Loading...
1988.03.01_TC_Minutes_Regular (2)TRANSCRIPT OF PORTION OF REGULAR MEETING OF 3/1/88 RE CONCORDIA INVESTMENTS, INC. Colman This is now our fifteenth meeting and I sincerely hope we can resolve whatever outstanding questions that remain today. As I mentioned previously, we received a unanimous approval from the planning board and from the community appearance board and we now look to you. We have made, I think, significant concessions particularly on the East side which is the side we are dealing with today in connection with the proposed extenstions of our East wall, a concession that was not necessary for us to make but we made it in good faith. It was re- quested by the members of the planning board and in particular, by the chair- man of the planning board who happens to be living just to the south of Lot 101 E. We also made, I think, some reasonable concessions on the West side in con- nection with the wall which was not in our plans which was the dividing wall between us and Seagate and I think it was a good suggestion. We were pleased to make it and we certainly made some major alterations as far as the planting is concerned and changed part of that plan. I hope it wil work as a proper archi- tectural landscaping job and we now seek your approval today. We would like your approval for 3~ units which is what we are allowed as far as the density is concerned on the EAst side and that would include a resident manager's apartment as port of the building. We are here to deal with any of the pro- blems and we would appreciate if you would raise them in the order that you want us to discuss it and we're here to deal with it. Thank you. r Stewart Do any of the commissioners have any comments to make at this time? I see our building official has temporarily left so we cannot call on him until he re- turns. We have, as I said earlier, just received this two page letter from our attorney and I don't know whether the commissioners have read iL- or not. I Basso : IMr. Sliney I would like to have our attorney discuss this. Basically we had two issues that Tom wanted to look into: One, was Mr. Colman's interpretation of the measurement and the second, was the interpretation of the the amendment to the ordinance changing the setback. I will address the latter first. The state law provides that where you basically re-zone there is cer- uniform statewide requirements that have to be met in order to do your re- zoning. The statute was also amended to provide that in addition to rezoning any'=specific~.parcels that where a proposed amendment was to substantially change the permitted use categories then that would also mean to be covered by those notice requirements. At the time that we did this amendment it did not appear • Page 2 REGULAR MEETING OF 3/1/88 . that this was a substantial change in permitted use categories. You note • that in our zoning we define permitted uses specifically as it relates to zoning categories. However, the courts in recent years in '86, thereafter, have broadened the language of the permitted use to include items which in my mind are really building code requirements rather than zoning. Be that as it may, they have taken the substantial permitted use category and applied it to heigth and changes in sign codes and things in my mind which are not traditionally zoning categories. So on the basis of that it does put the validity of this ordinance in some question and we have recommended that to clear that up that that particular amendment be re-inacted with the require- ments of 1660413-C. With regard to the second aspect we do not agree with Mr. Colman's inter- pretation and feel that it will be measured from the garage and that's our feeling on that one. So to summarize the amendment itself because of the broadening by the case law of that statuatory provision probably should be re-enacted and that's our feeling on the subject from a legal standpoint. ~Ia~ Stewart With regards to Section 37 or 38 with regard to high rise setbacks and the the portion which comes down to garage structures, in both ordinances they are word for word the same with the exception of"other applicable" being use in 37 and two story yard being used in 38. So that in either case the referral of the rest of those items are word for word the same. In using 37 rather than the new 38, the reference being "other applicable yard set- back requirements" than would take in "other applicable" being either in the front or the side or the rear the numbers as they are applied in those areas . 4r. Sliney The only thing that might be in question;. is the amendment language which differs from the amendment that was before. In otherwords, the original ordinance of the original section on that subject was adapted as a part of the general re-zoning ordinance. Mayor Stewart ~~37, yes. Kr. Sliney So that's no problem. Kayor Stewart That's the one I'm reading. Kr. Sliney I'm just trying to react to your....so the only thing that would be in question is the change which was made under a general ordinance but not Page 3 REGULAR MEETING OF 3/1/88 • a general re-zoning ordinance and the courts have interpreted this type of change in recent years as an essence a change to a zoning ordinance which has to have those notices and those hearings which are different and more ex- tensive than we do for a regular first and second reading on our ordinance and that's the difference. Whatever was changed is the only thing in question, The original ordinance, there's no problem with. iayor Stewart So then the applicable setbacks as they would apply in each of the areas would be in effect. [r. Sliney Whatever the language of the amendment was is the only thing that was in question. rt So we have side yard setbacks in both cases showing one story twelve feet and two story twenty feet and then under multiple story high rise setback require- ment X68 below which is the same situation in both ordinances. Mr. Sutherland, I see you have returned. Vice Mayor has a question for you. lice Mayor This refers to the statement Mr.Sutherlandquoted from the transcript. You said "AlA is a street" I'll grant you that. The front elevation of the building, the elevation of the building in the front faces the street. The street is not the front of the building, a point I certainly agree with. But you're saying the front elevation is facing the street. Correct? it ~utherlandCorrect. rice Mayor What is the height of the dune at the base of that elevation? [r. SutherlandThe height of the dune in that general area on the east side of AlA is between 18 and 20 feet. ice Mayor At the front elevation of the building. lutherland There is only one dune. The dune is at the ocean. The elevation of the topography mf the lot is one thing. The dune is something else. The dune is only one part. I talked to Red Taylor from the DNR and he has confirmed this. So the dune is the area directing adjacent to the beach. Going back to the west side which is an entirely a different story. The vertical distance measures from the crown of the adjacent roadway west of AIA. So we're measuring from the crown of AlA at the front of the structure. Now we go to the east. The vertical distance is measured from the natural grade of the dune at the front of the structure. Obviously, on the west side we're not talking about measuring the height of the building from the crown of AlA though this is the reference point they made. That's the reference point that is brought forward to the front of the building. • On the east side, they're using the height of the dune as the reference point brought forward to the front of the building. Page 4 REGULAR MEETING OF 3/1/88 V' Mayor The front of the structure then is AlA. Surland You are correct and just as they use that point on the west side from the crown then they bring it to the front of the building. They use the reference point of the dune and they bring it to the front of the building in the same, almost identi- cal wording. This is my interpretation and I don't see any other way to look at it. Vice Mayor Well, I guess I was looking at the charts that were in the plans and obviously there were gradations shown at different heights. So I took the front of the building to be the side facing AlA. I looked at the elevation there which was roughly 7 feet., Therefore, we were going from 7 feet, he was allowed up to 80 feet in height. Correct? Sutherland The dune is between 18 and 20 feet and this is the reference point and I have to emphasize there is only one dune. It is not the