HomeMy Public PortalAbout02/09/1990 * Con'tCOMMISSIONERS
WILLIAM F. KOCH, JR., Mayor
ALAN I. ARMOUR, Vice Mayor
JAMES E. CROSS
KATHLEEN S. WALLACE
LAWRENCE E. STAHL
TOWN OF GULF STREAM
PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
A G E N D A
TOWN COMMISSION MEETING
February 9, 1990
MAIL ADDRESS
100 SEA ROAD
GULF STREAM. FLORIDA
33483
TEL GULF STREAM
(407) 276 5116
Town Manager
FRANKLIN E. FLANNERY
Please Note: The Town of Gulf Stream does not provide records of
the Proceedings of this body
1. Meeting called to order
2. Roll Call
3. Reading of the Minutes of the January 12, 1990 Meeting
4. Announcements
a. Proclamation of Election March 13, 1990
b. Test of vote tabulation equipment March 8, 1990
5. Financial Report
6. Police Report
7. Planning & Zoning Board Report
a. Request for Variance. Request advertised and neighbors notified.
Dr. William Chardack, 547 Golfview Drive. Requesting a permit
to install a satellite dish antenna that would encroach 11.5 ft.
into the required 22.5 ft. side setback.
b. Request for Special Exception. Request posted, neighbors notified.
Gulf Stream Bath & Tennis Club, 925 N. Ocean Blvd. Requesting
permission to place a mobile office on the west side of AlA
during the period of reconstruction.
C. Site Plan Review
1. Dr. William Chardack, 547 Golfview Drive - Sattellite Dish
2. Gulf Stream Bath & Tennis Club- Location of Mobile Office
3. Dr. George Mueller, 3180 Polo Drive - Construction of Dock
4. William Voute „ 2999.N. Ocean - Construction of 8' privacy wall
5. Charles Velie, 505 Old School Road - Single family dwelling
Town Commission Meeting of February 9, 1990 page -2-
AGENDA CONTINUED
8. Town Attorney Remarks
a. EMS Contract with Bethesda Ambulance
b. Expiration Provisions for Variances and Site Plan Approvals
C. Consideration of Amendments to Zoning Oridiance
9. Town Managers Report
a. Water Usage
b. Balance due on Fire Contract 1988 -1989
C. Other
10. For Consideration
a. Resolution 90 -1 Requesting support from the Palm Beach County
Commission for the closure of runway 9 -27 at the Palm Beach
County Park Airport as a part of Master Plan Approval -
City of Atlantis
b. Resolution R90 -06 Urging Florida Citizens to support
Constitutional Amendment #3 limiting unfunded State mandates-
Village of Palm Springs
C. Objecting to Palm Beach County's proposed repeal of Ordinance
72 -8 which currently provides funding by P.B. County to
municipalities for school crossing guards
1. Resolution #14 -City of Palm Beach Gardens
2. Resolution # R -1 -90 -Town of Lantanat
d. Urging the Board of County Commissioners of Palm Beach County
and the Palm Beach Legislative Delegation not to support the
transfer of all assets and liabilities from the Solid Waste
Authority to the Board of County Commissioners, and not to
support a restructuring of the Solid Waste Authority Board.
1. Resolution # R -2 -90 -Town of Lantana
2. Resolution # 15 -City of Palm Beach Gardens
3. Memorandum from Palm Beach County Municipal League
11. For Information Only
a. Construction in Progress - Mr. Brandt
b. Trash Report
12. Commission Comments
13. Comments from the Public
14. Adjournment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
i8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
APPEARANCES:
WILLIAM F. KOCH, JR., Mayor
RITA PAYLOR, City Clerk
JOHN RANDOLPH
FRANKLIN FLANERY
KATHLEEN A. WALLACE
JAMES E. CROSS
LAWRENCE E. STAHL
JOHN MAYER
JOAN ORTHWEIN
E
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(Thereupon, the following
proceedings were had:)
THE CITY CLERK: Let the record
show that all members of the Planning
and Zoning Commission are present.
MR. MAYER: Before I start this
I'll let Joanie relate to you what we
decided to do.
MRS. ORTHWEIN: What we are
proposing to do, if we can do it, is
have an ordinance from 10 to 20,000
square foot lots specifically, and
just govern the lots already
existing.
We do not want to be able to
create new 10 to 20,000 square foot
lots. And I think we need help with
John Randolph there in making the
terminology right.
This is what we are proposing to
do. You all got this. We are
proposing to do, basically, a
percentage of what coverage, and there
are set -backs that are different, and
there is a question of the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4
Intracoastal property under water, the
ocean front homes, the main high tide,
and the continuity of the seawall,
which is very important.
And Number E is just a technical
thing to change the 78 feet from
either or. And I don't think I need
to read this specifically.
You have it all, but it's open
for discussion, basically, and we need
advice on how we can word this better,
to put it into ordinance form and
establish it.
MR. RANDOLPH: I think once the
Commission tells me substantively what
you want in it, I can go ahead and
draft an ordinance and get it back to
the Commissioners for consideration.
MRS. ORTHWEIN: We feel it's also
important that we have a clear
definition of it, these are just a
couple of little things, of a two -
story house, so there won't be any
question about it. I mean, any two -
story house, partial or full.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
P
That is one thing that I wanted
to point out on these ordinances. But
do you all have any questions?
A COMMISSIONER: Bill and I
didn't get them.
MRS. ORTHWEIN: The P and Z
doesn't have them.
THE MAYOR: You are going to have
to - the rest of the Committee is
going to have to have this.
MR. MAYER: I have difficulty
with --
THE MAYOR: Why don't we make
some copies and give it to everybody.
See, when the whole Committee doesn't
have a chance to go over this, then I
suggest that you ought to have another
meeting because they didn't - some of
them were absent.
MS. WALLACE: Who was missing
from the meeting?
MRS. ORTHWEIN: Just Charlie.
MR. CROSS: Does this proposal
that comes to us from the Planning
Board meet your specs? Is this what
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
j
your Board is recommending?
MR. MAYER: This is some of the
things that we have gone over and
talked about. I have difficulty with
one or two items.
MR. CROSS: The first line says:
The following ordinance changes are
recommended by the Planning Board, and
I gather that you had a reservation as
to that.
MR. MAYER: Not particularly to
this other than properties on the
ocean and properties on the waterway.
Now, I feel that people that pay
good money for property that's under
water, and use that to determine their
lot size, has a right to do that
because they are paying taxes on that
property. They pay for that property.
I don't know if the town will have any
problem with that or not.
If somebody comes along and says
that is my property and I'm using
that, I'll sue the town.
MR. STAHL: Well, how many lots
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
are in that category? There really
aren't that many.
THE MAYOR: Well, there are a lot
of them because I looked at this when
it was brought up.
The ones we are really worried
about are like in the McCloud
subdivision, where you have a three
acre lot and then you also got a three
acre lot in the water. Those are the
big ones.
Now, you take all these lots that
Henry Pope did in Polo Cove, and all
around in this area, you have five
feet in the water, so if you take the
number of lots, it's a big thing.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: What is
the origin of the lot in the water? I
never heard of that before.
THE MAYOR: The reason they did
that, and McCloud did that many, many
years ago, he wanted - he built that
big lagoon out there where you live,
and he wanted to be sure it was
private, that nobody could come in
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
9
10
it
12
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
8
there, that he could throw them out,
the people could throw them out, so
they made it as a lot.
Now, in Polo Cove and all those
areas and these other coves, Henry
Pope - because people were going to
have boats, you own five feet out in
the water, and your dock can go out
five feet, or whatever it is. And you
will see that in almost all the other
communities too.
Maybe what I think you ought to
do is if you wanted to work something
out so you are fair, you can say so
many feet from the lot, you can go out
so many feet on the water side, five
feet, ten feet or whatever it is, it's
counted in your lot.
MS. WALLACE: I think we are
missing a point here.
What we are trying to avoid is
the high density look. What we are
trying to do is something that is
visual. What is under water can't be
seen. If you're going to count that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0,
In your lot you're not giving the same
ratio to that homeowner as you are to
everyone else.
MR. MAYER: This is exactly what
I'm getting at. You are taking
percentage of the lot. They are
counting that part in the water,
whether you can see it or not. They
are counting that, so what we have to
do is define the property that you can
build on or something like that.
MS. WALLACE: I think that would
be much better. If it's a property
you can see you can build on it, but
not count what is under water.
MR. MAYER: Then you might have
to eliminate some percentages, unless
you just definitely come out and say
property under water and percentages
don't count.
MR. MAYER: On this particular
Issue this morning we can tie
ourselves in a knot and talk for hours
on this particular issue.
I think what we ought to ask the
1
2
3
4
5
6
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10
Planning Commission to do for us on
this issue alone, is go back and look
at the town, come back to us and tell
us precisely how many lots are
affected by this.
We know Polo Cove is, but Polo
Cove is a minor problem. We are only
talking five feet and it doesn't
really become an issue. It becomes an
issue on the canal down south.
But can you go back and identify
for us precisely the number of lots,
and then I think we can address it in
a very knowledgeable way rather than
try to reach a decision.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: If you
know you have more than one, what is
the difference how many it is?
MR. MAYER: I think you have to
eliminate the percentage on these lots
under water.
MR. ARMOUR: The other thing,
Bill, on those lots that are under
water, what you are proposing here
this morning doesn't have anything to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11
do with it because they are not 20,000
square foot lots, they are all much
bigger than that. So what you have
here is not related to those lots that
have under water property.
MR. RANDOLPH: Can I interrupt
there, Bill.
What you are going to end up
doing is coming up with a definition
of buildable lots when you amend this
ordinance to accommodate what you are
trying to do here.
When you do come up with the
definition of buildable lot, it is
going to affect those 20,000 square
foot lots, and I think it should apply
equally across the board.
How you define what the buildable
lot area is should apply to your
10,000 square foot lots, just as well
as it applies to your 20,000 lots.
That's all you need really is a
definition of what a buildable lot
area is, in order to determine lot
coverage.
1
2
3
4
6
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
i 13
14
16
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
12
It's really a procedural question
as to whether or not you want to
include under water property, and how
It affects those properties.
I think it's probably not the
number of properties that are
affected, but to the degree which they
are affected. If you have three or
four or five properties that are
extensively under water and it's going
to affect them to a great extent,
those people can always come for a
variance and say, look, I have a
unique situation here, 90 percent of
my property is under water and I can't
build a reasonable house on my lot, if
you apply this across the board.
But if this can apply fairly to
all properties in the town, then
that's what you need to consider in
determining which way you want to go.
Whether you want to count submerged
land in lot coverage, or whether you
don't want to.
I think that's really the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
13
question for you to decide.
MR. MAYOR: I think that's good,
buildable lots.
MRS. ORTHWEIN: I think that's
what we are trying to do is have the
lot buildable, and the percentage
might end up with a 50 percent lot
coverage.
THE MAYOR: Where is the map of
the town? Have we got that big map?
All these lots in here, all these
Cove lots have five feet in the
water.
