Loading...
1988.01.13_PB_Minutes_Regular0 TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH, FLORIDA PLANNING BOARD REGULAR MEETING - MINUTES January 13, 1988 9:30 A.M. The Regular Meeting of the Planning Board, Town of Highland Beach, Florida, was called to order at 9:30 A. M. in the Commission Chambers at Town Hall by Chairman Rome. The Recording Secretary called the roll. Present were Chairman D. R. Rome, Vice Chairman J. E. Ward, Regular Members M. A. Waldman, A. Leng and C. H. Bartlett. Absent were Alternate Members R. M. Gregerson and A. J. Harbin. Also present were Town Attorney D. K. Friedman, Building Official B. Sutherland, Recording Secretary A. M. Kowals and members of the general public. Upon proper MOTION, the Minutes of the December 9, 1987, Regular Meeting and the December 16, 1987, Special Meeting were approved and accepted as submitted. NEW BUSINESS is Chairman Rome noted the agenda item under New Business was a site plan review for five dolphin pilings at Shamrock I Condominium, 1011-1015 Russell Drive (Lots 21 and 22 - Highland Beach Isles), submitted by Attorney S. Benson for owner/applicant A. Petrenchik. Attorney Benson, in compliance with Town regulations, submitted copy of letter and proof of mailing to property owners within 1,000' of petitioner's parcel. Chairman Rome stated objectionable letters were received. The plans received, continued Chairman Rome, indicate the five dolphin pilings are going out a distance of 22' from the petitioner's bulkhead and will cover a 200' area; however, the petitioner shows no plans of what they are going to be. Chairman Rome stated the Board requires more information as to the width of the canal. Addressing the Board, Mr. Petrenchik assured the members that informa- tion can be obtained. He explained there are existing dolphin pilings on the opposite side of the canal and the 22' out into the waterway does not exceed the distance that the boat would extend if it were moored with whip pilings. There will be no decrease in available navigation with either method of mooring. Building Official Sutherland informed the Board that the dolphins across the canal are 18' from the bulkhead and he has a survey which shows this canal to be 150' in width. Attorney Benson stated she filed the petition on behalf of the Mr. & Mrs. Petrenchik and noted that this request is very similar'to that of PLANNING BOARD • Regular Meeting - Minutes January 13, 1988 Page 2 of 8 Mr. Gullett who recently was granted relief when he was permitted to install some dolphin pilings. The petitioner is requesting to be 18' beyond the 4' dock which is already built and extended, continued At- torney Benson. Chairman Rome acknowledged receipt of a letter of objection from James Donovan of 1106 Bel Air Drive and numerous phone calls to Town Hall voicing objections to the Petrenchik's request. At this point, Chairman Rome requested residents in the audience who wished to comment on this matter to step forward. Sadie Spadafino of 1105 stated there are a number of dolphin pilings on this canal and to add more would spoil what is still a beautiful canal. Esther O'Keefe approached the Board and said she resides on Bel Air Drive just across from where these pilings would be. People in the area, continued Mrs. O'Keefe, are renting out the dock space to earn money and they are commercializing the area; and with larger boats, there is no control that would prevent persons from staying over night on the vessels. • Evelyn Houck of Russell Drive stated that most of the people protesting do not have large boats (which require dolphins on that canal) that continually slam into the docks and seawall. Owners want to protect their boats. On this particular canal, said Mrs. Houck, there is no speed trap, boats go flying by, waves come in and cause damage to the boats; the dolphin pilings will not interfere with anyone's view. When Mrs. Leng questioned why the residents living on that canal had not previously installed dolphins, Mr. Petrenchik replied that when he bought the property, he inquired at Town Hall regarding dolphin pilings and was informed a variance had to be granted and such a procedure was rather costly. Mr. Petrenchik said he had a smaller boat at that time and decided he would work with the whips; at this point, he is purchas- ing a larger boat and the whips are not adequate. Attorney Benson advised they are not here to improve the property value with their request for dolphin pilings which will be the property of the Condominium Association which prohibits leasing these spaces to a third party and also bans persons living on the boats over night. This is not a "NO WAKE' zone so when traffic is heavy, the boats (which are expen- sive) get bounced around. If five pilings are too many, we would be willing to negotiate a lesser number of pilings, said Attorney Benson. On advice from Town Attorney Friedman, the Planning Board Members agreed to schedule a Public Hearing on February 24, 1988, at 9:30 A.M. The statements made today will be adopted at that Public Hearing as part of the record. Additional residents wishing to make statements will have . the opportunity to do so at that Public Hearing. A Regular Meeting will be held following the Public Hearing to allow members to vote on the matter. PLANNING