general topography of the lot. But there is only one dune and this is the point of reference as to measuring just as the crown of the road on the west side is the point of reference as to measuring. In both instances you take the west side crown of the road and bring it to the front of the building and on the east side you take the height of dune and you bring it to the front of the building and then you measure • from there. This to me is clearly how it reads. [r. Colman I would like to deal with this particular question because it deals with the question of height and I gather that the other question is by the wayside for the time being. Am I right, Mr. Sliney? Atty Sliney Go ahead, you make. your comments, Colman I have no comment regarding the validity since you have already made it. So there is no point in dealing with that subject at the moment so I'd rather deal with the questions of height. Now, I just want to point out and let's go back before the change was made in 1984 and I'll read it for the record. "Building height.. the vertical distance measure from the crown of the adjacent roadway at the front of the structure to the highest point of the structure excluding elevator and mechanical enclosures, etc." And there was a change made. Now we're dealing with this one thing now which talks about the crown of the road. All heights are measured with that as the guideline. And now the change is made. And the change takes into consideration the fact that-there is a dune on the east side which this previous one did not take into consideration, And so we talk now about the west side where it is measured from the crown of the road and ob- • viously you're not going to build a building on the crown of the road. So it's got to be nothing else but a point of departure, This is where you start from and you carry a horizontal line to the front of the building and then Page 5 REGULAR MEETING OF 3/1/88 measure 80 feet. Now on the east side you have an entirely different topography • because you have a dune. And obviously, the people who drafted this regulation recognized that there is significant difference between the two sides. You can't have a structure that's going to be facing a wall of earth and recog- nizing that this is the situation that created an alternative. And the alterna- tive then now says that you measure from the natural grade of the dune. By the word natural of course, we understand natural to be mean the exact opposite of artificial. We're not talking about a built up area. We're talking about an area which is there and which is the bank protection if there building on the ocean side. So we measure on the same basis. We take the natural grade of the dune which in this case averages around 18. There are points that are higher, that are 20 or 21. We take the average natural grade of the dune and we take a horizontal line, an imaginary horizontal line, to the front of the building and we measure from there. .aow let me point out several other areas in this book which would substantiate our thinking on this subject in this particular way. Let me point out, there's a section on page 21. Let me read it to you. M Excuse me, are. you saying 21 in Chapter 30? Colman Yes. The Bible. It says "a cement or underground floor elevation of not less than 72 feet above sea level." I would just like to point out, talking about past history as an aside here, that the Royal Highlands of course, they came up with a proposal for a basement, the garage floor about 3 or 4 feet below that level of 72 feet and this was approved by the town committee at that time. In spite of the fact that in here it says you cannot have it, so changes can be made occasionally as you are well aware. Now the meaning of this. The only place where you can have a basement or an underground garage is on the east side. It cannot be anywhere else. You cannot have a basement with a level below 7~ feet any where else except on the east side. Now, if you have that only on the east side what are we talking about then. If we assume that the natural grade meets the ground, therefore you can speak of a basement or an underground garage. Otherwise, there's no such animal. It cannot exist. Kayor Mr. Colman, have you ever been to Boca Raton and been into Sea Ranch? ~olman We're talking about this town, Kayor I'm just saying that it is actually in theory... ~o~ We're talking about this town. The application of this book applies to Highland Beach. And in Highland Beach, I venture to state, there is no other way in which it can be interpreted because it is only on the east side that you can have a Page ~ REGULAR MEETING OF 3/1/88 basement or an underground garage. Let me go further. Ma~ Mr. Colman, would it prohibit then the berming up after the 7% grade? Colman Don't follow. Mayor In otherwords, in order to put the garage in to the basement category and keep the garage floor at 7~ feet which has to do with flood insurance, etc. Could you not, if .you wanted to, berm up on the walls or on side of the garage to effect a garage in the basement on the west side if you wanted to? ~olman I don't follow the logic here. Kayor Could one be created is what I am asking, in Highland Beach? ~olman Could you create anything on the west side by raising the ground, filling it in, and we're talking about the crown of the road. So let's not forget about that subject because that's what I started with. Kayor I'm just asking if in theory it was impossible on the west if one was to do it in that manner. That was all I was .asking. ~olman In theory you can build up the ground and try to reach it from the crown of the road. I would like to see one like that. rice Mayor. I don't know how you would classify Monterey but they have underground parking, basement parking. I'll put it that way. They maintain that their first floor • is the second floor. Cowan Also, I want to negate the definition of the word 'dune.' Now you have that in two different locations. You've got it in the Ordinance 522 and in the DNR Booklet. In the DNR Booklet the word 'Dune' is a mound or ridge of loose settlment usually sand mixed sediment lying upland of the beach or shore. In the ordiance 522 the definition of the word 'dune.' Dune means a mound or ridge of loose sediment usually sand .lying landward of the beach and deposited by natural or artificial means. The ground is referred to again in the definition of the word 'structure.' On page 57, the definition of the word 'structure.' The word 'structure' includes the word building as well as other things cons- tructed, or erected on the ground attached to something having location on the ground or requiring construction or erection from the ground. We are not talking, ladies and gentlemen, about a slope from the street and calling it a dune. There is no dune at the side of AlA. The dune is where it`s at and the dune runs North- South, not East-West and if you talk about the dune and assume for a moment that the situation is no different than the west side, then you are totally misinterpreting the regulations we are speaking about and failing to recognize that a change was • made after 1984. That is our position. Page 7 REGULAR MEETING OF 3/1J88 Mayor Stewart At the workshop meeting we covered some elements regarding the zoning areas. • Do you have a copy of the transcripts with you? Would you like to read those items for us because Commissioner Robinson was not here and I don't know whether you have read the transcript or not. If you have read the transcript we won't need to repeat it. hrs. Mariano They were in several different areas of the meeting. Tom, do you have your copy? I highlighted them on your transcript. I didn't highlight them on the original with regard to the zoning question. fir. Sliney I will give this to the mayor because there is alot of highlighting and I don't know which refers to the zoning. hrs. Mariano Page 8, I think, where Mr. Sutherland read several sections. Some of the questions were in regard to Section 5.14. That was the zoning question. As we get into this I would like to get one moment and let you know that prior to the meeting at 1:30 PM, Mr. Smingler, who is the manager of Beach Walk East came in and handed me a group of letters which deal .with some of the concerns we're going to get into right now. So I want to read their letters so they'll be on record. ~a r Stewart Are they individual letters? ~r~Mariano No, it is one model letter signed by individuals. "Dear Council Members: As a residence of Beach Walk East I have serious concern over the following three aspects of the proposed building to be constructed: 1, It has been brought to my attention that the balconies on the new building are extended eastward of the CCCL. I wish to convey my strong objection to this proposed overhang. If it is in the power of the town council to restrict any portion of the proposed building from extending eastward over the CCCL, I ask that this power be exercised. 