All right, you're live. >> Okay, good evening. It is 5:30 on April 16th, 2026. We are calling to order the meeting of the planning and zoning board for the village of Tquesta.
Meg, will you take roll call, please? >> Leslie Dasher, >> here. >> Teresa Mio, >> here. >> Elizabeth Shower >> here. >> Sherry Ambrose >> here. Gina Maldowi >> here. Maria >> here. >> Jared Gaylord.
>> Fred Sier. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. And has everybody had a chance to look over the agenda? >> Yes, ma'am. >> Yes. >> I do have one question. The meeting minutes for January, um, >> we had to make a slight correction um,
based on something the clerk's office caught. What was the correction, Meg? I think that was very >> sorry it was very um >> it was just a minor technical it was a very minor technical detail >> very minor yes technical details
>> we're just readopting it >> oh okay >> okay we will start with the review of the planning and zoning meeting >> need a motion to approve the agenda >> yes we do I'm sorry that was >> I'll make a motion to approve the agenda
>> second it all in favor I. Any opposed? Motion carries. >> Approval of the previous meeting minutes for February 2026. >> I make a motion to approve those.
>> I do have a change. >> Okay. Um, Marie and Fred are not listed as attending. Let me find it here. >> But they're in the admit. the minutes.
>> Um, for Febru February, I don't see her name. >> You don't see her name in February? >> I see. >> Oh, I just saw that. Yeah, >> I see Jared's um present were I don't see um Murphy or >> or Fred. >> We can make that adjustment.
>> Okay. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Did we want to do the two meeting minutes together or separately? >> Together. Okay. Okay. Were there any changes that you see for January's meeting minutes? >> No. >> Um, the only one I see is Jared should
be alternate number two instead of alternate number three. Fred is alternate number three. >> So, if we can just make the change for Jared alternate number two. >> Okay. >> Noted. >> Thank you. Okay.
>> I thought Jared was here before Fred. Well, but he he's listed on the January meeting minutes as his >> Oh, I see what you mean. Okay. All right. I'm like, okay. I'm sorry. Question. I wasn't going to question. >> Okay.
>> All right. I will make a motion to approve the minutes for February 19th, 2026 with the corrections that Leslie made and for the meeting for January 15th with the corrections
>> that Leslie made. Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> opposed. Motion carries. >> So we will move on to agenda item two, SPM01-26. Thank you and good evening members of
the board. We have one application on our agenda today. This is a quasi judicial application. Uh, that being said, if there's anyone present here who plans to provide any testimony regarding application SPM0126, I need to swear you in at this time. So, if you could please raise your right hand.
>> Whichever one of you is going to talk, just stand up and >> do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury in the laws of the state of Florida to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Very good. I will also ask uh the board
members to provide any exparte communication disclosures that they may have had with the applicant at this time. >> Teresa, >> no. Does she need to disclose that she lives there? >> Uh if you have any >> Well, I'm going to disclose that I live
in Questa Garden, so therefore I have to recuse myself from voting. >> Okay. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> You may proceed with your application. >> Meg. All right. Good evening board members. Uh thank you thank you for allowing me to present to you Tquesta Gardens. This is a minor site plan
modification. Uh here is the location of Tquesta Gardens. It is located right off of Seabbrook. Uh the application has been submitted by the condominium association. They are looking to do an aesthetic change. They are going to be changing the color of their trim on the
property. It is 18 buildings in all. You can see here in the highlighted area. So the scope of work they are updating the trim color on the 18 residential buildings. This includes the side the stairway sides slab edges and the
entryway signage. Here are the proposed colors. The big change is the dignity blue trim and sign color. The main body color is going to stay the same. So it's currently white with a white color.
Here is the existing trim color. It's shady null. Here is the proposed elevations with dignity blue. Today the the board will be applying the following criteria for review. Harmony with other buildings, harmony with surroundings, facades, methods of
design, inappropriate building styles, garish design, exterior forms, and the use of symbolic colors. development application met the requirements of 78334. Hearing was advertised online on April 5th and public notice signage was posted
on site on April 3rd. This proposed modification is aesthetic in nature only with no changes to the approved use, density, parking or landscaping. Planning and zoning board may approve the request upon determining the application meeting general site plan review.
Do you guys have any questions for me? None. Okay. No, ma'am. >> Um, I do want to point out again, we did talk about the signage. Um, they will be painting the entryway signage and then I do believe that there are some recreational buildings interior to the
site. Any trim work there that is green will be changing to the blue. >> Now, what about the entry sign? >> It's going to be changing from that null green that you see there to the blue. >> Yes. >> To this one blue. The dignity.
