##VIDEO ID:wQBDDUV67Ys## e e e e e e and welcome to the planning board regular meeting on Thursday December 12 2024 at 9:30 a.m. please silence your cell phones um Mr Hart please call the role member Rosen member Brown present member poell present member chowski present member Axelrod Vice chairperson mendleson present Town attorney Ruben present thank you okay can we all rise for the pledge of allegiance alance to the flag the United States of America and to the Republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible liberty and justice for all okay approval of the agenda is there a call for a motion to accept the agenda as presented second is okay all in favor I okay swearing in of the public for those giving testimony please stand and raise your right hands to be sworn in and provide testimony for the application you are affiliated with Mr Hart please swear in those giving testimonies or anybody who's going to speak today needs to stand up by the authority vested me as a notary of the State of Florida do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you are about to give is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth you you may be seated okay approval of the minutes of NE November 14 2024 are there any corrections to the minutes of November 14 2024 hearing none may have a motion to approve the minutes of November 14 2024 second all in favor I I okay unfinished business is none new business development order application number pc24 D7 3519 South Ocean Boulevard LLC application number pz 24-7 by Mark Hunley chared International architecture requesting an amendment to a previous ly approved site plan for a new three-story single family resident development order number 22-17 in order to alter the location of the residence approximately 9 ft Westward to increase the square footage under AC from 3997 to 4,52 and to reduce the rear covered patio and rear balcony by 1.5 ft for the property located at 3521 South Ocean Boulevard does any board member have any exp party Communications to disclose hearing none at this time I now open the public hearing Town planner Allen please present the application he good morning uh for the record in GD Allen Town planner uh we'll go ahead and start with the Aerials of the project site these start on page 15 of your packets here you have uh the subject site uh identified here you have the front of the property and here you have the rear of the property um on page 11 of your packets I've gone ahead and provided you some property history the board may recall that back on July 13th of 2023 you all approved a site plan for this property which was for a new three-story 300 997 foot single family residents on September 19th of 2023 the town commission approved an amendment to the landscape inclusive memorandum of agreement that the town has with fdot um the reason for that was because they were proposing landscaping and irrigation in the right of way and that triggered that Amendment also on September 19th of 2023 the town commission also approved a town rideway permit uh pertaining to the uh new driver way now uh the request sets before you um again as indicated this is an amendment to that previously approved plan um the property is currently uh I should say the property currently has a single story structure and I do indic in the staff report that according to the Palm Beach County Property Appraiser this structure was built in 1952 is also a small shed that's located south of the principal structure um now I did put in the July 133 2023 staff report that this property is a non-conforming lot um the minimum lot width for a single family dwelling in the rml zoning District it's currently an 80 foot requirement the property has 60 feet however we do have a provision in the code section 30-13 A that states that a non-conforming lot of record may be utilized for any permitted use in that particular zoning District so in the rml zoning District you can have a single family residents um let's go ahead and take a look at the slides these um plans are at the uh they're after page 67 in your pack it's the 11 by 17 um here you have the proposed site plan now what I ask the applicant to do just I felt from a board's perspective it would be easy to look at what was previously app previously approved versus what's new so um the top one is the new and the bottom is the previously Pro from July 3 133 that's the site plan um here you have just a section cross section um here you have the basement first floor and this is the second floor yes so here you can see that there's a note on the plant that they're shortening the patio by 18 inches this is the third and then here you have the west elevation so again on the left is the previously approved elevation and on the right is the new you could see it's pretty much the exact same thing they're just moving that structure Westward and again the change to the rear patio balconies here you have the northern elevation previously poops on top there's some minor changes to the windows on the top you could see versus the new on the bottom this is minor actually they they don't need planning board approval for Windows it's considered a minor uh modification that could be done through building permit but since they're here obviously the change is shown and here you have the uh East Elevation again pretty much the exact same thing Windows a little bit different and then here you have the South elevation here are the renderings of the home which have not changed since the last approval and here you have the landscape plan um again the top is the previously approved and the new is on the bottom um there was some uh changes I believe I'll get you those