2. Research has proven that when a sea wall has been constructed that the property adjacent to the sea wall receives more damage from bad storms. As we are immediately to the north, our property would suffer should a seawall be constructed of subject lot. 3. As our swimming pool is adjacent to Lot 101, we would hope Mr. Colman would offer protection of this pool area with a fence to allow some privacy during construction. • Page 8 REGULAR MEETING OF 3/1/88 • Our request that you as our representatives give serious. and meaningful consideration to the afore mentioned concern." They are all the same letters but there are 29 original signatures, all from Beach Walk. Colman May I address this? Mayor Stewart Excuse me just a moment, Mr. Colman. Mrs. Mariano On some of the concerns that were raised regarding the statistical information regarding the building height which again steps to the Dune vs Crown in the road. The eastern setback line where it extends over the Coastal Construction Line was another matter addressed. :ayor Stewart These are sections of the code. Is there any reference to the Code in section 10? :rs. Mariano Right. With regard to the eastern setback line, we have section 5.14. There is a section C on page 30-30 which I believe is the one we talked about. 5.14, 6-C. There was another one addressed, Chapter 21-4 with regard to sea walls. Those were the three code sections with regard to Coastal Construction Line. We have addressed section, well, we haven't addressed it, we.. [ayor Stewart We've discussed it. [r~lariano We've discussed it in regard to the high rise set backs. I think with regard to the code, also we addressed lot frontage in Section 5.10 of-the code, page 30, 24 which was brought up by vice mayor Blosser. I think with regard to the code, those were the specific citations that were to be looked at and gotten a legal opinion on. [ayor Stewart Mr. Sliney, where is your letter? Did you address each of those in your letter? [r. Sliney My understanding the legal opinion was related to the interpretation of the amendment change and the interpretation of measurement from the garage to the dune. [ayor Stewart Mr. Sliney, with regard to the side yard set back thing because it has been a very difficult situation, would you think that there is any way that either one of those ordinances differs in the amount of feet that is required to be set aside for, in this case, a side yart set back? [r. Sliney [ayor Stewart [r. Sliney [ay~ Stewart The amendment changed it from 12 to 20. Was it not originally 20 in 37 as you read it? I have the other suplement. That's what I had with me and that's what I was reading earlier. Page 9 REGULAR MEETING OF 3/1/88 dir. Sliney My understanding is that it increased from 12 to 20. The original ordinance had 12 and the other amendment had 20. Kayor Stewart Number 37 which is the original, "The high rise set back. Those portions of buildings 30 feet or more (.and this in the area of same zoning area) in height is defined in Section 13.7 shall provide additional foot of required front, side, and rear yard for each two feet in height in excess of 20 feet. Garage structures and other portions of the principle structure, less than 25feet in height shall meet other applicable side yard set backs. Now you're saying that this garage structure is less than 25 feet in height? ~Ir. Sliney No, what I'm saying is that in order to give you an absolute opinion, I would have to have Supplement 37 and 38 in front of me to see how they differ. sir. Sutherland. Mayor, as the building official would you want some input? +Iayor As you wish. ~Ir. Sutherland This is my opinion and I know this is a wide open discussion, but I am the building official. Other applicable conditions would mean in that the garage is a ten foot high structure, it would meet the conditions of a one story building. A one story building would be tweleve feet. +Iayor That's what I wanted to know because that was the part that makes for the big difference in the interpretation of this. Therefore, in side yards as well as rear yards, as well as front yards, the one story effect would be in a place as it reads in 37 in all categories. Sutherland Inaudible favor Because of the fact that you're saying that garage structures and other portions of the principle structure less than 25 feet in height, shall meet other appli- cable yard set back requirements. Tolman The word side yard... favor Excuse me, I keep wanting to insert the phrase and I'm really trying to read it correctly. "Garage structures and other portions of the principle structure less than 25 feet in height shall meet other applicable yard set back require- ments." And we're saying now that this garage structure and other portions of principle structure are all less than 25 feet. They're 10 feet, you're now saying. Therefore, in the front yard, the side yard, the rear yard, they would meet the one story requirement. u~land It is a one story structure. ayor That's what I want to be as clear as possible on. That is what you are now saying. utherland ia~ Mayor • r. Everett ayor . Colman 4ayor • Page 10 REGULAR MEETING OF 3/1/88 It is a one story structure. With regards to the section on the balconies, we have discussed that at the workshop. As opposed to the building, some of the drawings which show it over the building is the balconies on the upper floors as opposed to the ground floor structure being over the Coastal Construction Control Line. Mr. Colman was going to be sure that the ground floor aspects of this had fixed windows so they could not go out over the dune in this area. The height, as we have measured it, is not resolved but we've discussed it. ....required for the back flow devices. I have not received any of that infor- mation. I asked and called your office yesterday because I had not had a chance to receive any information regarding the changes in the landscaping and Mr, Everett came over and we spoke about it at 2 o'clock regarding the numbers of trees that were coming from the west side to the east side, particularly in the case of the black olives, which ones they would be. This is he said then was going to be in the hands of his landscape man. He did not have a definitive answer, I believe on that. He would hope to have it and the consideration of the changes of possible, better, more suitable materials as far as the winds and the salt air with regard to the calophyllums,and. the choices on this site for Mimusops, etc., was going to be forthcoming from your landscaper. He did not have them with him yesterday. Do you agree Mr., on this? I don't like to put words in your mouth but he did not have them. Do you have them today? Any of these items? As I mentioned Scott Brown will be here today and he's going to address those things That's what I'm trying to open the door to, Incidentally, on the question of hiding that equipment you're mentioning there it will be hidden by vegetation. I didn't think at this stage of the game that this was the responsibility to come in with complete plans. We're not on working drawings. We're talking about a site plan approval but we can assure the members of the town commission that it will be hidden. I am just. as concerned about it as anyone else in this town. We did hide it in Villanova and we intend to hide it, there's no question about it. Having it for Commissioner Robinson's benefit who wasn't here on Tuesday at Highlands Place, there is in the middle of their front yard one very large system of piping, white plastic pipes and valves and all kinds of things which are required I gather, to be at that site off the ground, and in that position to handle backflow devices for the water and to handle it for the sprinkler. In as much as it is a very unattractive thing in the front yard Page 11 REGULAR MEETING OF 3/1/88 of Highland Place I asked Mr. Colman to provide us with the information as • to where it was going to be and how it was going to he handled on his site. And you heard his answer. Mr. Brown In respect to the Calophyllums on either side of the property, we've done more research on the salt