MRS. ORTHWEIN: That's not a
problem.
THE MAYOR: I know it. Almost
everybody owns five feet under water.
All of these over here own five feet
in the water. There are a lot of
lots.
The ones that are the problem
ones are these right here, one, two,
three, four, five, six, seven, eight,
nine lots that own -- well, this one
almost a third of it could be out in
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
j 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
14
the water, they are huge lots. These
are the ones that have the problem
that you have to address.
Now, down here these people own
out into the water too, so there is
almost all of your water lots have
something in the water.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Just for
the Commissioners and yourself, the
way I look at it, I'm like Bill Mayer
to a degree, we are not really talking
about the 20,000 square foot lots and
bigger, they are paying taxes on
them. Why affect them?
Number two, what happened -
what's the problem with what we have
had all these years? Hasn't that
worked? Why do we have to change it?
MS. WALLACE: May I address
that?
With my little word processor I
put together some thoughts, if you'll
bear with me.
Gulfstream, as you know, is a
small community with a wealth of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
18
charm, history and quality of life
unequaled elsewhere. Gulfstream for
many years has existed peacefully
without the need for much zoning
protection, in fact, one of the
particular concerns when our existing
ordinances were written, was to
establish a minimum square footage.
Now with the changes that have
occurred with the population surge in
sunny South Florida, we have just the
opposite problem. Side yard set -backs
are no longer effective in controlling
the overwhelming masses of buildings
that are currently in vogue in some
nearby communities.
Setting lot coverage limits is
the very least that we can do to
assure the density of Gulfstream is
kept at a level that all residents can
be comfortable.
May I remind you that Manalapan
has an architectural committee that
must approve as simple a procedure as
changing the color of a house. This
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Pal
committee has to approve all new
construction plans, residential
changes and additions within the
town.
In Palm Beach no building permit
is issued without the approval of
either the Palm Beach Architectural
Commission or Landmark Preservation
Committee.
It has been suggested that by an
acting protective measure such as a
lot coverage ordinance, the
establishment of an Architectural
Review Board or a preservation
ordinance, we overlook the right of
property buyers.
Legally we have the obligation as
policy - makers and enforcers to
maintain the standards of quality long
associated with the Town of
0ulfstream. In fact, if we don't, we
are doing an injustice to the existing
residents.
We who have lived here have every
reason to expect that the town
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
17
ordinance protects our quality of life
as well as our investment.
The Town of Gulfstream has
changed. We now have children playing
in the street, and most of the changes
have been positive. We welcome our
new residences and new families, but
In fairness to them as well as to
those of us who have lived here, we
should update and clarify our
ordinances so that we have clear and
concise guidelines for all new
construction, demolition and
renovation.
Thank you for your time.
As you know I am not a
politician. I do not wish to become a
politician. I simply feel very
strongly that we are at a point in
time that we must act for the welfare
of this town and for the people living
here. Thank you.
MR. MAYER: Do you feel, or does
the Board feel, that we have not kept
to those provisions?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
18
MRS. WALLACE: No, Bill, no one
is being critical of Planning and
Zoning. Nobody is saying you've done
the wrong thing.
What we are saying is, the area
has grown in such a way that we have
to catch up. We have to update so to
protect ourselves. Not that what you
have done is wrong. I never meant to
give you the wrong impression. I
never meant to be critical.
MR. MAYER: I think the people
here have got the wrong impression.
MS. WALLACE: I never meant to be
critical of what Planning and Zoning
has done.
I feel that for the longest time
we weren't in the position to have to
worry. We knew that when people came
to town they would do the right thing,
and I'm certain that people still mean
to do the right thing, but currently
now there is a tear down phenomena and
building of houses, structures that
are overwhelming, really far too large
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
19
for the lot size. It's happening all
around us.
What I think we need to do is
simply design some ordinances to
protect the quality of the town that
we live in. And it's legal. Ask
Mr. Randolph. All of these things are
perfectly legal and we are not
infringing on anyone's life.
MR. STAHL: May I clarify one
point.
I think it's important for all of
us to understand that P and Z does not
make decisions in this town, so if
anybody is to be criticized for what
is happening in this town, and for
houses that have been built and so on,
It's the five of us sitting right up
here. All we do -- P and Z does the
spade work for us and we make the
decisions.
MS. WALLACE: Policy is set
here.
MR. STAHL: Not only policy, but
policy is implemented here.
i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
20
THE MAYOR: Policies need to
change, but we have to keep in mind
that we want the town to upgrade and
upgrade properties. We don't want to
put on restrictions and go too far
that these areas where these older
cheaper houses can't be torn down and
built with younger people that have
families. There has to be enough
movement to make the town continue to
grow, and that's what we are trying to
do, and I think these things have
merit.
The only thing we are worried
about is that part in the water. It
doesn't bother me to count another
five feet that's in the water of your
lot line, as long as it's platted and
you are doing it.
If you are talking about those
big ones like yours and some of the
others in there, if you took this
percentage thing and figured your two
lots together you could almost cover
one with a hotel, not that you are
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
21
going to do it or anybody is going to
do it, but here is your problem on
those huge ones, the five feet --
MR. MAYER: That's why I say
eliminate the percentage.
MR. STAHL: There is a two edged
sword on the large lots. If you do
count the property, if you do count
the square footage under water, then
you have to say where is the property
and then you have to say where do I
measure set -backs from, and if I count
the property that is under water do I
then say to the man, your set -back
line -- and you measure you set -back
from that line that is out in the
middle of the canal, and I don't think
we want to do that.
So if you have a problem here as
to whether you count the square
footage or you don't count the square
footage that's under water, because
then you get into the problem of
where -- the set -back obviously should
come from the seawall.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
22
MR. MAYER: Sure.
THE MAYOR: That's the simple way
to handle it.
MS. WALLACE: Get a seawall.
MR. CROSS: It seems to me that
we are going at this thing backwards.
Eighty percent, at least of the lots
in town, have nothing to do with
water.
MRS. ORTHWEIN: That's true.
MR. MAYER: But don't forget
this -- go ahead.
MR. CROSS: We reserve the ones
that have the water problem for
consideration on their own. These
provisions that you have set out here
on lot coverage set -backs have seemed
to me very clear and valuable to
complications to the vast majority of
the lots in town, and I would like to
see us consider them instead of these
provisions for that large block of
lots and then let's go after the water
problem.
THE MAYOR: Then you have to have
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
23
separate ordinances for them, but you
can't do that.
MR. RANDOLPH: I think he means
from the discussion standpoint. Let's
talk about the substance of these
regulations and worry about the other
things later. But you are not going
to have a separate ordinance to deal
with five or six properties.
MR. CROSS: This is an orderly
discussion and let's take care of the
great bulk --
MR. STAHL: We have specific
recommendations on the table right
now, let's address them.
MR. MAYER: You have an awful lot
of small lots.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: If you
want to do that, why don't you have
one percentage of land, and one
percentage of land under water, and
say you can take 100 percent of this
and five percent of what is under
water --
MS. WALLACE: But the submerged
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
24
property is not something that they
are going to be able to utilize in the
visual, you are going to have a bulk
of a house that is going
THE MAYOR: I don't think people
are going to do that, I think they are
more worried about those big lots.
Nobody's going to build a house -- I
don't think that would ever take place
down in those areas, but we want to
have an ordinance to protect in
case -- let's take the ones that we
don't have the problem on and then you
can reexamine this one about - if you
want to figure it from seawalls and so
many feet, water side of the seawalls
or whatever you want to figure. And
you could do it that way, couldn't
you? Or from so many feet on the
other side of the seawall.
MR. RANDOLPH: Yes, you could
establish a bulk head line and measure
from there.
THE MAYOR: The bulk head line
could be in the seawall or in the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
it
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9
25
water some place.
MR. RANDOLPH: No, I think if you
do that then you don't need to
establish a bulk head line, then you
are going back to submerged land
again.
THE MAYOR: But we can do it from
bulk head line.
But let's go on to take these
other ones and you can read -- let's
go on to what we are talking about.
MR. STAHL: Recommendation A.
MRS. ORTHWEIN: I'm sorry, are
there any comments on Number A,
objections, changes, thoughts; any of
the above?
MR. CROSS: It seems to me it
makes sense.
MR. RANDOLPH: I have a
question.
Are the regulations that you are
applying to the 10,000 and 20,000
square foot lots substantially
different from the regulations on the
20,000 square foot lots?
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MR. STAHL: No.
MRS. ORTHWEIN: No. Really,
basically, no. I don't think percent
lot coverage seems to be a problem for
20,000 and above square foot lots
right now.
MR. STAHL: I think it is. I
very definitely think it is. The
coverage on your house is almost 30
percent.
MRS. ORTHWEIN: When you figure
it this way?
MR. STAHL: I have a problem of
only taking 35 percent of the garage.
To me the garage is part of the mass,
part of the bulk of the house, so it
should be 100 percent.
We see people convert garages
into part of their house, that's been
done several times in Gulfstream.
When you look at a house you are
looking at the bulk and the garage is
very much a part of that bulk of that
house, and I don't see why the garage
should have a separate thing.
1
2
3
4
8
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
18
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
26
{
27
I can understand a covered patio,
but I can't understand a patio that's
part of a house like yours. I mean,
you come out with two wings and have a
second story over it. As far as the
footprint is concerned, it's very much
a part of the house. And I can see
where we can have some problem
defining which patios we would
convert.
We would allow a reduction on,
but where the patio is part of the
structure of the house and is part of
the -- covered by a second story, I
wouldn't give it any reduction at all,
it's part of the footprint.
THE MAYOR: I don't agree with
that on the garage or the patio. If
people want to convert their garage or
their patio if they are covered, they
have to come in and get a permit.
They can't do it without it and that's
the time to stop it.
MS. WALLACE: You want to stop
them from changing their garage?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
28
THE MAYOR: Yes.
MS. WALLACE: How?
THE MAYOR: They have to come in
and get a permit.
MS. WALLACE: And you can say,
no, you can't do that?
THE MAYOR: Yes.
MR. RANDOLPH: I guess the only
way to control that is if you had
something in the ordinance which said
that in the event a garage were
converted to part of the structure,
then it shall be included as part of
the lot coverage, and then if by
enclosing the garage it exceeded the
lot coverage then they wouldn't be
able to do it. But then they ask for
a variance.
MR. STAHL: I think the best
piece of paper we have been shown in
this whole business of building up to
this meeting is the document that we
got from Lost Tree. And I think if we
could follow something like that,
where Lost Tree has looked at -- one
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
29
of the things, for instance, I think
we have left out here is what height
would you limit a one -story house to.
It seems to me there should be a
height limitation on a one -story
house.
MR. RANDOLPH: We have it.
MR. STAHL: We have it on a two-
story.
MR. MAYER: All houses, 35 feet.
MRS. ORTHWEIN: Yes, would you
limit the height of a one - story?
MR. STAHL: You want to take a
one -story and make it 35 feet?
MR. RANDOLPH: You should
describe what a one -story house is and
the number of feet, if they are going
to a one -story house.