in just a minute just finish these there was some changes to the irrigation that was on the dune um and we do have some uh email from fdot that U sorry from FD that indicates that those changes are considered minor and it doesn't affect the validity of the permit that they previously received from FD and this is just some of the plant schedule for the landscape plan and here is the irrigation plan okay um the uh project is still east of the castal construction control line so as I just mentioned um they did get FD approval for their previous um project and again that there's an email um on page 18 from fdp again indicating that uh those changes um are fine uh no issue with the validity of their existing permit um with regards to the fdot RightWay there are some changes to landscaping and irrigation um in the fdot RightWay uh but this will not trigger an amendment to that previously approved U memorandum of agreement uh there are some there is an email exchange from fdot again indicating that the changes um to the fdot landscaping or in the rideway and the irrigation their minor that emails on page 63 um according to section 30- 386 of the town code the board shall approve or deny the site plan application the approval may include conditions which clarify but do not exceed the requirements of the code if the board approves of the request the applicant will be required to obtain a building permit prior to the initiation of construction and pursuant to section 30-21 g commencement of construction shall be initiated within two years following the date of approval by the planning board staff has reviewed the requests including the plan state stamp received by the building department on November 7th 2024 and finds that the Pro is consistent with the code of ordinances um I'll be glad to answer any questions we also have the applicants agent here today Mr Hunley and he'll be glad to answer any questions as well okay so do any board members have questions for ingred yeah I do too I I'm just curious why why was do they want to move it Westward I'm sure it doesn't matter but I'm just curious um I'll defer that to Mr Hunley okay um he didn't indicate in the application and from a Planning and Zoning perspective perspective so long as it's compliant with the code but right I'll give him the floor okay good morning morning um you have to say your name and Mark Hunley I'm one of the principles uh partner at shed International architecture has been retained for the project by the owner and assigned authorized agent um for this project in this regard um the reason we moved at 4ward 9 ft was simply because due to D requirements for cut Phill in the Dune we were actually able to lower the finished floor of the project of proximately six or seven inches and it really boiled down to Simply that oh okay great other board members yes Roger what's the difference between 3519 and 3521 the Incorporated company that owns the property is 3519 South Ocean LLC the actual property itself is 3521 South Ocean so it's not too different addresses that's correct the name of the LLC that owns the property is the 3519 I have no idea why the name of the company is different than the address I don't know but that's the way the owners set up the LLC and Incorporated the company it's okay I've made those typos myself anybody else okay thank you very much and any more questions for ingred okay um okay if there's any members of the public who would like to comment on this application please come to the podium and provide your name and address you'll have three minutes to speak on this application only anybody okay um any other questions for anybody any questions anyway okay the public hearing is now closed is there a motion to approve a motion to approve with conditions or a motion to deny the request do I hear a motion motion to approve second okay Mr Hart please call the RO member pal appr member chowski approved member Rosen member Brown yes member Axelrod approved and vice chairperson Mendelson yes thank you motion carries okay next development order application number pc-24 D9 njc Highland LLC application number pc-24 D9 by the Benedict Bullock group PA requis requesting site plan approval for a new three-level 8,154 sqt single family residents with pool for the property located at 3723 South Ocean Boulevard do any board members have any exp party Communications to disclose okay um at this time I now open the public hearing Town planner Allen please present the application okay um we'll go ahead and again start with the Aerials uh these start on page 104 of your packets here we have the subject site um here you have the front of the property now the Scana building across the street is kind of covering it uh obstructing it I should say so I went ahead and added uh Google um a Google map here you can see a little bit better of the front of the property and here you have the rear of the property uh so as indicated this is a a new site plan approval request um it's a three level again 8,154 squ foot single family residence with pool um the property previously contained a twostory woodframe single family residence and I've gone ahead and noted on page 99 of your packets that the residence was demolished and the permit number is again provided on on page 99 of your packets uh this property is owned residential single family and a single family detached home is uh a permitted use um for this particular zoning District now this property um as with the previous one is located east of the Coastal Construction Control line therefore fdp approval is required now the applicant is awaiting approval from fdp I did discuss this with the town manager because we typically have