Loading...
2020.11.12_PB_Minutes_Regular • 0'W TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH PLANNING BOARD REGULAR MEETING MINUTES .• •. Town Hall / Commission Chambers Date: November 12, 2020 3614 South Ocean Boulevard Time: 9:30 AM Highland Beach, Florida 33487 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Axelrod called the meeting to order at 9:30 A.M. 2. PRESENT UPON ROLL CALL Member Roger Brown (via Zoom) Member Ilyne Mendelson Member Brian DeMoss Member Harry Adwar Member John Boden (via Zoom) Vice Chairperson Eric Goldenberg Chairperson David Axelrod Town Attorney Leonard Rubin (via Zoom) Deputy Town Clerk Beverly Wright ADDITIONAL STAFF PRESENT Town Planner Ingrid Allen 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 or deletions to the agenda? Hearing none, he called for a motion to accept the agenda as presented, which resulted as follows: MOTION: Member DeMoss moved to accept the agenda as presented, Seconded by Member Mendelson, which passed (7 to 0) unanimously. 5. SWEARING IN OF THE PUBLIC Chairperson Axelrod asked those giving testimony to raise their right hands, so they can be sworn in. Deputy Town Clerk Beverly Wright swore in those giving testimonies. Virtual Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 12 Date: November 12, 2020 6. PUBLIC COMMENT (limited to five (5) minutes per speaker) There were no public comments for this Item. 7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. September 12, 2020 Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes Chairperson Axelrod asked the Board members if there were any corrections to the minutes of September 12, 2020? Hearing none, he asked for a motion to approve the minutes, which resulted as follows: MOTION: Member Adwar moved to accept the minutes as presented, Seconded by Vice Chairperson Goldenberg, which passed (7 to 0) unanimously. 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: A. None 9. NEW BUSINESS: A. DEVELOPMENT ORDER APPLICATOIN NO. 20-0010 (STUART OLSTEN) AN AMENDMENT TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN (APPLICATION NO. 18-0550) IN ORDER TO ADD A CORRESPONDING LANDSCAPE PLAN (NOT INCLUDED IN THE PREVIOUS SITE PLAN APPROVAL PLAN SET) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2352 SOUTH OCEAN BOULEVARD. Chairperson Axelrod read Item 9A into record and asked the Board members if they had any ex parte communications to disclose? There were none, so he opened the public hearing and called for Town Planner Allen to present her recommendations regarding the application. Town Planner Allen provided a synopsis of Development Order No. 20-0010, Stuart Olsten. She read Town Code of Ordinances Section 30-33 (Application requirements) into records. She presented a PowerPoint presentation depicting the property, the Irrigation and Landscape Plans and site photographs, citing that the plans were consistent with Chapter 28, Xeriscape, Landscape requirements, the maintenance of the Town Code of Ordinances and that Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) had agreed with the installation of the landscaping improvements in their right-of-way. Member Mendelson requested a map that was not zoomed in, to see the exact property location. Town Planner Allen referenced the depicted ariel photograph on the PowerPoint Presentation and advised that there was a fence at the property. It was mentioned that the property was located on the north end of the town. Chairperson Axelrod asked if there were any new Palm Trees being planted in front of the building? Town Planner Allen deferred the question to the applicant's landscape architect to address. Virtual Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 12 Date: November 12, 2020 Chairperson Axelrod asked if there were any other questions of Town Planner Allen? Hearing none, he asked the applicants to give their names and present their application. Dave Bodker, Landscape Architect of 601 North Congress Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida advised that in 2018 a landscape plan was submitted before the Planning Board with Architect Stuart Brenner. He is unsure why it was not in the set of plans, but wanted to point it out. He said that a plan of the job site was stamped by the city as having been received. He advised that he was representing the Stuart Olsten's residence and that J.H. Norman Construction was in attendance with him at the meeting today. He said they were proposing Royal Palms in front of the exterior wall in the FDOT public right-of-way, they have the approval of FDOT, and that they were awaiting the Planning Board's approval of the plan to obtain a permit. He described the landscaping that would be used surrounding the structure. Chairperson Axelrod asked if there were concern about electrical wires affected by the Royal Palms? Mr. Bodker advised there was a transformer in the corner of the property and that anything coming in there, is underground. Member Mendelson asked about FDOT's approval and the state working on the roadway in 2023. She commented that everybody who has anything planted in the right-of-way would lose it. She asked if the approval means when they do that, they will not destroy what they have in the right-of-way