BOARD • Regular Meeting - Minutes January 13, 1988 Page 3 of 8 Mrs. Houck questioned the need of a Public Hearing on this matter when a precedent in Town had already been set. Mr. O'Keefe of 1110 Bel Air Drive addressed the Board and stated that if this particular request is granted, the Board will be opening up the door for another 105 pilings on this canal; this will also cause a traffic problem. Mrs. De Cafiore of 1103 Russell Drive stated they invested money on a dock where they can sit and view the nice canal and boats. We also like the peace and quiet, continued Mrs. De Cafiore, we do not want to look at a marina therefore we object to the petition before you. Chairman Rome thanked the residents for their comments and asked that they return to the February 24, 1988, Public Hearing at 9:30 A.M. OLD BUSINESS Chairman Rome noted members would continue with the agenda item under "Old Business", the continuation of site plan review of Villa Mare' seawall (Lot 101 East) submitted by Philip Colman of Concordia Investments, Inc. • Addressing the Board, Mr. Colman stated he is a resident at Villa Magna and the developer of Villa Magna and Villa Nova. Mr. Colman said he welcomed the fact that people from Ambassadors East and Beach Walk East were in attendance as the purpose of his presentation today was to bring clarity to a number of issues; and the facts to be presented are easily corroborated. Mr. Colman explained he came in with a proposal that he felt was bene- ficial and a proper way to build which included a seawall that would be the rear wall of his building which building would have no adverse effects on adjoining properties to the North or South. At the previous Planning Board, continued Mr. Colman, approval of our site plan review was granted with condition that we extend our wall to the North wall of the Ambassadors East (garage wall) and continue that wall in an Easterly direction alongside the Ambassadors wall right up to the Northeast corner of that wall; or, we build a diagonal wall from the end of our building, again to the Northeast corner of Ambassadors wall (each of these conditions were subject to DNR approval). Continuing, Mr. Colman said they agreed to extend the wall right up to the Ambassadors East wall and presented that proposal to the DNR who advised in discussions and writing that any wall or any work done East- ward of the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) would not be permitted, nor would they recommend it. We were left with the last proposal which was simply to extend our wall (we are prepared to make •certain no gap will exist in the area between our building and Ambassadors East). Mr. Colman stated they would continue with that dune PLANNING BOAR • Regular Meeting - Minutes January 13, 1988 Page 4 of 8 area and make certain that that berm would be left in place. The proposal, said Mr. Colman, conforms in every respect to the requirements and, inspite of the DNR rejection, he will again go forward with a formal application when his working and structural drawings are prepared so he can submit them to the DNR. Mr. Colman noted such plans are very expensive and he can not have such drawings prepared unless he has final site plan approval from the Planning Board and the Town Commission. Further, Mr. Colman advised that Mr. Walther of Coastal Technology sent a confirming letter and prepared a report based on his meeting with the DNR in Tallahassee. Mr. Colman said that information was submitted to the Planning Board and to the Town Commission. A confirming wire was received from the DNR, continued Mr. Colman, which reconfirms their position and also stated that "should the adjacent property to the South wish to have a new return wall constructed on their property, they should apply for such under separate permit application". Mr. Colman said he would suggest to the Board at Ambassadors East that, if they are concerned, they should proceed with such an application. When Mr. Waldman, addressing Mr. Colman, said "You're telling us that the DNR disapproved those two plans?", Mr. Colman responded the DNR advised that what is proposed there has no adverse effect or impact on either property to the North or South. When Mr. Bartlett added the DNR . would not approve going beyond the CCCL, Mr. Colman said that was exactly the fact, however, he is still prepared to do that by going in with a formal application at such time when we have formal, working drawings. Chairman Rome noted she had done all her homework, and as a resident of the Ambassadors East, she would prefer not to vote on this subject. The Chairman said that at the December 9, 1987, Regular Planning Board Meet- ing, members requested Mr. Colman engage a coastal engineer as they felt a problem existed with the neighbors on the North and South. Mr. Colman and Mr. Walther attended the December 20, 1987, Special Meeting of the Planning Board at which time Mr. Walther said the proposed building will have no impact on its neighbors and nothing really has to be done. Continuing, Chairman Rome said when she received Mr. Colman's letter of December 24, 1987, advising Mr. Walther had been to Tallahassee, a copy of the conference report and a note to Ralph Clark, Chief of the Bureau of Coastal Engineering, she called Mr. Manson-Hing