##VIDEO ID:18oGV5tm2nk## e e good afternoon and welcome welcome to the town of Highland Beach Town Commission meeting today is Tuesday September 17th and it is now 1:30 p.m. and I'd like to call the meeting to order may we have a roll call please commissioner Goldberg present commissioner Peters pres commissioner David present vice mayor Stern present mayor Moore present Town manager lty present Town attorney Ruben present thank you if we could all rise for the pledge of the United States of America and to the rep for it stands Nation God indivisible withy and justice for all are there any changes to the agenda seeing none if we could have a motion I move we accept the agenda as presented I'll second that all in favor say I I motion carries unanimously are there any presentations or proclamations no um public comments uh we I'd like to open the floor for public comments and you're limited to five minutes so um is there anyone who would like to get started please state your name and your address uh and if you could please come to the podium y thank you hi my name is Howard sto I am a resident here in Harlem Beach at casarina I am not representing casarina the Border just want that to be clear just representing myself as a resident um we have a new Fire Marshall Matt willhoff who seems to be really nice guy he responded to my question very quickly uh and my question was based on ordinance number two 023 d002 about electrical rooms and storage in electrical rooms um I had asked our president our uh our condo president uh what law would apply to this she had sent me the law I called up Matt because the law didn't seem to make sense to me uh to clarify Matt was great he got right back to me and he sent me the same LW that I was questioning I sent him another email asking how this might apply to us there was not a response yet but I'd just like to read the law to you and explain to you what we have a casarina uh a determination this is the law a determination the storage is illegal or in violation of this or other NFPA codes shall be deter shall be at the discretion of the fire chief or his design illegal storage for the purpose of this section includes any material stored in electrical room in front of major electrical panels fire pumps fire Commando command rooms uh fire protection closets similar areas such shall be provided with signs including no storage now casarina we have mechanical rooms not electrical rooms that are the entrance to it is in the common area hallways there are no electrical panels there there are not there's nothing involving electrical there any of the things that have listed in this lure uh we do have electrical rooms on the floor which condo deals with has nothing to do with the residence and Matt is asking that we empty out our our units totally what most of the resid in storm there's water filters for the air conditioner and metal tools none of which are flammable I understand his his his problem with it is if there was a fire they need to get in there and be able to move around these things are not much bigger than this whole area uh if they can't put out on fire from the open door I don't know but even if they had to go in uh if there if there's nothing if there's nothing in the way I have some shelves with some tools on it water on so I'm not sure why this ordinance is applying to us and I was wondering if you could look into it or advise us as to I'll I'll go appli by the law of course if that is what applies to us but from what I just read we don't not have any electrical panel we have an electrical emergency set off turn of S for the air conditioner there we have the air conditioner as I said we have hot water heater all electric no gas nothing flammable so I would ask that uh somebody look into this let us know uh what the what the law is or how how it would apply to us okay duly noted and um well all right we'll have someone respond thank you yeah um uh yeah go ahead uh okay sorry we'll have you go next yeah please state your name and your address my name is Eugene carrett my wife Moren we live at 1070 Bello Drive Highland Beach it's referred to in the in the The Proposal as a pie shaped let me remind you we think it's Alam mod we we bought the property in 1972 I couldn't live in Palm Beach County for until 1990 because I had a job in Broward uh I I'm I'm I'm I'm the only lot in the city of the town of uh Highland Beach that cannot have a doct it's it's and that was because I think protect my commissioner at that time and uh h see I can't hear your wife would like you to have a seat can you move the microphone oh yeah thank you as I was saying we're the only lot in the town of hland beach cannot have a a a do and they gave me like well those things where you you put on the on the on the on the ho of boat but there's a whole if if I use that there a hole where you got under your boat you you'd go into the water so that's not anything uh and let let me just say this is that uh uh I know Greg BJ as a neighbor but I just want to point out that he is as a dog in the fight he if you make it perpendicular it a him and so of course look at his uh recommendation with a joint his eye because that self-serving he should not have not have made that remark knowing that he had a conflict of interest uh page 19 of your of your outline uh recommends 25 fet excited in the the water and it's it is currently 5 feet and should remain at 5 feet what's the sense of if I I can't have a doct because I'm a it's like 20 feet by 20 feet I'm a a threat to navigation and you're going to let people get in put the put gigantic boats even further into the lake it doesn't make sense and uh you you say the 25 foot encroachment into the waterwood for AMF does that mean uh a combination of do Cliffs and floating floating platform it doesn't doesn't speak to any that you just you you how many how many how many uh uh how many docks can you have there's a situation in front of the the the the town where gentleman had a dock and now he has another dock what what how it happens with the third Dock and the fourth dock the fifth dock you be in the middle of the unless you say no only one Dock and the the perpendicular let me say that is my property is is pie shaped as I said and what happens is is uh if you make it perpendic I'm eliminated from from having access to the water because what'll happen is that the two the property to the uh East and property to the West they it's like this now and and they're prevented from going across our property line and if you make it like this where he can go they can go this way they'll just they'll just keep extending and it'll extend they'll eventually touch and we'll we'll have no Authority no ability to go anywhere and you just can't repan rights the the courts of hell that uh getting get view is an asset that should be protected and you just can't take somebody's view away from listen for their own property they can do anything they want with the the the view but they can't use their property to to affect a neighbor's property and just uh like I said we've been we've been in there 52 years we've enjoyed every minute of it but this seems to be ridiculous why all of a sudden now you got to have it perpendicular to give people more access to to the uh uh to the uh uh boating facility when there there's enough that is there's a we the gentleman next to us put a floating dock in it's Notting it's attached to the thank you very much for com attached to the Seawall and he he has got a boat where he takes the takes the boat and puts it up on the on the floating dock thank you thank you for your comments okay You' got everything good time's up okay sorry thank you thank you yeah go ahead Ron state your name and your address please Roger Brown Roger Brown 4314 Tranquility drive and 4315 Tranquility Drive um I'm a member of the planning board here in the town I'm a member of the uh police uh foundation and the firefighters Foundation here in town um the planning board sent recommendations to the commission we spent almost a year putting it together and many of the items that we had suggested were just either sarily dismissed or changed there's a lot of misinformation uh that is going around there's a lot of misinformation that's being said here in these hearings I watched all the videos for the last six to nine months and it's quite disturbing nobody wants to have zero uh as a distance of setback that would be ridiculous nobody would want that and further in the proposed accessory Marine facility document it goes it tries to regulate floating vessel platforms you cannot regulate floating vessel platforms according to statute 43813 you can't regulate it it it can't be you cannot impose further restrictions than the state has so that absolutely has to be removed from any proposal and in reference to setbacks I think that a reasonable setback is is acceptable whereas some people might have to disturb their view I personally had a boat I purchased a house across the street to dock my boat and um I had to navigate down a canal and if there were change if there were differences in setbacks I could have gotten back down that Canal much easier without inhibiting the navigation but at the end dist end of my Canal there is a lift at the Apex of the canal which should never have been put there and it's really wrong and it was very difficult to navigate around it and as a matter of fact I almost hit it many times I didn't but I almost hit it many times and I think that at this point in time there seems to be a lot of emotions going in multiple directions I think that you really need to send this accessory Marine facility ordinance change back to the planning board to have it reviewed there are 10 to 11 items that are in this proposed ordinance that were never reviewed by the uh planning board and they were just stuck in there I don't know who stuck them in there I don't know how they got stuck in there but they just got stuck in there and I don't think it's a reasonable thing to go forward with that ordinance and I think it needs to go back to the planning board and I think that reasonableness is something that works in this town I am the only single family homeowner on the planning board and I try to stand up for the single family homeowners and uh you know this is not a town made of just Condominiums and there are single family homes and there are many changes that were made that I think are not correct and the misinformation that's going around town uh or