tolerance of plant material. We have found that Norohonia as one author sees it as being a plant which is more salt tolerant than even Sea Grapes. We have no objection in changing the Calophyllums to Norohonia. In respects to the Mimusops, we feel that the Mimusops (Roxbergiana) variety is an extremely salt tolerant plant and will be a sufficient enough salt tolerant plant for this project. fayor Would you spell that please, the variety? fr. Brown It is Mimusops Roxbergiania. I can look it up. fayor The secretary is going to need to get it. We would like to have it as close to it as possible. We will allow for sounding. These Norohnia will be of the same size, height, and number as the Calophyllums orginally considered? fr. Brown Yes they will. R-o x-b-e-r-g-i-a-n-a. That's very close. fayor We have now on here the Black Olives that are showing, relocated Black Olives, six of them I believe are on this side. Would you like to say where these six . are coming from on your other side? sr. Brown In respects to relocating the Black Olives, there has been some changed made on the other side. We have not re-drawn the exact plans for the other side in respects to the changes which you have requested. This will directly affect which trees they will be. On your plans it does indicate caliber size. fayor Yes, I see it. [r. Brown And those would directly reflect the trees on the west property. Look closely. Those caliber sizes were taken from my survey which might not be one hundred percent of the surveyors caliber size, within an inch. [ayor The problems I discussed with Mike yesterday, the problem of as you say, the fact that you`ve changed the east side and as I showed Mike I have pictcures and numbers identified for each of the trees that are on the west side. So in fact therefore, an example is over here on the south lot line here Sea Gate, a very large one at... Mr. Brown 12,000 caliber? Mayor No, it says 11. Mr Brown It says 11? That would be one of them. Mar It is not listed on this side is what I'm saying. Mr. Brown It is listed as the 11 inch on the survey, the official survey. Only we called it 11 and the survey called it 12. So it is actually one inch larger than my field survey. It depends on how you measure the caliber from the grade. • Mayor 1r. Brown 4ayor Page 12 REGULAR. MEETING OF 3/1/88 It was supposed to be 3 feet off the ground. Various people see that difference sometimes it's three, sometimes it's four and a half, it varies. Because we have ear marked in the middle here 7 Black Olives in the original oriental garden area. I was trying to find where the other ones were going to come from because as I said the other ones appeared to be..there's a 4, a 5, a 7 and an 11. Those numbers don't quite match your numbers on this other side. That was my question. There also comes the fact that I had double checked today with somebody else with regards to one of the trees which is at the driveway marked on your map as a Calophyllum. Upon another expert's opinion today it is a Mimusop, it is not a Calophyllum. So in the number of count I think yesterday Mr. Everett and I discussed this particular tree. I call it ~~13 on my plan and so therefore you are down one more Black Olive or Calophyllum in this category on the relocation bedause~:.you would not have it. It would be a Minusop and it would not be a Calophyllum that you would be relocating if you are going • to put it over here with the two Calophyllum. As I said, these things we went over yesterday. 4r. Brown I don't think I have mis-labeled the trees. There is that slight possibility. I do think the point is irrelevant, the existing trees that are on the west side, we are maintaining all of them and we we will transplant them from one side to the other. There are slight modifications that do need to take place because of the changes which you requested on the west side. (r. Everett Yes sir, I would just like to make a comment. There were twenty trees that were designated on the west side to be used either on the east or the west side. :ayor Are you including the cabbages in this count? r. Everett No, just what's on this drawing. We plan on using all of those. If there are some trees that we cannot use for whatever reason, obviously, the tree that we will be replacing either on the east or west side, will be of the same size as far as the Xeriscapa ordinance requires, fourteen or fifteen foot, .whatever it is. If there are some trees and I think Mr. Colman will bear me out, if there are .some trees we cannot use, we would be happy to donate . them to the town if they wish. ayor I would not want us to develop an misunderstanding here, Mr. Everett. These twenty trees that are going to be carefully transplanted twice, if that be the case, if they should die, be replace with twelve and fourteen foot trees. I PAGE 13 REGUALR MEETING OF 3/1/88 I do not want at any point the record to show that. ir~erett That was not my intention. What I'm saying here is that if there is a tree that we do not use, which is alive, which can be transplanted someplace else, the tree that we will install in the same place will be of fourteen or fifteen nature which is what the ordinance requires. In otherwords, if the tree is donated or the tree is planted someplace else, we will add another tree in the same location. So what we have in effect now are two trees. [ayor Understood. Thank you. I just didn't want us down the line trying to keep this thing as uncomplicated as possible. We have covered the bases. Yesterday Mr. Everett and I had a conversation and I want everybody here to hear the aspect of the conversation. The business of the set.<backs bothers me. However we look at it, I am bothered by it and I told him this bothers me deeply. I said that I do not know how our commission individually, the members, are going to look or feel about this or how they will vote. But because I have a strong feeling with regard to the zoning thing, I cannot do it easily and I said to Mr. Everett that it would become easier for me because of my great concern about these very lovely, very large tress being • transplanted twice. That I would like, if two of these trees, the Callophyllums, could be donated to the Town of Highland Beach and that for me alone, that I would use that as a way to help compensate for a loss of trees. that would have occurred in the twenty foot set back. This does not bind this commission in any way. But I wanted you all to know what the conversation related to. .omm Robinson I have a couple of questions, Mayor. In the area of this overhang of the balconies, at what level do those balconies begin, what floor level? [r. Colman On the first floor level of the dune is the amenity floor, there is no overhang. The overhang starts at the floor above that. omm Robinson It does start at the second floor. r. Colman Yes. omm Robinson This letter that was submitted by the neighbors regarding this pool fence. Could you read that again, please? :rs. Mariano "...as our swimming pool is adjacent to lot 101 we would hope Mr. Colman would offer protection of this pool area with a fence to allow some privacy during construction. omm Robinson In otherwords, it is adjacent to their pool, during construction, M Mariano I believe they were planning to do that anyway. ~ obinson Okay, The sea wall was approved by the DNR was it not? Mayor Not yet. This has to go in I believe...maybe Mr. Colman would like to explain it. I have some notes on it. They will have to apply for it. ' Page 14 REGULAR MEETING OF 3/1/88 Kr. Sline ~i~Excuse me. There was an agreement and I think we don't want to overlook that in otherwords in the determination you all make here that agreement which was signed with the planning board and Mr. Colman should be incorporated in that. We haven't mentioned that but I wanted to bring it up so that it was not .forgotten. January 20th, it was a two page letter agreement which incorporates their understandings basically on the sea wall issue. ;omm Robinson I would like to hear it for the record again, Mayor This was part of the planning board communication to the town commission of January 21st. I will read the memorandum. "At the regular meeting of the Planning Board Town of Highland Beach Florida Mr. Bartlett made the following motion to accept this agreement between Mr. Colman and the Planning Board. The motion was seconded by Mr. Ward. A roll call vote resulted as follows. All members voted Aye. The following motion was made by Mrs. Lang and seconded by Mr. Waltman that the Planning Board recommends to the Town Commission the proposed site plan for lot 101 east be approved and that the Town Commission approve and ratify the attached agreement dated January 20, 1988 between Concordia Investments Inc. and the Town of Highland Beach Planning Board for the construction of a diagonal return wall and any modifications as . required by the DNR with rock toe scour reventment which agreement had been entered into by the Planning Board for the purpose of protecting the properties adjacent to the site. Role call vote resulted as follows. All members voting ,aye, .