the fdp approval um you know for the planning board hearing but Mr labed did agree to have the planning board consider the site plan approval requests without the fdp approval however such approval will be required prior to issuance of the building permit um let's go ahead with the plan uh the plans you could see again they're 11 by 17 they start after page 109 in your packets here you have the site plan this is a a detail for the fence and the gauge how they will look this is a lower floor plan you have the main floor plan this is the Upper Floor Plan followed by the roof plan and now we're going to start with the elevations the South elevations to the top the West elevations to the bottom this is the north elevation on top and the East Elevation on the bottom and here you have some renderings that are provided by the applicant the first the two top ones um are both the front H rendering and the this corner one as well as the front and this is the rear oops rendering here and here we have the applicants landscape plan uh the applicant is not proposing any landscaping and fdot's RightWay and this is the uh PL schedule that is part of the landscape plan and and this is their tree disposition plan um which is also part of the landscape packet and here you have their irrigation plan okay um so I do indicate in the stff report again on page 99 they are proposing to remove four um Buttonwood trees now according to the code Buttonwood trees are considered specimen trees now um single family zoning District um homes with single family in single family zoning districts are exempt from any tree removal regulations that we have in the code except if they're wanting to remove a specimen or a historic tree now if the tree is deemed hazardous or um in a dangerous condition then they don't have to get that permit um the applicant has provided a letter uh from their uh landscape architect that letters on page 108 um indicating that the trees um are indeed um hazardous um I also referen that there's a state statute um it's section 16304 52 that states that no that a local government may not require a permit for the removal of a tree on a residential property if the owner presents his documentation from a certified Arborist or a Florida landscape landscape architect indicating that the tree poses an unacceptable risk to persons or property so again those four trees have been deemed as again hazardous and unacceptable risk um and uh as I've already mentioned they're not proposing any Landscaping in fdot right away um I do reference that the existing vehicular access that they currently have again to A1A will remain um so they don't trigger a town rideway permit um according to section 30- 386 the planning board uh can approve or deny the site plan application uh the approval may include conditions which clarify but do not exceed the requirements of the code um and staff has reviewed the requests including the plan state St received by the building department on November 27 2024 and finds the project is consistent with the code of ordinances now if the board chooses to Grant the approval staff does recommend the following condition that they provide fdp approval for the project again prior to the issuance of the Town building permit I'll be glad to answer any questions and we do have the applicants agent here Mr Tom benedi to address any questions as well okay do any board members have any questions for Miss Allen okay I I have a question and maybe this goes to the applicant I'm looking at this letter on page 108 um about the trees why they can be removed um it starts out saying in my professional opinion the four or would not qualify a specimen during during their due to their extremely unhealthy condition so like it sounded to me like um the statute you quoted says that they're specimens but then you can say why they're dangerous or hazardous this is saying they're not um a specimen because they're unhealthy so so I'm a little confused again our code says that these type of trees are specimen regardless of what the Landscape Architect's opinion may be we our code considers them specimen um but again you know beyond that statement that she makes um they she does deem two of the four hazardous and then the others are again compliant with statute that they let me read it verbatim that they pose un unacceptable risk to persons or property I mean all all four of them fall under that according to the landscape architect so as I said the staff report you know that letter is in compliance with those compliance okay thank you um okay question yeah go ahead um Mr Benedict yes right um how long have you been doing this architectural work is this your own firm it is Benedict bullet group uh we've been in business for more than 30 years okay all right I I just that the drawings are just shockingly similar to my own home to lay out the plan I mean everything I'm just like blown away is that right yes very right do you know where he lives no okay I'm just curious okay um do any other board members have questions for either Miss Allen or Mr Benedict or okay um are there any members of the public who would like to comment on this application no okay um any other board members have any questions for anybody in this room no okay thank you the public hearing is now closed is there a motion to approve to approve with conditions as Miss Allen suggested or a motion to deny the request do I have a motion motion to approve second um I would like to add the condition that they get the FD permit before the building permit is issued is that okay with everybody okay so that is the amended motion do we have a second second okay so now we would like a roll call all