being said here at the commission is really inappropriate completely inappropriate so that's my thank you thank you any other comments okay oh go ahead Dr Greenwalt please can can you can you come up to the podium uh Rick Greenwald Belita I actually just had a procedural question because typically these discussions take place after you guys have discussed the agenda item which is a definite agenda item uh so I was actually going to respond later if you'd like I can speak now and again later that be okay yeah you can speak now all right um I uh actually want to applaud you guys on the due diligence you've put to considering this whole issue over the last couple years uh this is one of those that's actually a a quandry I mean it's not something that's that's clear-cut with a right answer or a wrong answer and you're going to get well-meaning people who have differences of opinion about how one values different things so clearly there's always going to be some difference into well you know we really want maximum utilization and benefits from the property that we got versus many of the people who you heard before saying no one of the reasons I got my property was for a good view I don't want a twostory structure pigeon holding my view and and and giving me tunnel vision when I look out my backyard uh so there are multiple issues to be considered it probably should not be a an All or Nothing thing and some people who are reasonable I think need to uh sit down and try and hash out some reasonable compromise that everybody can feel reasonably comfortable with the one question that I've alluded to multiple times which I don't believe has received a satisfactory answer for all of us relates to the town's ability to actually um regulate modulate whatever you want to call it any of these what used to be called temporary structures namely these plastic rubber floating docks for lifts or whatever which are are uh increasingly uh in use and I certainly understand what Roger said and we've been told that that's what the statute said the it can't be regulated beyond what the state said I've asked for a legal opinion about that several times because it didn't really make sense to me and when I read the statute as a non-attorney it's not really clear to me what the locality can or can't do in that regard and I think that that's really critical to the whole discussion is to get those opinions and figure it out I assume that something was done because the new proposals include regulation of such structures but again I don't I don't know I don't know what what's happened with that uh part of the process but but clearly that's something that that we need to know because a lot of the decisions are going to be are going to be based on what can or can't be regulated in my more recent readings uh I used to sort of look at when they said permanent is oh permanent that means you're putting like wood pilings in the water or concrete pilings that's permanent well the more I read and the more I actually just look up laid definitions not necessarily legal definitions that's not what it means it refers to duration of time so something that's regarded as a temporary moing or docking is you're talking about hours days maybe weeks maybe months when you start talking about a structure being there for a year or more more that's a permanent structure doesn't matter that it's made out of plastic or rubber or something it's a permanent structure if you look up definition of permanent moing so I don't know what the answer is but that's something that's critical to this whole discussion because we're never going to resolve the whole thing until that question gets gets answered to Roger point I am not sure particularly and I understand and he says that the recommendations that we were talked about at a previous meeting somehow or other were garbled and they never voted on whatever it was I don't care the stuff that I read as a citizen showing up here said that the planning board re approved all those recommendations unanimously that's what it said and those recommendations included zero setbacks which is what set me off on my whole Crusade here to begin with because as we said today that to me is a totally unreasonable kind of a solution so I'll be happy to uh comment further later on in the day uh but thank you for your time thank you for your comment anybody else want to comment at this time or maybe when we get to the item okay seeing no additional public comments moving on we have no ordinances to discuss right now we have the unfinished business the discussion of the proposed draft ordinance amendments to the accessory Marine facilities and seaw wall regulations of the town code good afternoon for the record ingred Allen to planner I guess I'll just give a general introduction to the item I provided for you an agenda memorandum which starts on page five so um as the commission may recall on April 2nd of this year you all did have a discussion item regarding the proposed amendment Concepts um at that April 2nd meeting you decided how you want to proceed how you want to move forward with the amendment Concepts and I provided um on page five and also on page six of your packet a table which lists the initial proposed amendment concept the planning board recommendation and then I've gone ahead and added what the consensus was from the commission from the April 2 meeting um so basically the commission uh decided to move forward uh with items Amendment Concepts one through four uh those include a maximum height for Access Marine facilities to exempt personal watercraft from the definition of boatlift a maximum seaw wall cap plus stock width and encroachments into the water for Access Marine facilities and you also wanted to move forward with Amendment concept number six which was a latter provision and then regarding uh Amendment Concepts number five and seven number five was uh some new setback requirements there was a no action option there from the commission and you had a no action option on the maximum seaw wall height so um based on the direction given to staff from the commission we prepared this draft ordinance um I do want to make clear this is not a first read so this is unfinished business it's a draft ordinance um because the ordinance is amending the zoning code Chapter 30 the code does require that this ordinance go to the planning board for a recommendation so we'll see what direction you want to do um just wanted to make that clear um so um the ordinance um actually I I'll delve into the latter provision um on page 14 of the packets which is the actual draft ordinance uh you all wanted a latter provision you wanted basically two versions one that's more of an encouragement which was what is put into the ordinance again on page 14 um I can read that into the record we have number eight ladders are permitted on Doc seaw walls finger Piers or other moing facilities so it's basically if you want to have a ladder in the town of Highland Beach you can have a ladder that's more of the encouragement and then um on page six I provided a more of a requirement and this is based off the recommendation from the planning board um which is basically you have to provide One ladder for each 100 feet AB budding Waterway Canal or lake etc etc and um with regards to the floating vessel platform and residential floating boat lips right this was not initially in the uh proposal that was given by uh the previous vice mayor Mr Bobby um and I will actually defer to the town manager uh this was added into the ordinance um based on his request so I'll give him the floor on that so on this provision it's a Hot Topic right boating floating vessel platforms we have no definition in our ordinance I sense there's some legal Risk by not beginning to find a definition I would think it's a floating dock but I'm told no no no it is a floating vessel platform so we've got to have this conversation uh the one alluded to Prior uh the previous commission didn't want to take the risk to litigate it I'm getting closer and closer we're going to be litigating this issue because we're going to be putting these in so at some point in time to protect our our legal interests and mitigate risk we have to start thinking about integrating a floating vessel platform I know that it's been discuss it's a sensitive topic you I don't know how we get to the end here um but we have to talk about it because these are these are more permanent in nature they're not temporary structures so they're accessory to your Marine use so I asked ingred put it in a definition somewhere we need to have this conversation uh because they're they're showing up everywhere and creating issues um we did get a legal opinion Len can kick me under the table we can regulate to setbacks there's some disagree in it that's the litigation part somebody I think we' when this first happened was 20 Rog was that 21 22 right around when the state kind of started handling and tackling this issue to nobody wanted to litigate it I was hoping Fort Lauderdale Miami um I gave some testimony to some legislators uh they didn't want to tackle it in Miami um some of Peggy's colleagues I I kept on telling the legislator this is going to blow up in our face because it's going to spread everywhere if we don't have some reasonable that's the discussion part is reasonable of how we handle floating vessel platforms because it's not a floating dock okay because you can park a boat on it so I guess it's different we just needed that definition so that's on me to put it in here because we got to have this conversation maybe today isn't the time maybe it's in the spring next year we need to talk about floating vessel platforms because they're going to pop up everywhere um so we we we had to start having that conversation because I I think there's some hot topics brewing in this town it's it's going to come to the surface so uh you know it's open we can kill it right at this point it's been done before so I asked ingred to place that in there so that is on me to place it in there so we can start talking about floating vessel platforms because they're going to we're a community of with so they're going to start showing up more often uh so we need to be prepared as to how do we handle these and the size of these um and the trick is is it begins to Teeter into repairing rights issues which get really gnarly with people right everybody that's Waterfront it's a very very sensitive topic um and some of that is