may call the meeting to order at 4:06 p.m. Uh, please 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. Christine Betts, Karen Plamp here, >> Joseph Siliano, Robert Austin, Laura Dowski,
>> Karen Gardner Young, >> and then Gabriela Crosdale is present, and then we also have town attorney Jeff Curts and engineer Gary Kloff. All right. And then for the additions, deletions and modifications to the agenda. Um I do have one addition just
we can make it item 2A in swearing in of the new members. Also swear in Christine Betts and then I just need a motion to approve the agenda. >> I have an addition at the end of the May um April 12th council meeting. council directed staff
to propose to the uldc to come up with a our definition of rural to come up with some pillars of the community that apply to us and also to come up with two
community events, community events that you know fit us and our style and you know what may work as far as bringing us together. So, I'd like >> I have that. Yeah, I'm going to hand out so that way you all get it what was said
and you have that to think about for the next meeting. >> But why isn't it on this meeting? >> It wasn't originally on this meeting and then um it was brought to our attention and so we were asked to bring it forward. So, I had planned on bringing it up during the agenda which is why I wanted to give it as a handout so
everybody has it in front of them what exactly is being asked. Obviously, you can go back to the April 21st meeting and at that meeting you could listen specifically what the council was suggesting, but I wanted to make sure there was a handout rather than just orally saying it. >> Okay. >> Okay.
So, that's 7A 7 8 item eightish. Cool. Thank you. Motion Ace and 7A to discuss the um
>> council director definition. Um, >> okay. Gabby, do you want is is there a second to the >> Was your was your motion incorporating two? >> Yes. >> Um, I'll make a motion to approve the
agenda as modified adding item 2A, swearing in of Christine Betts and 7A, discussion of pillars and events. >> Second. >> All in favor? I >> Yep. All right. And then moving on,
approval of the minutes for the March 9th, 2026 meeting. >> Just let Jo gota back to me instead. She'll be there. She's in traffic probably about 15 more minutes. There's a motion, a second for the approval of the minutes if so noted or
any amendments to them. >> A motion to pass this last meeting. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I >> Why? >> All right. >> And then we also have um one public comment on non-aggenda items from James
Borscuses. >> You can come up. Uh good afternoon. Uh James Borsos, AICP planner. Uh 30 years ago, also a Lockxa Hatche Groves land owner. This is a special place. Lockxahhatche Groves is a
residential agricultural utopia. Families, horse farms, plant nurseries. It's your neighbors, the nursery men that have recently come under fire from the town. Uh, four nursery growers have been cited for various inconsistencies
in the past two months in targeted town raids. These are your neighbors, people, many of whom have had proper business licenses prior to town incorporation. The Florida Nursery Growers and Landscape Association took notice.
Some of the nursery men also provide off-site landscape services where they sell and install those plants that they grow and provide other services. This seems to be a point of contention with the town's administration. The town's
argument is that certain businesses have grown to such a point where the plants that they um install are now grown elsewhere and directly shipped to these installation sites. uh giving them the appearance uh more of landscape services
than nurseries. The FNGA has underwritten a professional land planning team to take direction from the town and work with staff in preparing draft zoning code language. That's why I'm here today to give you a heads up on
this. And uh this language would clear up any ambi ambiguity uh with bonafide agricultural uses in the town. Questions have to see it. We have another public comment from Jim
Frogner. I can see this committee isn't too popular with the general public. >> The first two visitors we've ever had. >> My name is Jim Fragner. I'm a member of the FNGA Florida News and Landscape Growers Association.
I'm an associate of Jim Boris. And uh because we have a number of uh clients that have different agricultural uses, equestrian, nurseries, uh farms, all manner of different agricultural uses. Uh the FMGLA felt
that they were not well represented within the town code. I first moved to Lahantry in 1979. I lived at 950D road uh for several years before um I realized that they were going to
widen Southern Boulevard and I worked for Palm Beach County Zoning Division which was at I95 in Okachobee or Southern Boulevard. So I moved east. I didn't want to deal with the road construction. So now I've been in private practice as
a land planner for 25 years. Uh collectively, Jim and I both have uh over 50 years of code rewrite, government experience, uh and all manner of zoning and planning uses and matters.
So, we're here to uh hopefully assist the town and clearing up uh items in the code so that 10 years from now, you don't have people like us coming back into town and saying, "This doesn't work." And what we found over our careers,
um, people that work for government, civil servants, rarely have experience at operating businesses. They're government employees. They they write the code. They do their government jobs. People in
business have specific needs that are often not met. for example, um the town seems to really focus on commercial traffic yet equestrian trucks.
Every 10 minutes there's an equestrian truck passing by with a number of horses. Um that's okay with the town. When you have a landscape truck full of palm shrubs, that's not okay with the town. And there's a lot of push back on
that. So, uh, one of the things that Jim and I want to do is broaden the eyes of this committee as well as the town council so that, uh, well, let me say traffic is never going to go away. Traffic's never going to be less.
Does everybody agree with that? Traffic is not going to be reduced in the town of Los Angeles roads. So, the best hope is to preserve the rural field for the residents that are here. Uh, I know you're going to discuss sign code
this morning or this afternoon. That's great. Uh, the safe distance triangles, we're going to help you clean that up just a little bit. And, um, I thank you for your time. That's about all I have to say.
Okay, moving on to the regular agenda. We have now I would like to do two 2 A and three all together if that's okay. Well, Joe isn't here. Um, we can swear her in when she comes in.
All right. So then for the new members, can you just repeat after me? You also have this as well on there as well to read off of, but I do solemnly swear or affirm >> I do solemnly swear or affirm >> that I will support, protect, and defend
>> that I will support, protect, and defend >> the Constitution and government of the United States and of the state >> the Constitution and government of the United States and of the State and the Charter of the Town of Lock Hatche Groves and the charter of the town of
Lockxahhatche Groves >> that I am duly qualified to hold office >> that I am duly qualified to hold office >> under the constitution of the state and the charter of the town of the Lockachi Groves >> under the constitution of the state and the charter of the town of Lockahhatche
Groves >> and that I will well that I will well and faithfully perform the duties and that I will well and faithfully perform the duties >> of committee member upon which I'm now about to enter >> of committee member upon which I am now about to enter.
>> And then you guys can sign it and then just pass it over here and I'll pick it up. >> You're welcome. And congratulations. Um, okay. And now we're moving on to item number four, appointment of the chair and vice chair. Have any nominees from the board?
>> Oh, yes. I make a motion to move item four down to item seven with with the caveat that when Joe Siciliano arrives and after her swearing in it can
be moved up. >> I second that motion. >> All in favor? >> I passes 300. All right. Then we move on to item number five if that's okay with everyone. Discussion of line of sight
once. Yeah. You ready? >> Well, you were going. I continued the the matter with the selection of chair and vice chair until Joe gets here. >> Okay. >> Which puts us to the line of sight
discussion that we had. Um so this matter came up. um code enforcement actually um provided some courtesy letters to some property owners advising them that there was um items within the line of sight that weren't required
under the code. When this came to the attention of the council, the council asked that the uldc take a look at the language and determine whether any uh modifications should be made to the existing language. Um the previous composition of the board did meet on
several occasions. Uh the last meeting we had, Gary who operates as the um engineer for the town came in, provided some suggestions and we advised the board that we would come back and provide them whatever language along with revised diagrams to make them
clear. The intention was to make it clearer for uh a property owner to understand what line of sight meant and how they measured it and so forth. And that is the document that we have before you tonight. So where we made changes, I tried to put in yellow so it was easier
to see. The diagrams are all new except for the diagram on the first page with the tree. You saw that last time there were no requests to changes to that diagram, which is this one. But the diagram for the street and the trail and the driveways have been
modified uh per uh discussion that we had last at our last board meeting. So I guess we're here. However you would like us to proceed, we can explain what we did. You can ask questions. We can You tell us. We'll follow whatever way you
want to go. >> I thought we weren't going to pursue the driveway issue. That count council said something about not pursuing that private property. >> That's what I thought too. >> Thank you. Um because there are so many
instances in town where you can say somebody's driveway is blocked within the scope of this footage, but it is by a neighbor's tree on the neighbor's property. You know,
the onus falls on the driver of the vehicle coming out of the driveway safely. So, who would get the the the code issued to them take down the tree? Okay. Does the person have to pull a
permit to take down said tree? No, because you are being demanded to take down said tree so your neighbor can see coming out the driveway. So, was that part of the discussion? It was also because the town created the problem along the canals where they put
the trails in because now there's a line of sight issue with all of those properties that have any bushes or trees that block the trail. >> Oh, >> where they come out. Remember that? >> I never even thought of that. >> Yep. That's a great point. Yeah. So, it's a huge amount of properties,
which I remember when we were talking about commercial signs, they were worried about how many people it impacted when this impacts much more. Were the code letters that were sent out, were they targeted to specific properties or was it a broad mailer?