right so on the amended motion Vice chair person Mendon yes member pal yes member Rosen yes member Brown yes member chowski yes member Axel yes thank you okay good okay since I live in Tuscana I'll be looking at your progress daily okay um to development order number pc-24 D15 Robert Hammond application number pc-24 D15 by William Thomas unlimited permit Services Inc requesting a special exception to install a 136 6 in seaw wall along with Associated Seawall cap a 207 5 squ foot Dock and a 16,000 lb capacity elevator boat lift for the property located at 4203 Tranquility Drive do any board members have any expart Communications to disclose hearing none uh at this time I open the public hearing Town planner Allen please present the application okay uh we'll start off with the Aerials again uh these Aerials um are again provided on your packet that start on page 142 so here's the subject site I believe I put a little note uh that the house um has already been demolished um so uh this particular Aerials from the palach County property appraiser they haven't updated their Aerials yet so it's house is no longer there here you have the front of the home there's a little note on top and here you have the rear of the home and here is oh there was there photograph I guess we didn't put it but I believe in your packet you had a photograph um on page yes uh 145 which shows uh the current site with the the benene that's currently there um so as indicated this is a a request to install a 1366 36t 6 inch seaw wall this will be within 18 in waterw of the existing seaw wall along with Associated seaw wall cap a 297.00 p pound capacity this is an elevator Boat Lift um as I already mentioned the property is currently vacant uh there was a home there previously um there is an existing wood dock adjacent to the property which the applicant will uh propos us to remove uh the pre home uh just for what it's worth was built in 1982 according to the Palm Beach County Property Appraiser uh let's go ahead to the 11 by 17 PL sheets this is the existing conditions here you have the proposed site plan um and of course uh this property is owned residential single family so they do meet the 25 foot Marine side setback that is required for single family residences um here you have the detail uh for the seaw wall and here you have the detail for the dock and here you have the lift section um again showing that they are in compliance with the definition of boat lift that the lift cannot be higher than the super structure of the boat uh when lifted uh the applicant has obtained fdp approval I've provided that number for for you all on the staff report on page 138 when you look at that FTP approval it does indicate that Army Corps approval is not required um now there are some discrepancies and I do note this in the staff report again on page 138 uh between the plans that they submitted to fdp and the plans that they submitted to the town there's some discrepancies in the linear feat of the proposed Seawall and seaw wall cap and in the square footage of the proposed doc again I've reached out to FD GP they did go ahead and provide me an email indicating that those discrepancies do not impact the validity of our permit um that email correspondence starts on page 146 we always want to be sure that everyone's on the same page you kind of tackle these in these uh dis discrepancies even though they are minor at the review stage and not you know when things are being built it cause a little bit more an issue sometimes um pursuing to section 6-12 28b of the code all seaw walls west of St R 1A shall be at Basel elevation or higher provided by the FEMA firm Maps the base fot elevation for this property is currently six feet the applicants proposed seaw wall is at 6.5 feet and ABD um and I already talked about uh the compliance with the definition of boat lift um I do indicate in the staff report that the boat lift is at 6 feet 6 in above the dock and the top of the vessel superstructures approximately 7 feet 10 Ines um the town code states that the planning board May approve approve with conditions or a Deni requests this is specific to to a special exceptions um if the board approves a request again the applicant will be required to obtain a building permit prior to initiation of construction and um construction shall be initiated within two years following the date of planning board approval staff reviewed the proposed requests including d uh plans St stamp received by the building department on November 6 2024 and finds the project is consistent with the special exception provisions of the code were applicable and compliant with the town code and the town comprehensive plan again I'll be glad to address any questions and we do have the applicants agent here as well okay do any uh board members have any questions for Miss Allen yeah we need you yeah M's moral curiosity um are there ladds being used in this at all ladds ladds this um yes let's see only because it's been a topic of conversation yeah um you know what I'll defer to the applicant I'll take a quick look at the plans um as you all know the code is silent on ladders currently thank you morning uh William Thomas on the permit Services 902 Northeast First Street pompo Beach Florida and every city has different codes as far as ladders go um most homeowners put them in because they're building the dock so high it's hard to get in and out of a boat if you don't have a ladder um Lighthouse Point says every 50 feet you have to have a ladder but in this this particular property there's a boat lift so it depends on where the owner would like to put the ladder but as far as I know they're not mandatory I don't see it