was that FEMA and Florida building code does allow garages and vertical
access below the designed flood elevation and and they're allowing the breakaway walls and every municipality down the whole state of Florida down the ocean is allowing it to be done. But now you have >> so
>> a municipality that's questioning why everybody else is saying don't want to do it. They're bringing you breakaway walls that aren't compliant. That's what you're saying, right? They don't really they're really >> they don't really break away. >> So they don't really break away. So the qu the answer is you should kick back
everyone where it is required to do a breakaway wall to that he just said and it and in your opinion and your expert's opinion it doesn't break away and just and let him you know and just say no you got to go back and do a proper break
wall. That's perfectly fine with a point of clarification. Um, so so Jeff, when you you you said that all the or all the uh the plans come in and you send them out for peer review, you get another another engineer involved and there are often discrepancies or notes or
feedback. How often is that feedback because of a misrepresentation or an a an incorrect design versus how often is that feedback because it's not meeting the standard or code?
I don't have a breakdown of that, but what I could tell you is 100% of the time there are deficiencies found where they either didn't provide a calculation, they are referencing the wrong standard, they put an undersized piece of rebar in that has to be
changed, it's a just a small design change, but 100% of the time when architects and engineers submit, there's always, especially engineering, who because we send it to a structural engineer. I don't send stuff to an architect, but we sent stuff to an
engineer. Uh because everyone's a human and humans make mistakes. That's why we do a peer review. >> My point is that um upon submission, they're not representing that they're installing a breakaway wall that really
won't and they've designed a breakaway wall that really won't. No, it won't. They design it. They designed it. Here's what the wall. Here's how we're going to build it. it it's missing the standard, but they're not representing they're not misrepresenting that it is a breakaway
when it's not. When you have a a code, a standard requirement that a wall breakaway at at a minimum of 10 >> Mhm. >> but a maximum of 10 of 20 PSF,
>> but it's being used as a retaining wall with >> No, no, I understand. I understand. >> Retaining 80. It can't break away. >> No, I I understand that. But I'm my question is more centered around you have a licensed person that's stamping a drawing saying this is the wall that I'm
I've designed and and this and this is how it works. But are they also saying and it's a breakaway or they're just saying this is what I designed. And the problem you're trying to solve is that they're designing them not to be breakaway because you can't build the
house that way and then they have to go back and redesign things. But yeah, but they're filling out what's called a VE design certificate, a vis specifically stating that it meets the requirements of ASSE 24 and a breakaway when it clearly is not. when the standard when
ASC 24 and the FEMA TB9 clearly state that you're not allowed to grout the walls but they h they know they have to grout them otherwise all that sand all that unbalanced backfill is going to collapse in >> well then that's again that's I I would view that to be more on the engineers's
responsibility rather than >> and we're so what we're but if they just know upfront that they can't go below designed flood elevation that means they don't have to design a breakaway all and that whole issue goes away and people don't have to have things redesigned.
But it doesn't matter. Either way, we have to do our job. We all have to do our job. >> You take away their ability, okay? You take away their choice cuz you're going to put the design and that means they'll never have to have the breakaway wall. So you you don't have to deal with that and no one does. Okay? But you take away
their choice to go below the design if they do the breakaway wall. And so let them do it. that bring you the breakaway wall. You'll say it doesn't comply. It won't break away. And you'll have a guy say that and guess what? Two, three
times it gets around in the community. They'll know that there's no more in Highland Beach where you can just say whatever you want and that's what it is. And they need the breakaway wall if they're going below design level. >> Yeah, that's fine. I mean, >> that's fine. I I'm I'm trying to be good for the community so they don't have to
redesign. That's fine. I I agree with Jeff and I don't really care what other places do because if our building department says it doesn't work here, it doesn't work here and they could do it any place else because you don't know
who their building department is. And I trust Jeff to keep this town safe and not create issues because there are issues every time a permit doesn't get approved. every time some people have
screaming fits. And why do we have to deal with it? If you let them know upfront, this is what you need to do as a minimum. >> Fine. That's what you need to do. >> That's what they do someplace else to be honest.
>> I'll take the choice to like do it differently. >> Well, but you know what? There are a lot of things in other towns that they take away choices where you've got to paint a garage door a certain color or you have to have x number of trees. And there are
a lot of things that choices are taken away. This to me is a safety issue, not an aesthetic issue. >> Rejected if it's not safe. >> But that's the whole point. People don't want to get rejections. So if you let
them know upfront what they can expect, it makes it a lot simpler and smoother process for everyone. >> Chair, I'll take the exact opposite side of all of that. This is one building official, good building official, but one building official. It's working in
every other town. There is going to be a fair amount of liability for Highland Beach related to this. So, I would just simply match the state requirements like other towns are doing >> at a [clears throat] minimum. And I'm not quite sure listening to your wording that we got there. Um, the section six
language needs to be deleted. Do we >> anything related? >> Yeah, it was just talking about >> I'm just trying to make sure I understand. >> Oh, yeah. No, I I I could re try to restate it. I mean, I believe the motion was to approve the ordinance as drafted with the exception of the reference to the design flood elevation where we
would just default to the state the flood plane regulations and the state building code, the statewide standard. >> Correct. other municipalities are allowing um garages and stairs below designed flood elevation or base flood elevation. We shouldn't be restricting it
>> with the proper referring to the state >> with if it if it requires a breakaway wall then it's the with the proper regulations >> as long as they meet the prop the code. Right. Right. Either way >> for and get it, you know, reviewed by a
design professional of our choice. Yeah. Okay. I think the public I think you're done with your public com. >> Thank you very much. >> We're just we're just trying to be So yeah. So there was a mo that's my understanding the motion you want to take out and just default to the state standards. >> Right. And I second >> and it was the second. So we're going to
have to vote on the motion unless there's more discussion. I don't want to cut you off. >> Okay. Member Bobby. >> Yes. >> Member Mendelson. >> Yes. >> Member Pal. >> Yes. >> Vice Chairperson David. Uh, no actually
I'd like to leave in the design flood plane in >> that's perfectly fine. >> Chairperson Rosen. >> Yes. >> Motion carries. >> Okay, we'll present that to commission. Thank you. >> All right. >> I like some good debate early in the
morning. [laughter] >> We're approaching lunch. Um, >> yeah. So, Mr. Bobby has to go. >> Mr. Bobby has to go with that. I don't know that we have I thought well we we still have a one two three four >> do we have quorum >> we still have a quorum but I believe the
purpose of bringing back the heartscape was because we wanted Mr. Brown's Mr. >> Brown >> yes >> want to continue that again >> that proposed >> okay if we could have a motion to continue it to the next >> we need a motion
>> I'll make a motion to continue it to the next meeting second allart >> yes Is >> that okay? >> That's okay. >> You're free. >> With that, we're to announcements.
>> Uh June 16th will be the town commission special meeting and July 9th is the next planning board regular meeting. Um can I get a motion to adjurnn? This this panel is adjourned at 10:58
a.m. Thank you.