++ This is the attached letter of January 20, 1988 to the Planning Board Town of Highland Beach, Highland Beach, Florida, regarding Villa Mare, lot 101 east, Town of Highland Beach site plan approval, Concordia Investments, Inc. "Dear Members: As you are aware, Concordia Inventments, Inc. Concordia, has submitted an application for site plan approval of lot 101 east for a building known as the p/j L La Mare. On December 16, 1987, a motion was unanimously passed approving the site plan of Villa Mare subject to certain conditions. The Town Commission referred the matter back to the Planning Board to resolve the conditions on January 13, 1988, a meeting was held. At that meeting the Planning Board indicated that it would give Concordia site plan approval for Villa Mare on January 20, 1988 and recommended to the Town Commission that it likewise approve the same if the Planning Board receives confirmation from Concordia • of its agreements regarding certain matters. The purpose of this letter is to set forth the understanding of Concordia and the Planning Board as to the Page 15 REGULAR MEETING OF 3/1/88 • satisfaction of those conditions. Concordia agrees to build a diagonal return wall or any modification as required by the DNR with rock toe scour revetment on the north and south ends of Concordia's property line as shown on the attached diagram as set forth in the motion which was passed by the Planning Board on December 16, 1987 as Condition No. 2. A copy of the motion is attached containing the description of this wall. Also attached is the sketch of the proposed wall. As you know in order for Concordia to build the return wall, DNR (that means the Department of Natural Resources), approval must be obtained.. Concordia has received a letter of DRN indicating that it will not recommend the return wall. The town likewise has made a request to the DNR for approval of the return wall. As of this time the town has not had a response from the DNR. In the event that the DNR approves the return wall, Concordia will construct that wall. In the event the DNR rejects the town's request, Concordia, at its own cost and expense will make further application to the DNR for such approval at such time as the working drawings and the structural plans are sufficiently advanced to eventually pursue such application. If the DNR has not responded to the Town's request by the time • that the working drawings and structural plans are advanced to this point, Concordia will make its further application to the DNR without waiting for further response from the DNR to the Town's request. Should the DNR deny Concordia's application and/or should the DNR fail to approve Concordia's application wiiting 90 days from the date of submission.. of an application complying with the Florida administrative code requirements, then Concordia shall be deemed to have complied with its obligations herein to seek approval for the return wall. In said event Concordia agrees to extend its east wall southward to meet the existing garage wall of Ambassadors East. This does not require DNR approval. In addition, Concordia will extend its east wall northward to its lot line including a westward return as requested by the building official. Very truly yours, Corcordia Investments, by Phillip Colman, President, agreed to and accpeted this 20th day of January, 1988, signed by all Planning Board members. Questions? Sr. Sliney That was basically the resolution after a number of meetings on that. We have given it two alternatives basically, DNR approvalto do one alternative and if they don't they go back to the other one. That seems to be most reasonably satisfactory to most everyone. ~a~ fir. Colman Mayor lr. Colman U PAGE 16 REGULAR MEETING OF 3/1/88 I believe that on the drawing of this proposed sea wall, if it would be the return wall what you say refers to the building official, that goes westward doesn't it, to the building as opposed to the swimming pool? It goes beyond the swimming pool is what I'm saying, westward? Along that line, along the north line but it couldn't go anywhere else but westward since that point in time we have received a negative response from the DNR but we are allowed to do whatever we want along it is westward of the Coastal Construction Line. What I'm saying is it seems to me that in those discussions at that time and I believe Mr. Sutherland and I went over this in some length, the property at Beach Walk East, the substantial structure of that building is west of. what is that little corner where there swimming pool is and therefore in order to tie this to something,. some structural strength, I thought that we had concurred that it would be tied back to the area of the building and not just the swimming pool which is more or less a retaining wall situation. That's what I'm just trying to clarify at this time because your letter in that sentence-isn't clear to me as to where that western return is going and to how far it is going.. The concern we had expressed to us was that they were concerned about the protection of their pool and that's what we addressed. Obviously, the basic error which I must point out for the record. I understands peoples' concern and the group or I shouldn't say the group, whoever person or persons unbeknownst to me at the moment that organized this kind of petition thing. Unfortunately, none of them took the trouble to appear at public meetings which were reasonably well announced to each of the buildings. We did have people down of Ambassador East, There were a few people down from Beach Walk East but to my knowledge, no comments were made by any of them. I'm sorry they took this path to raise the questions that they did and as I say I don't know who organized it. But just based on this information, the information is is very clear. It has been stated over and over again by myself, by our marine engineer, Mike Crawford, by the DNR, that our building has no affect whatsoever. It will not have an adverse affect whatsoever on either of the adjacent properties and for this party to make a statement in that letter, It is based simply on misunderstanding and misinformation. It's just not true. We cannot protect the pool that was not protected. You must remember the pool faces two sides. Its faces South and it also faces East. Now, they did not protect their eastern side and that is the most significant= one of all. There is nothing we can do about that. We're not here to deal PAGE 17 REGULAR MEETING OF 3/1j88. with matters that relate to the way which buildings were constructed in the past. We construct our buildings a little differently and I think a little better . favor Mr, Sutherland, would you like to make comment? ir. Sutherland I would suggest that the return wall going from east to west should be, we should have an approximate area we're talking about,. and not just a generalization that it will go west to a reasonable point if it can go westward say for twenty feet or twenty-five feet and protect the pool t o the north. I feel that would be a reasonable request. A return could be five feet, it could be eight feet. favor Well, I think that's what bothers me with the nature. of it. It's left wide open and upon looking at those; plans and generally with regards to the state of Florida, like beach walks, pools are expendable structures. In a sense, this concept was to give Mr. Colman's wall a proper tie in more than anything else, to the wall of the building, ir. Sutherland I think that in there who recognize it, we cannot do anything about the eastward approach of the ocean to that area. But were talking about the south area. There is an exposed front there and I think it would be reasonable • to expect an explicit distance to give reasonable protection to the property to the north whether it be 18 feet or 20 feet. Mayor Yes, I don't know haw wide, I don`t have the plans in front of me to know what that distancebes but T see that it was not .addressed.. ir. Sutherland I would certainly/looking for a protection of the pool. It isn't a well exposed position.. favor I think the toe scouring will do as much as anything we can do in that area, I was just trying to get the wall tied to something as opposed to a retaining wall type structure. That's the nature of my concern at this stage. [r. Sutherland Right, and I agree. 