on the plan so you're not proposing one yeah I do not see it on the plan okay anybody else yeah I have a question okay I'm just trying to understand because I've seen this done a lot in in my neighborhood and this is in my neighborhood where they they take a wall and they put it on the outside of the existing wall is that what's going on here yes sir so you're not removing the existing wall or going behind the existing wall you're going past the existing wall correct yes and the reason why they do that is because if you could imagine digging a hole in the sand the further you deep the deeper the hole get or The Wider the hole gets so if they don't take the existing seall out and they put the new one in then you're not losing all that backfill that could possibly end up in the canal and cause environmental issues it's a better way to do the work how wa I'm sorry um and I'm trying to look in the plans and I didn't quite see it or understand it but it appears that the concrete portions of this structure will be somewhere around 5 feet further into the canal the dock yes sir and I don't know what the current width of the Waterway is there it's 100 feet it's right on the plan okay is is that impeding on any ordinance or requirement I know navally that's a tight area back there you can't pass through you have to turn around because of the bridge you can't get underneath the bridge um so it's not the easiest place to be able to turn a boat around if it's of any size this is not on that Canal it's not canal with the bridge is is further closer to A1A this is this was on uh inter Coastal drive and most environmental agencies allow you toity oh it is you're right it is on that canal yeah so anyway I'm just Cur not I just want to understand again it's I've navigated back there I don't have it I mean my my boat's not that large 35 feet but it's not the easiest place to turn around to begin with um just curious what it will be at post and the existing wall and proposed um are both you know past the property line of the property correct yes sir okay ing do you have any insight into that yeah I don't see an overall you know site plan aerial site plan yeah um so the code requires that any type of moing facility which is includes a boat lift uh has to be in a located in a canal or waterway at least 80 feet in width okay that that's the minimum um and you had indicated it's at 100 so they meet the the code requirement is this an elevator lift or a for it's an elevator left do we know what size boat they are posing or 16,000 lb is not a big boat 16 not okay it's not a 40f footer okay I know nothing about boats there's a guy who's got a 80 foot sport fish back on that canal and there's also another guy who has a c a power catamaran correct and he gets around uh down that canal with the power catamaran okay if you look on sheet six of uh seven in your 11 by 17 they did put a photo of the boat I mean it does say for UST illustrative purposes but I think it can give you an idea of what might fit on that lift oh small okay 24 30 footer Center Council you see him up and down got okay that probably will Whizz around okay um do we have any members of the public would like to speak please come up and ident identify yourself hi Norman Weinstein 4207 transil uh my wife and I on the house next door directly to the South we've been there for 30 years and um 30 years ago we uh planted two Cal ailum trees one at the North one at the South End uh of the property and uh we understand that according to a code that's a protected tree and following two meetings with the town manager one which Daron was part of uh he suggested uh that before any trimming would be done as a uh as a consequence of putting in this new seaw wall and with some discussion over maintaining the Integrity of the tree which which we've enjoyed for a long time provides a lot of screening uh along that Canal that a registered arborist the present uh together with the seawall contractor whom I know and who has done work at my home previously and I've spoken with him and he has agreed to to be present at the same time uh to see if if he can put the seawall in without doing any trimming to the tree um and what I would like is for the planning board and a condition of approval that that this be done I have actually uh Town manager I saw him yesterday again he suggested I create some photographs board see tree Etc happy to walk you through it thank you here I have a thank you so I have a question for you sir um uh I'm a lawyer so I'm very language driven yeah um are you asking that the arborist come and be there when they're going to do the SE but if the tree does need to be trimmed in the arborist uh opinion it's up then to the to the people who are building it that they would go ahead and have it trimmed or are you saying no that you don't want it trimmed in any of that I mean I'm trying to figure out way it was Marshall described it and I I saw him again yesterday because I wanted to make sure that in our original meeting Darren with the builder right who agreed to this process wanted to make sure that we we were clear on what we were doing right so the seaw wall contractor the arborist Darren and I would be present uh the seawall contractor agreed to to start on the North side to to provide whatever time there might be if the tree has to be trimmed and then the arborist would determine how much trimming would be necessary to accomodate the seaw wall without destroying the Integrity of the tree so um are you saying then that the arborist and who else gets to make this decision well the arborist would determine well would be first of all it would be Mitchell scavone who who runs hman Marie and