Loading...
2019.09.12_PB_Minutes_Regular• TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Town Hall / Commission Chambers Date: September 12, 2019 3614 South Ocean Boulevard Time: 9:30 a.m. Highland Beach, Florida 1. CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chairperson Michael Kravit called the Planning Board Meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. He asked all present to please silence their cell phones/devices. 2. PRESENT UPON ROLL CALL: Board Member Brian DeMoss Board Member Eric Goldenberg Board Member John Boden Vice Chairperson Michael Kravit Town Attorney Leonard Rubin Deputy Town Clerk Beverly Wright ABSENT: Board Member Ilyne Mendelson Board Member Harry Adwar Chairperson David Axelrod 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance was Led by the Board Members. 4. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA: Vice Chairperson Kravit asked if there were any additions, deletions or corrections to the Agenda and there were none. MOTION: Member DeMoss moved to accept the Agenda as presented. Member Goldenberg seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Vice Chairperson Kravit indicated Public Comments were limited to 5 minutes each. He asked if there were any Public Comments. There were none. However, Member Goldenberg gave a comment on an observation of a sighting of sharks in the intracoastal. He stated that he had Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes September 12, 2019 Paize 2 of 14 pictures of them and advised that if children were being dragged behind boats, to just be aware that there were bull sharks in the Intracoastal, for anybody that may be watching. 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: A. August 15, 2019 Regular Minutes Vice Chairperson Kravit asked if there were any additions, deletions or corrections to the August 15, 2019 Regular Minutes. Hearing none, he called for a motion. MOTION: Member Demoss moved to approve the August 15, 2019 Regular Minutes. Member Goldenberg seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. 7. OLD BUSINESS: There was no Old Business. 8. NEW BUSINESS: Vice Chairperson Kravit read the below listed application title into record. A. APPLICATION #19-0426 - SOUTHEAST BUILDING GROUP, LLC Vice Chairperson Kravit asked if there were any ExParte Communications of the Board members and there were known. However, Vice Chairperson Kravit advised that the only communication that he had was with Commissioner Greg Babij, regarding an email he received from him alerting him about the project, asking him to take a look at it, which he said he did. He stated that he responded to him that he thought that overall the home looked good and said that he did have one concern, which would be discussed at today's meeting.. Vice Chairperson Kravit opened the Public Hearing and directed all that were giving testimony to please stand and raise their right hands to be sworn in by the Deputy Clerk. Deputy Clerk Beverly right recited the following: "By the authority vested in me, as a notary of the State of Florida, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?" Those being sworn in, answered I do. Vice Chairperson Kravit asked that Mary McKinney, the Town's Planner come to the podium to present her testimony and recommendations regarding the application. Town Planner Mary McKinney gave recommendations, which were in inaudible at the beginning of her testimony and recommendations because the podium microphone was not turned on. She gave a PowerPoint Presentation of the property depicting all the setbacks. She advised that the proposal met all of the Town code setbacks. She spoke of elevations and ended the PowerPoint Presentation advising that the applicant was there to make a presentation. Vice Chairperson Kravit asked that before the applicant approached the podium, if anyone from the Board had questions of the Town Planner? Member DeMoss stated that the only thing he saw upon reviewing the plans, was a generator being put on the property? Town Planner Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes September 12, 2019 Page 3 of 14 Mary McKinney stated that there was no generator being put on the property and if a generator was proposed, the applicant would have to meet the setback. Member DeMoss stated that he did review the property and the house and he was glad that it was being torn down and that it would be a nice addition to Bel -Lido. Member Goldenberg asked if there had been any objections from any of the residents? Town Planner McKinney answered, no and advised that notices were mailed out to everyone within 300 feet and there hadn't been any comments from anyone. Vice Chairperson Kravit advised that the only comment (inaudible) and he would hold his until the applicant approached. He asked the applicant to please join. Applicant Annie Caruthers introduced herself as the Principal and Architect of In -Site Design Group; the architect for the Stewarts' and advised that it is a family home and gave a brief explanation of the design. She stated that the design is designed especially for the family and not going to be resold. It is designed in a style that the owners specifically wanted. It has contemporary lines. It's a contemporary home. It does have some traditional detailing, including some crown molding, water tables, health courses and so forth. It's simple. It's very straightforward and is very clean lined. It's going to be beautifully landscaped. And stated that as mentioned, all of the setback regulations will be met or exceeded and that the Florida Building Code is well meet or exceed. The home is monochromatic and very white. She stated that she wanted to maintain the pristine look. She answered a previous question presented by Vice Chairperson Kravit that the drainage be attended to. She stated that there are some roof drains and that they wanted to really properly drain the home, not