more civil in nature um than we can handle through an ordinance but we need to have that conversation so that's why they came in here it's obviously it's it's ripe we're we're here um not only is it setbacks but what can go in the setbacks um we as you could see this is going to be contentious little bit issue I think we can probably find some reasonable nature there but we need to insert floating vessels platforms because they can get quite large so we just you know the state has a certain cap but doesn't mean we can't go bigger L it's you get 500 square feet anywhere right the law doesn't really say you can't apply it nobody has done it yet because we know what's coming the industry might come back at us so there's some some some risk there so uh that's why we why we inserted it here at this point because we got to talk it's got to be somewhere in our ordinance can't just leave it to the state to place it all over town we should have some discussion at least before we allow it to go every I guess one thought I had was we hadn't really talked about this concept before and that's probably why this is getting so much attention and perhaps we do need to take the time to really flush out that concept as a community so I guess my initial thought is there are five out of the seven Concepts that we pretty much agree on so I guess one thought I had was let's move forward with the five out of the seven that we pretty much have agreement on and move forward with the ordinance and then we can continue to talk about the other Concepts that need more more time to flesh out all right floating vessel platform it's not a floating duck a floating duck is something that is attached and goes up and down with the tide water it's not something that you pull your boat on top of so they're two very different things um what I've seen these floating platforms used for primarily at this point or jet skis and kayaks and things of that nature I have not seen any body put an actual boat on top of one I'm not sure how you do it with a vessel that has a build that goes down into the water but I guess anything is possible uh but we need you're right we need some sort of a definition to distinguish that from other things I also think that this town is not a one-sized pits all town that there are different requirements in different sections of this town and we need to take those into consideration and it may be that we have different regulations based on different areas and we have to find some legal way of distinguishing between them that doesn't mean that as you said we don't allow zero setbacks that's ridiculous we don't have zero setbacks for anything you can't build your house from your property line to the next property line so I don't even know why anybody would talk about that because that makes no sense whatsoever there is also the concept and it's done in a lot of other places not just here where you can't interfere with somebody else's enjoyment of their property and part of that absolutely involves the view that if you buy a house you have a certain expectation and if somebody moves next door and builds out so that they completely block your view that should not be allowed and part of that I assume is why one of the things that was said is that you've got to notify your neighbors that if you're going and you're having a hearing on it all your neighbors need to be able to come in and say hey that's going to block that's going to block my view that's going to block my entrance to my property it's going to do something if your neighbors don't care well that's a whole different issue but I think it has become very complex and even with the latter requirement I don't think it should be every 50 feet I think that one ladder per property should be more than sufficient and I think that it should be at this point voluntary unless you do some changes unless you're repairing unless you're changing unless you're extending and then there should be one per property I think we I don't see any benefit in sending it back to the planning board because we already know what the planning board thinks and the planning board gave it a lot of thought and I appreciate that but it should be remembered they're an Advisory Board the ultimate decision rests with this body not with the planning board and just to rehash all the things that we've got gone over before is a waste of time for all of us and I agree Natasha there are at least four items here that we should say okay this is what we want to keep but in the meantime why don't we just set those down and then discuss the other things I don't think we enact this peace meal I think this it's got to be enacted or not enacted as a complete ordinance but yeah we've got things that we can say okay we want to go with this so let's look at everything else and there have been a lot of opin and a lot of back and forth and I think something that we hadn't thought about before was the concept of with the Lakes I it's one thing if you're on the in coastal or if you're on one of the side canals where it's obvious where things are it's all straight but on the Lakes the pieces of property come off at Angles and you can't have a situation where you've got somebody in a pie-shaped piece who's got this much Waterfront actual Waterfront and have people on either side basically have the nose of their boats hopping over the side of what your view and blocking you from doing anything with it so I think we need to look at it from that perspective and thenen we need a lot of help wording this so that it's functional legally because I think it will become very tricky and I think we need to just look at this a little later on let's get have ingred and Len get together and come up with something that at least is initially workable for us to discuss because right now we really don't have anything that we can truly discuss where it everything out those are my thoughts yeah I agree with Evelyn um well Lads we took out right Ang we made it just uh uh we recommend it we don't force you to have Lads right and I agree with Evan I think you know bito is different from bird Beach they should have their setbacks and they should have their setbacks a little smaller so I agree with you I think we should go out to the community and figure out what setbacks work for each community on the inter Coastal and uh and you know they do it and if if they have a problem they can always get a variance and come into and speak to the uh and and have the exception so uh I agree with it but I guess we have to talk about those couple issues that we mentioned and the people mentioned out here uh for I would also agree I think it's a good idea there's a a lot of renewed interest uh additional uh issues that are bring being brought to bear and we want to address it uh we were each given a stack of uh of paperwork that uh are assumingly letters from the community these have to be reviewed very important so until we have done that and also have the uh definitions what we need the legal definition um so we have Clarity in the meantime uh we can operate as we have since we have the backup of bringing when someone uh goes for variance we have the uh core uh to come in uh and give an expert uh analysis touching off of from the statute what are the elements that have to be met and to date it's worked somehow I mean we're here because we want to make it better so I think that that's we need more research and uh more input for us to make a uh um a good decision I I absolutely agree with Evelyn and Judy's comments I think in the approach to the ladders I think is absolutely correct that it should be added as property is being worked on or seaw walls being worked on it's a safety issue and I I totally agree and I don't think that we should necessarily just uh arbitrarily adopt another municipalities way of handling it just because they're doing it in a certain way uh we have unique um um waterways and communities and I think we have to treat that uh in that respect and not have one uh blanket rule for every Community within our borders I have a question um in the the piie shaped uh example where someone has a small amount of water Frontage how does the the way the proposed ordinance is written how how does it impact that that piie shape with a small amount of water Frontage how does it change um the access of a you know if they wanted to dock a boat on their property how does that change sure so we have a provision in the code um it's section 3068 uh G number six and it says here um it's under the section where it talks about the Marine site setbacks for single family and multif family so it says here that if your lot is less than 50 feet AB buding the water the planning board May Grant a special exception for the installation of a SE mounted davit type lifting device but not a dock structure it's very clear in the code after being satisfied as to the protection of neighboring property and no infringement on standard navigational practices so the Mr Garrett mentioned his property because I've discussed this with him in the past right his property width is less than 50 feet so the code is very clear uh he could get a special exception for a seaw wall mounted davit type lifting device but not a dock structure so okay no I I understand that but how about the neighbor um what can the neighbor const construct right they can go 25 feet out from their property um with uh so they've got 25 feet from either end of the property so you know considering that corner lot right they're neighbors right um can they construct a a list lift you know pilings I know they have to be 25 ft from there um uh let's assume that each neighbor on either side adheres to the 25 ft and goes 25 feet out from their property does that if let's say that we're done would that allow for that corner property to have would that would that corner lot still have a navigable dock I think we I mean we possibly would have to have a marine the Marine expert take a look at that I mean I'm just not going to speculate yes because I don't know that that's we really thought about that um I know I'm I I don't know that I've really thought about that um the specific example of a corner lot like this allowing for the 25 feet out you know 25 feet in right now we don't have a 25 foot you know how how much you can encroach in the into the Waterway there really is no provision because it's left to the Marine expert right no the the code reads that if the Waterway is regulated by Army