he would look at the look at the condition and determine whether any trimming had to be done to the tree at all and if some trimming had to be done what trimming could be done without damaging the Integrity of this protected tree okay so is that the doc contractor that you just okay so that's okay let me just see if I can summarize and then we can everybody can weigh in you're saying that you'd like something in this condition that an arborist and the we should name the arborist I guess a named arborist and the doc contractor would be present at the property when construction on the dock was going to start and the dock contractor would say whether or not he thinks the tree had to be trimmed and if he did then the arborist would weigh in on how to trim it yes okay and let me make an additional comment that on the on the site plan you that was submitted you have symbols for trees if you look at the the symbol for our tree which is identified as being on the adjacent proper on our on our prop the canopy of the symbol appears to extend you know quite a bit over the property line so if you don't see the photo you would think that that the tree the existing tree canopy of a tree you know extends way over the property lse so one of the reasons why I I did these photos is because the the canopy of the tree is nowhere near the property line the extension of the tree is over the Waterway so photographs actually even show the the property property line itself on the seaw wall and the tree extending extending into the water and not not over 4203 is property line at all which I think is important okay but my question is do the people who own this property and who are building it do have an opinion on this condition okay well then you should come up and tell us what it is Darren Dunley seedar Builders I'm building the house um so first of all let me say that we're not going to let an arborist tell us what whether or not the tree needs to be trimmed in order to go to seaw Walling that not going to happen because it was the it was the doc contractor who would say that the doc contractor will say how much of the tree needs to be trimmed backwards you said it's not the arbus's decision Contra treat right that's right that's what we had said and then the arborist would decide how to treatment to maintain its Integrity so that it's not destroy right I've done numerous seaw walls in my lifetime and we're putting pilings in with a crane that it's not like you you can take this pen and set it there the there's a lot of complexity to putting in these piles so the tree will need to be trimmed there's no doubt about it we have no problem with an arborist coming out and doing the work of uh Norman's selection and that's not a problem because we want to preserve the tree but does the arborous get to decide how much of the tree to trim or do you the or the boat the DC Builder fman Marine the guy's doing the seaw wall says how much to trim and then the arborist gets to F do it the way an arborist would do it yes there's a proper way to trim a tree and we have no problem i' much rather the arbor do it okay and and Mitch who is doing our dock is also friends with Norman and and done Norman's dock so there's no there's no conflict here to you know he's on our side or he's on your side is it the trimming or the roots the tree I understand that but are we more concerned about the trimming trimming of the tree not about the roots of the tree okay wait I gotta let everybody else ask some questions okay and is this really a protected tree um yeah it is a protector Tre but when Mr Weinstein referenced that it's on the plans this is when it went before the board with the site plan approval it's not on the seaw wall and and you know this dock plant um so that that was something that was but a protect the tree can't be removed but it can be you can trim it and I'm sure Mr Rubin could talk about what the law permits you could trim a tree if it's hanging over on your property you can trim it generally if it's over the property belongs is between the properties right well the fence is between the properties it's on the property line see the they Circ because this tree is definitely going over the property line I have a better aerial picture at um you question okay trying to get to what the motion really is right okay so what we're saying is the seaw wall contractor will determine how much of the tree needs to be trimed regardless of whether it goes over the property line or this seaw wall property the tree does go over the property line there's no doubt about it the hangings go over correct okay but not anything more not the the trunk that's what we're talking about cutting trimming the tree not not the whole trunk we're not removing it we're trimming the tree so the first issue is that this is going to be subject to the opinion of the seawall do contractor as to how much of the tree needs to be Tri correct to to install this seaw wall in a safely manner that's what it all boils down to BU the do in a safe man correct subject to the arborist chosen specifically by the neighbor right correct deciding how that trimming will occur correct is that the substance of this that's the way I understand it correct now David what happens if the arist then says the tree can what the uh Builder says has to be done will harm the tree what happens in that situation you're saying you they you decide or they decide who's going to do it and you're gonna do it but what if the arborist turns around and says that will kill the tree and it's a protected tree I'm not a certified Arborist but I've also done a lot of tree work in my time and I I don't see an arborist saying that by trimming