2024.09.17_TC_Agenda_Regular1
TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH
TOWN COMMISSION MEETING
AGENDA
Tuesday, September 17, 2024 AT 1:30 PM
TOWN HALL COMMISSION CHAMBERS, 3614 S. OCEAN
BLVD., HIGHLAND BEACH, FL
Town Commission
Natasha Moore Mayor
David Stern Vice Mayor
Evalyn David Commissioner
Donald Peters Commissioner
Judith M. Goldberg Commissioner
Marshall Labadie Town Manager
Lanelda Gaskins Town Clerk
Leonard G. Rubin Town Attorney
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
5. PRESENTATIONS / PROCLAMATIONS
6. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Public Comments will be limited to five (5) minutes per speaker.
7. ORDINANCES (Public Comments will be limited to three (3) minutes per speaker
per item after Commission initial discussion.)
None.
8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS (Public Comments will be limited to three (3) minutes per
speaker per item after Town Commission initial discussion.)
A. Discussion of the Proposed Draft Ordinance amendments to the Accessory
Marine Facilities (AMF) and seawall regulations of the Town Code.
Page 1
Town Commission Meeting Agenda September 17, 2024
2
B. Sanitary Sewer Lining Rehabilitation Project Update
C. Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) RRR Project Update
9. CONSENT AGENDA (These are items that the Commission typically does not need
to discuss individually, and which are voted on as a group.) Public Comments will be
limited to three (3) minutes per speaker per item after Commission initial discussion.
A. Approval of Meeting Minutes
September 03, 2024 Town Commission Meeting Minutes
September 03, 2024 Town Commission First Public Hearing Budget Meeting
10. NEW BUSINESS (Public Comments will be limited to three (3) minutes per speaker
per item after Town Commission initial discussion.)
A. Resolution No. 2024-020
A Resolution of the Town Commission of the Town of Highla nd Beach, Florida
approving an application with Synovus Bank for credit card services with line of
$100,000.00 and authorizing Town Administration to execute all required
documents; and providing for an effective date.
11. TOWN COMMISSION COMMENTS
Commissioner Judith M. Goldberg
Commissioner Donald Peters
Commissioner Evalyn David
Vice Mayor David Stern
Mayor Natasha Moore
12. TOWN ATTORNEY’S REPORT
13. TOWN MANAGER’S REPORT
Page 2
Town Commission Meeting Agenda September 17, 2024
3
14. ANNOUNCEMENTS
Board Vacancies
Board of Adjustment and Appeals Board One (1) vacancy for a three-
year term
Meetings and Events
September 18, 2024 5:01 P.M. Town Commission Second Public Hearing
Budget Meeting
October 01, 2024 1:30 P.M. Town Commission Meeting
Board Action Report
None.
NOTE: Any person, firm or corporation decides to appeal any decision made by the Town Commission
with respect to any matter considered at this meeting, such person will need to ensure that a verbatim
record including testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. (State Law requires
the above Notice. Any person desiring a verbatim transcript shall have the responsibility, at his/her own
cost, to arrange for the transcript.) The Town neither provides nor prepares such record.
In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons who need accommodation in order to
attend or participate in this meeting should contact Town Hall 561-278-4548 within a reasonable time
prior to this meeting in order to request such assistance.
Page 3
File Attachments for Item:
A. Discussion of the Proposed Draft Ordinance amendments to the Accessory Marine
Facilities (AMF) and seawall regulations of the Town Code.
Page 4
TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
MEETING TYPE: Town Commission
MEETING DATE September 17, 2024
SUBMITTED BY: Ingrid Allen, Town Planner, Building Department
SUBJECT: Draft of proposed amendments to the Accessory Marine Facilities (AMF)
and seawall regulations of the Town Code.
SUMMARY:
At the April 2, 2024 Town Commission meeting, the Commission considered a discussion item
on the proposed amendment concepts to the AMF and seawall regulations of the Town Code
of Ordinances (“Town Code”). Consensus from the Town Commission was to proceed with
amendment concept numbers 1 through 4, and 6 while a “no action” option was provided for
concept numbers 5 and 7 (see table below). The Commission directed staff to draft an
Ordinance on the selected amendment concepts (see attached):
PROPOSED AMENDMENT
CONCEPT
PLANNING BOARD (“Board”)
RECOMMENDATION
TOWN COMMISSION
(4-2-24)
1. Maximum height for
AMFs: Base Flood Elevation
(BFE) plus 7 feet.
Maximum height for AMFs: BFE
plus 8 feet.
Agree with Board
recommendation, include
definition of “top of boat lift.”
2. Exempt personal
watercraft (PWC) lifts from
the requirement that “in no
case shall the lift be higher
than the superstructure of
the boat when lifted” OR
remove requirement.
Exempt personal watercraft
(PWC) lifts from the requirement
that “in no case shall the lift be
higher than the superstructure of
the boat when lifted.”
Agree with Board
recommendation.
3. Maximum seawall cap
width = 3 feet; maximum
seawall cap plus dock width
= 8 feet.
Maximum seawall cap plus dock
width at eight (8) feet.
Agree with Board
recommendation.
4. Encroachment into water
at 25 feet or 25% of
waterway width, whichever
is less (measured from the
shortest distance adjacent to
property line).
Encroachment into water for
AMFs at 25 feet or 25 percent of
the waterway width, whichever is
less, (excludes AMFs along the
Intracoastal Waterway) to be
measured from wetface of
seawall or bulkhead.
Agree with Board
recommendation.
Page 5
PROPOSED AMENDMENT
CONCEPT
PLANNING BOARD (“Board”)
RECOMMENDATION
TOWN COMMISSION
(4-2-24)
5. 10 foot side setback for all
zoning districts. For lots <
100 feet in width, setback is
10% of width; however,
setback cannot be less than
5 feet.
No side setback for docks
Townwide. A minimum 10-foot
side setback for all other AMFs
Town wide (For lots less than 100
feet in width, setback is 10% of
width, setback cannot be less
than 5 feet). Such
recommendation does not apply
to floating vessel platforms which
are regulated by Florida Statute.
No action.
6. Require a ladder for every
50 feet of dock.
Provide one (1) ladder for each
100 feet abutting waterway, canal
or lake, for properties less than
100 feet, provide one ladder. The
ladder shall be either adjustable
or fixed and shall extend into the
water at mean low tide. Ladder
requirement would be triggered
as part of a special exception
request.
Provide two (2) versions of
amendment to include a
ladder “requirement” verses
a ladder “encouragement.”
In addition, exempt single-
family residences located on
the Intracoastal Waterway
from any ladder provision.
7. Maximum seawall height
(additional concept, not
included in initial proposal)
Maximum seawall height: BFE
plus one (1) foot.
No action.
As directed by the Town Commission, a ladder provision that “encourages” the use of marine-
related ladders has been incorporated into the draft Ordinance. A proposed ladder
“requirement” is provided below for consideration. For reference purposes, a table of other
municipal regulations pertaining to marine-related ladders is attached.
Section 30-68(g)(8):
***
All properties, with the exception of single-family residences (located within a single-family
zoning district) that abut the Intracoastal Waterway, shall provide one (1) ladder for each
100 feet abutting waterway, canal or lake . For properties less than 100 feet, provide one
ladder. Such ladder requirements shall coincide with a request for special exception. The
ladder shall be either adjustable or fixed and shall extend into the water at mean low
waterline.
At the request of the Town Manager, the proposed amendment to the Town Code includes a
requirement that residential floating vessel platforms and residential floating boat lifts shall
comply with the marine side yard setbacks provided for single-family zoning districts as
provided below (additional language underlined):
Section 30-68(g)(6)d. Marine facilities, including residential floating vessel platforms and
residential floating boat lifts, shall comply with the side yard setbacks listed below .
Page 6
1.Single-family zoning districts: Twenty-five (25) feet; provided, however, the side yard
setback shall be fifteen (15) feet for any single-family lot with a lot width of fifty (50) feet or
more but less than seventy (70) feet. For those lots with less than fifty (50) feet abutting
the water, the planning board may grant a special exception for the installation of a seawall
mounted davit type lifting device (but not a dock structure) after being satisfied as to the
protection of neighboring property and no infringement of standard navigation practices.
A brief history on hearings held and other related matters pertaining to the proposed
amendment concepts are provided below:
November 17, 2020 - Town Commission authorized Vice-Mayor Greg Babij to sponsor the
review and propose any amendment(s) to the accessory marine st ructure ordinance
provisions (motion carried 5-0).
March 15, 2022 – Town Commission considers introduction to proposed amendment
concepts regarding the AMF provisions of the Town Code. Commission consensus was to
establish a process for review of such amen dment concepts to include public participation
and review by the Planning Board.
April 19, 2022 – Town Commission provides direction in establishing a process for review
of amendment concepts as follows:
1. Requests that the Planning Board watch the April 19, 2022 Town Commission
discussion on such item (Number 10D).
2. Requests that the Planning Board physically observe the various canal/lot widths and
existing AMFs including boat lifts located within the Town.
3. Create maps of the various waterway widths (including canal and lakes).
4. Once Board site observations are complete, staff is to send out notices to all
waterfront property owners (west of State Road A1A) prior to the Planning Board
meeting where the Board will discuss proposed amendment concepts as provided to
the Town Commission on March 15, 2022.
May 12, 2022 – Planning Board considers the April 19, 2022 direction provided by the Town
Commission regarding Board review process for proposed amendments to the AMF
regulations of the Town Code.
May 23-27, 2022 – Planning Board participates in individual site observations of the Town
waterways via the Police Department’s Marine Patrol Unit (for those Board members who
do not have access to a boat). Note five (5) of the seven (7) Board members con ducted
their observations on the Marine Patrol Unit vessel.
June 21, 2022 – Town Commission considers a discussion on a “review timeline” for
proposed amendment concepts. Consensus from the Commission was to hold
neighborhood meetings at the Town library i n an effort to engage input from residents on
the proposed changes, and that such meetings commence in October or November upon
return of seasonal residents.
August 16, 2022 - Town Commission considers a discussion on a “review timeline” for
proposed amendment concepts. Consensus from the Commission is to hold three (3)
evening meetings in early November 2022.
December 5, 7,13, 2022 – Public Input Meetings regarding proposed changes (“amendment
concepts”) to the AMF and seawall regulations of the Town Code of Ordinances were held
at the Town Library.
Page 7
February 7, 2023 – Town Commission discussion on December 2022 Public Input Meetings
to include summary and next steps.
February 23, 2023 - At the request of the Bel Lido HOA president, staff presented the
proposed amendment concepts at the Bel Lido HOA meeting.
June 6, 2023 – At the request of the Town Commission, an update on the Planning Board’s
ongoing discussion of the amendments concepts was provided to the Commission.
June – July 2023 - At the request of the Planning Board, an additional round of individual
Board member site observations of the Town waterways was conducted via the Police
Department’s Marine Patrol Unit. Note five (5) of the seven (7) Board members participated.
September 21, 2023 and October 12, 2023 – The Planning Board approved
recommendations on the proposed amendment concepts. For Amendment Concept No. 1,
motion carried 5-2 (October 12, 2023), and for Amendment Concepts 2 -7 motion carried 6-
0 (September 21, 2023).
November 7, 2023 – The Planning Board’s recommendations were presented to the Town
Commission by the Planning Board Chairperson, Eric Goldberg.
ATTACHMENTS:
Ordinance.
Other municipal regulations pertaining to marine-related ladders.
Draft report from Greg Babij.
ATM report, 2/11/2022.
RECOMMENDATION:
At the discretion of the Town Commission.
Page 8
ORDINANCE NO. 2024-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COMMISSION OF THE TOWN
OF HIGHLAND BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 6,
“BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES,” OF THE TOWN CODE OF
ORDINANCES BY AMENDING SECTION 6-128, “APPROVAL
REQUIRED FOR BULKHEADS, SEAWALLS, RETAINING WALLS;
REQUIRED NOTIFICIATION OF ABUTTING PROPERTY
OWNERS,” TO PROVIDE A MAXIMUM SEAWALL CAP AND
DOCK WIDTH; AMENDING CHAPTER 30, “ZONING,” BY
AMENDING SECTION 30-68, “SUPPLEMENTAL DISTRICT
REGULATIONS,” TO PROVIDE A MAXIMUM HEIGHT FOR
BOAT LIFTS, A MAXIMUM EXTENSION FOR ACCESSORY
MARINE FACILICITIES INTO CANALS AND LAKES, A
MAXIMUM SEAWALL CAP AND DOCK WIDTH, AND LADDER
REGULATIONS AND AMENDING SECTION 30-131, “DEFINITION
OF TERMS,” TO PROVIDE DEFINITIONS THAT PERTAIN TO
ACCESSORY MARINE FACILITIES; PROVIDING FOR THE
REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY AND CODIFICATION; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Town of Highland Beach, Florida, is a duly constituted municipality having
such power and authority conferred upon it by the Florida Constitution and Chapter 166, Florida
Statutes; and
WHEREAS, on November 17, 2020, the Town Commission authorized Vice-Mayor Greg
Babij to sponsor a review and propose any amendment(s) to the accessory marine structure ordinance
provisions; and
WHEREAS, on March 15, 2022, the Town Commission considered an introduction to
proposed amendment concepts regarding the accessory marine facility provisions of the Town Code;
and
WHEREAS, on April 19, 2022, the Town Commission provided direction in establishing a
process for review of the amendment concepts; and
WHEREAS, on June 21, 2022 and August 16, 2022, the Town Commission considered a
discussion on a review timeline for the proposed amendment concepts and agreed to hold three (3)
evening meetings at the Town Library in an effort to engage input from residents; and
Page 9
WHEREAS, on December 5, 7, and 13, 2022, Public Input Meetings were held on the
proposed amendment concepts to the accessory marine facility and seawall regulations of the Town
Code of Ordinances; and
WHEREAS, on February 7, 2023, the Town Commission agreed to have the Planning Board
review the proposed amendment concepts and provide their recommendations to the Town
Commission; and
WHEREAS, on September 21 and October 12, 2023, the Planning Board provided their
recommendations on the proposed amendment concepts to the Town Commission; and
WHEREAS, on April 2, 2024, the Town Commission agreed to move forward with five (5)
of the seven (7) amendment concepts, and directed staff to draft an Ordinance accordingly; and
WHEREAS, the Town Commission of the Town of Highland Beach has determined that the
amendment to the Code of Ordinances is in the best interest of the Town of Highland Beach;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COMMISSION OF THE
TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH, FLORIDA that:
SECTION 1. The foregoing facts and recitations contained in the preamble to this
Ordinance are hereby adopted and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
SECTION 2. The Town Commission hereby amends Chapter 6 “Buildings and Structures,”
Article V “Seawalls; Bulkheads; Retaining Walls,” Section 6-128 “Approval required for bulkheads,
seawalls, retaining walls; required notification of abutting property owners” to read as follows
(additional language underlined and deleted language stricken through):
Sec. 6-128. - Approval required for bulkheads, seawalls, retaining walls; required
notification of abutting property owners.
(a) No bulkhead, seawall, or retaining wall shall be erected or constructed in any water,
canal or lake, or on land abutting thereon, within the limits of the town, unless plans and specifications
have been submitted to and approved by all federal, state and county agencies with jurisdiction over
such construction activities, the planning board and the town consulting engineer, with a copy of such
plans and specifications being filed with the town. The planning board shall review applications under
this section as special exceptions.
(b) All seawalls west of State Road A1A shall be at base flood elevation (BFE) or higher
as provided by the FEMA FIRM maps. The maximum combined seawall cap and dock width shall
Page 10
not exceed eight (8) feet as provided in Section 30-68(g)(6)b. All seawalls on the Intracoastal
Waterway and the Atlantic Ocean shall, at the discretion of the town engineer, have rip rap at the base
to dissipate the wave energy and to protect the berm.
SECTION 3. The Town Commission hereby amends Chapter 30 "Zoning Code,” Article IV
“Zoning Districts,” Section 30-68 “Supplemental district regulations” to read as follows (additional
language underlined and deleted language stricken through):
Sec. 30-68. – Supplemental district regulations.
***
(g) Accessory marine facilities:
(1) Accessory use. Accessory marine facilities, including docks, piers, launching
facilities, boat basins, freestanding pilings and lifting and mooring devices, are permitted as accessory
uses in all residential zoning districts. Accessory marine facilities shall be reviewed as special
exceptions by the planning board which shall be the final authority on all applications unless the
accessory marine facility is part of a site plan submittal or other application requiring town
commission approval as provided for in section 30-36.
a. Accessory marine facilities shall not be used for commercial purposes.
b. Accessory marine facilities shall be used only by residents or their guests, and shall
not be rented or leased to nonresidents or any other person other than owners or residents of the
principal dwelling or dwellings. For the purpose of this section, the term guest shall mean a person or
persons residing in a dwelling unit for a limited period of time, not to exceed a period of sixty (60)
days within one calendar year, at the invitation of the owner or resident of the dwelling.
c. Accessory marine facilities shall not be a hazard to navigation.
(2) Boat basins. Boat basins are allowed in all zoning districts and reviewed by a special
exception, subject to the additional standards listed below:
a. The edge of any improvements associated with a boat basin shall be located at least
twenty-five (25) feet from side property lines.
b. The total length of improvements associated with a boat basin shall not exceed one-
third (33.3%) of the length of the property line in which the basin is located.
c. Not more than twenty-five (25) percent of any boat moored in a boat basin may extend
waterward of property line in which the basin is located.
Page 11
d. The town, at the expense of the applicant, may utilize appropriate marine, engineering,
construction, and related professionals to review all aspects of such application. Such professionals
shall be utilized to ensure compliance with the requirements herein, to ensure a proposed basin will
not be a hazard to navigation, and to ensure a proposed boat basin will not pose a potential hazard,
via erosion or other action, to the stability of neighboring properties.
(3) Lifting devices. The installation of lifting devices or other means of securing boats
(but not a boat dock) is allowed in all zoning districts. The maximum height for lifting devices shall
be at base flood elevation (BFE), as provided by the FEMA FIRM maps, plus eight (8) feet. Lifting
device height shall be measured to the top of the lift structure including mechanical equipment. In
addition to the requirements for a special exception, the planning board must also find that the lifting
device will provide adequate protection of neighboring property and that there is no infringement of
standard navigational practices.
(4) Boats and setbacks. When moored, any portion of a boat shall not extend beyond any
property line, as extended waterward.
(5) Enclosures. Accessory marine facilities shall not be enclosed with walls, roofs, or any
other structures or improvements.
(6) Installation. Accessory marine facilities shall comply with the installation standards
listed below:
a. In waterways not regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or other
governmental regulatory agency, docks and mooring facilities structures shall not extend into the
water more than twenty-five feet (25’) or twenty-five percent (25%) of the waterway width,
whichever is less (excludes docks and mooring facilities located along the Intracoastal Waterway),
measured from the wet face of the seawall or bulkhead not extend into any waterway more than five
(5) feet.
b. In waterways regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, The maximum
combined seawall cap and dock width shall not exceed eight (8) feet. docks and mooring structures
may extend to that distance allowed by said agency.
c. Measurement of the width or length of a dock, as applicable, shall be made from the
property line.
d. Marine facilities, including residential floating vessel platforms and residential
floating boat lifts, shall comply with the side yard setbacks listed below.