Corps and I've said this on the record several times staff met with army Corp of Engineers they regulate not only the intercostal Waterway but they regulate the lakes and the canals in the town so the provision says that that if the waterways regulated by Army Corps then you could go out you could encroach into the water um so long as whatever Army Corp signs off on okay but the proposal will limit it to 20 25t or 25% of the width of the Waterway okay so right now you would have to get sign off from Army Corps which could be less than 25 ft could be they they would take into consideration that specific Corner property would you agree or or or is that a correct statement or you're saying that Army Corps is yeah who would protect that corner property's ability for a boat to dock on their lot from neighbor building out a marine facility Well again all they they can't have a dock structure that I know the corner can't but how about their neighbors their their neighbors can have a dock structure and the proposal is to allow them to come out 25 ft and in that corner if they you know if you're if you're the propos you know the original proposal was was you know 10 feet setback right currently it's 25 correct and we're in our proposal you know the concept we were wanting to go with was no action on the 25 ft setback so I guess my question is but but we are we had agreed to the concept of the 25 feet out right so I guess my question is for that corner property if we allowed their neighbors to come 25 feet out could there be a car could there be they wouldn't you wouldn't be able to drive a boat onto their so keep in mind for accessory Marine facilities we have certain criteria in the code whatever you're building an accessory Marine facility which includes a boat lift so I'll read you those and I've read those as well on the record before uh for moing facilities you cannot create a hazardous interference with navigation endanger life or property or deny the reason public the public reasonable visual access to the public Waterway um you also have insulation of the moing facility some some of this is redundant but it is in the code insulation of the moing 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 and installation of such moing facilties should not a fringe upon standard na navigational practices that are or may be used by AB budding Property Owners so they have to be able to comply with that right now the way the code is written and any future and the code AS was cited does not have any opening for viewing as enjoyment we're just talking about the way I hear it is just being able to see the Waterway be able to navigate out of from the home into the Waterway is that not the code reads verbatim public reasonable visual access to the public Waterway and it also says uh or deny the public reasonable visual access to the public waterways those are the two references but it's not strong in so far as um a viewing as far as enjoyment of the property it talks about access being able the way I see it access being able to reasonably navigate in and out not have it blocked so you can't see but I think that's that's different although I think that probably consideration is still given I don't know I ask you from all the situations that you've seen uh and the results that you've seen decisions made uh whether someone's enjoyment of their property does that that neighbor's boat block their view of that portion um block their view period well again the term is reasonable what may be reasonable to you may not be reasonable to your neighbor so we've had people that felt that it was not reasonable they come to the public hearing for planning board they State their case and the board determines whether they approve or not so yeah so that's how we've dealt with it I just I have a question so so we've got 1070 Bello which is on the corner has a little bit very little water Frontage you've got 1084 which is on one side and you've got 4307 intra coal which is on the other side if if 1084 Bello wanted to put a lift that is 25 fet from the edge of the property and then 25t out you're saying that when the neighbors get notified of that new accessory Marine you know the proposed accessory Marine 1070 Bello could come out and say that lift that they're going to put out is going to block e even though you know it's it's in the ordinance you're allowed to do 25 feet setbacks 25 feet out 1070 could come out and make an argument and say that piling is going to be right smack in the middle of my view I oppose that that's what would have to happen it would be permitted except for a neighbor would have to come out and say that's not reasonable it's in my view it it I'm not going to be able to get a boat into my um 40 feet of water Frontage right so the way the new ordinance the draft ordinance we have that provision that we there's a discretion that we could still bring in a marine expert so just like now we have a sort of an awkward shaped we've had some boatless at the end of the canals um you know we'll we'll bring in the Marine expert let them determine uh what their thoughts are is it compliant with these criteria in the code well let the Marine expert make that determination so if we were to move forward with the proposed ordinance as written in the agenda today we still have the option of the mar actually let's look at the language that's in the proposed ordinance because I do remember that was one of the commission's uh suggestions that you wanted to still be able to bring out the Marine expert even though we have this 25 feet or 25% so bear with me and I'll give you it's on page 14 thank you angri yeah page 14 under number three towards the bottom under documentation the building official or planning board May in the exercise of their discretion request evidence prepared by a recognized Marine expert all that is existing language we just added in the exercise of their discretion oh so even the building official it doesn't even have to um fall on the the resident at 1070 the building official could call in that Marine expert uh staff yes any anyone on staff could could could also look out for that Resident because I'm just a little concerned let's say let's say that you've got an absentee resident who decided not to come you know to that hearing they were not available that day for that hearing or whatever they um they wouldn't be you know if it's only falls on them to protect their property view but you're saying you know the building official and the um well again um everyone does receive a notice right so our code says everyone within 500 feet of a property that's going before the planning board for a special exception which is how we process accessory meain facilities we'll get a notice so even if they're not here well depends where their mailing addresses and the property appraiser but they will get a notice um again we've had several scenarios in the last four and a half years where it's a little bit of a interesting scenario it may be like I said a boat lift at the end or we've had a boat lift right at the entrance of one of the Lakes where it gets a little bit narrow it's a little bit tight I brought you know I suggested we get a marine expert uh to do that I I'm not going to make the determination if it's an impact to the navigation of the waterway that is not my expertise so I think you have a professional staff um if it looks a little bit unusual an unusual case a tight area yes we're going to call the Marine expert uh but then again you may have a very straightforward Boat Lift you know in a very open area of the lake and the next door neighbor may say well you know I have an issue I don't know that we would you know it would necessarily warn a marine expert but again everyone does get a notice um and they can come to the meeting and state their concerns now would that TR uh it would that trigger a review by the expert if because the the provision three subsection three says the building official or the planning board May in the in in their discretion order right uh can a homeowner in addition to that um it's not in the code but I think if a homeowner called I mean that's something we would discuss with staff with the to manager um had that scenario but although it might uh it might just be exercised all the time and who pays the cost on that the cost according to the code is paid by the applicant so the applicant pays for our marine expert it's in the code okay yes so that would cover that exposure that's interesting yeah so commissioner goldber you're suggesting in every instance no be an option he here it it's only uh referring to the authority to trigger that the building official or the planning board I'm suggesting since that' be the homeowner's well it's a their cost an expense actually now looking at that section again we should probably put building official or design right so just because any staff um but if you want to add you're I think that makes sense wanting to add the owner I think that makes sense um um i' I'd like to open up for a public comment again anybody go ahead is this a good time for to have more okay just a couple of things Roger Brown again just a few things first is zero setbacks nobody ever wants a zero setback we don't live in a town with zero lot line homes we we don't want zero setbacks nobody ever asked for that additionally I do like to deal with facts rather than rhetoric so six years ago I put in a floating vessel platform when I put in the floating vessel platform uh there were at that time 46 floating vessel Platforms in the town of Highland Beach more than half of them were right on the property lines on the property lines my floating vassel platform is not on my property line I set it back purpose to be courteous to my neighbor and this is a situation in which you know the the Attorney General of the State of Florida wrote an opinion letter and Jeff is in possession of that opinion letter because it was sent to him by the jet do Corporation and that opinion letter says you cannot regulate floating vessel platforms at all because the alternative is putting a vessel in the water which has bottom paint which has toxic emits toxic residue into the water which kills the sea life and the seagrass in the State of Florida which is the reason why they don't regulate floating vessel platforms and they actually encourage floating vessel platforms because that toxicity it's the only way that you could stop Barnacles from growing and in in Bello Island in