Minutes 01-18-05MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING HELD IN
COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, ON
TUESDAY, JANUARY 18, 2005 AT 6:30 P.M
Present
Jerry Taylor, Mayor
Mack McCray, Vice Mayor
Bob Ensler, Commissioner
Mike Ferguson, Commissioner
Carl McKoy, Commissioner
Kurt Bressner, City Manager
Jim Cherof, City Attorney
Janet Prainito, City Clerk
I. OPENINGS:
Call to Order - Mayor Jerry Taylor
Invocation - Reverend Rick Riccardi- Police Chaplain
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag led by Commissioner Mike Ferguson
Mayor Taylor called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m. Due to a death in his family,
Reverend Riccardi was not present to offer the invocation. Mayor Taylor offered the
invocation in his absence, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag led by
Commissioner Ferguson.
D. Agenda Approval:
1. Additions, Deletions, Corrections
Commissioner Ferguson recommended moving the Item XIII.A (Discuss the Community
Redevelopment Agency Board/Doug Hutchinson) up on the agenda to be heard before
the Consent Agenda.
Motion
Commissioner Ferguson moved to approve the agenda, as amended. Motion seconded
by Commissioner McKoy and unanimously carried.
II. OTHER:
A. Informational Items by Members of the City Commission
City Manager - Discussion by Vice Mayor Mack McCray
City Attorney - Discussion by Vice Mayor Mack McCray
Police Department - Discussion by Vice Mayor Mack McCray
Meeting Minutes
Regular City Commission Meeting
Boynton Beach, Florida
3anuary18, 2005
Vice Mayor McCray assumed the podium to address the Mayor, other elected officials,
all staff members and the citizens of Boynton Beach, Florida.
Vice Mayor McCray requested that Mr. Bressner remain at the dais while he spoke.
Vice Mayor McCray quoted "he who plays the game, but writes the rules for the game
as he plays, loses in the end." He has served on the City Commission for a long time
and is aware when games are being played. He pointed out that in order for Mr.
Bressner to be removed from his position as City Manager, it would require a 4-1 vote
by the City Commission or it could be changed by vote.
Vice Mayor McCray wanted to address some issues that are important to the citizens of
District 2, which is diversity within the City. He feels that the residents in District 2 are
not allowed to play on the same field as the residents in the other three City Districts
equally. He did not feel that all people in the City were treated equally and he wiU not
stand for developers and Mr. Bressner pushing them back.
Vice Mayor McCray is sorry that the trailers in his District are substandard living
conditions and most of District 2 contains substandard living conditions. However, the
residents in District 2 overcome their substandard living conditions and have produced
educated and well-informed citizens. He also commended the City workers that live in
his District that pick up the garbage for all the residents in the City.
The Vice Mayor said the citizens of District 2 want to be treated the same way that
other citizens in the City are treated. The young ministers in his area are ready to take
a stand.
Vice Mayor McCray asserted that, in his opinion, employee morale is at an all-time Iow.
He pointed out that Mr. Bressner is a paid employee and they are not on the same
playing field.
Vice Mayor McCray took affront that Mr. Bressner hired a Utility Director that would
receive a six-figure paycheck, without coming before the Commission to afford the
Commissioners an opportunity to know what they would be getting. Mr. Bressner
informed the Commissioners that he would be presenting them a package, but Vice
Mayor McCray wanted to speak with the new Utility Director before he signed the
contract. Vice Mayor McCray intends to do what he was put in office to do, which is to
look out for the welfare of the citizens. Elected officials have the right to question the
hiring and spending of public dollars, as well as questioning the firing of employees.
He urged Mr. Bressner to ride through District 2 to see the trash along the roads. He,
along with other residents, have to make phone calls in order to get the trash removed.
He asserted that this does not happen in other Districts.
When citizens in his District call the Police Department to report drug dealings, he said
it takes hours for Police response, whereas other Districts receive immediate response.
He also asserted that the citizens of District 2 are treated worse than people who are
arrested when making a complaint at the Police Department. These residents feel like
2
Meeting Minutes
Regular City Commission Meeting
Boynton Beach~ Florida
3anuary 18~ 2005
second-class citizens. He requested that Police personnel who are not properly trained
to take complaints be replaced. He was offended that citizens have to call him in order
to make a complaint that should have been handled by the Police Department.
Vice Mayor McCray wants something done about the drug dealings going on in his
District, and contended that the Police turn their backs on them.
The citizens are tired of Police Officers harassing the teenage boys in the District.
Further, he asserted that the Police Officers are abusing the young ladies in the District,
as well.
Vice Mayor McCray requested that Mr. Bressner do what he was hired to do. Further,
he is disappointed and does not like what is taking place in his District. He felt that it
was necessary to state these things publicly because they are tired of being treated
disrespectfully.
Vice Mayor McCray was disappointed in Attorney Cherof's comment that the
appointment of Mr. Stormet Norem to the CRA was done appropriately. It was clear to
Vice Mayor McCray that ethics and moral values were missing at that particular
meeting.
Vice Mayor McCray noted that Attorney Cherof's main address is in Ft. Lauderdale,
Florida and he felt that Attorney Cherof's contract should be looked at by an outside firm
to ensure that the City was getting what they were paying for.
Vice Mayor McCray was appalled that the City was down 25 Police Officers. Further, he
noted that Chief Gage prepared the Police Department's budget in accordance with the
City Manager's requests and did not take into consideration the needs and safety of the
citizens.
The City has three Assistant Police Chiefs receiving "fat" salaries and he felt that the
Police Department had too many "chiefs."
Vice Mayor McCray concluded by stating that District 2 is at the plate and will be
counted for and Mr. Bressner should take notice.
Mayor Taylor was surprised by Vice Mayor McCray's comments since only two or three
meetings ago Vice Mayor McCray voted to give Mr. Bressner a raise and praised Mr.
Bressner for what he had done in the past. Mayor Taylor was curious as to what could
have occurred since that time that resulted in Vice Mayor McCray's comments tonight
Mayor Taylor also commented about the CRA appointment and noted that Attorney
Cherof read the rules that governed this procedure. He also pointed out that Vice Mayor
McCray had the first appointment to that Board. Vice Mayor McCray stated that he only
had the first appointment in actuality because Commissioner Ensler walked off the dais.
Mayor Taylor stated that Commissioner Ensler did not walk off the dais, but was ill and
he so noted when the appointments were being made. Mayor Taylor informed the
3
Meeting Minutes
Regular City Commission Meeting
Boynton Beach, Florida
]anuary18, 2005
Commission that Commissioner Ensler had left the room and they would proceed with
the appointments. Commissioner Ensler would make his appointments when he
returned, to which Vice Mayor McCray did not object.
Mayor Taylor asserted that if Vice Mayor McCray felt that Mr. Tillman was the most
qualified, he should have reappointed him to the CRA Board. Vice Mayor McCray stated
that he would address this later.
Mayor Taylor acknowledged that the Police Department is down 21 Officers and they
have received 45 applications. Mayor Taylor felt that the reason the Police Department
was down resulted from the early retirement that Vice Mayor McCray voted for.
Vice Mayor McCray responded that he did praise the City Manager at that time and
when the City Manager's raise was approved, the morale in the City went down.
Mayor Taylor equated Vice Mayor McCray's remarks as an attack on the management
of the City. He pointed out that the City Manager, City Attorney, the Chief of Police, and
others are very educated and qualified people, and in his opinion, are doing a good job
for the City.
Mayor Taylor also felt that the City was working hard on behalf of the poorer residents in
the community and he took offense to Vice Mayor McCray's comments.
Commissioner Ferguson requested to be recognized and Mayor Taylor gave the floor to
Commissioner Ferguson.
Commissioner Ferguson was ashamed for himself and the City Commission on how the
CRA appointments were done. He noted that the CRA has a major project in the Heart
of Boynton area and the people in that community have no representation. To him, this
makes the CRA irrelevant and he will be making some motions to address this.
Mayor Taylor also pointed out that Commissioner Ferguson had an opportunity to
appoint Mr. Tillman, but chose to appoint someone else.
III. ANNOUNCEMENTS, COMMUNITY & SPECIAL EVENTS, &
PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Taylor made the following announcements:
A. Announcements:
City Commission Workshop Meeting - January 31, 2005 at 6:30 p.m.
in the Library for the purpose of the Town Square II Report and the
Recreation & Open Space Comprehensive Plan Presentation
Wayne Segal, Public Affairs Director, made the following announcements:
4
Meeting Minutes
Regular City Commission Meeting
Boynton Beach, Florida
3anuary 18, 2005
B. Community and Special Events:
Boynton Beach City Library - Brown Bag Series 2005 - January
24th and January 31st, 2005 from 12:00 Noon to 1:00 p.m. in the
Library Program Room - Sponsored by the Friends of the Library -
Free to the public
"The Friends of the Library" are hosting their 16th Annual Benefit
Luncheon on Monday, Feb 21, at Benvenuto Restaurant. The
author is James W Hall, whose newest released book is Forests
of the Night, will be available for sale and autographing at the
Luncheon. For tickets, call the Library.
Heritage Festival - Month-long celebration of Black History Month
that informs the public of the ties that bind the African-American
community together through the enjoyment of arts, education and
pride in African-American accomplishments and heritage -
Weekends in February.
Week 1:
Art in the Park
Spelling Bee
Essay/Oratory Contest
Art & Science Competition
City Library
City Library
City Library
Boynton Beach Mall
February 5
February 5
February 5
February 5
10:00 a.m.
11:00 a.m.
12:00 p.m.
1:00 p.m.
Week 2:
Basketball Tournament
Basketball Tournament
Movies on the Avenue
Basketball Tournament
Hester Center
Hester Center
Ocean Avenue
Hester Center
February 12 9:00 a.m.
February 11 6:00 p.m.
February 11 7:00 p.m.
February 13 TBD
Week 3:
Book Fair VIP Autograph Session
Book Fair General Public
Coronation
Youth Awards
Poinciana
Poinciana
Poinciana
Poinciana
February 19
February 19
February 19
February 19
5:00 p.m.
6:00 p.m.
7:30 p.m.
8:30 p.m.
Week 4:
Parade Seacrest
Concert -"An International Affair"
· R&B - Classique, Regina Bell & Howard Hewitt
· Reggae- Glen Washington
· Trinidad and Tobago- MLK
February 26 4:00 p.m.
February 26 6:00 p.m.
Meeting Minutes
Regular City Commission Meeting
Boynton Beach~ Florida
3anuaryl8, 2005
· Trinny
· Latin (TBD)
International Celebration
(Around the World in one day -
Elementary Schools adopt a country)
MLK Carnival
& 27
Wilson Park
February 24, 25, 26
C. Presentations:
1. Proclamations:
None
Presentation of Boynton Beach Faith Based Community
Development Corporation major accomplishments of 2004 and
primary objectives for 2005 by President Courtney Cain & other
Board members
Jerome Fowler, Assistant Executive DirectOr of the Boynton Beach Faith Based
CDC, explained that Mr. David Zimet could not be present tonight and requested to read
a letter that Mr. Zimet wrote into the record. A copy of the letter and the CDC Goals for
2005 are on file in the City Clerk's Office. The letter in summary stated that 2004 was a
successful year and the CDC looked forward to working with the CRA on the Heart of
Boynton Project. The Commissioners, Mayor and City Manager were provided with the
CDC's 2004 report, a copy of which is on file in the City Clerk's Office.
Mr. Fowler pointed out that the CDC was successful in securing a $700,000 line of
credit from LlSC that will allow them to improve three very important programs: their
homebuyer's program; their home construction program; and their rehabilitation
program. Mr. Fowler extended his deepest appreciation to LlSC for their support.
Mr. Fowler acknowledged Mr. Courtney Cain who founded the organization in 1999 and
is their current President. Mr. Fowler also reviewed the other programs that the CDC
offers and supports that include credit counseling, correcting code violations, and an
after-school program. Mr. Fowler acknowledged Mr. Steve Miller who was in charge of
the youth programs.
Some of their 2005 goals are to increase the number of homebuyers from 210 to 300;
increase the number of first time homebuyers from 18 to 25, and to continue to assess
the Peacemaker's Program. They also intend to apply for HUD Housing Counsel
Agency status, which would allow them to be eligible for certain grants and loans from
HUD.
Mr. Fowler concluded his report and Mayor Taylor thanked him for providing an update
and congratulated the CDC for the wonderful work they are doing in the community.
6
Meeting Minutes
Regular City Commission Meeting
Boynton Beach, Florida
.lanuary ~.8, 2005
Mayor Taylor also pointed out that the Federal government raised the cap on prices of
homes that Iow-income people could purchase. He will furnish a copy of this to Mr.
Bressner for distribution.
IV. PUBLIC AUDIENCE:
INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 3-MINUTE PRESENTATIONS
(at the discretion of the Chair, this 3-minute allowance may need to be
adjusted depending on the level of business coming before the City
Commission)
James Gostel, previously resided at 2240 N. Seacrest Boulevard. Mr. Gostel stated
that the City destroyed his home and moved him out and he has continued to be
displaced. He appeared before the Commission in October and requested arbitration
between the parties, but no one has contacted him. If the issue is not settled by the end
of 2005 in a peaceful manner, he is prepared to settle it himself. He intends to picket
outside City Hall next week.
Mayor Taylor felt that it was not the City's fault that Mr. Gostel was continually being
displaced and he took exception to Mr. Gostel threatening the City.
Peter Ryland, 1311 SW 25th Avenue, has been a Boynton Beach resident for 23 years.
He has an issue involving the Lake Worth Drainage District, the Venetian Villas
development and the Lazy Lake Canal that runs between Congress Avenue and the
11th Street Bridge in GolfView Harbour. The canal has a 40' right-of-way that is owned
by the City of Boynton Beach. When Venetian Villas was developed, there was an
agreement that the developer would accompany the residents to the Lake Worth
Drainage District to request that the vegetation not be removed.
Mr. Ryland noted that there are 15 large Southern Pines on the property, 60' tall and 30'
wide. Now LWDD is requesting that the developer remove those trees in order to build
an embankment to dredge and widen the Canal. There was a hearing on January 12th
and the LWDD did not justify why they are requiring that the developer remove ali the
trees, which the developer is opposed to doing. Mr. Ryland would like the City to step in
so that the trees could be saved.
LWDD sent out letters to all property owners on the north side of the canal requiring that
they remove any improvements to the right-of-way so that LWDD could build their
embankment.
Mayor Taylor responded that he just learned of this situation yesterday and Mr.
Bressner is checking into it. Mayor Taylor asked Mr. Bressner for an update of the
situation. Mr. Ryland furnished the Recording Secretary with a Statement of Facts,
which is on file in the City Clerk's Office. Mr. Bressner reported that the City contacted
the LWDD to inquire why they are planning to build an embankment and the scope of
the work that they are proposing.
7
Meeting Minutes
Regular City Commission Meeting
Boynton Beach, Florida
3anuary18, 2005
Mr. Ryland noted that the developer is required to begin removing the trees on Monday,
but has agreed to hold off doing so for two weeks.
Warren Timm, 130 NE 26th Avenue, complimented staff for answering the questions
that he asked at the last Commission meeting so thoroughly, particularly, Mr. William
Mummed and Ms. Janet Prainito. Mr. Timm pointed out that there are 80 families that
reside in Village Royale on the Green that are homeless as a result of a tornado striking
their buildings during one of the hurricanes. The City informed these families that they
had three (3) days to vacate their homes. Demolition has been completed and the
homes are now being tested for air quality. They have been informed that they need a
separate blueprint for each of these apartments. Mr. Timm explained that the
apartments in VRG have four separate designs and he would like to be able to provide
one drawing for each of the four styles of apartments, instead of providing 80 individual
plans. He requested that the City expedite the permit process so people could move
back into their homes.
Mr. Bressner stated that Mr. Timm's request is acceptable to Mr. Quintus Greene, the
City's Development Director. The only thing the City would want to know is if any of
these apartments underwent interior modifications.
Jim Patterson, 620 Ridgewood Lane, Plantation Florida, the contractor for the
LWDD, was present on behalf of Venetian Villas. He supports salvaging the trees along
the LWDD right-of-way, but he has incurred costs of $9,500 to date. At the request of
the neighboring associations, he petitioned LWDD, but was denied the request to
salvage the trees and vegetation.
If the City is in favor of salvaging the trees and would obtain approval from LWDD, he
would be amenable to absorbing these costs and proceed with the right-of-way work. If
the City does not step in, work would begin on January 24th. LWDD wants to fill in the
canal from the property line 30' out to the existing embankment.
Mayor Taylor noted that he lives in GolfView Harbour and he was in favor of keeping the
trees. This particular canal has been in existence over 25 years and he did not
understand why the canal at this point needed to be changed. He assured Mr. Patterson
that the City would do everything possible to keep the trees.
Jeffrey Bruggerman resides at 1124 SW 24th Avenue, GolfView Harbour and has
lived at this address for one year. He pointed out that the homeowners have maintained
this property for many years and is one of the few areas in the City where LWDD right-
of-way abuts residential properties. The other side of the canal that is maintained by
LWDD and is adjacent to public utilities is not kept up. Mr. Bruggerman requested that
the City Commission intervene and help out the residents.
Mr. Bruggerman also inquired why homeowners receive Code citations for property
owned by LWDD, while LWDD is saying that the residents have to remove everything
on their right-of-way or they would be fined. He is aware that he would be receiving a
$500 fine for something that the previous homeowners installed on the property. Mr.
8
Meeting Minutes
Regular City Commission Meeting
Boynton Beach, Florida
3anuary 1.8, 2005
Bruggerman would like to know what would happen when LWDD prevents the residents
from maintaining the property.
Jim Wilson, 1224 Isle Court commended Mayor Taylor for responding to Vice Mayor
McCray's remarks. He felt it was wrong for Vice Mayor McCray to speak poorly of the
Police Department, since his grandfather was a policeman who was killed in the line of
duty. He was proud of Mr. Fowler's remarks when he addressed the Commission and
thought he would have been a better candidate for District 2.
Mr. Wilson noted that many times when an officer is called to respond, they are
harassed and charges of police brutality surface. If the officer does not respond, Vice
Mayor McCray's comments would be applicable. He took exception to the threats that
were made and was opposed to Black and White being turned against each other.
Herb Suss, a citizen of Boynton Beach, wished everyone a happy and healthy New
Year. Mr. Suss noted that there was a wonderful article in the Sun Sentinal regarding a
program for autistic children at the Golf Course. Mr. Suss gave kudos to the staff at the
Golf Course.
Mr. Suss would like the City to form a task force of citizens to address terrorism. He felt
that the COP personnel could be utilized for this purpose.
Mr. Suss supports all the development currently taking place in the City, but felt it was
time to declare a moratorium on building beginning April 1st. He felt that if the building
continued, it would result in water and traffic problems.
Terry Cash, 2332 SW 10th Street is one of the residents affected by the LWDD project.
The residents' backyards have been staked 32' in order to level them to place huge
mounds of dirt that would be seeded without any kind of sprinkler systems. There will be
access to the residents' backyards and as a result they are going to have to build
privacy fences. Ms. Cash felt it was ludicrous not to allow any kind of sprinkler system.
She has maintained her yard for over 12 years and has never seen any LWDD
personnel.
Ms. Cash noted that during the hurricanes some trees fell and she thinks that LWDD is
concerned about their liability for falling trees. She would be willing to waive her rights in
the event any trees fell onto her property. Ms. Cash did not think there was anything
wrong with the canal and questioned why LWDD wanted to bulldoze the land and
prevent the residents from caring for the property.
Jillian Smith, 1114 SW 24th Street, moved to the City in July and loves living here.
They recently built a seawall and dock and LWDD was aware of this since they came
out to their property after the hurricanes to remove a tree. Ms. Smith noted that LWDD
requested that all the land be cleared by next week and she did not think that they could
meet this deadline. Ms. Smith felt that the actions of LWDD would reduce the value of
her home.
9
Meeting Minutes
Regular City Commission Meeting
Boynton Beach, Florida
3anuary 18, 2005
Brother Victor Norfus, District Master for Palm Beach County, had concerns
regarding the development of Martin Luther King, ,Jr. Boulevard. Mr. Norfus stated that
he has a vested interest in MLK Boulevard, where he was born and where he owns
property. He presented an idea for MLK Boulevard that he called the "Oasis Project"
and he would like the Commission to reconsider his idea. He brought it to the
Commission in 2000 and it is a project that resulted from his research of the area. He
felt that his project would be good for MLK Boulevard.
Mr. Norfus would like a health care facility for this area, as well as a large meeting hall
for special events. He had presented ideas in the past to the City Commission that were
first ignored and then endorsed. Although he had nothing negative to say about the City
Commission, he felt that they have failed the citizens. He would like to work with the
CRA and the City to come up with some solutions.
Susan Ona, 1154 SW 24th Avenue, presented a drawing of her property and noted that
the span of green grass along the Canal is the LWDD right-of-way. She did not want to
see the Pine Trees cut down. She was aware that LWDD has a right-of-way and
questioned why the City does not communicate with LWDD.
Mr. Bressner responded that the dock permits are issued by the City of Boynton Beach,
which is coordinated with LWDD. Staff will determine if all the docks along the canal are
permitted. The property is a right-of-way that is under the control and jurisdiction of the
LWDD. The City is going to have to work with LWDD to improve their community
outreach, because they have let everyone down.
Mr. Bressner noted that the City just learned of this project last week. He spoke with
Mr. Winters today and requested that LWDD reconsider their schedule for the project
because there are many issues that need to be addressed. The LWDD Board of
Directors authorized moving the project forward, but Mr. Bressner felt that it would still
be worthwhile for the City to talk with them.
Ms. Ona inquired if the City owned the land and Mr. Bressner did not think that it did.
Staff will check the title and maps of the area. Ms. Ona felt that the 14 residents along
this canal should be kept informed of what is required of them since the letter stated that
they must be in compliance by February 4th. Mr. Bressner will be speaking with LWDD
to request an extension in order to determine if there is some kind of mediation process
available. This issue has been referred to Mr. Sugerman for further handling.
At Mr. Bressner's request, Mr. Sugerman, Assistant City Manager, contacted the LWDD
and spoke with Bill Winter, Manager of the LWDD. Mr. Winter informed him that the
Board extended the deadline to March 12th. Any property owner that has a dock,
seawall and/or fence in the LWDD owned right-of-way and has a building permit from
the City of Boynton and LWDD would not be asked to remove anything in the right-of-
way.
If a person does have one of these items, but it is not permitted, LWDD would be
accepting permit applications; however, there will be some restrictions. Dock extensions
10
Meeting Minutes
Regular City Commission Meeting
Boynton Beach, Florida
3anuary 18, 2005
up to 10' would be considered. Mr. Sugerman stressed that all permit applications were
due by March 12th. The address to obtain a permit is Lake Worth Drainage District;
13081 Military Trail, Delray Beach, Florida 33483 (Telephone No. 737-3835).
The removal of vegetation from the right-of-way resulted from one large tree falling
during one of the hurricanes. They had difficulty getting to the tree and it cost them
approximately $24,000 to remove it. LWDD does not want to go through another
hurricane and lose large trees in their rights-of-way that serve no purpose for canal
maintenance. Therefore, the LWDD Board is requiring that all vegetation be removed
from their right-of-way.
Mayor Taylor recommended that people contact the LWDD to express their opinions.
Barbara Callahan, 1134 SW 24th Avenue, presented photographs of her property. She
had a conversation with Mr. Winters who informed her that the LWDD had concerns
about being sued if her property flooded.
Robert Pollack, 210 NE 27th Avenue, resides in District 2 and pointed out that the
residents in this District need help from the City. He took offense that another citizen
spoke against his Commissioner, who was elected by the citizens of that District.
Maida Daughtrey, 843 NW 11th Street, Sky Lake, spoke about the increase in traffic
along Old Boynton Road. A serious accident took place at the intersection of Old
Boynton Road and Congress and another accident at the entrance to Sky Lake. She did
not think that the residents of the City wanted to see as much development on the
Winchester property that is being proposed. She would like to see the land used for
single-family homes and was concerned about the increased traffic and the City's water
shortage.
Mayor Taylor noted that it has been brought up that the City has a water shortage,
which is totally incorrect. There is no water shortage in the City and the City has taken
steps to make sure that a water shortage does not occur.
Tina Aaron, 1002 SW 24t' Avenue, GolfView Harbour, has owned her house and the
adjoining lot for 18 years. She has made a great deal of improvements to her property
and all the time that she has lived at her house, she has never seen LWDD come down
the canal system. Ms. Aaron would like to find out if the residents could purchase this
right-of-way since they have been maintaining and using it all these years
Reverend Lance Chaney, Pastor of St. John's Missionary Baptist Church, 238
Birch Street, Boynton Beach, pointed out that the residents of District 2 elected Vice
Mayor McCray, and Vice Mayor McCray has a responsibility to his constituents. The
residents in this District feel neglected year and after when it comes to public services
and responses.
