Minutes 05-24-22 MINUTES
� a
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
100 E. OCEAN AVENUE, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
TUESDAY, MAY 24, 2022, 6:30 P.M.
PRESENT: STAFF:
Trevor Rosecrans, Chair Mike Rumpf, Planning & Zoning Administrator
Butch Buoni, Vice Chair Amanda Radigan, Director
Chris Simon Luis Bencosme, Planner
Courtland McQuire Andrew Meyer, Senior Planner
Tom Ramiccio Rebecca Harvey, Sustainability Coordinator
Jay Sobel (Left at 7:49 p.m.) City Attorney Sean Swartz
Jennifer Oh, Recording Secretary, Prototype
ABSENT:
Tim Litsch
Lyman Phillips, Alternate
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m.
1. Pledge of Allegiance
A moment of silence was held in honor of the recent victims in the Texas shooting.
2. Roll Call
Roll was called and it was determined a quorum was present.
3. Agenda Approval
Motion made by Vice Chair Buoni, and seconded by Mr. Simon, to approve the agenda. In a voice vote,
the motion passed unanimously. (6-0)
4. Approval of Minutes
4.A. Approve board minutes from 04/26/22 Planning & Development Board meeting.
Page 1: Courtland has a T at the end, which should be removed.
Pages 6 and 7: Courtland McGuire should read as Courtland McQuire.
Motion made by Vice Chair Buoni, seconded by Mr. Simon, to approve the April 26, 2022 meeting
minutes as amended. In a voice vote,the minutes were unanimously approved as amended. (6-0).
Meeting Minutes
Planning and Development Board
Page 2 May 24, 2022
5. Communications and Announcements: Report from Staff
Amanda Radigan, Planning & Zoning Director, reported the Publix project that came before the Board
last month was approved at the May 17, 2022 City Commission meeting. They just submitted for
permitting and are moving forward.
Ms. Radigan advised that Kevin Fischer, Board member, submitted a Letter of Resignation effective
immediately.
6. Old Business -None.
7. New Business —None.
8. Other
8A. Presentation by staff on the City's requirements for preservation and natural areas.
Andrew Meyer, Senior Planner, provided a brief overview of conservation, regulations, and policies as
follows:
• Conservation is the protection of environmentally sensitive lands. Per the Code, conservation is
not landscape regulations, which are Land Development Regulations for new Site Plans and
mitigation of existing tree removal, nor is it conservation buffers or buffering, which is Land
Development Regulations focusing on buffering in incompatible zoning districts.
• Regulations are regulated in the Comprehensive Plan under the Conservation Element, both in
Goals, Objectives, and Policies, and in Environmentally Sensitive Lands. It is also regulated in the
Land Development Regulations through Environmental Protection Standards, and it includes other
related ordinances such as tree mitigation.
• The Comprehensive Plan includes the Conservation Element. The goal of the Conservation
Element is the development and maintenance of a high-quality natural environment based on the
preservation and improvement of local existing natural resources.
• The Conservation Element covers several topics, but one of the key topics is Eco Systems.
Included in the Element is an inventory of these environmentally sensitive lands, which are
expressed in a map form and table. These environmentally sensitive lands are identified through
a Countywide survey completed in 1989. There is a rating of A — C based on the quality of Eco
Systems, with A being the best. They regulate based on these ratings.
• The Conservation Element has an Objective 4.5, which states the City shall maintain at least 75%
of A rated Eco System Acreage through the long-term planning horizon and it also includes Policy
4.5.3, which requires a detailed Flora and Fauna Survey for A rated sites greater than ten acres
with the development proposal. Development applications are also required to preserve a minimum
of 25% of an A rated site. A location to preserve on site is determined by the results of the Flora
and Fauna Survey.
• Environmentally Sensitive Lands are regulated in the Land Development Regulations, specifically
Meeting Minutes
Planning and Development Board
Page 3 May 24, 2022
in Section 4.E.4 in the Environmental Protection Standards. That Section is to preserve
Environmentally Sensitive Lands from alterations that result in the loss or significant degradation
of those lands. A table was shown with the amounts required to be preserved and whether it needs
to be a unified preserve within a project or if it can be separated throughout the project. All of
them require 25% preservation on site. A rated sites require preservation area be unified on site
while B or C rated sites can be unified or preserved throughout the project.