of the DNR in Tallahassee to discuss the conference report and the precedent which had been set in Town with the wall built by Teron International to protect the North wall of Ambassadors South. Mr. Manson-Hing was aware of this Teron wall and said he sees no reason why it can not be done at Lot 101 East. At a meeting with the Mayor and Red Taylor of the DNR, Mr. Taylor stated a return wall should be built to protect Ambassadors East; and some sort • of rock scour should be placed in front of the Beach Walk East swimming • PLANNING BOARD Regular Meeting - Minutes January 13, 1988 Page 5 of 8 pool on Mr. Colman's side to protect that area of Beach Walk East. Mayor Stewart then requested the Building Official write a letter to Mr. Manson -Ring regarding this matter. Said letter dated January 8, 1988, was read into the minutes by Chairman Rome and is attached to and made a part of these minutes. Mr. Taylor agreed to speak with Mr. Manson-Hing as soon as the Building Official's letter is received by Mr. Manson- Hing, continued Chairman Rome. The chairmanship of this meeting was then turned over to Vice Chairman Ward. When Acting Chairman Ward asked for other comments, Mr. Colman said he would like to introduce Mr. Walther, President of Coastal Technology Corporation, (consulting engineers). Mr. Walther noted that at the December 16, 1987, Planning Board Regular Meeting, he was assigned to investigate two primary issues; first, whether or not the proposed building without any seawall or return wall on the property, as proposed by Mr. Colman, would have any adverse effect on the adjoining properties; and, secondly, would the DNR favor- ably consider the return wall or seawall along the South property between the proposed Villa Mare' and Ambassadors East. On December 17, 1987, Mr. Walther met with Mr. Manson-Hing (Red Taylor's immediate • supervisor), Brett Moore the Engineering Supervisor (Mr. Manson-Hing's supervisor) and Ralph Clark, Chief Engineer of DNR, division of Beaches and Shores, Bureau of Coastal Construction. The conclusion of that meeting was that basically the proposed project would have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties; and, secondly, the DNR would not favorably consider a return wall as a condition (or as an element of construction) proposed for the Villa Mare' site. Mr. Walther read into the minutes the telegram received from Brett Moore regarding the two main issues discussed at their meeting. Same is attached to and made a part of these minutes. Mr. Walther said he believes and hopes that would be sufficient to address the concerns of this Board regarding the proposed project; and, he considers it appropriate to request the Plan- ning Board approve this project as proposed. Mr. Colman reiterated he is prepared to make a separate application, in due course, when all documentation is ready to make such application; and he will sign the present approval given by the Planning Board to that effect. Mr. Colman said he will also ask Ambassadors East to submit a letter in support of what he proposes to do and that will be submitted along with Mr. Colman's application (or it can be done inde- pendently). I am prepared to do that because I want this project to go ahead --it is a fine project and will be an asset to the Town. I urge you to give me final approval today so I can go ahead, said Mr. Colman. When Mr. Waldman said it is the duty of the Board Members to listen to the residents and, if necessary, a public hearing will be scheduled for • that purpose, Acting Chairman Ward noted the Town Attorney advised the Board can allow people to speak at this meeting --the Board would be prepared to hear any representative from Ambassadors East or Beach Walk East. PLANNING BOARD • Regular Meeting - Minutes January 13, 1988 Page 6 of 8 Ms. Jane Romano of Beach Walk East addressed the Board and stated that should the development of Mr. Colman's property affect Ambassadors East or Beach Walk East, there should be some way to include something in the deed that would have Mr. Colman responsible for rectifying any problems. Responding to Ms. Romano, Mr. Colman said they are conforming 100% to the code requirements and are within their rights to proceed with the kind of building that the Planning Board approved when it reviewed the site plans. When Mr. Maurice Hoffman of Ambassadors East questioned the actual dune line Mr. Colman will be working with in reference to the ocean side of his proposed building, Mr. Colman replied that his building is behind the Ambassadors East; we are Westward and we do not go beyond the CCCL which means we are about 30' behind your tower and 42' behind your garage (Westward). The Ambassadors East garage property extends about 42' behind the CCCL, continued Mr. Colman. Acting Chairman Ward noted the Town has written to the DNR and we are now waiting for their reply. Mr. Bartlett said the Board has seen what the DNR has to say "they unequivocally do not anticipate any ill effect for the adjoining buildings from the building that is proposed". Acting Chairman Ward said the Board has to consider both neighbors of Mr. • Colman's project and the members have an obligation to get a direct response from the DNR before they pass on any motion. Building Official Sutherland stated the