Loading...
2019.07.10_PB_Minutes_RegularTOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Town Hall/ Commission Chambers 3614 South Ocean Boulevard Highland Beach, Florida 1.CALL TO ORDER: Date: July 10, 2019 Time: 9:30 a.m. Chairperson David Axelrod called the Planning Board Meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. and requested that all cell phones be silenced. . 2. PRESENT UPON ROLL CALL: Board Member Brian DeMoss Board Member Eric Goldenberg Board Member Harry Adwar Board Member John Boden Vice Chairperson Michael Kravit Chairperson David Axelrod Town Attorney Rubin Deputy Town Clerk Beverly Wright Board Member Warren Lewis was not present, as he resigned from the Board on July P1 The Town Clerk reminded all members to turn on their microphones when speaking. 3.PLEDGE OF' ALLEGIANCE: The Board Members led the Pledge of Allegiance. 4.APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA: Chairperson Axelrod asked for any additions or deletions to the agenda. Town Attorney Rubin asked if there could be a discussion about future meeting dates at the end of the meeting, and Chairperson Axelrod agreed. That item was added to the agenda. MOTION: Member DeMoss moved to accept the agenda. Member Goldenberg seconded the motion, which passed unanimously by voice vote. 5.PUBLIC COMMENTS: Chairperson Axelrod reminded the Public that public comments were limited to five minutes and asked for comments which were not related to Agenda Items. There were none. Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes July 10, 2019 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Paae 2 of 18 Chairperson Axelrod asked for changes or amendments to the Minutes of May 8, 2019 and the Minutes of June 12, 2019. He requested a change be made to the June 12 Minutes. Mr. Bolton was listed as absent since he was ill, and Chairperson Axelrod asked that absence be changed to "excused." MOTION: Member Adwar moved to accept the Minutes with the above -noted correction. Member DeMoss seconded the motion, which passed unanimously by voice vote. 7. OLD BUSINESS: Chairperson Axelrod stated there was no old business. 8. NEW BUSINESS: A. Application 419-0321 (Neritan Canole) The Applicant has requested consideration of a site plan approval proposing to install a 30,000 lb. boat lift on 4 concrete piles on a boat dock adjacent to the Ocean Cove development. The property location is 4014 S. Ocean Boulevard, Highland Beach, Florida 33487. Chairperson Axelrod inquired if any Board members had had ex parte communications with the Applicant, and no one had. Chairperson Axelrod opened the meeting for Public Comments and the Town Clerk swore in the members of the public as a group. Town Planner Mary McKinney commented that the Ocean Cove development is west of A 1 A, and there is a walkway from the development leading to the dock that runs parallel to the Intracoastal. Built onto the linear dock are docks that are perpendicular to the dock walkway. The applicant wishes to have the subject boat lift installed on Dock 21, and has Army Corps and DEP permits. She read from parts of Section 30-68 (h) as follows: Dolphins, freestanding pilings, boat lifts, and moorings: 1) Installation. In order to be installed, dolphins, freestanding pilings, boat lifts, and moorings shall comply with all standards listed below: a. The installation shall be subject to approval by the planning board at an advertised public hearing. Ms. McKinney explained that Planning Board has final decision-making authority over the granting of an approval for dolphins, freestanding pilings, boat lifts, and moorings. She said that staff had reviewed the application and the plans, and found that the project meets the Town's Code. She provided a graphic that showed the location of the boat lift. Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes July 10, 2019 Page 3 of 18 Member DeMoss mentioned that he was out on the dock on Saturday, and that the lift would be out of the way. There were other lifts there, and he didn't see a problem. Member Goldenberg remarked that in the past, neighbors had complained about loss of view with boat lifts, and he asked if the Applicant had checked with the neighbors across from the proposed lift as to whether it would impede their view of the Intracoastal. Ms. McKinney stated that notices were sent out to everyone within 300 feet of the proposed development, and the staff had not received any negative comments from any neighbors. Member Goldenberg asked if 300 feet was sufficient, and Ms. McKinney stated it was. Chairperson Axelrod commented that there was nothing in the Code that says anything about loss of view. The issue had come up multiple times in the past. In order for 'loss of view' to be considered as an issue by the Board, something in the Code would need to be changed. Member Goldenberg remarked that the Comprehensive Plan contained language about the Township making sure that views were not impeded on. Chairperson Axelrod asked about the orientation of the boat (using the language 'horizonal' and vertical') in relation to the Intracoastal. Ms. McKinney stated that the dock was designed for the boat lifts to be placed on the docks. She clarified the lift "would go perpendicular to the walkway into the water." Other boat lifts with the same orientation had been approved. Member Goldenberg remarked that on his inspection, he noted it did not impede the channel in any way. Andrew McDonald, a representative of the Applicant, was sworn in and took the microphone. He stated he is the President of the Ocean Cove Homeowner's Association, and that Applicant Mr. Canole was travelling. The HOA had no objection to the project, especially since a number of other similar projects had been approved recently. Member Goldenberg asked about the size of the boat. Mr. McDonald stated he believed it was around 30 feet, and the boats there all face in the same direction. Wetlands are located behind the area, so no home is directly affected in terms of view. Member Goldenberg clarified he was concerned about the neighbors across the creek. Bill Thomas explained he did the permit processing for the boat lifts, so he offered himself for questions. There were none. MOTION: Vice Chairperson Kravit moved to accept the site plan as submitted. Member DeMoss seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: Member DeMoss Yes Member Goldenberg Yes Member Adwar Yes Member Boden Yes Vice Chairperson Kravit Yes Chairperson Axelrod Yes Motion carried on a 6 to 0 vote. Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes July 10, 2019 Page 4 of 18 B. Application #19-0342 (Decoy Investments LLC) The Applicant has requested consideration of a request to construct a courtyard and expand a driveway to accommodate more vehicles, extending' into the area that is currently vacant. The property contains a single-family residence and a vacant side yard. This will include installation of a double retaining wall, hardscaping, landscaping, a new entrance connecting to S. Ocean Boulevard, and landscape lighting. The property location is 3615 S. Ocean Boulevard, Highland Beach, Florida 33487. Chairperson Axelrod inquired if any Board members had had ex parte communications with the Applicant, and no one had. Chairperson Axelrod opened the meeting for Public Comments, and the Town Clerk swore in as a group those giving testimony regarding the subject. Town Planner Mary McKinney commented that the proposal was to construct a courtyard and expand a driveway, adding landscaping, at the subject address. The property is located directly across from Town Hall and is currently vacant. The adjacent parcel contains a single-family residence and was joined by unity of title, approved by the Town Commission on February 5, 2019. She stated the proposal meets all the requirements of the zoning district, and staff had reviewed it for preliminary drainage requirements, finding that it meets those requirements. Staff recommends approval. Member DeMoss remarked that the Applicant had the right to do what they want with their property. As long as drainage requirements were met, he didn't see a problem. Member Goldenberg expressed his concern about drainage. He asked the Town Planner about what procedures were being done, to avoid drainage into A 1 A. Ms. McKinney explained that the Building Official was an expert in stormwater management and the plans did in fact meet the Code. At the time the building permit, is submitted, drainage requirements will again be addressed. Member Adwar agreed that if Building Official Massie had checked the drainage issue, he would go along with the proposal. Vice Chairperson Kravit asked about what the courtyard would be used for. It is 40 feet in depth, indicating there could not be any head -in parking. If its use will be for parking, there would in effect be a parking lot being build adjacent to the new townhouses on the beach there, giving them a view of a parking lot. He stated he did not find that acceptable, and asked again about the intent of the use, and if not for parking, he would like a restriction placed on it that it cannot be used for parking. Ms. McKinney explained it was her understanding the project was a courtyard with some parking, possibly with athletic events by the property owners, with heavy landscaping. Vice Chairperson Kravit looked at the plans and described seeing some palm trees going around the perimeter, with some low landscaping, and the wall that goes up against the sodded area. He expressed his concern about the project being a parking lot that will be placed next to townhouses that will overlook it. Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes July 10, 2019 Page 5 of 18 Member Boden stated his belief that the Board was going to move forward with rules and regulations about drainage and use of pervious materials, and he hoped the project would work to meet the Board's goals in this regard to maximize the ability for the existing ground to absorb water. He mentioned the subject project would be a perfect example of why pervious is an excellent addition" to address the drainage issue. Chairperson Axelrod expressed concern about drainage, and hoped the Applicant would address that when he or she spoke. He also stated that having a retaining wall between the parking area and the Atlantic makes it a requirement that it be approved by the Commission. The fact that any approval made by the Board must still be conditional on the approval of the Commission was confirmed by Ms. McKinney. Jeffrey Levine, attorney for Decoy Limited, spoke on behalf of the Applicant. He explained the architect would address the issue of drainage, and the landscape architect would also be taking questions. Mr. Levine commented he did not feel it appropriate to characterize the project as a parking lot, but instead described it as a courtyard for an oceanfront home. He said that the lot between the home and the townhouses, which is the subject of the project and which was acquired by the Applicant, would become more elaborately landscaped. It would not be used for a lot of parking but instead for guests to occasionally park, and the Applicant was only present seasonally. He stated his client bought the original home from a prior resident of the Town and has over the years assembled the current configuration, but the driveway is tight as it exists. He remarked that is one of the reasons for the subject renovation and expansion. Debra Kropornicki of Architectural Dimensions identified herself as the architect on the project. She referred to the plan that was projected, showing where a catch basin will be constructed to keep the water on the property. The civil engineer worked to conform with the DEP and also with the DOT to keep the water in place. Vice Chairperson Kravit asked if there were existing drainage issues with the driveway the way it was initially constructed. Building Official Jeffrey Massie took the microphone and explained he had not looked into the architectural plans for the original building. He stated he could go back and find that answer. He referred back to the architect regarding whether there were existing catch basins in place, and promised to investigate further. Vice Chairperson Kravit remarked that he did not see on the civil engineering plan any existing catch basins on the driveway, and when there were storms and the area was discussed, he remembers the area being wet. He recommended the existing driveway be brought into the new driveway plan as a condition of approval, if a problem exists. Ms. Kropornicki stated she did not know of a problem. The whole area is flat. She referred again to the projected plans and pointed to the existing driveway where there is a small trench drain by a privacy wall. She indicated another area that sloped towards another drain. That existing drain will be removed due