Reverend Chaney is proud that they have a Commissioner who cares about his
citizens, Perhaps he says things that are not popular, but it shows how much he cares
11
Meeting Minutes
Regular City Commission Meeting
Boynton Beach, Florida
3anuary18, 2005
about the City. Reverend Chaney also spoke about the lack of diversity that currently
exists on the CRA Board and felt that every City Board should be reflective of the
citizenship of the City.
Alice Warren 1719 Wood Fern Drive, Boynton Beach, inquired if the City would
become a member of the Sheriff's Task Force on Juvenile Crime and Gangs. Mr.
Bressner responded that the City has been invited to join and will become a member of
the Task Force. This will provide the City with a new opportunity to work with the
Sheriff's Office.
Ms. Warren had spoken previously urging the City to become proactive on behalf of the
young citizens in the City. She had read in the newspaper that there were over 200
gangs in the County and asked if the City was keeping statistics regarding gangs in the
City. If not, she felt that the City should start monitoring gangs in the City. She felt that
the City needed to fully address the new movie theatre that would be built in the
Boynton Beach Mall in order to avoid what is happening in West Palm Beach. In
summary, Ms. Warren inquired about the status of the youth center.
Mayor Taylor was aware that Ms. Warren had tried to organize many community
organizations. Ms. Warren responded that this organization was called "CAB"
(Community Associations of Boynton Beach). Mayor Taylor had read the letter that Ms.
Warren distributed and he felt it contained a great deal of falsehoods. Disseminating this
type of false information was detrimental and only stirred up citizens. Before Ms. Warren
distributed information, she needed to insure its accuracy.
Betty Pierce, 637 Oak Street, Boynton Beach, noted that the citrus trees in her
backyard were tested six months ago and she has received a letter informing her that
there is canker on the leaves and that some trees in her backyard would be destroyed.
Ms. Pierce inquired if this was happening in other areas of the City and Mayor Taylor
responded that his fruit trees were also being cut down.
Attorney Cherof noted that there is a website maintained by the State that provides a
map of the State where canker has been detected.
Patty Schultz, 1073 NW 11th Street, asked when the public hearing for the Boynton
Town Center and the Boynton Village Project would be heard. Mayor Taylor stated that
some of these items were on the agenda. Attorney Cherof noted that there were four
items under Ordinances and public hearing. Ms. Schultz understood that there was an
announcement at the beginning of the meeting that the items would be tabled.
Mayor Taylor explained that the items would be heard with a new staff condition that the
applicant must obtain the required traffic concurrencies.
Bob Brown, 701 S. Seacrest Boulevard stated that when the City agreed to purchase
tasers there was very little public input. He noted that a great many people have died
as the result of being shocked by tasers nationwide. He was appalled that this type of
12
Meeting Minutes
Regular City Commission Meeting
Boynton Beach, Florida
lanuary 18, 2005
weapon was being used on children. Mr. Brown requested that the City ban the use of
tasers on anyone 18 years or under.
Since no one else wished to speak, the public audience was closed.
V. ADMINISTRATIVE:
A. Appointments to be made:
Appointment
To Be Made
Board
Length of Term
Expiration Date
IV McKoy
Mayor Taylor
Ensler
II McCray
Bldg. Bd of Adj & Appeals Alt
Bldg. Bd of Adj & Appeals Reg
Bldg. Bd of Adj & Appeals Alt
Bldg. Bd of Adj & Appeals Alt
3 yr term to 4/07
3 yr term to 4/07
1 yr term to 4/05
1 yr term to 4/05
III Ferguson Cemetery Board
Alt
1 yr term to 4/05
III Ferguson Code Compliance Board Alt
II McCray Code Compliance Board Alt
1 yr term to 4/05
1 yr term to 4/05Tabled (3)
Ensler
II McCray
Community Relations Board Alt
Community Relations Board Alt
1 yr term to 4/05Tabled (2)
1 yr term to 4/05
III Ferguson Education Advisory Board
Stu
1 yr term to 4/05 Tabled (2)
All appointments were tabled due to the lack of candidates.
VI. CONSENT AGENDA:
Matters in this section of the Agenda are proposed and recommended by the City
Manager for "Consent Agenda" approval of the action indicated in each item, with all of
the accompanying material to become a part of the Public Record and subject to staff
comments.
A. Minutes:
Agenda Preview Conference - December 30, 2004
Regular City Commission Meeting - January 3, 2005
Vice Mayor McCray removed Item VI .2 from the Consent Agenda for discussion.
E3,
Bids and Purchase Contracts - Recommend Approval - All expenditures
are approved in the 2003-2004 Adopted Budget
1. Award an additional portion of the bid for "ANNUAL CONTRACT
FOR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE", BID #079-2730-04/CJD to
13
Meeting Minutes
Regular City Commission Meeting
Boynton Beach, Florida
January18, 2005
Vila and Sons for the Cemetery location. The annual expenditure is
$31,720
C. Resolutions:
Proposed Resolution No. R05-012 Re: Approving
and adopting grant funding policies (TABLED TO FEBRUARY 1,
20O5)
Proposed Resolution No. R05-013 Re: Authorizing
the execution of a proposal from Settled Solids, Inc., in an amount
not to exceed $61,840 with a $6,184 project contingency, for the
removal of sand from a City canal which will be used to restore
adjacent property owners' backyards to pre-Hurricane Frances
condition
D. Ratification of Planning & Development Board Action:
St. Gregory. Armenian Church (SPTE 04-011) - West of
Southwest 8"' Street, South of Boynton Beach Boulevard - Request
for a one (1) year time extension of the site plan approval granted
on September 2, 2003, from September 2, 2004 to September 2,
2005 (POSTPONED TO JANUARY 18, 2005 AT APPLICANT'S
REQUEST)
Vice Mayor McCray removed Item VI.D.1. from the Consent Agenda for discussion.
Anderson PUD (MPMD 05-001) - West side of Lawrence Road,
approximately 2,000 feet south of Hypoluxo Road - Request for
master plan modification to allow a reduction in front setback from
25 feet to 22.5 feet
Serrano Beach (MPMD 05-002) - ~A mile west of Congress
Avenue, south of Golf Road - Request for master plan modification
to allow a reduction in front setback from 25 feet to 22.5 feet
Centre @ Woolbright (NWSP 05-002) - 2315 West Woolbright
Road - Request for new site plan approval for a 12,790 square foot
office building on a 1.12-acre site in a C-1 zoning district
Centre @ Woolbright (HTEX 05-002) - 2315 West Woolbright Road -
Request for height exception approval of two (2) feet to allow
decorative roof and screening of mechanical equipment at a height of
32 feet, a distance of bNO (2) feet above the 30 feet maximum height
allowed in the C-1 zoning district
E. Ratification of CRA Action:
14
Meeting Minutes
Regular City Commission Meeting
Boynton Beach, Florida
3anuary~8,2005
Arches (SPTE 05-001) - Southwest corner of Ocean Avenue and
Federal Highway - Request for a second time extension of the site
plan approval granted on June 3, 2003 for one (1) year from the
previously extended date of December 3, 2004 to December 3,
2005
Vice Mayor Ferguson removed Item VI.E.1 from the Consent Agenda for discussion.
Accept the written report to Commission of purchases over $10,000 for the
months of November and December 2004 for informational purposes
G. Authorize the use of $500 of Community Investment Funds from
Commissioner Mike Ferguson for Heritage Fest 2005
Ratify the City Manager's action to accept a proposal from Florida Electric
Contracting Service, Inc. for replacement of the lights at the Little League
Park in the amount of $73,575
Mr. Bressner requested that Item VI.H. be pulled and then tabled.
Motion
Commissioner Ensler moved to approve the Consent Agenda, as amended. Motion
seconded by Commissioner McKoy and unanimously carried.
VI.A. Minutes:
2. Regular City Commission Meeting - January 3, 2005
Vice Mayor McCray inquired why the minutes of January 4, 2005 on pages 8 and 9 did
not include the Mayor's statement that Commissioner Ensler was ill. The only indication
in the minutes that Commissioner Ensler was not at the dais was the statement that
read "Commissioner Ensler returned to the podium at 7:08 p.m." Mayor Taylor
requested that the minutes be amended to indicate that Commissioner Ensler had left
the room because he was feeling ill.
Vice Mayor McCray responded that the Commission had not been informed that
Commissioner Ensler had left the room because he was ill.
Xlll. Unfinished Business: (Discussed Out of Order)
Discuss the Community Redevelopment Agency Board/Mr. Doug
Hutchinson
Commissioner Ferguson would like to re-address the imbalance on the CRA Board and
would be making four motions.
15
Meeting Minutes
Regular City Commission Meeting
Boynton Beach, Florida
]anuary18, 2005
With regard to the terms of the CRA Boards, there were errors in the agenda regarding
the dates that the Board members would serve. Commissioner Ferguson inquired if this
was sufficient ground to reconsider the appointments.
Attorney Cherof responded that the error in the terms in the agenda had no bearing and
members were appointed to the terms established by ordinance and State Statute.
Commissioner Ferguson also opined that Robert's Rules prevented the Commission
from reconsidering the appointment if the applicant was present during the time of
appointment and did not decline. Attorney Cherof stated that this was correct.
Commissioner Ferguson inquired since he was on the prevailing side, was it possible
for him to bring up the $20 million bond issue for reconsideration.
Attorney Cherof responded that this would be permitted if Commissioner Ferguson were
on the prevailing side.
Motion
Commissioner Ferguson moved to reconsider the issuance of the $20 million bond
issue. Motion seconded by Vice Mayor McCray. Motion carried 4-1 (Mayor Taylor
dissenting).
Commissioner Ferguson felt that the CRA no longer represented the community, and as
a result, he was against the CRA spending the $20 million. Commissioner Ferguson
inquired how this could be accomplished.
Attorney Cherof did not think that this could be done since the bond issue was a bond
issue of the CRA Board and the City simply acted as guarantor in the event of a default.
Further, Mr. Bressner pointed out that the bonds were sold.
Commissioner Ferguson requested that an item be placed on the February 1, 2005
agenda to dissolve the CRA Board. Vice Mayor McCray was prepared to second any
motion.
With regard to Item VI.2 (Minutes of January 4, 2005 Meeting) Vice Mayor McCray
pointed out that this had been addressed. He did not think that it would be appropriate
to simply add the language "Commissioner Ensler left the meeting because he was
sick," unless it was actually stated and requested that the minutes not be changed to
reflect this.
Commissioner McKoy requested that staff review how the appointments had been at
the prior meeting in order to correct any misinformation. Mayor Taylor noted that
Attorney Cherof did review the appointments and determined that nothing inappropriate
occurred.
Attorney Cherof reported that he reviewed the recording of the meeting the next day
after the CRA appointments were made and determined that although it was listed that
16
Meeting Minutes
Regular City Commission Meeting
Boynton Beach, Florida
3anuary 18, 2005
Commissioner Ensler had the first appointment, he was absent from the dais. Mayor
Taylor pointed this out and he moved on to the next appointment. The next
Commissioner made an appointment by motion, and the appointment was approved by
a vote of 4-0. After that Mayor Taylor moved to the third appointment, and the same
process was followed and a second person was elected on a 4-0 vote.
At that point, Commissioner Ensler returned to the dais and was informed by the Mayor
of the appointments made in his absence. Mayor Taylor then asked Commissioner
Ensler to make his appointment, which he did and the motion carried 4-1. Robert's
Rules indicate that when an appointment or an election is made and that individual is
present or learned about the appointment and does not decline it, it is not reviewable by
a motion for reconsideration. Therefore, Attorney Cherof opined that it was not possible
for the Commission to return to this issue at its meeting.
RECESS WAS DECLARED AT 8:21 P.M.
THE MEETING RECONVENED AT 8:36 P.M.
Commissioner Ensler requested to address the Commission.
Commissioner Ensler felt that some of the issues that took place tonight were
counterproductive, since a person who runs for public office does so with the intent on
helping the City. He would like the Commission to focus on the major problems facing
the City that include drug dealing, crime and education. He had great respect for
Henderson Tillman and one year ago he nominated Mr. Tillman to be the CRA Chair.
Commissioner Ensler felt that when he appointed Mr. Norem to the CRA Board, he was
appointing the right person. Mr. Norem is a businessperson and currently there are no
business people on the CRA and he felt that Mr. Norem would be an asset to that
Agency.
Stormet Norem approached the podium and thanked the Commission for appointing
him to the CRA. He has lived in the City for many years and has maintained a business
for 26 years in Boynton Beach. Boynton Beach is moving in the right direction and he
would like to see this continue. He did not realize that his appointment to the Board
would cause so many problems and he was merely trying to serve the community. Mr.
Norem submitted his resignation from the CRA Board in order to maintain diversity in
the community.
Motion
Commissioner Ensler moved to accept the resignation of Mr. Stormet Norem. Motion
seconded by Vice Mayor McCray and carried 5-0.
Motion
Vice Mayor McCray moved to reconsider filling the vacancy on the CRA. Motion
seconded by Commissioner Ferguson and carried 5-0.
17
Meeting Minutes
Regular City Commission Meeting
Boynton Beach, Florida
January18, 2005
Commissioner McKoy was in line to make the next appointment to the CRA.
Commissioner McKoy stated that as the City moved forward, it was important to have a
more diversified representation on all Boards that would include all minorities.
Motion
Commissioner McKoy appointed Henderson Tillman to the Community Redevelopment
Agency. Motion seconded by Vice Mayor McCray and carried 5-0.
Mayor Taylor thanked Mr. Norem for his service and for his action tonight for the benefit
of the entire City.
D. Ratification of Planning & Development Board Action:
St. GregorX Armenian Church (SPTE 04-011) - West of
Southwest 8~" Street, South of Boynton Beach Boulevard - Request
for a one (1) year time extension of the site plan approval granted
on September 2, 2003, from September 2, 2004 to September 2,
2005 (POSTPONED TO JANUARY 18, 2005 AT APPLICANT'S
REQUEST)
Vice Mayor McCray pointed out that the Commission was being asked to approve a site
plan extension, which Attorney Cherof confirmed. This is not a re-review or modification
of the original site plan.
Commissioner Ensler reported that the site plan extension was approved by the
Planning and Development Board by a 4 to 3 vote, which he did not consider was a
good vote. He would prefer that the Commission received stronger votes.
Since the item was pulled, Mayor Taylor opened the public audience.
Shirley Jaskiewicz, 1917 SW 13th Avenue, Boynton Beach thanked Mr. Meaux, the
representative of the Armenian Cultural Association, Commissioner Ensler and staff for
meeting with the residents that were concerned about this project. The residents feel
that this is an overuse of the property. Most of the project intrudes into residential areas
on both sides. She would like the use of the facility to be a church and the fellowship
building.
Ms. Jaskiewicz also noted that the dumpster and the pump station were located along
the boundaries of the residential areas and she noted that Mr. Meaux did make some
changes to address these concerns. She felt that trash cans should be used in place of
a dumpster.
Mayor Taylor explained to Ms. Jaskiewicz that the Commission was only addressing the
time extension for the site plan and the site plan had already been approved.
18
Meeting Minutes
Regular City Commission Meeting
Boynton Beach, Florida
.lanuary 18, 2005
Dale Meaux, of the APl Group, Boca Raton, Florida, is the architect for the project.
Mr. Meaux confirmed that the site plan was approved and there have been no changes
in the ordinances that would make the site plan non-conforming. He acknowledged that
they have met with the neighbors and are trying to address their concerns. Mr. Meaux
requested that the Commission approve their request so they could continue their
project.
Motion
Vice Mayor McCray moved to extend the site plan approval granted from September 2,
2004 to September 2, 2005. Motion seconded by Commissioner Ferguson.
Commissioner Ensler noted that there were three phases to the site plan, the first two
deal with the church and the third phase is the development of a building in back of the
church to be used as a basketball court. He felt that this building would interfere with
the residents that live adjacent to those buildings and would devalue the neighboring
homes.
The residents of Leisureville would like the request to be turned down and that the site
plan time extension be re-approved for phases 1 and 2 and that phase 3 be discussed
at a future date. Commissioner Ensler was opposed to having a 30' building in the
backyard of the residents living in single-family homes.
Mike Rumpf, Planning and Zoning Director, pointed out that at the Planning and
Development Board meeting, the Assistant City Attorney explained that anything on the
site plan represented approval and phase 3 was part of the approval of the approved
site plan. Vice Mayor McCray noted that staff recommended approval of the site plan
time extension until September 2, 2005.
Vote
The vote on the motion passed 4-1 (Commissioner Ensler dissenting).
VI.E. Ratification of CRA Action:
Arches (SPTE 05-001) - Southwest corner of Ocean Avenue and
Federal Highway - Request for a second time extension of the site
plan approval granted on June 3, 2003 for one (1) year from the
previously extended date of December 3, 2004 to December 3,
2005
Commissioner Ferguson requested that the applicant furnish, the Commission with two
reports; the first one would be due on May 1, 2005, and the second one on September
1, 2005. Also, Commissioner Ferguson would like to receive a memorandum on the
same dates from the City regarding the City's progress on this project.
19
Meeting Minutes
Regular City Commission Meeting
Boynton Beach~ Florida
3anuary 18, 2005
Motion
Commissioner Ferguson moved for approval of Item VI.E.1. Motion seconded by
Commissioner Ensler.
Mayor Taylor asked the applicant if they were agreeable to this request.
Bonnie Miskel, Attorney for the applicant, asked about the scope of the report and
Commissioner Ferguson responded that it would be a progress report on when the
project would begin. Ms. Miskel agreed to this request.
Vote
The vote on the motion carried 5-0.
Ratify the City Manager's action to accept a proposal from Florida Electric
Contracting Service, Inc. for replacement of the lights at the Little League
Park in the amount of $73,575
Motion
Vice Mayor McCray moved to table Item VI.H. Motion seconded by Commissioner
McKoy and carried 5-0.
VII. CODE COMPLIANCE & LEGAL SETTLEMENTS:
None
VIII. PUBLIC HEARING:7:00 P.M. OR AS SOON THEREAFTER AS THE AGENDA
PERMITS
A
Project:
Agent:
Owner:
Location:
Barr Property (LUAR 04-009)
John Barr, Cornerstone Premier Communities
BMVFL-1, Inc.
1801 NE 4th Street
Description:
Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use
Map from High Density Residential to Special High Density
Residential (1sT READING OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE
NO, 04-090) - TABLED TO JANUARY 18, 2005
Request to rezone from R-3 Multi-family Residential to
Planned Unit Development (PUD) (1s'r READING OF
PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 04-091) TABLED TO
JANUARY 18, 2005
20
Meeting Minutes
Regular City Commission Meeting
Boynton Beach, Florida
.lanuary 18, 2005
Proposed use: Townhouse community of 180
units
Barr Property (NWSP 04-013) - 1801 NE 4th Street -Request new site
plan approval for a 180-unit townhome development on a 9.88 acre parcel
in a proposed PUD zoning district - TABLED TO JANUARY 18, 2005
Mayor Taylor announced that the Barr Property items were being postponed to the City
Commission first meeting in April.
Project:
Agent:
Owner:
Location:
Description:
Seaview Park Club (LUAR 04-010)
Weiner & Aronson, P.A.
Wayne Irving and Charlene Darst
1620 North .Federal Highway (east side of North Federal
Highway, approximately 1,000 feet north of the Boynton C-
16 Canal
Request to reclassify -+3.81 acres of land by amending the
Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map from Low
Density Residential and Local Retail Commercial to Special
High Density Residential; and
Request to rezone from R-3 Multi-family Residential and C-3
Community Commercial to Infill Planned Unit Development
(IPUD)
Proposed Use:
Development
Residential
Condominium
Seaview Park Club (NWSP 04-014) - 1620 North Federal Highway (east
side of North Federal Highway, approximately 1,000 feet north of the
Boynton C-16 Canal - Request for new site plan approval for the
construction of 69 condominium units on 3.756-acres in the IPUD zoning
district
Vice Mayor McCray reported that he spoke with Attorney Michael Weiner this morning
and Attorney Michael Morell this afternoon.
Attorney Cherof announced that the Commission would be hearing three items on the
Seaview Park Club. The first item is a request to reclassify the land by amending the
Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. This is a legislative issue and small-scale
amendments to the Comp Plan are not quasi-judicial.
The other two items involve a request to rezone the property from R-3 and C-3 to IPUD
and a request for a site plan approval, both items being quasi-judicial hearings.
Attorney Cherof read into the record the procedures for quasi-judicial proceedings, a
copy of which is on file in the City Clerk's Office.
21
Meeting Minutes
Regular City Commission Meeting
Boynton Beach, Florida
3anuary 18, 2005
The Commission was polled to determine who had been contacted and/or received any
information in writing by any interested party and, if so, to disclose this and provide a
copy to the Clerk. Attorney Cherof acknowledged that Vice Mayor McCray previously
revealed the parties that contacted him.
· Commissioner Ferguson met with Mr. McGregor and Attorney Weiner. He spoke
to INCA residents and received a letter from Attorney Morell.
· Commissioner McKoy spoke with Attorney Michael Weiner and received a letter
from Attorney Morell. He also spoke to several members of INCA.
· Mayor Taylor reviewed the site plan with Attorney Weiner and representatives of
Lennar. Mayor Taylor received letters and had discussions with members of
INCA. He was not certain if he received a letter from Attorney Morell, but if he
did, he has not read it.
· Commissioner Ensler spoke with Steve Homrich and Buck Buchanan and he
went out to look at the site. Attorney Weiner also contacted him.
· Vice Mayor McCray met with Attorney Weiner and a representative from Lennar
Homes regarding the site plan and he walked out of that meeting. He received
telephone calls from Attorney Weiner and Attorney Morell. He also received a
letter from Attorney Morell and was contacted by members of INCA.
Attorney Cherof announced that these conversations and information should not be
taken into consideration when reviewing the evidence presented during the quasi-
judicial proceedings. Attorney Cherof administered the oath to all persons who would be
testifying.
Attorney Cherof requested that the attorneys and any other individuals acting in a
representative capacity should state their name, business address, and indicate the
name of their clients:
,/
Michael Weiner, Attorney, 209 N. Seacrest Boulevard, Boynton Beach,
represented Lennar Homes, the applicant.
Michael William Morell, Attorney, PO. Box 18649 West Palm Beach, Florida,
represented 18 clients who are residents of Yachtman's Cove and Coquina
Cove. A Notice of Appearance has been filed on behalf of his clients and a
Request for Party Status. He requested that the Commission rule on his
Request for Party Status before the public hearing is opened. The names of his
clients appear in the Notice of Appearance. Copies of these documents were
provided to the Clerk and are on file in the City Clerk's Office. His 18 clients
would be introduced during his case in chief.
Attorney Cherof requested they be revealed, which request Attorney Morell
accommodated as follows: John and Sandy Alvaro; Robed and Joan Corey; Steve and
Rose Homrich; Ossie and Rosa Leal; Stanley and Stacey Nitkowski; Adrian H. Winchell,
as Trustee of the Adrian H. Winchell Revocable Living Trust, Helen J. Winchell as
Trustee of the Helen J. Winchell Revocable Living Trust; Harry and Joy Woodworth, all
of whom reside in Yachtsman's Cove; and James and Susan Buchanan who reside in
Coquina Cove.
22
Meeting Minutes
Regular City Commission Meeting
Boynton Beach, Florida
3anuary ~.8~ 2005
John Hinden, Attorney, of the law firm of Webber, Hinden, McLean & Arbiter,
4430 Southwest 64th Avenue, Davie, Florida, represented Lennar Homes in the
field of mobile home park tenancy.
Attorney Cherof asked if the attorneys had any objection to recognizing Attorney Morell
and his clients as having an interest in this matter and recognizing their party status.
Michael Weiner, representing the applicant, had no problem with respect to any
procedural issues that the City Attorney would like to follow in connection with these
proceedings. There is burden of proof that they cannot concede with respect to
aggrieved parties and their party status. If these people are going to be granted the
status as aggrieved parties, they should be required to show what makes them
"special." If appeals resulted from tonight's proceedings, Attorney Weiner felt it was
important to determine the status of these people. Therefore, Attorney Weiner was not
agreeable to affording them party status at this time.
Attorney Morell stated that his clients are interested parties and are affected persons in
accordance with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Proceedings and are aggrieved
and adversely affected parties. Attorney Morell requested that the Commission
acknowledge that his clients are interested persons for purpose of participation at
tonight's proceedings.