Page 12
1. Single-family zoning districts: Twenty-five (25) feet; provided, however, the side yard
setback shall be fifteen (15) feet for any single-family lot with a lot width of fifty (50) feet or more
but less than seventy (70) feet. For those lots with less than fifty (50) feet abutting the water, the
planning board may grant a special exception for the installation of a seawall mounted davit type
lifting device (but not a dock structure) after being satisfied as to the protection of neighboring
property and no infringement of standard navigation practices.
2. Multifamily zoning districts: Five (5) feet, measured from the perimeter property
lines. In multifamily residential zoning districts, marine facilities shall be exempt from side yard
setback requirements for all interior lot lines.
(7) Perpendicular docking. Unless otherwise provided herein, boats shall not be moored
or docked perpendicular to the property at which they are located.
a. A boat moored at the landward end of a canal constructed for boat docking purposes
may be moored perpendicular to the property line, provided such mooring does not impede the
navigation of adjacent property owners.
b. A boat moored in the Intracoastal Waterway may be moored perpendicular to the
property line, subject to approval by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
c. A request for perpendicular docking of a boat in a canal shall be considered as a special
exception by the planning board. Applications for development order approval of perpendicular
docking of boats shall be subject to all standards applicable to a special exception request, and the
additional criteria contained herein:
1. Location of docks, docked boats, and relation to side setbacks shall be established by
the waterward extension of property lines.
2. Perpendicular docking of boats shall not interfere with navigation of other boats
within the affected canal, and will not be a hazard to navigation.
3. Perpendicular docking of boats shall comply with all setbacks required for accessory
marine facilities.
4. Docks or accessory mooring facilities approved by the planning board for
perpendicular docking of boats may exceed the maximum extension into a waterway allowed for
accessory marine facilities.
5. The building official or planning board may request evidence, prepared by a
recognized marine expert, demonstrating the following:
Page 13
i. Proposed perpendicular docking and related accessory marine facilities will not
reasonably deny or otherwise limit the ability of abutting or adjacent property owners to construct
accessory marine facilities;
ii. Proposed perpendicular docking and related accessory marine facilities will not
reasonably deny or otherwise limit the normal ability of abutting or adjacent property owners to moor,
maneuver, use or otherwise move a boat; and
iii. Proposed perpendicular docking and related accessory marine facilities will not deny
reasonable visual access of abutting property owners to public waterways.
(8) Ladders are permitted on docks, seawalls, finger piers or other mooring facilities.
(h) Dolphins, freestanding pilings, boat lifts, docks, and moorings:
(1) Installation. In order to be installed, dolphins, freestanding pilings, boat lifts, docks,
and moorings (collectively "mooring facilities") shall comply with all standards listed below:
a. The installation shall be subject to special exception approval by the planning board
at an advertised public hearing.
b. The mooring facilities will be located in a canal or waterway at least eighty (80) feet
in width.
c. The mooring facilities will not create a hazardous interference with navigation,
endanger life or property, or deny the public reasonable visual access to public waterways.
d. Construction of all mooring facilities shall require a building permit.
(2) Public notice. In addition to the requirements of section 30-46, written notice must be
provided by first class mail to owners of property abutting the canal and located within five hundred
(500) feet, as measured from both property lines along the canal bank, of the property in question.
(3) Documentation. The building official or planning board may, in the exercise of their
discretion, request evidence, prepared by a recognized marine expert, demonstrating the proposed
mooring facilities will not be a hazard to navigation and will not deny reasonable visual access to
public waterways.
(4) Adjacent property. Installation of the mooring facilities shall not cause a hazardous
interference with navigation, endanger life or property, or deny the adjacent property owners or public
reasonable visual access to the public waterway.
(5) Navigation. Installation of such mooring facilities shall not infringe upon standard
navigational practices that are or may be used by abutting property owners.
Page 14
(6) Floating docks. Floating docks are permitted, subject to conformance with all zoning
code requirements herein and compliance with all applicable building codes.
***
SECTION 4. The Town Commission hereby amends Chapter 30 "Zoning Code,” Article
VIII “Definitions,” Section 30-131 “Definitions of terms” to read as follows (additional language
underlined and deleted language stricken through):
Sec. 30-131. – Definitions of terms.
***
Boat lifts means the bottom of the keel of any boat shall not be hoisted greater than one foot
above the existing minimum seawall elevation. In no case shall the lift be higher than the
superstructure of the boat when lifted except for personal watercraft including jet skis.
Dolphin pilings means that the dolphin piling shall be marine grade wood pilings with a
minimum butt diameter of twelve (12) inches. Concrete pile is prohibited. Dolphin pilings shall not
extend into the water more than A maximum of twenty-five (25’) feet or twenty-five percent (25%)
thirty (30) percent of the waterway canal width, whichever is less (excluding such pilings located
along the Intracoastal Waterway), shall be allowed, measured from the wet face of the seawall or
bulkhead property line. Setback shall be no further than the primary structures side yard setback. The
minimum height shall be six (6) feet above mean high water (MHW) and the maximum shall be eight
(8) feet above MHW. All pilings shall have a reflective tape no more than two (2) inches below the
top of the piling and should be four (4) inches in width of the complete circumference.
***
SECTION 5. Severability. The provisions of this Ordinance are declared to be severable
and if any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance shall for any reason be held to be
invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections,
sentences, clauses, and phrases of this Ordinance but they shall remain in effect, it being the legislative
intent that this Ordinance shall stand notwithstanding the invalidity of any part.
SECTION 6. Repeal of Laws in Conflict. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict
herewith are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict.
SECTION 7. Codification. Section 2 of the Ordinance shall be made a part of the Town
Code of Ordinances and may be re-numbered or re-lettered to accomplish such, and the word
“ordinance” may be changed to “section,” “division,” or any other appropriate word.
Page 15
SECTION 8. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective immediately upon adoption
at second reading and shall only apply prospectively.
The forgoing Ordinance was moved by ________________________________________, seconded
by ___________________________________ and upon being put to the vote, the vote was as
follows:
VOTES: YES NO
Mayor Natasha Moore ____ ____
Vice Mayor David Stern ____ ____
Commissioner Evalyn David ____ ____
Commissioner Donald Peters ____ ____
Commissioner Judith M. Goldberg ____ ____
PASSED on first reading at the Regular Commission meeting held on this _____ day of
___________, 2024.
The forgoing Ordinance was moved by ________________________________________, seconded
by ___________________________________ and upon being put to the vote, the vote was as
follows:
VOTES: YES NO
Mayor Natasha Moore ____ ____
Vice Mayor David Stern ____ ____
Commissioner Evalyn David ____ ____
Commissioner Donald Peters ____ ____
Commissioner Judith M. Goldberg ____ ____
PASSED AND ADOPTED on second and final reading at the Regular Commission meeting held on
the _____ day of ___________, 2024.
_________________________
Natasha Moore, Mayor
ATTEST:
REVIEWED FOR LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
______________________________ ______________________________
Lanelda Gaskins, MMC Leonard G. Rubin, Town Attorney
Town Clerk Town of Highland Beach
Page 16
MARINE LADDER REGULATIONS
MUNICIPALITY CODE REGULATION
Boca Raton For docks, provide at least 1 ladder extending from dock surface to 2 feet below mean low water. For docks in excess of 50 ft
in length, 2 ladders shall be provided.
Manalapan Ladders are permitted on docks.
Gulf Stream For docks in single-family residential district, ancillary structures such as swim ladders are permitted
Delray Beach For a dock, at least one ladder extending from the dock surface to two feet below the mean low waterline.
For finger piers and docking facilities for 2 or more boats, at least 1 ladder for each 50 feet of finger pier length or major
fraction (over 50%) thereof, extending from the dock surface to 2 ft below the mean low waterline. Where 2 finger piers or
more are on the same property, at least 1 ladder shall be provided for each finger pier.
For a dock, or combination of docks serving the same property and exceeding 50 ft in aggregate length, at least one ladder
for each 50 feet of dock length or major fraction (over 50%) thereof extending from the dock surface to two feet below the
mean low waterline. Where two or more docks serve the same property, at least one ladder shall be provided for each dock.
Lighthouse
Point
All docks shall be provided with safety ladders from the dock or pier to the low-water mark of the canal.
-Note, Juno Beach and Jupiter have no code provisions specific to marine ladders.
Page 17
DRAFT Proposed Revisions to Marine Accessory Ordinances
Abstract:
The existing marine accessory ordinances lack some detail and it is recommended they are enhanced to
provide clarity on topics that have been a source of ambiguity and contention. Items like maximum
allowable height of marine accessories, ambiguity around jetski lifts vs. boat lifts, and the process of
dealing with marine accessories in where there is a discontinuity in the waterway (i.e corner lots, end of
canals) have all been points of contention between residents and the Building Department, due to lack
of detail.
Additionally, this is an opportune time to consider revising certain other components of the current
ordinances to address anticipated future conflicts or in some cases better conform with code used by
surrounding towns.
While reviewing the recommended changes, it may be beneficial to envision the concept of a 3-
dimensional box that sits on the rear property line of any waterfront lot. Marine accessories must
completely fit within the box to be permissible. Otherwise, they would be required to go through the
process of obtaining a variance.
Summary of Recommendations
1)Define a Maximum Allowable Height of Marine Accessories:
Recommended Maximum Height: Base Flood Elevation plus 7 feet.
There have been multiple debates around what is an acceptable height of boat lifts. The current codes
only state that a boat lift shall not be higher than the superstructure of the boat when lifted, but is silent
on how high up in the air the combined boat lift and boat can be. This leaves open the potential for
installing boatlifts on top of excessively high pilings, as long as the boat lift is fully retracted so the boat
will be higher than the lift itself.
It is recommended that the “height” of the 3 dimensional box behind any waterfront property be Base
Flood Elevation plus 7 feet. Referencing Base Flood Elevation allows the ordinance to be dynamic with
sea level rise, as it is a reference datum that has been occasionally revised higher by the US Government
in conjunction with the sea level. Pilings, and also the boat lift components must not be higher than
this recommended maximum allowable height.
2)Amend existing language related to Jetski (Personal Watercraft) Lifts
The current codes are excessively onerous for jetski lifts, relative to boat lifts. As Section 30-131 is
written, the bottom of the keel of any boat shall not be hoisted greater than one foot above the
minimum seawall elevation, and in no case shall the lift be higher than the superstructure of the boat
when lifted.
Because of the low vertical profile of a jetski (3 feet) relative to the vertical profile of a boat lift (7 feet),
a boat lift can be installed to hold a boat, but the very same boat lift would not be permissible if it is
used to instead lift a jetski. Page 18
It is recommended the current code be amended by either by removing the section that states in no
case shall the lift be higher than the superstructure of the boat when lifted, or simply exempt jet skis
(personal watercraft) from this code.
3) Define a maximum width of a seawall cap and also a maximum width of a dock out into the water.
Recommended maximum new seawall cap width of 3 feet as measured from the property line
Recommended maximum dock plus seawall cap width of 8 feet as measured from the property line
As properties are redeveloped and seawalls are replaced, there exists the potential for residents to look
to “extend” their effective usable property out into the water by building a new seawall outside of the
existing seawall. There is also the potential for properties to get extended by pouring excessively wide
seawall caps on top of new seawalls and building excessively wide docks.
By limiting the maximum seawall cap width from the property line, and also the maximum distance the
seawall cap plus dock can extend from the property line, the risk of one property owner effectively
creating their own peninsula is minimized.
It is recommended that the waterside edge of any new seawall cap be limited to 3 feet from the
property line, whether it is on top of a new wall, or is a cap raise on top of an existing wall.
Additionally, it is recommended that any new dock built is limited to a maximum distance of 8 feet out
into the water as measured from the property line. This would allow for the outer edge of neighboring
docks to all be limited to the same distance from the property line regardless of seawall cap size. For
example, if a property has a 2 foot wide seawall cap, then that property would be allowed to have a 6
foot wide dock, and meet the maximum combined width of 8 feet. While if a neighboring property has a
3 foot wide seawall cap, they would be limited to a dock width of 5 feet.
Lastly it is recommended that language be added into the code to limit the installation of no more than
1 new seawall outside of the original property seawall that abuts the property line. This eliminates the
risk that new seawalls are repeatedly installed on the waters edge side of existing seawalls, which would
effectively create a man-made peninsula.
4) Define a Maximum Distance that Marine Accessories can Extend into the Water
Recommended Maximum Distance: The lesser of 25 feet from the property line or 25% of the
waterway width.
This recommendation can be thought of as the perpendicular edge of the 3 dimensional box, as
measured from the property line straight out into the water.
The town codes [Sec. 30-68(g)(6)a and b] simply defer to the Army Core of Engineers for approval of
distance into water. It is recommended that the maximum distance be limited to the lesser of 25 feet or
25% of the width of the canal or waterway. Additionally, this distance will be measured from the
shortest distance between the two properties in question.
This maximum distance of 25 feet is not an arbitrary value. It was chosen to allow residents to mix and
Page 19
match combinations of seawall cap widths, dock widths and boat lift widths of reasonable size without
having to obtain a variance.
The chart below shows the various widths of boatlifts ranging from small boats to very large boats.
For illustration, a typical 40 ft powerboat may weigh 30,000 to 40,000 lbs., and that lift is 16 ft wide
(center to center) which is 17 ft wide when measured to the outsides of all pilings.
This very standard lift size could be installed at any home that has also conformed to the recommended
seawall cap and dock widths, and stay at the 25 ft maximum distance:
3 ft seawall cap + 5 foot dock + 17 foot boatlift = 25 ft.
On the larger end of the spectrum, a 120,000 lb boatlift could hold about the largest size boat an owner
would probably want to be able to lift behind a residential property. That boatlift is 22 ft wide center
to center, which would be 23 feet wide to the outsides of the pilings. This “mega lift” could still fit in a
back yard, but it would have to be right up against a seawall cap, as there is no room for a dock. Early
seawall caps were 2 feet wide, and newer caps are 2.5 feet to 3 feet wide. Also note this lift could be
installed at a property that has a 3 foot new cap, by notching out 1 foot where the inside pilings are
installed. And again this is an extreme outlier example.
A much more typical boat lift for very large boats would be a 50,000 or 60,000 or even possibly an
80,000 lb. lift and the widths there easily stay within the maximum 25 foot threshold with a 3 foot wide
seawall cap.
I am not sure Highland Beach has ever had a request to install an 80,000 or 120,000 lb. boatlift, as those
are a very rare size.
5) Amend Side setbacks to utilize a smoothed definition instead of the complicated step function
definition. Additionally apply the new definition to all property types.
The current town codes utilize a step function where the side setbacks jump at discrete intervals. For
example, if a single family zoned property is 71 feet wide, the side setbacks are 25 feet on each side.
Comparatively, if a single family zoned property is 69 feet wide, the side setbacks are 15 feet on each
side. Additionally, there exists a different set of side setbacks for single family zoning vs multi-family
zoning. Multi-family zoning has a zero foot setback.
It is recommended that the side setbacks be a smoothed function and are less for smaller properties so
Page 20
as to enhance the ability to utilize the water frontage. It is also recommended that the same set of
rules apply to all properties equally, regardless of zoning.
Recommendations for Side setbacks:
-For properties with waterline length of 100 feet or more: 10 foot side setback on either side. This
setback matches surrounding towns such as Boca Raton, Hillsboro Beach, and Ocean Ridge.
-For properties with waterline length of less than 100 feet: the side setbacks are proposed to be 10% of
property waterline length on either side, with a minimum setback of 5 feet, on either side.
Utilizing this framework, a 71 foot wide property would have side setbacks of 7.1 feet, and a 69 foot
property would have side setbacks of 6.9 feet.
Lastly, it is recommended that the current code clarify that with measurements will be made based on
the assumption that a lot line is extended beyond said property line on a line perpendicular to the
seawall or bulkhead. This clarification will provide clarity when measurements are being made with
properties that have lot lines that are not perpendicular to the seawall, such as pie shaped lots.
6) Require a Ladder for every 50 feet of dock.
This is simply a requirement in most surrounding towns and our code is silent.
7) Strengthen existing language on the approval process of marine accessories in areas where there is
a discontinuity in the waterway by acknowledging that they are a “special case” and external
expertise will be utilized.
The majority of conflicts are associated with areas where there is a discontinuity in the waterway such
as an abrupt restriction in the waterway width, end of canals, or corner lots or lots that extend into a
waterway. The current code is a bit nebulous around these more complicated properties, and in some
cases boatlifts have previously been installed in locations where one property owner is inadvertently
restricting or blocking an adjacent property owner of the ability to also install a boatlift.
This situation was discussed extensively with the Marine Consultant, and in his expert opinion, no code
can be written to address every possible potential scenario within the town. His recommend course of
action is to treat any property that has a small water frontage (perhaps less than 50 feet) or that has a
discontinuity in the waterway as “a special case.” In these special cases, the standard procedure will be
to consult with a marine expert who will make recommendations to the planning board on locations and
maximum permissible sizes of marine accessories, with the intention of making sure all surrounding
property owners are not having their ability to also utilize the waterway restricted. The code already
allows for outside experts for review of development approval requests via Sec. 30-12. The
recommended code change is simply to clarify to all parties that a consultation with a marine consultant
along with a consultant recommendation to the planning board will be part of the approval process in
these special cases.
The planning board can then decide what will be permitted. If a resident disagrees with the planning
board’s approval, and feels that their access is being restricted as a result of a marine accessory
installation, they can seek remedy through the court system.
Page 21
Page 22
2047 Vista Parkway, Suite 101 | West Palm Beach, FL 33411 | 561.659.0041
2/11/22
Ingrid Allen
Town Planner
Town of Highland Beach
3614 S. Ocean Boulevard
Highland Beach, FL 33487
Re: Accessory Marine Facility Code Amendments Relative to Boat Lifts
Town of Highland Beach
Ms. Allen,
This correspondence is provided as additional discussion and opinion regarding changes to
Town of Highland Beach code relative to ‘Accessory Marine Structures’ and specifically boat lifts
as defined within sec. 30-68 of municipal code. Items are discussed relative to potential
changes to specific requirements of the current code.
1. Requirement for Accessory Marine Facilities to receive Planning Board approval
The requirement that all accessory marine facilities receive planning board approval (ref. Sec.
30-68 Supplemental district regulations (g)(3)) is not a common requirement within coastal
communities. Boat lifts are generally allowed with restrictions without planning board approval.
Board approval is typically reserved for sites with special and unique circumstance (see item 6.
below) or for variance requests from the standard provisions defined in code. The requirements
for lift installation are generally defined by code in terms of limitations to the location (setback)
and overall size of the structure. These limitations meet the intent to minimize impacts to
adjacent properties, allow for safe navigation and minimize impacts to view.
2. Requirement of setbacks for all zoning districts
Page 23
Page 2 of 3
2047 Vista Parkway, Suite 101 | West Palm Beach, FL 33411 | 561.659.0041
Requirements for minimum setbacks for all zoning districts are a standard practice and are a
key provision to meet the intent to minimize impacts to adjacent properties, allow for safe
navigation and minimize visual impacts. The zero-foot setback for multi-family zoning within the
Town’s current code is anomalous and does not provide a sufficient setback to meet the intent.