• If a development proposed on an A rated Environmentally Sensitive Land is brought forth, that
development is required to ensure that no less than 75% of an A rated land is still protected
Citywide and that 25% of an A rated land must be set aside on site in the unified area.
• Other areas in the City, like Quantum, also have a Preserve requirement, which must be met in
addition to the City's requirements.
• Whenever vacant sites are developed, even if they are not rated as an Environmentally Sensitive
Land, staff may request a Flora and Fauna Survey of the site during the Site Plan Review process.
• While not specifically Conservation, Land Development Regulations also provide Regulations for
Environmental Protection Standards, which apply to these lands as well as to all vacant lots with
existing trees even if it is not in an Environmentally Sensitive Land.
• Section 4C requires all existing trees that are not Preserve, in place, or relocated on site shall be
mitigated in connection with the Land Development permit. That Code sections includes a table,
which gives references as to how trees being removed from the site must be replaced.
• Land Development Regulations also regulate landscaping, which applies to all new development,
even ones without existing trees. If it is a vacant lot beyond Conservation, they require standard
landscaping and buffering requirements.
• Section 4 touches on landscaping such as the minimum number of tree species, the number of
caliper inch at the time of planting, low to medium water use of vegetation and trees. Exotics are
not permitted as part of the landscape plan and signature trees are required to provide a way to
identify and access a site.
• Under Urban and Suburban Standards, buffering is required because there is a different urban
environment east of I-95 versus west, so there are different standards to account for that. In
addition, the amount of buffering is related to the degree of incompatibility between parcels and
districts.
Mr. Sobel mentioned tree replacement and questioned if this is a guideline of how many trees can be
replaced; he asked for the numbers.
Mr. Meyer explained existing trees are shown on site, so if a tree is being removed the applicant must
decide what to replace it with from the list.
Mr. Sobel stated when members go on the Board, they have to take an on-site certification, which could
have been read if it were presented via email instead of spending time during the meeting.
Chair Rosecrans indicated the Board meets to answer questions and to follow up, so this meeting could
not have been done through email; some members have follow-up questions.
Meeting Minutes
Planning and Development Board
Page 4 May 24, 2022
Mr. McQuire commented he was a little confused about the A rated parcels that were 75% and 25% and
asked if that could be broken down and discussed a little slower.
Mr. Meyer stated the slide is a hypothetical. A Development Application that comes to the City must meet
requirements of the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations. If a development is
proposed on an A rated Environmentally Sensitive Lands, first it must meet the Comprehensive Plan
requirement to ensure there is no less than 75% of A rated land that is still protected Citywide. Whenever
the inventory is completed as part of the Comprehensive Plan,the applicant must make sure whatever they
are proposing is not going to put the Citywide inventory of Environmentally Sensitive Lands less than
75% of what is on the map. There has been little development, but he was not aware of the number off
hand.
Ms. Radigan did not believe any of the Conservation and Preservation areas have been developed. They
are at 100%, but that is based on this map, which was updated in 2008. If they are using this inventory,
which is what is formally adopted, they are 100%.
Mr. McQuire commented there was a second part with 25%.
Mr. Meyer stated the 25% is covered in the Land Development Regulations that require 25% of the A
rated land that is part of a potential site or development; 25% of the land on that site must be maintained
in a unified manner.
Mr. McQuire asked if this presentation is available for members to review in the future.
Mr. Meyer indicated the presentation was included with the agenda and is available online.
Mr. Simon questioned why development is being allowed on those lands if they are preserving
Environmentally Sensitive Lands, which are already designated on the map with limited square footage
within the City boundaries. He questioned if the goal is to conserve land that is already designated and
why they would want development to occur on that land.
Ms. Radigan assumed a total taking of development rights from land that is not zoned Conservation would
be a problem if it is privately owned. These are the policies that have been in place and there is room for
development of some of the A rated sites, but not a lot.
Mr. McQuire asked if any of the sites are privately owned.