Attorney Cherof recommended that the Commission accept Attorney Morell in a
representative capacity, and his clients as interested parties, in these proceedings with
the opportunity to both testify and cross-examine witnesses.
Motion
Vice Mayor McCray moved to accept Attorney Cherof's recommendation. Motion
seconded by Commissioner McKoy and carried 5-0.
Attorney Morell will be introducing into evidence the letter previously referred to during
their case in chief. The letter contained some procedural issues. The first one is an
issue in the Plan Amendment case. The second procedural issues pertain to the two
quasi-judicial items. Attorney Morell asserted that the City failed to have the necessary
public hearing and requested that the Commission conclude the Plan Amendment
public hearing or open the quasi-judicial hearings until the required third hearing takes
place. Further, Attorney Morell requested that the Commission bifurcate the legislative
hearing from the two quasi-judicial proceedings. Attorney Morell stated by not having
this third public hearing, they have not been allowed to participate to the greatest extent
possible.
Attorney Cherof recommended that the Commission bifurcate the issues and that the
land use amendment issue be heard first as a legislative matter.
23
Meeting Minutes
Regular City Commission Heeting
Boynton Beach~ Florida
3anuary18, 2005
Attorney Morell requested that he be allowed to go first to present his argument why the
case should not go forward. Attorney Cherof stated that the Commission needed to
determine if they wanted to hear the items separately.
Motion
Commissioner Ferguson moved to bifurcate the items. Motion seconded by Vice Mayor
McCray and carried 5-0.
Attorney Cherof recommended that the Commission allow the applicant, the opposing
parties and staff to proceed in the same format that would be done for a quasi-judicial
proceeding.
Attorney Morell was opposed to the Commission applying quasi-judicial procedures to a
legislative proceeding that was contrary to case law cited. Attorney Cherof disagreed
with Attorney Morell's assumption that the land use amendment was a quasi-judicial
proceeding. The land use amendment is a legislative consideration by the Commission.
The applicant would first present their case and Attorney Morell would be permitted to
make any comments when it was his turn to speak.
There was a consensus on the Commission to proceed as recommended by Attorney
Cherof.
Attorney Weiner requested that anyone giving testimony be allowed to speak for as long
as they wanted to speak. They do not want to tell the City what their procedures should
be, but merely want assurances that the laws would be followed. Attorney Weiner
inquired if there were any time limits and was informed that there were none.
Attorney Weiner presented his case on behalf of the applicant together with a
PowerPoint presentation of the mobile home park and the surrounding area. The
Seaview Mobile Home Park runs from the Intracoastal to Federal Highway and is only
150' wide and is seven (7) times longer than it is wide. The uses surrounding the
subject parcel were pointed out. Their intent is to replace the Mobile Home Park with an
IPUD.
The Mobile Home Park has 64 units and the applicant is applying for a project with 69
units. Attorney Weiner noted that Code violations for this property were placed in record
at the CRA hearing. The intended project would carry out many of the plans, policies
and objectives that the City developed for this area. The project would also increase the
tax base significantly and would be built to allow people to live along the Intracoastal in
safety. The project also carried out the Federal Highway Corridor Plan and Boynton
20/20 Plan that was adopted by citywide consensus, which was confirmed by staff.
The staff report refers to Policies Nos. 1.16.1, Policy 1.19.1 and Policy 1.19.17 of the
Future Land Use Element that encourages a range of housing choices. The project also
meets with Policies No. 1.13 and 1.13.4 of the Future Land Use Element to discourage
urban sprawl by creating compact urban areas to encourage a functional mix of uses.
24
Meeting Minutes
Regular City Commission Meeting
Boynton Beach~ Florida
3anuary18, 2005
Attorney Weiner stated that this project fulfilled the vision of the Federal Highway
Corridor Plan and would be a gateway to the community. Staff's report supports
Attorney Weiner's testimony.
Andrew T. Sullivan, of Martin Architectural Group, is a registered architect in the
State of Florida and presented his credentials to the Commission. Mr. Sullivan gave
testimony on behalf of the applicant as to why this development would be appropriate
for this area of the City. He pointed out that the staff report is complimentary to the plan
they developed.
Attorney Weiner asked Mr. Sullivan if he agreed with the conclusions in the staff report
with regard to the Land Use Amendment and the Rezoning that the project was a
compatible land use. Mr. Sullivan agreed with staff's conclusions.
Attorney Weiner stated that the applicant has met the burden of proof with regard to the
request for a land use map change and that the Commission should approve the
change.
Attorney Cherof asked Attorney Weiner if they agreed with the conditions of approval, of
which there are 54. Attorney Weiner responded that they agreed with 53 of the 54
conditions and the only issue in contention is the height of the buildings. Staff has
recommended that the height be three (3) stories and the applicant is requesting three
and one-half (3~) stories. Attorney Weiner stated that this would be addressed if the
land use issue were approved.
Commissioner Ensler inquired when the issue of height should be addressed. Attorney
Cherof stated that the height issue reaches all three items and it could be discussed in
each stage of the proceedings.
Commissioner Ensler then inquired if the Commission approved the land use, would this
approve the height issue as well. Attorney Cherof stated that this would not be the
case. The Commission is allowed to ask questions and when it becomes appropriate to
make a motion, Attorney Cherof would assist in this regard.
Mike Rumpf, Planning and Zoning Director, noted that one important aspect of staff's
review is staff's conclusion is that the project is compatible with the surrounding area.
The greatest issue of compatibility dealt with the height of the project. Staff's
recommendations for the height are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff
agreed with the land use and zoning, but the height restriction at 38' is part of the
conditions of approval.
Anyone in favor of the Land Use Amendment was requested to testify.
Marc Sheridan, 754 Rider Road, Boynton Beach, was in support of the development.
He has lived in Boynton Beach for many years and is pleased with the improvements
taking place in the City. Mr. Sheridan spoke with many people who support the project
in place of the current trailer park. He also felt that the landscaping that the developer
25
Meeting Minutes
Regular City Commission Meeting
Boynton Beach, Florida
.lanuary :1.8, 2005
intended to plant would be an asset to the development that would help obstruct a lot of
the building. Mr. Sheridan is also the President of the Mariner Cove Townhouse
Association that also supports the project.
Attorney Morell corrected his previous testimony and stated he represented 16 clients,
not 18. Attorney Morell thanked Ms. Prainito, the City Clerk, for her assistance, as well
as the Planning staff.
Attorney Morell noted that the Commission revealed their ex-parte communications, but
no one stated that they were capable of making their decision only on the information
being presented tonight. He also noted that four of the five Commissioners attended the
CRA meeting and Commissioner McKoy did not attend. Commissioner McKoy
responded that he was present at the CRA Board meeting.
Attorney Morell asked the Mayor and Commissioners if they could make their decision
based upon what they hear tonight, and not what they heard at the CRA meeting. Mayor
Taylor stated that he would be able to do so. Commissioner Ferguson took affront and
noted that the Commission hears items with an open mind. Commissioner McKoy
stated that any decision he made would be based upon the information presented
tonight.
Commissioner Ensler inquired if the minutes the Commission received from the
Planning and Development Board and the CRA prior to the Commission meeting are
considered information. Attorney Cherof stated that the procedures allow the
Commission to accept as part of the record of this proceeding documents presented at
the Boards. Commissioner Ensler stated that he could make his decision based upon
what has been presented tonight.
Attorney Morell inquired if the Commission, in fact, received the minutes of the CRA
Board and was informed that the minutes had not yet been provided.
Vice Mayor McCray stated that his decisions would be based upon what heard tonight.
Attorney Morell felt that the citizens have been denied the opportunity to participate in
the adoption of the applicant's small scale plan amendment because the statutory
required public hearing that the City's Land Planning Agency (LPA) is required to
conduct has not taken place. Attorney Morell felt that tonight's items should be tabled
until the third hearing takes place. Attorney Morell cited the applicable laws to which he
was referring that required a third public hearing be held. Copies of the case laws cited
by Attorney Morell were furnished to the Clerk and are on file in the City Clerk's Office.
Florida law requires that local governments designate a Local Planning Agency and this
agency must make a recommendation to the governing Board and conduct public
hearings. The City, beginning in 1975 up to 2000, had followed this procedure. The City
also adopted procedures that governed how the public could participate in the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Plan process including the mandatory hearing before
the LPA. It appears that this procedure stopped in 2000 when the powers of the
26
Meeting Minutes
Regular City Commission Meeting
Boynton Beach, Florida
3anuary18, 2005
Planning and Development, which had been the LPA, were transferred to the CRA, and
the Commission became the LPA, which is authorized by Statute. Attorney Morell
pointed out that the Commission only met as a Commission and not in its capacity as
the LPA.
Attorney Morell presented six (6) documents relating to the procedural issues and
correspondence between himself and Attorney Cherof, copies of which are on file in the
City Clerk's Office. Attorney Cherof had informed him that he disagreed with Attorney
Morell's interpretation of law. Attorney Cherof felt that only two public hearings were
necessary. Attorney Morell researched this issue with the Department of Community
Affairs and copied the requirements contained on DCA's web page that set forth explicit
procedures for notice and independent hearings of the LPA. A copy of the DCA web
page was provided to the Clerk and is on file in the City Clerk's Office. Attorney Morell
opined that his clients have not been afforded the benefit of a third independent public
hearing before the LPA prior to coming before this Commission.
Attorney Morell presented into evidence the Waterside IPUD Ordinance, a copy of
which was presented to the Clerk and placed on file in the City Clerk's office. This
Ordinance showed that the Commission does not recognize itself as the LPA in
reviewing the IPUD projects.
Attorney Morell also placed into evidence and furnished the Clerk with the Notice of
Appearance and Request for Party Status, copies of which are on file in the City Clerk's
Office. Also provided to the Clerk were the following documents relating to procedural
issues:
· Two (2) page letter from Mike Morell to Attorney Cherof dated January 17, 2005;
· Two (2) page response letter from Attorney Cherof to Attorney Morell dated
January 17, 2005;
· Two (2) page letter from Attorney Morell to Mayor Taylor dated January 18, 2005;
· Two (2) page Ordinance No. 97-09; Four page Ordinance No. 02-25;
· Two (2) page Ordinance No. 04-068;
· One (1) page letter to Attorney Cherof requesting a copy of the draft Ordinance
that is before the Board tonight;
· One (1) page copy of Notice 70872 that was published in the Palm Beach Post
on January 1,2005 an January 11,2005;
· Seven (7) page website from the Department of Community Affairs; and
· Four (4) page Ordinance No. 04-56.
Copies of all of the above documents are on file in the City Clerk's Office.
Winston Lee, an expert witness on behalf of Attorney Morell and his clients, was
introduced.
Winston Lee, 1532 Old Okeechobee Road, West Palm Beach, is a State licensed
landscape architect, and a copy of his credentials were presented to the Clerk and
27
Meeting Minutes
Regular City Commission Meeting
Boynton Beach, Florida
.~anuary 18, 2005
placed on file in the City Clerk's Office. Mr. Lee disagreed with some of staff's report
and he was prepared to make a presentation in detail that would show where the project
would not be compatible with the adjacent property, which was not just the height of the
project. He would be discussing this in depth at the time of the site plan review.
Mr. Lee pointed out that the current land use for this property is 4.84 dua and the
properties to the north are high density residential at 10 dua. He noted that the
Commission was being asked to approve adding 20 dua to the subject project. Mr. Lee
recited several inconsistencies in the project with the Federal Highway Corridor Plan.
This project would adversely affect the mangroves and the beaches and was not
sensitive to characteristics of the site to surrounding land uses.
Attorney Morell requested that the City Commission table Lennar's application for a
proposed small-scale plan amendment, together with their application for rezoning and
request for new site plan approval until proper notice and opportunity to be heard at the
public hearing before the Land Planning Agency is provided to his clients and the
citizens of Boynton Beach as required by law.
Attorney Cherof inquired if any other members of the public wished to speak in
opposition to the proposed small-scale amendment. No one came forward.
Attorney Cherof asked the applicant if they wished to rebut anything that had been said
or cross-examine any of the witnesses called by Attorney Morell. Attorney Weiner
wished to rebut and may cross-examine Mr. Rumpf.
With regard to the procedural issues, Attorney Weiner pointed out that there was a
hearing before the CRA and tonight is the first reading of the Ordinance. There will be a
second reading of the Ordinance. Attorney Weiner equated this to three public hearings.
They would abide by what the City Attorney rules with respect to procedures.
Attorney Weiner stated that the height of the project would be compatible and would
work with the surrounding areas. With regard to Winston Lee's testimony, Attorney
Weiner felt that the proposal meets each and every category to receive a land use
designation except for the height. He pointed out that the project height on the north
side is proposed at 45' facing Manatee Bay and 35' on the south side facing the homes.
Attorney Weiner also noted that single-family homes could be built to 30'.
The roofline would be built to block the sight of the homes to the south of the project
and the single-family homes would be separated by a wall with 10' of landscaping.
Landscaping would include various mature trees and shrubbery and as a result, the
height of the project would be compatible with the land use next to it.
Attorney Weiner presented a copy of Jennifer L. Morton's resume to the Clerk, which is
on file in the City Clerk's office. Ms. Morion would be testifying on behalf of the
applicant.
28
Meeting Minutes
Regular City Commission Meeting
Boynton Beach~ Florida
.~anuary ~.8f 2005
Jennifer Morton, a principal with Land Design South, 2101 Center Park Boulevard,
West Palm Beach, assumed the podium. Ms. Morton noted that Land Design South is
one of the largest land planning companies in Palm Beach County. She noted that there
is a real demand for this type of infill development in conjunction with the Eastward Ho
concept.
Ms. Morton noted that height is not the only compatibility issue and her firm has done
many infill projects where single-family homes already exist and a townhouse type
project is proposed. The best way to deal with these issues is through landscaping and
buffering and Ms. Morton discussed the proposed landscaping for the project. The
canopy trees would be installed at 18' in height, which is a significant increase over the
Code requirements. Thirty-five foot palm trees would be staggered throughout the
landscaping. After the developer met with the neighborhood residents, they totally
redesigned the project from four-stories to three stories on one side and four stories on
the other side to accommodate the site.
Attorney Weiner felt that Mr. Lee, during his testimony, made some statements that
were not true. Attorney Weiner pointed out that if the property were developed for
single-family use only, they would not be able to control the drainage, because it would
be done on a home-by-home basis. Attorney Weiner also noted that if their request was
denied, the property was zoned commercial and another commercial plaza could be
built on the site. Their project, as a whole, would be beneficial, and they were
somewhat surprised that they were now encountering all these issues.
In summary Attorney Weiner noted that there is a pattern in south Florida where larger
buildings are being located near smaller homes that have caused no injuries. He felt
that the City would be setting a bad precedent by refusing this project.
Attorney Weiner did not think that the height issue should be part of the Land Use
request and the height is covered in the IPUD ordinance and the site plan. Therefore,
Attorney Weiner requested that the height issue be discussed during the site plan
approval.
Attorney Morell objected to Ms. Morton's testimony that went beyond the scope of direct
testimony presented by his expert witness. He further felt that her testimony was not
credible, nor relevant and the Commission should not make its decision upon what she
stated. Attorney Morell still felt that the third hearing was necessary and requested that
the Commission not move forward. He pointed out that the land use density was
permitted to 10.8 dua, which would be compatible to the Manatee Bay development to
the north and with his clients' properties to the south.
Mike Rumpf, Planning and Zoning Director, has been on staff for over 17 years and
Director of his division for four years. He is familiar with the Comprehensive Plan and its
Amendments. Mr. Rumpf explained that the City does provide three advertised public
hearings, whether or not one of those would be considered an "LPA."
29
Meeting Minutes
Regular City Commission Meeting
Boynton Beach, Florida
January l8, 2005
Mr. Rumpf pointed out that the applicant is not building the maximum number of units
allowed which is 20 dua. He questioned why the density issue was less of an issue than
the height. The special high-density land use classification was created in 1989 when
the Comprehensive Plan was re-written and is only for the coastal area east of the
railroad tracks. The Comprehensive Plan states "this land use category shall consist of
redevelopment and infill residential areas assigned to this land use category in a portion
of the designated Community Redevelopment Area identified as Planning Area 1 and
Planning Area 5 in the Federal Highway Corridor Community Redevelopment Plan
adopted on May 15, 2001 ." When the land use category was created, there were ranges
of densities allowed along the coastal area, above and beyond the 10.8 dua. Some
densities were developed up to 30 to 40 dua. This category was created to assist in
infill redevelopment. Mr. Rumpf also explained that single-family residences are not in
the majority along the coastal area.
Don McPherson, 75 Seaview Circle, felt that the only thing Lennar wanted to do was
to make money. He has lived at the trailer park for 15 years and is now being forced
out. He stated that over half the people residing in the park would receive no money
from the State and there are only a few that actually qualify for State assistance. Most
people residing in the park are around 69 years of age and are on Social Security.
Greg Kleinrichert, 1303 NW 11th Street, Boynton Beach, also owns property in
Yachtsman's Cove. Mr. Kleinrichert questioned whether 69 units could be placed on
such a narrow piece of property. There is a big difference in living space between the
trailers in the mobile park and the proposed project.
Vice Mayor McCray asked about the three LPA hearings and questioned why one of the
hearings was not identified as the LPA hearing. Mr. Rumpf responded that this was an
oversight. Vice Mayor McCray asked Attorney Cherof if the Commission was acting
legally.
Attorney Cherof explained that the City Commission is the Local Planning Agency and
has been for several years. Statute 163.3194(2) does not expressly require a public
hearing before the LPA conducts its review and recommendation regarding the relation
of the proposed amendment to the land development regulations. This is the first public
hearing and an opportunity for the public to address the Commission and the
Commission as the LPA. The items would be coming back to the Commission in two
weeks for second reading of the ordinances, which is always a public hearing.
Therefore, the public would have two opportunities to speak. Further, Attorney Cherof
felt that the cases cited by Attorney Morell were not applicable to this case and he did
not think that the statute required the type of redundancy that Attorney Morell stated
was required.
Attorney Cherof felt that the public has been provided the opportunity to speak publicly.
Therefore, the Commission could proceed procedurally and dispose of the item.
Commissioner Ensler inquired what the CRA's role was in this instance. Attorney Cherof
stated that the CRA makes findings on behalf of the Commission. The CRA serves as a
format for public hearings and makes recommendations to the Commission. He did not
30
Meeting Minutes
Regular City Commission Meeting
Boynton Beach, Florida
3anuary~8, 2005
equate the hearing before the CRA as a public hearing by the Commission and as the
LPA and that there are only two; the one tonight and the one in two weeks.
Commissioner McKoy inquired that when the items are advertised should it also state
that the Commission would hear the items in its capacity as the LPA. Attorney Cherof
stated that this should be stated and the proposed ordinance does address this. The
ordinance stated that the Commission in its dual capacity as the Local Planning Agency
and the City Commission, would be making certain findings.
Mayor Taylor noted how much effort the City staff provided the residents in planning the
IPUD and those residents are fully aware of what was or was not allowed. He was not
so much concerned about the three hearings being provided to the residents, but the
fact that they have been involved since the beginning of the adoption of the IPUD
ordinances.
Attorney Cherof read proposed Ordinance 05-006 by title only. He noted that within the
ordinance there is a specific finding that states that "Whereas after two public hearings
the City Commission acting in its dual capacity as the Local Planning Agency and the
City Commission finds that the amendment contained herein set forth is consistent with
the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan and deems it in the best interest of the
inhabitants of the City to amend the aforementioned element of the Comprehensive
Plan as provided."
Motion
Commissioner Ferguson moved to approve Proposed Ordinance 05-006.
Mayor Taylor passed the gavel and seconded the motion.
Commissioner Ensler inquired if either height or density was a factor in this motion.
Attorney Cherof responded that the Commission had to determine if these issues were
pertinent. Commissioner Ensler noted that staff made a recommendation on the height
and if the Commission followed staff's recommendation, what effect would this have
upon the motion. Attorney Cherof responded that that the Commission should take into
consideration all the testimony presented. However, if the Commission followed staff's
recommendation only, the motion should be to deny the ordinance.
Mayor Taylor inquired if the height issue could be addressed during the quasi-judicial
hearings and Attorney Cherof stated that the height issue could be addressed during
any of the three hearings.
Vote
City Clerk Prainito called the roll. The motion carried 4-1 (Vice Mayor McCray
dissenting).
31
Meeting Minutes
Regular City Commission Meeting
Boynton Beach, Florida
3anuary 18t 2005
Project:
Agent:
Owner:
Location:
Seaview Park Club (LUAR 04-010)
Weiner & Aronson, P.A.
Wayne Irving and Charlene Darst
1620 North Federal Highway (east side of North Federal
Highway, approximately 1,000 feet north of the Boynton C-
16 Canal
Description:
Request to rezone from R-3 Multi-family Residential and C-3
Community Commercial to Infill Planned Unit Development
(IPUD)
Proposed Use:
Development
Residential
Condominium
Seaview Park Club (NWSP 04-014)- 1620 North Federal Highway (east
side of North Federal Highway, approximately 1,000 feet north of the
Boynton C-16 Canal - Request for new site plan approval for the
construction of 69 condominium units on 3.756-acres in the IPUD zoning
district
Attorney Cherof noted that the parties previously agreed to hear the application for
rezoning and the site plan as a single quasi-judicial proceeding.
Attorney Weiner presented the item on behalf of the applicant, Lennar Homes and
presented an overview of the previous item. The applicant is requesting to build a
residential IPUD project on the identified site. There has been testimony that the
residents in the mobile home park were good neighbors and compared the condition of
the current mobile park to the proposed IPUD.
Attorney Weiner stated that the mobile home park generates approximately 503 trips
per day and the proposed IPUD would generate 475 trips per day. By adopting the
rezoning, the commercial property in front of the site would be eliminated. Attorney
Weiner reviewed the landscaping that the applicant would be placing on the site that
had been previously discussed during the land use amendment hearing that included
180 mature trees and 3,913 plants. The project calls for a 48' side setback, which is
more than the required 45'. The site plan equals or exceeds all of the requirements of
the IPUD ordinance, as well as meeting the Comprehensive Plan and is confirmed by
staff's report.
Attorney Weiner requested to put those requirements into the record as follows:
· Objective 1.13 of the Future Land Element that discourages urban sprawl.
· Policy 1.13.4 of the Future Land Element that encourages a functional mix of
uses.
· All other policies in the staff report.
32
Meeting Minutes
Regular City Commission Meeting
Boynton Beach, Florida
3anuary18, 2005
Attorney Weiner asserted that the project was as compatible on the issue of rezoning as
it was on the issue of land use. The project was amended in order to remove certain
units that might look into the backyards of the surrounding properties.
The State of Florida does not provide a right to light and air. This means that a person
could not be prevented from building a home simply because it might block a person's
view to the sky and this has been upheld by the courts. A copy of the case in point was
provided to the Clerk and placed on file in the City Clerk's Office. Height is not a legal
reason to deny compatibility, which has been affirmed by the courts.
Mr. Andrew Sullivan, presented evidence on behalf of the applicant, in support of
Attorney Weiner's opinion that the project was compatible with the surrounding
neighborhoods. He noted that the staff report stated that it is common in coastal areas
for single-family and multi-family developments to exist near each other.
Mayor Taylor announced that the applicant in Legal Items Xll. A 1, 2, 3, and 4 has
requested to table Ordinance Nos. 04-45, 04-46, 04-47 and 04-48 for two weeks due to
the hour.
Motion
Vice Mayor McCray moved to table Proposed Ordinances Nos. 04-45, 04-46, 04-47 and
04-48. Motion seconded by Commissioner McCoy and unanimously carried.
Attorney Cherof also requested that proposed Ordinances Nos. 04-49, 04-58 and 04-59
also be tabled for two weeks.
Motion
Vice Mayor McCray moved to table proposed Ordinances No. 04-49, 04-58 and 04-59.
Motion seconded by Commissioner McKoy and unanimously carried.
Mr. Sullivan distributed artist's renderings to the Commission. The first rendering was
the project with four stories that was originally proposed. The second rendering showed
the project with the reduction in height on the south and north sides.
Mr. Sullivan next discussed the photometric plan for the project that would prevent the
lights from shining out into the adjoining neighborhoods. He indicated that they have
held five meetings with the neighbors to accommodate their requests. Originally the
project was at 47' and after these meetings the height was reduced to 34W on the
south side. He explained that this is the first time that he has ever stepped the design of
a building as the one being presented.
The location of the pool was revised three times and a wall has been added to act as a
sound barrier. Aisc, the head wall was pulled back to line up with the high-water mark
and provides a beach that is compatible with the beaches to the south of the property.