>> It was a sweep. So, it was went through the town and we took a look and again they were not noticed as a violation. And there were courtesies to let people know that there was a concern based upon what the code says today. >> Gotcha. Thank you.
>> I've got a question. >> Yeah, >> I do. >> Okay. I'm not a horse owner. I'm I'm not concerned with the trails. Um, I have a neighbor many years ago that got a permit to put up a gate on the
rightway that's um between the canal and where the property was. And that was the reason why I put the gate up is because he had a person who decided to come up and down and exercise their horses. And I don't mean a horse, I mean a whole
bunch of horses all in tow. and he almost ran my neighbor over with the horses. So, my neighbor went out and got a permit from the town and put up a gate. I live at 917B. Um, I'm I'm not familiar with where the
trails are. I'm not familiar with this with this property that you're speaking of. I'm sure based on what I'm hearing that it should be addressed. Um, but why can't the people,
I guess, that have the trees or the foliage or whatever, why can't they be addressing this rather than us trying to go through and say, "Okay, you got to take your bushes out. You've got to take your bushes out. You've got to take your bushes out." >> I agree.
>> Why? Why can't it be addressed in such a manner? I mean, I think that this should be something that falls under the line of courtesy. And I can tell you that my neighbors over the 46 years I've lived out here.
Okay? If there was a problem, I spoke to my neighbors. My neighbors and I came to a reasonable, you know, conclusion on something. We didn't have to go the part of having somebody come out and say, "Okay, I don't like your bushes. I don't like your trees. Take them out. We could
take care of it ourselves. So I I guess also I knew. So I'm I'm kind of sitting here not really knowing what's what's going on. I'm sure after a meeting or so I'll get more of a a gest
of this. Um but I don't know. I I don't know the areas that you're speaking about. >> So um I apologize. So there are there's existing language already in the code that requires the property owner to take some action. >> Okay.
>> Okay. So the intent to bring it to you was do we continue with the action that's in the code? Do we amend the code in some way or do you amend it by removing it? Okay. So, there's actions that the council is asking this committee to make a recommendation on
what we should particularly do because right now the obligation is for the property owner if it's in the line of sight to remove the whatever the the block or the distraction is. Okay. >> Which property owner? >> Yeah. >> So, it's so again,
>> which property owner? >> So, there's three different circumstances, right? There's the trails. So if there's an intersection between the trails and the street. >> Okay. >> Okay. The second scenario is a driveway and the street. And the third scenario
is a street and a street. Those are the two the three line of sight situations. Okay. So it was brought forth. There was confusion about how you even measured that triangle. Uh Karen was right. We did bring up in some
instances. Did we want to do it? Did we not want to do it? Um, and so last time that we were here, Gary was here along with me. The idea was to again bring language for you to consider or decide you don't want. That's fine as well. Um,
and then make a determination. So, Christine, maybe the question is maybe you're not good with a driveway and a trail, but maybe you're okay with a street to street. I don't know that. However, I will tell and I'm not an engineer in background, but you know the
concern so you know is as Laura has said is accidents. You know, we're in charge of the streets whether it's paved or not is irrelevant. I don't want to say I guess right ofway. So our concern is if a person tries to go out if you try to
leave your driveway or leave a trail and you're the the the landscaping is in the way that you can't see and you try to come out and you get hit by a vehicle. That's the situation we're trying to avoid. Correct.
So it's a life health safety from staff's perspective is that you know and again attorney is here you know liability involved if we don't try to do something again we have to change the language that's my concern because right
now the it is there you have the responsibility to ensure there's no nothing in the triangle that goes above three feet and must be higher than 8 feet. So it leaves a clear area that the driver of a vehicle should be able to see. Does that help?
>> Unfortunately, not everybody's as good as your neighbors will work things out. There's a lot of people just say screw you and tell figure it out. >> Yeah. >> So you need to have some basic rules. They can come to the town and say, "Look, I can't see this person put these 10 foot, you know, raas up or whatever,
and now my street's totally blocked." So we just need some basic rules where the town can go and say, "Hey, you need to leave a triangle so people coming out of the building, whatever, can actually see, you know." So that's what it is. I mean, if you had all great neighbors, you wouldn't need this, but unfortunately, you need some basic
guidelines. >> Okay. >> But if people weren't speeding, >> you know, key. >> So who who's the liability on if someone's driving down the street at 40 miles, 50 miles an hour, which I see him regularly. >> Okay. I can throw an example back on
that one. Somebody coming down the the trail, quote, what they're calling a trail. They they said that the between the canal on B road, I live on the west side. Okay. Between the canal and quote,
however many feet back it is for my property or or my neighbor's property, that is a trail. Okay. I'm coming out of my driveway, not speeding, but I'm coming out of my driveway and the horse is coming down there. Okay, I hit the
horse or the horse hits me. Who is at fault? >> Again, a fabulous question. >> You know, that's a that's a hypothetical you're not going to be able to answer without like, you know, video and actually somebody testifying a whole bunch for as to what was going on. The
idea of the sight triangle is that when you're pulling out of your your driveway, >> right, >> you're going to have a better opportunity to see the the car or the horse or whatever. And especially if it's speeding, you're going to have an
opportunity um to make a judgment as to whether or not you can pull out safely. Um and that gets exacerbated if somebody is is speeding. Um, but if you cannot see, there's the problem that you have to
actually pull out into the rightway. Um, and if somebody's coming down, then you're more likely to get struck. That's the whole basis of of this. Individual circumstances as to who's going to be liable and all those kind of things is obviously going to be determinative by
what the facts on the ground are. Mhm. >> Um, and you know, we can go through a million scenarios and and it can vary depending on on what was out there. The basic idea of the site triangle is though it enhances people's opportunity
to avoid an accident. Laura, you had said something about which property, and my thought was, and I'm not sure if this was where you were going, is there are situations in the town in which um driveways are
put on or very close to the property lines. And so you have a situation in which the driveway may be servicing one property, but it it may border um the other property so closely that that
other property impacts the site triangle. Is that what you were talking about? >> Exactly. >> Okay. Um, and so in that circumstance, um, and you know, I jump in where maybe I I haven't fully reviewed things, but
in that circumstance, the site triangle would apply, um, not only to the property on which the driveway um, exists, but also the property that is negatively impacting the the site triangle and an order to take down uh,
those trees or shrubs could be imposed. Um, typically, and you know, pardon me for not uh knowing off the top of my head exactly what our code is, but typically um at least in new
development, you would avoid that circumstance. Um because there's typically setback regulations with respect to where driveways can come out. Um, so that you are dealing when you're dealing with your driveway, dealing with your
driveway on both sides and there's not question you bring it. Um, but I do know of several circumstances in this town, you know, just from driving by and being around here for uh, a number of years that there are driveways that are literally on the on the property line.
Um what our position would be that both would have to um be compliant um because the site triangle um is that life safety kind of important thing and we try to enforce it. >> So what is the original code? >> Go ahead.
>> What is the original code? >> The one we have now. Yeah. >> What is it in >> Is it in here? It it's not in what you got tonight, but uh the sight triangle for streets were 25 feet on each side, but it was from a
rightaway line. And the confusion was there, it's not a consistent rightway line, and sometimes there's no rightaway line. It's an easement line. What we tried to do in the new drawing is address that by calling edge of pavement, which everybody knows where the edge of pavement is, whether it's
dirt, pavement, or whatever it is, and we took a 10-ft offset from there. What if there's only a five on my deed? >> It wouldn't matter. The the 10- foot offset is an imaginary line. So, somebody would just measure 10 foot off the road. And what I did is, if you
remember, we talked last meeting. I was going to go back and see what we could do as a minimal setback based on county regulations. For the new members, there's Federal Highway Administration has requirements for sight triangles. The state of Florida has requirements for sight triangles.