just on site. Civil Engineering would drain it on the site, but also on the roof. She advised that they did not want the front to be stained. So, an additional detail was provided for the edge that creates a small (inaudible), to keep all of the water back to ensure that the water doesn't come over and stain the front. She said that signed and sealed sets will be provided to add to the permit set. She passed around a small detailed sheet. She advised that it was more like a blocking. It's very simple. A flash around it and so forth. She advised that they didn't want to make it any taller or anything like that, just a 4 -inch blocking. The home will have some shading in the form of terraces that are cut out in the rear. She advised that they had a lot of renderings done, which should have been provided in the package. Vice Chairperson Kravit stated that he did not believe they were and it was okay... just the cover sheet. Applicant Annie Caruthers stated that they provided quite a few renderings and that was only a few that is being mounted to the front. The courtyard in the front will be lovely landscaping and just a little water feature, as well as, when you walk in it and step over. A low wall, which is within the setback. It provides a different (inaudible) a separate layer of security for them as well. This is a private home. A very simple straightforward. A lot of terraces, except the views and so forth. Obviously, you see the pool. It's a little bit of a reflection of the landscaping that they'll do, but this doesn't really reflect (inaudible). This is just a simplified version of all the (inaudible) setbacks. Vice Chairperson Kravit thanked Applicant Annie Caruthers and asked if Town Staff had any questions of the applicant before she stepped down. Member Boden asked a question about anticipation of using any porous materials in the driveway and in the patio area to help assist with drainage? Applicant Annie Caruthers advised that the driveway will be more like concrete pavers, so, the answer is no. She advised again, that a Civil Engineer was on board that has the drainage calculations that are a part of the permit set for the entire site. She said that they Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes September 12, 2019 Page 4 of 14 have addressed with the City, the slope of the driveway, which was adjusted, due to some concerns of the drainage. She advised that they did do that and had them submit all the calculations for that. She advised that they do not have a concern and to keep in mind that the roof is not draining on and over to the whole site. She said that she thinks that that helps with the amount of water that's going to be captured on the side because typically, you might have some gutters and so forth, but sometimes those gutters fail and so forth, but they are capturing all of that internal. Member Boden (inaudible) asked a question about when the water is captured, where does it go? Applicant Annie Caruthers advised that it goes into the storm drain. Vice Chairperson Kravit asked if there was anyone from the public that would like to speak in favor or against the project? There were none. He advised that at that time the Board could question Staff, the Applicant, and/or the Public and asked if anyone on the Board had any questions for the Applicant or Staff? There were none; therefore, he closed the Public Hearing portion of the presentation. He asked if he could have a motion from the Board to approve with conditions or a motion to deny the request? Member Goldenberg made a motion to approve with conditions if it met everything that Jeff and Mary were concerned about. He made a motion to approve. Vice Chairperson Kravit asked if there was a second. Member DeMoss seconded the motion. Vice Chairperson Kravit asked the Board if there were any discussion on the project. Member DeMoss advised that the project is a beautiful plan and it could be a nice addition... He advised that his thought was if air compressors were roof mounted? They will be hidden and are parapet around them. Member Goldenberg advised that he didn't see any negatives to it. He advised that residents from Bel -Lido were in the audience and that they had no objections. He said he thinks it'll be a great addition. Chairperson Kravit said that he reviewed the plans in detail and thought that the house is lovely. He thinks that it's going to be a good addition to the community. His only concern was that he had mentioned previously, was water running off the front roof of the back roof of the edge of the building. But it was indicated that a small parapet was designed for it and that was fine, which that would work. He mentioned that the Board just wanted to keep the front of the house from staining. He said he also reviewed the drainage calculations and stated that unfortunately, he's not smart enough to understand what the Civil Engineers do, but they look good (laughter). MOTION: A motion to approve Item 8A as submitted was made by Member DeMoss and seconded by Member Goldenberg with the condition of the Building Department staff recommendations. ROLL CALL: Member DeMoss Yes Member Goldenberg Yes Member Bolden Yes Vice Chairperson Kravit Yes The motion carried 4 to 0. Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes September 12, 2019 Page 5 of 14 B. APPLICATION # 19-0557 (Michael Rothberg) Vice Chairperson Kravit read the above listed application title into the record and asked if any of the Board members had any ExParte Communications to disclose? There were none. He opened the Public Hearing and directed all that were giving testimony to please stand and raise their right hand to be sworn in by the Deputy Clerk. Deputy Clerk Beverly Wright recited the following: "By the authority vested in me, as a notary of the State of Florida, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?" Those being sworn in, answered yes. Vice Chairperson Kravit acknowledged that the Town Planner Mary McKinney was already at the podium and asked her if she would please present her testimony and recommendations regarding the application. Town Planner McKinney read the Special Application for Special Exception of Approval of Michael Rothberg into the record, to allow an Accessory use on a Lot that is about 500 feet from his principal use structure at 3833 South Ocean. She advised that the reason she called it a dock -lot was because she tried to clarify that it was the lot for the dock. She advised that in the Staff Report, she included the whole story from December of 2018, when the applicant originally requested a Release of Unity of Title. The Unity of Title is originally for and still does exists for 3 92 1. She used a PowerPoint presentation to depict the plans on screen and pointed out the dock -lot and its location on the screen. She stated that Mr. Rothberg was asking for, but not from this Board, it would be from Commission, a release from the Unity for these two lots and then he wants a new Unity, which he needs to have Special Exception Approval for a lot that is not continuous to his lot. She advised that he's done it to ask for release for these two parcels and then to get a new Unity for the two parcels. The 3833... and that will be before the Commission at the October 1 st Commission meeting, provided that this is approved today and moved forward. Town Planner McKinney advised that there is a new code, which the Planning Board reviewed, which would allow this to happen and that was for a use of up to 1,000 feet from the principal use. That's a new code. The second reading of that code will be at the September 19th Commission meeting. It would have been September 3rd, but that meeting was canceled because of the storm event. She said that will be the ordinance that allows an Accessory Use to be up to 1,000 feet away from the principal use, which right now the code does not allow; that section is 30-68. She said that she included that in the packet also, so it could be seen that the inclusion of the language that allows the Accessory to be 1,000 feet from the lot with the principal structure included and with the closest boundary points from the Planning Board meeting, it was included. The use must be approved by a Unity of Title and the Unity of Title would be reviewed by the Town's Attorney and then approved by the Town Commission that will occur at the same meeting that the Special Exception approval is reviewed by the Town Commission. She said she included the criteria for Special Exception in the packets, which is section 30-36. She said that she summarized the staff findings, which would be related to the code for Special Exception Approval. She said, what was found is that the use is consistent with the Town's Comprehensive Plan. The use is consistent with the requirements of the Code. One of the criteria for Special Exception is how it relates to Public Welfare and the proposed use provides for a safe means of pedestrian access. The applicant proposes to walk from his single-family house at 3833 to the lot, which has the dock at 3906 on the sidewalk on State Road AIA. The applicant does not propose to park at the dock -lot, as there is no parking allowed on State Road AIA. Police and Fire can access the Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes September 12, 2019 Page 6 of 14 site from State Road A 1 A and the Intracoastal Waterway. The site is heavily landscaped with mangroves and the walkway does not negatively impact adjacent properties. The walkway does not impose any negative impacts to adjacent utilities. The walkway does not conflict with building codes. The dock -lot and walkway are compatible with the surrounding development and the dock - lot and walkway do not have adverse impacts or environmental impacts. Staff recommended approval of the Special Exception Condition with the following conditions. One, the Release of Unity of Title for 3921 and 3906, which is the lot that has the dock on Ocean Boulevard must be approved by the Town Commission. Two, the Unity of Title for 3833, which is the applicant's principal structure and 3906, the lot with the dock, on Ocean Boulevard must be approved by the Town Commission and the Ordinance Allowing Accessory Uses to be on the property up to 1,000 feet from the principal structure lot is approved by the Town Commission on second reading, which got postponed from September 3rd to September 19th because of the storm. She said that then the recommendation is that if the Town Commission does not approve both one and two conditions, the Special Exception Approval would be voided and have no effect. So, that's the end of the presentation. Vice Chairperson Kravit asked Building Official Jeffrey Massie if he had any comments or presentations to make; he said no. He asked if any of the Board members had any questions of the Town Planner? Member Boden asked if it is legal to proceed with this prior to the final action by the Commission? Town Attorney Rubin responded that as long as it's condition upon the Commission's approval, that's fine that it's a recommendation. Vice Chairperson Kravit asked if the applicant like to make a presentation? Applicant Michael Rothberg responded to the podium and stated, that basically what we're just trying to do is Unify the dock -lot. The residents he has across the street, as it's been done for the last 20 years plus or minus that dock has existed. The Unity of Title has existed and we're just trying to now unify it back to my resident. Then, I can actually go forth with power and basic use of the dock. I'm not asking for anything that hasn't existed for plus or minus 20 years. Once it is unified back to my house, the benefits of the surrounding area and everyone else in Town... that lot right now is zoned for multifamily development. As soon as it's unified back, it no longer