33
Meeting Minutes
Regular City Commission Meeting
Boynton Beach, Florida
]anuary18, 2005
He also felt that they have addressed the concerns regarding noise by adding more
landscaping between the pool area and the homes to the south.
The site lights and their location are "turtle lights" and would be installed using the "turtle
philosophy." This equates to all lights being shielded, but would still light the floor area.
Mr. Sullivan reviewed the landscaping details that had been previously discussed during
the land use item, as well as their intent on handling the drainage issues coming from
the adjoining neighborhood to correct problems that they did not create.
Mr. Sullivan noted that they agreed with all staff comments except for the height of one
of the buildings. With regard to reducing the height to eliminate nine (9) units, this would
account for at least 20% of the value of the building. Mr. Sullivan noted that the
applicant has not requested any incentives whatsoever. The last item reviewed was the
traffic circulation within the site.
Mr. Sullivan has been working in Florida since 1973 and was the original planner for
Sawgrass Mills. In his opinion the project would be a great asset to the City. It would
raise the values of the adjacent properties and the proximity of a high-rise building next
to a Iow-rise building is the norm in Florida. He also pointed out that this would
substantially reduce the hurricane problem in this area of the City and would eliminate
an eyesore in the CRA.
Mike Rumpf, Planning and Zoning Director, presented the item on behalf of staff and
addressed the height issue. He noted the project to the north is at 38' and the
applicant's project would act as a transition project. Staff feels that the best height for
this project would be 38' and the proposed landscaping would generally attain this
height. Staff opines that anything above this height would be difficult to screen. Under
the current LDR, the R-3 zoning district to the north could go to 45'. If the subject
property were limited to 38' this would be a logical transition from 45' to 38' and then to
single-family at a maximum of 30'.
Attorney Morell introduced 12 exhibits during the land use proceedings and he wished
to incorporate 8 of the 12 exhibits in the quasi-judicial proceeding that are hereby
incorporated by reference. Those exhibits are as follows:
· Notice of Appearance and Request for Party Status
· Letter from Attorney Morell to Mayor Taylor dated January 18, 2005;
· Ordinance No. 97-09; Four page Ordinance No. 02-25;
· Original IPUD Ordinance
· Ordinance No. 04-068;
· Revised IPUD Ordinance
· Copy of Notice 70872 that was published in the Palm Beach Post on January 1,
2005 an January 11,2005;
· Seven (7) page website from the Department of Community Affairs
34
Meeting Minutes
Regular City Commission Meeting
Boynton Beach, Florida
3anuary 18~ 2005
Attorney Morell stated that the Infill Planned Unit Development Regulations were
invalidly adopted and did not comply with the statutory requirements that they be
referred to the Local Planning Agency for the public hearing, review and
recommendation between the proposed regulations and the adopted Comprehensive
Plan. He asserted that the IPUD regulations should not be applied to Lennar's
application for the rezoning and new site plan approval.
Statute No. 163.317(4) states that the LPA is the agency that reviews and makes
recommendations to the governing body as to the consistency of the proposal with the
adopted Comprehensive Plan. Attorney Morell stated that the findings of the LPA are
absent in the original and revised IPUD. Statute No. 163.3194(2) states "No Land
Development Regulation or amendment shall be adopted by the governing body until
such regulation has been referred either to the LPA or a separate land development
regulation commission created pursuant to local ordinance or both for review and
recommendation."
Attorney Morell pointed out that the City has adopted minimum public participation
procedures that exceed the minimum requirements of State law and is still a home rule
jurisdiction. He noted that the City successfully defended itself against a lawsuit on the
45' height limitation, but he did not want the City only to use the home rule when it is to
the City's benefit. He further pointed out that the determination that any change to the
original or revised IPUD was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan falls within the
scope of the home rule adopted public participation procedures.
In conclusion, Attorney Morell stated that the 16 clients that he represents request that
the Commission table the rezoning and the application for site plan approval until the
original IPUD Ordinance No. 02-025 and revised IPUD Ordinance No.04-068 are
referred to the LPA as required. Attorney Morell further stated that the procedural error
of not having these issues reviewed by the LPA is egregious and respectfully requested
that the City follow its home rule procedures.
Attorney Morell pointed out that he was representing two communities that have a
compatibility issue. One is the upland neighborhood compatibility issue that includes
the Yachtman's Cove community and the other is a coastal community compatibility
issue. Attorney Morell's clients were concerned because there was no dock approval
included with the plans. He felt that the City should require the applicant to submit a
comprehensive plan for the marina facilities at the site that could have a significant
impact upon the compatibility.
Winston Lee, provided testimony in support of Attorney Morell and his clients. He
would be addressing Land Use Elements Objective 1.15, Objective 1.16, Policy 1.16.1,
Objective 1.17, Objective 1.19 and one item from the Federal Highway Corridor Plan
regarding an FDOT separation distance of 245'. During his testimony Mr. Lee would be
evaluating the site and referring to variables.
(Attorney Morefl pointed out that Commissioner Ferguson left the room at 12:05 a.m.
and noted that the Commiss/oners agreed to vote upon afl testimony presented. He
35
Meeting Minutes
Regular City Commission Meeting
Boynton Beach, Florida
January18~ 2005
would be moving that Commissioner Ferguson recuse himself from not having heard all
the testimony presented.) Attorney Cherof explained that there are speakers outside the
Chambers. Attorney Morell pointed out that Commissioner Ferguson would not be able
to see the exhibits being shown.
Mr. Lee stated that the reason the IPUD was adopted was to afford protection to the
existing single-family residential properties adjacent to infill projects. In order for an
IPUD to be approved, it must be compatible with and preserve the character of the
adjacent residential neighborhood. One of the requirements is that the neighboring
properties must be shielded from the adverse effects of the proposed development.
Usable open space must be centrally located within the development and dumpsters
and trash containers shall not be located within setbacks abutting single-family
residential developments. The policies also state that compatibility would be judged on
how well the proposed development fits within the context of the neighborhood and
abutting properties.
Mr. Lee next discussed traffic circulation and 90° parking within the development. Since
the traffic was one way, Mr. Lee stated that people would do what they want to do and
he felt that people would not adhere to the one-way traffic pattern. He pointed out that
the sidewalks were flush with the driveways. This would result in two-way pedestrian
traffic on a 4' sidewalk with cars traversing a road with no separation that was
dangerous to pedestrians. The sidewalks did not meet all the ADA requirements and
ADA was opposed to having walkways behind parked cars.
Mr. Lee next addressed parking. He did not feel that parking provided was realistic,
since many people do not park their cars in their garages and six units could have four
cars. In his estimation, the parking was out of balance.
He pointed out that the IPUD does not allow trash containers in the front setbacks and if
they were placed in the 10' driveways, there would only be 2' available for the trash
containers. This was a poor design and there was too much density in the project.
Mr. Lee stated that the plan showed no photometrics for the pool, the buffers and when
exiting the site. The only photometrics in the plan are in the site itself. The poles are
FPL fixtures that measure 16' with a 21/2, light on the top. He asserted that the lights
would aim out toward the south residences. This is a popular pole because FPL
provides it for free and the homeowners pay for it through their electric bill over time. Mr.
Lee stated that this was not the most efficient light available and there would be glare
from those lights, as well as the lights used throughout the development.
Mr. Lee further mentioned that one of staff's conditions stated that trees cannot be
planted near the lights, but the plan showed trees where they are not permitted. With
regard to the drainage, Mr. Lee pointed out that the way the drainage was designed, it
would end up in the Intracoastal. Mr. Lee also pointed out other areas where trees could
not be planted.
36
Meeting Minutes
Regular City Commission Meeting
Boynton Beach, Florida
3anuary 18, 2005
Mr. Lee inquired where the lift station would be placed on the site. Lift stations have
many problems, not to mention odor. He questioned why the overhead electric lines
were not being placed underground that would preclude plantings. After going over all
the spaces that Mr. Lee stated that plantings and trees were not allowed, he showed the
areas that remained for landscaping, which had been greatly diminished. In summary,
Mr. Lee did not think that the landscaping proposed would work.
If and when homeowners acquire boats and jet skis, this would change the entire
character of the cove, or perhaps destroy it all together. Mr. Lee pointed out that noise
carries and the higher the building, the further the noise would go into the
neighborhoods. Also, the people residing in the single-family homes would be losing
their privacy because people living in the taller buildings would be able to look down into
their homes.
In conclusion, Mr. Lee stated that the project is not compatible, provides no transition
and the IPUD standards have not been met.
Commissioner Ensler questioned Mr. Lee's comments regarding the higher the sound
the further it traveled. Mr. Lee responded that what he meant was that there was
nothing to mitigate the noise.
Attorney Morell provided copies of the exhibits to the Clerk and Attorney Weiner. He
also provided a small-scale copy of Mr. Lee's drawing to the Commissioners. Attorney
Morell requested that Mr. Lee's testimony during the legislative proceeding be
incorporated by reference in the quasi-judicial proceedings.
Recess was declared at 12:43 p.m.
The Meeting reconvened at 12:52 p.m.
Attorney Morell noted that he admitted into evidence Notice 760872. He pointed out that
there was a defect in the notice. Attorney Cherof requested that Attorney Morell
continue with his witnesses and save this for closing arguments. Attorney Morell agreed
with this request.
Steve Homrich, 690 NE 15th Place, lives in a wonderful neighborhood with an old
neighborhood feel. Everyone knows each other and he is opposed to their lives
becoming a spectator sport for the third and fourth floor occupants of the proposed
development. Everyone who spoke at the CRA hearing was opposed to the plan due to
its incompatibility with the neighborhoods and at that time Attorney Weiner referred to
the 20/20 Plan. On page 148 of the 20/20 Plan one of the reasons for expanding the
CRA was to correct land use incompatibles, not to create them. They would like to have
a project like Merano Bay. He did not think that the proposed landscaping would provide
enough screening and he did not think the project was appropriate for their
neighborhood.
Rose Homrich, 690 NE 15th Place, lives on the street adjacent to Seaview Park and
the development would greatly impact her property. She felt that the project would
37
Meeting Minutes
Regular City Commission Meeting
Boynton Beach~ Florida
~lanuary :~8f 2005
disrupt the neighborhood. She would like the redevelopment of the site to be compatible
with their neighborhood. The Comprehensive Plan allows the City to amend the zoning
ordinance to allow construction on non-conforming lots if the result would be well
designed and compatible with the neighborhood. She felt that the four-story buildings
would dwarf their single-family homes and would reduce their privacy. She would like
to see a project like Merano Bay built on the site.
Rosa Leal, 660 NE 15th Place, felt that some members of the CRA Board treated her
and her fellow residents rudely and made derogatory comments about the trailer park.
She felt that Lennar was coming into the neighborhood to make money. They have lived
in their home for 14 years and would be impacted by this new development. Ms. Leal
was opposed to having these tall buildings in her neighborhood.
She pointed out that with the trailer park, they are able to maintain their privacy. If the
development were built, people would be up on balconies peering into her home. She
would like to have a project that would not change their lifestyle.
Stan Nitkowski, 670 NE 15th Place, does not intend to sell his property at a higher
price, so he feels that the argument that the project would increase his property value
does not apply. He felt that the proposed project was totally incompatible with his
neighborhood. He requested that the City wait and find a more suitable project for the
site that would be more compatible with the neighborhood.
Susan Buchanan, 807 Ocean Inlet Drive, stated that her property directly faces the
proposed project and her lifestyle would be endangered if the proposed project were
built. She likes the cove, which is the focal point of the neighborhood. The cove is
tranquil and quiet and that is the reason she bought her home. Ms. Buchanan noted that
they have small docks with a very Iow noise level. They have manatees, stingrays and
tropical fish, which she did not want to lose because of this new development. Ms.
Buchanan pointed out that they have not seen the plans for a dock and if families
moving into the development purchase boats and jet skis, it would destroy the cove.
Ms. Buchanan had concerns about the proposed pool that juts out into the cove beyond
the existing seawalls. The location of the pool would interfere with the look of the shore
and impact sea life. She also mentioned the privacy factor involved and noted that
sound carries far over the water. Ms. Buchanan requested that the location of the pool
be changed and stated that the Commission has an obligation to preserve the
environment.
Buck Buchanan, 807 Ocean Inlet Drive, pointed out that the day after the IPUD
ordinance was passed, this project was brought in. The project originally dismayed City
and CRA staff and, therefore, started out poorly. After several meetings, the project was
cut back in size. He noted that most of the changes were cosmetic and many changes
that the residents wanted were not negotiable. He also was concerned that there has
been no plan submitted for a dock.
38
Meeting Minutes
Regular City Commission Meeting
Boynton Beach, Florida
January18, 2005
Mr. Buchanan did not think it was possible to buffer a four-story building from the
houses on the north side of Ocean Inlet Drive. This project would change the character
and appearance of the cove. He was in favor of redevelopment, but felt it must be
compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. Mr. Buchanan requested that the
Commission reject the project and to send a message to developers that compatibility
counts so that Boynton Beach can remain hometown USA.
Joy Woodworth, 685 NE 15th Place, wanted to keep her home the way it was. She did
not want to have to screen her windows to keep out lights from the proposed
development that would be going up in her backyard. Ms. Woodworth felt that this
development would affect the entire City, not just her neighborhood. She has lived in
Boynton Beach for 18 years and does not want to be driven out of the City.
Harry Woodworth, 685 NE 15th Place, pointed out that the residents worked hard in
developing the IPUD ordinance and when the Harbors was developed, everyone was
disappointed. He equated this new project to another Harbors. Boynton Beach is a
great place to live and he did not agree with the comment made that they were opposed
to change. He is not opposed to change and pointed to his community that was one of
the first communities that changed. When Mayor Taylor was running for office, he told
the residents that this would never happen to them. Mr. Woodworth urged the
Commission to preserve the City for other people to live. He did not feel it was
necessary to give the City away, nor did he consider the proposed four-story
development a transition development in a single-family neighborhood.
Attorney Morell concluded his presentation. He pointed out, however, that the notice
was incorrect. The zoning was not being changed from R-3 multi-family residential to C-
3 Commerical; it was being changed from R-1AA zoning.
Nancy Chandler, 914 NE 7th Street, lives south of the proposed development and felt
that at some point she would probably be standing at the podium faced with the same
problem. Ms. Chandler is a member of INCA's land use team and has been studying
land use issues for a year. The land use team has worked positively with City staff and
the CRA on revising the City's Codes. She was under the impression that the City's
vision was to preserve the edges between new development and neighboring
communities and to use a wedding cake approach to tier down to single-family
neighborhoods.
Ms. Chandler was present at the CRA meeting last Tuesday and some issues caused
her concern. It appeared to her that height was not an issue and that high rises next to
single-family homes was a fact of life in Florida. She felt that height was an issue,
otherwise the citizens would not have voted for a 45' height restriction in the past. She
was opposed to having the City developed the way other cities are being developed
throughout the State and wanted to preserve the character of the City. She thought that
more citizen involvement was needed in order to protect the vision of the City.
Brian Edwards, 629 NE 9th Avenue, was speaking on behalf of INCA. At their last
meeting INCA voted unanimously, except for Mr. Sheridan, to oppose this project.
39
Meeting Minutes
Regular City Commission Meeting
Boynton Beach, Florida
3anuary~8~ 2005
There are eight neighborhoods that are members of INCA and because of the Harbors
development, this issue has surfaced. They never accepted three stories, much less
four. They are opposed to the project and do not want to have it in their neighborhood.
Mr. Edwards pointed out how they worked with City staff and the CRA to come up with
the IPUD; INCA is not against development, but would like to have another project like
Merano Bay. Mr. Edwards equated the proposed development to a monstrosity.
Attorney Weiner presented his closing arguments. He pointed out that the resume of
Winston Lee, who spoke on behalf of Attorney Morell and his clients, did not indicate
that he is a sound engineer, structural engineer, electrical engineer, or traffic engineer,
yet he offered comments in those areas. Attorney Weiner pointed out that the applicant
agreed to 53 of the 54 comments that were made by the City's experts.
Three issues raised were the docks, noise and lights and Attorney Weiner felt that many
of the statements made were inaccurate. There would be no docks, and no docks are
planned.
Attorney Weiner noted that Attorney Morell wanted to incorporate the testimony from the
first hearing into this second hearing and Attorney Weiner requested to do the same.
The applicant would be amenable to improving any site plan issues, if necessary.
Attorney Weiner entered another case into the record that dealt with a similar issue, a
copy of which was provided to the Clerk and placed on file in the City Clerk's Office.
Attorney Weiner was astonished that all these residents that spoke against the project
were surprised about the height being 45' when they worked on the original IPUD and
knew the height could go to 45'. The only outstanding issue he felt was the one
additional floor, and he took issue that making a profit was a bad thing. The 4th floor
would be an asset to the project, not a detriment, and cutting it down would reduce the
attractiveness of the buildings.
Mike Rumpf, Planning and Zoning Director, noted that he has a Master's Degree in
Planning and an undergraduate degree in the same field. He reported that staff has
technically, professionally, and completely reviewed the site plan and he had some
remarks to make regarding some of the statements made.
Issues common to site plans are location of waste receptacles, lighting, glare, etc., and
there are Codes that address these issues. Even if the lighting is not totally worked out
ahead of time or fixed later, the City has glare standards that prohibit glare. With regard
to the overhead wires on the north side of the project, FP&L allows many species of
plants and trees to be placed under the wires.
Mr. Rumpf further disputed the statement that there would be drainage problems
because of the placement of the root balls of the trees. The root balls are separated on
center at approximately 15' and staff has recommended placing one tree between those
trees and there still would be no drainage problems, while increasing the buffering.
40
Meeting Minutes
Regular City Commission Meeting
Boynton Beach, Florida
3anuary18, 2005
The City has a noise ordinance that addresses noise issues when they become
nuisances. With regard to the parking issue, Mr. Rumpf pointed out that there is an
excess of 33 spaces and typically, garages in condos are used for vehicles, not
lawnmowers and other objects.
Mr. Rumpf explained that the rooftop patios are recessed away from the edge of roof
that would prevent someone from seeing directly down. Staff has reviewed the project
against what else could be built on the property. From his experience with single-family
homes being built up to the setbacks, this could create walls themselves. If the single-
family homes had second floors, a person could look into the neighboring homes.
Vice Mayor McCray pointed out that he represented the residents in District 2 and took
offense to the remarks regarding the mobile home park.
Attorney Cherof noted that two motions would be necessary and there are 54 conditions
of approval. Any motion should indicate which conditions should be incorporated into
the approval.
The rezoning would be done by ordinance and tonight would be the first reading of
Ordinance No. 05-007, which Attorney Cherof read by title only.
Motion
Commissioner Ferguson moved to approve the request to rezone from R-3 Multi-family
Residential and C-3 Community Commerical to Infill Planned Unit Development (IPUD)
Commissioner Ensler inquired if the motion included staff's recommendation for
comment #48. Commissioner Ferguson stated that his motion excluded comment #48,
but included all other staff conditions.
Mayor Taylor had a compatibility issue that he would address when the site plan
approval was discussed.
Vote
Mayor Taylor passed the gavel and seconded the motion. City Clerk Prainito called the
roll and the motion carried 4-1 (Vice Mayor McCray dissenting).
Vote
Commissioner Ferguson moved to approve Proposed Ordinance No. 05-007.
Vote
Mayor Taylor passed the gavel and seconded the motion. City Clerk Prainito called the
roll and the motion carried 4-1 (Vice Mayor McCray dissenting).
41
Meeting Minutes
Regular City Commission Meeting
Boynton Beach, Florida
3anuary18~ 2005
Attorney Cherof stated that the final item would be the request for approval of the site
plan that included 54 conditions of approval. There was no corresponding ordinance.
Mayor Taylor had concerns about the height, which was the subject of compatibility of
the development. He did not think that the mobile home park was compatible, but he
would like the project going in to be compatible. He felt that a new development would
increase the value of the surrounding properties. The developer has tried to work with
the neighbors and made some concessions, but the residents still have concerns. He
would only approve the site plan with staff's comment that the height would not exceed
38' and the buffering would greatly assist in this regard.
Commissioner Ensler inquired if there were any set hours for the operation of the pool.
Attorney Weiner noted that currently there are no lights around the pool, but they would
be willing to work with staff to put something in the HOA documents to restrict the hours
of operation.
Commissioner Ensler asked if the applicant had any further comments they would like
to offer regarding the 38' limitation. After conferring with his client, Attorney Weiner
stated that they would agree to the 38' height limitation and would work with staff on any
site plan modifications that might be necessary.
Motion
Commissioner Ferguson moved to approve the site plan, subject to all 54 staff
conditions. Motion seconded by Commissioner Ensler. City Clerk Prainito called the roll
and the motion carried 4-1 (Vice Mayor McCray dissenting).
IX. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT:
Consideration of lien reduction from Mr. Andre St. Juste for property
commonly known as 440 NE 14th Avenue
Andre St. Juste, 925 Greenbriar Drive, Boynton Beach, has lived in Boynton Beach
for 19 years and loves living in the City. He currently owns two houses that are in
foreclosure because of the actions of Code Compliance Division. Currently he pays
$7,000 monthly in taxes. He was present to ask the Commission to wipe out his lien so
he could rebuild a house on hfs properly.
Mayor Taylor noted that Mr. St. Juste had a home on 440 NE 14th Avenue that the City
tore down. The lien that existed on this property has now transferred to Greenbriar Drive
and is over $1 million. Mayor Taylor explained that Mr. St. Juste wanted to build a new
house on the vacant land for his children.
Mr. Bressner reported that the house was demolished in October 2002 pursuant to court
action and the lien stopped once the house was demolished. The $1.1 million was
incurred as of 2002. Mr. Bressner noted that the costs incurred in handling this case are
as follows:
42
Meeting Minutes
Regular City Commission Meeting
Boynton Beach, Florida
]anuary18~ 2005
$32,848 in legal fees spent by the City;
$1,730 was an amount that a lien was reduced by the Code Compliance Board
Administrative costs were incurred by the Code Compliance staff in Case Nos.
97-2429, 98-818, 98-4188 and 99-2835.
Lot mowing costs of $120 after the demolition took place.
Total administrative costs are $42,297.93
Vice Mayor McCray questioned Mr. St. Juste's comment that he was paying $7,000 a
month in taxes, but noted that there is a cultural difference. Mr. St. Juste is from another
country and was not educated as to what the City's requirements were. Mayor Taylor
agreed with Vice Mayor McCray, but noted that the case did go through the courts and
Mr. St. Juste was represented by legal counsel.
Commissioner Ferguson pointed out that the administrative fees for the four cases and
the lot mowing expense total $3,136.63. Mr. Bressner also noted that there were
demolition costs and the City hired a contractor to demolish the property.
Mr. St. Juste asserted that Attorney Cherof was not aware of what Mr. Blasie had done
to his property and Mayor Taylor explained that the Commission is fully aware of Mr. St.
Juste's case. Attorney Cherof stated that these were the same issues that were raised
in the court proceeding that began in 1991. They went to trial before a judge, who
listened to all the evidence, and Mr. St. Juste was represented by counsel throughout
the proceeding; however, Mr. St. Juste lost the lawsuit. Since that time, the property
went downhill and that led to its demolition.
Mayor Taylor noted that the County was in the process of auctioning off his property
and Mr. St. Juste had to pay $4,000 to the County to keep from losing his property. A
meeting was held with Mr. St. Juste and it was agreed to bring the issue to the
Commission once Mr. St. Juste paid the taxes. It is now up to the Commission to
decide whether to reduce any of the liens.
Motion
Commissioner Ferguson moved to reduce the liens in Case Nos. 96-1138, 97-2429, 98-
818, 98-4188, 99-2835 and 04-1720 to $3,136.63 in administrative costs. Motion
seconded by Vice Mayor McCray.
Mr. St. Juste asked how much time he would have to pay the reduced fines and
Commissioner Ferguson recommended that it be paid by the end of September. Mr.
Bressner noted that Mr. St. Juste could not obtain a building permit until the fines were
paid.
Attorney Cherof explained that Mr. St. Juste would not be able to borrow money if there
were liens on the property. Mr. St. Juste stated that he wanted to build a home on this
property for his children.
43
Meeting Minutes
Regular City Commission Meeting
Boynton Beach, Florida
3anuaryl8, 2005
Motion
Mayor Taylor moved that the fines in Case Nos. 96-1138, 97-2429, 98-818, 98-4188,
99-2835 and 04-1720 be reduced to zero ($0). Motion seconded by Commissioner
Ferguson and unanimously carried.
X. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
Workshop regarding City Hall/Public Safety Space Needs Report (TBA)
Proposed Lease Agreement with Boynton Woman's Club (TBA)
Management of Colors along Congress Avenue, Federal Highway,
Gateway Boulevard and Boynton Beach Boulevard (TABLED ON 8/3/04
based on review by Planning & Development Board and CRA)
Revamp of CDBG Allocation Process (January 2005)
City Commission District Boundary Review (February 1,2005)
Hurricane Follow-up Report- (February 1 or February 15, 2005 subject to
space availability)
G. Annexation of Enclaves (TBA)
H. Hurricane Design for Public Buildings
Vice Mayor McCray inquired what the date would be for Item D (Revamp of CDBG
Allocation Process) under Future Agenda Items. Mr. Bressner stated that this was
tabled until the first meeting in February.
Xl. NEW BUSINESS:
Discussion of Suspended Animation, Inc. (proposed use for zoning
verification) (POSTPONED TO FEBRUARY 1, 2005 AT APPLICANT'S
REQUEST)
XlI. LEGAL:
A. Ordinances - 2nd Reading - PUBLIC HEARING
Proposed Ordinance No. 04-045 Re: Regarding
property consisting of approximately 81.814 acres and located
between Congress Avenue and the LWDD E-4 Canal, more
particularly described herein; amending Ordinance 89-38 by
amending the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive
Plan, the Land Use Designation is being changed from Moderate
Meeting Minutes
Regular City Commission Meeting
Boynton Beach, Florida
3anuary18, 2005
Density Residential to Mixed Use-Suburban (Boynton Village)
(TABLED TO FEBRUARY 1, 2005 MEETING)
Proposed Ordinance No. 04-046 Re: Regarding
the application of Klatt Family Limited Partnership, amending
Ordinance 02-013 of said City by rezoning a parcel of land more
particularly described herein from R-l-AA Single-Family Residential
to Suburban Mixed Use (SMU) (Boynton Village) (TABLED TO
FEBRUARY 1, 2005 MEETING)
Proposed Ordinance No. 04-047 Re: Regarding
property consisting of approximately 25 acres and located on the
northeast corner of the intersection of Congress Avenue and Old
Boynton Road; amending Ordinance 89-38 by amending the Future
Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan of the City for the
property more particularly described herein; the Land Use
Designation is being changed from Moderate Density Residential to
Local Retail Commercial (LRC) (Boynton Town Center) (TABLED
TO FEBRUARY 1, 2005 MEETING)
Proposed Ordinance No. 04-048 Re: Regarding
the application of Klatt Family Limited Partnership 1 and Klatt
Enterprises, Inc., amending Ordinance 02-013 of said City by
rezoning a parcel of land more particularly described herein from R-
1-AA Single-Family Residential to C-3 Community Commercial
(Boynton Town Center) (TABLED TO FEBRUARY 1, 2005
MEETING)
Proposed Ordinance No. 04-049 Re: Amending
Policy 1.16.1 of the Future Land Use Element by adding a Mixed
Use-Suburban (MX-S) land use category; providing for consistent
zoning districts, allowed uses, density and intensity of development
(TABLED TO FEBRUARY 1, 2005 MEETING)
Proposed Ordinance No. 04-058 Re: Approving
the proposed amendment to the functional classification of
roadways map in the support documents for the Transportation
Element of the Comprehensive Plan (The streets involved are SE
4th Street between Boynton Beach Boulevard and SE 12th Avenue,
and Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard between Federal Highway
and Seacrest Boulevard (TABLED TO FEBRUARY 1, 2005
MEETING)
Proposed Ordinance No. 04-059 Re: Amending
the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan to establish
a Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) in a portion
45
Meeting Minutes
Regular City Commission Meeting
Boynton Beach, Florida
.lanuary 18, 2005
of the City's Community Redevelopment Area (TABLED TO
FEBRUARY 1, 2005 MEETING)
Proposed Ordinance No. 05-001 Re: Establishing
a Community Development District (CDD) for the Monterey
Development, a residential project approved for 300 townhomes on
a parcel located on Congress Avenue north of the L.W.D.D. Canal
L-30
Attorney Cherof read Proposed Ordinance No. 05-001 by title only.
Commissioner Ensler noted that at the last meeting, the Commission requested that a
definition of the mitigation area be included along with the responsibility of the Board in
maintaining the mitigation area. He inquired if these changes were included in the
revised ordinance.
James D. DeCocq, representing the applicant, stated that the revised petition does
include a full description of the mitigation area. He noted that there were two issues with
the plat that are being addressed that would guaranty their responsibilities with regard
to the stormwater issues and the mitigation area. A letter was forwarded by the
developer stating that these issues would be handled on the plat.
Motion
Commissioner Ensler moved to approve Proposed Ordinance No. 05-001.
Vice Mayor McCray also noted that he had requested some changes to the document
and asked if those changes were made. Mr. DeCocq stated that those changes were
made and revised mitigation documents and a standard maintenance agreement was
forwarded to the City's Planning and Zoning Division and Legal Department.
Attorney Cherof acknowledged that he reviewed the new documents and they are
acceptable.
Mayor Taylor opened the public hearing. Since no one wished to speak, the public
hearing was closed.
Vote
Commissioner Ferguson seconded the motion. City Clerk Prainito called the roll and the
motion carried 5-0.
Proposed Ordinance No. 05-002 Re: Amending
Chapter 16, Parks and Recreation, Article II, City Parks and
Beaches, by adding a new Section 16-28, "Bounce Houses" to
provide for the regulation of bounce houses and other inflatable
playground equipment at City parks
46
Meeting Minutes
Regular City Commission Meeting
Boynton Beach, Florida
~anuary18, 2005
Attorney Cherof read proposed Ordinance No. 05-002 by title only.
Mayor Taylor opened the public hearing. Since no one wished to speak, the public
hearing was closed.
Motion
Commissioner Ferguson moved to approve Proposed Ordinance No. 05-002. Motion
seconded by Vice Mayor McCray. City Clerk Prainito called the roll and the motion
carried 5-0.
10.
Proposed Ordinance No. 05-003 Re: Amending
Chapter 14, "Motor Vehicles and Traffic", amending Section 14-9,
"Disabled Parking Space Violation" of the Code of Ordinances,
providing for dismissal of disabled parking violation citations under
specified circumstances and for an administrative fee associated
therewith
Attorney Cherof read proposed Ordinance No. 05-003 by title only.
Mayor Taylor opened the public hearing. Since no one wished to speak, the public
audience was closed.
Marshall Gage, Chief of Police, noted that during the first reading of the ordinance the
$25 administrative fee was removed. Chief Gage explained that the Police Department
was canceling up to 900 citations a year that resulted in a great deal of staff time.
Therefore, a decision was made to stop canceling citations and violators were referred
to the Clerk's Office. This became a problem for some members of the community and
he was asked to address this by requesting this ordinance that included the $25 fee for
canceling the citations. At the first reading of the ordinance, some Commissioners were
concerned about charging a fee, but the Police Department gets many repeat offenders
and Boynton Beach issues more parking citations than many of the neighboring
municipalities.
When checking with Boca Raton, Delray Beach and Lake Worth to determine how many
citations they cancel each year, Lake Worth cancelled 286 tickets, 11 of which were
handicap parking tickets. The other two cities did not have the statistics available, but
were not issuing any more tickets than what Lake Worth was issuing. Chief Gage
pointed out that the City has 23 parking citation volunteers that work for the City and
noted that they are not issuing as many tickets as in the past.
State law allows Chief Gage to cancel citations, which would make the ordinance moot.
He would request that the Commission reconsider adding back the administrative fee to
at least apply to repeat offenders.
Commissioner Ensler inquired when a person goes to court in Delray Beach and
presented evidence that they have the proper handicap sticker, is there a fee for
47
Meeting Minutes
Regular City Commission Meeting
Boynton Beach, Florida
~ ~ .January ~.8, 2005
canceling the ticket. Chief Gage stated sometimes a judge would issue court costs.
However, sometimes the Clerk's Office cancels the citations, which they do not have the
legal authority to do. Court costs assessed by a judge could range from $25 to $75.
Motion
Commissioner Ferguson moved to approve Proposed Ordinance No. 05-003 with the
proviso that the $25 administrative fee would only apply to repeat offenders within a
twelve (12) month period. Motion seconded by Commissioner McKoy. City Clerk
Prainito called the roll and the motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Ensler dissenting).
11. Proposed Ordinance No. 05-004 Re: Amending
Section 2-20(a) of the Code of Ordinances regarding quasi-judicial
hearings; adding site plan extensions and abandonments to the list
of quasi-judicial proceedings, providing for notice and procedures
Attorney Cherof read Proposed Ordinance No. 05-004 by title only.
Mayor Taylor opened the public hearing. Since no one wished to speak, the public
hearing was closed.
Motion
Commissioner Ferguson moved to approve Proposed Ordinance No. 05-004. Motion
seconded by Vice Mayor McCray. City Clerk Prainito called the roll and the motion
carried 5-0.
12. Proposed Ordinance No. 05-005 Re: Amending
Chapter 26. Water, Sewers and City Utilities, Article VII, Section 26-
406 entitled "Capital Contributions", authorizing the transfer of real
property to the City in lieu of capital contribution charges within the
downtown stormwater improvement watershed
Attorney Cherof requested that Proposed Ordinance No. 05-005 be tabled.
Motion
Vice Mayor McCray moved to table. Motion seconded by Commissioner McKoy and
unanimously carried.
B. Ordinances - 1 st Reading
None
C. Resolutions:
None
48
Meeting Minutes
Regular City Commission Meeting
Boynton Beach, Florida
.lanuary ~.8, 2005
D. Other:
Xlll. UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
Discuss the Community Redevelopment Agency Board/Mr.
Hutchinson (Addressed previously after Consent Agenda Approval)
XlV. ADJOURNMENT:
Doug
There being no further business, the meeting properly adjourned at 2:35 p.m.
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
Commissioner /
(January 20, 2005)
49
PROJECT NAME:
APPLICANT'S AGENT:
APPLICANT'S ADDRESS:
DEVELOPMENT ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
Arches (SPTE 05-001 ) ['0~01)m0~t
Ip&z
lflulldt~g.
Mr. Ryan Weisfisch with Boynton Ventures 1, LLC 16~'c. U~me... _,
~,~.~'d~lt~ ~le:oep, u~ Cl~ Cleri
1250 East Hallandale Beach Boulevard, Suite 305 ~~
Hallandale Beach, FL 33009
DATE OF HEARING RATIFICATION BEFORE CITY COMMISSION: January 4, 200-'/4,~[''
TYPE OF RELIEF SOUGHT: Request a second, one (1) year site plan time extension for a large
scale mixed-use project approved on June 3, 2003 (an extension to
December 3, 2005)
LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Southwest corner of Ocean Avenue and Federal Highway
DRAWING(S): SEE EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO.
X THIS MATTER came before the City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida
appearing on the Consent Agenda on the date above. The City Commission hereby adopts the
findings and recommendation of the Community Redevelopment Agency, which Board found as
follows:
OR
THIS MATTER came on to be heard before the City Commission of the City of Boynton
Beach, Florida on the date of hearing stated above. The City Commission having considered the
relief sought by the applicant and heard testimony from the applicant, members of city administrative
staff and the public finds as follows:
Application for the relief sought was made by the Applicant in a manner consistent with
the requirements of the City's Land Development Regulations.
The Applicant
JHAS
HAS NOT
established by substantial competent evidence a basis for the relief requested.
The conditions for development requested by the Applicant, administrative staff, or
suggested by the public and supported by substantial competent evidence are as set
forth on Exhibit "C" with notation "Included".
The Applica.,~t's application for relief is hereby
-.,"GRANTED subject to the conditions referenced in paragraph 3 hereof.
DENIED
5. This Order shall take effect immediately upon issuance by the City Clerk.
7. Other
All further development on the property shall be made in accordance with the terms
and conditions of thisorder.~
Exhibit 'A'- Location Map
~ 0 100 200 400 600 800 w-~
i
°B'
ii
I[
il!! '~
I Iill.
EXHIBIT "C"
Conditions o£ Approval
Project name: Arches
File number: SPTE 05-001
Reference: Site Plan Time Extension
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
PUBLIC WORKS- General
Comments: None X
PUBLIC WORKS- Traffic
Comments: None X
UTILITIES
Comments: None X
FIRE
Comments: None X
POLICE
Comments: None X
ENGINEERING DIVISION
Comments: None X
BUILDING DIVISION
Comments: None X
PARKS AND RECREATION
Comments: None X
FORESTER/ENVIRONMENTALIST
Conmaents: None X
PLANNING AND ZONING
Comments: None X
ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD
CONDITIONS
Conditions of Approval
DEPARTMENTS iNCLUDE REJECT
Comments:
1. None X
ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS
Comments:
2. Status reports required fi.om both staff and the developer, due on May 1, 2005 X
and a second report on September 1, 2005, to describe progress made from
each perspective.
S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS~ARCHES ~ E]B\SPTE 05-001\COA.doc
DEVELOPMENT ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
Development
P&Z
Building
Engineering
Occ, License
Dqputy Cty Clerk
PROJECT NAME: Seaview Park Club
AGENT: Mr. Michael Weiner / Weiner & Aronson, P.A. _~ ~ _
AGENTS ADDRESS: 102 North Swinton Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33444
DATE OF HEARING RATIFICATION BEFORE CITY COMMISSION: January 18, 2004
TYPE OF RELIEF SOUGHT: Request new site plan approval to construct 69 condominium units on
3.756 acres in the IPUD zoning district.
LOCATION OF PROPERTY:
DRAWING(S): SEE EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO.
X THIS MATTER came before the City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida
appearing on the Consent Agenda on the date above. The City Commission hereby adopts the
findings and recommendation of the Community Redevelopment Agency Board, which Board found
as follows:
OR
THIS MATTER came on to be heard before the City Commission of the City of Boynton
Beach, Florida on the date of hearing stated above. The City Commission having considered the
relief sought by the applicant and heard testimony from the applicant, members of city administrative
staff and the public finds as follows:
1. Application for the relief sought was made by the Applicant in a manner consistent with
the requirements of the City's Land Development Regulations.
The Applica.nt
_~-/HAS
HAS NOT
established by substantial competent evidence a basis for the relief requested.
The conditions for development requested by the Applicant, administrative staff, or
suggested by the public and supported by substantial competent evidence are as set
forth on Exhibit "C" with notation "Included".
The Applicapt's application for relief is hereby..
v./. GRANTED subject to the cond~bons referenced in paragraph 3 hereof.
DENIED
5. This Order shall take effect immediately upon issuance by the City Clerk.
All further development on the property shall be made in accordance with
and conditions of this order.
7. Other
DATED:
City Clerk
Exhibit 'A'- Location Map
0
100 2O0 4OO 6OO
8O0
EXHIBIT "B"
EXHIBIT "B"
EXHIBIT "B"
EXHIBIT "B"
EXHIBIT "B"
EXHIBIT "B"
EXHIBIT "C"
Conditions of Approval
Project name: Seaview Park Club
File number: NWSP 04-014
Reference: 2nd review plans identified as a New Site Plan with a December 7, 2004 Planning and Zoning
Department date stamp marking.
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
PUBLIC WORKS - General
Comments: None X
PUBLIC WORKS - Traffic
Comments: None X
ENGINEERING DIVISION
Comments:
1. Full drainage plans, including drainage calculations, in accordance with the X
LDR, Chapter 6, Article IV, Section 5 will be required at the time of
permitting.
2. Paving, Drainage and site details will not be reviewed for construction X
acceptability at this time. All engineering construction details shall be in
accordance with the applicable City of Boynton Beach Standard Drawings
and the "Engineering Design Handbook and Construction Standards" and
will be reviewed at the time of construction permit application.
UTILITIES
Comments:
3. All utility easements shall be shown on the site plan and landscape plans (as X
well as the Water and Sewer Plans) so that we may determine which
appurtenances, trees or shrubbery may interfere with utilities. In general,
palm trees will be the only tree species allowed within utility easements.
Canopy trees may be planted outside of the easement so that roots and
branches will not impact those utilities within the easement in the foreseeable
future. The LDR, Chapter 7.5, Article 1, Section 18.1 gives public utilities
the authority to remove any trees that interfere with utility services, either in
utility easements or public rights-of-way.
4. Palm Beach County Health Department permits will be required for the water X
and sewer systems serving this project (CODE, Section 26-12).
5. Fire flow calculations will be required demonstrating the City Code X
requirement of 1,500 g.p.m. (500 g.p.m, some residential developments) with
20 p.s.i, residual pressure as stated in the LDR, Chapter 6, Article IV, Section
16, or the requirement imposed by insurance underwriters, whichever is
COA
01/07/05
Z
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
greater (CODE, Section 26-16(b)).
6. The CODE, Section 26-34(E) requires that a capacity reservation fee be paid X
for this project either upon the request for the Department's signature on the
Health Department application forms or within seven (7) days of site plan
approval, whichever occurs first. This fee will be determined based upon
final meter size, or expected demand.
7. In regards to sanitary service, this project probably will require a lift station X
on site, with the option to connecting to the existing sanitary system located in
Manatee Bay Apartments (to the north.) A preliminary review will be
required with the Utilities Department.
8. A building permit for this project shall not be issued until this Department has X
approved the plans for the water and/or sewer improvements required to
service this project, in accordance with the CODE, Section 26-15.
9. Utility construction details will not be reviewed for construction acceptability X
at this time. All utility construction details shall be in accordance with the
Utilities Department's "Utilities Engineering Design Handbook and
Construction Standards" manual (including any updates); they will be
reviewed at the time of construction permit application.
FIRE
Comments:
10. The site addressing shall be visible from the street (with letters a minimum 6 X
inches in height with 1 V2-inch width (stroke).
11. At the time of permitting, Fire department vehicle access shall be maintained X
from the from the beginning to the finish of the project.
12. At the time of permitting, all fire protection equipment shall be operable and X
accessible during each phase of construction.
POLICE
Comments: None X
BUILDING DIVISION
Comments:
13. Every exterior wall within 15 feet of a property line shall be equipped with X
approved opening protectives per 2001 FBC, Section 705.1.1.2.
COA
01/07/05
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
14. Buildings, structures and parts thereof shall be designed to withstand the X
minimum wind loads of 140 mph. Wind forces on every building or structure
shall be determined by the provisions of ASCE 7, Chapter 6, and the
provisions of 2001 FBC, Section 1606 (Wind Loads). Calculations that are
signed and sealed by a design professional registered in the state of Florida
shall be submitted for review at the time of permit application.
15. Every building and structure shall be of sufficient strength to support the X
loads and forces encountered per the 2001 FBC, Section 1601.2.1 and Table
t 604.1. Indicate the live load (psf) on the plans for the building design.
16. Buildings three-stories or higher shall be equipped with an automatic X
sprinkler system per F.S. 553.895. Fire protection plans and hydraulic
calculations shall be included with the building plans at the time of perrmt
application.
17. At time of permit review, submit signed and sealed working drawings of the X
proposed construction.
18. Identify within the site data the finish floor elevation (lowest floor elevation) X
that is proposed for the building. Verify that the proposed elevation is in
compliance with regulations of the code by adding specifications to the site
data that address the following issues:
From the FIRM map, identify in the site data the title of the flood zone that
the building is located within. Where applicable, specify the base flood
elevation. If there is no base flood elevation, indicate that on the plans.
19. Please have the applicant provide the City with a copy of the letter that will be X
sent to the impact fee coordinator. To allow for an efficient permit review, the
applicant should request that the County send the City a copy of their
determination of what impact fees are required for the
pool/clubhouse/recreation building.
20. CBBCPP 3.C.3.4 requires the conservation of potable water. City water may X
not, therefore, be used for landscape irrigation where other sources are readily
available
21. A water-use permit from SFWMD is required for an irrigation system that X
utilizes water from a well or body of water as its source. A copy of the permit
shall be submitted at the time of permit application, F.S. 373.216.
22. If capital facility fees (water and sewer) are paid in advance to the City of X
Boynton Beach Utilities Department, the following information shall be
provided at the time of building permit application:
a. The full name of the project as it appears on the Development Order and
the Commission-approved site plan.
b. If the project is a multi-family project, the building number/s must be
provided. The building numbers must be the same as noted on the
COA
01/07/05
4
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
comrmssion-approved site plans.
c. The number of dwelling units in each building.
d. The number of bedrooms in each dwelling unit.
e. The total amount paid and itemized into how much is for water and how
much is for sewer.
(CBBCO, Chapter 26, Article II, Sections 26-34)
23. At the time of permit review, submit separate surveys of each lot, parcel or X
tract. For purposes of setting up property and ownership in the City computer,
provide a copy of the recorded deed for each lot, parcel or tract. The recorded
deed aha]l be submitted at time of permit review.
24. At time of building permit application, submit verification that the City of X
Boynton Beach Parks and Recreation Impact Fee requirements have been
satisfied by a paid fee or conveyance of property. The following information
shall be provided:
a. A legal description of the land.
b. The full name of the project as it appears on the Development Order and
the Commission-approved site plan.
c. If the project is a multi-family project, the building number/s must be
provided. The building numbers must be the same as noted on the
Commission-approved site plans.
d. The number of dwelling units in each building.
e. The total amount being paid.
(CBBCO, Chapter 1, Article V, Section 3(I))
25. Pursuant to approval by the City CorrmUssion and all other outside agencies, X
the plans for this project must be submitted to the Building Division for
review at the time of permit application submittal. The plans must incorporate
all the conditions of approval as listed in the development order and approved
by the City Co,remission.
26. The full address of the project shall be submitted with the construction X
documents at the time of permit application submittal. If the project is multi-
family, then all addresses for the particular building type shall be submitted.
The name of the project as it appears on the Development Order must be
noted on the building permit application at the time of application submittal.
27. This structure meets the definition of a threshold building per F.S. 553.71 (7) X
and shall comply with the requirements of F.S. 553.79 and the CBBA to the
2001 FBC, Sections 105.3.1 through 105.3.6.
The following information must be submitted at the time of permit
application:
a. The structural inspection plan must be submitted to the enforcing agency
prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of a
threshold building.
b. All shoring and re-shoring procedures, plans and details shall be
submitted.
c. All plans for the building that are required to be signed and sealed by the
COA
01/07/05
5
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
architect or engineers of record shall contain a statement that, to the best
of the architect's or engineer's knowledge, the plans and specifications
comply with the applicable fire safety standards as determined by the
local authority in accordance with this section and F.S. Section 633.
28. All the dwelling units in the building are considered "covered dwelling units" X
and shall comply with the Florida Fair Housing Act, F.S. 760.20 and the
Federal Fair Housing Act, 24 CFR 100.205. Indicate on the plans which
design option (A or B) is being utilized for the design of the dwelling units.
29. Clearly show the required clear floor spaces at all the fixtures and appliances X
in accordance with the Fair Housing Act
30. The elevators shall be designed for wheelchair users to enter the car, X
maneuver within reach of controls and exit from the car. Comply with ANSI
Standard A 117.1-1986, Section 4.10.
PARKS AND RECREATION
Comments:
31. Recreation Facilities Impact Fee - based on the formula the fee is computed X
as follows:
69 multi-family units X $656 ea. = $45,264
Private Recreation Facilities Provided - Swimming pool with Cabana,
Barbeque Areas, Exercise Rooms.
FORESTER/ENVIRONMENTALIST
Comments:
32. The proposed trees should be installed at a minimum height that will provide X
for tree canopies at the 25'-35' height level along Federal Highway. These
trees should be installed in an effort to break up the expanse of the buildings.
This design should visually obscure portions of the second / third story levels
of the buildings. The applicant should evaluate the trees design along the
North, South, and West elevations shown on landscape sheet A2.08, A2.09.
33. At the time of permitting, provide a more accurate and detailed cross-section X
of the existing southern landscape buffer of Manatee Bay apartments. The
cross-section should include the width, ground elevation, existing plant
material and their height.
34. At the time of permitting, provide a cross-section of the entire length of the X
proposed northern landscape buffer. The cross-section should include all
landscape material proposed within the 3-foot wide landscape buffer on the
COA
01/07/05
6
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
subject property in conjunction with the existing plant material located within
the southern landscape buffer of Manatee Bay Apartments. This illustration
should be in-scale with the 4-story condominium building proposed within
this proiect as shown on sheet A2.16.
PLANNING AND ZONING
Comments:
35. Approval of this site plan is contingent upon the accompanying request for X
land use / rezoning application (LUAR 04-010). This includes the proposed
project density. Include a note regarding LUAR 04~010 in the site plan
tabular data (sheet SP1 of 1).
36. One (1) bedroom dwelling units require one and one-half (1V2) parking X
spaces. Two (2) and three (3) bedroom dwelling units require two (2) parking
spaces. The recreation area would require five (5) parking spaces. This
project requires 142 parking spaces and should be noted as such in the site
plan tabular data. The plan proposes 72 garage spaces, 72 tandem spaces,
and 31 off-street spaces, for an excess of 33 spaces. Please revise the site
plan tabular data to indicate this information.