And the Palm Beach County has requirements for sight triangles and every community within the county has requirements for sight triangles. >> But do we have one in our code now for driveways? >> We do. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Are are you asking like what is the specific number like 050-17AB?
>> I also want to know the specifics what the feed is, what the >> Okay. Right now again with the driveway it's the same type of thing. It's a 10 by 10 with a corner clip, but again, it's defined in a current uh code as the rightaway line, 10 foot from the
rightway line. And again, we don't have it defined right away in most instances. So, what we tried to do is again simplify it and go with just a 10-ft offset, whatever the pavement was. And if you look at you look at the county regulations which were kind of supposed to follow every municipality their
minimum rightway for a residential street is 40 ft. >> So if you look at a 20 foot pavement it's 10t on each side and the rightway line is then 15t off there. So it's typically >> 25 >> 25 feet. We reduced it to 20 which would
be minimum 10 foot of the road and from the edge of road we only go 10 feet instead of 15 feet like the county would do. >> And this mockup or this suggestion is taking into consideration um something you mentioned at the last meeting which was the 80th percentile being the speed
limit that people actually do and not the posted speed limit. I remember that conversation >> a motion that we swear Joey >> Oh sorry I also too I would love to apologize. I'm so sorry. So sorry. No disrespect. Could not could not run
enough people off the road. Uh Southern, not Okachobee. Just just for the record. >> Um yeah, I believe you have your oath in front of you. You can just read off of the oath and then you can be sworn in. >> Thank you. >> Do I say my name in the do part or just
read the whole thing? Just read it. I do solemnly swear or affirm that I will support, protect, and defend the Constitution and government of the United States and of the state and of the charter of the town of Lockxahachi Groves. That I am duly qualified to hold office under the Constitution of the State and the Charter of the Town of
Lockache Grove. And that I will well well and faithfully perform the duties of committee member upon which I am now about to enter. >> Thank you. And then just sign it off and pass it over. And then do you guys also want to do the chair and vice chair now or would you rather do that at a different time?
>> Might as well get it done. >> Any nominations? Yeah, >> I'll be chair. >> I nominate Joe. Second. >> Oh. All in favor? >> I
>> opposed. >> Motion passes three to z three to two. >> So I nominate Karen Plant. Can I do that as for a vice chair? Second. All in favor? >> I I
>> Motion passes 5. >> I'm just jealous. >> I was going to ask a question about this. Can a lot of this stuff be basically complaint driven instead of uh driving around trying to find? >> Sorry, we also have two public comments. I don't know if you want to take them now or if you'd rather wait till the end
as well. Just letting you know. >> We have public comments. >> We had >> Oh, hi people in the chairs. >> Um, we have public comments on >> discussion right for line of sight.
>> Okay. with me. >> Yes. >> Okay. Well, when when we finish up discussing, is that okay if you guys we'll finish up here and then we'd love to hear from you. So, I I just wanted Can we go back? I just wanted to go back
and ask again if this mockup, this suggestion um was based on the 80th 80 percentile. I remember you saying something. >> This one is not, Madam Chairman. It's based on a a low-speed, low volume road, which we basically have in town. Um,
when you get up to the state and a federal highway administration levels, they do adjust and have larger sight distances because they look at the 85% uh speed. >> Okay. >> And much larger and much longer than what you have for small residential
streets. >> Right. I just remembered you mentioning that and I didn't know if that was taken into consideration or not. >> Okay. And we're working off of edge of pavement, correct? >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Is that can a lot of this be based
on complaints and not driving around looking for hazards? >> I agree. >> Sorry. The answer is yes, it can be. However, staff has been directed by council to look at life health safety violations.
>> Actually, council I think asked not to look at this anymore and do other things. I agree. What meeting what meeting were you directed at to do this? >> Because this has been floating around since the endish of 2024. >> Well, I I don't know the exact meeting
to be honest with you, Laurel. It was something that was brought up when we were talking about um things like the manure violations and it was brought up anything that was live health safety. Karen is correct. We have not been enforcing it since the discussion was brought front in front of the committee.
But as if the council defines this as life health safety, we would be proactive. We are typically reactive not proactive. But when it they do now they could define this as not being a life health safety and we would not go around citing people because that's the
directive of the council. So regardless we have to have we have to have parameters and we have to have a a a set rule for everyone to follow whether it is complaint driven or council driven right we can't just say
oh you get to have to do this and you can do that or you don't have to do anything right so this is an attempt to get >> they do that's the existing >> exactly >> are we using lights by the way miss chair >> yes Okay, go ahead.
>> But a few minutes ago, we weren't. So, I just I'm now I'm catching up. There we go. You have your light on. >> Mhm. >> Karen was speaking. I'll go after that. Pretty sure I said what I wanted to say. But I So,
>> we're in the free-for-all here. >> Well, I mean, having article 105 in front of us is truly helpful. So, if my committee members would go to page 10 of the handout
where the diagram of driveway to road is now going to be 20 ft versus the 10 described in our existing language. So,
what is the town's proposal to accommodate land owners to make these changes? Or are you going to have certain sites grandfathered in? Or as Mr. Austin stated, is it going to be
complaint and need driven? And my final question is, what is the statistic in the last, let's say, 5 years of recorded PBSO accidents of people getting out their driveway and being hit? >> We don't have that statistic.
>> It probably wouldn't be too hard to go back through the annual reports from Captain Turner. I agree with line of sight concerns 100%. Again, the onus falls on the person exiting the property, whether you're on
a horse, a four-wheeler, a car, a manure truck, whatever. Um, I think there are better things that staff in this committee can be looking at than this. >> Thank you. I'm just going to step in a little bit
and we have a lot of work done on this and it, you know, Laura, I don't know if you're I don't know what your concern is, but it sounds like you think they're asking them to move mountains. They're all they're asking them to do is trim bushes down.
>> I >> But go on. Sorry. >> Is that incorrect? Are we not asking people to trim bushes down? Fences that you can see through are fine. Correct. >> Correct. Bushes need to come down. A tree needs to be trimmed with to an 8ft
branch. >> That's it. That's it. Hold on. And and for the safety of me on a horse, you on a bike or somebody in a car with a baby carriage going by. If in if one day we ever do get a greenway, I don't
understand how this is so egregious to you to not help people make it out onto our roads safely, especially when you and I both know that no one's doing 25. No one. Nobody. I live on B- road.
They're not doing 25. Um before you got here, we had the discussion of so and Jeff even, you know, brought it up again. There's a driveway that goes out to the road. Well, the site line of sight is blocked by the
neighbor who has a beautiful old pine tree that is, you know, x >> x number of feet tall that falls in the line of sight. So to whom is the tree is fine. Yeah, but what if it's in the line of sight? The tree is fine. The branches
have to be at 8 ft. The tree is fine and that is state. That's not what's in Am I Am I correct or am I incorrect? >> No. If you look at the diagram in the part of the materials, let's go take a look.
So, it's that's paragraph A. Um >> trees having limb forage trimmed in such a manner that no limbs or foliage extends into the area between 30 in and 8 ft above the level of the center of the adjacent intersection.
>> So the big old fat pine tree is okay >> if it's if correct as long as you don't have the branches or foliage has to be less than 30 in or taller than eight >> bushes coming right up to it blocking it and you know that's why I trim my bushes back. Right. You can see your own spine
>> so I can get out on the road safely. Yeah, hide park is a challenge. >> I see line of sight being um covered just by telephone poles. You're going to tell me a big fat tree won't cover your line of sight. >> Great point.
>> But again, they're not it's not a solid thing. It's a thing that that Yeah, we want if if there's telephone poles in the way, let's get FPNL to take them out. But a tree, you know, there's not like a line of trees. are not that close together. They're just asking for for
you to be from your window to 8 ft so that that view is unobstructed. >> Have to be a huge tree to block a car. >> 100. Yes, for sure. >> I I go I go driveways that have just a a telephone pole and I can't see around it until I'm sticking out.
>> The bush is right up the telephone pole. >> No, it's just a telephone pole, but you can't see past it. If it's my car is low and if it's there, it's there. You have to get your front out into the street to get past the telephone pole >> or the telephone pole, but you can't see
in front of it, >> right? >> You know what I'm saying? >> What's on this side of the telephone pole, >> but you can't see in front of it? >> Oh, probably bushes and fences. >> My point. Bushes should be >> 10 feet >> under 30 in. So, you can see through.