has that option. If it's split off, it can be developed. It may be a long process, but it can be put to a multifamily unit. So, it's advantageous to the Town, the planning, and to pretty straightforward move. A 125 feet right corner to corner versus 450 plus or minus. I'm just trying to have use of my dock; that's it. Vice Chairperson Kravit ask if the Town Staff had any questions of the applicant? Town Staff replied, no. Vice Chairperson asked if there were anyone from the public that would like to speak either for or against the project. Hearing none, he advised that that was the time for the Board to question the applicant and asked the Board if there were any questions of the applicant? Starting from the right. Member DeMoss ask if it was no other uses, just the dock? Applicant Rothberg responded that it's a dock for the use of his boat. He didn't know what other use it's allowed for. Member DeMoss stated he just wanted clarification (crosstalk). Applicant Rothberg advised that he couldn't do a Marina and he was not looking to public (crosstalk). Member DeMoss advised Applicant Rothberg that he remembered that at one meeting, he said that he would be building in 30 months. Applicant Rothberg stated that that was originally a guesthouse and that was to allow him to have the dock because they didn't want to do the unification. He said he cannot tell him what happens in 10 years, no. Five years, no. It's was the person next door has a small guesthouse, Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes September 12, 2019 Patie 7 of 14 as you can see. Member DeMoss responded that it's a single-family dwelling that he thought was right next to Mr. Rothberg. He said that he walks there all the time and see vehicles parked on the grass. So, if there we're going to say no parking, he would suggest it started now. He said that it is probably from Mr. Rothberg's work crew and that the process may as well be started right now. Applicant Rothberg stated that he believed that they had been enforcing it and politely asking the guys to move. He said, he knew the GC has taken some spaces up the street. So, they were doing everything they could to comply with all ordinances. Member DeMoss asked Applicant Rothberg when did he anticipate his house being done. He said that it had almost been a two-year process. Applicant Rothberg respond the end of this month (laughter). He stated that FP&L had up to supposedly the 16th to put the power to the house, which then really gets you going along. He stated, believe me, I want to be in more than you want me in there. Member DeMoss asked a question a little bit off the subject. He asked Applicant Rothberg that on A 1 A he put in a sewer line about a month or so ago and if he were satisfied? He said that he was certainly not satisfied with the pavement that had been re -put down on AIA (crosstalk) bad with the paving. Maybe the Code person could take a look at that because it is a rough. Building Official Jeffrey Massie responded that it was completed by FDOT, since it is there roadway and that it would level out over time. The repaving is coming in a couple years, but it's going to be a little bump there for a while. Member Goldenberg replied that they were the neighbors to the south of the lot. The dock -lot and that he knew a lot of his residents are a bit concerned about it. There was a lot of back and forth and unfortunately, he thinks Applicant Rothberg came in the middle of some other issues with another lot and it was all lumped together, but this will be for a dock only? Applicant Rothberg replied, yes. The dock is there. Member Goldenberg asked about the lift that is already there? Applicant Rothberg stated that the lift was going to be replaced with a new lift. Member Goldenberg asked if Applicant Rothberg knew the tonnage of the lift, approximately? Applicant Rothberg said that he believed that it was a 24,000 -pound lift. Member Goldenberg asked what size boat Applicant Rothberg was planning to use? Applicant Rothberg stated that it would be a 39 to 41 -foot center console. Member Goldenberg stated that it would be a low silhouette type of boat. Applicant Rothberg said that it has a small tower (inaudible). Member Goldenberg asked if the boat was a cabin cruiser? Applicant Rothberg replied, no, that it was in a wake zone. So, really getting on and off the lift was already going to be a challenge. Member Goldenberg stated he had a boat, so he knew about that challenge and that the bottom line is, it should be relatively a low - profile boat; long and low. Applicant Rothberg replied long and low; anything that protrudes would be a see-through type of tower. There is not going to be a cabin on it. It's not going to be an enclosed bridge or anything like that. Member Goldberg asked Applicant Rothberg if he was planning on any other structure on the end of the dock? Applicant Rothberg replied, on this end of the dock, no. Member Boden asked if Applicant Rothberg had the power issue settled with FP&L to bring out to the dock? Applicant Rosenberg replied, no because he couldn't apply for the permit until the dock is re -inspected. They want to look back at the power because it was redone and approved back in 17, but then never... When it was called in, it was called in to the wrong address because it's tied back to 3921, so, FP&L is now saying we need to have it re -inspected, which is fine. So, once it's approved here and approved to the next level, then he could have a permit issued; have it inspected, and then call FP&L. Member Goldenberg asked about the walkway; the Boardwalk. In Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes September 12, 2019 Page 8 of 14 what condition is that now and will you anticipate redoing it? Applicant Rosenberg replied that it was okay and the answer is, yes. He does anticipate redoing it and making it safe and secure. Vice Chairperson Kravit announced that the