to its age and a new one put in, as well as new pavers. She demonstrated where the catch basis was located with a piping system to percolate the water within the property. Chairperson Axelrod asked if there would be any cutting into the dune and how far down the structures would lie. Ms. Kropornicki showed how the bottom of the back wall would be at the Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes July 10, 2019 Page 6 of 18 same height as the top of the crest. She demonstrated a slope and a flat area and how the area did not drain into the ocean per the DEP. The area of palm trees would be temporarily removed, but ultimately would be landscaped densely for privacy and to preserve the view of neighboring properties. She showed the retaining wall at six feet in part and 12 feet in part, with a decorative railing along the top. The idea was to make the new construction look integrated with the old. She indicated another wall that would match the existing wall to hide vehicles during the day. She showed how in the existing plan, there was little room to maneuver a vehicle, and the new plan would minimize impact on the street. Member Boden expressed concern about the number of walls, fence, and rails mentioned, wondering if it would look like a jail. Ms. Kropornicki held up a different drawing mounted on a board, showing a perspective from Al A. She showed where a railing would be, with lots of palm trees, remarking the landscape budget was equal to the construction budget. Member Boden asked for clarification on how many walls, whether one was in front of the other. Ms. Kropornicki agreed there were two sets of walls — a shorter wall at five feet, then a landscaped area of about five feet high with many plants, and then the upper tier which has the railing. Behind the railing will be many palm trees. Member Boden asked about pervious materials in the design to assist the Town with getting the water into the ground. Ms. Kropornicki remarked the perimeter of the courtyard had a landscaped area for water to drain into as well as the catch basin, but the pavers would be impervious. She stressed there would be multiple pervious areas — the perimeter as well as the first level and the upper level, and also the DOT space in front of the wall with a lot of plants. Member Boden summarized her explanation as using a lot of area to take the drainage from the non -porous, non - pervious materials, but that pervious material would not be used. Vice Chairperson Kravit remarked, with some prompting by Ms. Kropornicki, that it appears that the edge of road elevation from the cross section is seven feet one inch, and the top of the decorative wall appears to be over 17 feet with the railing on top of that, and he asked the ultimate height including the railing. Ms. Kropornicki explained it was 8.5 at the top of the driveway. Vice Chairperson Kravit asked what was the 7.09 figure on Section 2, the west section, on sheet A4-0 at the bottom center. He explained he saw 7.09 feet elevation and then an elevation of 16.7 feet at the top of the wall plus the railing, which he believed meant a total height of about 21 feet. Ms. Kropornicki confirmed the top of the railing was 21 feet, which was the height of the current hedge that currently exists. Vice Chairperson Kravit confirmed the piers would extend even above that, and Ms. Kropornicki agreed they would, a little bit. Vice Chairperson Kravit asked everyone to understand that the structure would be 15 feet above A 1 A, and that was pretty tall. Ms. Kropornicki clarified the new structure would be as tall as what was there now, which was landscaping. Member Boden asked if the wall would still be lower than the top of the hill, and Ms. Kropornicki confirmed it would be. Vice Chairperson Kravit commented that according to the cross section, the wall is taller than the top of the hill. Ms. Kropornicki pointed to the wall and a landscaped area on the projection, showing the short wall, the courtyard, some landscaped areas, another wall, and where the 42 -inch railing would be, with intermittent piers. She demonstrated the heavily landscaped tree area and the flat sod area. Vice Chairperson Kravit asked if the walls would be Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes July 10, 2019 Page 7 of 18 significantly landscaped so that a lot of blank stucco would not be visible. Ms. Kropornicki deferred to the landscape architect. Dave Bodker identified himself as the landscape architect. He requested everyone look at A4.0, and showed the second-tier wall as the area of concern. He explained there would be 4 -foot -high bougainvillea at the upper level. He showed how there was soil between the two walls. The intent was for the bougainvillea to climb on the railing. Behind the railing is a hedge with salt tolerant trees, Clusia and oleander trees, in that area. He moved to drawing L1, showing the bougainvillea placement with a ground cover layer in front of that. Behind the wall and the railing, an oleander hedge will be placed, visible through the railing, with a ground cover layer of eight trees. All of that will be visible from A IA. The first level will have a silver buttonwood hedge to block the front tier wall. He showed the location of a date palm with Japanese blueberry trees on either side. He described the area as pretty lush. Vice Chairperson Kravit asked regarding the first 40 feet in from A IA. He noted some palm trees and some power lines there. He asked if it were possible to incorporate any kind of shade tree to provide privacy for the townhouses adjacent the property. Mr. Bodker explained that in December, FP&L came through with new guidelines. The current project has an FP&L approval letter regarding the landscaping, which includes date palms. He said the end palms were Bismarckia palms. Date palms would flank the two entranceways. FP&L had one of the Bismarckia palms removed from the plans to allow them access to an electrical pole which serves the City. Chairperson Axelrod asked if there were rules on how far the trees could be from the power lines, and Mr. Bodker agreed there were, rules which changed in December. He repeated that the project had an approval letter from FP&L on the plan. He opined that the palm trees that have been allowed for this project by FP&L actually give the best coverage possible. Otherwise, they would be limited to small species. Vice Chairperson Kravit asked about the driveway