Loading...
2019.12.12_PB_Minutes_RegularI • TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Town Hall / Commission Chambers Date: December 12, 2019 3614 South Ocean Boulevard Time: 9:30 a.m. Highland Beach, Florida 1. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson David Axelrod called the Planning Board Meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. He asked all present to please silence all cell phones/devices. 2. PRESENT UPON ROLL CALL: Member Ilyne Mendelson Member Brian DeMoss Member Eric Goldenberg Member Harry Adwar Vice Chairperson Michael Kravit Chairperson David Axelrod Town Attorney Leonard Rubin ABSENT: Member John Boden 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Board Members led the Pledge of Allegiance. 4. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA: Chairperson Axelrod asked if there were any additions, deletions or corrections to the Agenda. There were none. MOTION: Member Adwar moved to accept the Agenda as presented. Member Goldenberg seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. 5. SWEARING IN OF THE PUBLIC Chairperson Axelrod asked those who were to give testimony in the following subjects to please stand and raise their right hands to be sworn in. Deputy Town Clerk Beverly Wright swore in those who were to give testimony, during the meeting. Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes December 12, 2019 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Page 2 of 23 Chairperson Axelrod advised that public comments would be limited to five minutes and if a comment was related to subjects that would be presented under new business, to waive that time and give comment at that time. He asked if there were any public comments to be made? There were none. 7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: A. October 10, 2019, Regular Minutes B. November 14, 2019, Regular Minutes Chairperson Axelrod advised that the minutes from October 10, 2019 and November 14, 2019 Regular Minutes needed to be approved. MOTION: Member Adwar moved to accept the minutes as presented. Vice Chairperson Kravit seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. 8. OLD BUSINESS: There was no Old Business. 9. NEW BUSINESS: A. PROPOSED ORDINANCE ALLOWING ACCESSORY MARINE FACILITIES AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 30 "ZONING CODE" SECTION 30-68, "SUPPLEMENTAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS" TO ALLOW ACCESSORY MARINE STRUCTURES TO REMAIN ON PROPERTY AFTER A PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE HAS BEEN DEMOLISHED OR REMOVED; PROVIDING FOR CONDITIONS; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND CODIFICATION; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Chairperson Axelrod read Item 9A into the record. He asked if there were any ex parte communications to disclose; there were none. He opened the Public Hearing and asked Town Planner Mary McKinney to approach the podium. Town Planner McKinney advised that the Ordinance was a proposed Ordinance to address docks that individual property owners would like to keep remained if they are in good shape, after a house is demolished. She said that currently, when a demolition permit is issued by the Town, for Principal Structure, that is a house, the applicant is required to remove all Accessory Structures to include the dock, since they are accessory to the Principal Structure. She said by definition, Accessory Structures can only be permitted as accessory to a Principal Structure. Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 23 December 12, 2019 Town Planner McKinney also advised that recently, the Town received requests that property owners who intended to build new structures on lots, where demolition occurred, keep existing docks on the lots. She read into records that on July 30, 2019, the Town Commission discussed the option of what the circumstances would be in order for the dock to remain after the Principal Structure was demolished. She said that at that meeting, the Town Commission directed Staff to prepare regulations that would prevent the docks to remain. Staff analyzed the situation and prepared regulation with conditions that were included in the memo and the Ordinance before the Board today. The condition that could be considered is, Accessory Marine Facilities may be allowed to return property where a Principal Structure has been demolished to remove, if the following conditions are met: A.) At the time the demolition permit is issued, the Town's Building Official certifies, after inspections, that the Accessory Marine Structure is structurally sound. B.) The property owners certify that he/she will be applying for a Building Permit to construct a new Principal Structure within one year following the demolition of the Principal Structure. C.) Within 60 days after the demolition of the Principal Structure, the entire property is tilled and landscaped with sod or other appropriate material, as determined by the Building Official. D.) Within 60 days after demolition of the Principal Structure, the entire property is fenced with a six-foot chain-link fence with scrim screening. E.) No parking will be allowed on the property, and at least two No Trespassing signs must be mounted to the chain-link fence surrounding the property. 1.) The exception time frames would be; if the property owner does not have a Building Permit to construct a new Principal Structure within one year following the demolition of the Principal Structure, then the Accessory Marine Structure must be demolished or removed within 60 days of the expiration of the one-year deadline, unless, the Town Manager extends the date for a good cause showing. 2.) In no event may the Town Manager extend the time frame for applying for a Building Permit to construct a new Principal Structure beyond 180 days. 3.) A Certificate of Occupancy, in no event may an Accessory Marine Structure remain on property if a new Principal Structure has not been constructed and a Certificate of Occupancy has not been issued within four years of the date the Principal Structure is demolished or removed. Town Planner McKinney advised that was the entire body of the Proposed Ordinance and that they were available for questions. Chairperson Axelrod stated he wanted to understand if it had been looked at by Commission and passed on to the Planning Board for review and recommendations? Town Planner McKinney Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 23 December 12, 2019 advised that what was done, was Commission was given a memo to include all the items and advised by Commission to go direct regulations. Member Mendelson asked if it was transferable and provided the following example: "If I go demolish my structure, I have my Accessory Use and then I sell it to you. Do I sell it to you with that in place? The new guys get the same ability to... the time period? When do they start? How do they work? Town Planner McKinney responded, yes and said that it would have to comply with all the time frames. If verbiage "if you transfer the property, that those time still exists." She said, it can be done. Member Mendelson asked, from the day of the first... Town Planner McKinney, Principal Structure... Member Mendelson asked, not from the date of transfer? Town Planner McKinney, responded, no. Member Mendelson advised that it is one thing that she would want to clarify. However, it still makes her a little queasy that if it gets transferred, there is a four-year period from once they comply with the year of getting the permit, that it can still stay there three more years without anything being finished and they can pass it on to somebody else... Town Planner McKinney advised that there were houses in Highland Beach, which it is almost the norm now; that they go well beyond two years for construction; up to three years. So, at the four-year time frame, at least it would be appropriate. She said it could be shortened, but there were a lot of houses that were being built, even now, that go even beyond three years. Member Mendelson stated that her worry was that someone would find ways to abuse the system. Like the regular guy who wanted to keep the dock and wanted to build a house and did all this, within four years, is one thing. If the new guy comes in and he has like a different agenda..., she wondered if Town Planner McKinney could put more guidelines into the Ordinance; to maybe say that they have to apply for the permit within a year and then they have within a certain amount of time. So, that at least it would be known that someone was building a house