when the project begins. Mr. Bodker commented that there is an existing walkway on South Ocean. The planting is well beyond that. The planting is closer to the wall; however, is still in the FDOT right-of-way. His summation is that he could not imagine FDOT going that far into the property. Member Mendelson commented that FDOT advised that they could. It was mentioned that FDOT could do whatever they wanted in their right-of-way. Further discussion and comments continued (please visit www.high landbeach.us for full audio/video). Member Boden asked if it would be permissible if they decided to wait on putting in the landscaping that would be "in danger" from FDOT until after the project was done (microphone issues). Town Planner Allen noted that the applicant is correct in regard to the submittal of the plan; however, when she looked at the hard copy file, there was a landscape plan submitted to the Building Department date stamped July 30, 2018, but was not included in the plan set approved by the Board. Chairperson Axelrod advised there were no public comments regarding the subject. Vice Chairperson Goldenberg asked the applicant who was handling runoff mitigation? Mr. Norman, General Contractor of J.H. Norman Construction advised that an extensive underground drainage system was put on the property to maintain all water runoff that was designed by a civil engineer, inspected by the civil engineer of record, and approved by the town. Chairperson Axelrod asked if there were any other comments? Hearing none, he closed the public hearing and asked if there was a motion to approve or disapprove with conditions, which resulted as follows. Virtual Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 12 Date: November 12, 2020 MOTION: Vice Chairperson Goldenberg made a motion to approved Development Order Application No. 20-0010 as presented, Seconded by Member Mendelson, which passed unanimously on a 7 to 0 vote. B. DEVELOPMENT ORDER APPLICATION NO. 20-0014 (RICHARD TOUCHETTE) APPLICANT IS REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TEN POST PLATFORM BOAT LIFT (APPLICATION NO. 39412) IN ORDER TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT OF THE BOAT LIFT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1006 GRAND COURT. Chairperson Axelrod read Item 9B into record and asked the Board members if they had any ex parte communications to disclose? Hearing none, he opened the public hearing, calling Town Planner Allen to present her recommendation. Town Planner Allen provided a synopsis of Development Application No. 20-0014, Richard Touchette and of the Planning Board meetings of February 8, 2017, October 11, 2017 and August 13, 2020. She presented a PowerPoint Presentation depicting aerial photos of the location, of the docks and lift pilings and of the site plans. She commented that the town does not provide a maximum height for docks or lift pilings on the Town's Code Section 30-131 (Definitions of terms for boat lifts) and that the applicant's request does comply with definition sections 30-68 (h)(1)(c), 30-68 (h)(4) (Dolphins, freestanding pilings, boat lifts and moorings). She read the new plans report reviewed by Applied Technology & Management, Inc., (ATM) Dr. Jenkins, the town's Coastal and Marine Engineering Consultant into record and advised that Dr. Jenkins was in attendance at the meeting today. She said if the Planning Board approves the applicant's request, staff recommends that prior to the initiation of construction, the applicant is required to obtain a building permit from the Town of Highland Beach's Building Department. She advised that the prior permit number 39412 expired on May 30, 2020 and that the plans submitted as part of the building permit shall reflect the North American Vertical Datum (NAVD). Chairperson Axelrod commented on the 12-foot pilings request the Board denied in August, specific to the letter informing Mr. Touchette he had to reduce or remove the pilings. He asked why Mr. Touchette had not complied. Town Planner Allen advised there was a Notice of Violation provided by the town's Building Official that clearly stated the boat lift and associated structure pilings needed to be remove in 30 days from the date of the letter. However, based upon Mr. Touchette submission letter requesting a postponement, showing proof of Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP's) approval and Mr. Touchette's revised draft plans for submittal of a new Development Application, the building official suspended the violation notice. She commented that it was reasonable to wait for the applicant to get approval to reduce the piling heights by the Planning Board, if they wished to do so. Further discussion and comments continued (please visit rvww.highlandbeach.us for full audio/video). Chairperson Axelrod asked if there were any other questions of Town Planner Allen? Member_Brown wanted clarification that Mr. Touchette's request was 7-feet from the existing dock. Town Planner Allen advised correct and added comment to Chairperson Axelrod's earlier question. She referenced the August 13th minutes (page 409 of the agenda packet) in that there was quite a bit of discussion amongst the Board about the