Required minimum setbacks for boatlifts and docks vary considerably by jurisdiction. The
nominal width of lots within a municipally are generally relevant to this provision. Areas with
larger lots tend to have larger setback requirements, while areas with smaller lots have lesser
setback requirements to allow for reasonable use.
3. Limits to waterway encroachment
Limitations to the distance structures can encroach into a waterway are a standard practice and
meet the intent to allow for safe navigation and minimize impacts to adjacent properties and
views. Encroachment maximum distances on the order of 25 feet (relative to the waterway
edge) are fairly common, though additional restrictions for narrow waterways are also common
practice. In general, a fifty-foot effective fairway width is a common design standard for
residential canals.
4. Limitations to pile maximum height
Limitations to maximum pile height is not a common practice but does meet the intent to
minimize impacts to view. This approach also addresses a related issue relative to overall
vessel size. Limitations to pile height restrict the ability to lift vessels beyond a certain size
which addressed both issues of view and waterway navigability. In terms of maximum height, it
should be defined relative to a fixed vertical datum. Pile heights generally on the order of 12 feet
(NAVD 88) (which equates to something on the order of 8 feet above dock height) meet the
lifting requirements for most vessels.
5. Limits to seawall cap and dock width
Limitations to Sewall cap and dock total width meets the intent to limit impacts to adjacent
properties, waterway navigability and view. A total width of 8 feet (inclusive of the seawall cap
and dock) is consistent with general practice.
Page 24
Page 3 of 3
2047 Vista Parkway, Suite 101 | West Palm Beach, FL 33411 | 561.659.0041
6. Special and unique circumstances - Sewall discontinuities and corner lots
Regulation of boat lifts through minimum setbacks, size and height limitations are generally
sufficient to meet the intent to minimize impacts to adjacent properties, allow for safe navigation
and minimize impacts to view for waterways that are generally unform in dimension adjacent to
the regulated property. The majority of conflicts are associated with areas where there is a
discontinuity in the waterway such as an abrupt restriction in the waterway width, corner lots or
lots that extend into a waterway. Application of uniform code provisions to address these areas
are problematic as each circumstance is unique and requires consideration of the specific
current and intended use and access to the waterway. These issues are further complicated by
the range of boat types, sizes and performance characteristics which may be germane to both
the use and potential for impact to adjacent properties. Such instances likely warrant further
consideration by the Planning Board.
Sincerely,
Applied Technology & Management, Inc.
Michael G. Jenkins, Ph.D., P.E.
Coastal Engineering Principal
Printed copies of this document are not considered signed and sealed and the signature must be verified
on any electronic copies.
Michael
G Jenkins
Digitally signed by
Michael G Jenkins
Date: 2022.02.24
09:00:36 -05'00'
Page 25
File Attachments for Item:
A. Approval of Meeting Minutes
September 03, 2024 Town Commission Meeting Minutes
September 03, 2024 Town Commission First Public Hearing Budget Meeting
Page 26
TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH
TOWN COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
TOWN HALL COMMISSION CHAMBERS
3614 S. OCEAN BLVD., HIGHLAND BEACH, FL
Date: September 03, 2024
Time: 1:30 PM
1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Moore called the meeting to order at 1:30 P.M.
2. ROLL CALL
Commissioner Judith Goldberg
Commissioner Donald Peters
Commissioner Evalyn David
Vice Mayor David Stern
Mayor Natasha Moore
Town Manager Marshall Labadie
Town Attorney Leonard G. Rubin
Town Clerk Lanelda Gaskins
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Town Commission lead the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States of America.
4. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
MOTION: David/Stern - Moved to approve the agenda as presented, which passed
unanimously 5 to 0.
5. PRESENTATIONS / PROCLAMATIONS
A. Resolution No. 2024-021
A Resolution of the Town Commission of the Town of Highland Beach,
Florida, ratifying the selection, appointments, and term of office of
members of the Natural Resources Preservation Advisory Board; and
providing for an effective date.
Mayor Moore read the title of Resolution NO. 2024 -021.
Applicant David Newman was present and provided background information
about his professional experiences. He was interviewed by the Town
Commission concerning his interest in serving on this board.
Page 27
Town Commission Meeting Minutes
Date: September 03, 2024 Page 2 of 7
MOTION: David/Goldberg - Moved to approve Resolution No. 2024-021. Upon
roll call: Commission David (Yes); Commissioner Goldberg (Yes):
Commissioner Peters (Yes); Vice Mayor Stern (Yes); and Mayor
Moore (Yes). The motion passed unanimously on a 5 to 0 vote.
B. Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Budget Presentation Recap
Finance Director David DiLena provided a PowerPoint presentation highlighting
Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Budget presentation.
Town Manager Labadie talked about the open items such as the sewer lining
project (unfunded), internal fund loans, the SRF loan, 75th Anniversary
Celebration (price limit), Old Fire Station ($1M budgeted), and police vehicles
(partially budgeted). Discretionary Sales tax (funds).
Mr. David Newman provided comments.
6. PUBLIC COMMENTS (Public Comments will be limited to five (5) minutes per
speaker.
Fire Chief Glenn Joseph and the Fire Rescue Department presented Town Manager
Labadie with an official firefighter helmet.
7. ORDINANCES (Public Comments will be limited to three (3) minutes per speaker per
item after Commission initial discussion.)
A. None.
8. CONSENT AGENDA (These are items that the Commission typically does not need
to discuss individually, and which are voted on as a group.) Public Comments will be
limited to three (3) minutes per speaker per item after Commission initial discussion.
A. Approval of Meeting Minutes
August 06, 2024 Town Commission Meeting Minutes
Mayor Moore noted minor changes to the minutes and forwarded them to the
Town Clerk.
MOTION: David/Stern - Moved to accept the Consent Agenda with the minor
changes, which passed unanimously 5 to 0.
9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS (Public Comments will be limited to three (3) minutes per
speaker per item after Town Commission initial discussion.)
A. Building Department Recertification Program Update
Building Official Jeff Remas provided updates as follows:
Page 28
Town Commission Meeting Minutes
Date: September 03, 2024 Page 3 of 7
Fifty-three buildings are qualified under the milestone inspection.
Nineteen percent of the buildings are currently certified.
Currently staff are reviewing three phase one milestone inspection reports.
Staff have reviewed nine buildings’ milestone inspection reports. However
additional information was pending.
Four buildings have complied with the milestone report but are overdue in
completing the required work; town staff will scheduled meet with one building's
condominium association this Friday.
Restoration is currently underway for nineteen buildings, while one building
missed its deadline and must submit the electrical report.
Notifications were mailed to three buildings, but their reports are not due yet.
B. Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) RRR Project Update
Assistant Public Works Director Sergio Gonzales reported that the RRR project
is proceeding as planned. There were discussions about FDOT response time
for fixing broken gas lines and sprinklers, when needed. Additional conversations
focused on the project’s anticipated completion, the construction plan and design,
and addressing the potential traffic congestion near the turn lane on Linton
Boulevard. Mr. Gonzales will gather the specifics regarding the turn lane on
Linton Boulevard and provide the information to the Town Manager.
C. Sanitary Sewer Lining Rehabilitation Project Update
Assistant Public Works Director Gonzales reported that he and Public Works
Director Pat Roman have met with three (3) vendors. The vendors have contracts
with other municipalities, and he is working to obtain the best pricing for this
project.
10. NEW BUSINESS (Public Comments will be limited to three (3) minutes per speaker
per item after Town Commission initial discussion.)
A. Approve and authorize the Town Manager to sign a service agreement with
Pantropic Power in an amount of $133,278.33 for emergency repair and
maintenance to the town's generator to ensure the generator's long-term
operation and reliability.
Mayor Moore read the title for Item 10.A.
Assistant Public Works Director Gonzales presented this item. He talked about
the emergency repair and maintenance to the town’s generator .
Page 29
Town Commission Meeting Minutes
Date: September 03, 2024 Page 4 of 7
MOTION: David/Stern - Moved to authorize the Town Manager to sign an
agreement with Pantropic Power in the amount of $133,278.33 for
emergency repair and maintenance to the town's generator. Upon
roll call: Commissioner David (Yes); Vice Mayor Stern (Yes);
Commissioner Goldberg (Yes); Commissioner Peters (Yes); and
Mayor Moore (Yes). The motion carried 5 to 0.
B. Resolution No. 2024-022
A Resolution of the Town Commission of the Town of Highland Beach,
Florida, terminating the Town's 401(A) Defined Contribution Plan.
Mayor Moore read the title of Resolution No. 2024-022.
Town Manager Labadie presented this item and explained the reason for
terminating the Town’s 401(A) defined contribution plan and transitioning to
Lincoln Financial.
MOTION: David/Goldberg - Moved to approve Resolution No. 2024-22, which
passed unanimously 5 to 0.
C. Resolution 2024-023
A Resolution of the Town Commission of the Town of Highland Beach,
Florida providing for Annual Training for members of town boards; and
providing for an effective date.
Mayor Moore read the title of Resolution No. 2024-023.
Town Attorney Rubin presented this item and explained that the resolution
provides annual training for all advisory boards on an annual basis.
Mayor Moore opened the item for public comments.
Mr. Richard Greenwald of Tranquility Drive provided comments.
Mr. Jason Chudnofsky provided comments.
There were no further comments from the public.
MOTION: David/Vice Mayor Stern - Moved to approve Resolution No. 2024-23.
Upon roll call: Commissioner David (Yes); Vice Mayor Stern (Yes);
Commissioner Goldberg (Yes); Commissioner Peters (Yes); and
Mayor Moore (Yes). The motion carried 5 to 0 vote.
11. TOWN COMMISSION COMMENTS
Commissioner Judith M. Goldberg talked about the annual training. She commended
Town Manager Labadie for an outstanding job.
Page 30
Town Commission Meeting Minutes
Date: September 03, 2024 Page 5 of 7
Commissioner Donald Peters commended Finance Director David DiLena for being
conservative. He talked about the 75th Anniversary Committee meeting that he
recently attended and provided the following update: Mr. Jason Chudnofsky, of the
Highland Beach Police and Fire Foundation, will look into the foundation assisting
with the Town’s 75th Anniversary Celebration; and the Committee is looking to make
the Mingle Jingle event better and more organized this year.
Town Manager Labadie mentioned that Reverand Father Horgan of St. Lucy Church
was reviewing his calendar. He also mentioned that a professional event planner will
be effective in planning the town’s Anniversary events.
Commissioner Evalyn David talked about the annual training for the advisory boards.
She mentioned that it is great to be in such a good financial state, love that the Town
has reserves, and it is comforting to know that the Town provides big city services .
She also likes that the Town has reserves and are thinking about the future.
Vice Mayor David Stern congratulated Town Manager Labadie on the firefighter
helmet. He talked about an interview that he had with that he had an interview with
Mr. Rich Pollack of The Coastal Stars about electric vehicles.
Mayor Natasha Moore had no comments.
12. TOWN ATTORNEY’S REPORT
Town Attorney Rubin had no comments.
13. TOWN MANAGER’S REPORT
Town Manager Labadie reported the following:
The Florida League of Cities Policy Committee meeting will start in October. He
serves on Municipal Administration and Commissioner Goldberg serves on Finance
and Taxation and they help convenience the legislator to keep home rule at the
forefront and the Town’s interest alive in Tallahassee.
He thanked the Fire Rescue Department for the fire rescue helmet. He talked about
good call response, prompt response, a small fire incident that occurred at
Ambassador, and providing accommodations to the firefighters who went above and
beyond to assist a young lady concerning her living environment.
Town staff is collaborating with the architect concerning plans for the old fire station
and post office space. This information is forthcoming.
The Marina Accessory Facilities item will be on the September 17 Town Commission
agenda for discussion. The Town Planner and Town Attorney are working together
on this matter.
Page 31
Town Commission Meeting Minutes
Date: September 03, 2024 Page 6 of 7
He thanked Finance Director DiLena for the presentation and announced that the
First Public Hearing Budget Meeting is today at 5:01 PM.
14. ANNOUNCEMENTS
Board Vacancies
Board of Adjustment and Appeals Board One (1) vacancy for a three-
year term
Natural Resources Preservation Advisory Board One (1) vacancy for a three-year
term
Meetings and Events
September 03, 2024 5:01 P.M. Town Commission First Public Hearing Budget
Meeting
September 04, 2024 11:00 A.M. Natural Resources Preservation Advisory
Board Regular Meeting
September 10, 2024 1:00 P.M. Code Enforcement Board Regular Meeting
September 12, 2024 9:30 A.M. Planning Board Regular Meeting
September 17, 2024 1:30 P.M. Town Commission Meeting
September 18, 2024 5:01 P.M. Town Commission Second Public Hearing
Budget Meeting
Board Action Report
None.
Page 32
Town Commission Meeting Minutes
Date: September 03, 2024 Page 7 of 7
15. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 3:14 P.M.
APPROVED: September 17, 2024 Town Commission Meeting.
Signed Minutes on file in the Town
Clerk’s Office
ATTEST: Natasha Moore, Mayor
Transcribed by
Lanelda Gaskins
09/17/2024
Lanelda Gaskins, MMC
Town Clerk
Date
Disclaimer: Effective May 19, 2020, per Resolution No. 20-008, all meeting minutes are
transcribed as a brief summary reflecting the events of this meeting. Verbatim audio/video
recordings are permanent records and are available on the Town’s Media Archives & Minutes
webpage: https://highlandbeach-fl.municodemeetings.com/.
Page 33
TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH
TOWN TOWN COMMISSION FIRST PUBLIC
HEARING BUDGET MEETING MINUTES
TOWN HALL COMMISSION CHAMBERS 3614 S.
OCEAN BLVD., HIGHLAND BEACH, FL
Date: September 03, 2024
Time: 5:01 PM
1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Moore called the meeting to order at 5:01 P.M.
2. ROLL CALL
Commissioner Judith Goldberg
Commissioner Donald Peters
Commissioner Evalyn DavidVice Mayor David Stern
Mayor Natasha Moore
Town Manager Marshall Labadie
Town Attorney Leonard G. Rubin (virtually)
Town Clerk Lanelda Gaskins
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Town Commission led the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States of
America.
4. FIRST READINGS / PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Resolution No. 2024-024
A Resolution of the Town Commission of the Town of Highland Beach,
Florida, adopting a Final Millage Rate of 3.4040 Mils for the Town's
Generating Operating Funds for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2024,
and ending September 30, 2025; providing that the Final Millage Rate 3.4040
Mils is 8.0900 percent greater than the computed rolled back rate of 3.1491
Mils; providing for severability; conflicts, and an effective date.
Mayor Moore read the title of Resolution No. 2024-024.
Finance Director David DiLena presented this item.
Mayor Moore opened the public hearing for public comments. Hearing none, she
closed the public hearing.
Page 34
Town Commission First Public Hearing Budget Meeting Minutes
Date: September 03, 2024 Page 2 of 3
MOTION: David/Stern - Moved to approve Resolution No. 2024-024 setting a
Final Millage Rate of 3.4040 Mils. Upon roll call: Commissioner David
(Yes); Vice Mayor Stern (Yes); Commissioner Goldberg (Yes);
Commissioner Peters (Yes); and Mayor Moore (Yes). The motion
carried 5 to 0.
B. Resolution No. 2024-025
A Resolution of the Town Commission of the Town of Highland Beach,
Florida, adopting a Final Budget for the fiscal year beginning October 1,
2024, and ending September 30, 2025; determining and fixing the amounts
necessary to carry on the government of the Town for the ensuing year;
providing for severalty, conflicts, and an effective date.
Mayor Moore read the title of Resolution No. 2024-025.
Finance Director David DiLena also presented this item.
Mayor Moore opened the public hearing for public comments. Hearing none, she
closed the public hearing.
MOTION: David/Stern - Moved to approve Resolution No. 2024-025 adopting a
Final Budget for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2024, and ending
September 30, 2025. Upon roll call: Commissioner David (Yes); Vice
Mayor Stern (Yes); Commissioner Goldberg (Yes); Commissioner
Peters (Yes); and Mayor Moore (Yes). The motion carried 5 to 0.
5. TOWN MANAGER'S REVIEW
Town Manager Labadie presented this item. He met with each Town Commission
individually in person and discussed his performance and objectives. Additionally, he
did a self-review and prepared a statement on what the Commission expects to be
done next year. The Town Commission praised Town Manager Labadie for an
outstanding job performance, being a strong leader, as well as retaining talented
employees for the town and overseeing the implementation of the Fire Rescue
Department. It was the consensus of the Town Commission that Town Manager
Labadie receives the highest rate increase in accordance with his employment
contract, which is a ten percent (10%) increase.
MOTION: David/Peters - Moved to approve the highest rate allowed by the
contract for an increase for Marshall Labadie’s salary. Upon roll call:
Commissioner David (Yes); Commissioner Peters (Yes);
Commissioner Goldberg (Yes); Vice Mayor Stern (Yes); and Mayor
Moore (Yes). The motion passed 5 to 0.
Page 35
Town Commission First Public Hearing Budget Meeting Minutes
Date: September 03, 2024 Page 3 of 3
6. COMMISSION MEETINGS
September 17, 2024 1:30 P.M. Town Commission Meeting
September 18, 2024 5:01 P.M. Town Commission Second Public Hearing
Budget Meeting
7. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 5:13 P.M.
APPROVED: September 17, 2024 Town Commission Meeting.
Signed Minutes on file in the
Town Clerk’s Office
ATTEST: Natasha Moore, Mayor
Transcribed by
Lanelda Gaskins
09/17/2024
Lanelda Gaskins, MMC
Town Clerk
Date
Disclaimer: Effective May 19, 2020, per Resolution No. 20-008, all meeting minutes
are transcribed as a brief summary reflecting the events of this meeting. Verbatim
audio/video recordings are permanent records and are available on the Town’s
Media Archives & Minutes webpage: https://highlandbeach -
fl.municodemeetings.com/.
Page 36
File Attachments for Item:
A. Resolution No. 2024-020
A Resolution of the Town Commission of the Town of Highland Beach, Florida
approving an application with Synovus Bank for credit card services with line of
$100,000.00 and authorizing Town Administration to execute all required documents;
and providing for an effective date.
Page 37
TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-020
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF
HIGHLAND BEACH, FLORIDA, APPROVING AN APPLICATION WITH
SYNOVUS BANK FOR CREDIT CARD SERVICES WITH A CREDIT LINE OF
$100,000 AND AUTHORIZING TOWN ADMINISTRATION TO EXECUTE ALL
REQUIRED DOCUMENTS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Town Staff requested authorization to apply for credit card services with Synovus
Bank with a credit line of $100,000; and
WHEREAS, the Town Commission wishes to approve the filing of such application and
determines that the adoption of this Resolution is in the best interests of the Town and its residents.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COMMISSION OF THE
TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The foregoing recitals are ratified and incorporated herein.