MR. STAHL: I think on the small
lots we also ought to have an
additional set -back on the second
story.
MRS. ORTHWEIN: I disagree.
MR. STAHL: Like yours was
built.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
30
MRS. ORTHWEIN: You can't do
that.
THE MAYOR: What you are going to
do is destroy the chance of this town
in those areas where those older
houses are, because there are younger
people coming in with families and
there are a bunch of crummy houses
down in these areas and we want -- the
price of the lot can afford a nice
house on it, and you want to give them
enough space to build a nice house on
it like they did in Palm Beach along
Palm Trail and along the lake.
MRS. ORTHWEIN: Lost Tree is a
community, it's a development.
MS. WALLACE: You know 13 years
ago we bought a lot on Polo Drive
which was really small between Mr.
Mayer and Mr. Coach. The only thing
we could do was build a two -story
house on that, we were restricted
then. It's not unreasonable to --
MR. STAHL: How big was that
lot?
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
it
12
13
14
15
16
17
i8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
31
MS. WALLACE: I don't know.
MRS. ORTHWEIN: But, you know, if
you put those kind of codes in you are
going to prohibit people from building
two -story houses and that's going to
take away from their design of their
house, and I think that's wrong.
THE MAYOR: We worry about
converting the garages in those areas,
I agree with that, and I think that
can be handled with the way Randolph
said it.
MS. WALLACE: Did you
recommend --
MRS. ORTHWEIN: To make the top
floor come in like mine.
MR. MAYER: Set -back on the top
floor.
THE MAYOR: I don't know if we
need to do that.
MR. RANDOLPH: These proposals
already provide different set -backs
for two -story houses.
MRS. ORTHWEIN: We are talking
partial two - story, that's why. That's
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
32
why I wanted a clear definition of a
two - story, full story or partial.
MR. RANDOLPH: The way other
communities control that, they have a
height limitation for one -story and
two -story houses. And say, for
Instance, your height limitation is 15
feet, if somebody decides they want to
go up 22 feet on a one -story house
then for purposes of computing set-
backs that would be considered a two-
story house because it's higher than
the normal one -story house, and then
you go back 30 feet instead of 25
feet.
MS. WALLACE: That makes sense.
MRS. ORTHWEIN: Yes, it was
something we never thought of, but in
Lost Tree they require the set -back of
a second story being more than the
first story.
MR. RANDOLPH: You mean a off -set
between the stories themselves?
MRS. ORTHWEIN: Yes.
MR. RANDOLPH: Well then you are
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
4
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1s
20
21
22
23
24
25
33
getting into design and you are right,
Lost Tree is not a municipality, it's
a community that can set these -- it's
almost like a deed restriction.
MR. STAHL: One of the things I
find of interest in your
recommendation is that you are
reducing the front yard set -backs on
some of the smaller lots.
MRS. ORTHWEIN: We are
controlling it too with percentage lot
coverage.
MR. STAHL: The present set -back,
and excuse me for using your house as
an example.
MRS. ORTHWEIN: Please go ahead.
MR. STAHL: The present set -back
on yours is 40 feet and you are
recommending that we make it 30 feet.
MRS. ORTHWEIN: Uh -huh.
MS. WALLACE: What does the
existing ordinance say? Is it 40 feet
or --
MRS. ORTHWEIN: It's 25 or 25
percent.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
31
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
34
MR. STAHL: Whichever is
greater.
MRS. ORTHWEIN: They are pretty
much guidelines from Palm Beach's
zoning ordinance and we followed them
pretty much, except for that percent
lot coverage. We thought up our own,
not thought up, I think -- these are
basically from Palm Beach.
MS. WALLACE: That's Palm Beach.
MRS. ORTHWEIN: And here we
maintain a 40 foot landscape area
permeable soil, to define open space
instead of someone coming in and
slabbing the whole backyard concrete.
THE MAYOR: I think these are
good, I think we can live with it, the
town can grow and grow properly under
these proposals. I do think we have a
concern about this water thing and how
to work that, and I think we have the
right of definition of a two -story and
a one -story house.
MS. WALLACE: I agree with Larry
about the garage, I think to count
1
2
3
4
5
6
2
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
K1-]
that as only 25 percent is not
realistic.
THE MAYOR: I disagree on that
because -- where you live you have a
great big lot and everything, and
however comes in and buys can tear
down your house and they can build a
huge thing on it because they have
plenty of room to do it, it doesn't
restrict. But a lot of these other
smaller lots, it does restrict.
MS. WALLACE: Even more reason to
be concerned about it because it's
going to be much more overwhelming.
THE MAYOR: It isn't -- with
these it isn't going to be
overwhelming with this. You go up and
down Palm Beach and look at the nice
developments and where they tore down
the houses and paid big prices for the
lots --
MR. RANDOLPH: They do have lot
coverage ordinances and the garage,
anything that is under cover is
covered as lot coverage.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
36
MS. WALLACE: So the garage is
100 percent?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: What is
wrong with somebody building a big
house on a big lot?
MR. STAHL: We are not talking
about big lots, we are talking 10 to
20,000, that is what is on the table.
MR. RANDOLPH: The idea is open
space, that's the whole concept here.
I guess the philosophical question is
can you really control open space with
set- backs, and if you have a large lot
and all you've got is set -back
restrictions of 25 feet in the front
and 15 feet in the back and 12 and a
half on each side, a person can
conceivably fill up that whole lot
with structures. And right now that
Is what a person can do under your
ordinance. I think these are directed
at trying to ensure that you are going
to continue to have open space in the
town.
MR. CROSS: Try to avoid what you
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
37
have in Boca where you have row after
row of $500,000 houses and about room
for one rose bush in between them.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: On these
big lots, some of them you should
address eventually not letting
somebody come in and buy the lot and
chop it up and sell the lot.
MRS. ORTHWEIN: These are for
existing, they cannot be created.
THE MAYOR: That's under planning
if they have to plat a lot, and if
they take those big ones and subdivide
they would have to plat through a
planner which would be 20,000 square
foot lots.
MR. RANDOLPH: If someone has a
60,000 or so square foot lot they are
entitled to subdivide.
MR. STAHL: Where does it say
that?
MR. RANDOLPH: In your ordinance
which says that you allow 20,000
square foot lots, in that particular
ordinance.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
it
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
38
THE MAYOR: Then we ought to
have -- we ought to have that you have
to replat.
MR. RANDOLPH: We do, you have to
plat it.
THE MAYOR: So you can control it
with the plat. You can't deny them
from subdividing.
MR. RANDOLPH: Right.
THE MAYOR: But that still would
fall under our ordinance.
MR. RANDOLPH: That's right.
MR. CROSS: You can't do beyond
20,000.
MR. RANDOLPH: That's right.
MR. CROSS: You can't do it
beyond 20,000.
THE MAYOR: Right.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The one
thing you are forgetting on set -backs
is that we have a 15 percent or 15
feet, whichever is greater.
Now if you have a big lot we
require that you stay 15 percent of
that lot within, not just 15 feet.
1
2
3
4
8
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
39
MR. RANDOLPH: That's in the
20,000.
MS. WALLACE: Are you
recommending that we change that?
MRS. ORTHWEIN: No, not for the
20,000 -above square foot lots. This
is specifically for 10 to 20.
THE MAYOR: We are talking about
the 10 to 20.
MS. WALLACE: Okay.
MRS. ORTHWEIN: That's it.
MS. WALLACE: I like what Larry
brought up about the garage, and I
think that since Palm Beach covers it
100 percent, I really think we ought
to consider doing that.
MR. CROSS: Can we say we give
general approval to A, subject to the
change in the garage coverage?
MRS. ORTHWEIN: You know, I
disagree with that, but I don't know
if I have a voice in this.
THE MAYOR: I disagree with that
too. I really think that is wrong.
If it's to control somebody from
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Cia]
building in the garage then we can
control it in other ways, same way
with the patio.
MR. STAHL: What is to prevent
somebody from building a three car
garage?
THE MAYOR: Well, if they are
going to build a three car garage they
are going to take away from some of
the other uses. They may have to give
up the kitchen.
MS. WALLACE: Build a three car
garage and then convert it.
MRS. ORTHWEIN: We are
controlling their open space here.
THE MAYOR: Then they are going
to lose the other part. What would be
the sense of having a big garage and a
small house?
MS. WALLACE: To convert it
afterwards. But they can't convert it
without coming to the council and
getting a variance.
They could use it as a play
room.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
41
THE MAYOR: Well, if they are
going to use it as a play room why
wouldn't they build a play room.
MS. WALLACE: Because they are
only counting 25 percent instead of
100 percent.
THE MAYOR: But they can still
only cover so much of the lot.
MS. WALLACE: They can cover
more.
AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: If you
have a 2,000 square foot garage you
are only going to count it one - fourth
of the coverage --
THE MAYOR: But you've only got
so much of the lot that you can
cover.
AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No,
it's 40 percent.
You're saying if they can have a
30 percent maximum or 25 percent
maximum with a two -story house, they
are only going to count the garage as
25 percent. They might be at 30
percent, if you're only counting it at
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
42
25 percent.
MRS. ORTHWEIN: We are still
maintaining, I think, that the
important thing in addition to all
this lot coverage, and all that, we
are maintaining that they have 40
percent minimum landscape area, and
that's going to prevent anyone from
building this lot to the hilt. They
have to have an open space of 40
percent.
THE MAYOR: And your garage, you
don't air condition your garage. Your
garage is a garage for vehicles and
stuff like that.
AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: But
it's land coverage whether they use it
as a garage or bedroom.
MS. WALLACE: It still
contributes to the bulk of the house.
I think that's what they have done in
Palm Beach, I think Palm Beach uses a
pretty good guideline.
MRS. ORTHWEIN: I think their's
is 50 percent, isn't it? Fifty
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
l8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
43
percent counting the garage.
MR. RANDOLPH: I don't think so.
MRS. ORTHWEIN: In our meeting it
was brought up, 50 percent.
MR. RANDOLPH: I think the garage
is counted as part of the structure.
I don't think there is any separate
treatment given.
MRS. ORTHWEIN: Really?
MR. RANDOLPH: I'll check that.
MRS. ORTHWEIN: Okay.
MS. WALLACE: I would be willing
to go with whatever Palm Beach does.
MRS. ORTHWEIN: I think I read it
was 50 percent, but I don't know.
MR. CROSS: That seems a sensible
compromise.
MRS. ORTHWEIN: You know, when
you do put that in, you are going to
force more people to build two -story
homes, which is fine.
MS. WALLACE: As I say, that was
my only option at Polo Drive. I don't
think that I built a terrible house.
I think if someone has the advantage
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
11
12
( 13
14
15
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
44
of knowing ahead of time that this
size lot will not allow a one - story,
they have the option of whether to buy
It or not. These are reasonable
things to know. It's not unreasonable
to have these requirements.
MRS. ORTHWEIN: I totally agree,
but you are going to force more people
to go totally two -story as opposed to
partial two - story.
THE MAYOR: What does it say?