Virtual Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 12 Date: November 12, 2020 applicant possibly coming in with a new application and that the town's attorney was in agreeance that the applicant could submit a new application. Chairperson Axelrod commented that he understood, but thought it would have been behooving of him to cut them down and that it was a personal thought on that matter. Member DeMoss asked Town Planner Allen if it was considered multi-family low density? Town Planner Allen concurred that it is the RML zoning district. Member DeMoss commented it meant that the setbacks and things of that nature do not apply. Town Planner Allen concurred. Member DeMoss made reference that it is amazing how they say in their information (on page 61), they comply with this and they don't comply with that one. It does not even conform. Chairperson Axelrod asked the applicants to make their presentation. Deputy Clerk Beverly Wright swore in those giving testimonies. Attorney Ele Zachariades of 14 SE 4th Street, Boca Raton presented a PowerPoint Presentation regarding the property at 1006 Grand Court's history, gave opinions and background on the February 8, 2017 and October 11, 2017 Planning Board meeting results, the Stop Work Order on Permit No. 39412 of May 23, 2019, the Application Request, the Proposed Site Plan-Unchanged from Original Approval, the Issue at Hand, Additional Criteria, Visual Access, the ATM Report, the Neighboring Property, Compliance with Town Code, and Consistency with Town Code. She noted they were before the Board to request an amendment to the existing approval for the 10 posts lift, so that the height of the lift pilings will be 7-feet and that it will be 3-feet above the 4-feet, and 5-feet less than what exists today. She commented that the only issue before the Board today is the height of the pilings. The location of the pilings, the number of the pilings and the boat lift itself, had all been approved. She referred to their surveyor Louise who gave commented via telephone regarding a survey conducted across the Waterway at the condominium with regards to the pilings. Member DeMoss asked if the pilings were mostly guiding piles versus for a lift? Louise commented yes, they are along the plastic dock. Attorney Zachariades concluded that the proposal complied with each and every section of the town's code. Member Mendelson commented that Attorney Zachariades did a very good job of giving all of the town's codes and how she complied to them, but she thought that her presentation with regard to Reasonable Visual Access is a conclusion that she could not reached by what she said. She advised that she is also a lawyer and knows that reasonable under the law, is reasonable under the circumstances, which is always defined by a court because different people have different ideas about what is reasonable. Further comment was given on the matter and Member Mendelson asked if any kind of community outreach was done to figure out what the neighbors think is reasonable? Attorney Zachariades advised they had not met with the neighbors to determine their definition of reasonable. Member DeMoss commented that when she first got on Board representing Mr. Touchette, she said it would be the first thing done. Attorney Zachariades advised that was accurate with the 12-foot request, but the Board had denied the application, denying her request for postponement for the 7-feet pilings within the same waterway. She said Virtual Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 12 Date: November 12, 2020 they believe that it was in fact reasonable and that a court of law would also find it reasonable when they have the same height pilings across the way in the same waterway. Member DeMoss commented that 7-feet pilings, but they have a foot and a half lift that will be on top of that, so it would be 81/2 feet versus seven (7). Member Goldenberg commented that on detail number one, it says the overall height with the motors will be 8-feet 6-inches, so it is not 7; that 8-feet 6-inches is actually what the obstruction will be to visual. Attorney Zachariades advised that is accurate, pilings are going to be measured by the height of the actual piling, which is why both the town's third- party reviewer, ATM, denoted 7-feet; that is how they are measured. Mr. Richard Touchette advised that he was the owner and that the obstruction will be the boat itself. He said that what will be seen is the boat, not the pilings or the boat lift. Even if there was no boat lift, a big boat there would be the obstruction, but his boat will be a small boat and what will be seen; not the boat lift. Member Mendelson advised the boat will be higher up than it would have been at 7-feet. Member DeMoss advised it is about 13-feet above the dock. Chairperson Axelrod requested Dr. Jenkins come up to the podium to give comment. Dr. Michael Jenkins of Coastal Engineering Principal/Applied Technology and Management Inc, 11814 59th Street, North Royal Palm Beach, Florida 33411 advised that he was at the meeting as the technical expert for the town and was not at the meeting to provide any presentations. He was just there to answer questions and give clarifications where he can. Member