particular barnacles grow and and residue grows at an exceptional rate uh as opposed to on the inter Coastal where it grows at a much slower rate but you put that boat in the water and it it's constantly leeching heavy metals into the water it's a fact it happens every day and if you take a boat and you can put it on a floating vessel platform or any type of vessel on a floating vessel platform it saves the leeching of those Metals into the water and and I honestly don't believe that the planning board is just a uh an gives an opinion I think we put a lot of effort into uh the ordinance we spent a lot of time and the last point is ladders I don't know how many of you have ever fallen in the water I have uh I've had children fall in the water I've had pets fall in the water if you don't have a ladder to be able to get up it's a real safety issue and people need to have ladders I have 100 foot lot I have two ladders on my lot two because you're in the water there's Barnacles there's sharp objects there's mollusks there's everything that'll hurt you and getting out of the water is not easy it is not easy at all if there's not a ladder and God forbid you have to swim 100 or 200 feet and you don't have the ability to swim 100 200 feet but if you're a senior citizen quite frankly I'm going to be a senior citizen very shortly but I could swim but other people can't it's a difficult it's a very difficult situation and I don't think that you should leave it up to um buildings or house or homeowners to decide whether to put a ladder in I think it's a safety issue and it's very important to be able to have that so that people can get themselves out of the water I mean when my child fell into the water I had to dive in to go get him in in a short in shallow water and it was not easy finding a ladder it was not easy getting to a ladder in my former house that I lived in in Boer Ron I didn't have a ladder I had to swim to a neighbor with a child in on my shoulder it was it's not a good thing to let it leave it up to people to make a decision on a $200 ladder it's $200 it's not a financial burden but it is a safety issue um sure go ahead good afternoon I'm deer I live at 4307 inra Coastal Drive um you know I've been a boater for 30 years both on the west coast and here on the east coast and I want to affirm what Roger said about safety and ladders you know it is really important that you on on a larger lot you can get to a lad I just want to emphasize that but there's other safety issues when you have a boat on a dock that as a Boer I can tell you is really important and last night the boers in the community started hearing about this proposal and a lot of I've I've got a lot of calls Roger got calls and uh there's a much larger even a much larger Community than the you know 50 or so people that have interacted last night that I think need to be aware and need to speak into whatever you guys are going to decide but when you put a boat on the dock in where we live here uh and a storm comes by that boat has to be secured there's a lot of safe potential safety risk and liability if a boat breaks loose and so having appropriate setbacks allow you to properly secure a boat if you have a a boat that overhangs beyond your dock you know it can start moving around snap ropes Etc so I would like to put something in your midst to consider um instead of a an you know a a feet setback please consider a percentage setback of your Waterfront line other words you know whether it's 10% or 15% of whatever your property um you know water Frontage is is then proportional to your Frontage versus what we have today you know up to a certain amount it's it's it's it's it's a small setback and then suddenly it jumps you know if you're above 70 feet today uh you go from have being able to put in a 40 foot dock to a 20 foot dock on the same property with one inch of difference so uh and you know the bigger issue for me though is the safety uh issue and so I would just recommend that you think about a percentage which will give you that proportional uh safety measure and uh should solve the problem uh lastly I have one more comment which is uh you know I've had trouble uh getting a good interpretation from the town on property lines as extended waterw and that definition changed over time but and that's okay because I would just encourage you whatever you do uh make it very clear because for me as a resident you know uh it it's been really hard to interpret what I can and canot do I emailed Jeff often and say can I do this can I do that because it's so hard to figure out from the code so anything to simplify that or maybe even have an FAQ attached to your code or something like that you know that you get where you get a lot of questions from would be really helpful thank you uh Rick Greenwald again um just a clarification for everybody I think some of you know this because we've talked about it before but in terms of what the current situation is there is no regulation in terms of setbacks at the moment or any of these so-called floating things that we've been talking about whether they be the floating lifts floating docks or other attached objects okay the setbacks have only applied to the you know your regular docks lifts and so on but not any of these items which as Marshall pointed out are rapidly proliferating so the current status quo is those things are allowed right up to the property line that doesn't mean that everybody is abusing the privilege and many people I'm sure are very considerate their neighbors and keep them away but that is not what the current status is so again it goes back to Roger makes the argument which we've heard multiple times that no you can't regulate this if you can't regulate any of this then that's a different conversation if you can once again I think that it should be regulated in a reasonable fashion because having these objects right on the property line is just not is it's just a bad idea for a whole variety of reasons say safety visual the ability of your neighbor to get boats in in a safe manner it's not just you they may have boats and we we've gone over this and I don't want to beat it increasingly to death other than to let you know if anybody up here I know some of you have been around on boat rides if any of you want a little one minute microcosm of what all this means I invite you over to my house and my backyard where you'll be able to see some of the lifts that we're talk about in action if you will and what we're talking about some of these are pretty big structures some are very little structures for a jet ski some are structures that have 35t boats on them and they're big and they're bulky and some of them are near the property line there are other issues Marshall was talking about some legal things some of these even quote temporary which regard is permanent because of their duration but temporary structures are big the state requires that all of these structures over the water are a total of 500 square feet that includes your Dock and these other structures that's for natural preservation because the shade that these things throws kills all the seagrass and everything that's what that 500 sq foot restriction is that's in the books now a lot of these other structures push houses way over that 500 foot limit now for reasons that I discussed before and you've mentioned I don't think this should go back to the planning board I mean if anybody maybe the natural resource and preservation board should look at some of this or a little ad hoc committee I'd be happy to be a member I'm sure some of the other people here would to see if we can come up with some reasonable compromise not extreme kind of suggestions that maybe no one will be 100% happy but everybody will feel that we're better off than we were before and my last comment is I agree with multiple people who said that we should require ladders I think one per property is a reasonable number if you fall in the water there or a pet falls in the water it's really tough to get them out without a ladder so I think that that's something that really should be seriously considered as a safety measure thank you um sure I don't mind if you go up again go ahead go ahead just one I have looked I've recently installed a floating vessel platform I've gotten a lot of legal advice on that recently because my contractor didn't quite understand what they can and cannot do uh this is absolutely um an exception from the uh Florida uh State uh in their in their statues uh with some you know some limitations of course and as long as just like a boat a floating vessel platform tied off to a dock with ropes is is regulated in the same way you can't cross to across your neighbor um property line as extended waterw but I would I would implore you as what uh has been said before to look at what the state has said about this and what the law requires uh from from from towns uh because you know if you do go in another way with that uh you know there is definitely implications around that so I just want to make sure I I've spent the time and the money to look into it uh and and I've learned a lot doing that thank you thank you go ahead oh uh he's G Dr Johansson will go for oh you can go next Mor you can go right after him thank you um Carl Johansson 2358 South Ocean uh I'm pretty sure you're all aware of my opinion on the 25 foot setback I just want to reassure you that we have not changed our position and uh I recently got some new information about um some letters being sent from the Bello Association uh some members in that area I'd like to know where they've been for the past two and a half years this is 11th Hour uh notification I've spent two and a half years uh um explaining my position and the position of all the uh homeowners single family homeowners in the bird Beach area so I don't want you to lose sight of our continued support to keep the 25t setback intact thank you go ahead Mor you know that we're on state your name and where you live state your name well T's floating vessel whatever it is it's an enormous black barge it's very commercial looking when I first saw it I thought this a helicop to pay in it's just ugly that's all I have to say and uh just to uh repeat uh some of the other input that I've received via email um I I've received people in in favor not in favor of the 25 foot setbacks both in the bird in the bird Beach um neighborhood and also in Bello so I don't think it's a everyone in bird Beach is good with