in the existing house, whether it would be replaced to match the new one, and Ms. Kropornicki confirmed it would be. Vice Chairperson Kravit asked if a pervious material would be used to assist with drainage. Mr. Bodker said no, because there was so much pervious area on the lot already. Another house was not being put into the open lot, meaning more pervious area would be available. What was being done to help the situation is a perimeter planter inside the wall with vines. So, a pervious area would surround the existing parking area that currently doesn't exist, which will help with the drainage. Pervious pavers were not what the owner wanted, and with all the pervious area that the project proposes, the drainage will not be an issue. Alan Polin of 3912 S. Ocean Boulevard was sworn in and took the microphone. He addressed the issue of the new townhouses just to the south of the project. He asked if formal notice was sent to the owners of those townhouses. Ms. Kropornicki, off mic, agreed there was, and Chairperson Axelrod confirmed the town sent out letters. Mr. Polin then asked if high palm trees could be put on the border between the project and the townhouses to form a natural opaque barrier. His concern was multimillion -dollar townhouse owners would be concerned about their view to the north, and their enjoyment should be considered. Mr. Bodker explained that the south property line would be landscaped with 23 twelve -foot -high sea grape trees, along with 12 twenty -foot -high coconut palms, the idea being the sea grape trees Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes July 10, 2019 Page 8 of 18 will fill in the void where the trunks of the coconut palms are. Ms. Kropomicki added that that part of the property is a little higher, so the trees will be higher. A swale for water drainage will separate that area from the flat area. Mr. Bodker explained that currently, the house did not have any vegetation on a certain corner, so the coconut palms will soften the impact of that view and actually improve it for the townhouses. Richard Balen of 3622 S. Ocean, who represents Ocean Grand Place, the community directly south that is mostly impacted by the project, remarked he was pleased to see an improvement to the property. He thought his concern was just addressed, and pointed to the site plan to show the beach access walkway for his community. He wanted to clarify, so he could explain to his homeowners, that the landscaping would be shielding the beach walkway. Ms. Kropornicki agreed it would, even more so than currently. Mr. Balen asked if the current grassy patch would remain, and Ms. Kropornicki explained it would be new sod. Mr. Balen then asked how far from AIA a certain wall stood, and Ms. Kropornicki explained it was the same as the house because of the setback rules, so it was aligned with the face of the house. Mr. Balen remarked that as a community, they were in favor of the project. Doug Hillman of Dalton Place, 4748 S. Ocean, was sworn in and remarked that it sounded like a spectacular project. He stated if he were living next door, he would be pleased with it. In his own case, he overlooks a vacant lot and is always concerned about what will happen to it. He thinks the subject project will complement the entire town. He asked about lighting and expressed a desire to hear something about the lighting plan. Chairperson Axelrod explained it is in the plans, and Ms. Kropornicki stated the lighting was turtle - friendly. Mr. Bodker explained that landscape up lighting would be on the feature palms in an area he pointed to on the plans. DEP approval was in place. Ms. Kropomicki added that the architectural lighting features column lights on the driveway entrance posts, and the other lighting would be in the wall with low fixtures to comply with turtle friendliness. A lot of time was spent on making the lighting compliant. She pointed to areas on another plan to show their location, and stressed they were allowed by DEP. Chairperson Axelrod remarked that the project was conditional on the retaining wall being approved. MOTION: Vice Chairperson Kravit moved to approve the project with the stipulation that the Building Department verify that there are no existing drainage concerns with the existing driveway, and if there are, the new below -grade retention be expanded to incorporate the existing driveway. It will also have to be approved by the Commission. Member Goldenberg seconded the motion. Member Boden asked for clarification on the role of the Board in this case, and Chairperson Axelrod confirmed the Board is tasked with approving the plan so a permit can be issued. Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes July 10, 2019 UPON ROLL CALL: Vice Chairperson Kravit Yes Member Goldenberg Yes Member DeMoss Yes Member Adwar Yes Member Boden Yes Chairperson Axelrod Yes Motion carried on a 6 to 0 vote. C. Proposed Ordinance/Comprehensive Plan Amendment PaLie 9 of 18 An ordinance of the Town of Highland Beach, Florida, amending its Comprehensive Plan by providing for the amendment to the future land use element, future land use map, and coastal management -conservation element pursuant to Florida statutes for the purpose of clarifying the future land use map and implementing regulations regarding environmentally sensitive lands and sea level rise; providing for the repeal of all ordinances in conflict; providing for severability; providing for directions to the Town Clerk; and providing an effective date. Town Planner Mary McKinney explained that the ordinance will amend the Comprehensive Plan the future land use element, land use map, and the coastal management conservation element. On January 9, 2019, the Planning Board held a public hearing to review and discuss the changes to the Comprehensive Plan coastal management element and forwarded a recommendation of approval to the Town Commission. On June 12, 2019, the Planning Board reviewed and discussed an amendment to the future land use map. Ms. McKinney displayed the map on projection, explaining the proposal is to remove the 'potential conservation' designation because it was undefined and difficult to apply to properties. On July 10, 2019, today's date, the Planning Board meeting is considered an advertised public hearing to review and approve the amendment to the future land use map to remove the undefined and vague 'potential conservation' designation. The amendments