>> It's just a fence, though. I I think it's where the telephone pole is the way they did the streets. >> But so >> leading the line of sight. >> Well, listen, we all know the streets go like this and then around the telephone poles. No, I'm serious. >> 100%. >> I'm serious.
>> 100%. They're none of them are straight. No doubt about it. There's there's there's there's plenty of things that are true, too. >> Yeah. Well, I mean, who are we going to get? It's FPNL's got to take the poll. I still believe the council asked us to
leave this go for now and go to more important things. It's already on paper. We already have the ordinance. I don't understand why we're redoing it. Well, I think the I think >> because the >> the situation is that we do have an
ordinance in place and if the committee doesn't want to propose any changes and or andor the c um the council doesn't want to consider any changes, then the
ordinance to be enforced is the one that is currently on the the books. Um, and I have not been very much involved in this process, but my understanding was that the committee was going to look at
things that might um soften or more specifically address the impacts within this town um and propose language that might work better for the town than the existing
language. If you don't want to uh move forward or you think that it's not necessary, that recommendation can be taken back to the council and then um the directive would be do you want us to enforce this ordinance that is on the
books right now? My understanding is, and correct me if I'm wrong, Karen, because this is your item, um, that the council said, "Whoa, let's step back, not enforce at the moment
until we get feedback from the committee on whether or not changes are necessary to the ordinance. If changes are not necessary to the or ordinance, that's the ordinance that will be enforced. Whether it is on a sweep basis or on a
complaint basis, that would become the ordinance that is enforced. >> It looks like we're making it more restrictive than less by adding another 10 ft to the driveways push back. >> I don't think so because it's from line of sight.
>> No, it's it's from edge of payment. It's 10 ft on the existing ordinance I see here and then they want to add another 10 ft on the new um ordinance >> and that must be >> that's that's not true. Your existing
ordinance shows that it's coming from a perceived rightaway line. It's not from the edge of pavement. So a typical roadway in town when we get easement stuff that's that's usually 30 feet and we have 15 or 20 feet from the edge of pavement to where the perceived
rightaway or easement line is. You see that in the existing ordinance it's dashed that's the pave pavement surface itself and then the line is actually what the rightway or easement line is. So we've actually made it less restrict >> less restrictive. I mean, I I don't have any problem with
this, but I think it should be just complaint driven and not driving around complaining about certain ones and but this isn't a bad to me. This isn't bad at all. 45 ft. >> Do you want to make that a motion?
>> Street line. That's the street. >> That's the street. The street 25. >> So, what's this? >> Just for a picture, >> but that would be the street. I mean, I like this as it is, as long as it's complaint driven and not going
around just picking out people because like as telephone poles and all the other weird stuff we have in this town and be driving people crazy for no reason. But if you have a legitimate complaint from a neighbor who's almost getting hit because their neighbor next to them won't trim their bushes down so they can see, I mean, that would be
something to act on to me. >> What about the idea of uh mirrors? I know somebody was floating that idea around. Well, that would be on the owner property owners. Put some mirrors out so they can see. I've done that before and got smashed talking about that. >> Laura,
thank you. Robert, do you want to make your suggestion a motion and see where a vote falls on that? Okay. I move we accept his new line of sight but on a complaint basis
motion >> second. Do we have any discussion >> to hear from? >> I do. Yeah, I would like to hear from the public, but I also have a comment and that is while I agree that this the town
shouldn't go out cherrypicking people to conform or not. If it's a townwide thing and it just says and there is a hey, this is going to happen. We would like everybody to be at 25 ft. have a a a
clear visual for roads. We're also going to take care of our roads, which are um you know, Okchobee, clean that stuff up, whatever public works needs to do. Just make it a townwide thing so that they're letting
everybody know and then you can go about it at your own speed. And if you don't, and I think that was the discussion we had, correct me if I'm wrong, that we were going to put this out and give everybody, what was it? What did we say? Six months, a year or something. I It
was a good amount of time, right, to get to everybody say, "Hey, this is coming. We want to get our roads saved. you have six months to trim your bushes and trim your trees and and and get in in compliance with with health and public
health and safety regulations throughout town. Um, so having it be complaint driven just starts moving, you know, it's like chasing a leak in your roof, you know, it's just because now it's the next spot, now it's the next spot. I I I personally don't have a problem with
public health and safety. I I I just don't um and yes, I would like to hear from our public as well. You want to do please go ahead and then we'll ask the public to come up. >> Well, I I want to jump in on that. When
we get to the part of asking people to trim their bushes, trim their trees, whatever, we have to get our garbage company to actually pick up the stuff that's put out to the street. Because going down B road right now, there's
several places that the land owners have held the stuff out week after week after week that the garbage company hasn't picked up. And now they're complaining that they won't pick it up because it's over the six cubic yards. that's allotted to that place. Well, if they
picked it up the first time it went out, it would wouldn't be more than six cubic yards. But if you wait 6 months, okay, of course it's going to be a huge pile. And the first thing the garbage company says is you can't call in because you
don't own that property. You can't argue for them to pick it up because you're not the owner. And by the way, we're going to charge the people to pick it up. Well, it goes back to if you were doing your job the first time, then it
wouldn't be that way. So, if you're if you're going to do this mass um you know, clean of bushes and trees and whatever, don't we have a hurricane time coming up here pretty soon that the garbage company has to pick up the yard
waste that's out there? We are we the town arranges for um relief uh so that we can get the the hurricane um you know the prehurricane stuff taken care of. >> Okay.
>> But uh it's all pursuant to uh the contract and there are a couple days uh a year that we generally allocate for that process. >> Right. >> But not on a continuous basis. No, I'm not saying on a continuous basis. I'm saying right now that I, as the land
owner, have a three family pile out in front of my driveway. When it comes across the canal, we have a spot. So that's 18 cubic yards we can put out every Friday. Do you know that during the year I have to actually call and
fight to have them come out and pick it up? >> I'm not saying I put the 18 QB guns. I'm not saying my neighbor did. >> Yeah. But I'm saying it gets there. And it was up to 54 cubic yards um about a month and a half ago when I
jumped on them and I said, "Hey, you aren't picking it up weekly like you're supposed to. >> Don't talk to me about cubic cubic yards." >> Well, I understand the I understand the relationship, but it's >> sort of not specifically derained to what the committee is supposed to be doing.
>> I want it to be safety, too. >> No matter what it is, I want it to be safety, too. And I can go with the 25 feet. I have no problem there. But the part of people cutting down bushes and cutting down trees, I'm just saying that if they comply with what we're saying,
we're going to have a problem because now how are they going to get it off the property? The garbage company doesn't pick up. >> I will I will convey those comments to our public works uh director and we'll see if we can address that with the uh waste management company.
>> Okay. and you you get public comments from people who uh are in the are in the business, they might tell you that they'll real quick. She's going to chat and then >> I just want to say hold my motion until after we hear from these two gentlemen. >> Yes,
>> absolutely. >> Jim Frogner. >> Yes. >> Are you both gyms? >> Okay. A couple things. 10 ft. 10 foot corner clip >> in the microphone. Thanks. >> A 10-ft corner clip is almost universal.
At least city, county, state. 10 ft is is pretty much perfect for 25 ft. Wow, that's huge. >> I don't see many people making that. One of the things that struck my mind is
the code enforcement wouldn't be doing a sweep for these corner clips. Uh corner clip was safe distance triangle is the correct terminology, not line of sight. Line of sight is as grow.
Safe distance triangle is what we're talking about. So, with that being said, there's going to be a lot of issues with this. This is a necessary code for public safety. I strongly encourage the
approval of this by staff. What's going to happen is there's going to be some trees in the way. Bushes can be trapped. There'll be some trees in the way. People are going to have fences in the way. They're going to have fence posts, gate posts in the way. Not everybody, but there may be. And
there's going to have to be a solution for those. Hopefully, it won't be a code enforcement violation. Can I ask? >> I have a feeling you're misunderstand. We're not making the driveway go out to 25 ft. This is just so you can see. So, the trees and everything can stay. >> It's just like the diagram. A 10ft
corner cliff 10 ft clear sight. >> No, sir. It >> We're just saying you line of sight. So, you're not 25 ft back and you have to have the driveway go around that corner. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about just being able to pull up this corner and having it line of sight that you can see.