>> Is it? It's my favorite color. >> Isn't that beautiful? Oh my gosh, I love that blue. >> We can't call it >> the white complex anymore. >> It's really beautiful. >> It's I I love I'm sorry. >> We're just talking away. It's beautiful.
>> And these pictures are a lot better than what we got. >> Thank you. I'm glad you got them. >> Thank you, Meg. And >> you're very welcome. Okay. >> Sir, you were going to
address the board. If you'll come to the podium and give us your name and address for the record, please. >> My home address >> or business business address, it' be fine. >> Okay. Um, good evening guys. My name is Eder. I am a representative for MTD. Our
office located in 12296 Wild Road, Coral Springs. And >> and we are, you know, requesting to change the trim color. >> Okay. >> As I explained, we are just um we're keeping the paint color the same and just changing the trim color.
>> Right. Any questions for Eric? >> No, >> just one. So the the blue I can't remember the name of the blue paint color on the village building. I assume part of why you chose it was to blend in with the all the other village facilities in the area. And then the >> I can't remember what the name of the building is that we're modifying with
the door that we >> building. So that's the harmony you guys are going for there. I assume >> it's not the exact same color Sheron Williams, but it's pretty close to it. >> Okay. Thank you. >> It'll blend. Yeah. >> Okay. Any more questions for No. Okay. Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> And I'll open the floor to public comment. >> Okay. Closing the floor to public comment. Any other board? I will make a motion to approve the applicants. All right, I gotta find it. Sorry.
>> Where'd it go? >> Um, the application submitted uh by Toquesta Gardens Condo Association uh requesting the site plan modification approval to change the existing uh building trim color uh within toquester
Gardens community. I make a motion to approve. >> I'll second. >> Okay. So the motion is to approve SPM 01-26. All in favor? >> I motion carries. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Okay. >> And moving on to item number three, or number 06-26. And I'll let Dylan do the reading. >> Thank you, chair. I'll read this
ordinance by title. This is ordinance number 06-26, an ordinance of the village council of the village of Tquesta, Florida, amending chapter 66 subdivisions, providing multiple recommended building and building regulation code updates, creating section 66-31, designating the community development department as the
administrative entity responsible for reviewing plants and middles. Amending section 66321 pre-application procedure to remove obsolete language. Creating section 6632 administrative review procedure for plants and replats. Amending section 6651
approval procedure to remove obsolete procedure. Amending section 6652 procedure following approval to remove obsolete language. Amending section 666-71 to clarify that the community development director shall approve administrative plat. Amending section
6672 to clarify that the community development director shall approve administrative plat. Amending section 6601 to remove the requirement of mayoral signature for administrative plat. Amending section 66102 final plat to remove the requirement of mayoral
signature for administrative plat providing that each and every other section and subsection of chapter 66 subdivisions shall remain in full force in effect as previously adopted providing a conflict clause severability clause authority to codify effective date and for other purposes. I will turn it over to our community development
director Jay Hush. >> Sorry Dylan that's that's okay. got my best my best auctioneer impression. >> All right. Good evening, Jay Hutch, community development director. Uh, and apologize to you. We've got three
ordinances. It's a lot um a lot to go through and a lot to explain. So, I'm going to try to explain these to to you and to the public um as if you have no knowledge of the subject. So, um just hope >> bear with me. >> Bear with me here. Sit back. I'll keep
I'll keep it relatively quick though. >> Okay. We'll we'll sit back. So this is phase two of this broad code update that we're doing. It's partially a mix of just staff staff changes. It's partially due to state requirements. Um so it's
kind of a combination of things and also some of it's from our environmental committee. Um so we've got I think it's going to being eight total ordinances. I think I think we're um we've done maybe five or six. So we've got two more coming. Um, and actually the future ones
coming up are are pretty lengthy. Um, and then there's also going to be uh in all likelihood a um right-of-way ordinance coming. >> What? >> Right of way? Wow. >> You haven't heard of the rightway ordinance? >> Oh.