to the future land use map and coastal management element will be presented to the Town Commission at a public hearing at the Commission's August 6, 2019 meeting. Ms. McKinney reminded the Board they had a packet containing the future land use element, as the map is part of the land use element, and also included the conservation coastal management element, which was already approved, to keep it together as one amendment going forward. When these items go to the Commission, as well as to the State, they will be one amendment. Ms. McKinney explained that the green 'frogs' overlay representing 'potential conservation' indicated on the map are vague, have no boundary, and have no definition. By this, the Town is put in a compromising position for anyone who wants to develop any pieces of property that have the designation. The proposal is to remove the designation overlay and have the clean map with the underlying land use designations so there is no confusion as to what the designation is, if somebody wishes to develop the land, or if the Town needs to interpret it. Ms. McKinney displayed the proposed amended map, the subject of today's meeting. Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes July 10, 2019 Page 10 of 18 Member Boden understood the explanation and had no questions. Chairperson Axelrod asked if the proposed ordinance repeals the 2015 ordinance. Ms. McKinney explained it repeals the map with the green 'frogs' on it. The changes to the coastal management element already approved by the Board will go to the Commission, and later the State, along with the subject amended map. Member Adwar asked if the properties on the map were owned by the Town, and Ms. McKinney said they were not. Chairperson Axelrod clarified that the question was, do we know who owns the various parcels? Ms. McKinney explained that it does not matter who owns the properties. It is the designation that is overlaid on the properties that is being removed. Member Goldenberg asked what was being done to strengthen and preserve the natural areas such as the mangroves and the wetlands. He expressed concern there was not much in the policy and land use map that helps protect the undeveloped land. Ms. McKinney explained that the majority of the mangrove and tree protection ordinance is contained in the Town's Code of Ordinances, which is what will be used to protect the trees and the mangroves. Member Goldenberg reminded the Board that Mr. Polin had associates that can help the Town strengthen the policy somewhat, and wondered if he had been reached out to help achieve that objective in the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. McKinney has spoken with Mr. Polin not about how to strengthen the plan but more on putting some kind of calculation of the density based on wetlands, which is "almost impossible to do." The Planning Board as the planning authority has already approved the coastal management element in the packet. Member DeMoss said he was fine with the plan, stating it simplifies things for the Town should a builder come forward to develop a property. That property will be reviewed by every agency and so "I think we're good." Vice Chairperson Kravit asked about the proposed ordinance's phrase "implementing regulations regarding... sea level rise." He wondered if the Town currently had regulations regarding sea level rise, because; if not, the phrase may have unintended consequences as it would be in effect ambiguous. Ms. McKinney clarified her intention was to address the proposed policies that are in the coastal management element. Vice Chairperson Kravit suggested that be spelled out. Town Attorney Rubin asked if he was referring to the title only, and Vice Chairperson Kravit explained he was concerned about the language "to implement regulations regarding sea level rise." He explained he wasn't aware what regulations the Town had. Town Attorney Rubin replied there were policies in the Plan that talk about sea level rise, and he felt the title did not create ambiguity. Alan Polin of Regency Highland thanked the Town Planner for reaching out to him for his insight as a lawyer. He had earlier reached out to a colleague, Jim Brady, a municipal attorney in Broward County in practice for 45 or more years. Mr. Polin desired to share the email Mr. Brady sent to him, which he forwarded to the Town Planner, with the Board. He understood the goal was to make the Comprehensive Plan better, not to make it more confusing or take away regulatory impact that the Town might put in place in order to deal with future development. He read part of Mr. Brady's email: You may also want to review the regulations adopted by Riviera Beach and discussed in City of Riviera Beach v. Shillingberg' (659 S. 2d 1174 Fl. 4th DCA 1995)." Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes July 10, 2019 Page I 1 of 18 Mr. Polin went on to recommend that some of the following language be adopted, if the Town Attorney agreed and the staff agreed: Special preservation: Mangroves, wetlands, and special estuarine bottom lands. These mangroves and special estuarine bottom lands are protected by federal, state, and local agencies involved in the wetlands preservation dredge and fill permitting and other hydrological modifications." Mr. Polin again expressed his understanding that the Town was trying to beef up what the Town already has to make it better, so from a public policy standpoint, the question was, does the Town want to save and conserve the natural wetlands because they are contiguous to the Intracoastal waterway, which is a natural resource, or not? He went on to read: It is the express policy objective of the City to preclude any development of submerged lands, including but not limited to, mangroves, wetlands, and estuarine bottom lands to the maximum extent permissible by law. It is further policy of the City to oppose any applications for dredge or fill permits pending before applicable state or federal agencies. This policy objective shall not be construed nor implemented to impair or preclude judicially determined vested rights to develop or alter submerged lands. This City shall upon enactment of this plan prepare a study of the specific planning and legal issues pertinent to the bottom lands. The research will be designed to determine uses that would be compatible with the City's preservation policies contained in the coastal management element, including Objective 