Uh, welcome to the planning board meeting. This is May 14, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. I would request everybody that's present to silence your cell phones and then Mr. Dart, will you take the roll call?
>> Member Bobby, >> present. >> Member Pal >> here. >> Member David, >> present. >> Member Axelrod, >> present. Vice Chairperson Rosen >> present. >> Town Attorney Ruben and member Brown and Chairperson Mendelson are absent. Thank you.
>> And now I'd ask everybody to rise for the pledge of allegiance. >> I pledge algiance 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. >> Thank you. >> All right. I'm going to call for a motion to ex accept the agenda as it was presented. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All in favor?
>> I. >> Swearing in of the public. For those who are giving testimony or may give testimony, could you please stand and raise your right hands to be sworn in and provide testimony for the
application or other issue with which you are affiliated? Mr. Hart, please swear everybody in. >> 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. Approval of the minutes. We have minutes for two two meetings in April, April 6th and April 9th. Are there any corrections to the minutes? Not hearing any. May I have a motion to
approve the minutes as presented? >> So moved. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> I. >> Unfinished business. I believe there is none. Uh new business. The first item is discussion of a proposed resolution
adopting procedures for the initiation and adoption of town ordinances. With respect to this, I defer to attorney Ruben. >> I'll take it. Um, so the commission's been working on this for a while. Part of their
strategic priorities was to develop a process for the adoption of ordinances. Now, the adoption of ordinances is statuto. there are statutory requirements. Um those the statute requirements are the minimum requirements that you must meet. Cities can impose their own requirements on top
of those as long as those requirements are met. So the commission just wanted to sort of formalize how the process would work and it's really been working this way for some time. But basically the resolution outlines the process. um a resolution can be initiated by the
commission, excuse me, by town staff or one of the advisory boards, residents, sort of like the the signed one you have before you was initiated by residents. Um so once it's initiated, it's introduced to the commission first. Um and then the commission, if the
commission approves in concept, it directs staff to um create a draft ordinance and it may assign one of the members as a sponsor. May or may not, depends on the nature of the ordinance. Then it will go to the advisory boards. Now, anything that amends the land development regulations must come to
this board because you are the local planning agency and you must provide a recommendation on all comprehensive plan amendments and all land development regulation amendments. Um, but they may want to send it to other advisory boards to get their input. That's sort of at the discretion of the council, a
commission. I'm used to council, sorry. Um, discretion of the commission. Um and then once the board considers it, they can they will forward the recommendations back to the commission. So then it will come before the commission on first reading. Um the commission will take public comment.
They'll consider whatever recommendations and they'll either adopt it on first reading or send it back for more modifications. We've had both both things happen. Um and then once if it goes back to advisory board, it'll kind of go through that process again and then it'll come back to the commission
for final hearing and adoption. um you really can't between first and second reading. You can modify an ordinance. You just can't change the nature of the ordinance. There's cases that say you can modify the language, but you can't it can't change completely between first and second reading or you have to start
the process all over again. So, and then once it's adopted, once the ordinance is adopted by the commission, it's implemented. So the town commission was very concerned about public participation which is why they wanted to sort of delineate all the various steps to show that you know that they
want the public to form an integral part of this process. So there's many meetings before the commission before the advisory boards at least two hearings before the commission but there is language in there that says you know if the commission doesn't follow these steps exactly it doesn't invalidate the
ordinance as long as all the statutory requirements are met. there might be circumstances under which you know things might have to move at a much more rapid pace. So as long emergencies whatever the case may be so as long as it follows the statutory procedures it does not affect the validity but the
commission before I think they've considered at least three times I don't know um but before they wanted to finally adopt the resolution they're they're sending it out to all the advisory boards just if you had any comments um we'll take that back to the commission. So I don't know if anyone
had any comments or any input they wanted to give. >> I do David. Yes. >> Two comments. >> Yes. >> One has to do with section 2A ordinance initiation. >> And really my comment is I think the
preference order should be changed. >> Okay. >> I think that you should have response to state or federal requirements first because you don't have a choice about that. >> Well, that's true. So that should be first and then I think staff or
commission initiation should be second, advisory board initiation third and then resident concerns fourth. >> Okay. And I also think that resident concerns, I don't know how you
would make this clear, but it shouldn't be that somebody who goes to a meeting and makes a comment shouldn't think that that comment is going to automatically be presented as a potential oridence because there's a lot of work that goes
into it that if it's just kind of an off-hand comment, you can't expect at the next meeting to see it come up as an ordinance. Yeah. And being on the commission for all those years, you know how it works. Basically, it'll come back to the commission and then the commission will decide whether it's
worthy of of an ordinance. But okay, I I see your point. >> Yeah, that that's okay. >> Doesn't there have to be a sponsor for anything ordinances? >> There doesn't have to be. Usually there is. So in um I believe in we do talk about it in section B it says
uh if approved in concept which is that first meeting before the commission the commissioner should direct staff to research and create a draft ordinance and may assign they didn't want to be tied to that but they may assign one of the members as a sponsor they've done that historically I know member Bobby
the excess marine facilities were still and we're still talking about it we'll be talking about it today It never dies. But um yeah, it's not required, but that's generally what they do. >> Any other >> Are there any other questions, comments?
