The Town of Highland Beach Planning Board on July 10, 2025 continued its public hearing on proposed updates to the town’s comprehensive plan and directed staff and the planning consultant to return at the board’s Aug. 14 meeting with proposed language changes that reflect the board’s concerns about build‑back/density, affordable housing requirements, references to assisted‑living or small markets and language encouraging transit on A1A.

The planning board took that step after a presentation by Town Planner Ingrid Allen and consultants from INSPIRE Placemaking Collective, who summarized a package of edits produced through the required evaluation and appraisal review (EAR). The board’s action pauses a formal recommendation to the Town Commission so staff can prepare specific revision language.

Ingrid Allen, Town Planner, told the board the amendments come from an EAR prepared with INSPIRE and that the changes include a new data-and-analysis section, an updated map series, revisions to goals, objectives and policies, and an extension of the planning horizon to 2045. Emily Agaravere of INSPIRE said, “The amendments presented today extend the plan to the 2045 planning horizon,” and outlined the three-part process of data and analysis, revised goals/objectives/policies, and required public hearings.

The presentation and packet say the EAR revisions reflect recent statutory changes and aim to bring the plan’s references and supporting information up to date. Consultants noted changes such as replacing obsolete references to the former Department of Community Affairs with the Florida Department of Commerce, updating references to Florida Administrative Code rules, incorporating the 10‑year water supply work plan and a climate vulnerability assessment, and adding a policy to allow floating solar on stormwater ponds within designated future land‑use categories.

Public comment included one speaker, Tim Rotolo, who raised safety and maintenance concerns about the town’s shared path and urged upgrades. The board’s discussion then focused on several substantive issues raised by members: whether specific parcels’ conservation designations appeared to change on the new map series (the consultant said changes to the future land‑use map would require a separate amendment and that wetlands layers and property appraisal codes informed the mapping), how the plan’s density assumptions could affect property owners’ ability to “build back” to existing unit counts after catastrophic loss, and how mandatory‑sounding language about affordable housing, state programs and local implementation should be worded given Highland Beach’s limited commercial and vacant land.

Consultant Chris Daugherty told the board that the town’s projected capacity is small and that it appears unlikely the town could meet certain higher growth projections; he and staff noted complex legal and permitting issues around rebuilding and density that would involve deeper review by the town attorney and later consideration by the commission. Staff also noted the town previously flagged zoning/density as a strategic priority (SP 19) and that that work will be relevant if the commission pursues changes to allow different build‑back outcomes.

Members pressed for clearer, more flexible language in several policy areas: (1) to address how “build back” or existing footprints/heights would be treated so property owners’ values are not unintentionally reduced; (2) to clarify that references to assisted‑living or small markets are not prescriptive where the town has no appropriate commercial zoning; (3) to avoid allowing the plan to be read as actively promoting A1A bus service through Highland Beach if the board does not want to endorse that; and (4) to add qualifiers to affordable‑housing policies that account for the town’s physical limits and the fact that some programs are administered by county or state agencies.

To allow staff and INSPIRE time to draft specific replacement wording, a board member moved to continue the public hearing and have staff review the board’s comments and return with proposed amendments. The motion to continue the hearing until Aug. 14 and to ask staff/consultant to prepare language addressing the board’s concerns carried unanimously on a roll call vote: Chairperson Mendelson — yes; Vice Chair Rosen — yes; Member Brown — yes; Member Bobby — yes; Member Powell — yes; Member David — yes; Member Axelrod — yes.

Next steps: if the planning board approves a recommendation after its August meeting, the Town Commission will consider transmittal to the Florida Department of Commerce for state coordinated review. Staff and the consultant told the board the state review produces an ORC (objections, recommendations and comments) report, typically within 60 days, and the commission would later schedule an adoption hearing after responses to any state comments.

The planning board’s public hearing on the EAR update remains open and was continued to the planning board’s Aug. 14, 2025 meeting; the commission transmittal date shown in the packet was identified as tentative by staff.