Public Hearing was closed and asked for a motion to approve; a motion to approve with conditions or a motion to deny the request for the applicant. Member DeMoss made a motion to approve the... as stated. Member Goldenberg second the motion, but with condition of the approval of the Commission. Vice Chairperson Kravit stated that Commission had to approved it... Member Goldenberg stated that there are a number of steps that still have to go on even after approval. In terms of the application for a new lift, and these kinds of things. Vice Chairperson Kravit explained that what would happen is that our approval will be recorded. Member Goldenberg stated that it was a recommendation. Vice Chairperson Kravit explained that it was a recommendation for approval to the Commission and then of course the Commission ,had to follow their processing. All of the approvals that were in the applicant's package are subject to the Commission for approval. Member Goldenberg responded that then he would second it with a condition. Vice Chairperson Kravit asked the Board all in favor or opposed? Board members responded Aye. Member Boden opposed the motion. The motion carried with a 3 to 1 vote. Member Goldenberg asked Vice Chairperson Kravit who was the one? Town Attorney Rubin advised that it was in favor. Chairperson Kravit apologized. Member Boden responded that he said, Aye. MOTION: A motion to accept Item 8B as submitted was made by Member DeMoss and seconded by Member Goldenberg with the condition of Commission approval. The motioned carried with a unanimous 4 to 0 vote. C. BUILDING/PLANNING PERMIT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCESS PRESENTATION. Vice Chairperson Kravit read the above listed application title into the record and referred the item to Building Official Jeffrey Massie. Building Official Massie presented the process of the item. He began the presentation by stating that the most exciting thing to have to deal with is the process. He apologized in advance if the presentation got a little dry. He said that he would probably rip through it pretty quickly because it was the second time it had been done. That he had done it in front of the Town Commission and at their order. That they wanted it presented to every Board in the Town. He said that he was going to go through it and talk about what Permit Process is, Development Order Process, and a little bit about Variances. He said he was going to talk about all of it, but would start with looking at Contracting in Florida Statute 489, what constitutes an Owner/Builder Exemption because there has been some confusion concerning that. He would look at what constitutes the requirements for a permit application and then also talk about Development Review and Variance requests. So, 489, a contractor. A contractor is a person that is licensed in a particular discipline to do construction. He said that he is always telling applicants when they come to the Building Department that permits usually are submitted by licensed contractors (unintelligible) contract with a fee simple title owner. There are exemptions. The biggest exemption that applies is with regard to an owner/builder, but that language with regard to an owner must personally appear. That is the question about what constitutes an owner/builder exception. So, there's an Attorney General's Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes September 12, 2019 Page 9 of 14 opinion on this concerning legal entities like corporations, LLCs; things of that nature. They are unable to qualify under owner/builder because they lack the ability to personally appear. Remember that's the hard requirement because they have to rely on the agents or a representative of the company and so that's why owner/builder is not an option when a property is owned by a legal corporation. An owner/builder affidavit with some specific language here that reiterates state law requiring construction be done by licensed contractors. However, one and two family you get the exemption; you get the exemption under the owner/builder and it's very clear when you sign the affidavit. You're not licensed. You're not authorized to hire unlicensed people. Once you sign that, you are operating under the exemption, as an owner/builder under 489, you're taking on the role of a contractor. So, all the labor laws, lien laws, all of that stuff applies. So, what about an owner/builder in a condo building. Can we do that? Well remember it's specific to one and two family and that's where it usually always come back to permits are usually submitted by licensed contractors. He said that he couldn't stress that enough, and it's usually where the process is going to start, if work would be done. He said hopefully, you are going to be talking to a contractor. Permit application are usually the Universal County -wide application from Palm Beach. He said he knew that, but it needs to be blown up (referring to the presentation of the screen). In the first box, is what type of permit it is. Is it a primary permit? Is it a sub -permit? Because it could have subs related to a primary permit based upon different trades. Property owner information goes here. Trade information concerning what type of permit this is governing. Structural, plumbing, electrical, whatever the case may be. Information in here regarding value of the job, for calculation of the permit fee. What type of work it is? Is it an addition? Residential repair, whatever? Then down at the bottom is the owner builder exemption again and/or the contractor submitting the application. A little further down is information for the owner. It also says agent including contractor. This is where sometimes the application gets a little tricky because when a sub -permit is issued, you do not need really the owner's signature on a sub -permit application, if you have the owner signature on the primary permit. Because, again, the