>> No. >> All right. Well, I appreciate it. >> Do we need to take >> I don't think you need to do a motion or anything. They just wanted the board input. So, I'll relay that input back to the back to the town commission. Thank you so much. Appreciate That matter concluded at this point
>> and move on to uh the proposed ordinance regarding an amendment to chapter 23 signs and advertising the recommendation to the town commission and I defer and refer to
town planner Allen. >> Okay. Hopefully this is working. Well, good morning uh Ingred Allen, town planner. Uh so I thought we'd start off uh this item with a brief public h uh public hearing history. Um I provide this in your staff report on pages 18,
21, and 22. Uh so the item was first initiated by a public comment that was made at the November 4th, 2025 town commission meeting. It was made by the president of the board of trustees for the Lagna. I believe he's here today. Um they stated that they wish to change the
signs along their frontage, their ingress, egress sign as well as their uh monument sign. Um however, these proposed dimensions exceed what the sign code the maximum size for a sign uh indicates. Um on December 2nd of 2025,
uh the town commission discuss the item. Actually, you know, the item was actually placed on the agenda and consensus was to have the planning board consider appropriate standards for maximum sign size. How large is too large? Should larger condominiums have larger signs. Uh colors, illumination of
signs, consider that as well. What is the right signage look and size for Highland Beach? Uh consider safety of ped pedestrians and roadway including visibility and sight lines. uh consider an appeal or a variance process for signage and also look at other municipal
uh codes. On January 8th of 2026, if the board recalls, you all recommended some amendments to the time uh town sign code. Uh these include increasing the sign size using Boca Raton sign code as a reference. And uh I have that comparison table in your packets
starting on page 40 and 41 just to refresh your memories of what focus code says. Again, it's really more for multifamily, right? Um we also have Deerfield Beach and Delray there as well. Uh you did ask or are uh suggest
or recommend allowing for a variance procedure for dimensional requirements and adding universal rules across all condos subject to the criteria that the sign should fit in with the overall property um and the building and use similar materials. On March 3rd of this
year, the commission uh gave the following direction. they did want staff to go ahead and draft an ordinance. Um they their recommendation um was to uh take the ingress and egress signs which are currently at a max of three square
feet uh to move those to 32 square ft. Uh the permanent sign uh maximum which is 10 square feet to move that also to 32 square feet. Uh they did want to add a process for an appeal which should first be considered by the planning board with a final decision by the town
commission and they wanted an appeal for an increase in the maximum square footage of a permanent sign that should not exceed 72 square feet. So you could appeal for a much higher uh maximum size size that sign size uh that 72 72 feet
would not uh be uh specific to an ingress or egress because they're not per se permanent signs. When you look at the definition, the permanent sign is about identifying uh a property. Um now on table one, which is on page 19 of your packets, um I show you the current
maximum size uh regulations that we have in the town code and comparing to what uh Villa Mo uh Villa Magna was proposing. You can see those differences there. Um now I also wanted to mention um in the commission's direction to the board they
wanted you all to be the advisory board if there is an appeal. Um but after some thought after the meeting um when you look at the ordinance you'll see that it's actually the board of adjustment and appeals. That's staff's suggestion. Obviously, the board you can make your
recommendation as you see fit, but keep in mind the board of adjustment appeals, not only does it have the word appeal in their title, but um they look at a variety of variances and they look at uh variances for flood plane, variances to the zoning code, they also look at different types of appeals for an
interpretation of the zoning code, a determination of the zoning code. So we felt that you know with all that in play that it would be the board of adjustment and appeal that would be the advisory board rather than the planning board but again the board can u move forward with
that as you see fit. Um on page 26 of your packets which which is the actual ordinance um you'll see the strike through an underline. So starting in the middle of page 26 that's for the ingress and egress that I mentioned earlier. It's currently three square feet