Mendelson commented that she wanted to understand part of the quote Town Planner Allen quoted on his report; that it seemed a little contradictory or conflicting and was customary. She asked Dr. Jenkins to give an opinion in his own words, in lay terms, about the revised application. Dr. Jenkins noted that it was not a contradictory, it is phrased as the level of confirmation he provided. He said it was not that he was saying it is black and white. He was saying he can provide a conclusion to this level regarding the height of the piles. It has to do with level detail. He is not the engineer of record. He did not look to that level of detail of exactly how high the boat is. He looked in terms of what is standard practice of what would be typically seen on a boat lift. He advised that a boat lift of this height is fairly typical. There are multiple examples of it in South Florida. It is not an unusual height. The 4-feet that they originally ask for was not technically feasible, you could not do a lift with that height. It was just too low. The 12-foot in his conclusion, if recalled, is pretty high. It is much higher than standard and asked for more justification of that 12-foot because it is higher than what is typically seen. He said the current proposal is in line with what is typically seen and that there are multiple examples that can be looked at regarding that. He made an additional point that the piling height is relative to what you are measuring to. In their discussion, it is being done relative to elevation of the seawall. The heights that were referenced in the presentation were relative to (NAVD), which is not the sequel. In a practical sense, the 4-feet do not work, 12-foot is too high, 7-feet is about what is needed. It has to be physically tall enough to get the boat in and get it lifted. Further discussion and comments continued (please visit www.highlandbeach.us for full audio). Virtual Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 12 Date: November 12, 2020 Chairperson Axelrod opened public comments and advised there was one person in the room that was making public comments. He advised Mr. Mazella to come to the podium to give comment. Mr. Louis Mazella the owner of 1009 Grand Court and docks 4 through 7 and 20 on the other side of the Lagoon, reminded the Board that in 2016, Mr. Touchette was given approval for east/west access. He commented that his Board president was at that hearing and the HOA would not give him approval for that. The Board had originally given him approval on the east/west access not the north/south access. He commented that he and his Attorney Lauren Galvani has the paperwork. He pointed out that on sections 68 (h)(1) and 68 (1)(c)(h)(4) both talk about navigation. He said that almost 16-feet have been taken away from him getting into his slips and that Mr. Touchette has wrecked his navigation. It is impossible for him and other boats to get a big boat in there. He does not know who did the survey, but they were not there. It was incorrect. He gave additional comment about the proposal and approval of the boat lift and advised that there were problems with the mailings. He reiterated Mr. Touchette has taken away 16-feet of the back of the Marina and begged that the little Marina not be ruined. Member Mendelson asked Mr. Mazella if it is possible to provide the actual documentation. Mr. Mazzella commented that he believed his Attorney Lauren Galvani testified at the last hearing and he will ask her to provide the paperwork to the town. Member Mendelson commented that she knows nothing about boats, but as a lawyer she is looking at two relevant issues. That Mr. Touchette has an absolute right to build a 4- feet dock and lift in that area, but if he does not like that now and he wants it to be any other feet, but the 4-feet, the Board has to start looking at where the pilings are/location, so that every time it changes, if it is not 4-feet, should the pilings be to the right or to the left, if it is 6-feet or to the right or to the left or to the back or to the front, if it is 9-feet. In her opinion, the reasonable visual access and the ability to navigate changes every time the height goes up, maybe a presentation that starts from the beginning of where the pilings are vis-a-vis, how high it maybe is presented. At the end of that, the Board will come back and conclude that 7-feet in this location is the best place and maybe the Board will not, but the Board does not know that until they analyze it. She commented that the constant thing here is that they had the 4-feet, then by themselves they put up 12-feet and now they are trying to amend it again and not give the Board the full information. Therefore, she would not be in favor of this, unless she could review the whole thing with boat people who are knowledgeable in where the pilings are versus how high they are. To her, they go together. Chairperson Axelrod asked Dr. Jenkins to comment on the validity of Member Mendelson's statement regarding the moving and raising of the pilings as it relates to the effects on size, location and etc.? Dr. Jenkins commented that he believed the issue is whether they are truly just looking at the height of the piles and