>> Don't be mistaken. >> We're not talking about making the driveways go out 25 ft like huge driveways. We're talking about just so you can pull the corner and be able to line of sight, be able to see where there's no bushes blocking your view right up to the street cuz there are areas where the bushes are right up to the street where you cannot see at all
until >> is that mostly on the canal and bulations like that. It's all over all over the place throughout the towel. >> So, >> and if you have and if you have a post and rail fence, that's okay. You can see through that. see through the
>> but a solid like concrete fence. Yes, that that would probably have some have to be lowered or something to the 33 in. >> But no, we're not asking right we're not asking any >> property and put street there. That's not at all what we're talking about.
Talk about for vision, >> for safety, for pulling out. >> Okay, that's about all I have to say. >> Thank you. Thank you for coming tonight. And then James Borsus. Good afternoon again, James Borsus. Uh,
I've worked with about 60 different codes in different municipalities here in South Florida and Louisiana. Uh, the 10-ft corner clip that the town currently has is pretty much standard.
And as Karen uh said, um three feet to six feet clear trunk. So you can have a tree there. Uh but clear trunk, no bushes. Uh I think um I think the Groves
calls for 30 in. Uh that's the same that the ULDC in Palm Beach County calls for. Both myself, Mr. Frogner both, excuse me, we both work for the zoning department in Palm Beach County. So, uh,
we are familiar with this. Um, uh, I think a 25 foot along the edge of the property and 25 ft down is a little restrictive. Uh, where
10 feet is the standard. Um, now as I said, there's a typically a 3 to 8 foot clear trunk vision within that triangle. If you want to get more restrictive, I might suggest you increase it. And I I'm
coming from an equestrian point of view. I'm a big guy. I sit on my Belgian draft horse and my eyes are 10 feet above the ground. I've measured this before. So I no I'm 10 feet above above the the ground. The code calls for 8T. If you
want to be more restrictive, maybe you want to increase that where they trim the branches so it's 10 ft clear trunk. But that's just from my perspective and uh only in the interest of providing a uh a professional perspective to the
town uh for your assistance. >> Thank you very much. Yes. If I could just add a 25 by 25 foot clip on a street to street is standard. It's a Palm Beach County standard and pretty standard across the county and
communities too >> for vision. >> Provision, right? >> And that's driveway and intersection as well. >> Street to street I think what he's referring to on the 25 ft.
Street to street, >> right? Street to street, driveway to street >> 25. Street to street is 25. Driveway to street is 10, >> right? >> That's pretty standard >> and that's what we're doing, right? >> Yes. >> We're not asking for 25 on driveways.
>> No. >> So, we just wanted to make sure that that was clear to everyone that that it's 25 street to street. Okay. So, we have a motion and can >> I'll make the motion to accept it as 25 ft street to street line of vision and
10 foot clip for the driveways, but all of it as basically complaint driven and not the town driving around looking to sight people. >> Second. >> All in favor? I
>> opposed. >> Yes. >> N me I'm opposed as well. >> So that passes 3 to two. Get your phones ready. I will be. The uh the next item is the discussion
of the sign code. Uh the previous board worked a lot in regards to modifications to the sign code. We were asked to bring back to you a draft copy of an of a ordinance as we all discussed because of Senate Bill 180 if it's more restrictive
which this code would be proposed code would be we have to wait till Senate Bill 180 has expired. However, this committee's um directive was we want to have it ready so that as soon as Senate Bill 180 is no longer effective, we can
immediately go ahead and present to the council the recommendation regarding the sign code. Well, with that, I will turn it over to Jeff. >> Yeah. Um, just to be clear with respect to Senate Bill 180, it did um several
things, but the the relevant language um here is that it said you can't make more restrictive um regulations um within uh a certain time period of a
a hurricane. And they started off with the existing hurricanes that um had occurred and they said you can't do anything till October of 2027 and the language is propose um legislation. We
don't consider your work proposing um but we do think that advancing um this type of ordinance to the planning and zoning board would be proposing and um would subject us to potential um
attorneys fees if we uh went forward with it. So this is going to be one of those things that's kind of on the shelf. The current date is October um of 20 October 1st of 2027. There is
language that um created a new statute um and within Senate Bill uh 244 and it says that you can't propose these kind of regulations within one year of a
hurricane um having uh gotten your county listed on the um the disaster um uh relief uh um area for for FEMA basically. So
it is currently October 2027. Knock on wood as we always do this time of year. Um if there is not a hurricane that impacts um Palm Beach County between now
and October 1st of 2027, this can move forward. So that's the big caveat. This is um uh ready for you to to discuss in that context. It won't go to to planning and zoning board. Um
previous committee um you know made some suggested changes. One of the things that we wanted to do with the the signs is get it away from a contentbased sign code um to bring it in line with the uh
Supreme Court rulings. Um, so the sign code that the committee talked about before talked about size, location, placement and did not got away from real
estate signs are okay or opinion signs. Um, all signs in a sense have an opinion, right? They're they have an opinion. They're trying to sell you something. They're trying to inform you of something. They're trying to do that. So, we got away from the the content
aspect and what the what the >> I'm sorry. Uh, so and the idea of holiday holiday and seasonal signage, we got rid of that because obviously that's content based and that's just another
sign. Um and the other thing that the com the committee and the discussions were um this idea of temporary signs versus permanent signs. There's just going to be a certain number of signs that are allowed in in the AR
specifically. Um and so lots of times you have real estate signs that are thought of as temporary signs. that would just be one of the signs that you're um entitled to in the AR district. And I'm going
through this pretty quickly and we can go over it however you all want to go over it, but in the AR district, instead of having a bunch of different types of signs listed there, um there is >> What page are you on? I am on page seven
of 20 of the article 90 on signs. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Um this is in the AR zoning district which is the predominant zoning district
in in the town. Um signs located on lots of five acres or more i.e. conforming lots or conforming plots. Um, you can have the mandatory building identification sign as indicated. It's
mandatory. Um, you can have one primary sign. The primary sign, um, face area size is nine square feet. That's not really that big. That's a 3x3 sign. Um and and you can have up to three
additional secondary signs um for whatever purpose you you want them to be, but those signs are limited to um four square feet in size. Um no sign can be higher than six feet in
height. Um and no monument signs are permitted in the AR district. Um that's for conforming lots. Um for non-conforming lots, those lots that are less than 5 acres in size, and we have a
number of them in in town. Um from an acreage standpoint, um they're obviously not as significant as the conforming lots, but on a pure numerical basis, conforming and nonconforming signs, it's
relatively close to 5050. Um but the um there you can have your mandatory um building identification sign and you can have one primary sign um and it can be up to nine square feet and then you only
get one additional um secondary sign uh probably because you don't have as much room um to put it up there. Um and once again uh the sign can't be higher than six feet in height and no monument signs are permitted. Now
with it the committee also discussed that within the AR zoning district there are a lot of farms. That's a good thing. That's indicative of what this community is. That's consistent with um what uh
the vision of this community always has been. Um, but there is a state regulation that says farm signs, they're not necessarily subject to your um zoning regulations. And by not
necessarily, I mean someone can voluntarily place their signs under our review. um uh but the state says you don't have to and it's probably unwise for them to to do so and be subject to
those restrictions. And if it is a farm sign, which is a a sign related to the farm business, um you are not limited in any respect. So, we've got a number of signs that um you
will see out there that would continue to exist based on um the fact that they are farm signs and they are essentially exempt from these zoning regulations. >> Does that include line of sight? >> Um
if you don't have an answer, just I can think of at least half a dozen through town. That's it perpendicular to the road. um might >> not to get muddied but just >> um my answer would be no but um whether
I would be correct or whether we would be able to enforce that I'm not I'm not 100% sure of it's a very good uh question but because of the life safety aspect of it and those kind of things um I would say not and what we would typically do in that situation from an enforcement standpoint and try to work
with them it's not that you can't have the sign at all just move it a little bit so that those impacts are not uh are mitigated in some way. Um and
then with respect to um the commercial um areas um we added uh we we put them all we put the PUD the commercial low and the
commercial low office we subject subject them to exactly the same regulations um And you have that beginning on page 8 um of 20. We removed uh canopy signs and
awning signs pursuant to discussion. Um once again we go to not a real estate um sign but a secondary sign concept. Um and the holiday signage is struck. And
what you have what we have included in here is that for any any commercial zoning district um if you've got a single tenant building or a multi-tenant building or a multi-tenant uh development you have to
come in with a master sign plan. Um and uh pursuant to what we understood uh the committee's direction was that master assigned plan is not going to be administratively approved. It goes um to
the big honchos, the town council and they deal with it. Um uh we have included um some ability for the town council um to make limited waiverss
um on the the size of the the individual signs. Typically in a master sign plan, somebody will come in and you might get into a trade-off situation where they might have been entitled to x amount of square feet or x number of signs and they'd say, you know, I I want one
that's going to be about 20% bigger and those kind of things have depend and that can that can be approved in the master sign plan concept. That's the the concept behind that. Um uh and then there's
>> me too. I'm going I'm going through this really quickly so that you get the idea. >> Could I could I ask you a question really quickly? >> Sure. >> That what you're what you're talking about right now is the the exact part that we cannot present to planning and zoning because we don't have a site plan
request on the books as it stands. Right. >> Um that's a part of it. The bigger part, well, as as big a part is the distinct limitation on the the number and size of the signs, especially in the
AR district that um we're allowing that nine square feet of sign is small. We've talked about 3x3. Um that town of Lockache Groves behind you,
>> that's that's probably Six. I'm not good on on circles and circumferences and all that, but that's probably about six feet. >> But you're talking AR. I'm >> That's three feet. >> Huh? Yeah. >> From here to there to the tip of my fingers is three feet. So that's three feet. >> Yeah.