37. At the time of permitting, the clubhouse elevations shall indicate the paint X
manufacturer's name and color code. Staff recommends using the same color
palette for the clubhouse that was used for the condominium building.
38. All new docks would require approval from the U.S. Army Corps of X
Engineers. Who owns the wood docks? Will they be removed? Do they
have permits? If an [PUD is located with frontage on the Intracoastal
Waterway, conditions of approval shall include a deed restriction requiring
that any marina or dockage built will not exceed in width, the boundaries of
the project's actual frontage on the water, regardless of what any other
governing or permitting entity may allow or permit (Chapter 2, Section
5.L.4.g.(3)).
39. Project compatibility will be judged on how well the proposed development X
fits within the context of the neighborhood and abutting properties. Provide
elevations and cross-sections showing adjacent structures within this site plan
application (Chapter 2, Section 5.L.4.g.(1)).
40. The [PUD zoning district contains regulations regarding vehicular circulation X
(Chapter 2, Section 5.4.h.). Provide documentation from the Florida
Department of Transportation that suggests their preference for the location of
the proposed points of ingress and egress.
41. A drainage statement is required prior to the Technical Review Committee X
meeting (Chapter 4, Section 7.F.2.).
COA
01/07/05
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
42. Provide a detail of front entry wall, including its dimensions, material, and X
color (Chapter 4, Section 7.D.). Also, on the main entrance landscape plan
(sheet L-2 of 5), indicate how far away the wall will be from the west (front)
property line.
43. Provide a detail of the fence proposed around the pool / clubhouse area X
including its dimensions, material, and color (Chapter 4, Section 7.D.).
44. The residential subdivision sign may be no taller than six (6) feet in height X
and more than 32 square feet in area (Chapter 21, Article IV, Section 1.B.).
Staff recommends placing the address on top of the sign face.
45. Provide more detail of the cross-section of the buffer. Staff recommends X
adding decorative caps and score lines to the buffer wall.
46. Where the hedge and tree requirements are met on one property, only the X
green space width shall be required for the abutting property in accordance
with Chapter 7.5, Article Il, Section 5.D.E. of the Land Development
Regulations. At the time of permitting, the landscape plan would have to be
revised to show the existing landscape material of the abutting property to
north. The existing landscape material of the abutting property to the north
would have to be such that it meets the intent of the aforementioned code.
Any trees proposed within the subject property's throe (3) foot wide
landscape buffer would have to adhere to Florida Power and Light (FP&L)
Right Tree - Right Place publication.
47. At the time of permitting, on the landscape plan, ensure that the plant X
quantities match between the tabular data and the graphic illustration.
48. Staff recommends limiting the maximum building height of Buildings Two, X
Three, and Four to 38 feet in order to maximize compatibility between the
subject property and the abutting properties / structures.
49. In order to maintain consistency of the appearance of the roof-top patio area, X
canopies, and other items other than plants, which are visible from adjacent
properties, shall be as shown on the site plan or done uniformly as a minor
site plan modification to the approved plan.
50. Where possible, staff recommends installing one (1) tree per 30 linear feet X
and short (small) palm trees within the 3-foot wide north landscape buffer.
The proposed trees should be consistent with the allowable trees species as
per FPL's Right Tree / Right Place publication(s).
51. Where possible, staff recommends increasing the installation height of the X
Laurel Oaks trees proposed within the parking islands on the north and south
sides of the buildings. The trees should be installed at a height of 18 feet to
20 feet rather than 16 feet to 18 feet.
:OA
)1/07/05
8
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE ?,EJECT
52. Staff recommends installing tall, slender palm trees (such as Carpentaria or X
Solitaire) within each vacant interior parking island on both the north and
south sides of the building. The intent is to further break up the building
facades with additional plant material. These trees should be installed at the
same height as the Laurel Oaks and meet the clear trunk requirements of the
landscape code. The type of palm tree will be overseen by the City Forester
at the time of permitting.
53. Staff recommends installing the Cabbage palm trees (proposed along the X
south property line) without the typical "hurricane cut". This would help to
provide immediate screening upon tree installation.
54. Staff recommends that the plant material proposed within the south landscape X
buffer be installed in such a way as to provide immediate buffering. This can
be accomplished by utilizing the following tactics: install all proposed trees
at their maximum height (within their specified range of heights) without
jeopardizing the visual buffering of lower-to-mid-level screening above the
wall, replace the stretch (series) of palm trees with canopy trees consistent
with the remainder of the buffer, and insert additional palm trees within the
south landscape buffer in areas where tip-to-tip spacing is not entirely
accomplished.
ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
COMMENTS:
Comments:
55. None X
ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Comments:
56. To be determined. ~
MW1Uelj
S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Seaview Park Club\nwsp 04-014\COA.doc
T~E. C¥~ CO~l~tsslOt4 OF
Centre @ W oolbdght
· r ConSUlting Co.
pRo3ECT NA~E: .-. AnthOnY polera, X/itca .. ~no Oelra'J Beach, FL 33445 _.
AppLiCANt'S AGEN ~ 900 NW 17t~ Avenue, Suite ~'
,~ANT'S ADDRESS ---~E C~Y COMMI ~;~ht o~ 32 ~eet ~r ~he
A~,~,' _ .~,¢tCA~ON ~ur~,- -~ to a~ow a h~,~;~, mechamCa~
_ ~ o~EF soUG~ ~' ~;rative h~p roo~, ,,~ o~ ~o [2) lee,.
Typ~ ur ,-- ~uipment, an excepuu,'
o[ Wo°tbfight Roa~, approximately 300 feet east of the
LOCAZtON OF pROPERS: Noffh si~e of Congress Avenue. centedine
, : SEE EXHiBt ..... mission of th ~ereb~ adopts
~AWtNG[S) ..... the uity ~u,,,
X ~m~ -~t A~enda on u,~ . _ ~nd DevetOpn
~n the UonSu~,~,;~ of the planmn9 ~
aP~'~ ~d mcommeno~.'~-
OR e on to be heard belore ~e CtW C~m~ss~°~ oi the CiW of Boynton
~ .,~'~;;;ng stated above The C,~ Corem,ss,on hav,ng cons,de,edthe
applicant, members of city administ~atNe
appii~nt and heard testimony from the
Beach, ~lonu~
relief sought by the
staff and the publiC finds as follOWS: the APPli~nt in a manner consistent with
Land Development RegulatiOnS.
Application for the relief sought was made by
1. the requirements of the City's
The APPlica~nt
~ HAS NOT competent evidence a basis for the relief requested.
substantial ' ' '
established byubhC ~P~d supported by .,substantial competent evidence are as set
The conditions for der.elD merit requested by the Applicant admm~stratwe staff, or
3. ~uogested b.y. !h,,e~.,P, .,.~ notation -included.
~(~r~t~ on Exhibit L;
lief is hereby - paragraph 3 hereOf.
..... nt'S application .for.r.e_~ ,'~e conditionS referenced
4. The APP~GRANTED subject ~u .,,
~ DENIED
~ . ediatety upon issuance by the City Clerk.
~-~.;- order shall take effect imm --~de in accordance with the~
5. '"'°urther development on the property shall be
DATEi' ot~er
EXHIt iT A
Gary R. Nikolits, CFA
Palm l~each County Property ApPraiser
Property Mapping System
Legend
~ Parce~ B o~-mdar~
/~ Lot nUmbe~
Owner In
PCN: oB
Name: &
.ocation: s~
Mailing:
/.~2004 Prelit
A Market,,
Ssessed
erupt
Ad Val
-Sa/es Info
Feb~2004
No¥-200:1
0ct-1998
0ct-1998
3u1-1996
May~199r.
0ct-1984
Palm Beach County Property
Map Scale 1:3251
FRONT & REAR ELEVATIONS
~-~.~ ~rl~kkkk. I ~ ~ ~.~r THECENTRE ~~KCA~sifinGroup, Inc. N
X!~l/I I I I I I ii~ffi~l/ ,~~ /I C~) I/~.~,~
EXHIBIT B
EX,HIJBIT B
Project name: Centre ~ Woo/bright
File number: HTEX 05-002
Reference:
EXHIBIT "C"
Conditions of Approval
DEPARTMENTS
PUBLIC WORKS- General
Comments: None
PUBLIC WORKS- Traffic
Comments: None
UTILITIES
Comments: None
FIRE
Comments: None
POLICE
Comments: None
ENGINEERING DIVISION
Comments: None
BUILDING DIVISION
Comments: None
PARKS AND RECREATION
Comments: None
FORESTER/ENVIRONMENTALIST
INCLUDE REJEC3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Comments: None
PLANNING AND ZONING
Comments: None
ADDITIONAL PLANNING 8: DEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDITIONS
X
X
Conditions of Approval
2
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
Comments: [ I
X
1. None
ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS
Comments:
1. To be determined. ~ ~
SSPIanning~,qHARED\WP~PROJECTS\Cenlre ~ WoolbrighfiHTEX 05-002\COA.doc
S:\Planning\Planning Templates\Condition of Approval 2 page -P&D ORA 2003 form.doc
DEVELOPMENT ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
PROJECT NAME:
APPLICANT'S AGENT:
APPLICANT'S ADDRESS:
Centre @ Woolbright
Anthony Polera, Vitcar Consulting Co.
900 NW 17th Avenue, Suite 102, Delray Beach, FL 33445
D~puty City C~, ,
DATE OF HEARING RATIFICATION BEFORE CITY COMMISSION: January 18, 2004
TYPE OF RELIEF SOUGHT: Request for New Site Plan approval to construct a 12,790 square foot,
two-story office building.
LOCATION OF PROPERTY: North side of Woolbright Road, approximately 300 feet east of the
centerline of Congress Avenue.
DRAWING(S): SEE EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO.
X THIS MATTER came before the City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida
appearing on the Consent Agenda on the date above. The City Commission hereby adopts the
findings and recommendation of the Planning and Development Board, which Board found as follows:
OR
THIS MATTER came on to be heard before the City Commission of the City of Boynton
Beach, Florida on the date of hearing stated above. The City Commission having considered the
relief sought by the applicant and heard testimony from the applicant, members of city administrative
staff and the public finds as follows:
Application for the relief sought was made by the Applicant in a manner consistent with
the requirements of the City's Land Development Regulations.
The Applica, nt
,/"HAS
HAS NOT
established by substantial competent evidence a basis for the relief requested.
The conditions for development requested by the Applicant, administrative staff, or
suggested by the public and supported by substantial competent evidence are as set
forth on Exhibit "C" with notation "Included".
The Applicant's application for relief is hereby
,,,,/GRANTED subject to the conditions referenced in paragraph 3 hereof.
DENIED
5. This Order shall take effect immediately upon issuance by the City Clerk.
All further development on the property shall be made in accordance with the terms
and conditions of this order.
7. Other
DATED:~
City Clerk
EXHIBIT A
Gary R. Nikolits, CFA
Palm Beach County Property Appraiser
Property Mapping System
Owner In
PCN: 08
BO
Name: &
Location: s~
Mailing: to
BO
-2004 Preli~
Market
Assessed'
Exempt
Ta
-2004 Estin
Ad Val
Non ad val
-Sales Info
Sales Da'
Feb-2004
Nov-2001
Oct-1998
Oct-1998
Ju1-1996
May-199~
Oct-1984
~an~1979
Legend
~] Parcel B o~'~dary
~ La~ nunber
Palm Beach County Property M~
Map Scale 1:3251
All Rights
I
SITE PLAN
ii[!lii!:!,:!:h,:,!:.,,. 'l
[ ll[:lll
' ti i~ II ]llii
" tlllr
EXHIBIT B
FRONT & REAR ELEVATIONS
EXHIBIT B
LEFT & RIGHT ELEVA TIONS
EXHIBIT B
j~
1iii ~1!,i I,
LANDSCAPE PLAN
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT "C"
Conditions of Approval
Project name: Centre ~ Woolbright
File number: NWSP 05-002
Reference: 2nd review plans identified as a New Site Plan with a November 23, 2004 Planning & Zoning date
stamp marking.
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
PUBLIC WORKS- General
Comments:
1. Inadequate turning radius is provided at the entry driveway to accommodate X
Solid Waste or truck turning movements.
2. The Dahoon Holly proposed behind the dumpster may present a vertical X
conflict for Solid Waste. A non-canopy tree is suggested in its place.
3. The existing Live Oak and proposed Dahoon Holly at the entry driveway may X
present a vertical conflict for high profile vehicles such as Solid Waste
accessing the property.
PUBLIC WORKS- Traffic
Comments: None X
UTILITIES
Comments:
4. Palm Beach County Health Department permits will be required for the X
water system serving this project (CODE, Section 26-12).
5. Fire flow calculations will be required demonstrating the City Code X
requirement of 1,500 g.p.m. (500 g.p.m, some residential developments)
with 20 p.s.i, residual pressure as stated in the LDR, Chapter 6, Article IV,
Section 16, or the requirement imposed by insurance underWriters,
whichever is greater (CODE, Section 26-16Co)).
6. The CODE, Section 26-34(E) requires that a capacity reservation fee be X
paid for this project either upon the request for the Department's signature
on the Health Department application forms or within seven (7) days of site
plan approval, whichever occurs first. This fee will be determined based
upon final meter size, or expected demand.
Conditions of Approval
2
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
7. A building permit for this project shall not be issued until this Department X
has approved the plans for the water and/or sewer improvements required to
service this project, in accordance with the CODE, Section 26-15.
8. Utility construction details will not be reviewed for construction X
acceptability at this time. All utility construction details shall be in
accordance with the Utilities Department's "Utilities Engineering Design
Handbook and Construction Standards" manual (including any updates);
they will be reviewed at the time of construction permit application.
FIRE
Comments:
9. Where underground water mains and hydrants are to be provided, design X
documents, must demonstrate that they will be installed, completed, and in
service prior to construction work per NFPA, (1997) Section 41-2.3.2.
Show pipe sizes and lengths for fire sprinkler system and declare point of
service.
10. Design documents must demonstrate compliance with the requirement for X
fire lanes that are provided in Section 9-12 of the City Ordinances. Signing
and marking are described in Land Development Regulations Chapter 23,
Section B.2.
POLICE
Comments: None X
ENGINEERING DIVISION
Comments:
11. All comments requiring changes and/or corrections to the plans shall be X
reflected on all appropriate sheets.
12. Please note that changes or revisions to these plans may generate additional X
comments. Acceptance of these plans during the TRC process does not
ensure that additional comments may not be generated by the Commission
and at permit review.
13. Provide an engineer's certification on the Drainage Plan as specified in X
LDR, Chapter 4, Section 7.F.2.
14. Full drainage plans, including drainage calculations, in accordance with X I
the LDR, Chapter 6, Article IV, Section 5 will be rerluired at the time of
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
permitting.
15. Indicate by note that catch basin and manhole covers shall be bicycle proof X
(LDR, Chapter 6, Article W, Section 5.A.2.g).
16. Correct Section B2 on Sheet 2 of 2 of the Paving, Grading & Drainage Plan X
to correctly reflect 1 ~/2 inches of asphalt surfacing, 8 inches of base material
in accordance with City Standard K-12. Please note there are no limerock
sources in Palm Beach County.
17. Correct the Type "D" concrete curb detail to correctly reflect an 18 inch X
overall depth (per FDOT Standards.)
18. Paving, Drainage and Site details will not be reviewed for construction X
acceptability at this time. All engineering construction details shall be in
accordance with the applicable City of Boypton Beach Standard Drawings
and the "Engineering Design Handbook and Construction Standards"
and will be reviewed at the time of construction permit application.
BUILDING DIVISION
Comments:
19. Please note that changes or revisions to these plans may generate additional X
comments. Acceptance of these plans during the TRC process does not
ensure that additional comments may not be generated by the commission
and at permit review.
20. Buildings, structures and parts thereof shall be designed to withstand the X
minimum wind loads of 140 mph. Wind forces on every building or
structure shall be determined by the provisions of ASCE 7, Chapter 6, and
the provisions of 2001 FBC, Section 1606 (Wind Loads). Calculations that
are signed and sealed by a design professional registered in the state of
Florida shall be submitted for review at the time of permit application.
21. Every building and structure shall be of sufficient strength to support the X
loads and forces ~countered per the 2001 FBC, Section 1601.2.1 and Table
1604.1. Indicate the live load (pst') on the plans for the building design.
22. At time of permit review, submit signed and sealed working drawings of the X
proposed construction.
23. Identify within the site data the finish floor elevation (lowest floor elevation) X
that is proposed for the building. Verify that the proposed elevation is in
compliance with regulations of the code by adding specifications to the site
data that address the following issues:
a. The design professional-of-record for the project shall add the following
text to the site data. "The proposed finish floor elevation
Conditions of Approval
4
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
NGVD is above the highest 100-year base flood elevation applicable to
the building site, as detCn'rmned by the SFWMD's surface water
management construction development regulations."
b. From the FIRM map, identify in the site data the title of the flood zone
that the building is located within. Where applicable, specify the base
flood elevation. If there is no base flood elevation, indicate that on the
plans.
Identify the floor elevation that the design professional has established for the
building within the footprint of the building that is shown on the drawings
titled site plan, floor plan and paving/drainage (civil plans).
24. A water-use permit from SFWMD is required for an irrigation system that X
utilizes water from a well or body of water as its source. A copy of the
permit shall be submitted at the time of permit application, F.S. 373.216.
25. If capital facility fees (water and sewer) are paid in advance to the City of X
Boynton Beach Utilities Department, the following information shall be
provided at the time of building permit application:
a. The full name of the project as it appears on the Development Order and
the Commission-approved site plan.
b. If the project is a multi-family project, the building number/s must be
provided. The building numbers must be the same as noted on the
Commission-approved site plans.
c. The number of dwelling units in each building.
d. The number of bedrooms in each dwelling unit.
e. The total amount paid and itemized into how much is for water and how
much is for sewer.
(CBBCO, Chapter 26, Article II, Sections 26-34)
26. Pursuant to approval by the City CornnUssion and all other outside agencies, X
the plans for this project must be submitted to the Building Division for
review at the time of permit application submittal. The plans must
incorporate all the conditions of approval as listed in the development order
and approved by the City CoinnUssion.
27. The full address of the project shall be submitted with the construction X
documents at the time of permit application submittal. The name of the
project as it appears on the Development Order must be noted on the
building permit application at the time of application submittal.
PARKS AND RECREATION
Comments: None X
FORESTER/ENVIRONMENTALIST
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
Comments:
Plant List-sheet L-1
28. A details sheet section on this page should include a line indicating where X
the 3" diameter at DBH, the clear trunk, the c.s.t., and the c.t. areas of the
shade and palm trees will be measured at time of planting and inspection.
29. Irrigation -no plans submitted with application
The irrigation design should be low-flow for water conservation. All shade X
and palm trees should receive irrigation from a bubbler source.
[Environmental Regulations, Chapter 7.5, Article II Sec. 5A.]
30. Turf areas should be limited in size. Landscape (bedding plants) areas X
should be designed on separate low-flow zones with proper time duration
for water conservation. [Environmental Regulations, Chapter 7.5, Aaicle II
Sec. 5. C.2.]
PLANNING AND ZONING
Comments:
31. All equipment located on the building shall be painted to match the X
building.
32. A single sign style (such as cabinet, channel, reverse channel) shall be used X
for wall signage.
33. The numerical address must be place prominently in the top portion of the X
monument sign, utilizing six (6) inch letters.
34. Approval of the Site Plan is contingent upon approval of the height X
exception request.
35. Staff recommends the hedge (along the north perimeter of the parking lot to X
help screen the parked vehicles and their headlights from the residential
area to the north) be 3'- 4' at time of planting.
36. The foundation plantings should be shrubs, not groundcover like Liriope. X
ADDITIONAL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDITIONS
Commits:
Conditions of Approval
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
1. None X
ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS
Comments:
1. To be determined. ~ ~0
S:~Planning\SHARED\WP~PROJECTS\Centre ~ Woolbright fka Corina Collins Ctr, LLC\NWSP 05-002\COA.doc
S:\Planning\Planning Templates\Condition of Approval 2 page -P&D ORA 2003 form.doc
Serrano BeaCh pUD
· - ~an & AssoC'~aLeS, loc
NA~E: jutian Bt,jan I Jul an ~,; '
AppLICAN~'S AGEN~tSS 1700 NoChWest ArcadiaWa~'
HEARING ~lFIC stet plan modilication aPPr°val to ~e
DA~E OF .... oonuest for M~ {..t to 2~.5 feet. congressAvenue'
~pE OF RELic- ~ setba .... a~prOftmately % mile west of
LOCA%ION OF pROPER%Y: south o~ Go~ RoaQ,
,, . ~ACHED HERETO- ~itv o~ Boynton ~ch, Florida
- HIBI~ B ~ - _~.~ion o~ the ~ ~ ~-ebv ado~ the
~ ,~ Consent ~ ~ ,~ planning and ~
findings and recu
. · - oi the col Boynton
OR -- ~n [o be hear~ b~
-, ,,c MA~ER cam~ --,-,ed shove. '"~notiCa~t, ~' ......
'm'~'"~ate of hearing s]~stimonY from u
~rida on the ~ .. -, and heard ~ -~sistent with
Beach, "~ - ~ anplican~ .
mliei sOught Dy ~,,,~ finds es ~olloWS. - ~-, the APPlic~m "'
~ nd the pUo,,~ . _ ~ht was made uy . o~nCationS.
~taff a .~ ~liet sou~,,- ~ n~weiop~e~t
" the feqgifel~u
2. The Ap . .~sted
NO'f the rel~e '
substantia~ competent evidence a basis for
s~ed .ce staff, or
estab~i by ~ ~ · *~e APPlicant' adm~ are as set
3. %h --~ b" the pUv --,~on ,,included ·
sugges~ ~[hlt "C" with no~, ph 3 hereof.
fodh on cxn
%he APPlicant's aPPli~ti°n for te~ie~ ~s hereby
G~N%ED subject iD the conditions re~eren~d
4. ~ D~NIED t'erk'
immediately upon issuance by
~ ~ with the terms
ke effect ,
5. %his or,er shalt ta .~- .rope~Y shall be made m
DATED:
i-ocation Map
~errano at Boynton Beach
800
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT "C',
Project name: Sen'an Beach p
F~ile number: MPMD° UD ~
/<eference. 2ha 05-002
· ' review plans identified as a Master Plan Modification
W~th a November 23,2004 Planning &
PUBLIc WORKs. Traffic
X
X
9 of the Code of Or ·
Protection n~..~ ,~ dmances o£th~ -
· ..,on Code, 1997 edi/;~~ ols ordin~ce ad zmon Beach entitled ,, .
..... n, and NFPA I a ~ o~t~NFPA 1, ~>e ~re
~" ~e ~afb~ Code, 1997
Regulations Chapter ~ oe .
~ntain a ~ ~ omentml Dreo~ are ~ot ]ess *~
~ here ander~W o/~- · - -o~Ure shall ~ · ,_ man o
d~~o~ ~aP~ ,,o~ oe less th~ 20
s~~va~ per ~'
p~r NFPA, (199~ o~' COmpleted, and ~ X
' '~ oection 41Q.3.2 m
Adminis~a~ve Order dated May 9, 2001
Ad~ms~afive ~der dated May 15, 2nn. g Y access· A-" X
~ addresses ~ ~Omer
~x ~ox Storage of
fire/~es that are PrO.ded in Section _
descnbed in La.a ~ 9 12 of the C' ~.
~.~ oeVelopme.* ~ ~ty ~ram~ces' S;~' X
"[ megulations o~ ,gmng
~napter 23,
X
X
X
X
Conditions of Approval
2
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
the start of the project and maintained until completion. I
POLICE
Comments: None X
ENGINEERING DIVISION
Comments: None X
BUILDING DIVISION
Comments:
8. Please note that changes or revisions to these plans may generate additional X
comments. Acceptance of these plans during the TRC process does not
ensure that additional comments may not be generated by the commission
and at permit review.
9. Indicate within the site data the type of construction of each building as X
defined in 2001 FBC, Chapter 6.
10. Indicate within the site data the occupancy type of each building as defined X
in 2001 FBC, Chapter 3.
11. Place a note on the elevation view drawings indicating that the exterior wall X
openings and exterior wall construction comply with 2001 FBC, Table 600.
Submit calculations that clearly reflect the percentage of protected and
unprotected wall openings permitted per 2001 FBC, Table 600.
12. At time of permit review, submit signed and sealed working drawings of the X
proposed construction.