the keeping the 25 ft there are some residents in bird Beach who are strongly in favor of reducing the setbacks and then of course there are many probably the majority in in bird Beach who want to keep the current setbacks and then in Belo it also is not consistent um there is a mix of people that are are in favor or not in favor um so the observation that I make is we we definitely don't have a consensus at all we have people very strongly in favor we have people very strongly opposed um I mean I thought the suggestion of a committee to con you know maybe a subcommittee maybe to Hash it out um right to I don't know if they can come up with a compromise you know at this point I you know I I don't see a compromise on it at all and which is why because I didn't see a consensus me personally I'm in favor of the no action because you know when you don't have consensus you know we all bought in you know with the current rules which is why I thought not to change the setbacks um you know today I'm hearing a lot of people in favor of ladders but I've also heard some people very strongly not in favor of laders um so I'm not sure that we have a consensus there and I thought the compromise there was to be encouraging of ladders but not to require them um I also thought I heard uh I guess I guess ingred you were saying if we wanted to move forward the next step is for the plan board to review it so I guess it depends on what our decision is if we want to continue the train moving forward it does have to go back to the planning board yes so and I would suggest because this these setback issue um appreciate everybody starting to hear this floating vessel platform we need to Define it and figure out what we want to do whatever you guys want to do with it I just want to know how you want to process it um if you do send it back to the planning board put it back with Specific Instructions so it doesn't you know it could Veer off in this conversation if you're not moving forward with setbacks you want to handle that separately but move the other items just State you want to move those items uh just so uh folks have an opportunity that you know can talk on this if we're going to continue the conversation on setbacks pull it out and make it a public venue so everybody gets an opportunity again to go back through that exercise versus you know changing it outside of a normal course of due process letting people speak to it have an opportunity to write to it come to meetings on it can you um explain a little bit further uh you say we have to do something with uh the floating vessel do do we have to or can we um strike that can we strike what you strike that now I put that in there I took ownership so people out there that are really upset with me I I put it we got to talk about it we need at some point we got to talk about it some point now but I've seen a lot of things come back with it so we we need to address it whether we say it's okay that's fine but we collectively need to make that opinion because everybody has a different opinion so I just want to know what our opinion is so I can make sure staff and I enforce that for you so yeah you could pull that out because that was a la last ad um I just wanted it to be defined somewhere um you know you pull that out you could hit it with the setbacks because it kind of encumbers some setbacks or as part of that conversation it's probably a good time to talk about it and how do we want to handle it um some interesting ideas were spoken so I think if you did put a committee or send it back to the planning board for a separate review on that again I think there's some some good ideas that might get you there and the other thing about ordinances that I want to remind everyone um is you know not sitting Stone they're not set in stone you know we can I I kind of like the idea of let's moving forward with what we we agree on and we can continue to work on some of these other issues I mean there's no there's no restriction on time per we can we can finalize what we agree on and then we can continue to you know the next meeting start continue working on and try to come up with a compromise on those other issues I think it would be a good idea for us to go back out on the boat and specifically looking at floating vessel platforms because I don't think any of us really looked at that when we went out the last time we were looking at withd and we were looking it would it encumber navigation and things of that nature let's go look and see what these things are because obviously it's not just a little bit of you know a 10 by two foot floating rubber thing so we need to we can't discuss it intelligently so we know what we're looking at so I think we should all go back out on the the police boat so can we specifically I I want to um throw an idea out there if we strike the definition of the floating vessel we move we keep the proposed changes on the four items that we are taking the recommendation of the planning board um and we and we go through the process of um you said planning board has to review that and then we can take commissioner David's recommendation which is to com continue to evaluate the floating vessel go out on the boats and all that and cons and continue working on what we need to do to address the legal issues with respect to defining floating vessels and and continue to get more input from the residents I guess the one thing I'm not clear on is ladders what does everybody want to do about the provision on ladders advocate of encouraging it is something that definitely on the board commity uh I'm going to push forward I think it's so very important of course it's a set the issue everyone should have it whether it's at every 50 feet every 100 feet whatever it is it's one fo property um uh today I am out the mind of saying that there should be one so if if a property does not have a ladder you think what would and what would the timing be they need to immediately go get a ladder or or when they do an improvement that's when they have to do the ladder we said that changes should be made when there is some work done um but I think it's it's just very important I'd like to see everyone have at Le one the um s family certainly I I took to heart um experience no he's still here there you are um and that um that spoke to me I'm right on the dock and you know clean them up and they're very pretty but there's no there is a ladder at the clubhouse but it's a large area I'll talk to them that we're certainly going to put up more than one to my board but for the town I think it's a safety issue that that should be addressed more affirmatively I would support it I would support it either way um but I inclined um if I was the the both that that uh pushed it one way or another I'd say at least one foot profit and I guess we'll go through each of the Commissioners can you also provide a comment on whether you agree moving forward with the language as it is just striking out the vessel and just moving forward with the four do what do you what are your comments on that okay do that well we're just GNA talk all of us and then we can open it back up again the um everything else I think that that we spoke about at the last session that address this issue so I agree with that um but as far as let me just go back there has to be a timing on the lad on the so I think we should think about that that if um other Commissioners are in agreement then let's focus on that I'd like to hear and maybe that's something we can send back to the planning board to come up with recommendation recommendation yeah think it's a good idea uh because it's still out there specifically with regard to theing that's that we continue working on it that that's not something to solve right now that we continue to to put our heads together and and as I there problem there's the issue of the experts coming in uh does that even attend to issues body or that only Perman right it's not currently not in the code so it's successory Marine facilities actually can I just make one comment just I want to clarify for the record in the code section 30- 68 H6 we have a provision about regarding floating docks so floating docks are different than floating vessel platforms and floating Boat Lifts so I just want to clarify um it says your floating docks are permitted subject to conformance with all zoning code requirements here in and compliance with all applicable building codes so floating docs do have to comply with any Marine setbacks that are currently in the code just want to make that so I think with the amount of the floating vessels that we have uh we should be attending to this so I think it's necessary that we have dialogue and um take action if the community thinks that it should be yeah commissioner Peters ladders and if we move forward with the yeah I think we should move forward now which four are we the four are um four or yeah one through four the changes that yeah I agree with that I mean uh going back to ladders I know we kind of waffled on that last time because some people didn't want to put them but like Roger said it's important if you I think liability I think you could be sued if somebody was like him was trying to swim with a with his child or somebody like that and they couldn't get up the War I think be liable so I think everybody should be having that done I just don't know one per property if you have a big property you know where maybe you should have two that's the only thing I wouldn't would like to see the planning board or the somebody decide that uh will be the best on that but yeah i' I'd move for the the first four that everybody agrees and and strike the language of defining the vessels okay yes commissioner David uh I agree go with the first four they seem to be pretty well Set uh as far as liability is concerned since there is nothing in the statute right now if you don't have one and somebody can't get up you would not be held liable if we put it in the statute and somebody doesn't put a ladder in then they would probably be held liable if somebody couldn't get out of the water speak you know it's kind of like if you're electrical wiring isn't exactly up to code nobody's coming into your house and saying fix it until you decide to redo your kitchen and then you have to fix it so if you change it you've got to bring the non-conforming aspect up to where it should be and I don't know that it is as a practical idea we can go around tell everybody put a ladder up now