Ms. Radigan replied absolutely. She mentioned a 100%privately owned parcel that is A rated. There are
some instances where the City Eco Park is within this designation, so the City is allowing some
development for parking and access.
Mr. McQuire mentioned Quantum Park and stated there is already a designated percentage within that site
and there is some open space and preserve areas within the property. He commented that he was distracted
Meeting Minutes
Planning and Development Board
Page 5 May 24, 2022
during one of the questions and answers by a member of the audience who was showing complete
disrespect during the presentation, and he did not think that should be allowed.
Chair Rosecrans concurred. They are required to maintain decorum in these meetings and if someone
continues to be a distraction they can leave.
Mr. McQuire mentioned the parcel on the slide that showcases the deeper red and asked if the landowner
decides to sell the parcel if the foot path of the parcel would go to City Planning for approval. Assuming
the City denies, they can reissue to City Commission for approval and win land usage. He asked if that is
a fair assessment.
Mr. Meyer advised staff provides a recommendation with any Development Applications that come
through. If an application is presented and the Board makes a recommendation to deny, it still goes to the
City Commission for the ultimate decision, and they can make the determination whether to deny or
approve the project. Any project of that scale would be a major Site Plan Application, which goes through
this Board before going to the City Commission.
Mr. Litsch commented that South Florida Water Management has recently been allowing some preserve
land and Environmentally Sensitive Land along their canal system to be developed. He asked if any of
those are called preserve in this survey or if they are potential development sites that are preserved as
Environmentally Sensitive Land or Conservation Land.
Ms. Radigan was not aware of any along the canals. Some are within the Parks and Recreation Master
Plan, and some may be future developed parks, but not necessarily have a Conservation or Preservation
overlay. If it did, it would not prohibit it from being developed as a park, it would be sensitively done as
a small parking area and foot path.
Mr. Litsch was concerned more so in the County where they are starting to take areas that were originally
part of a development and they have preserved land along a canal bank that South Florida Water
Management wanted them to maintain or preserve and now, developers are proposing to develop those
preserved sites along the canal banks, and they are being approved. He questioned if that applies in any of
their Conservation or Preservation sites. He is also concerned about the percentages and asked if they
could be separated between public and private, so all public land for Conservation purposes would have
100% and there would be no chance of any development on the private land.
Ms. Radigan was not sure the type of language that assumes the public preserve space is not 100%. She
will review this Element to make sure it is not in there. With direction from the City Commission,policies
within the Comprehensive Plan can be amended. There is not a Conservation requirement per capita,there
is a level of service requirement for developed park per capita within the City, but not Conservation. The
idea is more about developed park space facilities for residents and not necessarily open space, which is
usually regulated through a Comprehensive Plan Citywide. There are policies that talk about acquisition
of property when appropriated and budgeted.
Meeting Minutes
Planning and Development Board
Page 6 May 24, 2022
Mr. Sobel commented that the chart says 394.15 acres and questioned if that is the total in the entire City.
If so, he asked what amount is private versus public.
Ms. Radigan clarified that is the total of A rated acreage in the whole City. She did not know offhand what
amount was private versus public, but she can easily calculate it.
Chair Rosecrans asked if Girl Scout Park is considered a Conservation Element for the City.
Ms. Radigan did not believe it was on the Conservation list. There are formal recommendations on what
constitutes an A, B, and C rated site, so it may be that the specific area does not meet the designation
requirements.
8B. Presentation by staff on the City's requirements for sustainability.
Luis Bencosme, Planner, provided a brief overview of the City's Sustainability Regulations as follows:
• The City has a series of documents that recommend implementation of Green or Sustainable
Regulations, which include the Comprehensive Plan, the Climate Action Plan, which was updated
in 2010, as well as the CRA Redevelopment Plan adopted in 2016. Staff saw a need to work and
draft the requirements, which were presented to the Planning and Development Board in 2019 and
adopted by City Commission. The purpose of the Code requirement is to promote Sustainable
Development practices as a means of addressing Global Climate Change, Protecting Natural
Resources, and ensuring Quality of Life of Existing and Future Residents. It is intended for projects
to utilize building design options that ultimately conserve energy, promote a healthy sustainable
landscape, and support public health and safety.