>> So, so the public works director and utilities director have been kind of trying to create a right of way policy u for what people can and cannot plant in the right of way. It's been workshopped with our council quite a bit. Um I think it's going to get workshopped again with council at the end of this month. So it
it probably won't come to you until the summer, but it's going to be it's going to be a long one and there's a lot of uh public that are going to be providing input on it. So um stay tuned. >> All right. So on this one, what Sorry. So what is subdivision code? So
subdivision code is a set of regulations that governs how land is divided into lots and developed into neighborhoods. So that's where um you know we look at how like the width of streets um where utilities are going where infrastructure is going and it ensures that um new
development is safe organized and consistent with our um development standards. So in Tequesta and in most cities, you would you would go through the site plan review process and we would look at the subdivision code during that. So we'd make sure that um
the streets within a subdivision meet the minimum sizes, the the lots meet minimum sizes and so on. Um once a subdivision is approved through the site plan process, it then goes through the platting process, which is what we're going to be
talking about today. And then the question is what is platting? And that is a legal process of turning a piece of land into officially recognized lots, streets, and easements. So that's where you actually take that site plan and you put it into practice
into a recordable document that's done by a surveyor. It's then recorded in the county's records and that becomes kind of the legal document that governs that property. So, easements would be on there, property lines, streets, right away where certain things are dedicated
to. It's really a legal process. Um, it's really also a technical process, right? You're if if everyone's doing everything right, you're doing most of what you're looking at is done in the site plan process and the platting is just kind of crossing your tees and dotting the eyes. At the end, we do um
review it internally. We have a contract surveyor that we use. There's really two big surveyors in northern Palm Beach County that everyone uses. So, if they use one of them, we use the other one for review. If they use the other one, we use the other one for review. Um, they're both very, very versed in this.
So, they do a a very comprehensive review of plats. And then, um, well, here's an example of a plat. So, this is, uh, an older one. This is, uh, in the country club. Um, and it's probably not as technical as a newer plat would
look. Um, and then here's to Quest Kay, uh, which is multif family over off Village Boulevard. >> I can see that it's not advancing. It's the next slide. >> Oh, I'm so sorry. I'm clicking on my own personal computer. >> What are we looking at?
>> Okay, >> there's Okay, >> there's the the country club flat. Thank you for correcting me before I got too far there. So there's the country club flat and this is the quest which is over off of Village Boulevard.
>> Okay. >> And so the um what we're really doing here is changing the code due to some state um updates. Um as I mentioned, we use a contract surveyor to review plat. They then go to village council for final
final okay. Um, I've actually never seen a plat even have any comments on it because if if there is, someone's made a pretty big mistake. So, it's really just kind of like I said, crossing tees, dotting eyes. Um, the state, and I hate to give the state any credit, but this
is the one thing they've done that's not that bad. They do a lot of really bad stuff for planning in the state of Florida. This is one that's relatively not too bad. So they they've made it so that plats are approved administratively and do not have to go to council for
approval. Like I said, it was more of just a procedural thing anyways. So it's kind of streamlining things. And honestly, um, in some bigger cities like like Palm Beach Gardens where they might have 50 plats coming in for Avenue, it's it's making it so those don't have to go
to to their village council. We don't deal with them ever here, so it's it's really not too big of an issue on our on our end. Um, so what what the ordinance that is in front of you will do will bring our subdivision regulations into compliance with the state's new requirements which
which make plat review administrative. Um, myself, the community development director, is now the designated administrative authority to approve or deny plat applications. Um, like I said, I would have been reviewing them anyways, taking them to council just for
a final kind of QC check. um that that process is uh no longer in place. We'll still have a surveyor um kind of look over everything. Uh and uh like I said, I think it's consistent with um with our code and really we kind of have to do
this because of state statute. So would recommend approval. >> Happy to answer any questions. >> It's really cleaning it up and making it streamlined. Hope it's smooth. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Any questions for Jay?
>> I do. >> Um Jay, if you could go to it's page 31. Well, page it says at the bottom page two. It's item agenda item three, page two of 11. It says
supplement 39 update and page 31 of 105. >> Okay. >> Okay. And item number C, they struck out um for the authorized agent 10 days prior to the next regular council meeting and you struck it out everywhere
else. Is there a particular reason why you did that? >> Why we struck out 10 days before the council? Because since they're now going to be an administrative approval, it won't be going to the village council anymore. >> But what about for us? Oh,
>> it won't be going to PCB either. >> Oh, it won't. >> It's a entirely >> Oh, so it's a whole >> entirely administrative review. >> Okay. Okay. >> Okay. That is >> So, that was my question to clarify. Are we are we still recommending?
>> Are we certain we're not? >> So, so then it does make it a lot easier. >> Yeah. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Sort of. >> What do you mean sort of? Well, >> we still do. >> We still would approve. Well, yeah, but we do, but they would
>> the planning part, >> you still have to trust your staff, too, right? I mean, so I'd like to think that we're okay here. Um, there are some cities where it could cause problems if if the staff if if you don't have a qualified surveyor to look at the plats and you don't trust your staff to review them. It could cause issues here. Um,
we've dealt with them enough that it shouldn't be a problem. >> Okay. Okay. Any more questions for Jay? No, I'm in. Okay. I am opening the floor for public comment. Oh, Marie, if you'll give us your name and address for the record, please.
