The installation of artificial turf at a waterfront property in Gulf Stream became a focal point of debate during the Planning Board meeting. Board members discussed at length the proposed landscape change, which would involve the use of artificial turf in certain areas of a property. The discussion centered around the compliance of the turf with the town’s code, particularly in relation to hardscaping and open space landscaping requirements. Concerns were voiced regarding the turf’s drainage properties and how it compared with natural grass.

Arguments were made both for and against the installation, with the technical aspects of the artificial turf—such as visibility from various perspectives and how it would affect the hardscape ratio—being scrutinized. Members of the board deliberated on whether the proposed artificial turf met the criteria for landscaping open space as defined by the town’s code. The precedence of approving such a request was a concern, as it could influence future developments along the waterfront.

In an attempt to address the board’s concerns, the applicant proposed modifications to the plan, which included adjustments to the driveway and walkway areas to reduce the hardscape area. Despite these efforts, the board members were undecided and opted to defer the application to the next meeting to allow for further discussion and potential proposal adjustments.

In addition to the debate over artificial turf, the board reviewed and approved several architectural changes to various structures on a property. The amendments included the renovation of a tackle shed, which would be cladded in stone Coral veneer and feature a copper roof, timber lintels, and rustic shutters. An outdoor shower enclosure addition to the pool house was also discussed, with the neighboring property owner’s approval noted. Furthermore, the board considered the conversion of a window in the main house from a double-hung to a pair of single fixed windows.

The focus then shifted to the color palette for the various buildings on the property. The shutter colors for the main house, guest house, and tackle shed were debated, with the emphasis on ensuring they matched with other buildings on the property. Concerns were raised about the proposed wall colors for the pool house and the appropriateness of the colors for the outdoor structures. The visibility of the proposed colors against the buildings and the impact of the surrounding vegetation were also considered. Eventually, the board approved a Level Two architectural site plan with the condition that the final decision on the colors for the shutters would be delegated to staff.

The first application reviewed at the meeting was for a property on Pelican Lane, which included plans for landscape improvements and the construction of a new motor court, interior courtyard, and west-facing patio. The board expressed concerns about the encroachment solution for the property, the circular stones, and the easement with FPL. Despite these concerns, the site plan was approved based on the construction meeting the intent of the design manual and applicable review standards. Additionally, the applicant mentioned a separate application for potential variances related to the dock, which was not discussed in detail.

Another property on Inlet Point was brought to the board’s attention, where the applicant expressed gratitude for the board’s collaboration on previous projects.

Regarding the 1200 North Ocean project, minor adjustments and modifications from a previous review were addressed. These adjustments focused on architectural elements and the color palette modifications for the project. The applicant presented the changes and sought the board’s input and approval to continue with the project.

The meeting also touched upon a waterline project and landscaping changes, which included discussions on the use of green Ficus as a buffer for visibility and the removal of turf areas. A public attendee proposed a landscaping plan to address sight lines from the water and sought feedback on potentially trimming a section to meet percolation code requirements. The board requested elevation drawings for further review.

Debates arose about the proposed aggregation of changes into a singular motion and the simplification of a lengthy motion draft. However, the board managed to reach a consensus on approving the architectural site plan with conditions. The use of copper roofing on the tackle shed, the color of the shutters, and the notice provided to neighbors were also topics of discussion.