according to the direction from the commission would be 32. That's the same for the one permanent sign. Um, also on the bottom of page 26. On page 27, if you're an intropostal property, right, it says you can have another permanent sign at 10 square feet. That's been
struck through and an underline of 32 square feet. And then um on page uh 28 of your packets, you have the appeal language. And I will say we've pulled some of this language from the uh variance provisions that we have for
flood pay. Sometimes you don't have to reinvent the wheel. And I also we also included some language from Deerfield Beach. Deerfield Beach has a signed variance process, not an appeal, but a variance process. So in addition to like the typical variance criteria you have,
they had some additional texts that we thought would work well with the uh with an appeal. So, um, I'll have you all, you know, obviously you've had the chance to look at that. And just for some perspective, I found the biggest board that I could find in the building
department. Um, this is 12 square feet. So, just to give you all some perspective, right, our current code allows 10 square feet. So, this is a little bit bigger. And, you know, we're looking at uh 32 square feet. So, almost three times the size, a little bit less. So, um, again, just, uh, for your
perspective, I'll be glad to answer any questions. >> And with that, are there any questions from the board? >> Uh, do we have a provision that any lighting has to comply with the turtle lighting standards? >> Um, well, we have, um, in the turtle
code, if there's anything on the west side of A1A, any light that you can see visible from the beach, you have to comply with the code. So even though you're on the west side, if it could be seen from the east, >> just, you know, if you're got a lot of tall highrises on the east, that most
likely won't happen. But we do have those provisions in our code. Yeah. >> Okay. Because we spend a lot of time on that. >> Oh, yes. >> Any other comments? >> Yeah. The only other comment I have has to do with the appeal process.
>> Okay. I mean, to be honest, 32 square feet sounded like a lot, but I wasn't here, and I will just go to what everybody else thought was reasonable. Um, but it seems like when when you appeal
for a variance, you've got to have very specific reasons to do so. And I think this is just a little loose. Just because somebody decides they have a unique building shouldn't be a reason to go bigger than 32 square feet,
which is a good size. And I have no problem with the Bill of Magnus signs. The perspective that they showed look fine because it's in keeping with the size of the building. And also, quite frankly, I think a lot of our signs right now, you can't find the buildings
you're looking for because they're too small. >> With with that in mind, it part of the appeal process says that it can't affect the aesthetic in the community. So, I think I hear you that it's loose, but I
don't know that it could be any more specific. >> Yeah, I >> um that's kind of the dilemma in that wording. I I I get it. I just don't want to open us up to lawsuits because somebody decides that
one thing. And yeah, it's I I understand the the problem. I just have an issue with it. >> Yeah. I mean, it's these are pretty discretionary, but I I think the the language in there, there's enough there to justify, you know, as uh the chair
said, it does talk about aesthetics. You know, they first of all, they do have to show there's something unique. It's not that they think it's unique, it's that the commission believes there's something unique that would justify that. And you know, we do talk about, you know, the public safety and the architecture and the building materials.
I think it's enough to give the town commission discretion really to do what it wants. And I think it would be very difficult for somebody to actually challenge that based on these criteria. I mean, I understand what you're saying. They're a little looser than a variance,
but the commission wanted them a little looser than a variance. They didn't want it to be as tight and as specific as the variance criteria. So, it was we were sort of walking a line here between giving discernable standards and not overreaching those standards. So,
>> which means at some point if somebody sues us, we'll go back and change it. >> Well, you know, >> are there any more comments? So, at this point, I'd like to call and see if there are any public comments. Any comments from the public?
>> God bless you. >> Hold on. You got to stand up. >> You got to stand up. >> Have we sworn him in? >> He You don't need Yeah, it's it's >> to make comment >> on a on a ordinance change. You don't need to be sworn in.