MR. RANDOLPH: That particular
chart doesn't deal with how they treat
it. That just talks about lot
coverage being 35 percent.
MRS. ORTHWEIN: Lot coverage
being --
MR. RANDOLPH: Lot coverage in
any particular district being a
certain percentage of the property,
and in that sense it was 35 percent.
MRS. ORTHWEIN: Can I point out,
in Ocean Ridge and Manalapan the lot
coverage was a lot larger, I mean, 25
percent is not unreasonable.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
45
I think in Ocean Ridge it's 45
percent, and in Manalapan it's 35.
Do you know?
AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It's 30
percent in Ocean Ridge and 40 percent
for multiple family.
MR. MAYER: For multiple family.
AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I know
that. My husband and I have been
living here for almost two years now,
and when we were looking at different
communities we knew that we had a
choice for the amount of money that we
could spend. I mean, we could get a
very large house in a place like Boca,
or a much smaller house in a place
like Gulfstream.
And there were considerations
that were more important to us than
just simply the square footage of our
house, and that's why we chose
Gulfstream.
We felt that this was a community
where we could take a walk and we
could breath here, there is space
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
46
here, without being shoulder to
shoulder with our neighbor.
And if it was more important to
us to have more house, then we knew
there were plenty of places that we
could go and do that, but this was the
priorities that we have to live here,
with more space between the houses.
And the community has a certain
character because of that.
And also, some of us did take the
liberty to peek into some of the
ordinances and what I got for Palm
Beach was percent lot coverage,
including all roofed areas, screened,
carports and trellises, if that
answers that question.
MS. WALLACE: All roofed areas,
screened?
AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Not
just garages, carports and
trellises.
MS. WALLACE: They are counting
screened in patios, not 25 percent,
they are counting more than you are
l
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
47
even talking about counting.
I think we ought to go with what
Palm Beach has.
MRS. ORTHWEIN: When our
committee meet with the architect we
felt that was too restrictive.
MS. WALLACE: Is Palm Beach
encountering any problems with this?
AN UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: No.
MS. WALLACE: If you drive
through Palm Beach it doesn't look as
if it's too restrictive there.
MRS. ORTHWEIN: I'm just telling
you what our committee felt.
MR. CROSS: We have to give
guidance to these people.
MR. MAYER: If everybody is happy
with the way things look now why
change it?
THE MAYOR: Well, we wanted --
certain people are happy with the way
It is now.
When we change it to this, we are
changing it from -- to me, something
that will help the area grow and that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
( 13
14
15
16
17
1B
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
48
we should move towards that.
MR. MAYER: Bill, it seems to me
that this is really preventative
maintenance.
THE MAYOR: That's true.
MR. RANDOLPH: I think one of the
things, if I might interject, that
you're trying to do, it's not
necessarily to change for change sake,
but as I understand it there are a lot
of lots in the town that are less than
25,000 square foot and, therefore, you
are put in the position of having to
grant a variance every time somebody
comes in and wants to build. And this
will keep that from happening because
it would set forth specific
regulations on those lots.
And I think you would include in
your ordinance the language which I
proposed regarding the existing lots,
and that would say lots which are less
than 20,000 that existed as of the day
of this ordinance may be built upon,
however, they must comply with the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
49
following restrictions. And then you
set those restrictions.
MR. MAYER: I think that is good,
and what I was going to say, many of
the variances that we have given is to
allow people to build smaller houses
on those smaller lots, because they
cannot come up with 3,000 square foot
lots. So a lot of them are for
smaller lots.
MR. STAHL: Our code doesn't
define a 3,000 square foot lot, does
it?
MR. MAYER: I thought it did. I
thought there was something in there
that says --
MS. WALLACE: It doesn't say what
it's composed of.
AN UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: It tells
you it has to be more than 3,000 feet,
it doesn't tell you how to come up
with it.
MR. RANDOLPH: Do you feel that
you need the limitation on the size of
the house, do you think that is
1
2
3
4
5
6
?
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1?
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Aft
something that needs --
MS. WALLACE: On the low end or
the high end?
MR. RANDOLPH: On the low end, I
think that's something that really
needs to come out in your ordinance.
I don't think anybody is going to be
attempting to build -- for what they
pay for property, they are not going
to be paying to build what your low
end says.
MR. MAYOR: That's exactiv
right.
MR. RANDOLPH: I think that
should come out of your ordinance.
THE MAYOR: Now we have to move
toward some direction.
MR. STAHL: Let's just address
A -1 here, the percentages. Percentage
lot coverage.
Twenty -five percent maximum for
two - story, 30 percent maximum for one -
story and 40 percent minimum landscape
area permeable soil. Do we have any
problems with that?
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
T
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1T
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
51
THE MAYOR: I don't.
MR. CROSS: I don't.
MR. STAHL: I don't.
MS. WALLACE: I think John had
mentioned some question about the
difference between addressing them as
two different things.
MR. RANDOLPH: Do you mean the
10,000 versus 20,000?
MS. WALLACE: Yes.
MR. RANDOLPH: Well, it's very
unusual to put in your code
regulations for lots that are not
permitted, and that's why I asked the
question: Are these restrictions that
much different than are in your
20,000, because I thought that perhaps
we could apply these restrictions
across the board and use these for
20,000 and 10,000 and then you
wouldn't have a different. But I can
work with it, I mean, if you feel that
the restrictions for 20,000 square
foot lots need to be different than
the restrictions for 10,000 --
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
52
MR. STAHL: No, no. What we are
saying, 20,000 and under.
MR. RANDOLPH: I know.
MR. STAHL: Is what this really
should say, one category.
MR. RANDOLPH: That's the
distinction I'm making.
THE MAYOR: Why don't you say all
lots.
MR. RANDOLPH: That's the
distinction I'm making. Can these be
applicable to all lots?
Now, I will say this, if you do
make this applicable in this fashion
to all lots in the town, you are
really making it more liberal for the
20,000 square foot lots which now, for
Instance, have to have say a 25 foot
set -back or 25 percent, whichever is
greater. And in this particular case
you have it just 25 feet --
MR. STAHL: John, on the big lots
I don't think we want to get away from
percentage set - backs.
MR. RANDOLPH: Well, that's what
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
53
I'm saying. That's what you have in
the 20,000 and over, so there is a big
distinction between the 20,000 square
foot lots and these.
MS. WALLACE: But the question
Is would you want to go back to 25
percent down the board?
MR. STAHL: I don't think -- you
see, when you go to your big lots
your set -backs then really drive the
coverage, and if you've got a big lot,
I mean, you've got to have 25
percent -- you've got to have 25
percent set -back from the street, you
have to have 15 percent from the
back --
MR. RANDOLPH: I can deal with it
In this way. If you think that it's
important that you continue to have
different restrictions for 20 and
over, and then from 20 and under, even
though -- I was just stating it's a
little unusual and I haven't seen it
done this way before, but I think I
can draft an ordinance which would
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
54
indicate that in the event a less than
20,000 square foot lot was in
existence at the time of the adoption
of this ordinance it can be built
upon, however it shall follow the
following restrictions and these
restrictions will apply.
MR. CROSS: I think once those
restrictions -- you set them out, can
be applicable to all sizes. I think
we have to recognize the historical
factors that we just have a lot of
these lots that are small.
MR. RANDOLPH: Well, that will
complicate things because then we'll
have to go in to the 20,000 and over
lots and see if we should change those
and make these applicable.
MS. WALLACE: Let's not do that.
MR. STAHL: The exiting set-
backs, the code, the way it's written
for lots greater than 20,000 square
foot, I don't think any member of this
Board has any problem with those
existing set - backs. Is that right?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
61&7
MR. CROSS: Right.
MS. WALLACE: Right.
MR. STAHL: So what we are
focusing in on is changing the set-
backs and establishing some new rules
and regulations for 20,000 square feet
and under.
Now, having said that, do you
have a problem with that?
MR. RANDOLPH: No, I can work
with these type of restrictions on
those lots.
You realize from a practical
standpoint there is a big difference.
If you've got a lot that comes in at
19,900 square feet, and you had a lot
that is 10,000, whether or not what
you have here should be applied to
both of those. That's why in the past
you have always dealt with that by
variances and you could look at he
particular characteristics.
MRS. ORTHWEIN: Is it impossible
to carry over the percent lot coverage
to the bigger lots and keep the set-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
56
backs separate?
MR. RANDOLPH: You can do that,
and I think you are going to have a
lot coverage restriction for the
10,000 to 20,000. And you should also
have the same thing for the 20,000 and
over.
MRS. ORTHWEIN: And keep the set-
backs different, because I do believe
the set -backs --
MS. WALLACE: But on the over
20,000 you don't want a 30 percent
maximum for a one story house, it
should be 25 and 25. That's what Palm
Beach is.
MR. STAHL: Why don't we, on the
bigger lots, the amount of permeable
soil you have can control it pretty
fast.
MR. RANDOLPH: You can. In that
event a bigger lot, a 30,000 square
foot lot, you could have 60 percent
lot coverage.
MRS. ORTHWEIN: Yes.
MR. CROSS: I would like to see
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
57
what Skip might come up with given the
guidelines.
MR. RANDOLPH: I think so far you
have approved Item 1 through A, B, C.
I can work with that. I don't
have a final direction as to the
footnote, and I don't think I'll get
that today.
THE MAYOR: You have vour set-
backs.
Let's go down to 2.
MR. STAHL: We have a hassle with
the footnote.
THE MAYOR: I know we have a
hassle, but let's look at the others.
Do they make any sense?
MR. CROSS: They do.
THE MAYOR: They do to me. If we
can eliminate what we agree on, then
we can --
MR. STAHL: You want the Board to
appreciate that these set -backs
represent -- for instance, on front
yard set -backs you can now build
closer to the street. On the rear
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
58
yard set -back you can now build closer
to the rear line of the property.
MS. WALLACE: So you really are
giving --
MR. MAYER: I thought that's what
you didn't want.
MR. CROSS: I'm making a point.
MR. MAYER: I think that's what
you don't want. This is -- you are
talking about distance between
houses.
MS. WALLACE: The existing set-
backs are radically different than
these.
MR. STAHL: Are there specifics
on it?
MRS. ORTHWEIN: The set -back that
they had to confirm with was 40 feet,
25 percent of the lot depth, and you
are giving them ten more feet in the
front yard now.
MS. WALLACE: Or 15. Can you
actually put a driveway in with 25
feet and turn around?
MRS. ORTHWEIN: You sure can. I
1
2
3
4
5
6
z
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
59
would think you wouldn't have a turn
around.
MR. CROSS: Given the price of
land, these proposed set -backs seem to
be reasonable between 10 and 20,000,
otherwise they wouldn't be worth
building on.
MS. WALLACE: I'd say 12 and
20,000. I don't think anything
smaller than that.
MR. STAHL: I think if anybody
came up with a variance and requested
a variance, we would have a hard time
not allowing it.
THE MAYOR: We want to get away
from as much variances as we can. We
want to give them a chance to build
something that they can come in and
build it without going through all the
things they are going through. In
other words, spell it out. We will
still get some variances, don't think
we won't, but this way -- I think this
is reasonable.