that is kind of where the deliberation is occurring. Regarding the issue of navigation, one other element that plays into that is what is in the code, is not explicit regarding that issue as well. So, even in those discussions regarding navigation, Virtual Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 12 Date: November 12, 2020 if you are going to open up to a broader discussion regarding that, what is enforceable is what is in the code. The code is not particularly explicitly clear regarding that, so there is not necessarily clarity relative to code regarding those issues as well. His expertise is relative to the technical elements of whether they are just looking at that or whether it is a broader discussion. He would have to defer to others in the conversation. Chairperson Axelrod asked for Member Brown's input regarding the validity of Member Mendelson's statement. Member Brown remarked from a navigation standpoint, he actually thinks that going into the lift from the location that has been approved and currently seeking further approval, is actually much more difficult than going in the other way. One is going straight in and straight out and the other one is having to make a right- angle turn. And if the people across the way decides to have a larger vessel where they have jet ski lifts and floating jet ski docks, he thinks it will present a serious problem. Chairperson Axelrod also asked for Member Brown's input on the question Member Mendelson posed about going from 4- feet to 7-feet. Does it have an effect on where the pilings should be, the location and etc.? Member Brown commented that the height of the pilings going from 12 to 7, no. He did not think that was the issue at hand. He believes the issue is global not just the height of the pilings. He reiterated on comments he had given at previous Planning Board meetings and believes navigation is a hindrance to other properties. The height of the pilings (unintelligible) proper way to look at it and does not think it would make that much of a difference. Member Mendelson asked would where the pilings are at 7-feet make a difference in someone's visual access that they might consider reasonable, if it were 7-feet instead of 4-feet and if you changed where the pilings were, would visual access change because it was now in a different place at a higher level? Member Brown commented that of course the visual access will change. It all depends on the angle at which you are looking at it from, but the most obtrusive visual hindrance is going to be the boat itself. The lift is just a mechanism to lift the boat and yes, you will maybe see the motors and the pole up high, but after a while, you just see the boat and that is the biggest hindrance. The conversation between Mr. Brown and Member Mendelson continued regarding the difference, the hindrance to navigation, the heights of the boat lift and pilings and about the location of the boat lift. Member Godenberg asked if the Planning Board's hands are tied in suggesting that Mr. Touchette move the location of the boat or is the Board able to say because he wants this amended, they are disapproving the whole application and that Mr. Touchette has to come back to the Board with another application that would be less intrusive to the neighbors. Attorney Rubin advised that the application before the Board is just and increase to the height of the pilings. He also advised Member Brown that he was not chastising him. He understands they want to look at this globally. He said Member Mendelson made a good point that maybe the Board would not have approved it there, from the height issue, at least if it was going to be 12 or 7, opposed to the four that was approved. He said the Board needed to focus on the code requirements, what the request is before them, and whether the increase from 4 to 7 meets the code. Yes, visual access is one of the criteria in the code, but the issue of should it be on the north side, maybe it should be, but the application before the Board is the increase from the 4 to 7. Virtual Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 12 Date: November 12, 2020 Member Goldenberg asked Attorney Rubin what if the Board did not approve the change in height. Attorney Rubin advised if the Board did not approve the change in height then Mr. Touchette would have to remove the pilings and he can come in with another application somewhere else and in some other form, but that would be the applicant's choice. Mr. Touchette commented that his daughter and son-in-law have a really big boat that they want to put on the north side. If he would put his boat lift on the north side, then they would have to park the big boat where he is making the application. He advised that nobody could prevent them from parking their boat there, but it would not be the best place to put that big boat. Attorney Zachariades commented that she hears what everybody is saying and have to say for the record. It is clear that potentially there is buyer's remorse as to the location of the approved boat lift. She said that the Board would prefer the boat lift to be in a different location and wants to remind the Board, again, that the only thing before the Board is the