>> I'm Gerald Benzen. I'm the assistant manager at Villa Magma. Uh, thank you for your time. Um, I just wanted to add that part of the signage, the reason why we wanted to do it was for safety. So, we have a lot of owners that don't live in our building try to do a U-turn on A1A, which can cause a lot of problems.
So, more one of the main points for doing the signage is for safety, not just >> appearance. Appreciate that. >> Okay. Thank you guys. One comment is that 32 square feet sounds large, but when you make it 4 by8, which is what it really is, it doesn't sound as big.
>> Okay. Uh that being comments are now closed, is there a motion to recommend the approval of this proposed resolution adopting procedures for the initiation, I'm sorry, uh proposed ordinance regarding the amendment to chapter 23.
So moved. Second. >> So just just to clarify, it's a motion to recommend approval. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Member David. >> Yes. >> Member Pal. >> Yes. >> Member Bobby. >> Yes.
>> Member Axelrod. >> Yes. >> Vice Chairperson Rosen. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Motion carries. >> All right. The next item is the proposed ordinance regarding the encroachment of a hard surface beyond the property line
in order to provide access to a seaw wall dock or a budding intra coastal water beach area. A recommendation to the town permission. I refer this item to town planner Allen.
>> Hey, good afternoon once again. Uh so I will once again start off with just a a brief public hearing history on this item. Uh I provide uh the information on pages 87 and 89 of your packets. So the item was first initiated by the planning
board. If you were recall on August 14th of 2026, you all did make a recommendation to the commission to amend the code to allow for hard services past the property line to a dock. Um and in uh board member Bobby's uh narrative which is um in your packets
on uh I believe it's on page 97 um he suggested to expand that amendment uh to allow for such har services to a beach edge located outside an owner's uh property line. On February 3rd of 2026 the town commission commiti uh
considered an introduction to this code amendment. This was just in concept. They didn't have an ordinance before them. Obviously they will eventually. Um and the motion was to have the planning board take up the issue and review it. So with that said, staff put together the draft ordinance that's before you
today. Now um the recommendation that was made uh by the board to the commission about an amendment uh with regards to hard services, if you recall, that was all triggered by the special exception that came before all of you for the property at 2564 South Ocean
Boulevard. If you remember, they were installing a seaw wall seaw wall cap, a 275 foot dock and a and a 33 thou 33,000lb capacity bow lift. Now that seaw wall cap commence 2 feet from the property line. Now typically, right, we have the seaw wall when there's not an
existing one, it's usually right at the property line, but they chose to, you know, keep it two feet away and there's nothing in the code that requires where you have to start it. So because of that and because the way the code reads at 30-66 C that you could only have uh a
hard surface to the property line or the seaw wall right whichever uh whichever is for the land word technically they couldn't have a hard surface beyond that. So you all approved that condition that staff um again as a proactive step uh recommended that they have to provide
turf or sod right. So, this proposed amendment deals with that issue. Um, so, um, I provided on page 113 of your packet those details just to remind you what 2564 looked like. I'd be happy to pull it up on a power
like that. So, uh, this is, uh, again on, uh, page 113 of your packets. Uh, this is at I'm sorry, I think I'm one behind. May have gotten cut off. didn't happen to the PowerPoint. My
apologies. I have it on my hard copy. Well, oh, there it is. Say, okay. So, this is a 2564. That was a special exception that you all approved on August 14th. >> Again, here you have, you know, the property line here. There's no existing
seaw walls, what we typically see. Um, and their cap starts right here, which is 2 feet. Okay. And then what I had provided um to the commission is um you know some examples of other types of seaw walls that we typically see. You
know this is very common where you have an existing seaw wall that's going to remain and then you have the new seaw wall the new seaw wall cap and the um the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the Army Corps of Engineers will allow a new seaw wall in front of an existing it's got to can't
be more than 18 inches in front. Uh so this is typically what we see and it and there's um a hard service that we that is allowed it's it's reasonable to allow a hard surface between the existing seaw wall and this the existing seaw wall cap
and a new one at grade and then we have this type of seaw wall scenario. This is 4320 in coastal where the initial seaw wall was actually on their property and then they're proposing a new seaw wall. the existing seaw wall remains. The new seaw wall is right along the property
line. So again, there are, you know, many different scenarios, but just to give you all a little bit of perspective, I wanted to include that detail in your packets. Um, so if we go to the actual ordinance that's proposed, uh, we could start on page 92. Um, you
could see the new language. Uh, so I'll go ahead and just read it in the record. It's again on the bottom of page 92. Notwithstanding the foregoing, such hard services may encroach waterward of the property line for properties immediately adjacent to a waterway canal or lake for
the sole purpose of providing access and I think that's a key word here to a seaw wall dock or abunding inter coastal waterway area so long as the hard service is compliant with all applicable provisions of this chapter. The government agency that regulates the waterway canal or lake approves set
encroachment and the property owner shall be responsible for the maintenance of all encroaching hard services extending waterward of the property line. Now um because of this new language we also had to make an adjustment as to how you measure a dock and this is on page 94 of your packets.