MR. CROSS: Remember this still
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
wo
has to have 40 percent permeable
soil.
MR. RANDOLPH: Let me ask a
question which may not be a practical
question because it may not exist.
And you can tell me if it does.
What if you have a 19,000 square
foot lot next to a 10,000 square foot
lot, and keep in mind of course that
your lot coverage will be the same for
both, but say that one of the houses
decides that it wants to buy the
19,000 square foot lot, wants to have
the same set -back that is set forth
here, are you going -- is it going to
result in a situation where you might
have somebody deciding that they want
to set -back up to the front and
therefore be blocking the view of the
adjacent neighbors.
Are you going to create a
situation where your set -backs are
going to be a hodge podge rather than
on a straight line?
I mean, from a practical
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
61
standpoint, I don't know if that can
exist. I don't know whether you have
those kind of situations.
THE MAYOR: I don't think we have
anything that big next to the small
ones. I can't think of any area where
that would be.
MRS. ORTHWEIN: Corner lots are
bigger.
THE MAYOR: The only thing is
these little cottages down here by the
school, and even there, and until you
get up to -- no, there was a street in
between before the big lots start.
No, I can't think of any.
MR. RANDOLPH: So everybody is in
favor of number 2 A, B, C?
THE MAYOR: I am.
MR. RANDOLPH: And you want me to
do some height restrictions for one
and two -story houses?
MS. WALLACE: Yes.
THE MAYOR: Yes. I think you
should put height restrictions with
the houses.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
26
[k
MS. WALLACE: That helps in your
definition of a two -story house.
MRS. ORTHWEIN: Yes, it does.
THE MAYOR: It will make it much
easier.
MR. RANDOLPH: Do you want a lot
coverage restriction in the 20,000 and
above?
MR. STAHL: No.
MRS. ORTHWEIN: I think so.
THE MAYOR: Don't you want lot
restriction coverage?
MS. WALLACE: Why not?
MR. STAHL: I think the existing
set -backs give us considerable control
there. We can go ahead and put it in.
You have a certain amount of control
right now and on the big lots you are
going to get some major set - backs.
MS. WALLACE: We still need the
lot coverage.
MR. CROSS: I would like to see
it in there.
MS. WALLACE: At 25 percent?
THE MAYOR: Twenty -five.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
53
MS. WALLACE: All the way across,
either -- both one -story and two -
story. That's what Palm Beach has and
I think that's reasonable. We have
given the larger lot size.
What they were trying to do here
is --
THE MAYOR: That's all right, I go
with that, that 25 for the bigger.
But now you go back to note I think
this is reasonable, the 100 percent
air conditioning, 25 percent garage
and 25 percent covered patio.
MRS. ORTHWEIN: As a resident
architect Mark expresses his feeling
on the 100 percent and 25, that this
is realistic.
MS. WALLACE: Mark, this is in
relationship to the fact that Palm
Beach has 100 percent lot coverage
covering everything.
THE MAYOR: We don't know for
sure.
MS. WALLACE: Yes, we do.
MR. STAHL: Would you address the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
64
pros and cons considering your lot --
calculating your lot coverage by
roofed areas versus giving the garage
area a break.
MR. MARSH: The problem with the
smaller lots, which is what we are
discussing, if you used the roof area
to achieve a reasonable habitable
space or condition space, you are
limiting yourself to maybe 2,000
square feet because on a 10,000 square
foot lot you are allowed 2,500 square
foot coverage under roof by 100
percent and which you would have to
take out 500 for a garage, so your
habitable space or living space -- and
that's separate if you have a balcony
and that's covered, and you are going
to reduce that living space by more.
MR. STAHL: But that's a very
small lot.
MS. WALLACE: You're talking
about a one - story. We don't have a
10,000 square foot lot. You are
talking about the guidelines for a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
two -story which would --
them.
65
MRS. ORTHWEIN: Yes, we do.
THE MAYOR: We've got a bunch of
MRS. ORTHWEIN: 10,000?
MS. WALLACE: No. The smallest
Is 12,000.
MR. MARSH: Using that as a work
condition, what I'm saying is you take
25 percent of 10,000 square foot and
that's 2,500, and you take out 500 for
a garage and just say 100 for a patio,
covered patio, that leaves you with
2,000 square foot of living space.
MS. WALLACE: Excuse me, but you
would be taking 30 percent, if you're
talking about a one -story house square
footage, it would be 30 percent.
If you're talking about a two -
story house it should be 25 times two.
You measure the upstairs square
footage as well. You would have room
to build a house.
THE MAYOR: Yes, but you're going
to force everybody to build a house --
1
2
3
4
b
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
M-0
the same thing. So this way it gives
you -- if you take more than 25
percent of the garage I think it's
wrong on these smaller lots. I think
you're going to stimy the architect or
approach to building on these lots if
we do that.
You are going to have everybody
going up the same thing.
MR. MARSH: Let's go to 3,000
square foot. Again, if you take up
500 and it's spread out more, you may
have more value than say taking 200,
so we're talking out 700 square foot
and leaving a house at 2,300 square
foot which is very small.
MS. WALLACE: But probably
fitting to the size of the lot.
MR. MARSH: But you have to look
at it for accommodation, that's barely
a two bedroom house, which is not
worth you trying to encourage --
THE MAYOR: You have people --
the people with the big lots, like you
have a big lot, you can still build,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
67
but we are stimying the smaller
people.
MR. STAHL: Counting the garage
on a 16,000 square foot lot?
MR. MARSH: But if you have
proportioned a little more than 2,800
square foot, again you are going to
limit yourself to 2,200 --
MR. STAHL: One- story.
MR. MARSH: I think the other
side, if you give some concession to
the garage in terms of the 100 percent
to 50 or 25 percent, you are just
allowing that person to help create a
more liveable --
MS. WALLACE: How do you think
Palm Beach has it, they count as 100
percent their garage, their screened
patio, everything under roof 100
percent.
MS. ORTHWEIN: They are full of
two - stories.
MP.. RANDOLPH: I will look at
that.
MS. WALLACE: I would be willing
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
68
to go with what Palm Beach has.
THE MAYOR: We can't deal with
what we don't know.
We have our own little area that
we have to go with, really.
MR. MAYER: We are Gulfstream. I
love Gulfstream and I don't care for
Palm Beach.
MR. MARSH: We have a lot more
lots that are between 10 and 20,000
than Palm Beach. I mean, plus
AuSoleil has a loan -- has a lot of
lots.
MS. WALLACE: There are a lot of
lots in Palm Beach.
MRS. ORTHWEIN: In our house what
I was fortunate enough to do was to do
a full two - story. I don't think Larry
really wanted a full two - story, he'd
of rather had the partial, I think,
but if you're going to limit this you
are going to force people to build
two -story houses. That's all you're
going to do is to create --
MS. WALLACE: That's correct,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that's what I had to do. I knew when
I bought the property that's all I
could do.
THE MAYOR: That was a very small
lot.
MRS. ORTHWEIN: I think if you
went back you could have done
something else because the ordinances
were a lot more liberal.
MS. WALLACE: With the set -backs
from the side yard, the corner?
MR. MARSH: The point of this is
two -fold. You have to check points
here. You have one, the set -back,
which would create minimum set - backs,
that's going to assure the separation
between residences and I think the 25
percent -- if the other check, I think
it's only reasonable to give some
credit to the garage and balcony.
I mean, you have two check areas
and as a designer, I think it's going
to protect you in terms of achieving
what you are trying to do, which is
the separation between you or
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
70
residents, and --
MS. WALLACE: I think the garage
contributes to the bulk of the house,
not 25 percent.
MR. MARSH: The flip side is
economics.
MR. CROSS: You take a lot that
is less than 20,000 and give them
existing proposal set -backs and the
requirement for 40 percent permeable
soil, there just isn't going to be
that much space left to pile in a big
garage, and I think we could safely
allow 25 percent on the garage for
lots that size.
MRS. ORTHWEIN: I agree with
that.
MR. MARSH: What you are going to
encourage is a much smaller garage,
that's the design that the owner is
faced with.
MR. CROSS: Well, if you're
driving a Volkswagon that's fine.
MR. MARSH: You have to look at
it in terms of economy.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
71
MR. CROSS: You've got enough
protective ground on the limitations
on the minimum permeable soil and the
set- backs, I don't believe you are
going to have extravagant garages even
if you are only charging 25 percent.
THE MAYOR: Well, then let's make
a decision on this.
MR. STAHL: Let me ask him one
question.
The Orthwein house, if we had 50
percent she could still build that
same house according to the numbers
your partner gave us.
MR. MARSH: Yes.
MR. STAHL: What is the
difference between 50 and 25 percent
on a lot that size?
MR. MARSH: I think it's forced
us to go up onto that two - story, or
story and a half, partial two - story.
I can't recall what they used.
MR. STAHL: You were going to
have to go up because you were close
to 40 percent -- well, we didn't have
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
10
it
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
72
lot coverage, but it was round a
little better than 40 percent
permeable soil, it was about 43
percent permeable soil on that one.
MR. MARSH: I think you have to
look at it, you have three checks, I
forgot the other one, the permeable
space. And that has to be defined as
permeable, not recreational, and I
think between those three --
THE MAYOR: Let's have -- will
you make that proposal, adopt number
whatever it is?
MR. CROSS: On 1 -A note that we
approve the 25 percent for the
garage.
THE MAYOR: And also 100 percent
and the 25 percent --
MR. CROSS: For the other two,
yes.
THE MAYOR: All those in favor?
I'm in favor.
MRS. ORTHWEIN: Can you make sure
you meet the 40 percent permeable
soil?
1
2
3
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
73
MR. CROSS: We already have.
MR. STAHL: The only significance
of this vote this morning is to give
John guidance to proceed.
MR. RANDOLPH: You can't take
action.
THE MAYOR: But we have to take
some action, otherwise we are back in
the hole.
Three in favor.
MS. WALLACE: And one opposed.
MR. RANDOLPH: That's all three
Included covered patios.
THE MAYOR: Right. Now,
Intracoastal water property is going
to be addressed by the Planning Board
again.
MR. RANDOLPH: I'll bring you
back a definition of what the lot size
is going to be.
THE MAYOR: You'll bring back --
MS. WALLACE: Definition of a
buildable lot?
MR. RANDOLPH: Definition of a
buildable lot.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
74
THE MAYOR: Which would include
the seawall, or whatever we talked
about, right?
MR. STAHL: I'm going to see your
property line now is from the high
water mark, right, John?
THE MAYOR: That's the way it
is.
MR. STAHL: No action is really
needed on C.
THE MAYOR: No.
MR. STAHL: The property is
defined by that line.
THE MAYOR: Right. Indeed we
want to --
MR. STAHL: I'm not sure, I still
don't understand D. Can we relate it
to a particular problem in the
community at the moment, what we are
talking about there?
MR. MAYER: Are you talking about
the seawall?
MR. STAHL: Yes.