entire key is will the DNR allow an intrusion of the CCCL. The Town has a feeling that with their encouragement, the DNR will possibly reverse their position. Further, Mr. Sutherland said the Town advised the DNR that the Town would look favorably upon the DNR allowing Concordia go Eastward of the CCCL. We are awaiting their reply, continued the Building Official. Town Attorney Friedman advised the Planning Board needs a written agree- ment to the effect that Mr. Colman will carry out.all that he indicated; that he will pursue formal administrative petition to see that this matter is worked out. Chairman Rome agreed with the Town Attorney and said this issue should be worked out with our attorney and Mr. Colman's attorney. When Mr. Colman commented drafting an agreement to be reviewed by both attorneys was just another delay, Town Attorney Friedman stated Mr. Colman's attorney would draft a document, submit it to the Town Attorney's Office for review prior to the next meeting of the Board. Following a brief recess, Acting Chairman Ward reconvened the meeting at 11:25 A.M. stating the Board has an obligation to the neighbors on the North and South of the proposal to obtain a response from the DNR. 0 PLANNING BOARD • Regular Meeting - Minutes January 13, 1988 Page 7 of 8 Mr. Waldman commented the Board can not give any approval today; it is necessary that a contract to be drawn up by Mr. Colman's attorney be approved by our attorney as a matter of record to protect this Board. Mr. Colman said he does not see why an approval can not be granted this date and he will have his attorney (together with Attorney Friedman) prepare an agreement between the parties that can be approved by the Town Commission at their Workshop Meeting on January 26, 1988. Town Attorney Friedman stated that would be approving plans that do not depict the return wall for which Mr. Colman is proposing to make application to the DNR. Mrs. Leng commented that planning is very expensive for us when we make a mistake; we have to be sure we are doing this correctly. The Town has not heard from the DNR who could change their position; and, it behooves us to take the time to try to convince the DNR that what we would like to have is what they approved a year ago at the South end of Town. Mr. Walther read the correspondence he received from the DNR into the minutes and he suggested it was a reply from the DNR on these issues. This document was submitted to the Board for the record and is attached and made a part of these minutes. • When Mrs. Leng asked Mr. Walther if the DNR has been know to change their mind, Mr. Walther replied "on occasion, yes". Attorney Friedman said if there's a little political clout put in; if Highland Beach intervenes and forwards a letter with some pressure, it is possible the DNR would disregard their staff recommendation. Once again, Mr. Colman requested the Board give him approval today and said he would have a document prepared in the next week for the attorneys to review so that it will be ready in time for the Town Com- mission and he will then be able to appear before Town Commission with- out fear of being removed from the agenda. Chairman Rome said she agreed with Mr. Colman. Acting Chairman Ward called for a MOTION. A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF THIS PORTION OF THE PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF JANUARY 13, 1988, PERTAINING TO MR. COLMAN'S PROJECT HAS BEEN PREPARED AND IS ATTACHED AND MADE A PART OF THESE MINUTES. Following the conclusion of the discussion regarding Mr. Colman's project, Acting Chairman Ward turned the meeting over to Chairman Rome. Chairman Rome noted the next agenda item was discussion regarding PRE- LIMINARY/FINAL SITE PLAN REVIEWS. The Board Members agreed to transmit a memorandum (which is attached and made a part of these minutes) re- garding this matter to the Town Commission for their consideration and possible action. .PLANNING BOARD Regular Meeting Minutes January 13, 1988 Page 8 of 8 The Building Official noted that the Planning Board would still want a complete submission, in every way, for a PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN REVIEW. Mr. Bartlett commented that any approval for more than one unit would require at least two meetings (or two months time). Upon proper MOTION, Chairman Rome adjourned the Regular Meeting of the Planning Board at 12:20 P.M. • A t st: Date (� APPROVED: D. R. Rome, Chairman J.,f Ward, Vice Chairman . �%��� , L. ( v Amelie Leng 4�z� % - a.o "9F C. HV Bartlett VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF PORTION OF PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF 1/13/88 • DKF - It might be helpful, if let's say, the staff recommends the government to disapprove the idea; normally, they probably would follow staff recommendations, but if there's a little political clout put in, you know, if Highland Beach intervenes and sends a letter and puts some pressure on, you know, it's possible they would just dis- regard the staff recommendation. LENG - It's worth a chance. COLMAN - There's no conflict, gentlemen and ladies. There is no conflict in this position and there is no reason, and I don't know why this question keeps coming up. I mean, am I talking nonsense or do you people here not understand what I am saying? ROME - It makes very good sense. • COLMAN - Because it seems that somehow or another it is not pene- trating, and I don't know why, I don't know why. There is no reason why you can't give me approval today. None whatsoever. And, we'll get a document prepared --it'll be ready in the next week if these two lawyers can get together and stop quibbling, and they'll be able to draft a simple - simple document, because that's all it is - and it'll be ready in time for the Town Commission and I'll be able to talk to the Town Commission without fear of being taken off the agenda. ROME - I agree with him. WARD - mm, yea. COLMAN - So please give me WARD - I'm going to ask for a MOTION. Will anybody here give me a MOTION? 