>> But you're talking AR, which doesn't need a sight plan. >> Commercial, right? Like a a signage site plan. >> Yes. >> That's commercial. Or you're we're we're trying to implement >> across the board. >> The sign code is across the board. Most
stuff in AR is not going to be >> but the site plan for signs. >> The the master plan is is not in the AR. The master plan is in the commercial areas. >> Okay. So that we're right but that is what we cannot
change right now. It's not in our code currently. Correct. To have them >> correct. >> That's what we're trying to Okay. So Okay. Well, I had a question about the monument signs. Like, what if you have a nice 2025 acre big horse farm and you
want to put a monument sign out front, but you can't do it because it's in the AR area. And I'm not talking about a huge monument sign, but there's some really nice looking monument signs that you could do >> like put one in front of your, you know, >> that was that was our understanding of
the committee's direction. That's obviously up for discussion. >> Okay. That was not that was not a staff recommendation. That was a committee >> uh direction >> because I was under the impression that monument sounded like those big ugly things in front of boonies that's 20
feet up in the air and it's been there since the 70s >> like the Washington monument. >> So So that actually is a pole sign >> right pole sign >> versus um like covers I know not saying but that's like a monument sign where
you have a base >> right >> just so there's a difference between actually driving around. There's a lot of really nice looking monument signs out there. You can have them with the flowers, with the back lighting, with the low-level lighting on them, and they don't look bad at all. So, you're going to >> that could look really bad in a town
with a bunch of ad properties if you add those up. It really could. It's a bad idea. >> Yeah. What about the What about all the uh businesses on Okchobee like Red Barn? But those are commercial and that >> I don't think Red Barn is commercial. I mean, is it zoned commercial or it's
still in the AR district? If you look at our map that I was just looking at, the only thing is it's >> I believe I believe the Red Barn site is does have a commercial designation. >> Yeah, it's PD. >> What about Big Dog? >> It's muddy PD. >> Red Barn on Okobee. >> Yeah, it's mixed use.
>> Oh, it's mixed use. >> Remember that. >> Yeah, that's what I'm saying. I was looking at that map and you got all this stuff along Okchobee and I didn't let's see institutional on any of the churches. You have a you have a the little Noah's Arc the old Noah's Arc got
institutional somehow. >> Well, >> big dog institutional. I mean, >> Robert, you were correct. All the properties along Okachobee except for the red barn are a >> right >> now. They have the ability that they could come in for a zoning change if they wanted to. the churches to like an
institutional if the council would approve it would be different but they are all right now zoned >> but they have to pay taxes >> and they they to us churches but they can voluntarily >> but I think that I think that I think what we're trying to do there is make
sure that the placement is not so um difficult like moving it out of the out of the easement because a lot of those signs were out in the easement and and then also to um restricting the size as much as we possibly Can >> well you want to block the line of sight
and you can't go on these people's personal property either to take down their stuff. >> Yeah. >> No. >> And in Okobee is a little different because Okobee is a county road. So the county already went down Okobee looking for the signage that is on their right
of way because generally signage is not allowed on right away because they own the rightway. The county owns the rightway. So that just kind of keep in mind >> which is where those perpendicular signs will probably get moved as well. >> So basically you're saying Okachobee
Boulevard then does not fall under our purview at all. That's Palm Beach County and they've already >> No, it the zone the zoning does the signs that are within the rightway and Okchobee has a wide rightway at that
point in time. Um those signs were probably there almost in a trespass situation um in that they did not have the the property owner, the county's um authority to be there and the county
instead of engaging in a code enforcement action is kind of just moving them mowing them down. But they're taking care of of of that >> doing or
>> um what the other thing that um promotional signs um which are typically grand openings and those kind of things. Um we have eliminated those specific provisions. Um we note that in a master
sign plan you might >> Where are you? >> I am on page 17. >> Wow. Well, I'm I'm going through this as an overview. If you want me to go line by line, we can. But this, like I said, October 1st of 2027 is what we
>> I picked it out the agenda. I didn't see this in it. >> Um, this was a supplemental package that was sent to you all >> on Thursday. Yes. >> And published on Thursday. >> It was sent to us Thursday in what? Email. >> Yes.
>> Yes. >> Okay. So, it's not on the agenda. >> No, >> it is on the agenda. The item was on the agenda. The supplemental materials did not make it out until Thursday. I think there was a notation that things would be coming.
So, um, but this is more of a review of what the the past committee um considered and things for you to to think about um with respect to promotional signage. As I
said, that was um eliminated um as as a matter of right um in a master sign plan. um it could be accommodated um and worked out that way. One of the other big things that we have put in here once
again to go along with the idea that tempor there's not temporary signs or permanent signs. There's just signs is that um all signs require permits. cost of those permits may vary um depending
on on you know what's involved in them, but all signs would have to be permitted. That means if you're going to put up a real estate sign, you have to to come in. That means if you're going to put up a garage sale fine, you have to sign, you have to come in. Um and
from an enforcement standpoint that means that um those things things that we see that don't that fall within what we would think of in those categories if they are not um don't have the permit
then they are uh not allowed and you would cite them for not having a permit. Um >> that's crazy. So, somebody wants to sell their house and the realtor has to come in and ask for a permit to place their little snipe
sign on somebody's yard. Am I understanding? >> Well, snipe snipe signs were never allowed. >> Never allowed. >> So, >> but the the the typical real estate sign, >> right? The L-shaped thing with a plaque hanging on it. >> Yeah. Whatever. Yes. So, it's placed on
somebody's private property, not impairing any roadway, corners, line of sight, trash, mail, whatever. That requires a permit. >> And this starts in 2027. Well, this is
the that was the committee's our understanding of the committee's recommendation on those things because we're limiting all and that's you're you're I thinking of a situation of residential property. Um and so if it's a conforming lot, it's
allowed one major sign and three smaller signs. >> So that negates the permit. No, you have to get permits for each one of them. >> No, that what a money grab. That's horrible.
>> Not necessarily a money grab. Is an identification of that that's a legitimate sign to be out there, >> which also gives them permission to take it down after it's been there for two and a half years or more. I can't wait to see which realtors
comply or don't or what kind of fuss this is going to be. But anyway, so do I understand that that goes into effect 20 2027 based on the repeal of whatever SB18? >> What
what this does is um this is the current draft for the committee to to take a look at see if um it's consistent with the discussion that we have. If we want
to revisit things like monument signs in the um uh in the AR district, if we want to revisit whether the size limitations and the temporary concept and the real
estate concept and all those kind of things are realistic, we can do that between now and October 1st of 2027 unless there is a change in the um in
the legislation which that there were some discussions this year with respect to 180 as to whether or not the um Florida legislature was going to amend that provision and maybe move it to I think it was June or
July of um 26 that they were thinking about letting things go. um that similar discussion may happen next year and it might be June or July um that things can advance. But up until
then, and assuming no hurricanes, the sign code's going to to stay here, you've got time to to look at it. Um you don't have to make an instant decision. and this this committee um which has uh
two new members um you guys will will have some of those discussions but this is just an overview of where we were at um and you know not not intended the I it may seem like I've rushed through this presentation I went through the the
highlights of what's in front of you so you understand what the the big concepts are um and didn't expect you to make any final decisions tonight on the issue. >> Thank you for clarifying >> reintroduction if you will.