opposed to trying to use the system to do something else. Town Planner McKinney advised that the verbiage could be add to say they have to start within a certain amount of time, from the time they receive a Building Permit. Member DeMoss asked if chain -linked fences were necessary? Town Planner McKinney responded, that with the parking issues that the Town is having, especially with construction, it keeps contractors from parking on the property, which is currently occurring. That the chain-link fence with scrim screening helped. She said that it does not have to be done, but right now there is a problem with people parking on lots that are not built on yet, that do not have fencing. Member DeMoss stated that 4205 Intracoastal has a dock on the back of the property, which needs fixing dramatically. He asked how would that be in the proposal? Town Planner McKinney advised that the dock that is proposed to remain has to be inspected by the Building Official and if it is in any kind of disrepair, one would not be able to get an approval from the Town. Member Goldenberg asked how it would be enforced. Town Planner McKinney advised that a record would need to be kept of who received the demolition, which the Town has. Member Goldenberg responded that his main concern was enforcement on everything that is passed and asked how it would be enforced. He said, like the work property that would be discussed, the dock in disrepair; what happens? Is there a demand that they have to take it down? How is that going to be enforced.? Town Planner McKinney advised that the Town has Code Enforcement and they would cite people and give people violations. She said that it would be a certain amount of time to either repair it, to bring it to code or take it to the Code Enforcement Board. Member Goldberg stated that fundamentally, he had no issue with that, if the dock and the lift is in good shape once inspected. He said he thought it would be a reasonable thing. He said, he just wanted to make sure Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 23 December 12, 2019 that it does not slip through the cracks as discussed earlier, before the meeting, water puddling on the highway; that it is definitely enforced. Vice Chairperson Kravit advised Town Planner McKinney that he was concerned with unintended consequences and zoning Ordinances that become somewhat heavy handed. He asked, if he purchased a house or property that had a house and dock on it and the house was old, but rebuilt and there were new dolphin pilings, and a boat lift and the house was knocked down and the intention was to have drawings made and to build a house and then a recession hits, like it did 10 or 15 years ago and it takes seven or eight years for his business to recover and cannot get the house built yet. He has a $150,000 dock, pilings, lifts, whatever these things cost, sitting there for years and it has to be torn out. He said that it seemed to him to be an overreach by the authority having jurisdiction and that it could be an unintended consequence. If the lift and the dock and the boat dock piles are structurally sound, are not and eyesore, not unsafe, the property is grassed, a fence is put around the property and have the fabric scrims on it, which he does not have and issue with, he feels it keeps vagrants and people from dumping on it also. He does not see any reason why the dock and the lift couldn't remain as long as it was maintained and kept in good condition and not used as a rental dock. He asked Town Planner McKinney if she could address that? Town Planner McKinney advised that at present even if a dock is in good condition, it is an Accessory Use and when a demolition permit is issued for Principal Structure, everything must go. She said that that is the way it is right now. There is no exception for keeping it. Therefore, this Ordinance actually allows for individuals to keep the dock for a certain amount of time and right now, they don't have that ability. Even if it is in great shape, it is still an Accessory Use that would have to go. Vice Chairperson Kravit replied that they could apply for a variance to that, he imagined. If they wanted to keep it currently, they could keep it as an exception perhaps? Even though it would be a nonconforming use under the zoning Ordinance? Town Planner McKinney responded, that it was not a hardship and it would not qualify with variance criteria. Vice Chairperson Kravit stated that but knocking down a $150,000 worth of viable improvements could be considered a hardship? Town Attorney Rubin advised that a hardship could not be financial and was not sure that a variance could be obtained because it would be a use variance and that use variance could not be granted. Purely financial, does not qualify. Vice Chairperson Kravit stated that there is a defective Ordinance now and if it is going to be rewritten, he thinks it just made sense to rewrite it in a manner that would be fair with unintended consequences. Town Planner McKinney advised that it could be thought about more to see what kind of language that may be able to be added to address the situation and that maybe the Town Manager could give more of an exception for something like that. She advised that it would be looked at and see what kind of language could be added to address it. Member Goldenberg added that his concern was that if you say, I'm having a hardship; my business is down; and one has to do it, is a C.O. (Certificate of Occupancy) needed to put on a boat for the next four years and still use it? He said that he thought that would be wrong and that the concern he had is that there would be a beautiful dock and lift and if one wanted to use it all the time, even though one doesn't have it approved (Certificate of Occupancy), to use the property, that all of a sudden, if a rental dock, it would be that one owns the property; one wanted to use the dock. He said that he did not have an issue with a good structure being left with the intention of building within the four years because it forced one to move ahead. Now, if construction, because of a recession and the building is half done, that is a different story, but you cannot use a dock unless Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 23 December 12, 2019 the properties is improved. Town Planner McKinney advised that you would not be able to park there. Member Goldberg stated that unless you had a neighbor or something. Town Planner McKinney advised that was outside the scope of what can be controlled. She advised that if there was someone renting it, they would be in violation of the Town's code because docks cannot be rented. Chairperson Axelrod asked about an ownership split into a Unity of Title and advised that there is one area where there is a dock and had that dock been demolished or had not been discussed at all? Town Planner McKinney asked if it was under a Unity of Title? Chairperson Axelrod said that the Unity of Title was broken. Town Planner McKinney advised that she could not remember. Chairperson Axelrod said that there was a Unity of Title and they went back and forth... They agreed to separate the Unity of Title on the space. He said that originally, there was some discussion that he was going to build something. Now, it was not a discussion. That was not agreed to and that dock is standing there on a situation. Member Goldenberg added with a lift. Town Planner McKinney stated that when the Unity was taken to the Town Commission to request release then they would then have to either demolish the dock or have it inspected per this Ordinance and then have a one-year time frame. Member Mendelson advised that she would be in favor of it if Town Planner McKinney came back to the Board and tighten the Ordinance up a little bit as discussed. She said that she would not be in favor of it, if it was left open ended. She said she did not think it could be monitored if someone is renting it out or not. She said that right now, you can't have it all. It is being changed to give a reasonable time period. She said that she would not be in favor of an open ended..., that you could leave the dock forever and not build a house. Chairperson Kravit stated he thought it should not be open ended. However, he thought that if a four-year period was on it, maybe have one option of the second four-year period. After that, it has to go away. He said that there should be something that he thinks that is not quite as restrictive. He said that a defective Ordinance is being fixed and to try to fix it, so that the new Ordinance is really workable. He asked Town