Section 2. The Town Commission hereby approves the filing of a credit card application
with Synovus Bank with a credit line of $100,000, and authorizes the Town Manager and the appropriate
members of Town Staff to execute all documents necessary to effectuate this transaction, including, but
not limited to: (1) the Synovus Bank Borrowing Resolution for Churches, Oth er Nonprofit
Organizations, and Other Organizations; and (2) the Synovus Treasury Management Visa Purchasing
Credit Card Application.
Section 3. This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon adoption.
Page 38
Resolution No. 2024-020
2
DONE AND ADOPTED by the Town Commission of the Town of Highland Beach, Florida, this ____
day of _____________, 2024.
ATTEST: Natasha Moore, Mayor
REVIEWED FOR LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY:
Lanelda Gaskins, MMC
Town Clerk
Leonard G. Rubin, Town Attorney
VOTES: YES NO
Mayor Natasha Moore
Vice Mayor David Stern
Commissioner Evalyn David
Commissioner Donald Peters
Commissioner Judith Goldberg
Page 39
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
Page 43
Page 44
Page 45
Public Comments for Agenda Item 8.A
From:Marshall Labadie
To:Jaclyn Dehart
Subject:FW: Letter to the Town Commission and the Planning Board regarding marine accessory ordinances (Thus far 24
property owners are in support of making the marine accessory rules less restrictive)
Date:Tuesday, September 17, 2024 8:21:24 AM
Attachments:Town of Highland Beach - COMMENT SHEET_PUBLIC INPUT MEETINGS. David Willens 2362 S Ocean Blvd 1-23-
24.pdf
image001.png
Please print for Commission and record…
From: David Willens <dwillens65@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2024 8:09 AM
To: greg4hb@yahoo.com; Marshall Labadie <mlabadie@highlandbeach.us>; Natasha Moore
<nmoore@highlandbeach.us>; David Stern <dstern@highlandbeach.us>; Evalyn David
<edavid@highlandbeach.us>; Judith Goldberg <jgoldberg@highlandbeach.us>; Don Peters
<dpeters@highlandbeach.us>; Craig Hartmann <chartmann@highlandbeach.us>
Cc: Greg Babij <greg4hb@yahoo.com>; David Axelrod <dzaxelrod@gmail.com>; Jeffrey (via Google
Docs) <jeffreyfl@gmail.com>; mdebeer@brightplan.com; Allan Goldstein
<agoldstein@amgresources.com>; Eric.Berch@svcfin.com; Brenda Berch <berchb827@gmail.com>;
Christine Nessen <christine.nessen@gmail.com>; Robert Spahr <rspah50@gmail.com>; Roger Brown
<roger3265@aol.com>; Greg Stuart <gstuart@frminc.com>
Subject: Re: Letter to the Town Commission and the Planning Board regarding marine accessory
ordinances (Thus far 24 property owners are in support of making the marine accessory rules less
restrictive)
Dear Commissioners,
I emphatically agree with and support the position advocated by Mr. Babij in his exhaustive
efforts to date as well as his letter recently circulated and provided to the Commission
respecting the proposed Code changes relating to accessory marine structures and the failure
of the Commission to duly consider, respond to and respect the clearly expressed input and
wishes of its constituent property owners in the Town of Highland Beach, including my own.
The Commission’s review of the applicable Code provisions for accessory marine facilities has
been ongoing now for nearly four years without any action to date, which is way too long to begin
Town Commission Meeting 09.17.2024 Public Comment
with. The Commission’s staff undertook a professional, thorough evaluation of the Code
provisions and with direction of the Commission engaged an independent marine consultant to
provide an independent professional evaluation of the affected waterways and related code
provisions. Both did an excellent job in this regard. And, both the Commission’s staff and its
independent marine consultant provided the Commission detailed recommendations and
proposed Code amendments to address the ostensibly overly restrictive and antiquated
provisions governing accessory marine structures that do not fairly address the current
development, conditions, sea water levels, technology, watercraft or comparable provisions
commonly established by other South Florida communities. And yet, after this exhaustive and
grossly delayed process, the Commission is still not listening to the professional
recommendations advanced by its independent marine consultant, nor the Commission’s own
staff, nor the emphatic wishes of the Town residents who actually reside on the waterfront. For
clarity, most of we residents, who each spent millions of dollars for our beautiful residences
situated on deep, navigable waterfront here in Highland Beach, acquired these homes to avail
ourselves of their deepwater access and use of the beautiful waterways and ocean for boating
and other water activities. Our properties have by far the most property value and it is our taxes
that support this town. The overly restrictive Code provisions for accessory marine facilities
likely compromise such values and certainly the desirability of our waterfront properties.
Specific to my own concern is Section 30-68(g)(6)(d)(1)) of the Highland Beach Municipal Code
which provides for grossly restrictive (excessive) side yard set-backs for docks at single family
residences compared to every nearby community surveyed by my attorneys in their review of
other similar local municipalities. Both the Commission staff and the marine consultant
advocated significant reductions to these setbacks consistent with Mr. Babij
recommendations, specifically recommending a reduction in the side yard set-backs to be 10%
of a property’s waterfront width. With all due respect, Mayor Moore’s statement that I
understand was made at a recent Commission meeting (referenced by Mr. Babij) that “she has
never heard requests to decrease the side yard set backs” clearly affirms she has not read the
record including prior feedback from residents. (For example, see attached my own public
comment sheet provided to Commission at one of the relevant public hearings in 2022).
The failure of the Commission to undertake the proposed Code amendment without responding
to the side yard set-back concerns (and any other unaddressed issues) of the waterfront
property owners and the express recommendations of Commission staff and the Town’
Commission’s independent marine consultant feels dismissive, arbitrary and capricious.
Accordingly, I sincerely hope the Commission reconsiders its proposed Code amendment to
respond to such expressed concerns and recommendations.
Respectfully,
David Willens, Esq,
David A. Willens
President, Willens Family Office
dwillens65@gmail.com
(561) 866-2757
From: greg4hb@yahoo.com <greg4hb@yahoo.com>
Date: Monday, September 16, 2024 at 11:01 PM
To: Marshall Labadie <mlabadie@highlandbeach.us>, Natasha Moore
<nmoore@highlandbeach.us>, dstern@highlandbeach.us <dstern@highlandbeach.us>,
edavid@highlandbeach.us <edavid@highlandbeach.us>, jgoldberg@highlandbeach.us
<jgoldberg@highlandbeach.us>, dpeters@highlandbeach.us
<dpeters@highlandbeach.us>, chartmann@highlandbeach.us
<chartmann@highlandbeach.us>
Cc: Greg Babij <greg4hb@yahoo.com>, David Axelrod <dzaxelrod@gmail.com>, Jeffrey
(via Google Docs) <jeffreyfl@gmail.com>, mdebeer@brightplan.com
<mdebeer@brightplan.com>, Allan Goldstein <agoldstein@amgresources.com>,
Eric.Berch@svcfin.com <Eric.Berch@svcfin.com>, Brenda Berch
<berchb827@gmail.com>, Christine Nessen <christine.nessen@gmail.com>, Robert
Spahr <rspah50@gmail.com>, Roger Brown <roger3265@aol.com>, Greg Stuart
<gstuart@frminc.com>, dwillens65@gmail.com <dwillens65@gmail.com>
Subject: Letter to the Town Commission and the Planning Board regarding marine
accessory ordinances (Thus far 24 property owners are in support of making the marine
accessory rules less restrictive)
Dear Commissioners,
Apparently the content of my letter has made its way around the waterfront residents. As of tonight I have heard
from owners of 24 waterfront properties that are strongly in support of making the town's marine ordinances wholly
LESS restrictive. There is strong support for what was originally proposed by me after the marine accessory
ordinance working group and even greater support for matching the least restrictive ordinances of surrounding towns
for each of the various accessories such as docks, boat lifts, floating vessel platforms, perpendicular piers and boat
limits.
I would expect you will be hearing a lot more from this group of residents soon.
Regards,
Greg
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: greg4hb@yahoo.com <greg4hb@yahoo.com>
To: Marshall Labadie <mlabadie@highlandbeach.us>; Natasha Moore <nmoore@highlandbeach.us>;
dstern@highlandbeach.us <dstern@highlandbeach.us>; edavid@highlandbeach.us <edavid@highlandbeach.us>;
jgoldberg@highlandbeach.us <jgoldberg@highlandbeach.us>; dpeters@highlandbeach.us
<dpeters@highlandbeach.us>; Craig Hartmann <chartmann@highlandbeach.us>
Cc: Greg Babij <greg4hb@yahoo.com>; dzaxelrod@gmail.com <dzaxelrod@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2024 at 09:15:45 PM EDT
Subject: Letter to the Town Commission and the Planning Board regarding marine accessory ordinances
Marshall,
Can you please share my attached letter with all of the Commissioners and the Planning Board? I don't have all of
their emails
Thanks,
Greg
COMMENT SHEET
__________________________ __________________________________ _________________________
NAME ADDRESS EMAIL ADDRESS
1. Maximum height for Accessory Marine Facilities (AMF) at Base Flood Elevation (BFE) plus 7 feet.
2. Exempt personal watercraft (PWC) lifts from the requirement that “in no case shall the lift be higher than the superstructure
of the boat when lifted” OR remove requirement.
3. Maximum seawall cap width of 3 feet; maximum 8-foot width for seawall cap plus dock.
David Willens 2362 South Ocean Blvd dwillens65@gmail.com
I support the proposed change.
I support the proposed change.
I support the proposed change.
January 4, 2023
Town Commission Meeting 09.17.2024 Public Comment
4. Encroachment of AMFs and seawalls into water at 25 feet or 25% of waterway width, whichever is less (measured from the
shortest distance adjacent to property line).
5. 10 foot side setback for all zoning districts. For lots less than 100 feet in width, setback is 10% of width; however, setback
cannot be less than 5 feet.
6. Require a ladder for every 50 feet of dock.
7. Maximum seawall height.
Additional Comments:
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
If you prefer, you can email your comment sheet to iallen@highlandbeach.us
THANK YOU FOR YOUR INPUT…
The dock set back issue is the big issue in my opinion. I live directly on the intracoastal and my property frontage is 80 ft. limiting me to a 30 ft dock. The IC is extremely
busy and there are no wake restrictions. Accordingly, without a longer dock and associated "T" dock incorporating a water break design, it is impracticable to dock a boat at
my home or even board or access a boat at most times due to boat traffic. A longer dock and water break (as the code amendment is proposed I would be entitled to a 64'
dock) would allow a reasonable size vessel to dock within the protected area including to utilize a lift during busy IC use benefitting from reduced wave action at the lift. In
fact, I have already obtained Army Corps of Engineers and DEP approval for same but the town Code prohibits my construction permit. This grossly unreasonably
restrictive code therefore deprives me of the right to use my property for boating that any reasonable person would expect and rmaterially reduces the value of my property.
I support the proposed change, except that for properties located directly on the Intracoastal waterway, such encroachment
distance should be allowewd to a greater extent if and as approved and permitted by the Federal Army Corps of Engineers.
I emphatically support the proposed change. The foremost reason residents buy navigable waterfront properties is marine
access/usage, including boating at their home. The current SFR code 25' setback is grossly inconsistent with and much
more restrictive than every other local town: ex. Deerfield Beach-5 ft; Gulfstream-5 ft; Boca Raton and Delray-10ft. The code
makes absolutely no sense when a SFR with 70' frontage can have a 40' dock vs a SFR with 80' only permits a 30' dock?
I think one ladder for every 100 feet of water frontage is sufficient and makes better sense conceptually and from a safety
perspective to measure by water frontage rather than dock length.
I would propose to allow seawalls up to a maximum height equal to the then current base flood elevation.
Greg Babij
1092 Bel Lido Drive
Highland Beach, FL 33487
September 15, 2024
Board of Commissioners
Town of Highland Beach
3614 S. Ocean Blvd.
Highland Beach, FL 33487
Dear Commissioners:
For those of you unfamiliar, I am a waterfront resident of Highland Beach, and the former Vice
Mayor of Highland Beach that worked for a year with the building department and the outside
marine consultant on proposing changes to the town’s marine accessory ordinances.
I received a copy of your proposed revisions to be discussed at the next Commission meeting and I
am thoroughly disappointed. The proposed ordinance details are generally more restrictive rather
than less restrictive, are very different than what was recommended by your planning board, and
are far from what was proposed to the Commission after our initial working group concluded.
Many if not most of the younger residents (under age 65) live on the water because they have a
desire to actively utilize it, not simply sit and observe it. They desire an active lifestyle that includes
boats, paddle boards, jet skis and the best thing for the environment is to keep all of them out of the
water when not in use.
While a number of waterfront residents have found the proposed ordinance frightening, I won’t go
through every component, and instead provide just a few examples to illustrate how sideways this
has gone.
Side Setbacks:
At a recent Commission meeting, Mayor Moore commented that she hasn’t heard any requests to
decrease side setbacks. Please take this letter as notice that there are a signiflcant number of
waterfront residents that would in fact like to see a substantial decrease of side setbacks. A
decrease of side setbacks is what was proposed by the original working group, and the following
single family and multi-family waterfront residents desire less rather than more restrictive marine
accessory rules including a decrease from the 25 ft side setbacks to something that is similar to the
surrounding towns (ranging from as low as zero to a maximum of 15 ft).
Greg Stuart / Alisa Musa – 4403 Intracoastal Drive
Marthin DeBeer – 4307 Intracoastal Drive
Alan Goldstein – 4403 Intracoastal Drive
Sara Regnier – 1083 Bel Lido Drive
Roger Brown – (2 Properties) 4314 Tranquility Drive & 4315 Tranquility Drive
Mark Kabbes – 1001 Bel Air Drive
Eric Bernier – 4205 Intracoastal Drive
Robert Spahr – 4314 Tranquility Drive
Michael Duggan – 4314 Tranquility Drive
Eric & Brenda Berch – (2 lots combined) 4425 Tranquility Drive
Jeff Kleiman – 4321 Intracoastal Drive & 1084 Bel Lido Drive
Greg Babij – 1092 Bel Lido Drive
This is by no means an exhaustive list – simply a partial list to illustrate that there are a signiflcant
number of residences that would like the Commission to relax the marine accessory ordinances, to
something that match the surrounding towns and certainly not make them any more restrictive.
Floating Vessel Platforms, Boat Lift Elevations & Basins:
You should be embracing this desire to preserve and protect the marine ecosystem, and not try to
hamper it. Getting watercraft out of the water and on to a boat lift, fioating vessel platform, seapen
or other device is a very positive impact on the environment. This is the very stance that the State
of Florida has taken, hence their ordinances that are designed to encourage the use of these items,
along with minimal restrictions on property setbacks in some cases like fioating vessel platforms.
Your only concern should be ensuring any marine accessory doesn’t impede the ability to navigate
the waterway, and there are already rules in place for that. Additionally, according to one of the
marine attorneys I recently spoke to, the state law cannot be superseded by more restrictive rules
from the local municipality. You should not in any way even consider any ordinances that are more
restrictive than the state, especially when many of your waterfront residents are asking for the
opposite (see above list).
Surrounding town regulations on fioating vessel platforms, perpendicular docking and basins are all
being successfully implemented and are fair to those on both sides of the issue. You should be
embracing what is working well around us, as that is what many of your residents are asking for.
In terms of maximum height of boat keels, you should be in favor of allowing them to be lifted as
high as the current maximum height of a seawall. If you do believe in rising tides, you should want
boat owners to be able to lift them up to a level where they can be confldent that they won’t fioat off
of the lift in a storm surge. If you are raising the allowable height of the seawall, allow lifting
apparatus heights to increase accordingly.
Conclusion:
At a very minimum, I strongly urge you to revisit the marine accessory ordinance issue with the
planning board and seek their opinion on the revised ordinance in front of you at the next
Commission meeting, as it has substantially changed from what the planning board previously
reviewed and made recommendations on.
I would also encourage you to host an open discussion at a future Commission meeting on this
topic with me as a presenter if you are so inclined.
As always, I am available to speak to any commissioner or the commission as a body if you would
like to investigate this matter further.
Regards,
Greg
From:Marshall Labadie
To:Jaclyn Dehart
Subject:FW: 1096 Bel Lido: Marine Accessory Ordinances Perspective
Date:Tuesday, September 17, 2024 8:18:50 AM
Attachments:Marine Accessory Ordinance letter to Commission 20240915.pdf
image001.png
Print for Commission and record
From: Christine Nessen <christine.nessen@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2024 10:55 PM
To: Marshall Labadie <mlabadie@highlandbeach.us>; Natasha Moore <nmoore@highlandbeach.us>;
David Stern <dstern@highlandbeach.us>; Evalyn David <edavid@highlandbeach.us>; Judith Goldberg
<jgoldberg@highlandbeach.us>; Don Peters <dpeters@highlandbeach.us>; Craig Hartmann
<chartmann@highlandbeach.us>
Cc: Anders Nessen <a_nessen@hotmail.com>
Subject: 1096 Bel Lido: Marine Accessory Ordinances Perspective
Good evening, Commissioners & all,
Hope everyone is doing well. We are 15-year homeowners at 1096 Bel Lido Drive and next
door neighbors to the Babijs.
We are also in favor of reconsidering the proposed restrictions on marine accessory
ordinances.
Best regards,
Christine & Anders Nessen
Town Commission Meeting 09.17.2024 Public Comment
From:Marshall Labadie
To:Jaclyn Dehart
Subject:FW: Letter to the Town Commission and the Planning Board regarding marine accessory ordinances (Thus far 24
property owners are in support of making the marine accessory rules less restrictive)
Date:Tuesday, September 17, 2024 11:58:13 AM
Attachments:image001.png
And this one….
From: Brenda Berch <berchb827@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2024 11:48 AM
To: greg4hb@yahoo.com
Cc: Marshall Labadie <mlabadie@highlandbeach.us>; Natasha Moore <nmoore@highlandbeach.us>;
David Stern <dstern@highlandbeach.us>; Evalyn David <edavid@highlandbeach.us>; Judith Goldberg
<jgoldberg@highlandbeach.us>; Don Peters <dpeters@highlandbeach.us>; Craig Hartmann
<chartmann@highlandbeach.us>; David Axelrod <dzaxelrod@gmail.com>; Jeffrey (via Google Docs)
<jeffreyfl@gmail.com>; mdebeer@brightplan.com; Allan Goldstein <agoldstein@amgresources.com>;
Eric.Berch@svcfin.com; Christine Nessen <christine.nessen@gmail.com>; Robert Spahr
<rspah50@gmail.com>; Roger Brown <roger3265@aol.com>; Greg Stuart <gstuart@frminc.com>;
dwillens65@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Letter to the Town Commission and the Planning Board regarding marine accessory
ordinances (Thus far 24 property owners are in support of making the marine accessory rules less
restrictive)
Dear Commissioners,
Please accept this email in full support of Mr. Babji’s letter below.
We are some what surprised that this issue has only come to our attention within the last
24 hours and were not given enough time to share our views prior to the commissioners
meeting to pass the new ordinances today.