height of the pilings. They could look at it globally if they want, but the application before the Board is the height of the pilings and with that, there has been some discussion on reasonable access. She commented on Member Brown's comments about a no profile lift, the boat lift height, Mr. Touchette's property, reasonable access, navigation, about the fourth time Dr. Jenkins have review the application and advised that Mr. David Nutter would be providing comment. Deputy Town Clerk Beverly Wright swore in Mr. David Nutter of B&M Marine Construction, Inc. Mr. Nutter comment that a 40-foot boat on a lift and a 75-foot boat not on a lift would be supplying the same lack of visual access; the bigger the boat, the higher it is, the wider. He spoke about Mr. Touchette navigational design for the least amount of obstruction on the west side, about the smaller of the two boats on the left and the larger boat on the north side, visual access, navigation, no profile platform and about a floating dock. Member Mendelson asked if the Board gives permission for this particular lift, is there only going to always be 42-foot boat there or once given permission any boat can be there that fits? Attorney Zachariades advised that she thinks Mr. Touchette could agree to a limitation on the boat size if approved. Member Mendelson asked, forever? She asked what if he sold the dock and the next person wanted to put a bigger boat there? Attorney Zachariades advised that it would be something they would agree to and they could record it and it would run with the land. It would be up to Mr. Touchette. Member Boden asked if the boat can be lifted out of the water with a 4-feet standard piling or if the boat will not be able to be lifted out of the water. Attorney Zachariades advised that Dr. Jenkins, the town's reviewer/expert has said 4-feet will not work. Chairperson Axelrod made a commented about the 4-feet original approval. Mr. Nutter advised it was a mistake on their original approved drawings, which was brought up at a previous meeting. He said the standard 4-feet drawing was for a dock pile and that dock pilings goes 4-feet above the decking and that the standard lift piling goes 6 to 7-feet above the decking. So, for that simple reason, the motor and equipment sit on top of the lift and you can walk under it without banging your head. He emphasized that on the original Virtual Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 12 Date: November 12, 2020 drawings, he thinks it was a mistake on his part when he drew it. He drew the lift piling at the same height as the dock piling and that he screwed up. He said it was never intended to go in at 4-feet above the decking. It was always intended to go in at 6 or 7, but because of the way it was drawn, they are at this 4-feet restriction. Member DeMoss asked Mr. Nutter if he put in any of the other lifts in the Marina? Mr. Nutter said they put in one over at Braemer Isles for a Mr. Bohan. Member DeMoss commented that most of the lifts are about 57 to 59 inches. Mr. Nutter advised that typically they do it 6 or 7-feet. If it is a small boat, sometimes you can do it lower, so the average height person can walk underneath the lift equipment. Chairperson Axelrod asked for a motion on the item. Vice Chairperson Goldenberg asked Attorney Rubin if their hands were tied either to approve or disapprove the amendment or can they disapprove and request them to come back with a different plan? Attorney Rubin reiterated the application is to increase the height of the pilings and the Board must either approve or deny that request based on the town code. A conversation between Member Brown and Mr. Nutter commenced about drawings on page 112 of the agenda, about eight and 10 post mooring pilings, the ability for somebody to walk under a cross beam and about boat lift equipment. Member Mendelson gave a preface to her motion in that she believes in process and she believes in the fact that the Board has an obligation to follow existing statute. She is sorry Mr. Nutter made a mistake in his plans, but a previous Board approved something based on something that they thought was the package that they were being presented and they approved it. She does not think that this Board can overlay a height difference without going back and reviewing the whole thing, which she is very happy to do. Chairperson Axelrod asked the Board if there was any further discussion. He asked if the denial can be conditioned. Attorney Rubin advised that he would not condition the denial. For the record, Vice Chairperson Goldenberg advised it should be noted that Member Adwar has a hearing issue and that he is relaying his yes roll call vote. MOTION: Member Mendelson made a motion to deny the request for an amendment to change the height of Development Order Application No. 20-0014, Seconded by Member DeMoss, which passed unanimously on a 7 to 0 vote. Chairperson Axelrod provided additional comment on item 9B that it would behoove Mr. Touchette to go back with Attorney Zachariades and talk to the neighbors. That talking with the neighbors could very simply resolve this. Vice Chairperson Goldenberg concurred. Member DeMoss asked Town Planner Allen if the pilings would stay