We do currently have a provision in our code which says that the measurement or width the measurement of the width or length of a dock is from the property line. However, if the board remembers, in January of 2025, the commission adopted new accessory marine facility regulations. And one of those new
regulations was letter B. Again, if you're on page 94, you'll see letter B, which is that maximum with um the maximum combined seaw wall cap and dock shall not exceed 8 ft. That provision intentionally did not have a measured from. Now, I know uh Mr. Bobby initially
proposed these amendments many years ago and in his initial proposal he wanted it measured from the property line but the board recommendation was not to do that and then the commission adopted it that way. So now we're in a little bit of a conundrum especially we have a property like 2564.
So that's why we added this new language when combined with the seaw wall cap. Uh the measurement of the width or length of a dock would be landward of the seaw wall cap you know as applicable. So, it just kind of covers that um reality that again we saw with this property. We may
see it with other properties. Um and with that said, I'll be glad to address any questions. >> Could I ask a question? >> Be mind. >> Um I I misunderstood the last part that we just talked about. So, um we have a dock. >> Yes,
>> we have a seaw wall cap. >> That can't be more than 8 feet, >> right? >> Why does it matter where we're measuring it from? Are you trying to include this extra new land someone might have as part of that? >> Well, no, because the way the current code reads that the measurement of a width or length of a dock is from the
property line. >> Um, obviously in this case of 2564, they wouldn't be able to do it right >> now. You may think, well, why didn't you think of that? Why did you let them go forward? Well, we have this new regulation that you can have a seaw wall cap and dock at 8 ft, not measured from
anywhere. So >> why can't we just measure it the width of the dock and the width of the seaw wall cap? You know, just measuring the length of the the width of the surface. Does it matter why it's measured from somewhere? We have a dock that's 2 feet and I'm sorry, a dock that's 5t wide and
a seaw wall cap that's 3 ft wide. Why does it matter where we're measuring it from? >> Again, I think it was more for cleanup unless >> it said currently property lines. So we had to clean that up because you're right. It doesn't matter where it is as
long as it's 8 ft. So this way if it starts past the property line, the 8 ft starts at the edge. So you're just measuring the act. So we are doing >> Yes, we're starting at the edge of the cap. So we're just measuring the the actual combination regardless of where it starts. >> Yeah, thank you. >> It's going to be 8 ft.
>> Okay. >> We probably should have tackled that when the exist >> We probably should have tackled that, >> but you know, this happens sometimes with codes. you realize, okay, properties now come in and they present themselves with a scenario that we really haven't seen, at least since I've been here, and then we have to adjust
the code accordingly. Again, this quite a >> So, if it starts past the property line, we'll still get the 8 ft. >> Are there any other comments from the members? >> No, if I say I have comments on the language you proposed, but I can wait on that if there's other questions.
>> I just have a question. This is a safety measure in essence that we're talking about now, which because that was to allow people to put a hard surface so that you're not walking over grass or something that may have the ability to
have a sinkhole trying to get from your property to your dock. >> Okay? Because that that makes sense. You need a hard surface to get there or you have problems. Okay? That's logical.