'LENG - I'd be glad to. I would like to make a MOTION that we the • Planning Board (oh, boy! I don't know how I'm going to get the right words) VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF PORTION OF PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF 1/13/88 10 WARD - Well, would you like to write it down and does anyone else have a MOTION? LENG - Yes - our Attorney has a suggestion FRIEDMAN - Move to approve the plans subject to a satisfactory agree- ment, agreement satisfactory to the Planning Board and to Mr. Colman being executed which covers the representations Mr. Colman has made at this meeting today with -regarding what he will do to obtain the approval of the DNR for the return wall WARD - No FRIEDMAN - No. ROME - The return wall is fine LENG - I still think we need time. WARD - That's not a MOTION. I will be happy to make a MOTION or allow somebody else to make a MOTION. BARTLETT - I'd be happy to make a MOTIONtobring this matter to a head if WARD - Would you make the MOTION? BARTLETT I'll make the MOTION that we approve Mr. Colman's plans as he has presented them with the understanding that he will give us written guarantees that he will follow the promises that he had made regarding seawall protection, if they are approved by DNR, and that we proceed, let him proceed with his planning with the understanding, of course, that he's going to the DNR after he gets his plans completed as is necessary. And, that we do so without further delay, as far as the Planning Board is concerned. That is worded rather poorly. Would you read it back, please. RECORDING SECY. - You went too fast, I will read what I have Mr. Bartlett. I make the MOTION that we approve Mr. Colman's plans as he • presented them with the understanding that he will give us written guarantees that he will - 2 - • K] VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF PORTION OF PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF 1113188 BARTLETT - that he will pursue further with us with the DNR the question of protective walls for the adjoining properties and that failing to get such approvals, he will be free to proceed --failing to get such approvals, he's be privileged to proceed. WALDMAN - No, you're just opposite, aren't you? If he gets the approvals, he wouldn't be free to proceed. BARTLETT - If he does not, if we do not get the approvals, he is free to proceed is what I'm proposing. WALDMAN - If he doesn't get them, he would be free to proceed? WARD - He means -he will be -able to proceed with the return seawall, don't you. BARTLETT - Pardon me? WARD - You mean that if he doesn't get approval to go ahead with the BARTLETT - I'm talking about the seawall when I say if that is not approved by the DNR. ROME - You won't forget the rock scouring at the North side of the property. BARTLETT - I mean anything of that sort over and beyond what his plans call for, that we, in our further deliberations, find is desire - able and can be approved by the DNR. We're going to join him, pre- sumably, to do some further negotiating with the DNR. Maybe soon, maybe a little later on. I'm saying that I think we ought to take the action to permit him to proceed now, subject, of course, to Town Com- mission approval, and subject to the guarantees that, when the final decision is made, at whatever stage on the necessity for any protection that he doesn't presently have in his plans, that failure to get that, • he still has the right to proceed. - 3 - a VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF PORTION OF PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF 1/13/88 • WARD - I understand what you're saying. I think the wording is a little unclear but, may I just for the record, may I just spell out my two things and make sure that we do agree with one another. First of all, we are seeking the approval of DNR for the diagonal wall to go East of the Coastal Construction Line (CCL). If they do not agree to that, then we would have to proceed with his original plan with a return wall within the construction line to the North end of Ambassadors East. Is that correct? BARTLETT - No, this is not what I'm saying at all here. LENG - No. BARTLETT - Not at all. It's the opposite of what I am saying. What I'm saying, we give the man permission to proceed as now planned in • his plans unless WARD - that's with the return wall BARTLETT - No, no. He doesn't have a return wall in his present plans, he has a clean seawall with his building only. WARD - I find it, I'm sorry, plain seawall, I'm sorry. BARTLETT - Okay --it's a plain seawall. Let me try to start over. I propose we approve Mr. Colman's plans as submitted and discussed in detail subject to a written assurance on his part that he will follow through with any other items of protection in the way of seawall to the adjoining properties as discussed and will assist us in obtaining DNR approval to provide such protection. Should the DNR continue to disapprove, then Mr. Colman should have the privilege to proceed as initially proposed. . COLMAN - Mr. Chairman, may I? WARD - Yes. - 4 - s VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF PORTION OF PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF 1/13/88 • COLMAN - As I mentioned earlier, I stated, and I think this is the point that you wanted to make, Mr. Ward, and that is that if the DNR does not approve going beyond the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL), then I will still build my wall right up to Ambassadors East. WARD - That is exactly what, and I used the wrong terminology by saying return wall. COLMAN - No, it's a straight wall. WARD - Yes, straight wall. COLMAN - Yes, and it's on our property and it's Westward of the CCCL, which doesn't require DNR approval. Now, if Mr. Bartlett is prepared to accept that little change, I'm certainly prepared to do it. BARTLETT - Yes, I certainly am. We would inject in there and "with his plans as presented plus an extention of his seawall to adjoin,; to intersect or adjoin the Ambassadors, to meet the Ambassadors North wall. FRIEDMAN - I would just have on+ossible modification. He mentioned in the MOTION, to assist in obtaining DNR approval. I think it might be better to state "will make diligent efforts to obtain DNR approval." You know, he's the one who will do it, we'll help him and everything, but he's the one that should be submitting ROME to get the approval --it's not the Town who gets the approval. And we spent all morning discussing this, I shouldn't even take part in this discussion, but we've spent all morning and we got to the point where Mr. Colman said he was perfectly willing to build the wall on the South and put in the rock on the North and he would so stipulate • and then we came down to 'let's have a legal agreement between his attorney and the Town attorney' and the whole thing now is back to where - 5 - VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF PORTION OF PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF 1/13/88 • ROME (cont'd.) - we were at 10 o'clock this morning. LENG - Well, I know there's a MOTION on the floor but, can we have I a discussion? ROME - Yes. BARTLETT - There is no second WARD - As a question of procedure, is there any reason why we shouldn't discuss this first? FRIEDMAN - No, I had, No, I just wondered, I also had a proposed MOTION I mentioned and you haven't taken action on that. You may want to have a discussion on that as well. WARD - I think we're getting a little bit confused. Frankly, I'm a little confused right now. Do you have something to say, Mr. Waldman? WALDMAN - I was just trying to think of a way to say this, similar to what Doris was just saying and I don't think what Chris is proposing is covering the ratification of agreement between the attorneys. LENG - No. That's why I wanted, when you're, has his been seconded, has his MOTION been seconded? WARD - No, not yet, no. WALDMAN - In other words, you could probably, I'm not, I'm just talk- ing out loutd, you might make it conditional approval based on the DNR approving what the plans would be first and then come back to us after he gets the approval. And, also building of the type of a wall that they have up at Teron International. That type of a seawall. I don't know just how to FRIEDMAN - Let me ask you, to save a little time since there hasn't • been a second on the MOTION, it really shouldn't be up for discussion until there's a second on the MOTION. - 6 - VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF PORTION OF PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF 1/13/88 40 COLMAN - Mr. Chairman, we've got an attorney here, and I think Mr. Friedman, you owe it to me, as a resident, and to the members of this Board, to clarify this situation; and, I haven't heard that clarifi- cation yet. The fact of the matter is that what we have said, Mr. Waldman, does not permit us to go ahead now and get an agreement from the DNR after making a formal application. We're not going to get it - we might get an understanding from the DNR. Now, if you're going to wait until such time as I get a formal approval, you're going to delay me for four months. FRIEDMAN - No, he's not suggesting that, I don't think. WALDMAN - No. COLMAN - Then, I don't understand the suggestion. 