1.1, which mandates no loss of natural shoreline bordering estuary." Chairperson Axelrod suggested due to time constraints that this specific issue be passed on to staff and let them take appropriate action, understanding that South Florida Water Management and the Army Corps do get involved. Member Boden asked about the prior 'potential conservation area,' and inquired if it would now read'conservation area' and did that sum up the issue. Ms. McKinney agreed that a "wishy-washy" thing would now be "firm." MOTION: Member DeMoss moved to accept the proposal. Member Adwar seconded the motion. Vice Chairperson Kravit requested clarification on the issue. He understood that the green Trogs' were being removed from the map, but stated that would show those areas to be multifamily low density, not conservation areas. Ms. McKinney explained they were multifamily low-density areas right now. Parts of those areas have a green overlay that has no definition. The overlay is being removed for being a vague category not defined in the Comprehensive Plan. Vice Chairperson Kravit therefore stated the areas in question were not becoming conservation areas, as Member Boden had just stated, but in fact those areas were multifamily low density with no overlay of any kind. Town Attorney Rubin stated conservation areas remained the same as before. Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes July 10, 2019 Page 12 of 18 UPON ROLL CALL: Member DeMoss - Yes Member Adwar - Yes Member Goldenberg stated he wished it "could have been made stronger and more protective" of the Town's lands. Chairperson Axelrod reminded him it would be going to the Commission. Member Goldenberg - Yes Member Boden - Yes Vice Chairperson Kravit - Yes Chairperson Axelrod - Yes Motion carried on a 6 to 0 vote. D. Proposed Ordinance / Principal Structure and an Accessory Structure An ordinance of the Town of Highland Beach, Florida, amending the Town Code of Ordinances, Chapter 30 "Zoning Code" Section 30-68, "Supplemental District Regulations" to allow for a separation between a principal structure and an accessory structure up to 1,000 feet and for other purposes; providing for the repeal of all ordinances in conflict; providing for severability and codification; and providing an effective date. Ms. McKinney explained the ordinance as a proposal that an accessory structure be allowed to exist 1,000 feet from a lot that has a principal structure. Recently, a property owner of a single- family residence on South Ocean Boulevard requested a release from a unity of title for a property with a single-family residence as a principal use, and an accessory use, a dock, that was not adjacent or contiguous to the property with the principal use, which is required by the Town's Code of Ordinances Section 30-68i. Staff researched other towns' codes regarding distances between a lot having principal use and a lot having accessory use, and found there were towns that did allow that. Boca Raton, for example, has a 1,000 -foot allowance in its code. Staff suggests the following language in 30-68: Accessory uses and structures shall be located on the same lot as the principal use or structure or on a contiguous lot under the same ownership or on a lot that is under the same ownership that is not more than 1,000 feet from the lot with the principal structure. However, if lots or portions of lots under the same ownership are divided by a street but are no more than 1,000 feet from one another, then they are permitted. The use of non- contiguous lots for accessory structures or use must be approved as a special exception pursuant to Section 30-33." At the June 25, 2019 workshop, the Town Commission discussed the ordinance, which was originally drafted with a 500 -foot separation, and decided they preferred a 1,000 -foot separation, similar to Boca Raton. Staff also modified Section 30-68(c)(3) to clarify the appropriate process for reviewing and approving a unity of title, with the following language (added language in bold): Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes July 10, 2019 Page 13 of 18 A unity of title for all lots or portions of lots divided by a street shall be reviewed by the Town Attorney and approved by the Town Commission and recorded prior to issuance of a building permit." Town Manager Marshall Labadie reported a bit about the history of the issue, the Town having experienced a situation on South Ocean where there was a 450 -foot separation of parcels with an oceanfront property using a dock on the Intracoastal. Those parcels were under unity of title from 20 years ago. That property owner then sold the Intracoastal parcel to an owner separated by 150 feet but no ordinance allowed those parcels to be unified. Research was carried out on other towns' solutions — some were silent, some required parcels to be adjacent, some were accepting of across - the -street parcels, and Boca Raton contained the 1,000 -foot separation. Some of the Town's northern properties might have a similar situation where an oceanfront parcel has acquired an Intracoastal parcel that may not line up but they wish to be able to dock their boat. So, the issue may come up in the future. Staff decided to draft a 500 -foot separation, but the Commission felt they wanted to be similar to Boca with a 1,000 -foot separation. The special exception requirement and process must still be pursued to cover the Town for unforeseen future circumstances. The language regarding unity of title was made to require a stop at the Commission. Member DeMoss expressed surprise the property owner was not present to witness the meeting. Member Goldenberg wondered why the separation distance was being changed, and mentioned that while Boca Raton has 1,000 feet, other towns such as Ocean Ridge, Manalapan, Gulf Stream, and Palm Beach don't allow it. He questioned why this was being made an ordinance, since the Town property values are high and he didn't feel moving in this direction was reasonable. He felt the future is the future and saw no reason to move on it, urging his fellow members to deny the proposal. Member Adwar expressed agreement with Member Goldenberg. Vice Chairperson Kravit mentioned that as an architect, he had run into a similar situation. He asked if the 1,000 feet would be from the edge of one lot to the edge of the other lot and not, as his example demonstrated, from the furthest corners of the lots. Town Attorney Rubin