Further comment. >> I have uh comments and thoughts on the language proposed. Um uh few comments. One uh I would have loved to get Roger Brown's thoughts on this. So up to you Jer if you want to do
this all today or uh push it off to when he gets back. But uh the one thing I read through this that I didn't like was the part of for the sole purpose of providing access. I know that was what we were talking about originally, but
then I thought about this and I said, okay, there is there's actually both issues. It's a safety issue and it's also a quality of life issue, right? So safety issue for sure. You want to have some sort of hard surface access to get there. >> Yeah, >> fully agreed. But quality of life issue,
why should the rules be any different than any other part of the property? Like if you are allowed to do, and Ingred, you can say what the rules are, but um if you're allowed to do 40 foot wide deck up to the or um patio up to
the edge of your seaw wall, why are we restricting that to not allow not allow that for this new piece of land? Why not just take the rules that apply to the waterfront property and apply it all the way to where the seaw wall gap is? Why are we restricting it beyond that?
>> Well, I I think then you have people extending their rear property lines, >> right? Because it's not their part of their lot. So now this becomes their property because it's really not their property. It's within the waterway. >> Understood. But it's still their use.
>> Functionally, they're going to use it as their property. Understood. But >> but that's a quality of life issue. that's not a safety thing. Like why are we restricting it? Is there a good logical reason to be restricting it besides I can't come up with >> I think the initial recommendation that
the board made was about getting to a dock, >> right? That's the safety part. So we need to have something right and >> but why are we being more restrictive than what the current code says? What's the purpose of being more restrictive? Because just what they said, the thought was that,
>> you know, if you put your dock 3 ft out and you're adding an extra 3 ft to the back of your property, that wasn't something that we wanted to encourage. >> Right. I was going to say the same thing. I don't think it's something we want to encourage. I think that then people will
start doing it even more often because they'll everyone will want to expand their you know and make it then it look like as you're saying you saying well they use it like the rest of their property then everyone's going to want to say hey I can get three feet I can get you know I think that was the reason why >> well it's it's not an inconsequential
amount of money if you're going to put a new seaw wall in you're talking $150,000 on top of you know adding fill and everything else number one number two you can't do it on the canals very easily because Ingred's got a marine expert that'll say is it navigable or not. So, it's really just on the direct
inter coastal which really isn't on our purview anyway. >> You may also want to have a discussion about um how this may impact adjacent neighbors. How would you feel if your neighbor decided to put, you know, a full hardcape beyond um would you have
>> Why do I care? It's in their property, not mine. They they can't do it all the way to the property line, right? There's side setbacks. >> Yes. >> Why should it be anything different? If they've added a little bit of extra land, why should it be anything different than the rules they're already subject to?
>> Again, the board can discuss um Right. >> And look, that's a it's a policy determination. So, your recommendation could be that it be the whole thing. It it'll ultimately be up to the commission what they want to do, but this board whatever you feel is the proper recommendation that's within your
purview. >> It can be an issue if you have people with docks and somebody's dock is consider >> has nothing to do with docks. It has to do with the land. >> I get that. But if you're letting them fill it all in and it's going beyond and
that someone else's dock is two or three feet further in towards the the actual land, >> it becomes an issue of being able to maneuver boats sometimes. >> No, you don't have that issue because there's already the navigation rules
already in place. They can't get the extension of the land in the first place if it's a navigational issue. So that's already covered. >> Yes and no. because I was at Rick Greenwald's and he was showing things to me before >> and it can create an issue. >> There is no issue anywhere close to Rick
Greenwald. I live next to him. The basin is 500 ft wide. >> I get that. But also think about when people new building and they go up higher, which they should. I mean, no question it should all be higher because
sea level is rising. But then you have the problem with somebody who hasn't raised their property. They get flooded because the neighbors on either side, everything now goes to them and they get flooded.
>> But we have a regulation that says you have to maintain the water that comes from your property. So that's >> Yeah. But the water isn't coming from their property. The water is coming from the sea basin or from the intra coastal. It's not >> it's coming over the cap, you're saying. Okay. Okay. So, what does that have to
do with this part of the land and being able to use hardcape? >> Oh, I think it should, but I think that there's got to be some regulation about not letting people add an extra 3 ft to their property.