contractor's is in privity with the owner, so, we're not requiring double information from the owner, which it can get a little goofy down here. Because we have owners that are absent for portions of the year, while work is going on... They have already contracted with a general contractor who is acting as their agent. So, when they're changing a sub or when they're adding a sub, where this gives them that ability to be able to do that because they're in privity with the owner. Then of course the owner's information and again this is mainly on as a primary permit, but it can also apply if the nature of the work is just electrical only. So, we're going to need the owner's signature there because there is no other primary permit. Some more information regarding titleholder bonding companies. This is information that we received, but the biggest thing here is, required by law is warning the owner about a notice of commencement and not paying twice, for a permit. So, steps to obtain a permit. Everybody in unison, hire a licensed contractor. That's number one. Should be first on everyone's list. Then submit construction documents for review. Minimally, construction documents are going to consist of a professionally designed plan, not always, but a scope of work and a schedule of values with a signed contract. This is for your protection, so we can schedule inspections appropriately and review appropriately. I always recommend professionally designed plans, even if your value of your job is under $25,000. It never hurts to get a professional to take a look at your job. Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes Seatember 12, 2019 Pale 10 of 14 Respond to plan review comments in a timely fashion; this is huge. We're usually able to render comments on a plan or a permit application, if they are deficient, relatively quickly. A lot of times, they'll sit for a while. I can't stress enough, that it's the applicant's responsibility to push the process. We're not here to manage your permit application. We're here to do review and inspections accordingly. So, when we issue those review comments, please review or please respond as quickly as possible, then pay your permit fees, schedule inspections, and enjoy. A couple of statistics. This was run back in August back in the end of last month when we were doing this in front of the Commission, but some numbers here of note. Building permits and these are major building permits, are going out on an average of 24 days. That means they're coming in; they're being reviewed and they are being issued in 24 days. Condos in 17 days and that's the bulk of what we do. You can see the number there 105, in condos being submitted and 73 being issued. That single family residence saying same, data is there; a little bit of fudging in the number there because typically, when someone is going through development review like the 40 of was a 4,3443, we're reviewing their building application simultaneously to the planning process. So, that's why those good issued it seems like immediately. We're working on tying that up, so we can get a better metric there. On this page, there is one category that stands out and that would be dock and seawall and boatlift take an average of 49 days. Last year, they were averaging over 60 and it had been that way for a while. But again, this is part of the development review process that slows this issuance down and take sometimes 60 days to get here to this Board to get those things refused. Development and review what we've just been talking about. This is where everything gets fun in table 30-1. You've got a laundry list of items here that require advisory by this Board. Sometimes the decision from the Town Commission, but all of them come to my desk. I have to review them for completeness one way or the other; Mary and I and, as a team. Occasionally, we get the decision-making authority on minor modifications, the site plans, and administrative development or change. The Planning Board, you guys are doing a lot of the advisory work, but again single- family rest with you, at this time. Then the Town Commission has most of the decision-making authority on the Land use Development items above with the exemption of single-family and the subdivision of land. We're going to drill into these in detail. Again, that little dot showing decision- making authority advisory. So, that's where all of this comes from here. You can see there's some advisory opinion on variance possibly were going to make the decision. Possibly is going to go to Town Commission and we're going to talk about that in a minute. Then these little two here, which is basically like go back to go and start over because it means that has to be approved in the manners of the original application. So, where do I get all of these forms? Well, on our website in the Building Department, there's the link and it actually is highlighted down below for Development Order Application. All this information, it's so tiny you can't even see it, but, there's a checklist on the front page of this application then there's granularity as to what type of application it is. There are some procedures that have to be followed, particularly with regard to who does what. What's happening in the Town Clerk's Office. What's happening with the Building Department. What's happening with the public hearings and that's all outlined where nobody can read it on this line. Special exceptions, I can get everybody a copy of this if you like. Special exceptions; this is where things get a little bit tricky because we just went through one and it was an excellent definition of what a special exception is. It's something that is usually not appropriate through a zoning district, Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes September 12, 2019 Page 11 of 14 but it's controlled to such impacts as number of land area, location number, square