Planner McKinney if she knew what other local cities had in their Ordinance for dock destructions? He said that he did not do a lot of residential work, but that in years past, when he did, in Ft. Lauderdale and Pompano, there was a lot of lots that were demolished with houses on it, where the docks were in good shape and they remained unconstructed because the property did not sell or whatever. And that for 10, 12, 15 years, the lots were grassed and they were not obscene to look at. It was a nice -looking open field and docks were structurally sound with no issue. Town Planner McKinney advised that as far as she knew, an accessory to the Principal Structure is the same everywhere and that legitimately, it should have probably been demolished. Whether they have a separate code, which she said she is not familiar with, to address keeping it and that they may, but to her knowledge, there were not any codes that she knew of that allowed to keep Accessory Structure. Town Attorney Rubin advised that North Palm Beach had and they allowed them to remain. He advised it had to be landscaped, empty, but they did allow the dock to remain. He advised that it was the exception rather the rule. Chairperson Axelrod introduced the new Town Planner Ingrid Allen and asked her with her experience in Boca, if she had ever come across similar situations? Town Planner Ingrid advised Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 23 December 12, 2019 that she might not be able to contribute much. She introduced herself to everyone as the new Town Planner and advised that she had been with the Town for just over two weeks. She advised that she had reviewed the item and said that her last job was with the City of Boca Raton and that she was a Senior Planner there for six years and really did not deal much with docks. She stated that this was truly a Building Permit issue. She stated that she was dealing mostly with current Development and Comprehensive Long -Range type development. She said that she did not really deal too much with single family homes. Every once in a while, when they had a proposed home or duplex east of the Coastal Construction Control Line, she would review the plans, for single family home. She said that she really could not say too much. She said that she did not have too much expertise. She said that she was obviously reading the Code and learning the Code with regards to the Accessory Marine Structures and could not contribute too much, and said, as stated she was familiarizing herself with the Code and if it came back to the Planning Board, she would obviously, be a little bit more familiar, but really could not contribute; that she was just really learning and listening at that point. Member Mendelson said that it seemed to her that where they were was is that a couple of them had asked Town Planner McKinney if certain changes could be made, and she thought what they needed to do now was to let the Planning Board revise the proposed language, taking into account the comments and then at the next meeting, she was sure that they would all look at it. She said that if it were too long or short for her, she would probably have a problem and felt that there needed to be revised language. Chairperson Axelrod opened the floor for Public Comment. Evalyn David 4740 S Ocean stated that a point of order for Chairperson Axelrod was that he was right about the property he spoke of earlier; and that he was correct, part of the way. She said that it was unified with one lot and that unification was broken and then it was unified with another lot; so, it was legal. Rick Greenwald Tranquility Drive, gave the following public comment. He said that he thought in general that this made a lot of sense and there wasn't much point to him in tearing down perfectly good structures, just to tear them down. He said there needed to be some time limits to be discussed. He said that his main comment really related to something he thought was not addressed in the Ordinance. That is what happens if the Accessory Structure is physically sound, was legally put in at the time it was put in, but with subsequent changes in Codes and Zoning, probably would not be approved at present. He said that mainly, it is too close to a property line, compared to what some of the changes in Item 9B that would be considered later today or the structure is too large or there is something else that doesn't comply with current codes, but was a perfectly good structure. He said, to him, it was still a compromise, still more liberal than before, where everything had to be torn down if it was not in compliance with current Codes, even if it's structurally sound. He said that it would seem to him that it might be used as an opportunity to get any new structure in compliance with current codes at the time that the new dwellings were going up. Doug Hillman 4748 S Ocean stated that he goes back to the unintended consequences that Michael Kravit brought up numerous times. He said that he totally agreed with it, but if there was a vacant lot that was appropriately landscaped and one would need to define what appropriate was and there Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 23 December 12. 2019 was a lovely dock that was in good order and was maintained properly, what is wrong with that? Why does one have to build a home on it? Why is that a requirement? What's wrong with the dock on a lot that does not have a house? There is three miles of canals in the town. The community is a boating community. What is the sudden requirement to have to build homes there? He asked why the Town has that requirement? He said what is wrong with having lovely lots with docks. He defined the definition of a lovely lot was not a vacant lot with a chained fence that had some grass. He said that it would have to be appropriately landscaped and that fitted into the community. He asked what was the problem with that? He said that if there were nice trees on it, nice landscaping on it, and a dock. Chairperson Axelrod asked if there were any other comments? He stated that a motion was needed on the subject. MOTION: Member Mendelson made a motion that the item be tabled until the Planning Staff comes back to the Planning Board with some changes to the language to take into some of the comments of today. Member DeMoss seconded the motion. Chairperson Axelrod asked if anybody had any other comments? Vice Chairperson advised that the points were really good points and that under the South Florida Building Code, when a building or property is being renovated or modified, if 50% of the aggregate area of the structure is modified within any 24 -month period, the entire structure must be brought up to code. He said that he did not remember how that affected Accessory Structures, but he believed it did. He said if a new.house was going to be built on a property, the property and seawall would need to be raised to meet FEMA guidelines. He said that that might mean that the dock had to come up to code as well. He said that he believed that there was a vehicle by which everything on the property would have to be corrected, to include drainage and landscaping. He also spoke about issues with a chain -linked fence and if he was the neighbor next door even if it had the fabric green, whatever someone can put a big picture view your house. He said that he also seen communities whereby they required some posts to be put in every 8 feet with a little piece of chain hanging up cross it. Something that looks nice that kept cars from being able to park on the lot. He said that he thought that the chain linked fence, 5, 6 or 8 feet tall, is something that he would not want next door to him for any extended period of time. He said that he realized that today was his last day on the Board, as he was leaving the Town and that his opinion may not be all that valuable, but it is always better from a wisdom point of view to be open and flexible. Chairperson Axelrod asked if anybody had any other comments? Member Goldenberg advised that community input on what kind of border protection for the lot would be very helpful. He said that he thought the Board was trying to do the right thing and not be too restrictive, in terms of if a dock and a lift are in compliance, not to have it abused because obviously and unfortunately, there have to be rules made like in every condo, because somebody would definitely try to step out of bounds. He said that he thought that's what the Board was trying to do with the Town Planner's input; try to do the right thing. He said as Member Mendelson stated, it needed to be cleaned up a little bit. Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 23 December 12, 2019 Chairperson Axelrod asked if anybody had any other comments and then asked for a role call from Deputy Clerk Beverly Wright. ROLL CALL: Member Mendelson - Yes Member DeMoss - Yes Member Goldenberg - Yes Member Adwar - Yes Vice Chairperson Kravit - Yes Chairperson Axelrod - Yes The motion carried 6 to 0. B. PROPOSED ORDINANCE GIVING PLANNING BOARD FINAL AUTHORITY ON MARINE ISSUES AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 6 "BUILDING AND STRUCTURES," ARTICLE V "SEAWALLS; BULKHEADS, RETAINING WALLS" AND AMENDING CHAPTER 30 "ZONING CODE," ARTICLE IV "ZONING DISTRICTS" TO ALLOW THE PLANNING BOARD TO MAKE FINAL DECISIONS CONCERNING GRANTING APPROVALS FOR SEAWALLS, BULKHEADS, RETAINING WALLS AND VARIOUS MARINE FACILITIES; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND CODIFICATION; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Chairperson Axelrod read Item 913 into the record. He called Town Planner Mary McKinney to approach the podium. Town Planner McKinney read into records that currently there were various processes in Code pertaining to review and an approval of Marine Facilities. The various processes have caused confusion about applicants and staff and that she could definitely certify that some go to the Planning Board for final approval, some was voted to go to Planning Board for advisory to Town Commission, and some goes directly to the Town Commission. She said that on July 30, 2019, Town Commission discussed this issue and directed staff to prepare regulations that simplified the process for approval of green facilities. So, staff prepared regulations that would simplify the approval process from Marine Facilities, such as docks, boatlift, bulkheads, and seawalls. The application for Marine Facility approval, would be processed as special exception that is with notice an advertising, with final approval by the Planning Board. The Special Exception Process requires that applicants be advertised for Public Hearing and Public Notices be mailed to property owners within 500 feet, with final approval by the Planning Board. She said, the minutes from the July 30'hTown Commission meeting is attached and staff of course is giving you this Ordinance for review and recommendation and stated that she was available for any questions. Chairperson Axelrod asked the Board if they had any questions? Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 23 December 12, 2019 Member DeMoss ask a question of Town Planner McKinney regarding page 5, section 6, 128-B, the seawall west of A 1 A shall be excess of plus 6 feet. Planner McKinney advised that that exists in the Town's current Code. Member DeMoss commented about the water leave/seawall will be six feet above the normal level of the water and asked Town Planner McKinney was that correct? Town Planner McKinney stated that it was something to that affect. Member DeMoss asked who made that determination? Town Planner McKinney responded the Building Official. Member DeMoss advised that on a hightide day the water could be seen above the seawall. Town Planner McKinney advised that that was everywhere. Member DeMoss asked if 6 feet was reasonable? Town Planner McKinney advised that might need to be addressed in the near future because FEMA is putting out new maps and she thinks with the new maps that it would change. Chairperson Axelrod advised the discussion was the approval of the Ordinance and that he agreed with Member DeMoss' concerns, but it was not for discussion at that point and time. Member Goldenberg said that it had been discussed and that. the Board should go ahead and approve it. Chairperson Axelrod's commented that the Board had discussed the subject and had to pass it on to Commission. He said he definitely thought this was a long time coming and he would definitely approve. Chairperson Axelrod asked if there were any Public Comments? Rick Greenwald Tranquility Drive commented that he applauded everybody for tackling this and that the whole issue had been kind of the wild, wild West for a long time. He said that he applauded the efforts of everyone for plowing through these things because when he read through it, that he had a few questions that he wanted to address today. That there had been some changes and was not clear about how enforcement... and that some of them he was not really sure what the changes meant. 1. Setbacks of boats, which used to say. Your boat can be docked and it can be up to the property line. It shouldn't protrude past your property line. The recommended new Ordinance would be that it can only extend up to 10 feet to property line. That would limit the size of boats that can be on a given property. So, the boats would be 20 feet smaller theoretically, than they are today. He said that it should be understood before approval. He asked who enforces it and is it going to be a neighbor complaint to turn them in? He said that he knew for sure that there is no enforcement now because violations are seen all the time. 2. Perpendicular docking, which currently is not allowed; would be allowed by special consideration. He said that what wasn't clear to him was the length of the vessels. Whether it applied to smaller things, such as personal watercraft, kayaks, and paddleboards. Things like that that are currently in fairly significant usage. They are often docked perpendicular to seawall. 3. Seven (7) section H, D. He said that it says all Marine Facilities shall require a Building Permit. He asked what about things such as floating docks, floating lifts, structures which has technologies improve to becoming too much wider usage. These are seen all the time now; both for significant size boats and small things; personal watercraft, paddleboards, kayaks canoes, etc. He advised that as he currently understand it. The structures do not Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 23 December 12, 2019 require a permit. Somebody at this juncture, seen all over town and certainly in Boca Raton. They are really all over the place when you drive down the Intracoastal Waterway. They are typically, plastic PVC attached to the seawall extending out a little bit. They are removeable as opposed to the concrete pilings that you see. They have not required permits in the past. He asked is that going to continue to be the case or existing ones going to be grandfathered, when houses sell, as he tried to talk about under 9A. He said that there were a lot of questions in here and that the document was complicated. He said that he applauded everybody for working on it, but was not sure that it had been gone through carefully enough, but the least sophisticated consumer can really understand what's going on, when looking at the Ordinance. Member Mendelson gave a point of clarification asking if the change only dealing with the Planning Board working on certain things, as oppose to today first or final, as opposed to the Commission and going back and forth. The issues that were brought up are issues that were always in the Code and advised they were not changing now. The Planning Board was not voting to change anything or to leave anything alone. That all they were doing is changing who gets to decide under what's in the current Code and; therefore, the Planning Board's decision will be final. Town Attorney Rubin advised that there is a change to mooring and that the 10 foot is new. Town Planner McKinney added that a setback for boats to be 10 foot from the property line because a lot of complaints were received from people, when people were bringing in 50 -foot boats, really huge boats close to the property line where people in the adjacent house could not see anything, but a boat. She said that is why the 10 foot setback was included. She said that if someone had an 80 foot lot, which is typical of waterfront lots, and 10 feet, 20 feet 60 feet, would be left and that would still be a pretty big size boat to have (crosstalk ensued). Member Mendelson questioned if it was appropriate for the Board to be doing? Town Planner McKinney said, yes, definitely. Chairperson Axelrod stated that it sounded like the Code would be changed (crosstalk ensued). Member Mendelson asked if it was the only place the Code was changing (crosstalk ensued)... opposed to the process? Town Planner McKinney advised, yes. Chairperson Axelrod stated that he was under the same impression that basically this was just changing the Boards ability (crosstalk ensued). Town Planner McKinney advised that at present it was so convoluted that it was even difficult for professionals to... Member Mendelson advised that before everyone voted they all had to decide whether or not they wanted to be voting on something that includes a change to the 10 -foot... and asked what it was before? Town Planner McKinney advised that there was no setback on the property line. Town Attorney Rubin advised that the property line had extended. Town Planner McKinney stated that it was probably 25 to 30 years (crosstalk ensued). Member Mendelson said that it was not a bad or good idea. She said that she was just saying that from their point of view; she thought they needed to understand that they were making this substantive (crosstalk ensued). Town Planner McKinney said that the Town Commission would make the final recommendation on accepting everything and that yes, it was included. Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 23 December 12, 2019 Chairperson Axelrod asked if anyone else wanted to make a comment? Member Goldenberg advised that he thought that the setback was a reasonable thing. He said that he thought that if someone owned a property in someone put a boat right up to the property line and it was 30 -feet high, 3 or 4 decks high, it would be interfering with someone's lifestyle. And that secondly, perpendicular docks, if it is a hazard to navigation, then it could not be done anyway. He said that he appreciated what Mr. Greenwald was saying, but there had to be some restrictions to hazard navigation and that would actually come from the state or... Town Planner McKinney advised the Army Corp and the DEP. Member Goldenberg said that he was pleased with the way it was laid out right now and would definitely vote for it. Chairperson Axelrod asked if there were any other comments? Vice Chairperson Kravit asked Town Planner McKinney how it would affect Mr. and Mrs. Boater who had a boat and currently exceeds the 10 foot setback? Once the Ordinance is passed, would they be grandfathered, as long as that boat is there? And what happens, would they have to sell the boat? Town Planner McKinney stated that right now they would be nonconforming to the setbacks and when they changed, they would have to comply with the Code, unless, the Commission decided they wanted it to be enforced on everyone and gives them a certain amount of time to comply with it, which Commission can do that, if they so choose. Chairperson Axelrod asked if based upon if it were a hardship can a variance be requested? (Crosstalk ensued). He asked if they had a boat that was currently not within the Code and the Code was passed. Would they have to sell their boat? Town Planner McKinney responded, no. That it would be nonconforming to the setback and until they changed, then they would have to comply with Code, unless, Town Commission decided they wanted everybody to comply with this within a certain amount of time, which they can do, but the whole Town would have to be noticed multiple times that this is the law; that can be done to any law you make it enforceable after a certain amount of time; however, that was not being recommended. Member Goldenberg said that he thought it was to give the Board the final vote. Town Planner McKinney advised that it was (crosstalk ensued), but that it had to go to Commission. Member Goldenberg said for them to give the final say yes, it is okay. Town Planner McKinney responded, yes. Member Goldenberg asked if when it comes back, they can say the people that will be nonconforming after this is passed, can be grandfathered in? Town Planner McKinney responded, that they would be. Town Planner McKinney advised that it was the way it is written that they do final review. Vice Chairperson Kravit asked the Board Attorney what his opinion was on the nonconforming use of the boat? If the boat is title or documented to that person, how would it be known how long the boat has been there? And that it opened a bunch of consequences... Town Attorney Rubin advised that when they were discussing it, he was thinking how would they document. He said that he guessed that they could show ownership of the boat before the effective date of the Ordinance. They would have to show that if it is a nonconforming vessel. He advised that he understood the concern on that it could be a little tough to administer. Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 23 December 12, 2019 Town Planner McKinney advised that most Codes are very difficult (Crosstalk ensured/unintelligible). Vice Chairperson Kravit asked if it would be wise to place a nonconforming use exception that says that if the boat... If a boat is documented, for example, in the Marshall Islands, how would it be known how long that boat has been at the dock here? Was it just moved last week? He said that there was really no way to enforce that. Town Planner McKinney responded that the Town had Code Enforcement and that it was difficult for any violation on private property and that that was difficult to see any. The only way that some violations were known is that could not be seen from the street; was that somebody called and alerted the town, which is one of the best ways for Code Enforcement, because as soon as somebody brings a boat in right up to the property line, most likely the neighbors are going to call the Town to talk about it. Member Goldenberg stated that when it is documented, it is dated. Whether it is docked down at the Boca Hotel or it is brought here. If they own it, they own it. Chairperson Axelrod stated that a lot of them thought that they were just voting on accepting the Ordinance. He stated that maybe the other subject should be split off into a separate issue. He said that he did not know how much it was discussed by the Commission regarding the 10 foot subject, but if it had not really been discussed, it seemed to him that there were questions arising that this was added on to the Board just accepting (unintelligible). Town Planner McKinney responded that it could be spilt up, but gave the reason of inclusion was because of so many complaints from people, who could no longer see things and were having difficulty selling their property because it was advertised as a waterfront. They come out to the property and they are like we cannot even see anything, so, that is why it was included. She, said it could be split and brought back and just send the approval process forward and bring setback process back to the Board to talk about. Chairperson Axelrod said that what also comes into play is the height of the boat when it is on a lifted, which has been brought up by the Commission, recently. And, he said that if the Town Planner was talking about that, it should be a whole grouping the (crosstalk ensued). Town Planner McKinney advise that heights weren't discussed. Chairperson Axelrod said that the Town Planner should bring up something about it, which is not in the Code, about blocking of the visual/view being a problem. Member Mendelson asked that since it is going to the Commission for final approval anyway, what if it were broken down like... make a motion that the process part will be approved, but as to the setback, it is being sent back to the Commission undecided by the Board (crosstalk ensued). Town Planner McKinney said that (unintelligible) the Ordinance and then bringing the setback back to the Planning Board for discussion, because the Planning Board should really give recommendation to the Commission (crosstalk ensued). She said that it could be slipped out to send everything the approval process (crosstalk ensued) Commission. Chairperson Axelrod called on the Town Attorney who advised that what needed to be done was to recommend removing that and then it would come back as a (inaudible). Member Mendelson said that what she recommended. Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 23 December 12, 2019 Chairperson Axelrod asked if there were any other comments? Dough Hillman stated that it was an excellent idea to split it and would urge the Board to go to some of the homes that are on the canal, take a look at this because 25% is being cut out. Maybe it should be a 5 foot and not a 10 foot. He said that 10 foot on either side takes 20 feet out of 80 feet and that is a whole lot. He said that it also takes it out of the other side and now you have a 20 foot gap, which is nice to have more space to view, but, what does that do to the whole picture? He said that the other thing was he did not know if there were any boater on the Board and asked were there? He asked is it now a 50 foot boat on the waterline or is bow to stern? He said that you had to be careful on how it was defined. If you go bow to stern, the waterline might be as low as 42 feet, so to be careful on the definitions side as well. But urged the group to go to the canals, take a look at this, see if in fact they wanted to do the 10 foot. He said that they might want to reduce or expand it. He said to go look at the subject, so it is known specifically what the Board is looking at and what they were talking about. Chairperson Axelrod asked if there would be a motion made? MOTION: Member Mendelson made a motion to split the Ordinance proposed change; that the Planning Board approve the change in the process, so that the Planning Board is the final say, as it is set forth in the proposal; and that the part that has to do with the change in the Code of 10 foot setbacks, for boats, be deleted. Member Goldenberg seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Member Mendelson - Yes Member Goldenberg - Yes Member DeMoss - Yes Member Adwar - Yes Vice Chairperson Kravit - Yes Chairperson Axelrod - Yes The motion carried 6 to 0. C. APPLICATION NO. 19-0003 (JOHN DYKINGA, OCEAN ONE MARINE) APPLICATION BY JOHN DYKINGA, OCEAN ONE MARINE, FOR APPROVAL TO EXTEND A 19'8" DOCK BY 14'55' FOR A TOTAL OF 34'35" AND INSTALL TWO (2) 20,000 LB BOATLIFTS ON DOCK #5 IN THE VILLA MAGNA DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 2727 SOUTH OCEAN BOULEVARD. Chairperson Axelrod read Item 9C into the record. He called Town Planner Mary McKinney to approach the podium. Town Planner McKinney read into records that the request was by John Dykinga of Ocean One Marine and that he represented Joseph Gallitto and David Drettman, for approval of 14.55 foot- Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 23 December 12. 2019 long by 5 feet wide extension to slip number 5. She gave an overview of the site plan advising of the location and the proposed boatlift setup. She advised that there would be a 20,000 pound capacity boat lift and slipped in 5A and a 20,000 pound capacity boatlift in slipped 5B and that it was within the Villa Magna Condominium Development at 2727 S Ocean Boulevard. She advised that the slips were located on the west side of State Road A 1 A and the applicant had obtained both Army Corp and DEP Permits. And, that they had obtained approval by the Villa Magna Association and the requirement of the Code section 30-68H (unintelligible) to be installed, dolphins, freestanding pilings, boatlifts and moorings shall comply with the standards of the Code that is the installation, shall be subject to approval by the Planning Board at an Advertised Public Hearing, which this is. And that the Planning Board shall have final decision-making authority over the granting of an approval for dolphins, freestanding pilings, boatlifts and moorings. Appeals of the final decision of the Planning Board shall be filled in the 15th Circuit Court in Palm Beach County. An appeal shall be filled within 30 calendar days of the decision. Staff had reviewed the application and plans and found that the project met the Town's code. And, following approval by the Planning Board, prior to initiation of construction, the applicant will be required to obtain a Building Permit from the Town of Highland Beach Building Department. Construction must be completed within two years of Planning Board approval. She said that it was found that all the requirements and approval were met and recommended approval. Chairperson Axelrod advised one typographical change needed to be made because in the recommendation written, it called for a dock at 15 Ocean Cove. Town Planner McKinney apologized for the error and advised the error would be changed. Chairperson Axelrod asked if anyone one on the Board had any ex parte communications to disclose; there were none. He asked if the Board had any question for Staff? He asked if in doing, were there owners of numbers 4 and 6? And if were any problems possibly occurring there? Town Planner McKinney responded that the Association was notified, who is supposed to notify all of the property owners. No comments had been received for or against it. Chairperson Axelrod asked if anyone else on the Board had any question for Town Planner McKinney; then advised that comments were opened to the public. He requested Mr. Gallitto come to the podium. He advised that he walks in the morning and that a lot of work was being done. He asked if the docking space was wider than the other docking spaces. Mr. Gallitto advised that currently when the Condominium redone the Marine portion, that for some reason, he said they stayed with whatever was there existing. And that for some reason, it was the shortest finger in the place and to accommodate the vessels that will typically dock in there now, it needed to be extended out and that the Corp and everybody had no problem with improving it. Chairperson Axelrod advised that Army Corp of Engineer approved it and you can go out, that is okay. Member Goldenberg asked if it interfered within the "U" of the different piers and stated that noting extend pass their percentage of ownership? He said he thought that it was pretty straight forward. Chairperson Axelrod ask if there was anyone from the public that would like to make any comments and if there were any other comments to be made? He advised that the Public Hearing was now closed. and asked if there was a motion to approve; a motion to approve with conditions; or motion to deny the request? Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 23 December 12, 2019 MOTION: Vice Chairperson Kravit made a motion to approve. Member Mendelson second the motion. ROLL CALL: Vice Chairperson Kravit - Yes Member Mendelson - Yes Member DeMoss - Yes Member Goldenberg - Yes Member Adwar - Yes Chairperson Axelrod - Yes The motion carried 6 to 0. D. APPLICATION NO. 19-004 (JOSH KHOURY, OCEAN BLUE CUSTOM HOMES) APPLICATION BY JOSH KHOURY OF OCEAN BLUE CUSTOM HOMES, REPRESENTING GESTION ERIC BERNIER S.A., FOR APPROVAL OF AN APPROXIMATELY 6,000 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE ON AN 11,504 SQUARE FOOT LOT LOCATED AT 4205 INTRACOASTAL DRIVE. Chairperson Axelrod read Item 9D into the record. He asked if the Board members had any ex parte communications to disclose; there were none. He opened the Public Hearing and asked Town Planner Mary McKinney to approach the podium. Town Planner McKinney read the application into records for approval of a 6,000 square foot house on an 11,504 square foot lot at 4205 Intracoastal Drive, in Bel Lido subdivision. The applicant is not proposing to obtain approval for any Marine Facilities, such as a dock, seawall, seawall cap at this time. Future approval for any of the Marine Facilities will have to be a separate application submitted to the Town and be reviewed by the Planning Board. Staff has reviewed the plans and found that the plans comply with the Town's Code of Ordinances and approval was recommended subject to following approval by the Planning Board. And that prior to initiation of construction, the applicant will be required to obtain a Building Permit from the Town of Highland Beach Building Department and construction must be substantially completed within two years of Planning Board approval. She advised that she did not have any more presentation on the item and would answer questions that anyone had. Member DeMoss stated that it seemed like it was the same architect that the Board had seen on several other homes and that it was a beautiful home and that it would add pizzazz to the Bel Lido community. Chairperson Axelrod asked if all the setbacks were okay? Town Planner McKinney responded, yes. Chairperson Axelrod stated that his only concern was that the pool deck seemed to go all the way out and that it was supposed to be a 4 foot setback. Town Planner McKinney advised that every setback was measured. Chairperson Axelrod stated that was fine. Chairperson Axelrod asked if you one else had any comments or questions? Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes Page 17 of 23 December 12. 