'ice Mayor Bruce, while you're there, may I ask you a question? I didn't see any drainage plans. You do have drainage. Plans? [r. Sutherland No, we don't. On site plan approval doesn't get involved in drainage. That's high technical engineering, ayor It's supposed to be rudimentary. [r. Sutherland ice Mayor Oh yes, we do have rudimentary, we do have that. I was just wondering where the swales or water run off would be accomodated. The more I hear about, the more we= are approaching... The set back problem obviously covers up territory. We are taking land out on both sides of the street and there's still going to be storms and part of this situation is how PAGE 18 REGULAR MEETING OF 3/1/88 • are we going to accomodate the water from both sides which that road there is already having problems. [r. Sutherland I agree Commissioner. We have to go with in place agreement throught the state. You have to retain your own water. This is a fundamental requirement. They have to retain their own water and it is not to run off onto anyone else's property. It is very fundamental and.... rice Mayor Where is there ground in which that can be done is my question. :r. Sutherland On the entire property, the property just has to be a Swale in such a way relative to the topography and the elevation of the topography, they'd show that the water would lay within their own property. lice Mayor I'm obviously going by the one Swale of which I am very familiar with on 3losser Coronado and if you've passed it, it is obviously a swimming pool quite a bit of the time and that is rather a large area. Will an area of similar size exist on Ocean Terrace property? On the west side I'm assuming they will have a some sort of swale area behind the building because they too do not have much of an area. [r. Sutherland On the west side there isn't too much of a problem because of the low area. . That's a very easy run off situation. On the east side there is more of a problem because you have AlA between the Mangroves and where the water is. And so we just have to be very, very much an top of it. That the property in question will retain its own water and this is what will happen. 'i And if any of the gentlemen who are involved in the planning of this give ce Mayer _, Tosser any assurances to that. I really have a problem with this because I drive past it and I don't know where you are going to accomodate it when I look at the plans. All your water, I understood, was going to run off through drains and was going to go some place. Where are the drains going? r. Everett Down under the ground. What is considered a dry well, French drain, dry well, the same situation we have at Vi11a Nova right now and a similar ditaa- tion to what's at Vi11a Magna. All the water enters into the ground. It does not flow off and roll off on to other property. ice Mayor So there is no surface accumulation is what you're saying. Mr. Colman Correct. You don't see any puddles at Vi11a Nova and you don'.t see any~.~puddles at Villa Magna. ice Mayor Villa Magna has a lovely, more ground in my :: estimation to take this under • consideration. Another concern I have is, on your building schedule which will affect the traffic and town on the police chief, your parking arrangments for your workers is going to be a problem as well as how the building, both buildings going up at the same time creating a traffic problem. And what is Ir. Colman omm Blosser PAGE 19 REGULAR MEETING OF 3/1/88 your schedule? Is this going to come in the season, when is it going to come? I would like to know. Can't tell you. There is no way in which we could tell you when the building is going to start, not at this stage at a11. The point we made last time was that it would make more sense to build with two buildings certainly from my point of view, it's the only way I can build it. .Because I cannot build one building and expect people to buy property in one building knowing very well that another building will be constructed soon after. We just wouldn't be able to market the one building. So that has to be done. We have to build two buildings and I have never done it any other way. From the point of view of the town and its residents, it makes more sense because then we will have a structure, structures I should say, that will completed in approximately in two years time instead of structures that will take four years time. If you're going to build one building after another it's going to take four years approximately. If you can build two buildings at the same time, it will be two years. So whatever traffic problems exist will exist for a lesser time. But obviously we have to schedule in such a way that traffic is not inordinately affect. And that can be done with a matter of careful planning. We'll have a decent general contractor and an owner who is conerned about problems and an outstanding project manager in the person of Mike Everett. We will be able to control the situation. We have done it in the past, we can do it again. We11, I believe we do have a level of traffic. That's why I mention this. You are here so you know there is a traffic problem. r. Sutherland Commissioner Blosser, to attempt to answer for them, your question, for a matter of logistics basically say we're talking about Royal Highland, you're putting up two buildings. They tend to put their crews on one building, the work is all going on on that side. When that is all set up then they take their crews and they swing them over and start setting up on the other side in the case of Royal Highlands. They tend to, in the case of two buildings, like this on the east and west side of the road, take their crews and work on one side and the only activity is on that side. After that is completed, they take their crews and swing them over to the other side and do their work there. So basically they're only working with one crew and that crew can only be in one place at one time. So they tend to swing them from one building, while this is setting up, then they swing over to the other building. PAGE 20 REGULAR MEETING OF 3/1/88 V, M So actually, work isn't going on exactly at the time. ayor Blosser Yes, I do understand that Bruce, I happen to have some exposure to that. But then after that if crew A is swung over to build the second building., we get crew B in to do other work obviously on the original building which increases your traffic and then we have an accumulative affect of traffic and that is a problem to the town. [r. Sliney I want to ask Bruce a question. Bruce, on your comment related to the pool, I gather you are suggesting some additional language be added to the agree- ment that the Planning Board had. Is that correct? In otherwords, we went through and read the letter of January 20th., 1988. I am assuming that you're suggesting some additional language be added to that. [r. Sutherland More explicit. [r. Sliney You've got some suggestive language? [r. Sutherland I want to go over the plans for the adjacent property and come up with a figure of a number of feet that I feel will be sufficient to protect the pool to the north because just as I said just going along with a return wall really isn't enough. So I will do that and I will give a recommendation as to the number • of feet the wall should go further west in order to protect the pool to the north. Mr. Sliney In otherwords, then we would basically do an amendment to that January 20,1988 letter adding this language. ir. Sutherland Yes. [rs. Mariano I just want to make one comment with regard to the. traffic. We may check with the police department. I don't remember any specific problems although there may very well have been some but not too long ago we had Casuarina and Villa Nova with totally different crews working at the same time for quite a few months. So we can check with the police department and those were very close together across the street. [r. Colman It is not comparable. You're dealing with entirely different set of crews working for two different general contractors.. [rs. Mariano That's what I just said, There were two entirely separate crews... [r. Colman I'm sorry I thought you were trying to make the comparison