I I think that would be an enforcement nightmare without giving an extended period of time it would mean that our building department would have to send out notices to everybody and go around and see who has a ladder and who doesn't have a ladder and before you can tell them to put it in you have to decide is it one or two and is it property is it per 100 fet is it per 50 feet you know there are a lot of things that we have to decide on before we can tell somebody put in a ladder timing is important so I think we need to discuss that more and yeah let's see if the planning board can come up with something a little more workable based on everything we've discussed I agree with the first four and I just like to comment on the latter issue because I feel strongly that it is a safety issue and I watched all the planning meetings and that was a debate on the planning board 50 feet 100 feet and so forth and my opinion would be my opinion would be to set a deadline whether that be uh 12 months or whatever the number is that everybody should be in compliance and it should be worded at least 100 feet to that nature so more than if one options based on the property to put two in 50 and 50 that option would be available but make a minimum requirement okay um so I'm in favor of moving forward with the um ordinance uh striking the definition for the vessel the ladders um I'm hearing consensus that people want ladders um so I mean I'm I'm willing to go along with what everybody says um I guess I'd like to open up the issue of the ladders again for public so um first I'm GNA let Jason go up and then we'll have Dr Joe Hansen so go ahead Jason come on yeah come on and I from the planning board it's you know it's very as you said Evelyn very well we're a recommending group but the amount of attention that was spent on ladders um would surprise you and it's unfortunate that you're not able to listen to the entire conversation because you're getting a summary of it uh from some very qualified people and then you trying to make a decision um if you could see the swimming habits of some of my peers you want a ladder in every foot it's it's um it's an interesting situation but um I'm really wondering if sending this back to the planning boy which I understand is going to be productive for you um because they're going to rehash some of the same things that have been discussed here and the final decision is going to be made by yourselves um and I wouldn't personally form another committee but you might find it interesting attending the planning board meeting that we're going to actually rehash this because to try to summarize the discussion that's going to take place is going to be difficult and you're not going to hear the debate that went on whether it's between Roger or myself or Eric or whoever it might be Eve Etc but I it was a heavy discussion the topics here are excellent I still question the definition of permanency it's a definition that's up in the air and I really still after even listening today if someone was to say can you define permanency the way it was discussed today thenen I would have a I would have trouble actually uh putting it in paper but I would recommend if we're going to bring it back to the planning board as I'm welcomed here you're welcome there and I realize it's more time but I think it would be worthwhile because of the uh the situation that we're in right now but you don't really have to F another Comm I think the committee has F between the decision making group and the recommenders well just to clarify the committee would have been to discuss the setbacks um it's not to I mean we have the um ordinance as written that's the planning board we'll review that that's part of the process it's the understand do we have to send it back to the planning board since it's already been to the planning that's at the commission's discretion I thought that's isn't that what you guys said first four items first oh oh the ordinance must go back oh I'm sorry just I thought you meant to rehash the issues yes the ordinance before it comes back here must go back to planning board yeah thank you ly thank you so Dr Johansson wanted to go next and then we'll have uh Roger Brown Johansson again uh just in reference to the latter is I think you should consider the insurance issues with private homeowners as allowing access to their home from the inter Coastal uh Waterway when they're away it prevents a little bit of a liability for insurance so I think the latter should be volary and not uh written in stone so someone again the liability issues could be catastropic Roger next um in the planning board we spent countless hours talking about louder so I'm not gonna mention it again um I do I do know two things one is I think we might have made a mistake on on one particular issue and and a comment on another issue um I didn't didn't come to my attention until just yesterday when I come over the bridge into Bello while and on the right hand side is a is a house that has a boat that's a catamaran uh a power catamaran I don't know the owner I don't know the homeowner I don't know anything about it but that homeowner if this is passed if number three is passed is going to have to dispose of his boat because his boat is wider is almost 50% as wide as it is long it's typically of a power catamaran and there are other power catamarans in the city so we might have made a mistake in our recommendation of uh number 2C uh where it says 25% of any boat mored to the extent of the Waterway of the property line and then in other parts of this ordinance it says that you can have a three-foot seaw wall cap a 5- foot dock which means eight feet beyond the property line and now if you've got a I had a 62 foot boat let's just say 60 for math that means the boat has only 15 feet is 25% and then it's 20 15 feet plus 8 feet is 23 feet well my boat was 17 and 1 12 feet wide it I wouldn't be able to own my boat if it's from the property line or from the wet face of the seaw wall so I don't want you to approve something that is going to be problematic for any boat owners and I think that this was an error made by us on the planning board to say from the property line rather than from the dock line where the end of the dock is because people dock their boats up against their Dock and 25% there's a gentleman who who's in Bello has an 80 foot or 85 foot yacht and he's got six or seven condos that he own to be able to dock his boat well what's the regulation on that because he's got all these condos is he taking pieces of his boat on each condo I don't know uh I don't know how you would how you would regulate that you know and how do you tell a guy you can't have a power catar in you know I'm sorry you know you got to sell your boat I mean I think that I think that some of the some of the enforcement putting that on the shoulders of Code Enforcement or on the building department or whoever enforces it may be a little unreasonable so I apologize for the mistake that was made but I just noticed it yesterday I AG are you referring to um if you look at uh number four what page are you on page I don't have page numbers it's not at the bottom center bottom it's either 2C 2C and four to see I see on the bottom of page 11 not more than 25% of any boat mored in a Boat Basin May extend waterward of a property line property line okay that's not underlined that's not a change so what what is it that you're I think it's I think it's a mistake because this is this just talking about the facilities is this is not changed um he's referring to I may looking at the bottom of page 11 you're looking at existing regulations that we have about boat basins we're not changing anything regarding boat basins you see no strike through you see no underline this is existing language this is where we're talking about the 25 fet or 25% for accessory meain facilities so you're looking at the Boat Basin section that's not what's being changed it's on this page which is page 12 it's page 12 so this is not boats this is Marine facility yeah this is this is not the boats you're looking at the Boat Basin provisions of the code which are not being proposed for any change there you go well thanks thanks for looking out for our neighbors thank you for looking out for people I I think that's I appreciate everybody is looking out um for our neighbors and this is a clearly a sticky subject so as far as moving forward um I guess I'm recommending someone make a motion that says we move forward with the um four items that we agree on we' strike the definition of vessels and we have the planning I'm sorry no okay and we have the planning board um take a look at the language for the ladders and make a recommendation on how to um make that a requirement with a with a timing that is but they didn't wanted them no the planning board wants yeah their recommendation was to install them are you just looking for the timing M like when yeah yeah right that's what we want right we want um we want something palatable for the residents as far as requiring ladders but giving them some sort of grace period to install the ladders and let the planning Bo come up with a recommendation now do you think that um the issue of the liability issue should be addressed should be considered uh in what aspect yeah and with consider that I mean again the liability the effect of liability on the family uh on the owners uh by making it mandatory I think we should really look at that to see um this is it strict liability no we're looking at that I don't believe so I mean liability you're talking about the property owner yeah I don't think so yeah I mean as a general rule what commissioner David said is correct if you're not meeting a code requirement then God forbid something happens then there's a liability issue yes but you know the the town is the goal of the town is to look out for the public health safety and Welfare and if the town commission collectively believes that this is something that promotes the health and safety of its residents then that's what the town should do and I think Dr Johansson's point is the liability of um having an unwanted person onto your property from the water the in Insurance insurable liability um the potential of not you know I think that's what the perspective he was coming from and I think he's absolutely right if you have to have this letter and your property is not fenced in with metal fencing on the water side then yeah his insurance is going to go