41 WALDMAN - You said they turned you down on the two proposals that you had submitted? COLMAN - To date, yes. WALDMAN - They turned you down on those two? COLMAN - Correct. COLMAN - The documents are clear. WALDMAN - Well, if they had turned you, did you make, what, couldn't you make another proposal to the DNR on something that they would approve that we could go along with? COLMAN - The only time that I could make another proposal --we had made one. The DNR is not interested in keeping discussion going with us as we are doing here today, believe me. Okay. You just can't go to the DNR and keep going over the same subject over and over again. They've already given us an answer. They've given us, in fact, two answers. Both of them the same, within the last ten days. Okay. So, • we have an answer from them. In order for us to do anything else at the present time, okay, it can only happen if we go ahead with working - 7 - LJ r] • VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF PORTION OF PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF 1113188 COLMAN (Cont'd.) - drawings, with constructural plans and that's going to take a considerable amount of time. But, we said we're going to do that, we will do that, we'll do it diligently, Mr. Friedman, okay, I'm prepared to put in any wording that you and our attorney can agree upon. Now, if the two attorneys can get together and work out a docu- ment, what is the problem? ROME - No. That's what I would like to see. LENG - Chris, would you withdraw your MOTION? ROME - We were way up to there, now we're back to the point of 10 o'clock LENG - Chris, would you be willing to withdraw your MOTION since you didn't get a second? BARTLETT - Well, if it doesn't get a second, it's automatically with- drawn. WARD - It's really a question of the wording of the MOTION. WALDMAN - It would have to be reworded. BARTLETT - I'm perfectly willing to listen to rewording. WARD - Perhaps the attorney would like to help us here. Do you need five minutes? I mean it's already 12 o'clock but it's worth getting it the correct wording. And, then, I think somebody's going to have to write it out and then we'll FRIEDMAN - Well, is what's left out is the fact that you want to see the agreement before LENG - Right. FRIEDMAN - Okay. LENG - That's it. We want to see the agreement. COLMAN - Not that you want to see the agreement. That isn't the point. LENG - The point is we want to have an agreement. - 8 - VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF PORTION OF PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF 1/13/88 COLMAN - Alright. What we're proposing here and I understand Mr. Bartlett proposed was simply that you would give approval today. That approval is subject to an agreement between the two attorneys relative to the subject matter we were discussing. FRIEDMAN - No they can't - they can't designate, they can't desig- nate us to do an agreement. We can draft it - they can't tell us. As attorneys, we do not make decisions for the Planning Board. COLMAN - That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that the agreement that we're talking about was what Mr. Bartlett outlined. And, that was that we will build this wall if the DNR accepts it and we will proceed with this form of application diligently. That is the agreement. Now, this body is telling you how this agreement ought to be drafted. But, they're not using legalese. So, this is up to you, as an attorney, to go ahead and do that. WARD - Yes, I agree with that. That is quite right. COLMAN - Now, is that understood? WARD - Yes, I agree with that entirely. ROME I know I'm not supposed to take part in this meeting. Villa Mare' (Lot 101 E) is approved subject to the drawing up of a legal docu- ment between the Town Attorney and Mr. Colman's Attorney relative to the building of a wall of a protective, would you call it, wall on the COLMAN - Excuse me, may I interject? It's a wall that you have already described in your previous resolution. ROME - Yes - a protective wall on the South. WALDMAN - Okay, we're doing this backward, really. I just can't see how we can possibly approve anything until we look at it. • LENG - Exactly. WALDMAN - I mean, we're not, we should have that agreement in front - 9 - VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF PORTION OF PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF 1/13/88 • WALDMAN (Cont'd.) - of us and then we should be able to look at it as a Planning Board, we're making �hdecision and I know Mr. Colman is anxious to get approval. I just don't see how we can do that. We've stayed here, we've tried to be lenient, we've given our time and effort, but, I don't see how we can possibly approve something condi- tioned on something else because then we're right back to where we started. Now, he brings in an agreement and if we like it, we approve it at that time, right, and it's going to amount to the same thing. LENG - I goofed when I couldn't make the MOTION. What I really meant to say is that I would like to make a MOTION that we convene to a Special Meeting, or February 10th, whichever everybody approves of until we see the, what the lawyers, until the lawyers meet. WALDMAN - We, I think we've been more than fair to sit here this morning for 3-1/2 hours or 2-1/2 hours and listen to all this and try to come to some --there's no doubt that eventually you're going to get your building, Mr. Colman, but it's going to have to be done according to the rules and ordinances and regulations of the Town. Now, we have overlooked quite a few things and, in the past, we've overlooked some things on this building. But, rather than go into them, I think we're going to have to see these things in front of us. We just can not conditionally approve it based on this letter. Then, we're going to have to approve that letter, so why can't we approve