• The Code applies to all Site Plan Applications that were sold with an increase or replacement of
building square footage by 5,000 square feet or more. Some buildings or structures are exempt
from the requirements, which include interior renovations that would not cause an increase in
square footage and construction of single-family and duplex residential buildings. Some projects
are exempt from Building Code requirements of submitted Building permits or the Land
Development Regulations in Governmental Review, such as public schools and Federal buildings.
• The Code is two-fold, the requirements have two sections. There are required components and
every project required to meet the Sustainable Development Regulations is required to provide
these components. This includes painting the roof white to reflect sunlight and reduce temperature,
installing warm white LED lighting to reduce light pollution, and preserve the quality of life, and
installing butterfly attracting landscaping material to protect biodiversity. The other requirement
is provision of electric charging stations. This is based on the type of project; if it is Residential, it
is one charging station every 51 units and non-Residential, which includes Commercial Industrial
projects, is one charging station every 50,000 square feet of building area.
• This is a relatively new Code and staff is looking for a way to improve it. Other Cities have
implemented EV readiness,which is something they might consider. It ensures the projects provide
electric panels and antique conduits needed to install future Level 2 chargers in addition to the
required charging stations. Another method would be increasing the number of required EV
chargers.
Meeting Minutes
Planning and Development Board
Page 7 May 24, 2022
• When it comes to calculating points, an applicant is required to accumulate points based on the
type of project. When it comes to Multi-Family Residential and Mixed-Use, Planning
Development is based on the number of dwelling units proposed. The more dwelling units, the
more points must be accumulated. Non-Residential, Commercial, or Industrial developments, are
based on the size of the property.
The following categories were highlighted:
• Energy cargo, which includes options and opportunities to reduce energy consumption.
• Recycling and waste reduction. Options include utilizing recyclable materials and recycling
stations at dumpster enclosures.
• Water conservation and management options. These methods are to ensure utilization of permeable
parking and sidewalk surfaces in combination with a stone water bowl system to capture rainwater
to use for irrigation purposes. Applicants and developers are encouraged to group these options to
reap the benefits.
• Urban nature, which includes green and sustainable landscape options that are intended to
encourage biodiversity, protect the habitat, and reduce the heated island affect.
• Transportation, which has several options and opportunities that include reduction in surface
parking by proposing a parking garage as well as encouraging the use of electric vehicles and other
modes of transportation such as biking.
• Flexibility, which allows an applicant to somewhat propose their creative green or sustainable
methods they have been utilizing. This method must be approved by the Planning and
Development Director.
Mr. Sobel asked how many points are available on all the charts and noted the threshold is set so low
developers do not have to do much to comply.
Mr. Bencosme replied there are about 127 points.
Ms. Radigan indicated this was the first introduction of Sustainable Development to the City. The idea is
to bring a flexible option that is easy to build on in the future. This can easily be changed to require more
points, require points in specific categories, move some things to require flat out instead of optional in the
flexible category section. The method is incremental steps to move in a more sustainable direction. There
are a lot of ways to move this forward and adopt it as the City becomes more sustainable.
Mr. McQuire questioned when this presentation was worked up and he asked if it was based off LEED
certification.
Mr. Bencosme replied this was a collaboration between the Planning and Development staff and Rebecca
Harvey, Sustainability Coordinator; it was adopted in 2019.
Ms. Radigan advised LEED certification is specific for the building and it allows for a lot of site
regulations.
Meeting Minutes
Planning and Development Board
Page 8 May 24, 2022
Mr. McQuire mentioned the slide that says greater and less than.
Chair Rosecrans suggested Mr. McQuire read it backwards.
Mr. McQuire noticed there were no requirements for solar and it seems like that is an obvious necessity
with energy demands of growing urban sprawl. In concert with that, he mentioned the net metering
legislation that has been placed in favor of allowing Cities and individuals to harness their own solar
without being governed or regulated by power companies,which is being taxed by kilowatt hour. He asked
if solar mandates were put on Commercial or Industrial buildings greater than 200,000 square feet would
circumvent future Legislation, allowing this development to be grandfathered in, or if such a policy was
passed with the City allowing all residents to benefit from harnessing their own solar and not being
governed by companies.