Sincerely,
Eric and Brenda Berch
Town Commission Meeting 09.17.2024 Public Comment
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 16, 2024, at 11:01 PM, greg4hb@yahoo.com wrote:
Dear Commissioners,
Apparently the content of my letter has made its way around the waterfront residents. As of tonight I
have heard from owners of 24 waterfront properties that are strongly in support of making the town's
marine ordinances wholly LESS restrictive. There is strong support for what was originally proposed
by me after the marine accessory ordinance working group and even greater support for matching the
least restrictive ordinances of surrounding towns for each of the various accessories such as docks,
boat lifts, floating vessel platforms, perpendicular piers and boat limits.
I would expect you will be hearing a lot more from this group of residents soon.
Regards,
Greg
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: greg4hb@yahoo.com <greg4hb@yahoo.com>
To: Marshall Labadie <mlabadie@highlandbeach.us>; Natasha Moore <nmoore@highlandbeach.us>;
dstern@highlandbeach.us <dstern@highlandbeach.us>; edavid@highlandbeach.us
<edavid@highlandbeach.us>; jgoldberg@highlandbeach.us <jgoldberg@highlandbeach.us>;
dpeters@highlandbeach.us <dpeters@highlandbeach.us>; Craig Hartmann
<chartmann@highlandbeach.us>
Cc: Greg Babij <greg4hb@yahoo.com>; dzaxelrod@gmail.com <dzaxelrod@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2024 at 09:15:45 PM EDT
Subject: Letter to the Town Commission and the Planning Board regarding marine accessory
ordinances
Marshall,
Can you please share my attached letter with all of the Commissioners and the Planning Board? I
don't have all of their emails
Thanks,
Greg
<Marine Accessory Ordinance letter to Commission 20240915.pdf>
From:Marshall Labadie
To:Jaclyn Dehart
Subject:FW: Letter to the Town Commission and the Planning Board regarding marine accessory ordinances
Date:Tuesday, September 17, 2024 11:57:39 AM
Attachments:Marine Accesory Letter to Commission 091624.pdf
image001.png
This one as well….
From: Marthin De Beer <mdebeer@brightplan.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2024 11:41 AM
To: greg4hb@yahoo.com; Marshall Labadie <mlabadie@highlandbeach.us>; Natasha Moore
<nmoore@highlandbeach.us>; David Stern <dstern@highlandbeach.us>; Evalyn David
<edavid@highlandbeach.us>; Judith Goldberg <jgoldberg@highlandbeach.us>; Don Peters
<dpeters@highlandbeach.us>; Craig Hartmann <chartmann@highlandbeach.us>
Cc: Greg Babij <greg4hb@yahoo.com>; David Axelrod <dzaxelrod@gmail.com>; Jeffrey (via Google
Docs) <jeffreyfl@gmail.com>; Marthin De Beer <mdebeer@brightplan.com>; Allan Goldstein
<agoldstein@amgresources.com>; Eric Brenda Berch <Eric.Berch@svcfin.com>; Brenda Berch
<berchb827@gmail.com>; Christine Nessen <christine.nessen@gmail.com>; Robert Spahr
<rspah50@gmail.com>; Roger Brown <roger3265@aol.com>; Greg Stuart <gstuart@frminc.com>;
dwillens65@gmail.com
Subject: Letter to the Town Commission and the Planning Board regarding marine accessory
ordinances
Dear Commissioners,
We fully support the views in Mr. Babij letter you received as this issue became known
over the past 24 hours. Please find attached our letter and views re this matter attached.
Sincerely
Marthin De Beer
Founder & CEO
408-656-5171
Town Commission Meeting 09.17.2024 Public Comment
BrightPlan
mdebeer@brightplan.com
www.brightplan.com
MARTHIN AND KARIN DE BEER
4307 Intracoastal Dr, Highland Beach | 408-656-5171 | mdebeer@brightplan.com
September 17 , 2024
Board of Commissioners
Town of Highland Beach
3614 S. Ocean Blvd
Highland Beach, FL 33487
Dear Board of Commissioners:
We have been boaters for more than 30 years on the west and east coasts and moved to Highland
Beach in 2019 for the local boating we so enjoy here. We whole heartedly agree with Mr. Babij and
others who reached out to us expressing significant concerns over the proposed changes. The result of
these proposed changes will impede boaters ability to properly secure vessels for storms, thereby
increasing liability for all residents, further contribute to rising insurance rates and cause an adverse
impact on property values in Highland Beach.
We provided input to the town on the work Mr. Babji did a couple of years ago in favor of less
restrictive marine accessory and set back ordinances and to better conform with the communities
around us.
I strongly urge you to revisit the marine accessory ordinance issue with the planning board and seek
their opinion, as it has substantially changed from the planning board's previously reviewed
recommendations. If there is any doubt about the position of the larger boating community in
Highland Beach, I would implore you to host an open discussion at a future Commission meeting on this
topic.
Thank you for your service and consideration of our position requesting less restrictive marine accessory
regulations.
Sincerely,
Marthin de Beer
From:Marshall Labadie
To:Jaclyn Dehart
Subject:FW: Marine Accessory Regulations
Date:Tuesday, September 17, 2024 8:19:42 AM
Attachments:image001.png
Please print for Commission and record
From: Mark Kabbes <mkabbes@seakay.us>
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2024 11:31 PM
To: Marshall Labadie <mlabadie@highlandbeach.us>; Natasha Moore <nmoore@highlandbeach.us>;
Evalyn David <edavid@highlandbeach.us>; Judith Goldberg <jgoldberg@highlandbeach.us>; David
Stern <dstern@highlandbeach.us>; Don Peters <dpeters@highlandbeach.us>
Subject: Marine Accessory Regulations
Highland Beach Commissioners:
I was disappointed to hear that the commission is considering even more restrictive set backs
for boats in our town. I felt 15’ was too restrictive but still workable, the proposed new
ordinances would severely limit people’s options and enjoyment of their waterfront property. I
believe that you would find an overwhelming majority of residents of single family homes with
intercoastal or canal access would agree. Restricting peoples access and enjoyment to their
own backyards is not going to be popular with waterfront residents. Please reconsider following
the restrictions neighboring towns have adopted.
Sincerely,
Mark Kabbes
1001 Bel Air
Town Commission Meeting 09.17.2024 Public Comment
From:Marshall Labadie
To:Jaclyn Dehart
Subject:FW: Side Setbacks - current is 25ft along waterfrontage - should it be reduced?
Date:Tuesday, September 17, 2024 11:37:54 AM
Attachments:Wiener Response Feb 23 2023.pdf
Babij Marine Accessory Ordinance letter to Commission 20240915.pdf
image001.png
This one too…thanks
From: Natasha Moore <nmoore@highlandbeach.us>
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2024 11:30 AM
To: Marshall Labadie <mlabadie@highlandbeach.us>
Subject: Fw: Side Setbacks - current is 25ft along waterfrontage - should it be reduced?
FYI...
From: Jonathan Wiener <jwiener@me.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2024 11:19 AM
To: Natasha Moore <nmoore@highlandbeach.us>
Cc: Mayde <berkshireflgirl@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Side Setbacks - current is 25ft along waterfrontage - should it be reduced?
Thanks for your email.
Under the current rules, if an owner with 100 ft of water frontage wants a 50 foot dock and
lift, they can have it. As you know, the beauty of Bel Lido has always been that we are not
wall to wall living and have water views with the beach access. If an owner wants a
variance, they can apply and the neighbors can get involved.
My wife and I do not wish to see any rules changed regarding setbacks. We understand
that with rising water levels, that rules may need to change regarding seawall heights, etc.
Best Regards,
Town Commission Meeting 09.17.2024 Public Comment
Mayde and Jonathan Wiener
4409 Intracoastal Drive
On Sep 17, 2024, at 10:34 AM, Natasha Moore <nmoore@highlandbeach.us>
wrote:
Good morning, Dr. Wiener.
The Town of Highland Beach is considering ordinance changes to accessory
marine facilities. Back in February 2023, you indicated you were not in favor of
reducing the current 25ft setbacks (see your response attached).
Attached is a letter from Greg Babij stating he is in favor of reduced setbacks.
The Town of Highland Beach Planning Board is recommending no side setback
for docks town wide and a minimum 10-foot
side setback for all other accessory marine facilities town wide.
I know it's been a long time since this has been discussed. However, I'm trying
to get an idea of what is the consensus among residents regarding the
setbacks.
Has your opinion changed regarding setbacks? Or, is your opinion the same as
what it was in February 2023?
Thank you for your consideration,
Natasha Moore
Mayor, Town of Highland Beach
561-352-6932
Page 133
Page 134
Robert and Gloria Spahr
4225 Tranquility Dr.
Highland Beach, Fl 33487
Rspah50@gmail.com
Gastuart@hotmail.com
September 16, 2024
Board of Commissioners
Town of Highland Beach
3614 S. Ocean Blvd
Highland Beach, FL 33487
Dear Commissioners
The Spahr’s have lived at 4225 Tranquility since 1991. Our house has evolved from a 2100 sqr
ft house to a two story 4200 sqr ft house and our boats have grown from 26ft to 39ft and now
53ft. Most residences of Highland Beach and in particular Bel Lido Isle have evolved in the
same fashion, larger houses with larger boat dock requirements. Our demographics have
changed from a mostly retired population to now include a younger demographic of younger
active family’s. Our marine accessory ordinances need to reflect the new demographic
accommodating active families’ waterfront needs and desires.
We choose to live on Bel Lido Isle because of the wonderful access to Dockage and the Beach.
As the families, houses and boats have grown in size the need for updated dockage setbacks,
allowing larger docks, has grown as well. In my particular case my dock is too small, less safe
for boarding and less safe for securing the vessel in a storm than it should be.
We agree with Mr. Babij, the proposed revisions are not acceptable and too restrictive. We
attended the public meetings to discuss revisions and I recall only a couple residents on the
North end of town that were not in favor of a less restrictive marine accessory and set back
ordinances. Take notice that the Spahr’s are in favor significantly reducing the side setbacks to
8 feet.
Town Commission Meeting 09.17.2024 Public Comment
Robert and Gloria Spahr
4225 Tranquility Dr.
Highland Beach, Fl 33487
Rspah50@gmail.com
Gastuart@hotmail.com
At a very minimum, I strongly urge you to revisit the marine accessory ordinance issue with the
planning board and seek their opinion on the revised ordinance in front of you at the next
Commission meeting, as it has substantially changed from what the planning board previously
reviewed and made recommendations on.
I would also encourage you to host an open discussion at a future Commission meeting on this
Topic.
Thank you for your service and consideration of my position requesting less restrictive marine
accessory regulations.
Sincerely
Robert and Gloria Spahr
From:Ingrid Allen
To:Lanelda Gaskins
Cc:Jaclyn Dehart
Subject:FW: Marine Accessory Ordnance
Date:Monday, September 16, 2024 9:48:45 AM
Attachments:image001.png
Public comment received for item 8A on the 9-17-24 TC agenda (see below).
Sincerely,Ingrid Allen
Town Planner
Town of Highland Beach
3614 S. Ocean Boulevard
Highland Beach FL 33487
(561) 278-4540 Office (option 3)
(561) 278-2606 Fax
www.highlandbeach.us
PLEASE NOTE: Florida has a very broad public records law. Most written communications to or from the Town of Highland
Beach officials and employees regarding public business are public records available to the public and media upon request.
Your e-mail communications may be subject to public disclosure. Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If
you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this
entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing. The views expressed in this message may not necessarily reflect
those of the Town of Highland Beach.
From: Jeffrey <jeffreyfl@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2024 12:03 AM
To: Natasha Moore <nmoore@highlandbeach.us>; David Stern <dstern@highlandbeach.us>; Evalyn
David <edavid@highlandbeach.us>; Donald Peters <sportsbarn1@aol.com>; Judith Goldberg
<jgoldberg@judithgoldberg.com>; Marshall Labadie <mlabadie@highlandbeach.us>
Cc: Craig Hartmann <chartmann@highlandbeach.us>; Glenn Joseph <gjoseph@highlandbeach.us>;
Jeff Remas <bco@highlandbeach.us>; Ingrid Allen <iallen@highlandbeach.us>; Pat Roman
<proman@highlandbeach.us>; Rick Greenwald <Ragreenwald@bellsouth.net>
Subject: Marine Accessory Ordnance
Mayor, Vice Mayor, Commissioners, Town Manager,
I had the opportunity to watch the proceedings of the April Commission meeting on
Marine Accessories, during which key issues were thoughtfully deliberated. I also
reviewed our staff's draft ordinance prepared for Tuesday's meeting.
Town Commission Meeting 09.17.2024 Public Comment for Item 8.A
After observing the work of our town's commission and staff for almost two decades,
the workflow and execution of this ordinance revision stand out as among the most
exceptional I have witnessed.
I was particularly impressed by how our Commission was responsive to public
sentiment or the absence of it. I especially appreciated the decision to discard the
proposal to reduce side setbacks for Marine Accessories due to the lack of public
support. This thoughtful decision reflects your genuine commitment to community
collaboration.
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to our town staff, especially Jeff and
Ingrid, and to our Commission for their outstanding work. This ordinance revision has
undoubtedly been the best example of governance I have witnessed in our town.
I sincerely hope the process used for this ordinance revision will serve as the gold
standard for developing and evaluating future ordinances.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Kleiman
Highland Beach
From:Town of Highland Beach via Municode Portal
To:Public Comments
Subject:Highland Beach Public Comment Submission
Date:Monday, September 16, 2024 3:51:23 PM
Submitted on Monday, September 16, 2024 - 3:51pm
Submitted by anonymous user: 74.124.47.10
Submitted values are:
Contact Information
Name Maureen Garrett
Email Address maureengarrett@sbcglobal.net
Telephone 7132543675
Meeting Date Tue, 09/17/2024
Meeting Type Town Commission
Public Comments
An email has been sent to Ms. DeHart and Ms. Gaskins attaching letters of concern for
proposals to setbacks, perpendicular property line waterward with seawall rather than the
current law to follow the upward property line (legally any change is a governmental taking of
property), floating vessel platform violations pursuant to 403.318 including non-compliant
applications, more than one dock per property owner, and combined depth of docks/platforms
more than 5 feet waterward.
It is requested that the Commission please consider all issues, especially the corner lots that
are effected by any/all of these proposed changes and incorporate all letters of concern.
The results of this submission may be viewed at:
https://highlandbeach-fl.municodemeetings.com/node/2411/submission/771
Town Commission Meeting 09.17.2024 Public Comment
EUGENE GARRETT
MAUREEN GARRETT
1070 BEL LIDO DRIVE
HIGHLAND BEACH, FL. 33487
1
September 15, 2024
VIA EMAIL ONLY
Len Rubin, Town Attorney
len@torcivialaw.com
Northpoint Corporate Center
701 Northpoint Parkway, Suite 209
West Palm Beach, FL 33407
Town Planner, Ingrid Allen
iallen@highlandbeach.us
Building Official, Jeff Remas
bco@highlandbeach.us
Code Compliance Officer, Adam Osowsky
aosowsky@highlandbeach.us
Marshall Labadie. Town Manager
mlabadie@highlandbeach.us
3614 S Ocean Blvd.
Highland Beach, FL 33487
Gras, Troy
GRAS.TROY@flsenate.gov
Office of Senator Lori Berman
2300 High Ridge Road, Suite 161
Boynton Beach, FL 33426
Department of Environmental Protection
Southeast Branch
Southeast.District@floridadep.gov
3301 Gun Club Rd
MSC 7210-1
West Palm Beach, FL 33406
Re: 4703 Intercoastal Drive, Highland Beach, FL 33487 property line and dock/floating
vessel platform violations
To All named individuals:
This letter is in reply to attorney Len Rubin’s August 19th, 2024 letter in response to
Garrett’s letter dated July 15, 2024, herein incorporated by reference, presenting thirteen (13)
issues and concerns related to violations of Highland Beach Town Ordinance, State of Florida
statutes, property line violations, navigational hazards and illegal taking of property.
If any other Highland Beach Town Ordinance or state statute is relied upon in support or
opposition to the various issues and concerns of the Garretts, please advise. Otherwise, the Garrett
issues and concerns are supported by the following:
1. Florida Administrative Code 18-21.003 - Definitions
2. Florida Administrative Code 62-330-051 - Exempt Activities
3. Florida Administrative Code 62-330-427 - General Permit for Docks, Piers and Associated
Structures
4. Florida Administrative Code 62-330.428 - General Permit for Floating Vessel Platforms and
Floating Boat Lifts
5. Florida Statute Section 403.813 - Permits issued at district centers; exceptions
6. Highland Beach Zoning Code 30-67 - Uses permitted, special exception, and prohibited uses;
7. Highland Beach Zoning Code 30-68(g) - Supplemental district regulations, Accessory marine
facilities; and
8. Florida Public Land and Property Code, Chapter 253
2
Mr. Rubin’s response on behalf of the Town of Highland Beach fails to address multiple
issues/concerns and furthermore, fails to enforce and recognize ordinances and state statutes under
Town authority. Garrett’s thirteen (13) issues and concerns are still at issue and are supplemented
with this reply.
1. DE BEER’S FLOATING VESSEL PLATFORM IS NOT PERMITTED UNDER
STATUTE, ORDINANCES AND LAWS OF FLORIDA
For all reasons stated by the Garretts, De Beer is not eligible for an exemption and is subject
to consequence as to the filing of his application.
a. De Beer already has an existing permitted dock (aka “stone concrete on seawall”;
b. De Beer is prohibited from adding a second structure violating the “one dock” law;
c. De Beer is prohibited from violating the property line of neighbors;
d. De Beer is in violation of setback laws;
e. De Beer ’s floating vessel platform creates a navigation hazard to neighbors; and
f. De Beer’s structure (permitted dock aka “stone concrete on seawall” plus a floating
vessel platform) extends in violation beyond 5 feet waterward
Based on the multiple violations, the De Beer floating vessel platform should be removed
immediately.
2. NONCOMPLIANCE STILL EXISTS AFTER DEADLINE TO CURE
VIOLATION EXPIRES
While it appears from Mr. Rubin’s letter that only one (1) violation will be enforced,
specifically as to the size of De Beer’s floating vessel platform for compliance of a 500 square feet
limit, the De Beer’s continue to be in violation after attempting to cure the defect.
To date, it appears that De Beer has made a modification to the floating vessel platform
after receiving a violation notice from the Town Compliance Officer. However, De Beer simply
removed a center portion/row of the platform’s squares/rectangles, possibly reducing the size but
making no adjustment to the northern edge of the platform which remains in violation of the
property line setback and is still over the Garrett’s waterward property line.
In addition, De Beer’s floating vessel platform is now not centered on the De Beer ’s
property but rather is northward leaning. De Beer simply shortened the platform from the center,
reconnecting and generously giving himself larger ramp access on the southern side of the property
line.
For illustration purposes, the floating vessel platform (in blue) is now positioned northward
towards Garrett’s property, attached waterward to an existing dock, extending beyond the setback
requirement and crosses over the Garrett’s waterward property line.
3
Mr. Rubin acknowledges authority in his response by stating “the Town Code merely
regulates the placement of accessory marine structures”. Well, De Beer is in violation of the
northward leaning placement of the floating vessel platform. Based on the Town’s legal
representative representation, Garrett requests that immediate action take place to issue the
removal of De Beer’s floating vessel platform
De Beer continues to also be in violation with storing coolers, surfboards, storage bins and
other random items on the platform. This is a clear violation as previously mentioned in the July
15, 2024 letter referencing 403.813(1)(s)(1), however, not addressed in Rubin’s letter or the
Town’s recent violation notice to De Beer.