>> I'd like to go back and question what you were saying regarding signage and and I'm kind of stuck with her with Laura on that one. I have no signs currently at all on property because my property is on the back five of the
10acre piece. So, the only thing I have is um a keypad to get into the main on my if if I wanted to sell my house and a realtor wanted to put up a sign. It's not a permanent sign. It's just going to
be up for the period of time they're trying to sell my house, which I'm not doing. Okay. But um I could see I could see getting a permit
with a timeline >> of 6 months that it would be up or or something like that and a and a set fee to get a permit. just like any building on my property, I'm I'm expecting a
permit, >> you know. So, there's certain things I can understand. Um, but if I don't have any signs on my property now and I'm allowed based on what this
says to have a sign, as long as my realtor's sign fit within the the side this, you know, the size, then that should fall under one of the
free signs. Except for that's not your property. Sadly, you could have a real estate sign on your property which is down the driveway, right? >> I have easement. >> An easement. >> I have an easement. So, that is considered partly my property.
>> No, >> sadly not. >> Yeah. All right. Let's let's talk about a couple things because remember this is proposed language and it is proposed language that is
not going to be implemented for a while yet. Existing existing language says real estate signs are exempt from permitting and um so long as the the
sign is under is it six square feet I believe um then there would be no permitting there. Okay. And so what that means is real estate signs, you can put up 15 of
them all over your all over your property, all those kind of things. They're they're exempt from permitting. There is no limitation on the number of them. >> What the what the committee previously
looked at and was we'll give you four signs in the on a five acre lot. One main sign if you want that main sign to to be at least on a temporary basis
or maybe on a permanent basis because everything's always for sale for the right price, right? Um my property's for sale. God bless you. You can you can have the nine square feet. You'll need a permit for the for that to make sure that it isn't higher
than six feet and it's not a monument sign and those kind of things, but you can do that. And you can also have three other signs. And if you want to make them all real estate signs, go for it. You're going to have to to
come in for the the the permit. Now, maybe that permit fee, and this is the the thing when you worry about money going, maybe that permit maybe there is no cost to that permit fee. That's a that's a discussion that the the council can have. Maybe the cost is 10 bucks.
Um, you know, maybe it's 10 bucks every six months. Maybe it's there's there's formulas that that you can get into. Um, but it's just that you you can't have 10 10 signs like you could now. You're
limited to to four. Well, and also too, it was more the idea of the permitting was not necessarily to be a money grab. It was for identification so that when when somebody was like, "Oh my god, there's a sign somewhere and it's, you know, new or it's whatever that that
they would know that sign is been permitted and it's allowed to be there, whether it was $0 or $150. And if it's not permitted, then the town has the right to take it down." That was really what the permitting was about. Or if it's on private property bite them.
>> Yeah. It's it's as if somebody driving down the street didn't just stick their side. >> 100%. Right. Just to let them know, okay, or maybe it's, you know, this one's a little big or it's, you know, whatever. It needs to be back or it's in the line of sight. You just need to move it a bit. That was more the the
intention behind behind the permitting was not again not a money grab. It was more just for identification. So that especially when these signs go up all I mean they pop up all over the place. >> I also thought the reason the real
estate sign got lumped in with all the others was because we couldn't regulate content. >> Right. >> 100%. >> So you couldn't just say we can do this with a real estate sign but you can't do it with the other signs. You have to put them all in the same category.
>> It's part of the discussion. Absolutely. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. First amendment. Okay. >> Okay. >> So, um review this um and you know it
can come back on a on a future agenda. Um it, you know, the timing and everything depends on what the um importance of of um the other issues that you're you're working on. Um as
indicated, we're still on that October 1st, 2027. So this doesn't seem like an urgent matter, but um that's uh in large part up to the committee. Well, right. So, what has
council? So, there are two items that council has asked. um one that Laura brought up earlier and then there's the next one that's on our discussion which is the council has asked that the committees provide recommendations to the council
on topics, issues, concerns that you have and then they would like the chair to come to a council meeting and present those ideas to the council. So that would be one that came from the council and then the other one which Laura said
and I gave a copy of what was stated at the council meeting um which was that they are specifically looking for a definition of what rural means as it relates to our com community. Then they're asking to develop four to five
pillars to support the main goal of quality of rural lifestyle and protecting resident property values. And then they would like the committee to sub suggest one or two possible ways to promote the community. So there are three things the council's
looking for. What's the definition of rural? Some pillars to support the main goal of the quality of rural lifestyle. And then one or two possible ways to promote the community >> as as exactly as it relates to ULDC
or just how we've I'm not >> I think they're asking for for this kind of input from every single committee. Um uh and I don't know that it is well the the things that you want to work on
that's obviously should be within your uldc framework the pillars of the uh the community what rural means I don't think that's limit I don't think your vision should be limited to
>> what does that mean from like a uldc member perspective that's what does it mean from a town perspective active is my my understanding. Um and I think we're trying to have the um committee
chair people I think it's going to be on the July >> uh agenda. Um so this is >> get cracking. Okay. >> And I would agree with Jeff the the code amendments were specific for what within
your purview of what you think the committee should be doing. But the other the rural is the general from a resident perspective and how you see these things fitted together. >> Okay. So, so we're all sitting here,
everybody's pretty familiar with this town. Well, can let's let's just talk about is there anything that is screaming in your heads that needs to look at right away that we could present to council?
I would like to know the footprint of the proposed Southern Boulevard corridor revamp and how does that relate to what
we're trying to do? >> What who is trying to do? The town. Who? Wait. All of us. >> Karen can give you an update on that. It is that is wrapping up and then next week or so we'll have the draft report.
>> There there's going to be an update at the June 2nd council meeting of what's occurred and also to give you because there was a survey. So they're going to give you an update of what came from the survey and then at the June I want to say 1916 whatever date that is then
they'll be presenting a draft report. >> Okay. So, so maybe maybe broader Laura like defining the protecting our defining our town's borders and protecting them. I think there are things that we need to
look past our definition like what legislation is coming down the pike that is going to impact us as a town. First one I can think of is you know and again I'm paraphrasing and trying to keep it
simple. Church properties can be sold and houses be allowed to be built on them. And that's uldc. It's all of us. Okay. But I'm I'm specifically right now that I think leans towards the pillars, right? I'm kind of thinking if we could get
together a couple of things cuz council had asked for us to bring some stuff that we would maybe like to work on. Oh, I would I would love to not work on science for a while. >> Three years of science. Um, I would like
to see us resolve or at least tackle the conflict of comp plan language and land use maps. You think that falls in our bucket? >> Zoning. >> I think I
think >> I don't I I think we could we could do a a presentation, but I think that's much more um >> P&Z. >> I do, too. All right. Um you you had mentioned that the the Yimi and the live
local um stuff. I think that's where you were getting to in the legislation. Um and the the possibility of development um I am much less concerned about that
than a lot of people out there are. um because those those particular pieces of legislation and we can go over them so that we have a a better understanding of them. But those particular pieces of
legislation, what they do is they um say, "Oh, you might be able to use the property in in this way or or that way and get a residential density, but your residential density is the highest residential den density that's allowed
under your current code, >> which is five." >> Not one. >> Anything that's non-conforming or old or anything like that. And that's one per five. And that's like, >> okay, >> we're good. H I have a
>> we're we're totally unique. Yeah. >> Because of >> Yeah. >> in a as a city in in Florida because of that. >> My definition of rural >> is the fact that I moved out to this community. I had a young son.
I had a father-in-law living with me who was ill. My husband and I were both working and we moved out to this community because we wanted a place to bring up our son without a lot of the town influences.