13. Identify within the site data the finish floor elevation (lowest floor elevation) X
that is proposed for the building. Verify that the proposed elevation is in
compliance with regulations of the code by adding specifications to the site
data that address the following issues:
The design professional-of-record for the project shall add the following text
to the site data. "The proposed finish floor elevation . __ NGVD is
above the highest 100-year base flood elevation applicable to the building
site, as determined by the SFWMD's surface water management
construction development regulations."
a. From the FiRM map, identify in the site data the title of the flood zone
that the building is located within. Where applicable, specify the base
flood elevation. If there is no base flood elevation, indicate that on the
plans.
b. Identify the floor elevation that the design professional has established
for the building within the footprint of the building that is shown on the
drawings titled site plan, floor plan and paving/drainage (civil plans).
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
14. Add to the submittal a partial elevation view drawing of the proposed X
perimeter wall/fence. Identify the type of wall/fence material and the type of
material that supports the wall/fence, including the typical distance between
supports. Also, provide a typical section view drawing of the wall/fence that
includes the depth that the wall/fence supports are below finish grade and
the height that the wall/fence is above finish grade. The location and height
of the wall/fence shall comply with the wall/fence regulations specified in
the Zoning Code.
16. A water-use permit from SFWMD is required for an irrigation system that X
utilizes water from a well or body of water as its source. A copy of the
permit shall be submitted at the time ofpem~it application, F.S. 373.216.
17. If capital facility fees (water and sewer) are paid in advance to the City of X
Boynton Beach Utilities Department, the following information shall be
provided at the time of building permit application:
a. The full name of the project as it appears on the Development Order and
the Commission-approved site plan.
b. If the project is a multi-family project, the building number/s must be
provided. The building numbers must be the same as noted on the
Commission-approved site plans.
c. The number of dwelling units in each building.
d. The number of bedrooms in each dwelling unit.
e. The total amount paid and itemized into how much is for water and how
much is for sewer.
(CBBCO, Chapter 26, Article II, Sections 26-34)
18. At time of permit review, submit separate surveys of each lot, parcel or tract. X
For purposes of setting up property and ownership in the City computer,
provide a copy of the recorded deed for each lot, parcel or tract. The
recorded deed shall be submitted at time of permit review.
19. At time of building permit application, submit verification that the City of X
Boynton Beach Parks and Recreation Impact Fee requirements have been
satisfied by a paid fee or conveyance of property. The following information
shall be provided:
a. A legal description of the land.
b. The full name of the project as it appears on the Development Order and
the Commission-approved site plan.
c. If the project is a multi-family project, the building number/s must be
provided. The building numbers must be the same as noted on the
Commission-approved site plans.
d. The number of dwelling units in each building.
e. The total amount being paid.
(CBBCO, Chapter 1, Article V, Section 3(1))
20. Pursuant to approval by the City Commission and all other outside agencies, X
the plans for this project must be submitted to the Building Division for
review at the time of permit application submittal. The plans must
incorporate all the conditions of approval as listed in the development order
and approved by the City Commission.
Conditions °f Approval
4
DEPARTMENTs
INCLUDE
REJECT
22.
Y units @ ~ $&
The fee is due at the time of the first building perrmt for this phase
Recorr~endation that t~e developer include i '
for residents
X
X
Comments:
23. E__xistin Treelremoval and ~
The applicant lmst submit a tree replacement (rrgtigation) plan for the 498
diameter inche: of trees removed from the site:
Tree Species QuantityDia~~
Slash Pine 36 trees 10" e~ 360" total
Live Oak 1 double 12" e* 24" total
Live Oak 1 single 30" each 30" total
Live Oak 1 single 12" each 12" tOtal
Live Oak 1 double 6" ea~ 12" total
Live Oak 1 single 10" each 10" total
Acacia 5 trees 8" each 40"
46 trees total 498" total
Total d~ameter of trees remove,
· n the Site is 498 diameter inChes.
Irrigation System
24. There is no irrigation system, .
,- included w/th the
trees should receive water xro . . site plans. All shade
Regulations, Chapter. 7.5, Arl~gat~_°n bubbler. [Environnemental
~ec. ~,A ] ·
X
X
Comments:
PLANNIN
~ Z~ONING
25. All 48
still in force. ' orig/nal
Opment Orde
26.
Applicant shall agree to, and
the perimeter buffer landscape sh!.e HOmeowner Documents, that
individual homeowner may not ntained as approved, and that
property, for improvements on their
X
X
27. There does not appear to be a fence
.... long the south per/meterX
DEPARTMENTS 'oe on
currently contemp placed on the
If one is · uld ,-lace the landscape~
the considered in the future, it shall be
If one should be ..... ,~e buffer. This w.o ~ v _ r~om palmlana
this plan. c ,~,,~ 10 foot iaB~
~nr~h side ol u,~ - ., ~c ~he fence,
Drive. A note to this effect shall be placed on the Master PI~.
iNcLUDE
ADDITIONAL pLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD coNDITIONS
1. None
1. To be determined.
S ~pl a;ming\S H ARED\wP~P RO J ECq S\Serrano Beach~VlpMD 05_002\COA doc
Conditions of Approval
4
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
PARKS AND RECREATION
Comments:
21. 47 single-family units ~ 940ca = $44,180 X
Thc fee is due at the time of the first building permit for this phase.
22. Recommendation that the developer include bike lanes for residents X
considering the proximity to an elementary school.
FORESTER/ENVIRONMENTALIST
Comments:
23. Existing Trees removal and Landscape Plan X
The applicant must submit a tree replacement (mitigation) plan for the 498
diameter inches of trees removed from the site:
Tree Species Quantity Diameter inches (each) Total Diameter
Slash Pine 36 trees 10" each 360" total
Live Oak 1 double 12" each 24" total
Live Oak 1 single 30" each 30" total
Live Oak 1 single 12" each 12" total
Live Oak 1 double 6" each 12" total
Live Oak 1 single 10' each 10" total
Acacia 5 trees 8" each 40" total
46 trees total 498" total
Total diameter of trees removed from the site is 498 diameter inches.
Irrigation System
24. There is no irrigation system design included with the site plans. All shade X
trees should receive water from an irrigation bubbler. [Environnemental.
Regulations, Chapter. 7.5, Article II Sec. 5,A.]
PLANNING AND ZONING
Comments:
25. All 48 Conditions of Approval from the original Development Order are X
still in force.
26. Applicant shall agree to, and place within the Homeowner Documents, that X
the perimeter buffer landscape shall be maintained as approved, and that
individual homeowner may not remove it for improvements on their
property.
27. There does not appear to be a fence proposed a!or~g ~he ~t~th pe~mete~ of
DEPARTMENTS iNCLUDE REJECT
the subdivision. If one is currently contemplated, it should be indicated on
this plan. If one should be considered in the future, it shall be placed on the
north side of the 10 foot landscape buffer. This would place the landscape
material on the outside of the fence, screening the fence from Palmland
Drive. A note to this effect shall be placed on the Master Plan.
ADDITIONAL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDITIONS
Comments:
1. None X
ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS
Comments:
1. To be determined. ~ .~
SSPIanning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Serrano Beach\MPMD 054)02\COA.doc
DEVELOPMENT ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
PROJECT NAME:
APPLICANT'S AGENT:
APPLICANT'S ADDRESS:
Anderson PUD
Julian Bryan / Julian Bryan & Associates, Inc.
1700 Northwest Arcadia Way, Boca Raton, FL 33432
DATE OF HEARING RATIFICATION BEFORE CITY COMMISSION: January 18, 2004
TYPE OF RELIEF SOUGHT: Request for Master Plan modification approval to reduce the front yard
setbacks from 25 feet to 22.5 feet.
LOCATION OF PROPERTY: West side of Lawrence Road, approximately ¼ mile south of Hypoluxo
Road.
DRAWING(S): SEE EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO.
X THIS MATTER came before the City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida
appearing on the Consent Agenda on the date above. The City Commission hereby adopts the
findings and recommendation of the Planning and Development Board, which Board found as follows:
OR
THIS MATTER came on to be heard before the City Commission of the City of Boynton
Beach, Florida on the date of hearing stated above. The City Commission having considered the
relief sought by the applicant and heard testimony from the applicant, members of city administrative
staff and the public finds as follows:
Application for the relief sought was made by the Applicant in a manner consistent with
the requirements of the City's Land Development Regulations.
The Applic.~t
J HAS
HAS NOT
established by substantial competent evidence a basis for the relief requested.
The conditions for development requested by the Applicant, administrative staff, or
suggested by the public and supported by substantial competent evidence are as set
fodh on Exhibit "C" with notation "Included".
The Applicant's application for relief is hereby
~RANTED subject to the conditions referenced in paragraph 3 hereof.
DENIED
5. This Order shall take effect immediately upon issuance by the City Clerk.
All further development on the property shall be made in accordance with
and conditions of this order.
7. Other
DATED:
City Clerk
1 in. = 765.6 feet
ANDERSON PUD EXHIBIT "A"
EXHIBIT "C"
Conditions of Approval
Project name: Anderson PUD
File number: MPMD 05-001
Reference: nd .....
2 review plans identified as a Master P an Modification with an November 23, 2004 Planning &
Zoning date stamp marking.
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
PUBLIC WORKS- General
Comments: None X
PUBLIC WORKS- Traffic
Comments: None X
UTILITIES
Comments: None X
FIRE
Comments:
1. The site plan and / or master plan design documents shall adhere to Chapter X
9 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Boynton Beach entitled "Fire
Protection and Prevention". This ordinance adopts NFPA 1, Fire
Prevention Code, 1997 edition, and NFPA 101, Life SaJkty Code, 1997
edition.
2. Design documents shall demonstrate compliance with Land Development X
Regulations Chapter 6, Section 16, which provides requirements for
hydrants Connections shall be to water mains that are not less than 6
inches in diameter. Domestic residential pressure shall not be less than 20
psi and must maintain a fire flow of at least 1500\ gallons per minute.
3. Where underground water mains and hydrants are to be provided, design X
documents, must demonstrate that they will be installed, completed, and in
service prior to construction work per NFPA, (1997) Section 41-2.3.2.
4. Pursuant to City Ordinance 9-3F, the Fire Marshal has developed an X
Administrative Order dated May 9, 2001 that provides the minimum
performance for all security gates and emergency access. Another
Administrative Order dated May 15, 2001 addresses Knox Box storage of
information for responding emergency personnel.
5. Design documents must demonstrate compliance with the requirement for X
fire lanes that are provided in Section 9-12 of the City Ordinances. Signing
and marking are described in Land Development Regulations Chapter 23,
Section B.2.
6. Fire lanes shall be provided at the start of a project and be maintained X
throughout construction for access per NFPA 1, Section 41-2.1.
7. Fire-rescue access roadways per NFPA 241, Chapter 5, shall be provided at X
the start of the project and maintained until completion.
Conditions of Approval
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
POLICE
Comments: None X
ENGINEERING DIVISION
Comments: None X
BUILDING DIVISION
Comments:
8. Please note that changes or revisions to these plans may generate additional X
comments. Acceptance of these plans during the TRC process does not
ensure that additional comments may not be generated by the commission
and at permit review.
9. Indicate within the site data the type of construction of each building as X
defined in 2001 FBC, Chapter 6.
10. Buildings, structures and parts thereof shall be designed to withstand the X
minimum wind loads of 140 mph. Wind forces on every building or
structure shall be determined by the provisions of ASCE 7, Chapter 6, and
the provisions of 2001 FBC, Section 1606 (Wind Loads). Calculations that
are signed and sealed by a design professional registered in the state of
Florida shall be submitted for review at the time of permit application.
11. At time of permit review, submit signed and sealed working drawings of the X
proposed construction.
12. Identify within the site data the finish floor elevation (lowest floor elevation) X
that is proposed for the building. Verify that the proposed elevation is in
compliance with regulations of the code by adding specifications to the site
data that address the following issues:
~' The design professional-of-record for the project shall add the following
text to the site data. "The proposed finish floor elevation . __ NGVD
is above the highest 100-year base flood elevation applicable to the
building site, as determined by the SFWMD's surface water management
construction development regulations."
)~ From the FIRM map, identify in the site data the title of the flood zone
that the building is located within. Where applicable, specify the base
flood elevation. If there is no base flood elevation, indicate that on the
plans.
13. Add to the submittal a partial elevation view drawing of the proposed X
perimeter wall/fence. Identify the type of wall/fence material and the type of
material that supports the wall/fence, including the typical distance between
supports. Also, provide a typical section view drawing of the wall/fence that
includes the del>th that the wall/fence suly0orts are below f'mish ~rade and
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
the height that the wail/fence is above finish grade. The location and height
of the wall/fence shall comply with the wall/fence regulations specified in
the Zoning Code.
14. A water-use permit from SFWMD is required for an irrigation system that X
utilizes water from a well or body of water as its source. A copy of the
permit shall be submitted at the time of permit application, F.S. 373.216.
15. If capital facility fees (water and se;ver) are paid in advance to the City of X
Boynton Beach Utilities Department, the following information shall be
provided at the time of building permit application:
> The full name of the project as it appears on the Development Order and
the Commission-approved site plan.
> If the project is a multi-family project, the building number/s must be
provided. The building numbers must be the same as noted on the
Commission-approved site plans.
> The number of dwelling units in each building.
> The number of bedrooms in each dwelling unit.
~' The total amount paid and itemized into how much is for water and how
much is for sewer.
(CBBCO, Chapter 26, Article II, Sections 26-34)
16. At time of permit review, submit separate surveys of each lot, parcel or tract. X
For purposes of setting up property and ownership in the City computer,
provide a copy of the recorded deed for each lot, parcel or tract. The
recorded deed shall be submitted at time of permit review.
17. At time of building permit application, submit verification that the City of X
Boynton Beach Parks and Recreation Impact Fee requirements have been
satisfied by a paid fee or conveyance of property. The following information
shall be provided:
> A legal description of the land.
> The full name of the project as it appears on the Development Order and
the Commission-approved site plan.
> If the project is a multi-family project, the building number/s must be
provided. The building numbers must be the same as noted on the
Comrmssion-approved site plans.
)~ The number of dwelling units in each building.
)~ The total amount being paid.
(CBBCO, Chapter 1, Article V, Section 3(f))
18. Pursuant to approval by the City Commassion and all other outside agencies, X
the plans for this project must be submitted to the Building Division for
review at the time of permit application submittal. The plans must
incorporate all the conditions of approval as listed in the development order
and approved by the City Cormmssion.
PARKS AND RECREATION
Comments:
19. The Recreation & Parks Facilities Iml~act for this phase is calculated as X I
Conditions of Approval
4
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
follows:
85 single-family units @ 940ca = $79,900
The fee is due at the time of the first building permit for this phase.
FORESTER/ENVIRONMENTALIST
Comments:
Existing Trees Management Plan X
20. The Landscape Architect should identify by species and indicate the
diameter inches of all of the existing trees on the site. Show all existing
trees on the site to be preserved in place, relocated on site, or removed /
replaced on site. All existing trees must be preserved in place or relocated
rather than removed if the trees are in good health. These trees should be
shown as a separate symbol on the landscape plan sheet. Please comment on
the removal of all of the existing citrus trees when thc site was a citrus
grove.
21. Irrigation Plan-No Irrigation plan included in the submittal X
There is no irrigation system design included with the plans. The irrigation
design should be low-flow for water conservation.
22. In the design, all shade and palm trees should receive irrigation from a X
bubbler source. [Environmental Regulations, Chapter 7.5, Article II Sec.
5A.]
23. Turf areas should be limited in size. Landscape (bedding plants) areas X
should be designed on separate low-flow zones with proper time duration
for water conservation. [Environmental Regulations, Chapter 7.5, Article II
Sec. 5. C.2.]
PLANNING AND ZONING
Comments:
24. All 39 Conditions of Approval from the original Development Order are X
still in force.
ADDITIONAL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDITIONS
Comments:
1. None X
ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS
Comments:
DEPARTMENTS
1. To be determined.
SSPlanning~Planning Templates\Condition of Approval 2 page revised 2003 fom~.doc
iNCLUDE REJECT
S:\Planning\Planning Templates\Condition of Approval 2 page -P&D ORA 2003 form.doc
DEVELOPMENT ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
PROJECT NAME:
APPLICANT'S AGENT:
APPLICANT'S ADDRESS:
St. Gregory Armenian Church
Mr. Dale Meaux with APl Group, Incorporated
111 East Palmetto Park Road Boca Raton, FL 33432
Development
P&Z
ul/ding
nglneering
ct:. I ICellle
DATE OF HEARING RATIFICATION BEFORE CITY COMMISSION:
December 7, 2004 tabled to
January 4, 2005
TYPE OF RELIEF SOUGHT: Request one (1) year site plan time extension for a 162-seat church
approved on September 2, 2003 (an extension to September 2, 2005)
LOCATION OF PROPERTY: South side of Boynton Beach Boulevard, approximately 300 feet west
of Southwest 8th Street.
DRAWING(S): SEE EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO.
X THIS MAI-I'ER came before the City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida
appearing on the Consent Agenda on the date above. The City Commission hereby adopts the
findings and recommendation of the Planning and Development Board, which Board found as follows:
OR
THIS MATTER came on to be heard before the City Commission of the City of Boynton
Beach, Florida on the date of hearing stated above. The City Commission having considered the
relief sought by the applicant and heard testimony from the applicant, members of city administrative
staff and the public finds as follows:
Application for the relief sought was made by the Applicant in a manner consistent with
the requirements of the City's Land Development Regulations.
The App,~HAS
HAS NOT
established by substantial competent evidence a basis for the relief requested.
The conditions for development requested by the Applicant, administrative staff, or
suggested by the public and supported by substantial competent evidence are as set
forth on Exhibit "C" with notation "included".
The Applicator's application for relief is hereby
GRANTED subject to the conditions referenced in paragraph 3 hereof.
DENIED
5. This Order shall take effect immediately upon issuance by the City Clerk.
All further development on the property shall be made in accordance with the terms
and conditions of this order.
7. Other
DATED: /----~J..~O_,~_
Location Map
Saint Gregory Armenian Church
EXHIBIT "A"
R3
REC
460
400 Feet
EXHIBIT "C"
Conditions of Approval
Project name: St. Gregory's Armenian Church
File number: SPTE 04-013
Reference:
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
PUBLIC WORKS- General
Comments: None X
PUBLIC WORKS- Traffic
Comments: None X
UTILITIES
Comments: None X
FIRE
Comments: None X
POLICE
Comments: None X
ENGINEERING DMSION
Comments: None X
BUILDING DIVISION
Comments: None X
PARKS AND RECREATION
Comments: None X
FORESTER/ENVIRONMENTALIST
Comments: None X
PLANNING AND ZONING
Comments:
1. Staff recommends that the site plan approval be extended for a period of nine X
(9) months rather than one (1) year, as requested by the applicant. Under this
Conditions of Approval
2
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
scenario, the new expiration date would be June 2, 2005.
2. The applicant must submit an updated traffic concurrency approval letter X
from Palm Beach County Traffic Engineering that extends the build-out date,
prior to issuance of any permits.
3. All previous conditions of approval must still be complied with. X
ADDITIONAL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDITIONS
Comments:
None X
ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS
Comments:
To be determined. ~ ~
S:~PlanningASHARED\WP~PROJECTS~St. Gregory's Armenian Church\SPTE 044) 1 l\COA.doc
QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION!
1. The Mayor announces the agenda item.
2. The City Attorney or City Clerk swears in all witnesses.
3. The City Attorney outlines the hearing procedure, including a statement that
any member of the City Commission may, at any time during the presentation
of testimony, question any witness.
4. Attorneys or other individuals acting in a representative capacity make their
appearances.
5. The Applicant presents its case, including acceptance or objection to proposed
conditions of approval.
6. City staff members present a summary of the issues before the Commission,
testify as to their opinions and make recommendations for conditions of
approval.
7. Supporters of the application present their case, offer their opinions, and cross-
exam previous witnesses.
8. Opponents of the application present their case, offer their opinions, and cross-
examine previous witnesses.
'- ... 9. Other members of the public offer their opinions.
10. Rebuttal evidence and cross-examination of witnesses by applicant.
11. Re-questioning by Opponents, strictly limited to newly raised facts or opinions
and closing comments.
12. Closing comments by applicant.
13. Closing comments by City staff.
14. Deliberation and questions by the Commission.
15. Commission vote.
I These guidelines represent a generalized procedure for conducting quasi-judicial hearings and are subject to
modification on a case-by-case basis. The controlling principle is that all interested parties have the opportunity to offer
testimony, evidence and conduct cross-examination of witnesses.
S:\CA\JAC\Quasi-Judicial Procedures Commission.DOC
7/20/2004
Resume
Jennifer L. Morton, Director
Landscape Architect
LAND.
DESIGN
SOUTH
Education:
Employment Date:
Professional Registration:
Professional Experience:
Projects:
Bachelor of Landscape Architecture
University of Georgia, 1991
Major course work included master planning, site planning and urban and
regional planning. Jennifer studied architecture and art history in Italy before
graduating from the University of Georgia.
June 1991
Landscape Architect # 1666, State of Florida
CTM, Toastmasters International
Registered Real Estate Salesperson #67184, State of Florida
Member, Urban Land Institute
Jennifer Morton is Director of Land Planning and is responsible for site
planning, master planning, and preparation and coordination of government
submittals. She coordinates the approval process for Developments of Regional
Impact, Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Concurrency, Rezoning,
Conditional Uses, and final site plan approvals. As Director of Land Planning
she directs staff in the design and development of all master plans, site plans
and submittals to various municipalities in Florida. In addition to working for
the largest builders and developers in South Florida, Jennifer also has worked
with the Florida Department of Transportation as an eminent domain consultant.
Following is a representative listing of projects Jennifer has directed:
Residential Planned Unit Developments:
. Mizner Golf & Country Club, Delray Beach, FL
. Foxhill Estates, Boca Raton, FL
. Mizner's Preserve, Delray Beach, FL
. The Sanctuary, Palm Beach Gardens, FL
. Frenchman's Reserve, Palm Beach Gardens, FL
. Equus PUD, Boynton Beach, FL
Civic Uses:
· Berean Baptist Church/School, West Palm Beach, FL
· South Palm Beach County Jewish Federation Campus, Boca Raton, FL
(Private Schools, Adult Day Care, Congregate Living Facility, Resid.Care
Facility)
. St. Andrew's School, Boca Raton, FL
· St. Joseph's Episcopal High School, Delray Beach, FL
Commercial:
· Fisherman's Wharf, Jupiter, FL
· Atlantic Center, Delray Beach, FL
· Woodfield Plaza, Boca Raton, FL
· Theis & Sons, Lake Worth, FL
Florida Department of Transportation:
· Sign relocation approval for Okeechobee Blvd. widening
· Certificate of conformity from the City of West Palm Beach and Palm
Beach County for the Okeechobee Blvd. widening
I
! t
I.
WINSTON LEE. ASLA. AICP
EDUCATION:
FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY, 1971-1972
UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA, 1972-77; BACHELOR OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
DEGREE, CUM LAUDE HONORS - SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN
HARVARD UNIVERSITY, 1984, GRADUATE SCHOOL OF DESIGN, CONTINUING
EDUCATION - RESIDENTIAL SITE PLANNING
HARVARD UNIVERSITY, 1990, GRADUATE SCHOOL OF DESIGN, CONTINUING
EDUCATION - PLANNING AND DESIGN OF MARINAS & WATERFRONTS
PROFESSIONAL:
PRESIDENT, WINSTON LEE & ASSOCIATES, INC., 1985 - PRESENT
PRESIDENT, BRANDY GROUP ASSOCIATES, INC., 1989 -1993
VICE PRESIDENT AND SENIOR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, URBAN DESIGN
STUDIO, 1978 - 1985
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, KETTELHUT & ASSOCIATES, 1977 - 1978
PROFESSIONAUAFFILlA TIONSI LICENSURE:
LICENCED BYTHE FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS LICENSE #549
AND LC-116
AMERICAN SOCIETY OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS - FULL MEMBERSHIP
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PLANNERS - MEMBER
AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION - MEMBER
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS - AFFILIATE MEMBERSHIP
FLORIDA STATE BOARD LICENSE #LA0000549
FLORIDA STATE BOARD CORPORATE LICENSE #LC-000116
AWARDS:
FNGA STATE AWARDS OF EXCELLENCE, 1982 AND 1985
FNGA STATE AWARD OF RECOGNITION, COMMERCIAL, 1988
FNGA STATE AWARD OF RECOGNITION, SPECIAL PROJECTS, 1988
UP & COMERS AWARD WINNER - ARCHITECTURE/ENGINEERING, 1990
UP & COMERS AWARD WINNER - ARCHITECTURE/ENGINEERING, 1989
TOWN OF PALM BEACH BEAUTIFICATION AWARD, 1989
FLORIDA LEADER MAGAZINE, BEST OF FLORIDA AWARD, 1993
I.