>> Maria Puri, I live in the country club. Um, this ordinance. So, first of all, I do want to clarify um the ordinance is about plats. Yes, I agree that the that the state law is about plats, but plats show what a subdivision is. And that's
actually the big issue here for toquesta because you can divide up a lot or in more pertinently here consolidate a lot and there are questions whether consolidation is allowed. However, this ordinance as an ordinance is unnecessary
and you should vote no. The state statute which is extremely bad requires only an ordinance or resolution. That's a quote. And the correct choice for toquesta is a resolution because those can be more easily repealed. And the resolution needs to say that the
community development director is the designated authority to receive, review, and process the plat or replat submission. The benefit of a resolution is that if it's appropriate to repeal the resolution because the state comes to its senses and repeals this law, then only one reading is required to do so.
And we can do that in one council meeting. An ordinance requires two readings in the interim. A very bad replat might have to be approved. That would be very bad for Toquesta and entirely avoidable if we choose a resolution. Now, a few words about the state law at issue. This is a terrible
state law because it preempts decision decision-m regarding subdivision of land that properly belongs with local elected and appointed officials who know their communities best. It should be a local decision to consolidate or subdivide properties and the state should not have
interfered with that local prerogative at the behest of developers. This law poses an existential threat for small coastal villages like Toquesta because it enables the possibility of character changing development that does not correspond to resident preferences including massive oversized development
that destroys the character and unique value of the small village. In some we should do only the minimum necessary to comply with bad law from the state. here because a resolution is possible instead of new code. That is what we should pick because if we have a resolution and state reverses, it will be easier for us
to nullify the corresponding resolution and a resolution is permissible under the state law and that is the least offensive choice for Tequesta. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay, closing the floor to public comment and back to the board for any
further comments. I >> I will make a motion to approve ordinance number 06-26. >> Recommend. >> Recommendation. >> I'll second that.
>> Okay. So, there's a motion to recommend approval of ordinance number 06-26. All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? >> Motion carries. Thank you.
Moving on to item number four, ordinance number 07-26. And Dylan, would you read please? >> Chair. Ordinance number 07-26 is an ordinance of the village council of the village of Tquesta Florida amending chapter 76 waterway control and chapter
78 zoning provide excuse me updating the definition the definition sections of both chapters amending section 76-2 providing a definition for boat lifts amending section 78-4 adding a definition for accessory dwelling unit amending the definition of family amending the definition of fast food
restaurant amending the definition of waiver providing that each and every other section and subsection of chapters 76 and 78 shall remain in full force in effect as previously adopted providing confidence costability clause authority to codify effective day and for other purposes. Turn it over to to our
community development director. >> Thank you Dylan. Um Jay Hop again um similar introduction to the last one. Um this one's a little bit smaller and it's uh focused mostly on um changing definitions and var sections. Um so the
first one is uh waterway control. It's our um kind of where boats and dock uh docks and boat structures are located. Um, one of the things our our building department who reviews boat lifts and docs had mentioned that there's
sometimes confusion um, and enforcing things and they just wanted to have what a boat lift is defined as so that there was no ambiguity and that there there weren't people kind of you trying to get, you know, um, workarounds with the code. So, we just wanted to clarify that
definition. And then while we're doing it, um, we also kind of threw in there just a caveat that you can't do a roofed, covered, or enclosed boat lift as well. So, >> okay. >> So, that's that's that one. And then on the in the zoning code, so again, this
is kind of part of that larger comprehensive zoning code that we're going to do. Um, the first one is um defining what an accessory dwelling unit is. This is a pretty important topic because the state of Florida for the past two legislative sessions has tried
to adopt a um provision that would require municipalities to approve any accessory dwelling unit. >> It would be one of the most impactful changes the state's ever made. >> Oh my god. >> So your neighbor would be able to come in and put an accessory dwelling unit up
on their property >> there. we might be able to create a little bit of zoning standards for them, but they're also trying to prevent that from even happening in parking standards and all the things that we would do to limit that. So, it could end up creating a real hodgepodge of development and
change really fundamentally change the character of single family neighborhoods. >> So, um we wanted to put this definition in here um just so that we have it on the books. Sometimes when the state does laws like that and they try and preempt you if you have it on your books
already, you can um be exempt from it. So when the state so the state uh prohibits um vacation rentals for all cities that didn't have a prohibition on vacation rentals. So I used to work in a city where we had that on our books and they can still prevent vacation rentals,
but if you didn't have it on your books in like 20 2011 maybe, you can't do that. So, can't hurt to have this in here just as a little bit of an opportunity to play defense. >> Guess I'm not doing a mother-in-law house on the back, huh? >> It's not looking good. >> So, right.