feet, operating hours, proximity to adjacent residential nonresidential uses. It may not adversely affect the public interest. So, the question about boatlift being a special exception; has been one that has been kicked around and we're kind of working on this because the Town Commission has the final authority on a special exception, as you guys well no. You just issued an advisory opinion on a special exception that is going to go to the Commission, but under Supplemental District Regulations Accessory Marine Facilities are a permitted use, which particularly with lifting, mooring devices docks, things of that nature and the Planning Board has final decision authority over the approval of boatlifts. Well, we're working on this because there's some question about, for continuity sake, what is going to be a process for Marine Facility approval. And, some of the options are that all Marine Facilities, will go through the Special Exception Process; Planning Board, Advisory Opinion with a Commission decision-making authority. I don't know if that's going to be our best option. Marine Facilities continue to be approved by the Planning Board, which is the way it's set up. Marine Facilities apply for permits and they are approved at the Building Department without Board review. I'm all in favor of that or a combination of all of the above, so, the process to be determined, in the near future. So, that's going to be coming back through. I'm sure this Board and also the Town Commission wants the final process is a this set. So, Development Review all of these items on the top of the table. A relatively self-explanatory were Planning Board has advisory opinion and Town Commission holds the decision-making authority and this is all with regard to Land Development matters. Residential planned unit development things of this nature that are considered quote, unquote major impact. Most of the confusion and the development of the matrix is below because we got all these too. We got who makes a decision? I don't know; maybe we're going to do this. We've got variances where it could stop at the Board of Adjustment or must or may go to the Town Commission. We're going to talk about what constitutes that. We've got major modification which is go back to go. Do not pass go. Go right back to the beginning on the site plan and then on a develop and order; not administrative, which is again, is to go back to the beginning. So, start with single family residence, we just did one. Int went pretty well. A Building permit process; however, is separate from this Planning Board approval process and that's where some confusion lies also. I mean we've had applicants believe that once they are approved by the Planning Board, they are ready to start building. Well, that's not the fact because you've got the Permit process, the Building Permit process, and you've got the Development review process. They are separate and one goes before the other. That is why I stepped out with the last applicant to remind them that we've been reviewing their permit and we're going to be ready to issue it in the next probably, 48 hours. Various applications, these are things that just don't fit the mold. They're going to come to the Board of Adjustment rather they're going to the Town Commission or not. There are some that are going to stop at that Variance Board, but this is where we've been talking about the final version of what is low impact versus high impact. We have been talking about ground level variances versus things that affect building height and usage. The square footage of a particular building and we're going to see some of that clearly here under some of these next lines. So, major modification, I think this is where we're going to find some of the direction with regard to the major ground level or low-level impact versus high level impact. But, again, major Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes September 12, 2019 Page 12 of 14 modifications have been coming to this Board, particularly, with regard to boatlifts because accessory structures are considered major modifications to a principal structure. So, it's in our ordinance that way and that's why it comes in front of Planning Board or whatever the original process is it could go to Planning Board. It could go to Board of Adjustment. It could go Town Commission, but typically, boatlifts are coming here. Then minor building modifications are things that we deal with at the desk, interior alterations changes to windows and doors, something doesn't affect building setbacks and similar changes don't affect the intensity and density. So, we've got some verbiage in here that talks about what is major. The building height, number of square feet, the building footprint, the number of units, parking requirements, change in exterior fagade, change in use, change in roofline, change in elevation, all exterior walls, balconies, foundation. So, that's probably where we're going to be going with the high level versus low level impact. Major and minor modifications to existing buildings. Again, it's a go back to the beginning because that's why we have that little two there. So, depending on what it is, it's most likely going to be coming to this Board and then it could be going further. Development order changes; Non -administrative versus Administrative. Non -administrative; these again, are talking about what are major impacts and again, we see that same language. The type of dwelling, number of units, change in architectural style, changing building elevation, increase in building height, changing building footprint, change of use or any similar substantive change, as determined by good oh, me. So, this goes right back to the beginning. The Administrative changes are low impact, if you will, staying with the continuity of the verbiage and they're reviewed at our desk. Subdivisions of Land; again, this is dealing with land