3. THE FLOATING VESSEL PLATFORM EXEMPTION UNDER 403.813 WAS
ONLY ENACTED IN JULY 2023 AND TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH AS
AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE
The Floating Vessel Platform Exemption Application aka CS/CS/HB 847 was passed by
the House on April 26, 2023 and by the Senate on May , 2023 with the Governor’s approval on
May 25, 2023 with an effective date of July 1, 2023.
The Town of Highland Beach has not made any ordinance amendments/changes and/or
issued permitting requirements for floating vessel platforms since the enactment of this statute (1
year ago). The Town of Highland Beach has chosen to rely on the state statute exemption
requirements and not charge a fee or permit. This decision, however, does not relieve the Town
from enforcing violations as provided per authority to enforce in the Zoning and Building
Ordinance provisions and more specifically authorization under Chapter 253 of the Public Land
and Property Code directly mentioned in 62-330.428 (3)(e) - General Permit for Floatfng Vessel Platiorms
and Floatfng Boat Lifts.
.
(3) The platiorms and lifts:
(e) Shall not be added to structures or located in areas where boat mooring is specifically
prohibited under a permit issued under either Chapter 403, or Part IV of Chapter 373, F.S.,
or an authorizatfon under Chapter 253 or 258, F.S.; and,
4
Chapter 253 give the Town authority to enforce, specifically
253.127 Enforcement.—The Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust
Fund, the board of county commissioners or governing body of any municipality, or
any aggrieved person, shall have the power to enforce the provisions of this law by
appropriate suit in equity.
History.—s. 7, ch. 57-362; s. 2, ch. 61-119; ss. 27, 35, ch. 69-106.
253.128 Enforcement; board or agency under special law.—In any county where
the Legislature by special law or general law with local applicatfon has heretofore or
hereafter transferred or delegated to any county board or agency other than the
board of county commissioners or the governing body of any municipality powers and
dutfes over the establishment of bulkhead line or lines, dredging permits, fill permits,
seawall constructfon or any other powers of a like nature such agency shall have
jurisdictfon under this law in lieu of the board of county commissioners or the
governing body of any municipality as the case may be.
History.—s. 8, ch. 57-362.
Thus, authority to enforce 62-330 and 403.813 is mandated to the Town of Highland Beach
and any other governing body. If the Town of Highland Beach refused to enforce violations, the
Garretts request that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the U.S. Coast Guard,
Representatives of the State Senator office and House of Representatives and any other enforcer
of the State Statutes take action to issue violations committed by De Beer per their application for
exemptions of a floating vessel platform.
4. DEFINITIONS
Webster’s Dictionary defines the noun “Dock” as “a place (such as a wharf or platform)
for the loading or unloading of materials” and/or “a usually wooden pier used as a landing place
or moorage for boats.
Interesting that the very definition includes the word “platform” which is the forefront of
Garrett’s concerns and issues related to De Beer’s violations.
The terms “dock” or “floating vessel platform” are not specifically defined in any Florida
Statute per se. However, there are several pertinent Codes, Florida case law and other Town
Ordinances that consistently describe and incorporate such as “structures.”
The Florida Administrative Code (FAC) is the official version of administrative rules of
Florida. Section 18-21.003, defines the terms “Dock”, “Marginal dock” and “Private residential
single-family dock or pier” as follows:
(22) “Dock” means a fixed or floating structure, including access walkways, terminal
platforms, catwalks, mooring pilings, lifts, davits and other associated water-dependent
structures, used for mooring and accessing vessels.
(36) “Marginal dock” means a dock placed adjacent to and parallel with and no more than
10 feet waterward from the shoreline or seawall, bulkhead or revetment.
5
(51) “Private residential single-family dock or pier” means a dock or pier used for private
recreational or leisure purposes that is located on a single-family riparian parcel or that is
shared by two adjacent single-family riparian owners if located on their common riparian
rights line.
Of note, as a child I was told never to use a term to define the same term. Ironically, the
Florida Legislature above in these definitions has used the term “dock” to describe the very item
which we seek an identification of. It’s clearly circular but perhaps because it is so simple we are
complicating the issue.
As part of the exemption application signed by De Beer, Florida Administrative Code
(FAC) 62-330-051(5), states that this entire section must be in compliance with 403.813(1)(s), F.S,
specifically FAC 62-330-051(5)(f) subjects floating vessel platforms to comply. This FAC section
also uses the term “associated structures” providing any dock and associated structure shall be the
sole dock as measured along the shoreline…..one exempt dock allowed per parcel or lot.”
FAC 62-330.428 - General Permit for Floating Vessel Platforms and Floating Boat
Lifts states that such structures are authorized ONLY if built in accordance with Section
403.813(1). Authorization under this section, similarly, provides restrictions as to a size limit, used
solely for purposes of storing a vessel, shall not be added to structures and shall not extend more
than 25 percent into the width of the waterway. See 62-330-428(3)(b), (d) and (e).
As mentioned, “dock” or “floating platform” is not defined within any Florida Statute, as
it relates or uses the term in 403.813. However, several other statutes and codes incorporate the
same definition and identify the type of “structure” inclusive of the description of a floating dock,
floating vessel platform and floating lift. It is obvious, there is a consistent legislative intent for
using the word “structure” when referring to any floating device among these statutes and codes.
Other Florida Statute statutes use the same language, specifically 192.001 defines
“Floating structure” means a floating barge-like entity, with or without accommodations
built thereon, which is not primarily used as a means of transportation on water but which
serves purposes or provides services typically associated with a structure or other
improvement to real property. The term “floating structure” includes, but is not limited to,
each entity used as a residence, place of business, office, hotel or motel, restaurant or
lounge, clubhouse, meeting facility, storage or parking facility, mining platform, dredge,
dragline, or similar facility or entity represented as such. Floating structures are expressly
excluded from the definition of the term “vessel” provided in s. 327.02. Incidental
movement upon water shall not, in and of itself, preclude an entity from classification as a
floating structure. A floating structure is expressly included as a type of tangible personal
property.
Florida Statute 327.02 defines
(10) “Floating structure” means a floating entity, with or without accommodations built
thereon, which is not primarily used as a means of transportation on water but which serves
purposes or provides services typically associated with a structure or other improvement
to real property. The term “floating structure” includes, but is not limited to, each entity
used as a residence, place of business or office with public access, hotel or motel, restaurant
or lounge, clubhouse, meeting facility, storage or parking facility, mining platform, dredge,
6
dragline, or similar facility or entity represented as such. Floating structures are expressly
excluded from the definition of the term “vessel” provided in this section. Incidental
movement upon water or resting partially or entirely on the bottom shall not, in and of
itself, preclude an entity from classification as a floating structure.
Other pertinent definitions include:
(39) “Vessel” is synonymous with boat as referenced in s. 1(b), Art. VII of the State
Constitution and includes every description of watercraft, barge, and airboat, other than a
seaplane on the water, used or capable of being used as a means of transportation on water.
Seawall is defined under 373.403
(17) “Seawall” means a manmade wall or encroachment, except riprap, which is made to
break the force of waves and to protect the shore from erosion.
There are other Florida Ordinances that aid in the description and use of term structure,
dock, and platform. There are several Florida Ordinances but to display one for example:
Edgewater Florida Ordinance defines:
Dock means any permanently fixed or floating structure extending from the upland into the
water, capable of use for vessel mooring and other water-dependent recreational activities.
The term "dock" also includes any floating structure, boat lift or mooring piling, detached
from the land, capable of use for mooring vessels or for other water-dependent recreational
activities. The term "dock" also includes any area adjacent to the dock designated for
mooring purposes when a mooring feature, including but not limited to a piling or buoy
anchored to the lake bottom, is utilized to moor a vessel of any type. This term excludes
any vessel that is not permanently docked, moored, or anchored.
See
https://library.municode.com/fl/edgewood/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICOO
R_CH14BODOWA
See other town ordinances at https://library.municode.com/fl
5. NO CONFLICT EXISTS BETWEEN FLORIDA STATE STATUTE AND TOWN
ORDINANCES TO JUSTIFY TOWN OFFICIALS THE REFUSAL TO ISSUE
VIOLATIONS
a. “One Dock” Rule
The statement in Mr. Rubin’s letter that “Neither the Town Code nor Section 403.813,
Florida Statutes, prohibits installation of a floating vessel platform where a permitted docket
already exists”, is unfounded. This statement by Rubin is the exact opposite of what the statutes
dictate. See 403.813(1)(s)(2) with the following excerpts:
(1) A permit is not required…… for actfvitfes associated with the following types of projects;
however, except as otherwise provided in this subsectfon,……
(s) The constructfon, installatfon, operatfon, or maintenance of floatfng vessel platiorms
or floatfng boat lifts, provided that such structures:
7
2. Are wholly contained within a boat slip previously permitted under ss. 403.91-
403.929, 1984 Supplement to the Florida Statutes 1983, as amended, or part IV of
chapter 373, or do not exceed a combined total of 500 square feet, or 200 square feet
in an Outstanding Florida Water, when associated with a dock that is exempt under
this subsectfon or associated with a permitted dock with no defined boat slip or
attached to a bulkhead on a parcel of land where there is no other docking structure;
De Beer has an existing “original” dock on the property (labeled as “stone on concrete
seawall” on De Beer survey). In fact, for years, De Beer parked his 75 ft boat on this existing
dock. It cannot be clearer, the existing “original” dock aka “stone on concrete seawall” serves as
a defined boat slip and docking structure and is attached to the bulkhead of the De Beer property.
Thus, De Beer does not have an exempt “original” dock and he cannot be approved to have a
second dock, lift, platform, or structure abutted onto the existing “original” dock on his property.
To further support the violation of having more than one dock, there are other references
to the requirement that there must be “no other dock structure” which is repeated four (4) times
just in paragraph 5, see 408.813(1)(s)(5) with the following excerpts:
1. “with the exceptfon of those structures attached to a bulkhead on a parcel of land where
there is no docking structure”,
2. “Local governments may require either permitting or one-tfme registratfon of floatfng
vessel platiorms to be attached to a bulkhead on a parcel of land where there is no other
docking structure as necessary to ensure compliance with local ordinances, codes, or
regulatfons.
3. ….and to ensure proper installatfon, maintenance, and precautfonary or evacuatfon
actfon following a tropical storm or hurricane watch of a floatfng vessel platiorm or
floatfng boat lift that is proposed to be attached to a bulkhead or parcel of land where
there is no other docking structure.
4. and to ensure proper installatfon and maintenance of a floatfng vessel platiorm or
floatfng boat lift that is proposed to be attached to a bulkhead or parcel of land where
there is no other docking structure.
Consistent with the “no other dock” rule, Florida Statute 62-330-427 blatantly restricts one
dock per parcel of land. Excerpt states:
62-330.427 General Permit for Docks, Piers and Associated Structures.
(2) This general permit shall be subject to the following specific conditfons:
(e) This general permit shall not authorize the constructfon or extension of more
than one dock or pier per parcel of land or individual lot. For the purposes of
this general permit, multf-family living complexes shall be treated as one parcel
of property regardless of the legal division of ownership or control of the
associated property;
Highland Beach Ordinance 30-68(g)(6) and (h)(6) read together are consistent with both
403.813 and 62-330-427. Ordinances are to be followed. Town Officials have the obligation and
authority to enforce them. There is no inconsistency and there is no limited authority for Highland
Beach not to enforce the “one dock” rule.
8
De Beer should be issued a notice to remove the floating vessel platform for violation of
the “one dock” rule.
b. No structure shall extend 5 feet waterward
Floating docks and platforms are addressed in the Town Ordinance and are subject to the
mandatory rule that docks shall not extend into any waterway more than 5 feet. See Sec 30-68(g)
and (h).
Sec. 30-68. - Supplemental district regulations.
(g) Accessory marine facilities:
(4) Boats and setbacks. When moored, any portfon of a boat shall not extend
beyond any property line, as extended waterward.
(6) Installation. Accessory marine facilitfes shall comply with the installatfon
standards listed below:
a. In waterways not regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, docks
and mooring structures shall not extend into any waterway more than
five (5) feet.
Sec 30-68 (h) addresses that this Ordinance applies to floating docks/platforms as stated in
the following:
30-68(h)(6) Floating docks. Floatfng docks are permitted, subject to conformance with
all zoning code requirements herein and compliance with all applicable building codes.
De Beer’s combined docks and flatforms extend more than 5 feet and are in
violation of the Town’s Ordinance. De Beer should be issued a notice to remove the
floating vessel platform for violation of the 5 feet waterward rule.
c. Setbacks from property line
The Town ordinance is clear-as-day, in black and white, and no state statute conflicts with
setback guidelines.
Town Ordinance 30-68 (g)(4) clearly states:
(4) Boats and setbacks. When moored, any portfon of a boat shall not extend beyond any
property line, as extended waterward.
Town Ordinance 30-68 (g)(6)(c) clearly states:
(g)(6) Installatfon. Marine Facilitfes shall comply with the installatfon standards listed
below
c. Measurement of the width or length of a dock, as applicable, shall be made from
the property line
9
If the definition of “marine facilities” needs to be addressed than the Ordinance provides
that in 30-68(g)(1) Accessory marine Facilities:
(1) Accessory use. Accessory marine facilitfes, including docks, piers, launching facilitfes
and lifting and mooring devices are permitted as an accessory use in all residentfal
zoning districts
In addition, Webster’s dictionary defines “mooring” as a permanent structure to which a
seaborne vessel (such as a boat or ship) may be secured.
There we see the word “structure” again as a consistent and uniform applicable reference
to a floating device, platform or dock.
Garrett requests the enforcement of the setback for waterward structural
devices/platforms/structures for property line violations by De Beer.
De Beer should be issued a notice to remove the floating vessel platform for violation of
the “setback” rule.
d. Mandatory language
Words such as “shall” and “all” used in both 30-68(g) and (h) are mandatory and
specifically address every activity, scenario and type of structure regarding
boating/docks/mooring/associated structures that are applicable for the Town of Highland Beach
to enforce additional violations to De Beer.
It is outrageously unjustified that the legal team and the building enforcement team of the
Town of Highland Beach hold the position that they lack authority to enforce its own Town
Ordinance and state statutes.
As an alternative, the Garretts request that the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection, the U.S. Coast Guard, Representatives of the State Senator office and House of
Representatives and any enforcer of the State Statute(s) take action to issue violations committed
by De Beer per their application for exemptions for a floating vessel platform.
e. Not subject to more stringent permitting requirements
Section 403.813(s)(5) discusses that a qualified exemption may not be subject to more
stringent permitting requirements.
Structures that qualify for this exemptfon are relieved from any requirement to obtain
permission to use or occupy lands owned by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement
Trust Fund and, with the exceptfon of those structures attached to a bulkhead on a parcel of land
where there is no docking structure, may not be subject to any more stringent permitting
requirements, registratfon requirements, or other regulatfon by any local government. Local
governments may require either permitting or one-tfme registratfon of floatfng vessel platiorms
to be attached to a bulkhead on a parcel of land where there is no other docking structure as
necessary to ensure compliance with local ordinances, codes, or regulatfons. Local governments
10
may require either permitting or one-tfme registratfon of all other floatfng vessel platiorms as
necessary to ensure compliance with the exemptfon criteria in this sectfon; to ensure
compliance with local ordinances, codes, or regulatfons relatfng to building or zoning, which are
no more stringent than the exemptfon criteria in this sectfon or address subjects other than
subjects addressed by the exemptfon criteria in this sectfon; and to ensure proper installatfon,
maintenance, and precautfonary or evacuatfon actfon following a tropical storm or hurricane
watch of a floatfng vessel platiorm or floatfng boat lift that is proposed to be attached to a
bulkhead or parcel of land where there is no other docking structure. The exemptfon provided in
this paragraph shall be in additfon to the exemptfon provided in paragraph (b). The department
shall adopt a general permit by rule for the constructfon, installatfon, operatfon, or maintenance
of those floatfng vessel platiorms or floatfng boat lifts that do not qualify for the exemptfon
provided in this paragraph but do not cause significant adverse impacts to occur individually or
cumulatfvely. The issuance of such general permit shall also constftute permission to use or
occupy lands owned by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund. Local
governments may not impose a more stringent regulatfon, permitting requirement, registratfon
requirement, or other regulatfon covered by such general permit. Local governments may
require either permitting or one-tfme registratfon of floatfng vessel platiorms as necessary to
ensure compliance with the general permit in this sectfon; to ensure compliance with local
ordinances, codes, or regulatfons relatfng to building or zoning that are no more stringent than
the general permit in this sectfon; and to ensure proper installatfon and maintenance of a
floatfng vessel platiorm or floatfng boat lift that is proposed to be attached to a bulkhead or
parcel of land where there is no other docking structure.
First De Beer is not a qualified applicant under the statute. He already has a dock – a dock
that is attached to a bulkhead, the floating vessel platform adds a second structure in violation of
the “one dock rule”, the structure is too large and positioned northward leaning to Garrett’s
property, the two structures (dock plus floating vessel platform) cumulatively extend waterway
beyond 5 feet, the structure is in violation of the setback ordinance and the structure is over the
Garrett’s property line.
As Mr. Rubin contends “the Town has limited authority” and does not regulate for
accessory marine structures or floating vessel platforms but the Florida statutes expressly give the
Town authority as long as there are no more stringent permitting requirements. Thus, Garrett
requests the Town and legal counsel readdress the 13 issues/concerns along with this supplement
for a full and complete issuance of multiple violations to De Beer.
6. DE BEER AND THE TOWN MANAGEMENT FAILED TO OBTAIN U.S.
COAST GUARD APPROVAL THAT THAT FLOATING VESSEL IS NOT A
HAZARD
The U.S. COAST GUARD would be the proper authoritative body to address any
navigational hazard of the De Beer’s floating vessel platform restrictions to the ingress/egress of
the Garrett’s property for navigational purposes, as well as the floating vessel platform
encroachment of property lines and riparian rights.
According to Town Ordinance 30-68 (g)(1)(c), Accessory Marine facilities shall not be a
hazard to navigation.
11
De Beer did not obtain U.S. Coast Guard or any other governing hazardous navigation
authority to determine the challenges with regards to the floating vessel’s size, location placement,
prevention of ingress and egress for surrounding properties/neighbors or property line violations.
The Town of Highland Beach and any other governmental authority is also under an
obligation to prevent navigational hazards to residents and property owners. By failing to request
the U.S. Coast Guard to survey for navigational hazards before permitting is unconscionable.
7. RELIANCE ON ANY ANTICIPATED FUTURE CHANGES OR PROPOSALS
TO AMEND THE TOWN ORDINANCE IS PREMATURE AND NOT A
DEFENSE TO NON-COMPLIANCE
The Town Ordinances as written have been approved and the enforcement of violations is
mandatory. Any statements or reliance on anticipated future changes, proposals or amendments to
the Town Ordinances are premature and not a defense to non-compliance of the current
Ordinances. The Town Officials are entrusted with the duty to enforce such Ordinances in a
prompt and efficient manner.