MR. MAYER: As I understand it a
couple of people asked to build a
1
2
3
4
a
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
75
seawall a little bit higher than their
neighbor and some of the neighbors
objected to that for some reason.
MR. STAHL: Why can't we simply
say that there will be continuity of
seawalls in the community and if
repairs have to be made to existing
seawalls the existing continuity of
the seawalls will be maintained rather
than having to define the height of
the seawall.
MR. MAYER: Well, the only
trouble, Larry, is that since those
old seawalls were built there has been
higher and higher tides, and
consequently water comes in and
allows -- and won't protect them.
MR. STAHL: You are addressing
two problems. The problem you have
come forward with is that some people
wanted to raise their seawall and you
want continuity of seawalls.
MR. MAYER: Right.
MR. STAHL: Okay. I don't have a
problem with that.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
76
Your second point that we should
raise, seawalls, I don't think you
really mean that, you don't want --
for example, there are some people on
Polo whose yards flood all the time,
you don't want to tell them they've
got to raise their seawall.
MR. MAYER: No.
MR. STAHL: You don't want to
tell them that they have to raise
their seawall?
MR. MAYER: No, not --
MR. STAHL: Or tell me that I
have to lower my seawall because my
seawall is higher than one foot above
the high tide?
MR. MAYER: This is up to them,
whatever they want to do. However, I
think the idea of having continuity in
seawall is great, so if this fellow
wants to raise his seawall his
neighbor can raise his if he would
like to. We are not making a demand.
MR. CROSS: You are also saying
not greater than one foot above.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
77
MR. STAHL: This really gets
sticky because I go back to Polo
Cove.
The seawalls in Polo Cove today,
it looks like we have continuity as
you look at it.
MR. MAYER: Right.
MR. STAHL: And we do, I mean, it
goes downhill and it comes back up
hill.
THE MAYOR: They think evenly.
MR. STAHL: I don't know what you
would expect in Polo Cove, you said
something about continuity of the
seawall, I'm not sure what you have in
mind here.
MR. MAYER: I think --
MR. STAHL: If the guy repairs
his seawall and he may bring it up --
and one neighbor might be a few inches
higher than the neighbor on the left,
what you really want him to do is have
a smooth line between his neighbor's,
right?
MR. MAYER: That's up to them,
i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
VAU
and I think maybe the way this is
stated, maybe the language is bad, but
I think what we are trying to say is,
if your neighbor puts his seawall up a
little higher then you can put yours
up to protect your property.
THE MAYOR: I don't read it that
way.
MRS. ORTHWEIN: I think Mark
explained it.
THE
MAYOR:
Can you help
me?
MR.
MARSH:
I exaggerated
the
situation
because
what we are
facing
again is a lot of the homes had a
finished floor level at about seven,
seven and a half feet, and we had been
asked and requested to go higher for
obvious reasons, and the problem I
brought up is the fact if you raise
your floor level and your building
area, people may tend to want to
elevate their whole yard, even if they
meet all the drainage requirements,
and therefore you may see situations
where the elevation becomes more of a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
79
retaining wall rather than a nice
continuous seawall and keeping the
continuity through the bay.
In other towns like Lighthouse
Point and Highland Beach they have
experienced this up and down -- and I
think the whole point was to try to
get a medium reference point by which
the town could mandate the height of
that wall.
MR. STAHL: Okay, but how do we
handle the existing problem that I
have pointed out in Polo Cove today?
MR. MARSH: With the continuity?
MR. STAHL: We have continuity
but we don't have levels. In other
words, if the seawall goes like this,
it's very hard to see but how do we
handle that if the person who is at
the low points wants to bring his
seawall up, which he very well may
want to do.
MR. MARSH: Was that all done at
the same time?
MR. STAHL: The seawall?
i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Wo
THE
MAYOR:
Originally.
MR.
MARSH:
There is a
continuity
in appearance.
MR. STAHL: In appearance, yes.
MR. MARSH: I still think the
high water level is a means of
reference point, then they could build
back to match the higher ones.
MR. STAHL: Then we get a
discontinuity in the seawall.
THE MAYOR: They are going to
have -- when somebody's blows out they
are going to put a new one in and put
it in higher.
MR. MARSH: Eventually
continuity --
THE MAYOR: Yes, when
everybody -- but that may take a long
time. I think you have a problem here
that maybe we ought to at least
address this at a different time and
really do some studying on it.
MR. STAHL: You got into this
problem by talking about floor level,
right?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
81
MR. MARSH: That's where people
are going to refer to it --
THE MAYOR: And floor level we
can easily handle.
MR. MARSH: Yes, but I'm just
saying from past experience, I have
seen people who want to attempt to
raise their seawalls, type of
retaining wall, raise their deck area
to the pool height, and all this is --
it's just a caution to the town really
that you should somehow enforce a
maximum or minimum height of the
seawall.
MS. WALLACE: What would be a
maximum or -- did you say maximum
floor level? Is that a reasonable --
MR. STAHL: No, that's another
problem.
MR. MARSH: That's a whole
different issue, it's not eight, seven
Is the minimum and you can go up to
eight and a half, nine, ten, it's
really --
THE MAYOR: The flood insurance
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
82
comes in and sets the minimum and they
are raising their minimum all the
time, so if you want to get insurance
now I think they are talking about
some place nine feet.
MR. STAHL: What do you want to
do with this?
THE MAYOR: Can we leave that for
another --
MR. STAHL: I don't see how to
come to grips with it.
MR. BRANDT: Can we say that no
seawall shall be built more than 12
inches or one foot over main high tide
and leave it go at that?
MR. STAHL: Dick, I don't think
that we can do that because you are
going to have to say build or repair.
MR. BRANDT: Right.
MR. STAHL: But some of us today
have seawalls that are considerably
more than 12 inches above main high
tide.
MR. BRANDT: For all seasons?
MR. STAHL: I'm talking about the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
83
highest tide I've ever seen in Polo
Cove, my seawall is considerably more
than 12 inches above it.
MR. BRANDT: Yours is existing,
It could be grandfathered in, but none
In the future -- this will keep that
deal from piling blocks out in the
seawall and screwing up the yard.
MS. WALLACE: Can you factor it
In relationship to the seawall on
either side? Can you deal with new
construction?
MR. STAHL: We just did. We had
continuity of seawalls.
MRS. ORTHWEIN: We put up our
seawalls the same.
MS. WALLACE: But they weren't
required to do that.
MRS. ORTHWEIN: It was the same
that was there. We didn't even think
about that. It's when someone comes
in -- if I would have come in and put
my seawall a foot higher than
THE MAYOR: Probably say -- if
you want to keep continuity say that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
84
no seawall will be higher than the
adjoining property - holder. You could
put a regulation like that.
MS. WALLACE: Then if you have to
come through and add and put another
foot, every one in the whole
neighborhood would be required to do
that.
MR. RANDOLPH: You probably have
a maximum, but say that in no event
shall a seawall be higher than the
adjacent property, plus I think to a
larger event this can be dealt with
through the building permit process,
rather than a zoning ordnance.
THE MAYOR: But we have to have
some -- we have never addressed this
before.
MR. STAHL: Seawalls aren't even
in our code.
MR. BRANDT: Call around and try
to find out around the county what the
seawall height is. Call different
places in order to establish that,
because we just had three houses raise
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
it
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
85
their seawalls up because they wanted
to be protected from the higher tides
that we're getting.
MR. STAHL: And did we end up
with discontinuity?
MR. BRANDT: Yes.
MR. STAHL: Where?
MR. BRANDT: Over by Billy
Coach's house and the guy on the
corner, Stormy Norm, and then the guy
to the west.
THE MAYOR: So there is a
problem.
MRS. ORTHWEIN: That's why we
brought this up.
MR. STAHL: Okay.
MR. MARSH: To use the retaining
wall interior or --
MR. BRANDT: And the height they
set the new seawall at was supposed to
be one foot over main high tide.
THE MAYOR: A foot over the main
high tide which is probably the
same -- if yours is a foot over, it's
probably the same height as that.
1
2
3
4
5
6
T
e
9
10
11
12
� 13
14
15
16
1
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. STAHL: Can you write
something, John --
MR. RANDOLPH: Not on the basis
of what you have. I don't think you
have enough information here today to
decide this. I think you ought to
direct this to the planners and have
them come back with a suggested method
to deal with this. You can't deal
with it right now.
THE MAYOR: When Henry Pope built
our seawalls up in the area that we
are on that north end, the first part,
those things were maybe eight inches
above, being the high tide, because
when you would have your high spring
tides as we still do now that water
gets right up to lapping over the
seawalls, while as they built more
coves, the farther they went to the
north he made them higher. So where
Fritz -- you don't have the water
lapping over yours, but he found out
that he had to make them higher, so
those are all higher.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
87
In the newer areas they are
higher, but these older ones are
starting to blow out and they are
going to have to be replaced and they
are going to replace them at least a
foot above the main high tide, so they
are even with everybody else's and we
can't keep allowing the low ones to
exist. People should have a right to
make them at least a foot above high
tide.
MR. STAHL:
Aren't the seawalls
on the waterway
even higher?
MR. BRANDT:
On the Intracoastal
I don't know that.
THE MAYOR:
I don't think so.
MR. MARSH:
No, they are not. In
fact, they are probably
-- I have seen
them within six
inches of the top of
the bulkheads on
the Intracoastal.
THE MAYOR:
The older ones. The
newer ones are much
higher.
MR. MARSH:
How about AuSoleil.
THE MAYOR:
Those are even higher
than the first ones
Henry Pope put
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
88
in.
MR. MARSH: They are not a foot
above high tide.
THE MAYOR: They are probably
not.
MRS. ORTHWEIN: What else do we
need to correct this, if this is not
sufficient?
MR. RANDOLPH: I don't think you
have enough input from planners and
people -- and engineers and other
people that deal with this on an every
day basis in order to make a policy
decision today.
I would just suggest that the
commission direct us to look into it
and look at other communities and see
how they handle it and come back with
a suggestion.
THE MAYOR: Because these
seawalls are going to start blowing
out, we better address them, because
they have been in there an awful long
time.
MRS. ORTWEIN: I would like to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
89
address them fairly rapidly to get
this with the rest of the ordinances.
MR. RANDOLPH: I mean, right now
you can say continuity.
MRS. ORTHWEIN: Can we say
continuity to prevent people from
doing it and then have the Commission
look at it as they are building? I
mean, to present you with their
plans.
THE MAYOR: If my seawall would
blow out down where I am now and the
other ones along there, I would think
that to replace them you are going to
have to replace them a foot higher,
because it just washes --
MR. STAHL: You have just made an
argument for discontinuity.
MRS. ORTHWEIN: That's right,
that's why we put a maximum of main
highest tide plus a foot. I mean,
that is like the max of what you can
N-M
If you are building a new one the
main highest tide --
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MEG
MR. STAHL: I think what he would
like to say is let's forget the word
continuity, forget it, and what you
want to say is new seawalls, when they
are replaced must come back in at
least one foot -- it must be no higher
than one foot above the highest tide.