it at the same time because it really isn't approved until the letter is written and approved by us, right? LENG - right. WALDMAN - So, what's wrong with approving the whole thing? • ROME - I know what Mr. Colman's worries are. Mr. Col.man would Planning like very much to get to the Town/Commission on, I mean the Town =91= VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF PORTION OF PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF 1/13/88 ROME (Cont'd.) - Commission BARTLETT - and, I think he has the right to do so. ROME - That meeting is on the 25th. Is there any reason that the two attorneys can't get together and we can't meet sometime before the 25th? FRIEDMAN - That's a good point. If he can still get --not be delayed in getting to the Town Commission, then what's the harm, Mr. Colman? COLMAN - As long as I'm not delayed. FRIEDMAN Anne has got the calendar. WALDMAN - If we can, we'll be happy to meet FRIEDMAN - When's the next Town Commission WALDMAN - We'll do it to help you. COLMAN - Thank you very much WARD - I think we have to have a firm proposal to come up with at that time. COLMAN - Yes. WALDMAN - And we have to have everything in front of us that we can look at, and not conjectures. COLMAN - Fine, Mr. Waldman. ROME - Couldn't Mr. Walthers, as your consultant engineer -you're certainly paying him, couldn't Mr. Walthers sketch out, I don't mean to make voluminous plans that would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, but couldn't he sketch out the front of your building and the wall that we're talking about and the rock abutments to protect the property to the North. • COLMAN - Excuse me, we're not talking about rock abutments. ROME - Well, rock revetments or whatever they are COLMAN - We're not talking about rock revetments - 11 - VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF PORTION OF PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF 1113188 LENG - Oh yes we are WARD - Some type of scour protection COLMAN - Just a minute. We said that we'll provide some kind of wall, whether it includes rock revetment ROME - Oh no. The rocks are for the North side COLMAN - Just a minute, you have to remember now, you know the North side has two sides --one of them is the side that faces South and the other is the side that faces East. The critical one is the side that faces East. So, no matter what we do over there, if that pool is vulnerable now it will continue to be vulnerable. That is something that is up to them to concern themselves with. Now, if the DNR will permit us to provide some kind of rock revetment which will take us from our wall up to their wall, or pool, or whatever side, then, fine, • we'll do that. I have no problem there. Now we'll draft a sketch, we'll provide you with a sketch ROME - That's great. Something that we can look at. LENG - That's what we've been asking all along. COLMAN - Well fine. ROME - I'm glad I opened my big mouth. And, also an agreement between your attorney and the Town's attorneys for that meeting and then you will be glad to FRIEDMAN - You mean an agreement reviewed by us. ROME - Well of course. He said his attorney COLMAN - louo&uys are going to be able to get together this week? FRIEDMAN - Right. COLMAN - Don't go away from home ROME - Now, of course, Mr. 'Colman, you know if we're going to have a Special Meeting, it goes on your bill. I hate to remind you of that - 12 - . VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF PORTION OF PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF 1/13/88 COLMAN - We'll do it, I don't agree with it, but we'll do it. ROME - Well, at least it's something, I mean, I don't think that we can let the people in Town who's properties may not be built the way they would be built today or who felt that they had no reason to pro- tect their properties, be subjected to having a pool float Taway, you wouldn't like it if it happened to your swimming pool. I mean, you know, so that we have to be compassionate not only to you who wants to get on with his job but to the people who are living there and be concerned about them. And, I think that's what this Board has been trying to do --I know I've been trying my hardest to do it. And, so, I'm glad we've come to an agreement --we will meet on this at 1 o'clock next Wednesday. Hopefully, your attorney and the Town attorney will have it all drawn up for us with five copies. • COLMAN - My attorney most certainly will. I'll see to it. ROME - Alright. I will step back into the Chair and say Thank you Mr. Colman. COLMAN - You're welcome. • 14 - 0 40 MEMORANDUM TO: TOWN COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING BOARD DATE: JANUARY 14, 1988 RE: PRELIMINARY/FINAL SITE PLAN REVIEW The Planning Board finds the PRELIMINARY/FINAL SITE PLAN REVIEW very cumbersome, unwieldly and time consuming when they consider a building that contains more than one unit (private home). The Planning Board recommends that, in the future, any building with more than one unit should come in with Preliminary only for discussion. Then, after Preliminary discussion, Final Site Plan Review at a future date. The same Site Plan requirement would be used for the Preliminary as well as the Final. DRR/amk cc: P.B. Members Building Official Town Manager.(Acting) orAs R. Rome, Chairman