If the Town of Highland Beach or any governing agency “grandfathers” any individual,
specifically De Beer, through an amendment to the Town Ordinance, the Garrett’s take the position
that an illegal taking by government with regards to their property has occurred.
Thus, Garrett objects to any anticipated future changes and/or proposed amendments to
Town Ordinances that negatively affect their property rights.
The Garretts request all violations of state statutes, codes and Ordinances to be strictly
enforced and in an immediate timely frame.
8. ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMITS (ERP)
According to 403.813, the Environmental Resource Permits (ERP) qualifies as an
exemption only if the floating vessel platforms:
“Are not used for any commercial purpose or for mooring vessels that remain in the
water when not in use, and do not substantfally impede the flow of water, create a
navigatfonal hazard, or unreasonably infringe upon the riparian rights of adjacent
property owners.”
This one paragraph in the statute sums up the blatant violations of De Beer on more than
one level….navigational hazard, infringement upon riparian rights of the adjacent property
owner’s and their property line.
Garrett requests that the governing authority of the ERP, immediately conduct an
investigation into the violations of De Beer.
12
9. FEES NOT MANDATORY BUT ENFORCEMENT BY TOWN IS
Florida statute addresses the local government’s prerogative to charge a fee for permitting
or one-time registration as to floating vessel platforms.
Statute 403.813 gives authority to local government by stating:
Additionally, local governments may require either permitting or one-time
registration of all other floating vessel platforms as necessary to ensure
compliance with the exemption criteria in s. 403.813, F.S., and to ensure
compliance with local ordinances, codes, or regulations relating to building or
zoning, which are no more stringent than the exemption criteria in s. 403.813,
F.S., or address subjects other than subjects addressed by the exemption criteria
in this s. 403.813, F.S
However, whether local government charges a fee or not is not an underlying factor as to
the local government’s authority and does not relief the Town of Highland Beach from ensuring
compliance with this state exemption criteria.
As it stands, the application and permitting appears to be a money maker for the state and/or
potentially for the town with no intention of taking action against violators.
The Garrett’s insist that the Town of Highland Beach pursue all avenues to address the
noncompliance by De Beer under Florida Statute 403.813 and any other pertinent rules, statutes
and ordinances.
10. DE BEER SHOULD PROVIDE HIS EXEMPTION IS VALID, NOT INSIST
GARRETT’S DISPROVE HIS EXEMPTION
De Beer should have to prove his exemption is worthy of approval, otherwise, face
violations for his obnoxious disregard for the laws.
To date, De Beer faces no consequences for his violations while, Garrett, the innocent and
affected property owner, suffers from the enjoyment of their property and has spent numerous
hours researching, writing letters and consulting with various authoritative bodies to provide the
legal basis of De Beer ’s violations and the reasons why limited actions are being taken.
Garrett requests the authoritative governmental agencies to take immediate action to
investigate and issue multiple violations to De Beer.
11. HISTORY
The developers and founders of this town had a vision and with that vision they had an
ideology that this beautiful waterfront town would remain an attraction and a benefit to all residents
who are afforded the waterfront views.
In fact, Bel Lido was originally known as “Delray by the Sea” as seen in this March 1955
plat. That plat was vastly different from the plat we know today, established and replated in
October 1957.
13
Exhibit – “Delray by the Sea” Plat dated March 1955
Exhibit – Bel Lido plat April 1957
14
These two plats are shown side by side to applaud and give tribute to the early settlers of
Highland Beach. Their vision to replat Bel Lido so that EVERY property owner would have
waterfront property is commended. The replating gave interior lots access that was not originally
platted. The developers knew then how valuable the waterfront view and access to water for
recreational purposes would enrich the lives of those in this town for years and decades ahead of
them.
The attached exhibits including A) Memo from Town Manger to Town Commission
regarding zoning changes dated December 12, 1979 referencing B) Amendment to the Town of
Highland Beach Zoning Code, Chapter 30, Section 5 and C) letter from Bel Lido Association
President to Mayor Horton dated January 1980 outlines the history of the town’s setbacks and the
Bel Lido Property Owner Association’s opposition to any changes to the 25 feet setback, especially
as they affect the corner lots in the Bel Lido community. This letter addresses the same concerns
over 40 years ago that the Garretts (and other corner lot owners in Bel Lido) face with the setback
requirements, dock restriction and ingress/egress to their property.
Since 1979, there have been no changes to the 25 feet setback and a dock remains limited
to 5 feet extended waterward.
Again, De Beer has an existing dock and now a second structure, the floating vessel
platform, which is prohibited and combined is an extension beyond the 5 feet waterward limitation.
Thus, these Town Ordinances are not new. They have been in the books for years (actually
decades). For the Town Officials to claim they have no authority to regulate is beyond
comprehensible.
We therefore request the Town Compliance Officer, Town management and zoning
committee, U.S. Coast Guard, Environmental Protection Agencies, Legislative representatives and
any government agency with authority to enforce statutory violations to re-evaluate the application
for various exemptions and permits related to the De Beer’s floating vessel platform as well as the
existing original dock, dock and seawall setback requirements, concrete seawall and gate over
property line, upland and waterward property line for noncompliance based on supplemental
concerns/issues asserted in this letter and incorporating the previous 13 issues concerns in the letter
dated July 15, 2024.
Please feel free to contact us with any questions.
Respectfully,
Eugene and Maureen Garrett
EUGENE GARRETT
MAUREEN GARRETT
1070 BEL LIDO DRIVE
HIGHLAND BEACH, FL. 33487
1
July 15, 2024
VIA EMAIL
Town Planner, Ingrid Allen
iallen@highlandbeach.us
Building Official, Jeff Remas
bco@highlandbeach.us
Code Compliance Officer, Adam Osowsky
aosowsky@highlandbeach.us
3614 S Ocean Blvd.
Highland Beach, FL 33487
Re: 4703 Intercoastal Drive, Highland Beach, FL 33487 property line and dock/floating
vessel platform violations
To Highland Beach personnel, planning and management committee:
An application for an exemption to construct and install a residential floating vessel
platform has been approved by the Town of Highland Beach and/or other governmental agencies
at the address of 4703 Intercoastal Drive, Highland Beach, FL 33487, owned by Marthin De Beer.
For purposes of this letter,
a. “Applicant” or “De Beer” refers to Marthin De Beer, owner and resident of 4703
Intercoastal Drive, Highland Beach, FL 33487
b. “the application” or “application for exemption” refers to the Town of Highland Beach
Residential Floating Vessel Platform/Floating Boat Lift Exemption Certification
Application submitted by Marthin De Beer for the property at 4703 Intercoastal Drive,
Highland Beach, FL 33487
c. “the subject property” refers to 4703 Intercoastal Drive, Highland Beach, FL 33487
d. “the neighbor’s property”, “neighboring property” or “Garretts’ property” refers
generally to an adjacent property or more specifically to 1070 Bel Lido Drive, Highland
Beach, FL 33487 owned by Eugene and Maureen Garrett
e. “the survey” refers or references the exhibit attached to the application for exemption
f. “lake” and “water” used interchangeably, refers to the body of water behind the 1070
Bel Lido Drive and 4703 Intercoastal Drive
g. “waterward” is defined as the direction of water or property line extended over water
h. “upland” is defined as land or the dry area above sea level or land above water
This letter is to assert various objections to the application as an unauthorized and
unconstitutional taking of the Garretts’ property by the owner of the subject property and his
attempts to entice the Town of Highland Beach and other governmental agencies to collude in the
approval of his exemption requests.
2
A list of the objections asserted are as followed and are discussed in detail throughout this
letter:
1. THE APPLICATION, SPECIFICALLY PARAGRAPHS 1 THROUGH 4, ARE
INCOMPLETE, MISLEADING AND VAGUE
2. APPLICANT HAS AN EXISTING DOCK
3. STATUTES DO NOT PERMIT MORE THAN ONE DOCK/PLATFORM PER
SINGLE-FAMILY HOME
4. FLOATING DOCK/PLATFORM IS OVER THE PROPERTY LINE AND
OVER THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
5. ANGLED PROPERTY LINES EXTEND WATERWARD TO ALLOW FOR
INGRESS AND EGRESS ACCESS TO A CORNER LOT
6. THE EXTENSION OF A FLOATING DOCK/PLATFORM AT THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY IS A VIOLATION OF RIPARIAN RIGHTS
7. DE BEER’S SEAWALL LENGTH IS 70 FEET
8. SEAWALL LENGTH DICTATES A MANDATORY 25 FEET SETBACK
9. DEPTH OF DOCK/PLATFORM EXCEEDS 5 FEET INTO WATERWAY
10. DE BEER IS IN VIOLATION OF THE SOLE PURPOSE OF A FLOATING
11. “STONE CONCRETE ON SEAWALL” AND SEAWALL FENCE ENCROACH
ON GARRETTS’ PROPERTY
12. UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAKING AND CONDEMNATION BY THE TOWN OF
HIGHLAND BEACH AND/OR GOVERNING AGENCIES TO ALLOW
EXEMPTIONS ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY; and
13. VIOLATIONS ARE DEVALUING PROPERTY VALUE
The discussion as to each objection with supporting authority, arguments and/or evidence
follows:
1. THE APPLICATION, SPECIFICALLY PARAGRAPHS 1 THROUGH 4, ARE
INCOMPLETE, MISLEADING AND VAGUE
In Paragraphs 1 of the application when asked to describe in general terms the proposed
floating vessel platform and/or boat lift, the answer is vaguely “JetDock Brand. PVC Cubes and
Stainless-Steel Hardware” and is silent on any construction methods. The application is also non-
responsive to any of the other questions, paragraphs 2 through 4, including the location,
dimensions, or a scaled drawing with details.
Hence the objection is that there are no references to size of the platform required by the
application (including height, length, depth or weight), no diagram acknowledging the waterward
property line, no acknowledgment of the effects on the neighboring property and no setback
allocations indicated, The application does not fully provide enough information for the governing
agency to allow or approve an exemption.
De Beer under oath asserts that the requested floating vessel platform qualifies as an
exemption pursuant to 62-330-051(5)(f) FAC and complies with Section 403.813(1)(s), Florida
Statutes. These statutes are inserted for your convenience.
62-330.051 Exempt Activities.
The activities meeting the limitations and restrictions below are exempt from
permitting. However, if located in, on, or over state-owned submerged lands, they are
subject to a separate authorization under Chapters 253 and 258, F.S., as applicable.
3
(5) Dock, Pier, Boat Ramp and Other Boating-related Work
(f) The construction, installation, operation, or maintenance of floating vessel
platforms or floating boat lifts in accordance with section 403.813(1)(s), F.S.
403.813 Permits issued at district centers; exceptions.—
(1) A permit is not required under this chapter, chapter 373, chapter 61-691, Laws of
Florida, or chapter 25214 or chapter 25270, 1949, Laws of Florida, and a local
government may not require a person claiming this exception to provide further
department verification, for activities associated with the following types of projects;
however, except as otherwise provided in this subsection, this subsection does not
relieve an applicant from any requirement to obtain permission to use or occupy lands
owned by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund or a water
management district in its governmental or proprietary capacity or from complying
with applicable local pollution control programs authorized under this chapter or other
requirements of county and municipal governments:
(s) The construction, installation, operation, or maintenance of floating vessel
platforms or floating boat lifts, provided that such structures:
1. Float at all times in the water for the sole purpose of supporting a vessel so
that the vessel is out of the water when not in use;
2. Are wholly contained within a boat slip previously permitted under
ss. 403.91-403.929, 1984 Supplement to the Florida Statutes 1983, as amended,
or part IV of chapter 373, or do not exceed a combined total of 500 square feet,
or 200 square feet in an Outstanding Florida Water, when associated with a dock
that is exempt under this subsection or associated with a permitted dock with
no defined boat slip or attached to a bulkhead on a parcel of land where there is
no other docking structure;
3. Are not used for any commercial purpose or for mooring vessels that
remain in the water when not in use, and do not substantially impede the flow
of water, create a navigational hazard, or unreasonably infringe upon the
riparian rights of adjacent property owners, as defined in s. 253.141;
4. Are constructed and used so as to minimize adverse impacts to submerged
lands, wetlands, shellfish areas, aquatic plant and animal species, and other
biological communities, including locating such structures in areas where
seagrasses are least dense adjacent to the dock or bulkhead; and
5. Are not constructed in areas specifically prohibited for boat mooring under
conditions of a permit issued in accordance with ss. 403.91-403.929, 1984
Supplement to the Florida Statutes 1983, as amended, or part IV of chapter 373,
or other form of authorization issued by a local government.
Structures that qualify for this exemption are relieved from any requirement to
obtain permission to use or occupy lands owned by the Board of Trustees of the
Internal Improvement Trust Fund and, with the exception of those structures
attached to a bulkhead on a parcel of land where there is no docking structure,
may not be subject to any more stringent permitting requirements, registration
requirements, or other regulation by any local government. Local governments
may require either permitting or one-time registration of floating vessel
platforms to be attached to a bulkhead on a parcel of land where there is no
other docking structure as necessary to ensure compliance with local
ordinances, codes, or regulations. Local governments may require either
permitting or one-time registration of all other floating vessel platforms as
necessary to ensure compliance with the exemption criteria in this section; to
ensure compliance with local ordinances, codes, or regulations relating to
building or zoning, which are no more stringent than the exemption criteria in
this section or address subjects other than subjects addressed by the exemption
criteria in this section; and to ensure proper installation, maintenance, and
precautionary or evacuation action following a tropical storm or hurricane
4
watch of a floating vessel platform or floating boat lift that is proposed to be
attached to a bulkhead or parcel of land where there is no other docking
structure. The exemption provided in this paragraph shall be in addition to the
exemption provided in paragraph (b). The department shall adopt a general
permit by rule for the construction, installation, operation, or maintenance of
those floating vessel platforms or floating boat lifts that do not qualify for the
exemption provided in this paragraph but do not cause significant adverse
impacts to occur individually or cumulatively. The issuance of such general
permit shall also constitute permission to use or occupy lands owned by the
Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund. Local governments
may not impose a more stringent regulation, permitting requirement,
registration requirement, or other regulation covered by such general permit.
Local governments may require either permitting or one-time registration of
floating vessel platforms as necessary to ensure compliance with the general
permit in this section; to ensure compliance with local ordinances, codes, or
regulations relating to building or zoning that are no more stringent than the
general permit in this section; and to ensure proper installation and maintenance
of a floating vessel platform or floating boat lift that is proposed to be attached
to a bulkhead or parcel of land where there is no other docking structure.
De Beer provides no information in the application per 403-813 (5(s)(2), whether the
structure is wholly contained within a (his) boat slip or does not exceed a combined total of 500
square feet or 200 square feet in an Outstanding Florida Water, when associated with a dock that
is exempt….or associated with a permitted dock with no defined boat slip or attached to a bulkhead
on a parcel of land where there is no other docking structure.”
Whether this property issue is Outstanding Florda Water or not, no measurements have
been submitted with the application, no property lines have been discussed, no setbacks are
considered, no explanation as to the method of attaching the platform has been provided per the
requirement that the proposed floating platform is to be attached to a bulkhead on a parcel of land
and no reference to the fact that De Beer already has an existing dock on the property have been
provided in the application.
Without a complete application as to depth of the dock, De Beer ’s application is in violation
of Code 68(g)(6)(a): docks and mooring structures shall not extend into any waterway more than
five (5) feet. This topic is discussed in paragraph 9 below.
Any exception requested by De Beer for a floating platform on the subject property
absolutely causes significant adverse impacts to occur individually or cumulatively to the neighbor
and other lake/waterfront property owners.
For these reasons, the application for exemption on its face is incomplete, misleading, and
vague.
2. APPLICANT HAS AN EXISTING DOCK
The Applicant has an existing dock on the property and seeks to request an exemption for
an additional dock that will layer onto the original dock, ultimately extending waterward, into the
open water behind the subject and Garretts lot.
Applicant’s survey indicates “stone on concrete seawall.” The survey fails to give the
dimensions of the “stone on concrete seawall” because this is a fully functioning dock with
5
bulkheads and pilings/piers constructed in the lake/water. Clearly the survey map shows a
protruding section off the property seawall over the lake/water. Town permits for the original dock
construction and a visual inspection of the “stone on concrete seawall” reveal the dock portion to
include dredged pilings/piers and the basic mooring devices. Bottom line, there is a dock on the
subject property and later in this letter we address the violations with regards to the original dock
setbacks.
In fact, De Beer has docked his approximate 75 feet boat on his property for many years.
It was not until the Town of Highland Beach Compliance Department enforced and determined
non-compliance of a town ordinance that his boat was too big for the property and crossed the
setback property line of the neighbors on both of his property lines. As a result, De Beer removed
his boat, subject to periodic stints of parking the boat at the subject property to load/unload for
voyages.
Per the Town of Highland Beach satellite mapping link at
https://highlandbeach.us/241/Maps, De Beer’s boat is shown clearing docked and secured by
cleats behind the subject property. Also visible is the boat’s bow extending across the neighboring
property line and blocking the lake/water view of the Garretts corner lot.
De Beer cannot dispute that a current dock exists and he has submitted an application for
a second dock/platform on the subject property. Hence, his application is in violation of the
statutory requirements for a dock/platform and is not supported factually.
3. STATUTES DO NOT PERMIT MORE THAN ONE DOCK/PLATFORM PER
SINGLE-FAMILY HOME
An exemption for a floating dock/platform, does not permit the applicant to attach a
floating vessel platform onto an existing dock pursuant to 62-330.427.
62-330.427 General Permit for Docks, Piers and Associated Structures.
(2) This general permit shall be subject to the following specific conditions:
6
(e) This general permit shall not authorize the construction or extension
of more than one dock or pier per parcel of land or individual lot. For the
purposes of this general permit, multi-family living complexes shall be
treated as one parcel of property regardless of the legal division of
ownership or control of the associated property;
De Beer attempts to confuse the permitting committee by claiming he does not have an
existing dock. The owner prior to De Beer ’s purchasing of the subject property, installed the “stone
on concrete seawall,” as recorded in county and town records, and serves as proof of existing dock
construction.
De Beer also fails to provide information in his application that the dock will be layered,
extending waterward, out beyond the existing dock into the lake/water, like a towered “wedding
cake.” Not only is there one dock per home rule, but statutes and town ordinances limit the width
and depth to 5 feet into the waterway. If De Beer is permitted to layer dock upon dock/platform,
what prevents him from adding a 3rd dock/platform, a 4th dock/flatform, and so on. See Ordinance
Sec. 30-68 (6)(c), inserted below.
Thus, the exemption request is in violation as to one dock/platform per home, the
waterward depth of 5 feet maximum, and the layering extension of the dock/platform into the
lake/water.