there since it is denied. Town Planner Allen advised that the building official will put out another Notice of Violation. If it is going to be the duplicate Notice of Violation that was previously submitted to the applicant, they will have 30 days to remove those pilings. She advised Virtual Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 12 Date: November 12, 2020 that she do not anticipate that the notice of violation will be any different than the prior one but that will be up to the building official, but you have a denial here and the applicant will have to remove them. Mr. Touchette asked if it can be built at 4-feet? Chairperson Axelrod advised Mr. Touchette that based on the original approval, he is allowed to. Attorney Rubin clarified that the motion to amend the height from 4-feet to 7-feet was denied and that Mr. Touchette still had the 4-feet. Mr. Touchette asked if he could put the lift on 4-feet. Attorney Rubin advised that if he can make it work on 4-feet, yes. C. Proposed Ordinance to delete certain finish floor elevation and general elevation provisions provided in Chapter 30 (Zoning Code) and Chapter 6 (Buildings and Structures) of the Town Code of Ordinances. Chairperson Axelrod read Item 9C into record and asked the Board members if they had any ex parte communications to disclose? There were none, so he opened the public hearing and called for Town Planner Allen to present her recommendations regarding the ordinance. Building Official Jeff Remas read the proposed ordinance into record and commented that Chapter 30 of the Zoning Code and Chapter 6 of the Building and Structures of the town's code of ordinances currently provides several provisions regarding the finished floor elevations and general elevation requirements. Upon review, he noticed there were some problems and he sat down with Town Planner Allen and the staff and determined that several of these provisions are redundant and are already addressed by the Florida Building Code and or Chapter 20 in Planning Development, in article 6 of the Flood Plain Management of the town's code of ordinances. In an effort to provide better clarity and efficiency in the +own's code, staff proposes the following revisions to the code of ordinances, as provided in the task ordinance. Deletions have strikethrough and anything that is addition is an underlying. They have already gone before the Town Commission, they seemed to be positive about it and they are following the process in presenting it to the Planning Board. Town Attorney Rubin commented as clarification the reason it is before this Board is because any time chapter 30 is amended, it needs to come before the Planning Board, which is the Zoning Code. So, even though it is just eliminating redundant provisions from the Zoning Code, it still has to come before this Board for questions. Member Mendelson commented that it looks good to her and that it is nice to clean up things. She asked what happens if for some reason this other code does not have this anymore and then we don't have anything? Building Official Remas advised if there were any changes in the Florida Building Code, they would know in advance and they would have time where they would be able to provide some other type of code. He said he really does not foresee that happening because a lot of what they actually already have has been sitting and is antiquated. As the Florida Building Code continues to move forward, FEMA continues to move forward with the NFIP and their regulations due to the problems that they see with flooding. Virtual Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 12 Date: November 12, 2020 Further Dialog among the members, Building Official, and the attorney regarding the item continued (please visit rvww.h1gh1andbeach.6. for full audio/video). Chairperson Axelrod requested and motion and a roll call. MOTION: Member Boden made a motion to approve item 9C as presented, Seconded by Member Mendelson, which passed on a 7 to 0 vote. 10. ANNOUNCEMENTS: November 17, 2020 - 1:30 P.M. Town Commission Meeting November 19, 2020 - 2:00 P.M. Financial Advisory Board Special Meeting is cancelled. November 26, 2020 - Town Hall closed in observance of Thanksgiving November 27, 2020 - Town Hall closed the Day after Thanksgiving Town Planner Allen gave a follow-up comment to the Board regarding the September 10, 2020 discussion that they had about the deficiencies regarding the excessive marine facility provisions of the code. 11. ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Axelrod called for a motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:36 A.M. MOTION: Member Adwar moved to adjourn the meeting, Seconded by Member DeMoss, which passed (7 to 0) unanimously. APPROVED at thelbc nary 11, 2021, Planning Board Regular Mee c PY • {,. ` N ° Da xel lod, Chairperson ATTEST: •, .= r • A Transcribed by: Beverly Wright .1 r vert Wright ate Deputy Town Cl/k Disclaimer: Effective May 19, 2020, per Resolution No. 20-008, all meeting minutes are transcribed as a brief summary reflecting the event of the meeting. Verbatim audio/video of this meeting can be found on the town's Media Archives & Minutes webpage- https://highlandbeach-fl.municodemeetings.com/.