Ms. Radigan stated it would depend on the details of the future Statutes as to whether it is preemptive.
Most of the time, when preempted by any State or Federal Law, they usually are not grandfathered in;
regulations must be revised to be consistent with the laws.
City Attorney Swartz commented it depends on the Legislation. If the Legislation is retroactive, it would
not matter what the City did.
Mr. Simon commented that the City is striving to fix and modify a base model while moving forward and
some things could become requirements. He asked if a transition to a requirement is something that needs
to be voted on by the Commission of if staff makes the decision.
Ms. Radigan indicated regulations can happen either way. The Commission can request to change the
policy and bring amendments forward. Staff can also recommend revisions to the Land Development
Regulations and present to the Commission for consideration. Any amendments to the Land Development
Regulations require the Planning and Development Board recommendation and City Commission
approval and it is also adopted via Ordinance, so it is a Public Hearing and a Second Reading.
Mr. Sobel did not see landscape open space on any of the lists. To him, that is something that should be
reviewed and implemented because a lot of projects are coming into the City, mostly in the higher density
areas, and there is a minimal to zero requirement for landscape open space; it has to do more with water
retention. He thinks the lack of landscape open space contributes to temperature increase within an area
as well as weather patterns. The list of sustainable items is small, and he thinks the list should be updated
before adding construction credits. He mentioned charging stations at Commercial locations and noted
one charging station per every 50,000 square feet equals zero; the calculation does not add up. He
commented a lot of the green energy is controversial and there is a lot of debate as to how much benefit
there is. As a City, he thinks they should be aware of what potential harms there are within the types of
green energy before recommending it be required. He asked if a developer must get the points or if they
are forced to have limited numbers.
Meeting Minutes
Planning and Development Board
Page 9 May 24, 2022
Ms. Radigan stated every developer that meets the applicability must participate in this program; it is not
voluntary. They would have to do the four items required for every development and then each
development, depending on what is being constructed, is required to do a certain number of points.
Mr. Sobel asked how many required points there are and if they are looking for 15 points beyond as a
minimum on some projects.
Ms. Radigan advised it could be anywhere within the six categories; there is no regulation that says three
points are needed from energy or three from transportation.
Mr. Sobel commented that his point is everyone will look for the easiest way out. There are cheap ways
to meet the minimum requirements and there are ways that need consideration in constructing the project.
He thinks big steps are needed to make changes; bigger increments are needed to accomplish something.
Mr. McQuire thinks the easiest possibilities to improve the scorecard should be done. He agreed that
50,000 square feet for one charging station is way too low; a larger number must be mandated, which
should be easy. He also thinks Residential units should be raised, which could make a significant
difference, and solar should be included on large Industrial and Mixed-Use projects to offset energy usage.
Mr. Litsch mentioned LEED certification and noted the scorecard has nothing to do with scoring that is
used for LEED certification. He asked if points would be used if a developer received or achieved a certain
number of points to get more density or height, or if they would receive any type of incentive.
Ms. Radigan stated if a LEED certification building were being built, they would get a lot more points.
The system in how this program was modeled is like LEED, but the components are not. She indicated
there are no incentives,just requirements.
Vice Chair Buoni agreed with everything said. If anyone has been following the Bill about net metering,
it sounds like a good Bill, but it is not; they need to be cautious. What is good about this presentation is
that staff is listening to the input of the Board, and he thinks most of them encourage a standard to raise.
Ms. Radigan advised these conversations are happening at staff level; they are meeting with Rebecca
Harvey, Sustainability Coordinator, on these things and they are keeping up to date;within ten years 30%
of the cars on the road will be EV, and that is a good basis to start upping some of the regulatory
requirements and at a minimum for new construction as it coincides with the ability for growth of EV.