with the situation that existed as far as traffic is concerned while those buildings were going up . :rs~ariano Mr. Colman, I'm just saying that this may help you if we didn't have problems .with two separate crews if we're working with one general contractor... :r. Colman Sorry, the point was well taken. PAGE Z1 REGULAR MEETING 3/1/88 ~r Mr. Sutherland, I must say if you have something like a three or four foot gap at the end of this wing wall and it is tied to a wall of a swimming pool... Mr. Sutherland No, the wing wall, the return wall is totally independent of anything. Mayor Okay, 'that's even better, unfortunately, it worries me even more. We have a storm from the north which was like David which came in from the north and took off land to the north on a swirl on the beach. In the case, because the Beach Walk east building's garage is their sea wall way behind the Coastal Construction Line, excuse me, it is west of that. You end up with the possibility of the sand eating out that dune as it comes from the north and swirls as it goes on down. If in fact it would cause the falling/o~ their swimming pool because that is a retaining wall and not a structurally strong wall like the building wall is.... Mr. Sutherland No, it isn't a retaining wall. That's the sea wall. Mayor At Beach Walk east? Mr. Sutherland No, the wall .returning... Mayor No, I'm talking about Beach Walk east's wall around their swimming pool. No is right. I'm .trying to give some evidence of having some wall. I would call it a retaining wall in a generous spirit as opposed to...that's what I'm saying as that sand cuts back in there for the protection of even Villa Nova. You want to have, I would think, this return wall far enough back so as that would cut in there, and I'm not an engineer, but as it would cut in there, you don't want it to slip behind it for as long as possible and the nature of this wing wall construction, Mr. Sutherland I agree. Mayor I wish it could be something for Beach Walk east. The only thing we could do for Beach Walk east is to put toe scour protection in there in hopes they can get some benefit from it. But the actual wall as it goes back needs to be far enough back so that if and when they should eventually lose that pool to erosion, it doesn't cut behing their own property. And I think that's my point on it. Kr. Sutherland I agree. Kayor That's good construction. Mr. Walker? ~r ~lker I think the Town's own coastal construction codes would provide measures within the structure of the building proposed at Villa Mare to avoid any substantial damage to the building. There are codes in place now that would provide for ' "~ PAGE 22 REGULAR MEETING 3/1/88 . protection of the building. Certainly, the potential of some storm coming along of some magnitude in erroding on the north side of the Villa Mare property does exist however wrong we make that return wall. Because of the existence of the codes and the structural standards that are prescribed, I would envision that errosion being more of an inconvenience to the owners of the association at Villa Mare than a structural problem. Mayor Having watched the water from the ocean to AlA in town, I'm always very careful and I've seen it happen. So I know it can do it. Does anybody have any additional comments or questions? 7-MayorBlosser We11, I believe Bruce said that Mr., Red Taylor maintain...I'd like to get this point straight because it doesn't really make too much sense to me. That the dune crest line, I'm sorry I'm being, not stubborn, Mr. Colman, I'm trying to understand this concept. The dune crest. line on the dune which runs north and south as you said, okay, we project that back here to AlA and that establishes it. Now if assuming the dune was a mountain size dune, we still go from that height over here? Mr. Sutherland Correct. T-M Blosser So then it doesn't really make much difference? ...to have anything in the code. M.Sutherland I think when the town fathers wrote the code they recognized there wasn't a mountainous dune there. They knew that the elevation of the dune of some where in the area of 18 to 20 feet. They were aware of the topography of the dune. That's being realistic. ~-M Blosser Would you have said runs north and south? Mr. Sutherland North and south Mr. Sliney It seems like the issues are outstanding however you call or whatever code sections you talked about are basically the following. There is the sea wall and sea wall agreement with additional language which Bruce is going to get for us as it relates to the pool. You have the balconies issue, you have the set back issue which I think may be moved based on the letter that I gave you today and you have the additional tree issue and how the trees are going to be taken care of. Those are the ones I have down that are basically I described as the remaining issues on the property. r. Colman Excuse me, may I... ayor Yes, Mr. Colman. r. Colman I think we could clarify this question of that wall running westward by simply stating that this will be subject to measurement, definitive measurement dicatated by the builddng official to go along the line that covers the pool area, the pool specifically. Instead of fifteen, if it goes to twenty or PAGE 23 REGULAR MEETING 3/1/88 • twenty-two or something like which we can't determine at the moment then whatever that number is that's what we'll do. 5o we can specify that it will be subject to that kind of decision and we'll go along with that, whatever it is. ayor Comments from the Commissioners? omm Robinson In regard to these balconies this site plan has been approved by the Planning Board, was it not? Unanimously. :r. Sliney It has been recommended. In otherwords, nobody has in essence approval other than the town commission. :omm Robinson But is was recommended to us... [r. Sliney Right. From a legal standpoint I would use the word recommendation. That issue was discussed and there's no doubt that the literal language of the code as we discussed before says, "that no part of the structure of the building is to exceed the Coastal Construction Line." ;omm Robinson Has Mr. Colman addressed that matter? [r. Sliney Let me give you some of the. comments, some of the background that we discussed • before on this. The problem is that the literal language does say that. Bruce has indicated that I think, that some correspondance has indicated, that the DNR generally has jurisdiction over the Coastal Construction Line, eastward of it, has no objection to that. So that's basically the problem. You have your literal language and how to interpret the literal language of that, as to the cantilever balconies. ~_M Blasso We did have an issue actually happening at, as you recall, happening at Ambassador East where the balconies did exceed and they were, shall I say, re-contoured2 [r. Sliney That is my recollection and that's why this issue really hasn't been disposed of. I guess, Bruce, does the town hall records refect that? That is my recollection also but again, that is just a recollection and I haven't revisited that issue in a long time. :r. Sutherland This has vacillated back and forth quite a bit over different buildings. The way I look at it personally. The watex set back line as far as the town was concerned is approximately 50 feet eastward of a Coastal Construction Control Line, forty or fifty, depending. This is where the thing is because the actual lot line goes to the mean high water line and you take it from there. The town water set back is quite a bit further. So the Coastal Construction Control Line is not a line that was set down by the town. It was set down by by the state for a particular purpose because of the threat PAGE 24 Regular Meeting 3/1/88 • of erosion, etc., etc. This is not a town rear set back line. So I have always taken in my case, that they have total jurisdiction over this line and this was not a town line, it was a state line. And if they have no objections and they accept a cantilever balcony just as we accept a cantilever overhang on a roof into the set back on the same principle, then this is what I have accepted and this is, you know, general practice. 