MRS. ORTHWEIN: Thank you.
MR. STAHL: And forget about the
word continuity.
THE MAYOR: Because it's going to
happen and it would be a shame for
someone to come in and put a new
seawall in and then -- as low as they
are now.
MRS. ORTHWEIN: Oh, no, I think
you should be able -- you have to, but
all we want to prevent is people
putting seawalls up four feet. That's
all.
THE MAYOR: A foot above the main
highest tide.
MR. STAHL: Turning to the last
one, can we look at page 4 in the
code. I think we can handle it rather
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
91
quickly.
I've always felt that properties
on the ocean, there has been an
inconsistency in our code on the front
yard required, John, on the bottom of
page 24.
Could we say that you've got to
have 25 percent of lot depth for set-
back?
Some of those properties are four
or 500, maybe even 600 feet, and what
we really have always done over there
is said along AlA as far as the
oceanfront properties are concerned,
the set -back shall be at least 78
feet.
MR. RANDOLPH: All right.
MR. STAHL: And that's what we
want. In other words, we want to take
the requirements, I want to get rid of
the ambiguity that's in here.
MR. RANDOLPH: This says, at
least 78 feet, and then if 25 percent
of the lot depth is greater than that
they would have to be greater than
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that --
MR. STAHL: But those people have
come in for variances. They always
come in for variances on the
oceanfront properties with front yard
set - backs, because it's 125 feet --
MR. RANDOLPH: You want it to be
a flat 78 feet on oceanfront?
MR. STAHL: Yes, minimum.
MR. RANDOLPH: Right, minimum.
MR. MAYER: Wouldn't we have
problems when this new 150 foot
construction line goes westward?
MR. RANDOLPH: We are talking
about from the road, from AIA.
MR. MAYER: Yes, I'm talking
about the construction, 150 feet from
where that is now.
MR. RANDOLPH: I don't know how
that will affect the set -back.
THE MAYOR: It will affect some
of these lots a lot.
MR. STAHL: It sure will.
MR. RANDOLPH: What the people
need to understand is where the number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
S1
12
13
14
15
16
17
,8
1
Im
78 feet came from.
THE MAYOR: From the center line
. county put that in.
of the road The
MR. STAHL: But where did it
really come from, and it really came
from the so- called ultimate right -of-
way right along AlA, definition of
ultimate right-Of-way.
MS. WALLACE: So it really can't
be less than 78 feet.
MR. STAHL: It could be.
THE MAYOR: This is what they
requested. If you were getting
a permit from the county it couldn't
be anything less than 78 feet.
The county would not let you
build between the center line of the
road and 78 feet Off-
MR. RANDOLPH: The way I
understand it now it has to be 78
\� feet, correct?
THE MAYOR: Correct
2' Or if You have a
24 MR, RANDOLPH:
is very deep and it would
.y6 lot that
require a greater set -back than
i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
it
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
94
that - --
MR. STAHL: Then you have to
get --
MR. RANDOLPH: No, then you have
to go to the greater set -back.
MR. MARSH: That's right.
MR. RANDOLPH: So what is it that
you want changed from that?
MR. MARSH: Maximum 78.
MR. STAHL: We want to put the
people in a position where for 78 feet
off the highway you don't have to
request a variance for front yard set-
back.
MR. MARSH: Was that tied in
originally with the potential of four
lanes on A1A?
MR.
STAHL:
Yes,
that
is
correct.
MR.
MARSH:
Have
they
indicated
how they
are not
ever
going
to four
lane it?
MR.
STAHL:
They
never
backed off
on that
requirement.
THE
MAYOR:
But
the more
houses
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we have closer to the road, the less
they are going to come in and condemn
it.
MRS. ORTHWEIN: We put in there
either or because of the houses to the
west of A1A too. We thought we could
lump it in, either or 25 percent an
that. It was not clearly spelled
out.
MS. WALLACE: So the houses on
the west side might not have 78 feet.
MRS. ORTHWEIN: Right, so it
would be 25 percent, we changed it
either or 25 percent.
MR. MARSH: You just have a 78
foot --
THE MAYOR: You are going to have
a bunch of people coming in for
variances.
MR. MARSH: How far are they?
THE MAYOR: Those lots are
only -- there's a lot of those houses.
Those lots are only maybe 125 feet
deep. We're talking about the ones
along in this area.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MRS. ORTHWEIN: On the west side
of the road.
THE MAYOR: You are going to have
to have some variances granted
anyway.
MS. WALLACE: If you do the 25
percent, that should handle it.
MRS. ORTHWEIN: That's why we put
either /or.
MR. MARSH: On the east it's
always going to be 78.
MS. WALLACE: And on the west it
would be either or.
MRS. ORTHWEIN: That's the only
reason we did that.
MR. RANDOLPH: I think the way
it's right now, it says 78 feet even
on the west side.
MR. STAHL: No, it really
doesn't, John, you can make a case
where it doesn't.
It's talking about, as you read
through it, it's tracks of land
fronting on Ocean Boulevard or the
Atlantic Ocean.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
97
MR. RANDOLPH: I think what this
says, anybody that is along Ocean
Boulevard or the ocean has to be 78
feet back.
MR. STAHL: Okay, so you are
saying either 25 percent of 78 feet?
MRS. ORTHWEIN: Yes.
MR. STAHL: I would agree with
that.
MS. WALLACE: Any problems with
that?
MR. RANDOLPH: Except in some
instances you may have less than 78
feet.
MS. WALLACE: Twenty -five
percent.
MR. RANDOLPH: So you are doing
away with the minimum of 78 feet.
THE MAYOR: Where the lots are
already smaller.
MP.. MARSH: If that's the county
or state ordinance how can we --
THE MAYOR: It's not an
ordinance, the county requested that
the municipality --
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
W
MR. BRANDT: I called on that one
time and I tried to find out what
ordinance that was in the county and
the answer I got back, that's our
ordinance not the county's.
THE MAYOR: That's what the
county came down and requested all the
municipalities to use.
MS. WALLACE: Can we change it?
THE MAYOR: Sure we can change
it whatever way we want, but then
there really wasn't much to worry
about, two or three, six homes and a
couple of others on the beach and that
was it.
MR. RANDOLPH: So it's either 78
feet or 25 percent, whichever is
greater.
MRS. ORTHWEIN: Either or --
MR. STAHL: Either or.
MS. WALLACE: Because the ones on
the west side of the property couldn't
tolerate 78 feet, on the west side of
Al A.
MRS. ORTHWEIN: On the ocean
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
M
side, was that different for the 25
percent?
THE MAYOR: Well, do we have
anything else?
MRS. ORTHWEIN: Usually the
oceanfront lots are so deep that 25
percent is a greater --
MS. WALLACE: With the coastal
construction line it's going to make a
big difference.
MR. STAHL: No, it's not, you're
not changing the property line you're
still going to have -- the coastal
construction line is merely telling
you where on your property line you
can situate it, but you are not
changing the property line, which is
where you measure your set -backs from.
You can build on the coastal
construction --
on
the
construction
control line.
You
can
build right up
to that line.
You
don't
have to have
a set -back off of that line.
MS. WALLACE: If you are giving
25 percent or 78 feet you are allowing
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
100
them to build up closer to the road.
MR. STAHL: That is correct.
MRS. ORTHWEIN: Twenty -five
percent would push them back a lot
farther than the 78 feet because you
are measuring --
MR. RANDOLPH: You are
guaranteeing these people on the east
side of the road that they can go up
to 78 feet, even if the 25 percent is
a lot greater.
MR. STAHL: Yes.
MR. RANDOLPH: Okay, as long as I
understand.
MR. STAHL: John had gave Tom a
letter dated 2, January and we had a
very specific recommendation in there
to get us out of the position of where
we have to give variances every time
we have a lot less than 25,000 square
feet.
I personally think it's a good
suggestion.
MR. RANDOLPH: Regarding your
existing lots?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
it
12
i 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
101
MR. STAHL: Right, existing
building lots. And I would suggest
that he work that into the ordinance.
MS. WALLACE: I would agree,
that's to protect the subdivision.
MR. STAHL: No, it simply says
today if you have a lot that is less
than 20,000 square feet you have to
come in here and get a variance to
build on it. And this is simply
recognizing that the people who do
have existing lots that are less than
20,000 square feet do have the right
to build on it without getting a
variance, which I think really is what
the town meant when the new code was
put into effect.
THE MAYOR: Right, buildable.
MR. STAHL: We are never going to
deny --
MR. RANDOLPH: And now you are
putting in specific restrictions on
those lots so that a person won't have
to come in and get a variance, and you
won't be massaging the lot --
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
31
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
102
THE MAYOR: You are still going
to have variances. All right.
Now, do we have any other things
we have to clean up in ordinances? I
know what you are talking about trees.
Is there anything else?
MR. RANDOLPH: I think one thing
that I would recommend while you are
doing this, and that relates to the
time on which a person has to act on a
variance is currently six months in
the zoning code.
Some municipalities have changed
that. They feel six months isn't a
long enough period of time and want to
change it to twelve months.
The way it is right now the
Commission can grant a longer time
than that if it wishes or if it
doesn't the person has to act on a
variance within six months.
We have had a problem which Rita
has come across, whereby we haven't
really been advising people by letter
when their six months is up on a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
103
variance, and quite frankly in the
past I don't think the Building
Department has been necessarily
keeping track and enforcing it.
As long as the person is going
through the process, and this sort of
thing, they haven't penalized anybody
by saying, hey, it's seven months past
the date that you got your variance so
we are going to change that.
I think you need to give me some
direction to change the ordinance, to
address that situation, plus we need
to decide how to handle those that are
in the mill right now.
For instance, I think there is
one or two variances that have either
lapsed or are close to lapsing, but
the people didn't have any idea that
they were lapsing and they got their
site plan reviews maybe three or four
months after they got their variance
and they were in the works, doing all
the work and now they are being told,
hey, your six months is up, your
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
104
variance is up and you might have to
come back before the council to get
that.
I think that's really only
applicable to one or two right now. I
need two directions from you.
Number one, do you want me to
look at that portion of the ordinance
to see whether or not we should extend
the six months or whether we should
redefine when the six months begins or
when the six months ends. And if you
would like me to, I'll just come back
with a suggestion as to how to handle
that. It might not be tied
building permit. You might
say -- you might tie in the
review with something else.
THE MAYOR: Six months
months after the final site
into the
just
site plan
or eight
plan
review?
MR. STAHL: He is talking about
from the time the variance is granted
until something happens; is that not
right?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
105
MR. RANDOLPH: Yes, right now
that's something that happens, it's
tied into the building permit, so you
either need to extend that time or if
you don't think six months is long
enough, or you don't tie it into the
building permit, you tie the beginning
of the work as having occurred when
you come in for site plan review or
something like that.
What I would like to do is just
come in with a suggestion on how to
handle it. I'll either tell you to
make the time longer or tie it into
something other than a building
permit. But in regard to those that
do exist Rita needs some direction as
to these, for instance, who have their
site plan review approved and may have
six months remaining from that time to
come in and get their building permit.