>> U, another one um that's kind of come up um when we were reviewing that Chipotle project is the definition of a fast food restaurant. Right now, a fast food restaurant and a carry out restaurant are they have very similar definitions. the way that it's written. Restaurants
like Three Natives and Guaca Go, the new the new restaurant, um they're really kind of fast casual, but they would be considered a fast food restaurant under our current definition. Um and some of our zoning districts, you have to get a special exception for those uses. I see.
>> So really, when something like Walko comes in and changes out tenency, it's it's a pretty minor thing. It's a pretty benign request. um it'd be pretty ownorous to make them go through the special exception process. Um so this would kind of exempt
those type of restaurants from it, but it would also clearly define what a fast food restaurant is. Our council had a lot of questions about the Chipotle, you know, if it has a if it has a drive up lane, you know, is it is it a fast food restaurant if it's just a walk up lane or a pickup lane? And so we just want to
clarify that anything's considered fast food if it has a drive-thru or walk up lane. Uh another thing is um noting that waivers are allowed in planned residential districts. That's actually going to be in the next ordinance. Um
but uh basically we're waiverss from zoning u regulations are not allowed explicitly allowed within planned residential developments. I'll get into it a lot more in the next presentation. Um, but they are allowed in our planned commercial zoning district uh code. So,
it's really inconsistent and and not consistent with how a lot of cities do it. So, um we're going to be proposing an addition to that in the next ordinance you'll see. But, as part of that, we have to to also update the definitions. And then the next one is a definition of family. So, this is one
when I came here, I was kind of surprised that the Questa did not have this in the code. Um, most cities do have it. I was actually kicked out of a house in college because I had too many people in a house. >> Um, unfortunately at the time
>> and you should >> I and honestly I'm kind of glad I was in retrospect. Um, we had eight people in a house. So >> yeah. So, at the time I didn't like it, but now as an adult, I think it's a great a great thing to have. Um because you can
you can really um change the character of neighborhoods if you have too many unrelated people living in a neighborhood. Um so we this is kind of a comparison of what nearby cities have. It ranges from anywhere from 4 to two. Three is kind of
the sweet spot that a lot of places have and that's probably the most reasonable one. And we've workshopped this with the village council and I think that's that's also where they landed. So staff's recommendation and council is is is three. >> Okay. >> And with that >> let's say adults
>> that's my presentation. >> Yes. >> It doesn't apply to under 18. You know depend right dependence. >> Okay. Are there any questions for Jay? >> No not on this one. This is very clear. Yeah, I think I'm uh Okay, I'll opening
the floor to board comment. Maria, if you'll state your name and address for the record again, please. >> Marissa Superior. I live in the country club. In the current environment where the state still does not allow us to exchange our code in a way that is more
restrictive, we should definitely not entertain adding waiverss in the planned residential development because if this addition goes ary and we don't like how it's working out, >> I know but actually you're approving it here if you in this one. So you it's in
both of them. I'll have to address it both times. Um, so adding the possibility of waivers to the code is not necessary because it is likely to end up being a giveaway to developers and we should require them to stick to code or seek a variance if that is available to them. Waivers can carry
potentially very large costs, especially in the case of PRDS for the costs to the village in terms of the value of the surrounding neighborhoods because they'll change the character of the area. And by definition, PRDs are highly
impactful developments because they cover at least three areas. To see why this is the case, note that developers will likely request where sorry, excuse me, waiverss to make more intensive uses of space in Questa by asking for decreases in setbacks or open space or
increasing lock coverage. And we have in fact seen this happen. Um, and it's to the detriment of the village. There's no question about it. None of those outcomes would be good ones. In the current situation where we cannot fix any problems with the waiver ordinance that may arise after we have enacted it,
the proposal to add waivers for PRDS should be rejected. Developers should build according to our code. And if they'd like us to consider adding waivers, which I would be happy to endorse, then they should lobby the state to remove the terrible law that makes every development related change a
one-way ratchet against village interests. I would also like to um express my thought that we should go with in the definition of family with two. Most of our houses actually don't have um parking that would allow three
people to park in the property and not end up on the street. And I think that's something that we should not impose on our neighbors as well. Thanks. >> Thank you. >> Closing the floor to public comment. U board comments.