this tree we're gonna kill the tree I don't see that happening I know okay I I um I love Marshall and I like that he's trying to figure this out however I think this is not the planning board's um perview to come up with this condition I think it's R and Len you can weigh in I think it's rif with potential for becoming a disaster that we then have to arbitrate I we're not in the arbitrating business I would say that the planning board should have no condition and that you and you should go to your lawyers and enter into agree an agreement that can be enforced if somebody breaks it I I I don't want to be in the position where you come back and go they cut too much of the tree or they did this or he did this or it wasn't safe or we have damage because it wasn't installed right it's just not something government should get involved in but it is no but it but it is okay the minute you have a condition that needs um interpreting you have the potential for conflict okay but but you can have a private agreement between you I think have it we've had numerous conversations Norman and I think you can agree that we're communicate as you say and as I said I have no problem with you hiring the arborist to trim the tree you can't you don't cross talk everything you say has to be in the I see no issues on it I think should say it okay Len I'd like yes for you to weigh in look the liw is if it goes over the property line you could trim it so you know I understand your concern about the tree I I tend to lean more Eileen's direction that you know yeah you have an agreement between the two of you that an arborous will be there and you'll discuss it and you'll work together but I'm not sure I I tend to agree that a condition that says well this one determines this and then this one determines this it makes me a little uneasy because if you trim more you know they trim they're really only allowed to trim up to the proper line and you know you keep saying well we'll trim as much as we need to safely install it well that's legally you could really only trim what hangs over your property line you have to come to the mic yeah you have to come to the mic but the the installation of the seawall it's not it's not the property line that's the is is it's just the ex the extension of the tree into the water into the water right oh yeah yeah yeah but well the other gentleman was talking that it it it encroaches over the property line I know you're saying it doesn't he's saying it does it's it's a minuscule amount over the property line if I may is the issue here that the actual property that the house resides on is that long line is on the inside or on top of the existing seaw wall but there are parts of the tree that extend over the Waterway toward that property if I were to extend the property line between the two properties into what is the the the the canal the town's property there's portions of the tree that extend over that extended line that need to be trimmed to safely do possibly yes and they're not governed by the fact that it's over the homeowner's property it's yes it's over the water and if you if you continue that line the property line yes it would hit it would hit the tree somewhere in the water you see but not on the property both of you are can't even agree 100% in this room at this minute and this is my issue okay um I think we've all I think we have heard it um does anyone does anyone else have any questions of everybody anybody in the room okay then I'm going to close the public hearing and um I'm going to make a motion to deny the request what to on what on What basis to deny the application oh I no no no I'm sorry okay you're making me a little nervous yeah okay I'm going to make an a motion to approve the application and have no additional conditions sorry understood correct okay I got ahead of myself second okay uh would you call the role Mr Hart Vice chairperson Mendelson yes member chowski aren you second that's I'm sorry yes member Rosen member Brown thank yes member pal yes member Axel red yes thank you okay you have to get along sorry okay [Music] um all right that's all okay so my next thing is the consideration of the 2024 proposed planning board meeting dates 2025 2020 oh that that was in the script what happens when you just read script okay 2025 proposed planning board meeting dates okay so um the schedule that we have was we know januaries and februaries can you just remind me what those it was January what 13th or January 16th it's right here here it is I didn't have paper I'm sorry um January 16th and feu February 13th 2025 and um I think that we should approve those and then come back at the January meeting and talk about if anybody has any other problems with after February it being the second Thursday of any month so we want to give you the opportunity to check your calendars come back in January and say if there's any issues so um can I get a motion to approve January 16th and February 13 I'll move uh Miss Vice chair if I can just add a comment here yes keep in mind staff I'm five weeks ahead of you right because we have certain deadlines for advertising I have certain deadlines to provide an ad so if you can at least go up to March 13 so I can guide possible applicants for that meeting I'm start I'm going to start guiding them probably end of December January please can we amend that motion to include March 13th as well okay we have a second for that okay I will not be here for the March 13th meeting oh okay so just please make a note of that where are you going okay all in favor I I I okay all right um announcements December 17th at 1:30 pm. the town commission meeting and and the meeting is adjourned at 10:24