4. FLOATING DOCK/PLATFORM IS OVER THE PROPERTY LINE AND OVER THE
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
In the same survey, the property line between the subject property and the Garretts’
property is at an angle (facing inward toward the subject property on a waterward path). The degree
of angle waterward on the seawall is approximately 63 degrees on the applicant’s property side
and approximately 37 degrees on the Garretts’ side, noted on both the survey and Garretts’ original
sketch of survey dated 9/23/1987. The waterward property line is not perpendicular to the seawall
as applicant wants to believe. While discussing the shared property line between De Beer and
Garrett, the survey notes that the fence is -0.3 feet (equivalent to 3.6 inches) onto the Garretts’
property, which the Garretts has never conveyed and disputes any adverse possession claims of
this property.
The requested exemption for a second dock/platform is limited to the shoreline (aka
seawall) and subject to perimeters within De Beer ’s property line with setback requirements (25
feet from the side property lines if property at seawall is 70 feet or over and reduced to 15 feet
from the side property line if property at seawall is less than 70 feet). See Ordinance Sec. 30-68
(6)(d)(1), inserted below.
Thus, the dock/platform exemption request is in violation by being over the waterward
property line and in violation of the setback requirements.
5. ANGLED PROPERTY LINES EXTEND WATERWARD TO ALLOW FOR INGRESS
AND EGRESS ACCESS TO A CORNER LOT
The Garretts lot is situated at a corner (not unique as there are other corner lots in Highland
Beach, FL, specifically Bel Lido). The waterward property line at an intentionally designed angle
allows for ingress and egress access to the corner lot. The Garretts’ survey, recorded in the
property records, indicates a 20 feet property line along each of the two seawalls creating a 90
7
degree seawall. Without the shared property lines extending waterward, out into the center of the
lake/water, at the same angle as positioned upland (63 degrees to 37 degrees), the corner lot would
be blocked out, when the two adjacent properties intersect 20 feet from the seawall on each side.
Said a different way, an intersecting line perpendicular off the seawall would box in and prevent
the corner lot owner from ingress and egress access.
For visual purposes only, the image is from Garretts’ survey, showing 20 feet seawall
dimensions at the 90 degree corner. The enhanced orange lines demonstrate how a “perpendicular
property line” off the seawall prevents the corner lot from having ingress and egress access to
their property.
Image is for illustrating purposes only, not to scale or angle degree.
The solution is provided by state statutes, town ordinances and riparian right laws that
protect a corner property owner situated like this, by affording the corner lot a “proportionate
right” to access their property from the center of the lake/water and the landowner’s intent to
enjoy the waterfront view. Thus, property laws uphold that the property lines are extended
waterward in a manner such as the inserted illustration portrays, not necessarily along the upland
property direction, but rather towards the center of the lake/body of water.
Image is for illustrating purposes only, not to scale or angle degree.
Thus, due to the Garretts’ waterward property line, ingress and egress access requirement
and riparian rights, the applicant’s exemption request is in violation of state and town rules and
property regulations.
6. THE EXTENSION OF A FLOATING DOCK/PLATFORM AT THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY IS A VIOLATION OF RIPARIAN RIGHTS
8
Riparian rights in Florida (and other states) are those rights enjoyed by real property owners
whose upland property extends to the normal high-water line on navigable waters. In other words,
a property owner’s land must immediately abut a body of water. Per Sec. 253.141 Florida Statutes,
riparian rights include rights of ingress, egress, boating, bathing, fishing, and such others as defined
by law. Additionally, in Florida, the right of an upland owner to an unobstructed view of adjoining
waters has been recognized as a riparian right. Hayes v. Bowman, 91 So.2d 795 (Fla. 1957) (“An
upland owner must in all cases be permitted a direct, unobstructed view… If the exercise of these
rights is prevented, the upland owner is entitled to relief.”).
Florida courts have further recognized over the years that the views associated with these
properties are of value. The Florida Supreme Court held the following, “In many cases, doubtless,
the riparian rights incident to ownership of the land were the principal if not the sole inducement
leading to its purchase by one and the reason for the price paid by the seller.” Thiesen v. Gulf, F. &
A. Ry. Co., 78 So. 491 (Fla. 1917). As the Supreme Court points out, and which is obvious to
anyone living in Florida, a waterfront property’s value is dependent on these riparian rights. If the
view of a waterfront property were to be obstructed, it would follow that the property’s value
would diminish.
It is not uncommon for homeowners to seek to enforce their riparian rights when
neighboring property owners along a body of water attempt to build docks extending off their
property. This scenario gives rise to the question of whether the neighbor’s new dock can obstruct
their neighbor’s waterfront view. The answer is most often no, the dock cannot obstruct the direct
waterfront view of an adjacent property owner.
There is a case in Florida where a court found in favor of the dock owner who was
obstructing the view of the waterfront property owner with riparian rights. However, what
separates that case from similar scenarios as described above is that, in that specific case, the
structure was already in place for years prior to the waterfront property owner purchasing the
property. The court held that the property owner was aware of the issue upon purchasing and could
not enforce his right to an unobstructed review years after purchasing the property. City of Eustis
v. Firster, 113 So.2d 260, 261 (Fla 2nd DCA 1959).
The neighboring property value is diminished with each inch, foot, yard that the subject
property layers a deck upon another deck, extending into the center of the lake/water and
minimizing the view of the neighboring property, a violation of riparian rights.
It is important to understand there may be a difference from the waterward path of the
upland property line compared to the riparian right line. The riparian right laws define and trump
upward property lines to avoid obstruction suffered by a corner lot and are discussed later in this
letter.
For visual purposes only we use the upward property line in the inserted image to show the
“stone on concrete seawall” with the original dock and the second dock/platform extension. The
red line is the setback at 15 feet (which is in violation of 25 feet for properties 70 feet or more),
the blue square is the dock flatform per the exemption request (not to scale) and the green line
represents the property line (63 degrees/37 degrees) on its waterward path from the upland
property angle into the lake/water.
9
Image is for illustration purposes only, not to scale, angle degree, size, or placement of dock/platform.
The upland boundary in the direction of a waterward path is typically used but there is also
the premises that the lake/water body must be equitably apportioned as if the waterfront owners
were standing on the shore looking out over the body of water. The riparian right applicable to
the square/rectangular lake, such as in this case, uses the method of a center point of the lake to
determine apportionment to each property owner. As an illustration, the next inserted exhibit
shows the actual lake/water at issue with the riparian view lines drawn. All lines meet at a focal
point in the middle of the lake/water.
Image is for illustrating purposes only, not to scale, angle degree, size, or placement of riparian lines of view.
10
Note in this illustration other lots in the Bel Lido community on the same lake/water are
considerate of their adjacent property owners. There is no other property owner that blocks their
adjacent property riparian rights, per the illustrated map. Ironically, it appears that some
homeowners in Bel Lido have actually gone above and beyond to adjust their docks, platforms,
lifts and boats to intentionally avoid the violation of another ’s riparian rights. It is unfortunate that
De Beer has not afforded the Garretts this same courtesy.
7. DE BEER’S SEAWALL LENGTH IS 70 FEET
As previously mentioned, a prior owner of the subject property filed an application for the
original dock and that application is incorporated by reference to support the objections to the
application for a floating dock/platform, a second dock on the property. Despite the Town of
Highland Beach authorizing the permit for that original dock aka “stone on concrete seawall”
submitted by the prior owner, there remains a violation as to the setback on both sides of the
original dock.
First, the Garretts gave no permission or authorization, no conveyance and disputes any
adverse possession claims for the setback violation as to the “stone on concrete seawall and
original dock.
The town plat and De Beer’s survey indicate the seawall measurement of 70 feet. It does
not go un-noticed that De Beer’s survey provides a favorable notation of 69.93M on the seawall.
However, legally a plat map provides an indisputable legal description of the property. Plat maps
can indicate a need for a survey if there is any question about a structure or feature of a
neighboring property extending past its boundaries, known as an encroachment.
Off the seawall topic but another issue to address in the De Beer’s survey, it notes an
encroachment over the neighboring property by -0.3 feet (equivalent to 3.6 inches) along the
upland property line. Again, the Garretts convey no right to this encroachment and dispute all
adverse possession claims.
Back to differences of a plat vs. survey, generally, a survey shows the boundaries of a single
lot, only. For any change to take place, a boundary adjustment plat involves making a survey of
both properties which mutually share a boundary line. A survey of both properties provides the
full picture and completeness of the entirety of a plat for determination of the property lines. To
date, no boundary adjustment plat has been prepared or recorded in the property records and no
survey of shared boundary lines has been conducted by any property owner or the governmental
agency. Thus, a single survey cannot change the property line.
Via public access to the Highland Beach satellite map at
https://highlandbeach.us/241/Maps, the measurement tool indicates the De Beer’s seawall from
end to end is 70 feet. See the inserted photo exhibiting the measurement from point to point
(property line to property line), represented by the green spot with white dot at each point along
the seawall.
In the Highland Beach satellite map the property lines/boundaries are reflected by the
yellow lines.
11
Image is for illustration purposes only
The corner lot seawall is plotted as 20 feet on one side and 20 feet on the other side. We
see that consistently reflected on the Highland Beach satellite map measuring tool, with images
below, represented by the green spot with white dot at each point along the seawall for each
respective side, creating a 90 degree seawall.
Images measure 20 feet on the side by De Beer’s property and 20 feet on the opposing adjacent property.
For additional confirmation, picture inserted below, the measurement from the corner
property line point to the furthest property line point of the subject property, is 90 feet. It’s now
simple math: we know the neighbor ’s seawall from the corner property line to the shared property
line is 20 feet (see 1070 Bel Lido plat/survey recorded in County property records), thus you take
the 90 feet minus 20 feet and it results in the subject property seawall to be 70 feet.
12
Image is for illustration purposes only, totaling 20 feet of the Garrett seawall plus 70 feet of the De Beer’s seawall
It is clear from the plat, surveys and online satellite measuring tools, the De Beer’s seawall
is 70 feet.
8. SEAWALL LENGTH DICTATES A MANDATORY 25 FEET SETBACK
Currently the “stone on concrete seawall” extends from one end of the seawall to the other,
crossing over the Garretts’ property line and evidenced in the De Beer’s survey with an overage
of -0.3 feet (equivalent to 3.6 inches). Meanwhile, the existing dock, also illustrated in the survey,
is in violation of the setback when the seawall measures at 70 feet. The Ordinance states if 70 feet
or more, the setback requirement is 25 feet from the side property line. See Highland Beach
Zoning Code Chapter 30, sections 68 with excerpt provided:
Sec. 30-68. - Supplemental district regulations.
(g) Accessory marine facilities:
(4) Boats and setbacks. When moored, any portion of a boat shall not
extend beyond any property line, as extended waterward.
(6) Installation. Accessory marine facilities shall comply with the
installation standards listed below:
a. In waterways not regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, docks
and mooring structures shall not extend into any waterway more than five
(5) feet.
b. In waterways regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, docks and
mooring structures may extend to that distance allowed by said agency.
c. Measurement of the width or length of a dock, as applicable, shall be made
from the property line.
d. Marine facilities shall comply with the side yard setbacks listed below.
1. Single-family zoning districts: Twenty-five (25) feet; provided, however,
the side yard setback shall be fifteen (15) feet for any single-family lot with
a lot width of fifty (50) feet or more but less than seventy (70) feet . For
those lots with less than fifty (50) feet abutting the water, the planning board
may grant a special exception for the installation of a seawall mounted davit
type lifting device (but not a dock structure) after being satisfied as to the
protection of neighboring property and no infringement of standard
navigation practices.
A strict reading and interpretation of the statutes above is a 25 feet setback is mandatory
unless the property seawall measures less than 70 feet. De Beer’s survey would like us to believe
13
that his property is 69.93M, however, De Beer cannot change the plat by obtaining an independent
self-initiating survey. As stated above, a survey of both properties together is required to make an
adjustment to the plat. This also means that the Town of Highland Beach cannot change the plat in
a hearing or any other administrative proceeding without a survey of both properties which
mutually share a boundary line.
Below is an official copy of the plat book 25, page 97 for Bel Lido with a second image of
the zoomed in portion for the subject property and the Garretts’ corner lot. The seawall
measurement for De Beer is 70 feet. It is not less than 70 feet; it is 70 feet!
Official plat book 25, page 97 for Bel Lido with zoom on De Beer’s property, highlighting 70 feet seawall measurement.
We’ve established the recorded measurement of 70 feet along the De Beer’s waterfront
seawall per the plat, confirmed with a notation on his survey, which triggers the mandatory 25
feet setback on the De Beer’s property.
Over prior objections by the Garretts, the Town of Highland Beach permitted an
unauthorized taking of their property when the Town permitted the “stone on concrete seawall”
and existing dock to have a 15 feet setback. This exemption from the 25 feet setback
unequivocally allowed for dock construction closer to Garretts’ property and further restricts
ingress and egress, as well as the enjoyment of the lake/water view. The Garretts have never and
do not convey nor relinquish their statutory right under the provisions for the 25 feet setback
requirements for De Beer’s original dock and “stone on concrete seawall.”
Not only does the original dock aka “stone on concrete seawall” completely disregards the
ordinance setback requirement of 25 feet from the side property lines, measured according to Code
section 30-68(6)(c) but the approximate 75 feet boat when moored to the original dock, extends
over the neighbor ’s property line in violation of Code 30-68(g)(4).
On this issue, De Beer has a 70 feet seawall which by statute is a mandatory 25 feet setback.
Anything short of 25 feet is a blatant and conscious indifference to Garretts’ corner lot ingress and
14
egress, their future request for a dock, boatlift, or floating platform and the simple and most
valuable reason is their view of the lake/water.
9. DEPTH OF DOCK/PLATFORM EXCEEDS 5 FEET INTO WATERWAY
De Beer ’s dock and platform separately and most certainly the layering of platform on top
of dock violates Code 30-68(g)(6)(a): docks and mooring structures shall not extend into any
waterway more than five (5) feet.
The fact that De Beer failed to include the depth of the dock and platform in his application
is a red flag and the Town of Highland Beach should not have authorized a permit without
investigating.
We object that the depth exceeds the allowable 5 feet into the waterway.
10. DE BEER IS IN VIOLATION OF THE SOLE PURPOSE OF A FLOATING DOCK
According to 403.813(1)(s)(1), floating vessel platforms or floating boat lifts, provide that such
structure floats at all times in the water for the sole purpose of supporting a vessel so that the
vessel is out of the water when not in use.
The sole purpose to support a vessel does not mean to use the platform as a storage landing for
items related to boating and mooring, like De Beers has done with coolers, surfboards, storage
bins and other random items on the platform.
De Beer violates the statute’s sole purpose of a floating dock.
11. “STONE CONCRETE ON SEAWALL” AND SEAWALL FENCE ENCROACH ON
GARRETTS’ PROPERTY
Not to repeat what has already been stated above but the entire De Beer’s seawall is covered
with a stone concrete. At the angled upland property line (63 degree/37 degree), the concrete on
the seawall encroaches across Garretts’ property line, in the shape of a triangle at an undetermined
size, due to the perpendicular placed gate/fence on the seawall. The fence/gate is also in violation
and encroaching over the property line.
Property lines are clear per the metes and bounds dividing two lots at the angle of which
they are established upland. Property lines cannot be changed without a conveyance, a taking
from government and/or determination of adverse possession. Once again, the Garretts’ never
have and do not convey this encroachment or any other encroachment and disputes all adverse
possession claims related to the fence, gate, and seawall overage.
12. UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAKING AND CONDEMNATION BY THE TOWN OF
HIGHLAND BEACH AND/OR GOVERNING AGENCIES TO ALLOW
EXEMPTIONS ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
Finally, the Garretts allege that the permitting department of the Town of Highland Beach
and any or all county government have and continue to collude with De Beer for an
unconstitutional taking or condemnation of the Garretts’ property rights.
15
13. VIOLATIONS ARE DEVALUING PROPERTY VALUE
De Beer ’s actions along with the Town of Highland Beach and any other government’s
collusion by granting multiple permits and exemptions is devaluing the Garretts’ property and
resale value. Future buyers are on notice of various encroachments to the fence line, gate and
“stone concrete on seawall, the violation of the 25 feet setback for the original dock on a lot that
is 70 feet long, the violation of a second dock/platform layered on top of the original dock
protruding into the lake/water over 5 feet, the violation of the waterward property line with an
extended dock/platform, lack of ingress and egress, and an obstruction of the riparian view at the
corner lot, 1070 Bel Lido Drive.
All of the violations egregiously devalue the Garretts’ property value and enjoyment of
coastal views.
SUMMARY
It is repeatedly documented throughout various parts to the Highland Beach zoning code,
state statutes and state laws emphasizing the following:
• location of docks, docked boats, and relation to side setbacks shall be established by
the waterward extension of property lines.
• docking and related accessory marine facilities :
o will not reasonably deny or otherwise limit the ability of abutting or adjacent
property owners to construct accessory marine facilities;
o will not reasonably deny or otherwise limit the normal ability of abutting or
adjacent property owners to moor, maneuver, use or otherwise move a boat; and
o will not deny reasonable visual access of abutting property owners to public
waterways.
In summary, various statutes, town ordinances and state laws support the following:
- only one dock is allowed
- the exemption for a platform to layer onto an existing dock is not permitted
- the exemption request unreasonably interferes with riparian rights of the corner lot
- the plat indicates the seawall measurement on the subject property is 70 feet.
- Ordinance states a seawall of 70 feet is subject to a 25 feet setback
- the exemption request for a dock/platform as constructed is over the corner lot’s
waterward property line
- the “stone on concrete seawall” and seawall gate encroach on Garrett’s property
- the existing dock is over the setback requirement of 25 feet from the side property line
- the dock/platform extends beyond 5 feet into the water
- storing personal items on a platform is not allowed as the sole purpose is to support a
vessel out of the water
- blocking the ingress and egress of a corner lot’s water access is not allowed
- blocking the riparian rights for a property’s coastal view is not allowed; and
- a taking of another’s property through collusion with government entities is
unconstitutional
The governing authority and enforcer of the Town of Highland Beach Ordinances has to
put a stop to De Beer ’s continued attempts and successes in violating the Garretts ownership and
riparian rights. The Town of Highland Beach management committee is entrusted with the
16
unbiased obligation to enforce laws to protect all residents in Highland Beach. Unilaterally
permitting exemptions that are clearly causing the Garretts to suffer is an act of unconstitutional
condemnation.
De Beer ’s actions and the Town’s collusion granting multiple permits and exemptions is
devaluing the Garretts’ property and resale value. Future buyers will be on notice of various
encroachments to the fence line, gate and “stone concrete on seawall”, violation of the 25 feet
original dock setback, violation of a second dock layered on top of the original dock protruding
into the lake/water, violation of the Garretts’ waterward property line with an extended
dock/platform and an obstructed riparian view.
De Beer is also causing emotional abuse toward the Garretts. We have owned this property
since 1972. It is our dream home and a valuable asset to our two children. We are in our mid/late
80s and are being harassed by De Beer ’s actions and the multiple exemptions given by the Town’s
planning and management committee.
We therefore request the Town Enforcer, management committee and any government
agency to re-evaluate the application for various exemptions and permits related to the De Beer’s
floating dock/platform request as well as the original dock, seawall setback, concrete seawall and
gate overage, upland and waterward property line for non-compliance based on all reasons asserted
in this letter.
Please feel free to contact us with any questions.
Respectfully,
Eugene and Maureen Garrett