up I think there's no question about it I I would like to take a look at it speak to the insurance agents just to get a general idea before uh I voted on that aspect so if that portion could be delayed a bit that would help we could eliminate the latter provision at this point it as a and do it with the other you know consider it at another point you know delay the whole we can leave off the ladder piece or just go with the four leave off the ladder piece and and address it later or make it as originally um assumed in our last meeting the encouraged uh encouraged okay I'm going to give this a shot I move that we send an ordinance to the planning board that encompasses the four approved items that we agreed with the planning board's recommendation and that we asked them as aside to discuss and come back with more detailed information regarding ladders timing placement voluntary mandatory and deal with the issues of definitions for floating vessel platforms another time at another time is that a clear enough motion is that I can make that work y I understand it second we could have a roll call on that commissioner go uh sorry commissioner David yes commissioner Peters yes commissioner Goldberg yes vice mayor Stern yes mayor Moore yes thank you motion carries unanimously so hopefully uh still have a lot of work to do but hopefully that's satisfactory to everyone so thank you everyone for coming out and uh providing your opinion and uh we look forward to talk about the lads in the law there's a theory about attractive nuisance and I was just wondering would a child find that attractive to go down the ladder and get into the water it's interesting point there's liability no matter what you can't get away from it that's part and Par well okay well thank you very much everyone we'll move on to the next item sanitary sanitary sewer lining Rehabilitation project update and I think the town manager will this moving on M Marshall moving on the S sewering sewering just we're moving on sorry uh so I got a quick update uh we've gotten a copy of the Hollywood contract for sewer lining we're working with the vendor to finalize their willingness to extend those prices so as Sergio had had indicated it just moves a lot slower in all these other communities uh as it relates to this but we're still working to get that price again F Do's not going to let us in the RightWay so the idea would be once we get some prices we could make moves onto the side streets and handle that first and then work our way out so I hope the next meeting I gave the hurry up to sergiio hopefully he'll call more pester uh that vendor to kind of lock things up for us okay so moving along and hopefully we'll get an update next time meteor update um Florida Department of Transport Transportation Triple R project update yeah still moving along you've been uh provided medicine's been giving you the updates as to what's going on with the project um it's moving slowly the rain has really slowed them down a bit um the more troubling thing I heard at the last progressor meeting uh is they did a some asphalt testing north towards Linton and they didn't find a lot of good base material under the road so they're exploring what that could potentially mean for the project which would be just more delays to get the um to get engineered Phil back under the road so little troubling that it just paved and paved and never really got to the appropriate base material and they indic they showed that when new driveways are built or new homes were constructed the base material was better at those locations than the old so uh that could be problematic and could slow the project I'm not sure it will just yet but uh they're exploring uh what they found there so hopefully it's not throughout the entire project that would take a while yeah okay uh moving on to the consent agenda there are a couple of uh meeting minutes any changes to the meeting minutes uh the minutes I believe uh there might be a typo on page uh 28 of the September 3rd it says under B Mr David Newman provided comments um I question was it David Newman or was it David Dela look at the I believe Mr Newman was here at the meeting but it here we're talking about the budget presentation recap we had just prior to that he was make a comment about pingpong a recre Dela said had called the category of costs cultural and recreational and Newman's comment was we have nothing n recreational now I recall that yes in which case I move we approv the consent agenda yeah there was one other adjustment on page 31 is some duplicate language it says he talked about an interview that he had with that he had anyhow I corrected it with Len Elder and she connected it on the website so it's uh it's good to go yeah we I made a couple changes too and it's already been updated so yep now can we approve the consent agenda yes I second we could have a motion please second oh did you make motion yes you did and we have a second from commissioner Goldberg all in favor say I I motion carries unanimously thank you uh moving on to new business resolution number 2024 d 020 a resolution of the Town Commission of the Town Highland Beach approving an application with sovis bank for a credit card with a line of uh 100,000 and authorizing the town Administration to execute all required documents yes so currently excuse me we use PNC Banks uh some of the billing periods their customer service has been quite lacking and Troublesome for us um so I had David and skender reach out to sovis who was doing our loans to see what kind of products they have and the ability to access reports and online payments and things of that nature which is greatly improved so we're looking to switch from PNC over to sovis we currently have a credit the same credit line as just the improved ability on Bill periods and things of that nature they're kind of late and it's hard to to review um some of the reports on spending and getting copies of billing statements so uh covis has assured us and they've looked through the product a much better product uh for our commercial credit cards that's all and so nois is who we have the loan on the fire is there like a benefit to that of having this no no so I mean we'll do it with just uh okay same same process just a little bit more flexibility and a little more improved management customer service any comments on okay okay no com I move we approve appr resolution number 20242 second it all in favor say I I motion carries Nana slate moving on to commissioner comments commissioner Goldberg well this was a very busy day a lot of activity um and uh but these are these are really important issues that we have to address the Marine accessory so I'm glad that that we're continuing and we had a vibrant discussion today uh well I I look forward to um the Florida League of cities I mentioned it last time where um the um advocacy committee and um the um Taxation and Finance that I'm on I'm really enjoyed that last year it was very beneficial and I look forward and this year uh we have the opportunity to go to the National League of cities so uh we are all very excited about that and what we can uh take away from that um and bring it uh bring it home for home rule uh so that's very exciting uh I see the transports are starting to come in uh our winter people are arriving and everyone seems to be very excited about the upcoming festivities but I'm sure that commissioner Peters will fill us in on that so thank you thank you today yes the 75th um I think Jason did is going to be like togetherness giving uh this is going to be a great event father Horgan was at the last meeting and we picked the date December 5th um and I think approximate time we said 5:30 to 8 or something like that around there we'll give the time but everybody marked the calendar the fifth um uh we got vendors coming sponsorships thanks to Jason he's working on it and this we have a good group that's working because we usually be you Marshall he says he just throws this together this this is being planned so we expect a good you know 1500 people I bet there so um it's going to be great food trucks I know the chickfila Marshall did that at the end that was the hit so maybe we get some more vendors like that and like I said it's all going to be planned mapped out on the property um more trolleys so people can get there um and it's going to be great again and U i' like to thank Father Oran for giving us his property and uh and helping us with this event so thank you oh I think I've spoken quite enough for one day now thank you for the uh Coastal star for the article I've got a lot of very positive feedback on it thank you very much yes nice article uh no additional from me um Town attorney no ma'am thank you okay thank you Town manager um thank you for uh the work on the Marine accessory structures I iess said that issue I don't know how it gets resolved I'll here to help you get through this as a community but that's a tough issue to resolve but I appreciate addressing that floating vessel platform it's going to become a bigger and bigger issue so however we want to handle it we just need to to memorialize that in ordinance on a second issue I'm curious now that we formally have a chaplain now with our foundation um an invocation at the beginning of meetings is there an interest for something a non-denominational invocation before each meeting it's pretty common about 50% of communities have that um we have it before the league of cities we have it before other uh you know larger assemblies just wondering if you might be interested or we want to out and add it to our agenda I like it I like I mean I think it's a great idea personally yeah yeah okay so we'll try it a couple times earlier he said he's willing to to show up at the meetings when he can so um you know we'll give he only do it when he's present I think that's how we would none of us would be so the chaplain will be here and he could say a few words and uh Grace the community and then we just move on with our meetings so it's kind of around with the Pledge of Allegiance i' like it great yeah a way to okay great that's it good uh announcements we have uh one vacancy for the board of adjustment and appeals board for a three-year term upcoming meetings we have a meeting tomorrow it should be very quick at 50:01 PM it's the SEC second public hearing for the budget and then our next regular meeting is October 1st at 1:30 and there are no board action reports it is 3:19 and we can adjourn