use and this straight up comes to this Board, for advisory and Commission for approval. So, you've got land use matters at the top of the board and they're pretty clear. Advisory through this Board and then going to Commission for final approval, as a decision-making authority. We've got all this stuff down here in the bottom that we're cleaning up. The process is relatively straightforward, but it could probably use some tweaking and we're working on that. Then of course, subdivision of land is considered a land use matter. Now, there was a comment when I presented to the Commission concerning impact fees. There's some verbiage in here concerning that and it talks about land dedication requirements. It's in 20-2 of our ordinance, Open Space and Recreational Land. The intent is to provide land or funds or both to be used by the town to provide additional open -space recreation land to meet the need for such open space and facilities created by new residential development. But, the thing to remember is this applies only when a single-family house is going up, as far as single family is concerned. It only applies where there's a lot where it was previously undeveloped. So, we've had a few of those recently. I think we have one coming up, but when you knocking down a building and building a new building, this certainly doesn't apply. Multifamily, I think it applies across the board and again single-family unit, which is built upon a lot, which is part of a subdivision, but which had not been built upon a time. The subdivision was originally subdivided into lots. I think Mr. Rothberg probably knows about that because he built on a vacant lot and there were significant impact fees. So, and I can review those with anyone at their leisure. So, I thank you for your attention on a very exciting topic. I can answer any questions that anyone may have. Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes September 12, 2019 Page 13 of 14 Vice Chairperson Kravit ask if anyone on the Board had any questions (crosstalk). Member DeMoss ask if similar processes for basically all the towns? Boca does basically the same process? Ocean Ridge? Building Official Massie responded, essentially, yes. In principal yes. Some communities work with a development council or a DRC type process, which is an appointed Board of individuals and then staff providing input. The way that we do it here, as far as having the Planning Board and every town has a Planning Board. It's going to come to you guys eventually; at some point, but typically there is a development process that happens concerning land use and this zoning code and doesn't met all of those requirements. Then the permit process being separate, but running kind of congruently, but I don't think our process is a substantially different from any of our neighbors. Member Boden said that the only question he had was when he read this, of course, it tightened his brain in a knot for 2 or 3 times, but it did finally come clear. He said that he wondered when it came clear, when it would be possible to have like a one-page list of things that are supposed to be done and you might refer to see page, so and so for this and see page so and so for that, but it would be a one-page shot. Building Official Massie responded that he thought that we had it in separate areas, and they were working on it. Member Boden said he agreed that that is what he is talking about. If we could pull it into one shot, that was like the table of contents for this document. It might be easier for people who have the easily tangle brain to sort it out. Building Official Massie stated that he thought that we can certainly work towards that and come up with something that would be reasonable. I know that the flow chart has been kicked around and they are still working to develop something that's going to streamline the process. The bottom line, permitting and planning are kind of two different areas. Even though there is a process for one and a process for the other, I think we can come up with something that's going to help. Member Boden stated that he means looking at a consumer thing maybe not even the builder, but that the individual so they at least have some concept of what's going through. Maybe knowing what their builders going through would help them be a little more patient. Building Official Massie responded he is trying to get a few more things online. That he is working on providing more of what he'd say real-time information on applications that applicants/owners can go and see where their order is in the process. He asked, has it gone through this review? Is it stuck in this review? Are comments needed here? He stated, as he moves toward that online solution, which might be getting it soon, they will get that certainly squared away and will make that very clear, at that point. Vice Chairperson Kravit asked the Board if they had any other questions? There were none from the Board. Vice Chairperson Kravit ask the Deputy Clerk to read the announcements. 9. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Deputy Town Clerk Beverl�ght made the following announcements: • Town Commission Regular Meeting— September 19,2019— 1:30 PM • Town Commission Special / Second Public Budget Meeting — September 19, 2019 — 5:01 PM • Town Commission Workshop Meeting— September 24, 2019 — 1:30 PM Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes September 12, 2019 Page 14 of 14 10. ADJOURNMENT: Vice Chairperson Kravit called for a motion to adjourn. MOTION: Member DeMoss moved to adjourn the meeting. Member Goldenberg seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. The Meeting was adjourned at 10:27 a.m. APPROVED at the October 10, 2019 Planning 1 Beverly Wrig�t Deputy Town Clerk Transcribed by: B Vj--- /0//0//!? Date s i ®11 d ' 1 0 4��MhTfy/ ATTEST' `e S�• I t a°, Beverly Wrig�t Deputy Town Clerk Transcribed by: B Vj--- /0//0//!? Date