Vice Chair Buoni commented that his Village has been having discussions regarding EV charging stations
for years. Originally, they were going to put them inside the Village, but there is a section of road, and
they have parking places outside their fence where he would personally like to install EV charging stations,
so it is multi-use; it would be for residents or whoever drives along 2nd Avenue. They could not give it
away for free, so they there would have to be a charge, but to charge, they need a business license, and
they are a non-profit, so it gets complicated because of the overlap. There has to be some carveouts to
allow that because they would be glad to supply.
Meeting Minutes
Planning and Development Board
Page 10 May 24, 2022
Ms. Radigan agreed and noted she would be happy to discuss that in further detail.
Mr. Sobel commented that everyone he knows who has an electrical vehicle has a charging station at their
home. He thinks vehicles are the way to the future, but everyone is going to charge at home unless they
are going a long distance.
Vice Chair Buoni mentioned condominiums and stated no matter what the documents say, the Legislature
has said they must allow residents to have a charging station. They must also assume the financial liability
and at the present time, charging stations must be removed when someone leaves or sells their residence.
They have already started carving out places where charging stations must be allowed. As of today, Tesla
opened all their super chargers to any make of automobile.
Mr. McQuire has friends who have Homeowner's Associations that do not allow charging stations. It is
not out of the question to ask a new development to have four or five charging stations at the minimum.
Mr. Simon commented that projects coming in for review will be ready in three to five years, so why not
say 30% of their parking spaces must provide electric charging stations.
Ms. Radigan stated staff has been talking about that. Retrofitting existing townhomes and Condominium
Associations is difficult because although Homeowner's Associations cannot prohibit it, they still have to
meet Zoning and Building regulations. It is difficult if someone has a condominium on the third floor and
needs to meter a charging station separate from their unit and from what she has heard, it becomes cost
prohibitive. They are reviewing new research and reviewing new Legislation; they will be revising
appropriately.
Chair Rosecrans thinks the scoring is too low and asked if staff has considered giving a bonus for LEED
certified buildings. He asked if they were starting to get a handle on the low hanging fruit and if scoring
can be adjusted down at some point so those are worth less.
Ms. Radigan advised some language is already there. She noted they would not say LEED, she thinks it
is Green Building Accreditations, and the City is exempt from these regulations because they must follow
more strict rules. If they were to bring forward an amendment, she thinks the first approach would be to
remove things being used repeatedly. It is not that they will be changing points, the first thing would be
to remove it from optional to required.
Chair Rosecrans asked if a green wall could be Art in a Public Place.
Ms. Radigan replied yes, as long as it is approved by their Art Commission. It is budgeted and there has
been conversation about this on a few different projects because the Art in Public Places Program has a
dollar amount attached. The budget is quite hefty; the requirement is 1% of construction value and 75%
is the budget for art and 25% of the 1% is administrative costs. They have big numbers coming in that can
be used for some of these elements.
Meeting Minutes
Planning and Development Board
Page 11 May 24, 2022
Chair Rosecrans mentioned the vault system for stormwater and asked how many points that is. He
questioned if developers would want to reduce the amount of permeable area and use the stormwater
vaults as a way to get out of open space.
Mr. Bencosme replied vault systems are four points.
Ms. Radigan stated they have not found that yet. She thinks they have had a couple vault systems and the
project on Woolbright had to switch to some sort of vault system, but she did not think it was associated
with open space. There are open space requirements; it is 1%to 2%of the overall site, depending on what
zoning district they are in. It was short sited not to include open space and give it a lot of merit in the point
system to encourage more green permeable space. There are some areas where permeable parking is
mentioned, but there is not additional open space. She thinks that can easily be inserted and those types
of incentives can be implemented by how many points are required.
Chair Rosecrans asked what their neighbors do and if they have looked at Delray requirements.
Ms. Radigan did not think they have sustainable development standards.
Mr. Simon commented this is a presentation and he asked where they go from here
Ms. Radigan advised this came before the Board twice. The first time was informational and joint with
the Sustainability Board, and it was to get feedback and comments. They took some of the comments and
brought the Board a final for a Recommendation to Commission. There is no action on this item, but they
are listening and taking notes. If the Board wants them to move forward with recommendations, they can
and they can bring them back for review and ultimately the City Commission will be the approving body.
Vice Chair Buoni thought a consensus instead of a motion would suffice.