opined it was an excellent point and requested the issue be clarified with the language, "measured from lot to lot." Member Boden asked for clarification and was told the proposal was for 1,000 feet. Member Axelrod wondered if the word 'special exception' covered all contingencies and protected the Town in the future.. The Commission had been working to get the issue resolved for some time, and Member Axelrod believes the Board has to go forward with something, whether it be 500 feet or 1,000 feet. Member Goldenberg asked why the issue had to move forward. The issue had been going back and forth with differing information, and the property owner that is currently affected by the issue is not present. That person was asked to get a legal definition and has not done that, instead letting the Board make the decision to approve it. He understands the concern that this might be an issue in the future, but this action "opens the door" and the public is not interested in that happening. Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes July 10, 2019 Page 14 of 18 Member DeMoss stated "this is the exception versus the rule" and by taking care of one citizen, it is the exception, but the citizen needs to be taken care of. Member Boden believes there are a lot of loose ends in this story and it needs to be resolved, so he strongly urges the Board to approve the matter. MOTION: Vice Chairperson Kravit moved to approve going forward with the ordinance with the revision of a definition of how the 1,000 feet will be measured. Member DeMoss seconded the motion. Alan Polin of 3912 S. Ocean Boulevard remarked that it was the responsibility of the Board to help the Commission with public policy, which creates guidance for future action a governing body takes. He urged everyone to remember that "we don't want to dumb down" when public policy is created. It should be created by asking the question, does it belong in Highland Beach? What does Highland Beach stand for? Is it to create the highest quality of living for the Town? Therefore, why adopt something that is the existing model in Boca Raton when Member Goldenberg pointed out four other affluent communities with different regulations? Should the bar be high or does the Town want to dumb down and create a low bar? He urged everyone to consider what is the better model to aspire to, Manalapan, Ocean Ridge, Palm Beach, for example, or Deerfield, Boca, or some lesser quality of community. He urged a no vote, remarking it would be a "telling story" how everyone votes on this issue. What is the public policy direction that the Town wants to set? Chairperson Axelrod believes the issue came to the floor because of ambiguity in the Code. The other towns discussed did not have the ambiguity issue with unity of title. The Town is currently trying to correct something in the Code so that future issues with unity of title can be handled. He does not see harm in the current proposal, especially since the Town has put forth multiple possible suggestions. He wants to avoid a legal situation because of ambiguity in the Code, and therefore urged a yes vote. There was some concern what the property owner at issue was going to do with his narrow strip of land, such as selling it to another property owner. He believes it is not a situation of comparison to Boca or Manalapan, it is a situation of correcting the Code. Vice Chairperson Kravit does not believe in argumentative discussions, but wants to make note that things should not be taken out of context. He explained that even though Manalapan's code calls for contiguous lots in regard to this concept, he himself designed a Manalapan house with a beach house across the street with a tunnel eventually added to connect them. One has to go through their entire ordinance to see "other areas that may have exemptions to this." In addition, whether the lots are contiguous, across the street from each other, 500 or 1,000 feet apart, he does not see how that provides a negative impact on the community or the homeowners. What difference does it make whether a dock is across the street or 1,000 feet away, as long as all the other ordinances, such as for landscaping, setbacks, building height, and density are met? He does not believe in a heavy hand in zoning or government. Sometimes all the rules that are created do more to hurt the residents than it does to help. In this case, all the affluent communities have slightly different zoning ordinances, but 75 or 500 or 1,000 feet is not going to make a difference. Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes July 10, 2019 Page 15 of 18 UPON ROLL CALL: Vice Chairperson Kravit Yes Member DeMoss Yes Member Goldenberg No Member Adwar No Member Boden Yes Chairperson Axelrod Yes Motion carried on a 4 to 2 vote. E. Proposed Ordinance / Certified Mailings An ordinance of the Town of Highland Beach, Florida, amending Section 30-46 "Public Notice" and Section 30-68 "Supplemental District Regulations" of the Town Code of Ordinances, to provide for first class mailing instead of certified mail notice for public hearings; providing for the repeal of all ordinances in conflict; providing for codification and severability; and providing an effective date. Town Planner Mary McKinney summarized the proposal to amend certified mail notice requirements. Currently, the Town's Code of Ordinances Section 30-46 requires certified mail notices for development applications and comprehensive plan amendments. Section 30-68 requires certified mail notices of applications for the permitting of dolphins, freestanding pilings, boat lifts, and moorings. The certified mail delivery requires that a property owner be home to sign for the certified mail. A lot of property owners are not at home when the mail is delivered, so frequently they do not receive the certified notice. In addition, certified mailings create an unnecessary burden for the Town Clerk's office, as opposed to first class mailings. Staff recommends that 30-46(a)(5) and (b)(9) and 30-68(h)(2) be amended per the changes .that are included in the ordinance, which is changing the language from 'certified mail' to 'first class mail' for notices to be sent out. Member Goldenberg expressed concern that with certified mail, "you know that the people are receiving it." With first class mail, it will be easier and less expensive for the Town to make notice, but it also can limit how many people are aware, unless they come to the website. He thinks it is a great idea but would like to see the distances expanded to 500 feet or 1,000 feet. For example, with the approval of the lift that was discussed earlier, there was a 300 -foot notification area, but perhaps some of those people that might object were outside of the 300 -foot limit. He would like to see that expanded. Vice Chairperson Kravit asked if there was a State statute that defined the minimum distance to notify affected parcels, and Ms. McKinney replied there was not. Town Attorney Rubin remarked that 300 was the standard, although some municipalities require 500 for certain types of applications. MOTION: Member Goldenberg moved to approve the ordinance with the revision of the notice area to 500 feet. Member Adwar seconded the motion. Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes July 10, 2019 Page 16 of 18 Rhoda Zelnicker of 3912 S. Ocean Boulevard and President of Regency Highland pointed out that in her building, letters were sent certified and some people received the letters, but the wrong people got them. The mailing labels are received from the Property Appraiser's Office, and according to Ms. Zelnicker, oftentimes those labels are not correct. In addition, when residents go north, she does not believe the certified mail is forwarded. Only first-class mail is forwarded. The cost of postage is constantly rising. But getting the proper labels is important because the mail is not going to the right people and is not being forwarded. Though first-class mail is expensive, certified mail is a lot more expensive. UPON ROLL CALL: Member Goldenberg Yes Member Adwar Yes Member DeMoss Yes Member Boden Yes Vice Chairperson Kravit Yes Chairperson Axelrod Yes Motion carried on a 6 to 0 vote. F. Proposed Ordinance / Certain Structures and Items in Setback Areas An ordinance of the Town Commission of the Town of Highland Beach, Florida, amending Chapter 30 "Zoning", amending Article IV "Zoning Districts", Section 30-66 Other Requirements", to modify the requirements to allow certain structures and items in setback areas; providing for severability; providing for the repeal of laws in conflict; providing for codification; and providing for an effective date. Town Planner Mary McKinney remarked that the Town's} Code does not provide for accessory uses in the setback areas of residential structures. In order to allow for the usual residential accessory uses, such as generators, walkways, air conditioning condensers, pool heaters, step stairways, buried propane tanks, etc., in a portion of the setback, staff prepared the ordinance to address this issue. On June 12, the Planning Board reviewed the attached ordinance to allow for the typical residential uses to be in the setback areas. At the June 12 Planning Board meeting, the Board suggested a few minor changes to the ordinance. Staff has made the minor changes and also addressed a couple of areas that needed modifying. The final ordinance is before the Board today. Vice Chairperson Kravit apologized for not calling Ms. McKinney back about the issue. There were no further comments from the Board as it was extensively discussed in prior meetings. MOTION: Member Goldenberg moved to approve the ordinance as presented. Member Adwar seconded the motion. Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes July 10, 2019 UPON ROLL CALL: Member Goldenberg - Yes Member Adwar Yes Member DeMoss Yes Member Boden Yes Vice Chairperson Kravit Yes Chairperson Axelrod Yes Motion carried on a 6 to 0 vote. NON -AGENDA ITEMS PaLye 17 of 18 Town Attorney Rubin spoke to the Board, saying this was his second Planning Board meeting. Generally, he has a conflict the second Wednesday at 10:00, as he is the Code Magistrate in the Town of Jupiter. He will be unable to attend the meetings going forward unless the date of the meetings changes. If he were to continue to represent the Board, the meeting date would need to be changed from the second Wednesday. Town Manager Marshall Labadie summarized that Mr. Rubin had a conflict and the former attorney Mr. Schutt was now at Loxahatchee Groves as their full-time attorney, so it would be desirable to keep Mr. Rubin in if possible. If it is not possible to move the meeting, the roster will be consulted for another attorney. Town Planner Mary McKinney remarked that because her office has to prepare a lot of the agenda work, the fact that there are two weeks between Planning Board and Commission meetings helps her staff prepare for each meeting. She suggested a move to Thursday would work better for her office. MOTION: Vice Chairperson Kravit moved to change the Board's meeting date when needed to Thursdays at 9:30. (No second was recorded.) The vote to approve the motion was carried unanimously on a voice vote. Vice Chairperson Kravit asked for clarification on an issue. He had sent the Town Manager an email asking if the Board were a quasi-judicial board. The answer he received was sometimes, maybe not always. But in checking State statutes, it appears to be a quasi-judicial board. Town Attorney Rubin confirmed that it is quasi-judicial, the definition being anytime you are applying specific standards to a specific set of facts. Site plans and site-specific re -zonings are quasi- judicial, but ordinances are legislative generally. Member Boden commented that what the Planning Board does is a wide and broad list of things, including giving advice. He felt it would be wise if Commission better defined the function of the Board so the Board could review it. It seemed to him like the Board does everything, but does not believe "that's right." Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes July 10, 2019 Page 18 of 18 Member Goldenberg asked to clarify the next meeting, whether the August 14 meeting, a second Wednesday, will be changed to August 8, a second Thursday, which was confirmed (off mic) by Town Attorney Rubin. The Deputy Town Clerk agreed to check the calendar and get back to everyone. 9.ANNOUNCEMENTS: The Deputy Town Clerk announced: •Financial Advisory Board Meeting -July 11, 2019 - 2:00 PM •Code Enforcement Board Meeting-July 23, 2019-2:00 PM •Town Commission Workshop Meeting-July 30, 2019 -1 :30 PM 10.ADJOURNMENT: Chairperson Axelrod called for a motion to adjourn. MOTION: Member Adwar moved to adjourn. Vice Chairperson Kravit seconded the motion, which passed unanimously by voice vote. The meeting was adjourned at 11: 19 AM.