2019 Member DeMoss asked was the dock part of the application? Town Planner McKinney and Board members responded, no. Chairperson Axelrod asked if anyone from the public or the owner that wanted to make any comments? He stated that if there were no other comments, that the Public Hearing was close. MOTION: Member DeMoss made a motion to move that the plans be accepted as stated or drawn. Member Goldenberg seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Member DeMoss - Yes Member Goldenberg - Yes Member Mendelson - Yes Member Adwar - Yes Vice Chairperson Kravit - Yes Chairperson Axelrod - Yes The motion carried 6 to 0. E. APPLICATION NOs. 19-0006 & 19-0007 (JEFFREY NORMAN, STUART OLSTEN) 1. APPLICATION BY JEFFREY NORMAN, REPRESENTING STUART OLSTEN, FOR APPROVAL OF A NEW 150 SQUARE FOOT MARGINAL DOCK, INSTALLATION OF A NEW SEAWALL AND SEAWALL CAP AND INSTALLATION OF NEW BATTER PILES AT 2352 SOUTH OCEAN BOULEVARD. Chairperson Axelrod read Item 9E 1 into the record. He asked if the Board members had any ex parte communications to disclose; there were none. He opened the Public Hearing and asked Town Planner Mary McKinney to approach the podium. Town Planner McKinney read the application into records by Jeffrey Newman, representing Stuart Olsten for approval of a new 150 square foot dock, a new seawall, seawall cap, and the installation of new batter piles, at 2352 South Ocean Boulevard. She read that the applicant is proposing to replace and exist 80 linear foot concrete seawall, install a new 60 inch concrete seawall cap, install nine 12 inch concrete king piles and nine 12 inch concrete batter piles adjacent to the proposed seawall, remove the existing 155 square foot wooden dock and remove two existing mooring piles, constructed a new 7 foot wide by 30 foot long concrete marginal dock, measured from the west face of the proposed seawall. The applicant has obtained both Army Corp and DEP permits. And that section of the Code from 6-28 was included, which says that all seawalls and retaining walls have to be reviewed by the Planning Board, have to go to the Town Commission for approval and the proposed seawall must be reviewed by Town Commission. After notification of property owners within 1,000 feet and property owners within 1,000 feet had been notified by the Town, Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes Page 18 of 23 December 12, 2019 for both the December 12th Planning Board Meeting and the January 7th Town Commission Meeting and per section 30-68 G6, Rain Facilities shall comply with standards listed below. A waterway not regulated by the US and the court docks and more instructions shall not extend into any waterways more than 5 feet and waterways regulated by the US Army Corps of Engineers, which this is docks and more instructions may extend to that distance allowed by said agency. Chairperson Axelrod asked if the Board had any question for the Staff. (Crosstalk) Town Planner McKinney continued with advising that the measurement of width or length of a dock shall be made from the property line. The 7 foot width of the dock had been permitted by the Army Corp and single-family zoning districts, side yard setbacks 25 feet, for the dock provided; however, the side yard setback shall be 15 feet for any single-family lot. A width of 50 feet, which is not this one. The dock meets the single-family zoning districts requirements and the installation shall be subject to approval by the Planning Board and advertised public hearing, which this one is, and the Planning Board shall have final decision-making authority. Staff reviewed the application; the project met the Town's Code approved by the Planning Board and the Town Commission for the seawall. Prior to the installation of construction, the applicant shall be required to obtain a Building Permit from the town and construction must be completed within two years of Planning Board approval. They meet all of the Town's Code and Zoning regulations. Chairperson Axelrod asked if the Board had any question of Town Planner McKinney. Member Mendelson ask if the property was the vacant property or the one with the new house? Town Planner McKinney responded, the one with the new house. Chairperson Axelrod asked if the applicant wanted to make any presentation of any sort? And asked if Town staff had any questions for the applicant? He asked the height of the proposed seawall? (Crosstalk conversation ensued) Vice Chairperson Kravit stated that it appeared from the drawing that the wall would be going from 7 to 9 feet. Jeff Norman and Joe Dillito advised that it would be 2 feet higher. Chairperson Axelrod asked if there were any other questions and advised that the public hearing was now closed. He asked for a motion to approve, to disapprove or with conditions? MOTION: Member Mendelson made a motion to approve. Vice Chairperson Kravit seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Member Mendelson - Yes Vice Chairperson Kravit - Yes Member Goldenberg - Yes Member DeMoss - Yes Member Adwar - Yes Chairperson Axelrod - Yes The motion carried 6 to 0. Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes December 12, 2019 Page 19 of 23 2. APPLICATION BY JEFFREY NORMAN, REPRESENTING STUART OLSTEN, FOR APPROVAL OF A REVISED APPROVED SITE PLAN FOR A 7,122 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE FAMILY HOME TO ADD A NEW POOL AND POOL DECK AT 2352 SOUTH OCEAN BOULEVARD. Chairperson Axelrod read Item 9E2 into the record. He asked if the Board members had any ex parte communications to disclose; there were none. He opened the Public Hearing and asked Town Planner Mary McKinney to approach the podium. Town Planner McKinney read the application into records that the applicant is proposing to add a pool, pool deck and spa to the previously approved site plan, which happened in August 2018, that included a 7,122 square foot house on an 18,760 square foot lot. The lot is on the West Side of State Road A 1 A and the amendment to the plan is considered a major modification, which is section 30-39 of the code. And major modifications that alter existing principal or Accessory Structures, including but not limited to, the building footprint, number of square feet, the building height, number of dwelling units, parking requirements, change and exterior for sod, change of use, change of roof line, change of elevation, all exterior wall, balconies, foundations, Accessory Structures, and similar substantial improvements as determined by the Building Official. It was determined that adding a pool was not approved on the previous plan with the modification to the plan that was approved. The swimming pool meets the required setbacks and the deck meets the required setbacks. Alternate setbacks and clearance with pools or decks are prevented subject to approval of the Building Official and the Planning Board, which there are no alternate setback that are being requested. Following approved by the Planning Board, the applicant is required to obtain a Building Permit from the Town of Highland Beach, prior to construction and approval is recommended for the revised site plan, for 2352 South Ocean Blvd to add a pool, pool deck and spa. Town Planner McKinney advised that she was available for questions. Chairperson Axelrod asked if there were any questions for Town Planner McKinney? Chairperson Kravit asked on the site plan on the south property line, just outside the deck and door; here is a small retaining wall that it appeared to that the fence along the property line stopped about 20 feet or so prior to that gate, providing access to the backyard. He stated that it did not appear that the pool fence extended out past the edge of the dock or the seawall. He said that it could just be a graphical error on the drawing, but if the site plan change was being approved that those should be looked into. Jeff Norman responded that if the fence goes out beyond the seawall waterworks. He stated that the retaining wall is 2 feet or a foot in a half above grade. And that above that would be a fence that would be 4 foot high. Vice Chairperson Kravit advised that the site plan drawing it does not show that and that the fence stops where the retaining wall starts. Jeff Norman advised that there was an existing 6 -foot -high wall that was kept and that westward of that would be the retaining wall and the fence, so they would note it in the plan. Chairperson Axelrod asked if there were any other questions for the applicant? He advised that since there was no further testimony that the public hearing was now closed. And asked if there was a motion to approve? MOTION: Member DeMoss made a motion to approved the pool. Member Adwar seconded the motion. Vice Chairperson Kravit modified the motion to ensure that the proper height and configuration of the fence is installed, for safety purposes. Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes Page 20 of 23 December 12, 2019 ROLL CALL: Member DeMoss - Yes Member Adwar - Yes Member Mendelson - Yes Member Goldenberg - Yes Vice Chairperson Kravit - Yes Chairperson Axelrod - Yes The motion carried 6 to 0. F. APPLICATION NO. 19-0699 (MARK HUNLEY, CHARETTE INTERNATIONAL) APPLICATION BY MARK HUNLEY OF CHARETTE INTERNATIONAL ARCHITECTURE FOR APPROVAL TO RENOVATE A 4 UNIT BUILDING TO A 3 UNIT BUILDING LOCATED AT 4200 SOUTH OCEAN BOULEVARD. Chairperson Axelrod read Item 9F into the record. He asked if the Board members had any ex parte communications to disclose; there were none. He opened the Public Hearing and asked Town Planner Mary McKinney to approach the podium. Town Planner McKinney read the application into records that the applicant was proposing to modify an existing building that had four units, two on the first floor and two on the second floor, by combining the two units on the second floor into one unit. She said that the total square footage of the building would remain at 2,879 square feet. In addition to the above, that the applicant planned to replace the windows on the ground floor units, to impact resistant windows and to remove the roof and raise the tie beam 4 feet, to reinstall the roof to raise the ceiling height on the second floor, to renovate the current common core, to provide access and an internal stairwell to the second floor, to extend the rear first and second floor patio and balcony, and to add a small storage shed to the north side building. The existing pool parking in the yard area will not be affected and the exterior envelope will not be extended toward the property line. The lot is on the West Side of State Road A 1 A and the amendment is considered a major modification per section 30-39 of the Town's Code. The plans have been reviewed by the Town Planner for setback compliance and found to meet the Town's setback Code. Following approval by the Planning Board, the applicant is required to obtain a Building Permit from the Town of Highland Beach prior to construction. Staff recommends approval of the re-site plan, for 4200 South Ocean Boulevard. She advised that the applicant was also there today for questions. Chairperson Axelrod asked if the Board had any questions. Member Mendelson asked Town Planner McKinney if she stated that she looked back at the setbacks. Town Planner McKinney responded, yes. Member Mendelson asked Town Planner McKinney if she said that the roof would be raised to accommodate a higher ceiling and second floor. Town Planner McKinney responded, yes. Member Mendelson asked Town Planner McKinney if it was still within the height restrictions? Town Planner McKinney responded, yes. Chairperson Axelrod ask if there were any other question for Town Planner McKinney? Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes Page 21 of 23 December 12, 2019 Member DeMoss asked was the parking area going to be improved upon? Town Planner McKinney said to her knowledge there was no change to that and would let the applicants address the question. Mark Hunley and Paul Charette from Charette Architecture said that his partner Paul Charette, as well as the property owners, were in attendance. He advised, no. That in their scope, as far as improving the parking, parking requirements would require two parking spaces per unit. Currently, there were six spaces and that the unit was being turned into a three unit, so they were actually going into conformance. Member DeMoss stated that the only reason it was mentioned, is particularly after rains, it is the worst building on A 1 A, as far as holding water and that he strongly suggested it be addressed. Vice Chairperson Kravit mentioned that on the site plan, he saw three parking spaces and two asphalt area that were just to the west of the last two parking spaces that appeared to be somewhat shallower than the parking space width. He said that he did not know what the areas were and that it also appeared that the asphalt for the existing parking lot extended right to the A 1 A property line. He said that he did not know if it was conforming or nonconforming and that due to the size of the alteration and the renovation, he would recommend that the entire site be re -landscaped to current Code, the parking lot be milled and paved and brought up for proper elevation for drainage. Mark Hunley responded that he would make sure that it was addressed and that they would have a landscape plan for it and would make sure the drainage issue be taken care of. Vice Chairperson Kravit advised that it would need to come back before the Board, as well. He asked if the assessor building or shed is also conforming to the Zoning Ordinance. Chairperson Axelrod asked if there were any other questions for the applicant or comments by the Public? Hearing none, the Public Hearing was closed. Member Mendelson advised that Vice Chairperson Kravit should frame the motion. MOTION: Vice Chairperson Kravit made the motion to approve the application with conditions that: 1.) The site landscaping is brought up to current Code 2.) The grades and elevations are corrected to current Code, if deficient, to employ proper drainage 3.) And that the parking configuration be adjusted as necessary, to also meet current Zoning Ordinance and Codes Member Adwar seconded the motion. Member Mendelson ask for procedurally guidance from the Town Attorney. She advised that the application was being approved with conditions and asked at what point the project should start procedurally? Town Attorney Rubin advised that the decision was up to the Board. He asked if the Board wanted it to come back to review the landscaping or should it just be in compliance? Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes Page 22 of 23 December 12, 2019 Vice Chairperson Kravit amend the motion to say it would be to require that the plan come back to the Board for final approval. Town Attorney Rubin asked if the structure was being approved, but the landscape plan, site plan and paving drainage to come back for subsequent review and approval? Member Mendelson asked if it was like a preliminary approval? Town Attorney Rubin advised that it could be continued and asked Town Planner McKinney if it was advertisement? Town Planner McKinney responded, yes, but it could be brought back and could be tabled until the next meeting. Town Attorney Rubin said that it could be continue and not have to re -advertise. So, if it were continued to a date, certainly it would not have to be re -advertised. Town Planner McKinney agreed to table it to the next meeting and bring it all back. Vice Chairperson Kravit modified the motion to table the approval subject to the required information being brought back to the Board. Town Attorney Rubin said that the motion was that it would be continued to the January 9th so that it would not need to be re -advertised. MOTION: Vice Chairperson Kravit a mended motion requiring that Landscape, Paving Drainage and Site Plans come back before the Planning Board at the January 9, 2019 meeting for final approval. The motion was seconded by Member Adwar. ROLL CALL: Vice Chairperson Kravit - Yes Member Adwar - Yes Member Mendelson - Yes Member DeMoss - Yes Member Goldenberg - Yes Chairperson Axelrod - Yes The motion carried 6 to 0. 10. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Deputy Town Clerk Wright made the following announcements: 1. Town Commission Regular Meeting — December 17, 2019 — 1:30 PM Chairperson Axelrod thanked Michael Kravit for his years of expertise that he brought to Board and also as his Vice Chairperson (applause). Vice Chairperson Kravit stated that it had been an honor and a pleasure. Chairperson Axelrod wished everyone a Merry Christmas and a Happy Hanukkah. Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes December 12, 2019 11. ADJOURNMENT: Page 23 of 23 Chairperson Axelrod called for a motion to adjourn the meeting and that there be no further business to come before the Board. MOTION: Member DeMoss moved to adjourn. Member Goldenberg seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. The Meeting was adjourned at 10:53 a.m. APPROVED at January 9, 2019 Planning Board Meeting: ATTEST: David Axelrod, Chairperson Transcribed by: Beverly Wright Beverly Wright Date Deputy Town Clerk Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes December 12, 2019 11. ADJOURNMENT: Page 23 of 23 Chairperson Axelrod called for a motion to adjourn the meeting and that there be no further business to come before the Board. MOTION: Member DeMoss moved to adjourn. Member Goldenberg seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. The Meeting was adjourned at 10:53 a.m. APPROVED at January 9, 2019 Planning Board Meeting: gev6rly Wright Deputy Town Clerk Transcribed by: Ol 0244-b Date w . Af ATTEST: ?� ,� �7 • 1 `'l pb000, Ak � gev6rly Wright Deputy Town Clerk Transcribed by: Ol 0244-b Date