Okay, >> I'll make a recommend recommendation to approve ordinance number 0726. I'll second. All in favor? >> I. >> All opposed? Motion carries.
Moving on to item number five, ordinance number 08-26. Thank you, chair. Ordinance number 08-26 is an ordinance of the village council of the village of Tquesta, Florida, amending chapter 78 zoning, article 7,
planned residential developments, PRD, creating an entirely new section 78-229 PRD waiverss, creating a process for applicants to apply for deviations from PRD requirements so long as certain conditions are met. Providing that each and every other section and subsection of chapter 78 shall remain in full force
and effect as previously adopted. providing conflict clause, servability clause, authority to codify for other purposes and for an effective date. Thank you. Okay, I'll pass it over to Jay Hush. >> Jay, >> thank you Dylan. Um Jay Hush, community development director. Um again, same
intro as the other ones. Um this one is focused on plan residential development. Um how many of you were on the board when the reserve came in? Three. Okay. So the reserve I believe is the last planned residential development
that that came through the village. Uh and a planned residential development is what a lot of city other cities call a PUD plan unit development. So they're pretty much synonymous. Uh it's a type of zoning or development approach that allows a mix of land uses and flexible
design standards to be planned and approved as a single project rather than under strict zoning rules. Its intent is to encourage creative site design, efficient land use, and coordinated development, often resulting in better integration of open space, infrastructure, and compatible uses than
would occur under a standard strict zoning code. So, a key feature of plan residential developments generally is the is the flexibility to deviate from strict zoning standards. U, a lot of times single family zoning codes were written
for lots that were already platted, like the country club. Um, but when you do a new development, you have to build roads, you have to, you know, we we we have much stronger uh drainage requirements than they used to have back in say the 50s.
Um, open space, things like that, landscape buffers. So allowing some flexibility gives people an opportunity to um have some flexibility in design and um ship things around um on kind of an case- by case basis.
Um, yep. As as noted there, um, see there we go. I already covered that. >> So, we've historically allowed deviation from code standards and purities, but we've not had a formal waiver processed
in our code to do so. A good example would be the reserve. So the the pier the reserve PR granted waiverss for reduced building setbacks, reduced lot coverage, and reduced open space requirements, but there was not really a
formal process to review and evaluate those waiverss. Right? So when we're looking at um site plans, you know, we always read that that criteria at the end when when a zoning variance comes before you, we've got all the criteria that you specifically look at to evaluate. Um, but we we did not really
have that in the PRD code. So, I don't think it really was at the forefront of of the project. But a lot of times in a in a planned development, that becomes kind of the the focus of the review is is whether or not the waiverss are warranted and whether or not the overall
design or the the the the positives of the development outweigh the the need to grant that waiver. Um, as I think I noted in the last presentation, we have a thing called planned commercial developments. So, it's the same thing as a PR just for
commercial projects that has a waiver procedure section. Um, >> but we just and and so we took that and essentially put it into the PR. So, it's just making it consistent with the the the PC section. Honestly, it's kind of a glitch in the code to not have it. Uh,
the village manager and I were >> kind of surprised that it wasn't in the purity section. So, what we've proposed um during the approval process, the waiverss would be reviewed during site plan approval. Um they'll have to provide a written request that justifies why the waiver is
warranted and why it should be granted. Um with as with site plans, the PCB would make a recommendation and final approval would be granted by village council. you cannot the village council and PCB are not able to grant waiverss
for um additional building height, additional density, concurrency management and preservation of environmentally sensitive land. And when when you look when we're looking at the approval criteria for kind of weighing whether or not one
should be approved or not, um it doesn't say that every single one of these has to be met, but generally most of them should be met. Uh that's consistency with a comprehensive plan, consistency with the intent of a PR supporting the
the PRD's goals. So really, it's kind of a qualitative thing. Um, you know, you're going to look at a project and and a project may provide a lot of open space and say, you know, hey, we would rather provide smaller lots but provide
more green space and open space. Um, they may say, we want to create an innovative design that's more walkable and we want to have alleys in the back and we want to have like a one-way alley. They might need a waiver for something like that. Um,
and so there's a few different things that that really are an improvement and it's kind, you know, it can be a trade-off, too. Um, a project that is going to be coming forward to you, um, possibly to you, it's in review right now, is a is a PRD, and they have done
some community outreach and the residents that live next to it did not want the houses directly on their property. >> Right. You can't have a house directly on >> directly bordering their property. Fence to fence to fence.