That's all. And I do agree that you've got to have a way to get to a dock that's hard, but there has to be some happy medium. There's not a is there there I thought we discussed that there's not a code we
have right that stops from someone from adding that extra foot or so as long as long as it's still navigable right let's take a direct inter coastal property someone wants to put a seaw wall one foot outside of their current seaw wall right >> that's regulated by the state and the
army corps not by the town right >> right >> so we can't we don't not regulate >> no it's not a matter of regulating that because it's in the order. It's a matter of adding to their property. Then the
square footage of their property changes and >> it shouldn't. I I think the point is that this is trying to regulate based on an owner's land, not allowing
voluntarily allowing access to what I'll call common areas that aren't owned by the particular owner. I think from a and Len, I'll ask you to help me on this. From a presidential standpoint, I don't
think you want to create a scenario where it's deemed to be okay to encroach because if you can encroach here, then in theory, you could encroach on a neighbor's land or and I'm not saying
you would. That's not my point. My point is uh you know the story about if you give a mouse a cookie then >> my favorite books >> that >> sorry it seemed like a good analogy. >> I like it. Um,
I I think the point is to make sure that this is limited to the owner's land and not encroaching on anything else so that there's never a debate as as you've heard us hear several times where neighbors are very concerned that it's
encroaching on their their land without their permission that this would create some sort of I'll call it precedent but maybe a sign that you could do that. And I I personally would have an objection to doing anything that would open that
possibility up. Just a thought. 100% disagree. I understand. But you know, that's what makes a good panel, right? >> Are there any other comments? Um, are there any comments from the public?
My only suggestion is I think we should get some of Roger Brown's input on this, right? He also lives in a single family home. He might have some thoughts as well. It's unfortunate he couldn't be here today. >> So, is there a motion to defer? >> Yeah, I would move.
>> I would make a motion to table it until the next meeting where he's available. >> Okay. Second. >> If the board's going, I would continue it. What's the next date of the next? Because I don't want to have to readvertise it. June. >> Uh, Jacqueline, do you recall?
>> Uh, >> it might be the 8th. >> Sorry, I don't have June 11. >> Is it June 11th? >> Do you have to advertise again? >> Um, no. No. As long as you continue it to June 11th, then we don't have to readvertising. It's just a continuation of the discussion. >> So, is there a motion? I hear a motion
to continue this discussion to the June 11th meeting of the planning commission. Is there a second? I will second that, but not making it based on whether or not Roger is available. >> I don't think we're going to do that. No, he doesn't show.
>> Okay. >> Okay, then I will second that. >> And Mr. Dart, >> who made the motion? I'm sorry. I made the motion. >> Oh. Uh, Mr. Bobby, >> will you call the role, please? >> Member Bobby. >> Yes. >> Uh, member David.
>> Yes. >> Member Axelrod. >> Yes. >> Member Pal. Yes, >> Vice Chairperson Rosen. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Okay, the last issue on the agenda are
nominations for chairperson and vice chairperson. Nominations are now open. Can >> I ask one question before you do that? >> Of course. Uh are these dates that are listed for the ter of people's terminating is those dates of this one
or do they have three more years? >> Uh in regard to the member list that is on there, the only person who will be termed out is chairperson Mendelson. She served in unexpired and then two full terms. So she'll have to step down for a
year. Even though she's not here though, she still would like to be considered as the chairperson, which she could continue until October and then you could reappoint or but at the board's discretion, whatever you guys want to do. >> So, are we discussing this? Because I don't think that we should appoint
somebody for a a a year term if she's only going to be there a couple of months. I don't think that makes any sense. And nothing against Eileen, it's just the timing. So with that in mind, are there nominations now open for
chairperson? Are there any nominations? >> I nominate Eve Rosen. >> I second that. >> Okay. Uh I do accept. All right. Are there any other nominations for chair? Not hearing any. The nominations are now
closed. Is there a motion to nominate myself, Eve Rosen, as chairperson to serve a one-year term? >> You were only the only one nominated. You You are the new chair.
>> You don't even need to to motion it. >> With that said, thank you all. I think nominations are now open for vice chairperson. Are there any nominations? Somebody better nominate somebody.
We have everything. >> Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> Okay. Are there any other nominations? There we have it. >> All right. >> That's what we have. Attorneys, that's what we need.
>> Okay. >> To be honest, titles >> announcement. >> I did this for six years. That's enough. Thank you. >> Uh just so we're clear, the next town commission meeting is June 2nd. >> There is a June second meeting was cancelled. >> So the next the next the next town
commission meeting is actually June 16th. >> Okay. Uh then and there is a special magistrate meeting still scheduled. Lyn >> for June 9th. >> For June it is. Yes. Yes ma'am. >> Okay. And the next planning board
meeting is June 11th at 9:30. With that, this meeting is adjourned at 1013.