'ice Mayor. Blasso Does the town have a more restrictive? Mr. Sutherland No, the town is much less restrictive. dice Mayor BlassoThe present Coastal Construction Line was set when? I mean there have been an awful lot of changes. Mr. Sutherland Basically, I'm looking at these surveys all the time, basically, a lot on the ocean goes to the mean high water line. This is legally your property and so then using whatever calculations, the line where by your. set back would come into place would be much further eastward than the Coastal Construction Line . In otherwords, the Coastal Construction Line is much more restrictive than anything the town would do. So this is why I have accepted their jurisdiction and their opinion on anything regarding that line. ii~I~Iayor And when was that one set? When was-the current Coastal Construction Line Set? ir. Sutherland I don't know the exact date but it is still in effect, rice Mayor I know they keep promising that they would renew it because it is outdated is what I'm saying. ir. Sutherland I know what you are talking about. But they haven't changed it yet. [r. Colman May I? Just for the record there is a difference at the present time. The Ambassador East are forty-two feet behind the Coastal Construction Control Line. !ice Mayor I don't think their wall is too safe either but times have changed and so has Mother Nature. That's the concern of the commission. [ayor Well I think the code though is rather explicit on the Coastal Construction Control Line. I mean our own code. [r. Colman Chairman, the town has in fact and we're talking about a situation now as if this is first time that this has happened, The town has interpreted the code in its own way by permitting these balconies. I mean,we do have balconies extending beyond the Coastal Construction Control Line. These are cantilevered balconies that have been done before. Why are we making an exception in this particular case? As a matter of fact we're only extending an average of two • feet beyond that Coastal Construction Control Line. In the case of Villa Nova the DNR permitted eight feet! They didn't extend eight feet but they permitted eight feet. PAGE 25 REGULAR MEETING 3/1/88 Sline We're discussing it, Mr, Colman, Mr. Colman I understand. Mr. Sliney One Comment. I think Mr. Colman should receive copies of this letter that is being put in the record.. Mayor Maybe we could make one copy with some of the signatures rather than to make how many there are. Mr. Sliney ....for his records and if additional educational information is necessary with your neighbors, you might want to engage in that. Mr. Colman Will be happy to do that. Mayor Do you have any other comments, questions? Mr. Colman, do you have any other further comments to allow? Mr. Colman No, L do not. Mayor I was hoping that maybe you had something to offer. Mr. Colman All I'm asking for now is that you approve our site plan, I think this is very much in order. And as I said before about the trees Mayor, that whatever trees that we have there that could not, for whatever reason, not be used on the site, we would be happy to donate it to the town. That's up to you to tell us that that's what you would be prepared to accept. We would be glad to do it. We don't want to have any of those trees other than the miserable Australain Pine. We don't want to have any of those trees that just lost. ayor Well, that is the reason I was hoping to obtain from you, two of the large Calophyllums to relocate them to the town property. So they would not have to be relocated twice and shocked twice. I realize you have planned to use those on your site in other locations. We were hoping to be able to relocate them directly to a permanent home as opposed to a temporary site and today when I was there with the town manager, I took Mr. Bernard Turner who is a rather well established landscaper in this area and has been for the last 20 years, and we got into .again this discussion about this questionable Minusops, the Calophyllum tree, which he suggested even that tree would be a;very valuable tree for the town's property at the end of the walk at Town Hall. If there was some way we could obtain it.. The need to have these brought down here by a tree spade involves some cost. If you could make this donation I think it would certainly be greatly appreciated by the. residents of the town and I would personally seek to inform the • people of this, not only by the minutes, but by putting your name on our greeting board of your donation, if this could be done. ,~ .. Mr. Colman ~, r Mr. Colman Mayor Comm Basso Mr. Colman Mayor Comm Basso Mayor PAGE 26 REGULAR MEETING 3/1/88 My name on there? It's just overwhelming. I can't do, personally, any more than what I said. I'm certainly ,prepared to do that. I would appreciate it. It isn't necessary we have anything in writing from him to that extent? I could put it in writing. It's up to you. I would entertain a motion, please. Are you able to make one ? Is it about accepting the site plan? With the leaving of the wing wall line left to the discretion of the building official, to amend it. Mr. Sliney If you're down to making motion I think there are a couple. of things you do have to consider that is still outstanding. You have got to make it subject to Comm Basso Subject to what? Mr. Sliney Basically I view it as discussion we just had regarding the trees and the committment made by Mr. Colman subject to the agreement of January 20, 1988 with the revision that Mr. Sutherland will incorporate with regard to the additional number of feet. Is that correct, Bruce that they're going to be necessary? I guess those are the two main conditions that would have to • be incorporated. Comm Basso Subject to conditions... aayor Maybe Mrs. Kowals, do you have it and want to read it back? Mr. Basso? irs. Kowals What I have is what attorney Tom Sliney said, that the discussion regarding the trees and the committment by Mr. Colman subject to the agreement of January 20, 1988 with the revision that the building official will incorporate with regards to the additional numbers of feet. Those are the two main conditions that would have to be incorporated is what I have for Mr. Tom Sliney. [r. Sliney My understanding based on our discussion is that if you're going to make a motion for approve of the site plan, that those would be conditions to the approval. :ayor With regard to the trees can we say with the trees with regard to the minutes and refer to the minutes., on the tree issue? :r. Sliney You know more about that issue.. :ayor I don't want it to be messy and I'm trying to see that if we've discussed it and I think he'd been generous and clear and I don't want to mess it but. .But • if we subject it to the minutes and to this public body having heard it, would that be effective? r. Sliney That would be sufficient. ~mm Basso I would like to make a motion. I move that we approve the site plan in p •d C ~ PAGE 27 REGULAR MEETING OF 3/1/88 accordance with the Planning Board recommendations and also subject to Mr. Colman's approval to condition regarding to donating certain trees and regarding to protection of the pool,... is that it? Mayor Subject to the Januury 20, 1988 agreement.- omm Basso Subject to the Agreement of January 20, 1988... Mayor Which incorporates an additional number of.... omm Basso Which incorporates an additional number of conditions.... Mr. Sliney An additional number of feet for the wall to be determined by the building official. Mayor Right. Comm Basso An additonal number of feet to be determined by our building official. You want to read that back? Mrs. Kowals I make a motion to the effect that we approve the site plan in accordance with the Planning Board recommendation and also subject to Mr. Colman's approval to the conditions regarding the donating of certain trees and regarding to pro- , protection of the pool at the ( and then you were questioning if it was north) Beach Walk East. M Sline You can add Beach Walk East. Mrs. Kowals It is subject to the agreement of January 20. and also subject to the agreement of Mrs. Kowals and also subject to the agreement of Janaury 20, 1988 which incorporates an additional number of feet for the wall. to be determined by the building official." Comm Basso Anything else to add to it? fir. Sliney I think that takes care of it. Set to vote. 4ayor I'm just trying to ascertain if that is the motion and if anybody has any revisions. 2r. Sliney Bruce, is that clear enough as it relates to the additonal feet? 4r. Sutherland Yes. :off Robinson I'll second the motion. iayor A motion has been made and seconded to approve the site plan for 101 East known as Villa Mare. All those in favor say "aye." ..Aye.. [a• Those opposed. 'ice Mayor One Naye. [ayor The motion carries. The site plan has been approved. The agreements I hope are in place. :r. Colman Thank you very much ladies and gentlemen. You will not be sorry.