>> Oh, okay. Bordering setbacks. >> There will still be setbacks, but but um you know, if if you have an existing house in a dream world, I think most people would prefer to be to not be right there. So, um based on that feedback, they create a design where
there's actually uh roads that are all along the B. Well, there's a landscape offer and then roads and the houses aren't immediately next to those. >> So, they're asking for a waiver. Uh I think they're going to ask for some waivers for certain things. Um but that's a what I think is a positive
tradeoff that they gave up >> so that they could um you know provide that for for the for the neighbors. So, that's it's really something that the the PZB and the council have to evaluate when a project comes in, right? is is is
this waiver worth granting? Um, other criteria would be that it doesn't reduce the minimum standards, that it results from innovative design, kind of like the the idea I just gave you, that there are clear public benefits to it, that you know, that it's not just benefiting the
the property owner. um that they're providing adequate buffering and screening. It's not based solely on economic reasons, that it's still compatible with surrounding resources, that it perhaps could could be preserving natural resources. Um right, so if maybe if somebody had a a wetland,
they might preserve the wetland and say, "Hey, in exchange for preserving this wetland or this special habitat, we want relief somewhere else." So um so those are kind of the approval criteria and that is my presentation. Um happy to
answer any questions. >> Questions for Jay. >> Opening the floor to public comment. >> Name and address again for the record. >> Maria Superior. I live in the country club. Um again I object to this u waiver
process um because of the state law. Again um adding waivers is going to increase the pressure from developers to increase intensity and in all likelihood that will mean decrease in the amount of open space or setbacks and an increase in lot coverage by buildings and
pavement. Um I would be very interested to know if any of the residents have seen and want a road behind them rather than um actual setbacks or rather than a landscape buffer. Um this proposal will in most cases be used as a back doorway to avoid the code and to allow bigger,
more intensive and more intrusive uses. Um because I think that you are likely to approve it. I do have a recommendation in subsection two of the waiver procedure. Um, it requires that there's compliance with a majority of the criteria listed below. I think that
should actually three of those should be moved to become requirements rather than one of the options and those three are F. The request clearly demonstrates the public benefits to be derived. I think that needs to be a requirement. G sufficient screening and buffering are
provided and I would take out the if required are provided to screen adjacent uses from adverse impacts caused by the request. I will note that in that case if screening and buffering was required we would already be able to require that and we wouldn't have to give them a waiver or we wouldn't h we in this
process we would be able to protect the adjacent uses. Um and in I I should also be required the request will be compatible with existing and potential land uses adjacent to the development site. It seems to me that the majority
language should only apply to the remaining eight of the um of the criteria and those three should be required of every waiver application. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Any uh closing the floor to public
comment? Uh further board comments or questions? Okay. Okay. to make a motion to recommend approval of ordinance number 08-26. >> Second.
>> Okay. Says a recommendation to approve ordinance number 08-26. All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. >> Any further comments or questions? Um,
yeah, there's a there's a few developments that are kind of in in the works. I think I mentioned one which is the the rude property that's in review right now. Um, there I think that's going to be a lengthy review, so I don't think you'll see that one for another few months. Um, we're also working on
some environmental issues with that one with with the Palm Beach County Environmental Resources Management Department and the D. So, um, that one's in the review. Um the uh CX property actually just submitted recently. Uh they they presented a conceptual
presentation to village council several months back for it's basically a flex flex office. There's really not much you can do with the narrowness of the property. So flex office would be um it's it'd be like half indoor storage and half office spaces. So, you know,
for kind of like um I don't want to call it light industrial, but I'd say like a like a building contractor that wants to, you know, have some trucks, keep everything indoors, but also have an office component of it. >> Um you know, those type of uses. So, um that's in review right now. Um that one
might actually be quicker than than the the rude property. So, you could see that in the next few months. >> Um >> I have a question about the rude property. >> Yeah. Were they able to remove all of the oil and gasoline? >> They so they have
>> they have approval >> fertilizer. >> They they have been um granted approval from D for petroleum removal. There's still an arsenic um >> evaluation happening over there. So they're actively working with uh with D
on that one still. And that's what we're we're working with environmental Palm Beach Countyy's environmental resources to make sure that everything's being done done right. And um I need to actually talk to Dylan and Keith to find out if we can even take that look