We wanted to be able to grow our own vegetables and we did. We had cows on the property which were the neighbors cows but we shared them so we had cows. We had a butcher man living across the street from us that whenever we wanted
to butcher, he was the one who took care of that. We had delicious, delicious beef in the freezer. Um, it's a different way of living than it is living in the city. Some parts of it are
tough. you're you're actually down in the dirt. Whether you're raising horses or or livestock, whether you're a nursery person, you're you're getting back to nature. And to me, rural is actually getting back to nature, getting
back into the dirt, getting back to a beginning. There's it's a shame right now that there are so many people out there that have no idea where their food comes from. They if they can't buy it in the grocery
store, they don't know what it is. They don't realize that the beef that they're buying in there had to go to a slaughter house. It had to be raised by somebody. >> The eggs are are come to them from chicken. But, you know, I mean, our our
grandparents years ago, if you wanted a chicken for supper, they went out and grabbed a chicken, rung its neck, chopped it off with a with a hatchet. Some people can't deal with this. That's fine. But, you know, then you threw the chicken in a pot and you scalded with
feather sauce. Do you think the kids today would know how to do it? No. >> They would have no earthly idea if they couldn't go down to Publix or Aldi and buy it already prepared. It's it's a problem that I think public has today. They're
they're going on the fact of, "Oh god, my steak costs too much money per pound." >> Okay, I'm sorry. >> I understand that. >> I'm sorry. I I I I get that you're we have a limited amount of time and I appreciate your stories and I would love
to hear them in person. Um, >> but I'm I'm just saying that's what rural is to me. It's getting back out there, getting to nature, you know, having your animals, having your plants, growing your vegetables, um, a different type of living. And how and how can ulc
and what we're going to do, is there something we can do within our codes to help promote that? That's what we're looking for. But all of us, there is not a person on this committee I know that doesn't want to lose rural. >> It just says a definition. So that's my definition of rural.
Yeah, I'm kind of feeling like this could be your these could all how I'm looking at this is for this to be my personal homework. I'm going to go home and do that myself. But as far as as far as what uldc I'm wondering for example
roads and trails like how we can help if there's a way that we can help with some of the ideas with the linear parks if if ulc can play a um can help in that the linear parks and connectivity to um to
to some of our the local parks here. if if there's a way that we something we can do to get that moving along. Um >> yeah, I think that >> yeah, you can like zone it something like make a recommendation that it fall into it so you can address that. Yeah.
>> Examine our current parks rec um zoning category. Does it contemplate >> uh this linear park concept? What changes would be necessary that would ultimately go to PZB and to town council
for consideration with that as a goal that Yeah. >> Good one. Okay. >> Actually have a question for you. Those two gentlemen that were here, isn't there qu Aren't they Shouldn't they be in front of PB and Z >> because they're running commercial businesses in in our residential areas
and I know what they're trying to push, but isn't that a zoning issue? Why are they coming to us with that? >> Um I my sense is that they are going to go to >> they go to everything >> everything. And they're going to they're
going to try to make themselves known. And as they said, they're your neighbors. They're here. They have some number of of these uh types of businesses out here. And where it may where it probably will come
at least it might come partially to to you guys is to to look at our definitions of what is a nursery does nursery landscape >> work together are they totally separate right those kind of things and you know
whether there's a percentage basis who knows it I don't know whether they'll have traction but there is there is room for them to probably bring some things in front of this committee. >> Um uh
also too before it escapes me I I just wanted to kind of catch you guys up a little bit. I I we were talking about the um line of sight and I know that's sort of kind of been put to bed a little bit, but not for nothing, we had our the last the
last committee also brought up having some sort of a fund available or resources available to older folks or that that were not able to afford, you know, the trimming of their trees to get in compliance with the line of sight. We we had tried to think about the most
possible, easiest way to get the entire town into a safer um roadway situation, especially given the fact that now we are really being cut through and and um overrun like by
by many outsiders on on all of our roads. So, we were just trying to keep it as safe as possible and trying to get as many make it as easy as possible to get >> I think we should close off roads. >> I do too. I think >> since F road and collecting it's been
closed, my traffic has been wonderful. Yes. Awesome. >> Oh, well. >> No, I since I moved here since I moved here, I said we should cut off some of these roads. >> It was funny. I used to come to the meeting and say, "Why did they move F road? That bridge was only supposed to be temporary when they're paving
falsome. That bridge was never meant to be a permanent bridge. I used to come here and say, "Why are you taking that bridge out? You've increased our traffic 500%." >> Is that us? Is that >> Masalotti? Masalotti had that bridge put in because they, you know, they paid for. >> Is that But is that ULDC? >> Yeah, that was supposed to always be a temporary bridge.
>> Yep. >> Is that ULDC? Can we maybe uh talk about turning some of those into rails instead of >> Laura? Perhaps instead of thinking how do we define rural How do we define the things we don't
want? Perfect example, these gentlemen came and they're like, "We're nursery men. Your rules don't conform here. It It doesn't suit our business practices. We We're going to help you change your rules." No. No. We like our rules. You
know, truth be told, I don't care if you ride a lawn mower. I don't care if you grow plants. When you bring in cubic tons of stuff from other people's communities from outside of us, that's no go. So perhaps in our definition of
rural, we need to start thinking of things we don't want. >> Like not a parking lot full of trucks that come >> ab which has nothing to do with a right. That's a parking lot. >> I get it when you moved out here and you had a lawn business and it was you and a guy and you took your truck out. But
when you have 10 trucks and 50 people parking in your yard, you're no longer >> 10 trucks. >> Yes. >> These people have >> You're commercial. >> I know. I was going to say you're commercial. So you've gone from being a oneman show to now you need to move over to Tall Pines and get yourself an industrial lot to park all your trucks instead of coming over here and
>> load us up with, you know, 50 people going down our streets to come to your house as a business. >> I mean, I want to move to Manalapan and open a skateboard park, you know. Let's see how that flies. No. Okay. So Karen, you have an idea for
uldc to take to >> consult and we close roads. >> I mean is that us? Is that within uldc purview? Like it's sort of looking at suggestions on how to >> other towns have done it and >> oh you can close roads. >> People were wiping at first but after
the town they were happy in other communities. I have asked for a long time to make collecting canal one way. And >> I don't think that's going to work because we don't have the police to enforce that. And we're going to have the same thing with speeders. I just had somebody go by 50 miles an hour today at least. I mean, they went by so fast.
>> Oh, yeah. >> It really scared me. >> Yeah. >> Um and we just had an accident on six course. Somebody hit the grater, didn't they? The whole front end of their vehicle looked uh awful. >> Greater one or a zero. >> Yeah, exactly. >> Yeah.
My >> again we have we have a meeting before we have to present in July do our little homework. >> My suggestion is what I would >> if I was in your shoes I would go to the ULDC and look at the table. Yeah. Right. >> And kind of see if there's something in
there that you would want to discuss because it could be anything. It could again >> it could be you talked about number of vehicles. I mean right now believe it or not you're allowed to have two you're allowed to have vehicles that can't be seen from the rightway. Maybe you want to change that. I don't
know. So again, I think if you go through the list, there's a lot that's in the code. There's lighting, there's density, there's, you know, so take a look and we can come back in June because it'll be this plus the rural. I'll be on the next agenda. I will not bring back the sign ordinance until this
committee directs me to bring it back. >> We do need to look at lighting for wildlife. A >> agreed. So >> agreed. I agree on that. So I think how you have to do it is kind of take a consensus and we'll take that consensus Joe then you'll have it where people have a majority of the committee is
recommending they're asking for like maybe like four or five you know not not I don't need a list of 20 because we never get done when we make a huge list like that. So we do need to prioritize kind of what you want to do. So it'll be discussion on on that end. >> Does that make sense?
>> Yeah. I like Laura's idea about think about things you don't want. That's a good idea >> like parking lots. >> Yeah. like 20 trucks on your property with 50 employees. >> That's that's commercial. >> Yes. >> Right. Yeah. And with a little
imagination, almost anything can come. >> Yeah. True. >> Um Yeah. >> All right. I like that. >> And and and the road closure process. That might be something that's there. um on road closures. I know that um I
believe it was uh council member Coleman um has made a suggestion that we look at um the closure of Lockah Lockahhatchee Avenue um from going farther
>> Oh yes and >> I want to say it's tang by this by southern that whatever the that first road on on southern is. Yeah, >> the one by southern lawn >> there would be a blockage. There would be a blockage at that point in time and then
>> yeah, prevent people from going back. >> The neighbors would, you know, you'd either go to D or you'd go to to C to get out, you know, depending on which direction you wanted to go. >> They should do that to B road so people stop coming from um the acreage through B, >> but >> I'm sure the traffic is crazy there. I I
think that that that concept may be discussed at the June uh meeting pursuant to council direction. So, >> okay. So, we all have >> that a starting point. >> We have homework. We have a motion to dismiss.
>> Motion to dismiss. >> Second. All >> in favor? I I meeting adjourned. Thank you guys again. I apologize for being late. Oh my god. She what are you doing? You know I'm
always