Chair Rosecrans asked if staff could research and come back to the Board. He would like to see what other
Cities are doing with this.
Ms. Radigan stated they can do something similar to what they did when they initially brought this
forward. They can invite the Sustainability Board, staff will conduct research, get with Rebecca Harvey,
Sustainability Coordinator, and bring back a set of recommendations with changes. At that time,they will
gather feedback and from there they can do an amendment and bring it forward for a recommendation.
This would take about two months.
Mr. Simon commented there is 1% to 2% required for open space and he does not think any developer
would take additional open space for more credits. The only way to go is to require a greater percentage.
Ms. Radigan indicated that would become more a complex conversation about development, density, and
height, which they are currently having with the City Commission. They expect to have more direction
regarding that issue.
Meeting Minutes
Planning and Development Board
Page 12 May 24, 2022
Vice Chair Buoni thanked staff for the presentation and suggested more presentations during future
meetings if there is time.
Chair Rosecrans agreed and noted if there is not a lot on the agenda and staff wants to educate the Board,
it is welcome.
NOTE: Mr. Sobel left the meeting at 7:40 p.m.
9. Comments by Members
Chair Rosecrans mentioned meeting decorum and asked if it was handled correctly in the beginning of the
meeting. He asked if the City could do anything or if it is only taken care of by the Chair and Board.
City Attorney Swartz stated they could talk about getting a Security Guard. If someone is out of line, they
can be asked to leave.
Mr. Simon commented that most developments coming before the Board are proposing apartment
complexes, buildings, etc., they are not proposing condominiums that are owned. He asked where that
stems from and if the developers are saying they want to develop apartments because they can make more
money than with condominiums, or if it is a type of building required in the district, and if so, if there are
means to change it. They have discussed Workforce Housing, Affordable Housing, or Cost of Living
within the City. Apartments are coming in with average rents between $2,500 and $3,500 or higher, and
if someone purchases a home, a mortgage payment can be less than rent. If they are looking to consider
offering more Affordable Housing or Affordable Cost of Living for residents, perhaps that is something
to consider when changing zoning requirements.
Ms. Radigan explained the difference between apartments and condominiums are ownership or rental.
The zoning code does not dictate that product, it dictates use and density. There is nothing physical about
the difference between condominium and apartments, it is almost purely market driven. What has been
seen in Boynton Beach repeatedly is that apartments get transferred to condominiums and condominiums
get transferred to market, depending on the market at the time. Zoning does not distinguish between
ownership or rental.
Mr. Simon asked if anything could dictate it or require one over the other.
Ms. Radigan did not believe so. She is unaware of any City that has those types of factors because zoning
is about product, physical impacts, relationships, and compatibility; there is no difference in the product
that will be built; it is purely a financial scheme.
Mr. Simon stated the other piece is the overall view of the City moving forward. Apartments create or
relate to more of a transient lifestyle or transient residence. People who live in apartments are there
temporarily until they can afford something or move out of the area. Apartments do not create a local
environment of people who are here for a long time.
Meeting Minutes
Planning and Development Board
Page 13 May 24, 2022
Ms. Radigan read a document called "Higher Densities, Myth and Facts", which she shared. It talked
about some of the points made and she thinks a lot is subjective. Some people cannot buy a home; this is
private banking. As a Planner, they strive for housing options, so they do not lean towards ownership or
rentals, or condominium or townhomes; their goal is to make sure there are a variety of options to sustain
the City, so they have all kinds of demographics. A lot of that is largely dictated by the market and market
cycles and switching from condominiums to apartments does happen.
Vice Chair Buoni mentioned demographics and noted someone can own a home if they can qualify.
Mr. McQuire stated when he was running for District 3, a big concern with many residents was high
density, Multi-Family Residential, and rentals. Lenders or lending institutions like to lend money to high
density apartment buildings because they deliver dividends in perpetuity. He questioned the balance and
how to stave off overflow. He agreed, they need to somehow encourage developers to have home
ownership.
10. Adjournment
Upon Motion duly made and seconded, the meeting at was adjourned at 8:03 p.m.
[Minutes prepared by C. Guifarro,Prototype,Inc.]