>> them up. >> Yeah. If we can take that even take it forward to PZB if that issue is still kind of floating out there. So >> the issue that stopped the other people from the facil the memory care facility they were going to put there. >> It was it was the nursing home. >> Yeah. Well, yeah, it was memory care. It
wasn't skilled nursing home, but same same thing. And and that was the whole issue was the >> that was an issue there. There's >> environmental. >> Yeah, >> there was some partnership issues I think with one of the old partners in that group. Um I think that also
>> because that's very expensive to remove all of that. >> Oh, it's huge. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Absolutely. So, so that one may be coming forward. Um, and then also I know the community is talking a little bit about it. Um, I'm sure Jeie knows what
I'm talking about, which is uh 250 300 Beach Road, the condos that were approved there. Um, they did not sell well, so a different development group is now looking at combining both properties and doing one larger project. Um they've been doing
some outreach to the Beach Road Association and the condos near there and preliminary outreach to the village council. Um and they may be coming forward with the conceptual presentation in the next couple months. Um it won't
get to PCB for a long long time. Um but that's that's kind of out there. So >> okay. And then I do have one. >> Is that allowed? >> What? to combine to combine >> approved, I guess. >> I mean, that would be a massive
>> Yeah, it's big. >> So, you can you can technically propose any combination of lots that you want. And like we learned today with the plat process, the site plan comes first. So, they would have to go through their site
plan approval process first. And then if the that happens then platting would be dealt with. But um it would just go through the normal site plan review process with where we would
be able to apply all of our standard criteria that you look at with site plans. And are you still using the conceptual things that we had approved like before you came on board with you know >> oh the beach road the be the beach road
design guidelines are in place at home. >> So so they would they would have to to kind of follow the beach road design guidelines um and be and meet all of our site plan review criteria where compatibility is a
factor there. So that's up to the PCB and council and community to determine. >> Interesting. >> An interesting one. >> Yeah. Um I do have one quick question maybe >> maybe for Dylan. Who who types up these?
>> Maybe need a spell checker. I'm I'm terrified to admit that that is me who types those up and I actually already noted the typographical errors. One I just um >> not my proudest ordinance.
>> Just thought I would point that out. So >> I was cringing as I was reading it. >> Yeah. I wondered if you noticed that. >> I think I perhaps hit my head somewhere that day I was writing that. So my apologies. >> It's unusual. So I was a little surprised.
Just like maybe a better spell checker or something. So >> sometimes you don't like spellch checker. It gives you the wrong word. >> Ruins. Yeah, >> it really does. >> Okay. So very careful. >> Any other board comments? Oh, >> Marie comment. >> No,
>> no, we're done with public comment. >> Is there a public comment at the end? >> No. >> No. Um, >> there's nine once we're we're done with all the items. >> I don't think so. I think it's
>> on the agenda. >> Well, we never do. We never >> It's up to the the board. >> What would you like to say? >> Discretion. >> Yeah. >> Um, Ray Superior. I live in the country club. Um, the platting that you approved
exactly the as the two the beach road issue. Um to that point they're arguing that they can consolidate under this rule. >> Actually the statute does not say that the statute involves subdivision. Subdivisions are different from paths.
>> Okay. Again but they're argu making a different argument that I don't think you've explored. >> They what they are arguing is not that they can divide up the law. They're arguing that they can combine them. That is not what the state statute says by its terms. And I realize there are differing opinions on what that means.
However, we should be holding them to the state statute and we should not be be just giving them things that they are not entitled to. >> You have to wait till they come forward and ask for it. >> Okay. I'm not actually saying that. I'm not making an argument one way or the
other on how you should decide. I'm saying that as a legal matter, we need to be reading the statute correctly. And I'm not really saying this to you. I do need to I would like this on the record for the council members as well. Okay. that they understand >> and I think it should be on the record and I appreciate that.
>> Okay. >> Thank you, Marie. >> And for the record, um Keith Davis is has provided an opinion about combination of lots. Marie is correct that the new subdivision code is not related to that because somebody
without this even happening, somebody can combine their lots currently without going through the subdivision process. That's how the code's written. That's how most most cities codes are written. Um I can send out uh if if the PCB wants I can send out kind of his his legal
opinion on that. >> Oh, that'd be nice. >> I think it would be helpful for sure. >> Send it out. >> Okay. It's always always interesting with all this new coming up. We need to >> be prepared. >> It's it's
>> then we can say no. >> No, I'm kidding. Um, we rarely say no. But when we say no, we say >> we mean no. >> We all say no. >> If it's objectionable, that objection will be. >> I'll make a motion to adjurnn. >> I second that. All in favor?
>> I. >> Any opposed? >> Motion carries and we are adjourned. >> Jay, I don't need that anymore. Thank >> you >> everybody. Thank you. We met.