But because the way the ordinance is
drawn, the six months from the date
the variance was granted has lapsed
and that only affects a couple of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
105
people. Right, Rita?
MS. PAYLOR: Yes.
MR. RANDOLPH: We need some
direction. You can't vote on it
today, but we would like the direction
to be able to say to these people,
look, if your site plan review was
approved within the last six months
then you can come in and get your
building permit within six months of
getting the granting of the site plan
review, but otherwise it's going to
die.
MR. STAHL: Do we have in this
category, do we have any instances
where we have granted variances and no
action has been taken by the owner of
the property to build?
MS. PAYLOR: No.
MR. STAHL: No plans filed?
MR. BRANDT:
filed.
MR. STAHL
We have plans
We do have plans
filed in every case where a variance
has been granted?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
FiffeiN
MR. BRANDT: In the most time
when variances are granted there has
been a site plan.
MR. STAHL: I understand that,
but we had at least one instance in
the last year where we had nothing and
we did a variance.
MS. PAYLOR: Those plans are in
now. There are three that have had
their variances, and the site plan
review held that the variance will
not expire until April, so we have
time to notify them, you know, that
they have to comply. So we only have
one where the variance has expired,
but a site plan review was granted
three months after the variance was
granted, so therefore the plans are in
but they have not been approved nor
construction started. But that would
be -- if you are carrying it from the
date the variance was granted, rather
than the date the site plan review was
had.
MR. STAHL: I think we still want
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
it
12
13
14
i
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
108
some control there.
MR. RANDOLPH: I understand and
we are indeed -- Rita is sending out
letters to people now that have been
granted variances and indicating to
them when their variance is going to
lapse so that they will be put on
notice.
She just needs direction
particularly in regard to the cases
that are pending, that she can go
ahead and allow six months to lapse
from the time the site plan review was
granted.
MR. STAHL: Well, under the
existing ordinance, should that not a
simple matter of coming to us at a
council meeting and saying, we have
this problem and can we --
MR. RANDOLPH: I think that's
what we would do, since you can't take
action today, we could do that at the
next council meeting.
THE MAYOR: Anything else?
AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: You
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
109
know what would be nice, if from now
on when we have something to discuss,
to save time and also for a better
discussion, if we had what the
particular area of discussion is going
to be and then the present ordinance
next to it, and then why we are going
to change that, what the improvement
is going to be because a lot of times
this gentleman is taking time looking
things up --
THE MAYOR: Well, he gets paid
for it.
AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It will
save a lot of time.
MR. FLANERY: We can do that.
THE MAYOR: Your Planning Board
when you have your things, you should
have all that too, but that's right.
THE MAYOR: Well we have the
landmark -- excuse me, the landmark
ordinance -- you forgot about the
historical landmark.
The landmark ordinance that was
presented, did the Planning Board go
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
110
through that?
MR. STAHL: They didn't have
anything in their notes for us.
THE MAYOR: They didn't even
bring it up.
MR. STAHL: I think the Planning
Board ought to take a look at it.
THE MAYOR: All right, that isn't
ready to act on, so you make your
recommendation.
MR. STAHL: Can I make a
comment?
How many houses are on the
Florida State list, how many
structures in the town?
AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: None
that I know of. I don't think
anything has been listed with the
State of Florida.
We have 16 properties that have
been surveyed so far, and we have
probably about ten more in the town
that needs surveys.
MR. STAHL: I'm specifically
asking about a list that exists in
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
111
Tallahassee, and I think it was six or
eight. It was mentioned in the gross
management plan. I would hope as the
Planning Board takes a look at this
for us, if they would realize that we
are a small community. We don't have
a lot of people here year- round.
To implement something like Palm
Beach we need another group of people
who are here year -round and are
willing to serve.
I don't think our problem is
anywhere near the problem of Palm
Beach in terms of historic
preservation. I don't think we need a
15 page ordinance to put something in
place to protect historic structures.
And having said that, I look
forward to your recommendations.
THE MAYOR: If we are going to do
that we have to have an ordinance in
order to cover everything.
MS. WALLACE: Can you address
that, do you think this is something
that we can do with fewer pages?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
112
MR. RANDOLPH: Well, I guess
there are other ways of approaching
it. I think the one thing that is
probably being pointed out, this
requires the appointment of a seven
member board, which I guess the point
is raised: Are you going to have
enough people to appoint to a board to
start legislating.
MRS. ORTHWEIN: Qualified
people.
MR. STAHL: Qualified people.
MR. RANDOLPH: Yes, and they
ought to be people -- you should have
people that know about landmarks, or
at least if you don't you should have
a consultant who can advise you.
I suppose the Commission itself
could act. I don't think that's
necessarily the best idea.
THE MAYOR: I don't either.
There is no review then.
MR. RANDOLPH: You would have the
same type of standards to review and
you would be acting as the landmark
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
113
commission.
THE MAYOR: And also then the
ultimate review --
MR. RANDOLPH: Well, you are
right, you would skip the one step.
You wouldn't have a board that is
recommending to you, whereby you
ratify as in this ordinance, you would
be the ultimate authority.
You would have a consultant who
advises you and then you would make
the determination as to whether or not
it should or should not be --
THE MAYOR: And then the only
appeal would be to the courts.
MS. WALLACE: Could you do it
with a smaller board, three, four,
five member board?
MR. RANDOLPH: Sure, you could.
MR. MAYER: On these landmarks,
these certain landmarks, does that in
any way entail the fact that they
can't sell the property?
MR. RANDOLPH: No.
MR. MAYER: Or they can't knock
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
114
it down?
MR. RANDOLPH: It says they can't
knock it down without getting a
demolition permit, they would have to
show that there is good cause for it
to be knocked down.
MR. MAYER: What I'm getting at
is something might decide to tear it
down.
MR. RANDOLPH: What happens, once
it's designated as a landmark, that's
recorded in public records and when
anybody goes to purchase it they see
that it's a landmark and it's subject
to the jurisdiction and control of the
landmark commission, which means
whenever they want to do any work on
the house it requires a permit, and
they're going to have to come before
the Commission to get a certificate of
appropriateness to determine whether
it's in the keeping with the
architectural significance of the
house.
That's one thing and that's not
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
115
an ominous thing. In most instances
it's in keeping with the house, and a
certificate of appropriateness is
granted. I think where people object
is where they have a house where the
lot might be worth more than the house
and it's landmarked, and because it's
landmarked they're not able to tear it
down and they have a problem with
that.
MR. MAYER: That's what I'm
getting at.
THE MAYOR: Are there any seats
getting damaged, condemnation without
compensation -- some of the cases, are
there some cases on some of these
landmarks?
MR. RANDOLPH: Not that I'm
aware. Mostly this type of ordinance
that you have before you has been
sustained on many occasions, but there
have been a lot of seats.
For instance, that the
certificate of appropriateness states
where a certificate of appropriateness
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
it
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
is not granted and somebody has sued
because you are being too arbitrary of
capricious and that sort of thing.
THE MAYOR: And those are the
things that we've got to worry about
or any community has to worry about
when you take on an ordinance.
MS. WALLACE: Not every house is
going to be subject to landmark.
THE MAYOR: You have to be very
choosey what you put in.
MS. WALLACE: That's right, they
are not going to just take any
house --
MRS. ORTHWEIN: The owners have
to agree to it.
MR. RANDOLPH: Not under this
ordinance.
THE MAYOR: That's the same.
MR. RANDOLPH: You can landmark
property under this ordinance without
any agreement by the property owner.
THE MAYOR: The owner at that
point can fight in the courts too,
right?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
117
MR. RANDOLPH: Yes.
THE MAYOR: To keep it from being
landmarked.
MR. RANDOLPH: Yes.
THE MAYOR: Of course there are
two sides paying the bill when you go
to court, the town as well as the
owner.
AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I've
talked to some of the people that live
in these older home, Mr. Spears, the
Larsons, they love their houses, and
one of the results of the ordinance,
when they sell the house, they sell
the house not the lot. They sell the
house and they sell it to someone who
wants that house.
And I think the people who own
these houses feel a certain way about
them and that's probably who they
would like to sell it to.
AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: But the
problem there is, they are going to
end up in the estate and you're going
to have an estate settlement problem
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
118
and that's the famous lawsuit up in
Palm Beach, that famous old house --
MR. RANDOLPH: That's didn't turn
into a lawsuit. In that particular
case the house was allowed to be
demolished. But had that not
happened, we were told that it might
end up in litigation.
AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: And the
other thing I want to point out, this
historical preservation ordinance
is being adopted in town after town in
Florida, and I think from the research
that I have done --
one?
MR. STAHL: Does Delray have
AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes.
MR. STAHL: Can you get a copy of
Delray Is?
AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes,
it's much more extensive than Palm
Beach. I did so a comparison that I
would be happy to present to you.
MR. STAHL: How about Boca, does
Boca have one?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
119
AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I'm
sure they do.
MR. RANDOLPH: They have a
landmark commission in Boca.
THE MAYOR: I know in the bank,
in the trust department, we have some
lawsuits that are threatening the
trustees for the estate on some houses
In Miami that the heirs don't want
to --
AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: There
is probably on residences.
THE MAYOR: No, but they are
problems. The problem is for the
community to enforce it.
I'm in favor of having the
ordinance, but I'm just saying you
don't go into anything like this
without knowing you can end up with
some problems.
MRS. ORTHWEIN: Can you have the
ordinance with owner's consent?
MR. RANDOLPH: Yes.
MRS. ORTHWEIN: Wouldn't that be
more appropriate to have the owner's
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
120
consent to landmark historical
houses?
THE MAYOR: You people are going
to study and come back with it, with
your recommendations, but we should
have one.
Anything else?
Have we forgotten anything else?
MS. WALLACE: At our next meeting
is Jim going to present us with an
ordinance that we can read or are we
going to discuss it?
MR. RANDOLPH: Well, I'll try.
When is the next meeting?
THE MAYOR: Next Friday.
MS. WALLACE: Next Friday.
THE MAYOR: No, we're not going
to have it. The Planning Board has to
go through it first.
MR. RANDOLPH: I'll attempt to
come back with something.
MS. WALLACE: So that if we
approve it we can have a first
meeting, or do we have to advertise it
first?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
121
MR. RANDOLPH: You can have a
first meeting, then you have to have a
quarter page ad in the newspaper and
then afterwards you have a public
hearing.
I'll see what I can do. I'll see
if I can get most of these
incorporated.
THE MAYOR: All right. Meeting
is adjourned.
(Thereupon, the meeting was
adjourned at 10:50.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
122
CERTIFICATE
State of Florida )
County of Palm Beach )
I, JUDIE SEECH, do hereby certify that
the foregoing, is a true and correct
transcription of my stenographic notes of
proceedings had on February 2, 1990.
I further certify that the said meeti
was taken at the time and place specified
hereinabove.
WITNESS my hand and official seal in
the City of West Palm Beach, County of Palm
Beach, State of Florida, this day of
February, 1990.
JUDIE SEECH
My Commission Expires:
M