CONDEMNING AUTHORITY CLIENTELE:
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL
BROWARD COUNTY
PALM BEACH COUNTY
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT
CITY OF TEQUEST A
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
CERTIFIED AS EXPERT:
MARTIN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
PALM BEACH COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
BROWARD COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
MONROE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
~..&tIl I:~'I'
, i! il ~ I
i ili I ~;!
~1~aI I!I
Btl Ii 2 a
. !I'l, qHI
is 2 I ~
I' I'a al
r
I: I ~
I i=
'-
,. "P a
I ,I
~' I Q
,iUIIIIU '1111; ill
1.1' 11111~ll ~ <~~I! I
II G~ ~~ ;, ~ I
I
~h !!ill I I II ~
. g I ~ I I! a ae ~
<~ ~ I ; a I I
,
~ II ~ ~ ~ ~ tJ II ~ 111I,IIUI,'-lrlll-,IIIII:"IIII"I5I I."
I' ;Ii Ii II ; I; li!1 I UUIIIII;qllllllllJlBUndlQ
· I II III11 II I II,-,onll II
IlSJ~IlUlllilll~rn~ "
Ii I II II III II' II II II I
I I I iJ!1 · II I ;;:I~:IIII:I':;;~~;:;:;:: s
[1][1] rn ill [I] [I] I [I] [I] I II. Illil' I B 11:11 -min,liIID ~
u n 1111:1 IIPi I' Ii 1..1 I I I D
I f e Ie ~ I I I . ~
i +ttt~~~o!;P;ml
I HII i I II I II II I t III I II I II II~ 2
I" lUll n I'; I II I E I I _
I II i 1"1 i 1 (j
i u~ ':I"'~;li i'~III":III! I" "I ,",m J
I' ~ I m I ~ '_1 i PlqPCI'I!I~JI ;111
d; I I II I · iI I
'i
nq Ii 11_:i n! n: !i! I mil Pili! 'Ii Ii
~I&i! Il ~ s~dr ! ~~~~ <<~~Is~ I 'jlll jl~ S
~ I. ~ ~I E I II .. U . .. U. l I f n ~ I! 0
Jill' I ~ ~ J II U II I I II II r J ~ I ~ m
Iii ~ III II i I! I J ~
",11'11 all Ii! lU5l~ r ~
III ! ~l! I H ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ H · < ! t
Ii! II a iil ~ H~~~; i II -{
II ~ ll; am! II
- ---- -
" . u
.
')>
J. _
I. {}
Ii Q
~1~~.1i " 0 .
111111: II U I-I u I
I ii!~
! ~
II
III i ~ II; i i iilll ,! H!
II qj II n2! ~~
B i I & II ac:i ill i ~;: ~,
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;; ~;I
! 18 i ~ !I!
r~,.,.jI: :" ",0,.,,. iI
I II i 1111 g
III I I I, 11111 ~
I i I ! ~
! ~ . ~
i
Iii !II i iljl(! "I I
~il !lac j!~ ~..~" I
~ ~ I ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~;I
R S ~ '
irrrn" i i r iUI
I I II I I I 11;1 I
I ! i !
! II
~ · .. il~
II I ~ n: il ill P~I ~q
I ~ '~i I 21 ~I
~ ii I & 1I Ie j ! ~ ~ - ~,
I: , , ' ,,, ;, ~. ~I
R 8 ~ "~
!!
~
.. ~ _e ..~.. ~ ~
'TliI
~
... ~ .
,. "........-- "l -1 .
--
t I . L +..
~
r-
I'=~ti
.. -..
r
I
~.
1
~
"
t'...'.
~;
,..,. I
-- ,
- ,
-
~
J .
LJ. I I
FF
P ,
~ ~
t Io-l Jr...., 1
~ ~ ~i'
~i
~~E
-II- i
~t:
I .~~
~IJE
~ ! 1I"i I~~
'- \w
~
~
!
GrENEAAL INFOIiiMATION
&EAYIEW t=A~1c: CL.ue
-__.__.I'L.
n 0
_ij F~!~. . ~
: ~ ~ i ~ ~", .. , nIB MARTIN ARCIIlI1lC'nJRA QlOUP
r 1f ~ ~ . /~ ~ . AIOWI1IC1'8NGIAM)~
i ~ .." -...........,.--...... ,._loM_...._
~~ I '::: I.,: ! -- ~..:_-.-~
~ P101'W6, INC.
~~~-.,.
"",",-....,....". .
", _ , _=~:~N~":;:::~~) - :: :~:
-~~~ ~~--
---:--~--
----;,:~.~\~~(~I\ J~::":~(I~Jf;~ ---=--=c-_.~ u
If:.'\\'IH. /101/1'.... I\( =~...=.::,::,__
II(./iil\(. /'11\ r...::::_ =;..... ".."...".."..._......
---- ------~ ---"==-~_ Ni5_~..."I'!'D\!..._____~~
~~Il [~fl'
I ~lljnWilj i
_I' :'1 ,I
I
: I
L.
i
~
= I
= I
I ~ 1,1
~I
-----.
I -wi
1II11~m III <l
rr Illili~'1 II ~
Ii /II II 8
if ,
"" f
r ., ~
WrUfI I I is
'r Iii I I ~
I I;I! : ~
I ;11 J []I I ~
i
- .- ~-
rrrl f..";:- ~ . ~ "
Iii
'n fiu J I ~~ f'l...
I" ,~Il
In i M..
i-I I
"
'. 11
" -. i~' ,
II I,
I
n ~"I II i@'~i I
r 'i' ~,/ \~
"--v1
"I" ~" ,
... 'I' '
I ...... L -.c
.. I
I r~1
i~il
li,1
I J~
'~ll
1'1-
i!~!
i i~
I
/-
I
~ I
~ -~ !
.. '~
;
~ t; -
~
~~"~",y
"'"'lffi
~.
-'~"'.t-'-
"-i
ttt
c,i&
~jh
~,".
8'11
,I! ~ .,
I 'I 'i .
tll lml~;t
m Imltl
I~ !ml !
j~ i ml ~
:~ .!!i I
~ !i ~
.1
"
I
1!'lii I
if .i
j;~ r
m!1 .
'j~)
Mil
1'1"
iall
l!b'
IlllI
,M
JJ!!I
l!dl
Ie!'!
Hh
I ,
t!! i i I Ii 1!lm!l~
'III II ! Ii lUll ~
I I i dj alii ~
r !" i~ . II! II I!ll' '.
I" · .~ II t a " !lli~
~ !,W ! i J! II':
hili ihll.! I ! I i! dill
ilill! wll!! I I. ~! lil11
!lljI ii~~11I I ! I I I _Ii
II,ill!, ;'!Im! l!i :, IiU
~ H, I i~l i n II
,..,1",
+~~
il
.nlli!, !,~. ,I I
. !'~I I; ~ I~ [~!~
I !<: "':~ l;t I
:;l1
SEA VIEW I'ARK CLItB
CfT}' OF BOYNTON BEACH
LENNAR HOMES. INC.
DRAINA(;}:' PLAN
'~:~~;;;j;:;-;~ =- ~ ~ ~ =-= '= ~ . - --
"-- ........ __': ~ NO.1 rsr,.41'E Rb. N6 - =-c ~
~ ~ ~ ~ -; ~-:'F,,;.:t;i~'~ t'~.~~
~ i~';;:O
. ~~- ~.~~
r-
----'4--____
t;
;5
.
I
~~1"AI. ~i;.
(~~~) ~;~
I,.,;
.,.
&1
!l'~4
S?!
'1
t:~ "
~ ';
. ,
~
c.-ter. "'.ess
CWI'rVI.-.-as...e.
=.:..:.:..~-=.
L~. "'_'.~~..n
_.i..; ","'" ,.,
I<<) ""'II' """"""
I~ ~
E
ilt!i I
hhl i
~!~,iq
gE!! i
eul ~
Il~~ i
; ~. .
---.-.0;0:"-0:"'"
~
~
h,
1-
~
to;
.,
~
'^
~
~
s
~
:1;1
,",
~~~
._'="~--,-"-.'="~-,..,~-,-".,.,,,..-
-, =- "'='- ~ ~ -, >-7- .,.._
11111
i PI
!j! ,.
; !
P.
~t' I
~ J'
~ cl!
I ~
iIl!l!
t~
"
,
G.;
~.~ ~
i;:
-- -=---==-; . RK (.'llflJ
~---~ <..,'EAVIE":J;EACII, J"L
-- ..~ nGl"NTO,\ 'ES ,,,(',
_lD ---:;-,' iU"r~ ~ if ~ ;" ',. ! i.E,"NAR I/O:AS~ER PL.N
~"l ~ I' '. f:' . ,- "ii'l.' PLAN N
11 !i r ' !T;' ~ ' I'
'~
fi~--______________
I, j V,S RIel/WAY NO,l (STATE lin, NO, 5)
!!i HI:~
\,:\-.~-------, "-----
7"\,",'11--~-i17<.__, _ ____..
" ',. :::i: '. '. ..
"1b. \,\'~>-\~" ',r .,;..11 ~~~'."..':to. _ if
.- ,::lI!! .... ___,
....:c- . ---.. '--"""r-
'~L~.,i;:. 'Ill
-. I
,I
! )1
i
II
!I
"
I
i
II
'. I
r,
i~ !
II
'.
II i
'~ I
! !
~
,
i:'
~
~
-----
"
ii'
c-ter,,1Iurgeu
.=-:;:;~
.~~ -=-
-------'--
---~~~~,~:~-
:., ,"',''''-';-'' .,-,-~~,-:,_:,,":,"_........-.--_.
- ~ ~ · ~ · ~ ~ ~ . = ~ ~ ~ a . ~ . ~ ~
I
,
,I
~
0
10
C
~
('J
~
l
I ~ I
I- E
! '~ ~ ~
'n ;l =
~~ ! i ! I
~
i '"
I ~ ~ b f
tIJ
I I I I I I
'[ .- J
~
>
tri
t!1
t:I:l
~
<:
;;
~
8
, ~
~
~
~
III
I
=
-.~
S
('J
,0
~
tIJ
o
:2
il'=
i', fr
If '
I
,(N
~
(N
'~
~
(j
~
CJ5
(j
~
I I
en
~
~
~
,
I
I
~
@
t'%1
IJ:l
>
-<
""
~
.,'~'.'~
06
'U
,z~
-'ei'
.
lillil
IIlll
If
j .'
'., " ". COVE
I..y~~o~.. . ....
I ........P. I ' .
.1 ..............IIt.......~.
1:# ..... ...c.~..........a
...~. ' ....... ...".......~ ' ,
.......-.................... .
>..
i
~
l,
&
~
----"' ~
Itt.:.....
MASS & ORlENTATION- ,
, COMPARISON
C-16 CANAL
1P
=i
.
~
a
I
o
-f
~
I
;
OJ
r
o
\It
J>
..-z
FO
.....
."W
-J>
o
li
E
.
CP
-f
~
....
~
.:;~;;..
(p
=i
.
o
~
o
(p
(p
I:
o
-I
~
OJ
.
-I
E
.
~
OJ
r
o
~
:t>-
Z
o
....
...
:t>-
O
~
E
.
(p
-I
~
.:1
~
'.
X
-1
~
d'
,\,
.~
.(t
~.~
~ ..~ :31"
111,
1:i
~
~
,
<::::'?i
cP
Z
!t\
r
1"
{\
~
111
\\
il
1\
\1
i,1
\ \
i I
I: \
\ \
I \
i \
I ,
I \
l \
I I
1; \
! \
\
\
-
" ii i'i",-
HI i i
I'
'w
:i!:
JJ
IR
I>
JJ
IR
r
IR
-<
I>
-t
~
OJ
r
o
Q
Z
o
~
..
b>>
.
~
C
-t
:J:
(p
ij
.
.
~[f rl^
~l~ K
.: 5
p~-
o
, /)
.<{. .,,~J-'iv"
(1) Notice of Appearance of Michael Wm. Morell (3 pages total)
(2) Request for Party Status (8 pages total)
(3) Six (6) documents related to the two (2) procedural issues which are identified in Morell's
letter with enclosures to Mayor Taylor dated 1-18-05
2 page letter from Morell to Cherof dated 1-17-05 re: City of Boynton Beach Florida;
Seaview Park Club Project; request to bifurcate (with 3 page enclosure) (5 pages total)
2 page letter from Cherofto Morell dated 1-17-05 re: City of Boynton Beach; Seaview
Park Club (2 pages total)
2 page letter from Morell to Mayor Taylor dated 1-18-05 re: Seaview Park Club Project;
LUAR 04-010 (legislative public hearing on small scale plan amendment and quasi-
judicial pubic hearing on rezoning) and NWSP 04-014 (quasi-judicial public hearing on
request for new site plan approval) (with 5 page enclosure consisting of Procedural
Arguments #1 and #2) (7 pages total)
2 page Ordinance No. 097-09 relating to 1996 Evaluation and Appraisal Report with 5
page excerpt of City of Boynton Beach 1996 Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and
Appraisal Report, February 1997 (7 pages total)
4 page Ordinance No. 02-025 amending land development regulations (original IPUD
ordinance)( 4 pages total)
2 page Ordinance No. 04-068 amending land development regulations (revised IPUD
ordinance) with 5 pages of revisions to original IPUD ordinance (7 pages total)
(4) Three (4) additional documents not referred to in Morell's letter to Mayor Taylor but which
are also related to the two (2) procedural issues
1 page letter from Morell to Cherof dated 1-17-05 re: Public Records request regarding
City of Boynton Beach, Florida; Seaview Park Club Project (1 page total)
1 page copy of Notice No. 760872 published in Palm Beach Post on January 1,2005 and
January 11 ~Q.Q5._.(J..page,1Qtal)...__ .._. _. ., .__ . - ,- - ----------------.----.. ____.____
"..."'- -~
7 page excerpt from Department of Community Affairs Web page, ~
http://www.dca.state.fl.us/fdcp/dcp, Division of Community Planning, Procedures for \
Submitting Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Developments of Regional Impact, \
Notice Requirements: Notice requirements for Local Planning Agency, November 2001, !
and Noticing Requirements jor Small Scale Plan Amendments (7 pages total) /
----_/
"-
'.,
---____ -- - -.. -.- h_ ~ .~__~__..~__ _, _......_ v-
4 page- Ordinance-64~65(C;~.iating to small scale comp ~i;;;-;nenamefit fof Waterside
IPUD project. (4 pages total)
Division of Community Planning - FL Dept ofCommunily Affairs
~ivision of Comnlunity Planning
QUICK TCPtCS
Welcome to the Division of Community
Planning
The Department of Community Affairs is Florida's land
planning agency. The Division of Community Planning
implements the state's Growth Management Act (Chapter
163, Part II, F.S., the LOClII Government Comprehensive
PllJnning and Land Development RegullJtion Act), the
Developments of Regional Impact Program (Section
380.05, F.S.), and the Areas of Critical State Concern
Program (Section 380.06, F.S., the Environmental umd
and Water MlJnagement Act).
Select a topic below to learn more about the Division's
programs.
Need help finding wh.t you're looking for?
Call Vicki Morrison, (850) 922-1815,
or emall vickLmorrison@dca.stateJl.us
> Affordable Housing
> Areas of Critical State Concern (ACSC)
> Certification Program
> Coastal Zone Consistency Review
> Community Planning Team Assignments
> Comprehensive Planning
> Developments of Regional Impact (DRI) and Florida
Quality Developments (FQDs)
> Evaluation and Appraisal Reports (EAR)
> Growth Management Workshop
> Hazard Mitigation Planning
> Homeowners Association Covenants
> Interlocal Service Delivery Agreements
> Land Use and Environmental Siting
> ListServer
> Marina Siting
http://www.dca.Slate.fl.uslfdcp/dcpl(\ of2)lIll112005 6:00:01 AM
> Wekiva Parkway and Protection Act
> Is Your Local Government's
Comprehensive Plan on line?
I
I
I
.J
> View recently Issued ORC Reports, NOIs,
School Interlocal Agreements
> Procedures for Submitting
Comprehensive Plan Amendments and
Developments of Regional Impact
> Division Directory
,.,~.~.-.....~--",~,~,____.........__..._______--..J
> Division Program Summary
> Directory of Planning Officials
> Statutes and Rules
> BEST PRACnCES SIRlES:
. Disaster Planning for Florida's
Historic Resources
. Preparing a Boating Fadllty Siting
Plan: Best Management Practices for
Marina Siting
. Protecting Florida's Springs: Land
Use Planning Strategies and Best
Management Practices
. Wildfire Mitigation in Florida: land
Use Planning Stretegies and Best
Development Practices
I~a.=-
Division of Community Planning - FL Depl of Community Alfairll
> Military Base Encroachment
> Optional Sector Plans
> Partners/Links
> Planning Grants
> Procedures for Submitting ORIs, Comprehensive Plans
and Amendments
> Publications
> Rural Land Stewardship Areas Program
> School Planning and Coordination
> Springs Protection
> Transportation Planning
> Visioning and Facilitation Services
> Water Supply Planning
> Waterfronts Florida Partnership Program
> Wekiva Parkway and Protection Act
Department of Community Affairs
Division of Community Planning
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100
(850) 487-4545, SC 277-4545, FAX (850) 488-3309
Please contact the webmaster if you experience
any problems with this site:
vicki. morrison@dca.state.fl.us
hltp:f/www.dca.sblle.O.uslfdcpfdcpl(2 of 2)1!18!2005 6:00:01 AM
I ,..... for ........ PDF ...:
f
If ttte ftle will not 0"" or you receive a
blank SCl'Hftt .ve the .. to your hii'd drive
and then open It. To do _ pi.. your
cursor on the link, right click, select .save
tlug<< as. and live the fh to your hard
dtlve.
i
!
i
I
I
I
I
! '
I" Also be sure you have the most recent II
version of Adobe Ac:robet Reeder. OIck the
1 loon above to download _Inata". I
i !
I PDF files .... graphic Intensive. Be sure you ;11
I give the document plenty of u.. to load.
I
I I
~ I
~___~,_.._,,___.....,~._______,,-_,.,J
Submission Procedures I FL Dept of Community Affairs
Division of Comnlunity Planning
OIV1StON TOPICS
Procedures for Submitting
Comprehensive Plan Amendments and
Developments of Regional Impact (DRI)
Read information about the extension of deadlines resulting
from the impacts of Hurricanes Charley, Frances, Ivan and
Jeanne.
The Plan Amendment/DR! Processing office coordinates the
review schedule for local comprehensive plans and
amendments, DRI applications, Evaluation and Appraisal
Reports, Campus Master Plans, Job Siting amendments, and
Military Base Closure amendments. The office maintains a
library of comprehensive plans and plan amendments for
Florida's 476 local govemments, ORIs, Strategic Regional
Policy Plans, and Hazard Mitigation Plans.
SB 1906, which became law on May 31, 2002, streamlined
the timing of comprehensive plan amendment review in
several ways: Agency review of propoeed amendments
is now a one-step process rather than the former two-
steps required; and non-controversial amendments are
cleared through the review process more quickly. The
bill also provided for internet notice of Department action to
reduce publication costs with direct courtesy notices to
interested citizens.
View ORC Reports and Notices of Intent online.
Technical Xnform.tion
Following are rules, forms, procedures and other technical
assistance documents to guide you through the
comprehensive planning and DRI processes. You will need
Adobe Acrobat Reader Version 5 to view PDF documents. If
you do not have the most recent version of Adobe Acrobat
Reader, click the icon below for a free upgrade.
I~a..
For more information contact:
Ray Eubanks
(850) 922-1767, SC 292-1767
ray .eubanks@dca.stateJl.us
LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLANS
Chapter 163, Part II, F.S. (Growth Management Act)
http://www.dca.state.fl.uslfdcp/dcp/ProceduresIindex.cfm (] of 4)] /1812005 6:00:20 AM
HOT TOPICS
> 2004 legislative Summary
I > w.~.. Po......, ond _on Act
! > Is Your Local Government's
I Comprehensive Plan on line?
I
I
~.._...,~~--
I
i
I
j
FREGUENTL Y USED INFORMATION
> View recently issued ORC Reports,
NOIs, School Interlocal Agreements
> Procedures for Submitting
Comprehensive Plan Amendments and
Developments of Regional Impact
> Division Directory
PUBLICATIONS
> Community Planning (Division Newsletter)
> Division Program Summary
I
I > Directory of Planning Officials
I > Statutes and Rules
!
I > BEST PRACnClS .IUES:
i
!
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
i
. Disaster Planning for Florida's
Historic Resources
. Preparing a Boating Facility Siting
Plan: Best Management Practices for
Marina SIting
. Protecting florida's Springs: Land
Use Planning Strategies and Best
Management Practices
. Wildfire Mitigation in Florida: Land
Use Planning Strategies and Best
Development Practices
~a..
Submission Procedures I FL Dept of Community Affairs
Rule 9J-11, F.A.C. (Submission Procedures)
Plan Amendment Process Flow Chart (reflects revised
process pursuant to SB 1906, May 31, 2002)
More Plan Amendment Flow Charts, presented in bar graph
format (June 2002)
Notice Requirements:
Notice time frames for large-scale amendments
Notice requirements for the Local Planning Agency
Notice requirements for large-scale comprehensive plan
amendments
Notice time frames for small-scale amendments
Notice requirements for small-scale comprehensive plan
amendments
Submittal Procedure Requirements:
List of agency contacts to receive proposed and adopted
comprehensive plan amendments
Procedures for submitting proposed comprehensive plan
amendments (Rule 9J-11.006, F,A.C.)
Procedures for submitting adopted comprehensive plan
amendments (Rule 9J-11.011, F,A.C.
Procedures for submitting adopted small-scale
comprehensive plan amendments (Rule 9J-11.015, F.A.C.)
Procedures for submitting public school interlocal
agreements and amended agreements (Rule 9J-11.022, F.A.
C.)
Hisallleneous Info'tlUltion:
List of coastal communities required to prepare a Coastal
Management Element as part of their comprehensive plans,
pursuant to Sections 380.24 and 163.3177(6)(g), F.S.
Small Scale Development Amendment Submittal Form
Citizen Courtesy Information Roster to assist local
governments with recording citizen attendance at public
hearings
DEVELOPMENTS OF REGIONAL IMPACT
DIU Thresholds:
2004 residential thresholds for DRIs based on county
population
hllp:/Iwww.dca.state.tl.usIfdop/dcp/Procedureslindex.cftn(2 of4)1/18/2005 6:00:20 AM
DRI Procedures:
I TIps for a'....... POP .....:
If the file wRI not open or you receive I
b1enk 1Q"Mft, .w. the file to your hard
drive and then open . It. To do this, piece
your cursor on the Unk. right dtc:k, seIed:
"SlY. target .... and Rve the fh to your
~rd~. I
I Also be au... you heve the most recent I.
version of Adobe Acrobat Reeder. Click the
Icon .bove to download .nd Instill.
I
POF fHes .... QRPhIc intensive. Be sure you I
, give the document plenty of time to load. J
Submission Procedures I FL Dept of Community Affairs
View a flow chart of the DRI process (JPG file)
DRI Forms:
Annual Status Report Form
Application for Abandonment of a Development of Regional
Impact, FORM RPM-BSP-ABANDON DRI-l
Application for a Binding Letter of Development of Regional
Impact, FORM-RPM-BSP-BUD-l
Application for a Binding Letter of Modification to a DRI with
Vested Rights, FORM-RPM-BSP-BUM-l
Application for a Binding Letter of Vested Rights for a DRI,
FORM-RPM-BSP-BUVR-l
DR! Application for Development Approval (ADA), FORM-
RPM-BSP-ADA-l (long form)
DRI Application for Development Approval (ADA), FORM
RPM-BSP-ADA-2 (short form)
DRI Preapplication Conference and Information
Information to include when requesting a DRI Clearance
Letter
Model Preliminary Development Agreement
Notification of a Proposed Change (NOPC) to a Previously
Approved DRI, FORM-RPM-BSP-PROPCHANGE-l
hllp://www.dca.Sl8le.tl.uslfdcp/dcplProcedureslindex.cfm(3 of 4)1118120056:00:20 AM
Notil;e Requirements for LP A Meetings
NOTICE REQUIREMENTS FOR LPA HEARINGS
November 2001
Pursuant to Section 163.3174(3)(a), F.S., the LPA must hold at least one public hearing on the
proposed comprehensive plan amendment (including small-scale amendments), and must provide the
public notice for that hearing. Section 163.3164(18), F.S., defines public notice to mean the notice
required by Section 125.66(2), F.S., for a county or by Section 166.041(3)(a), F.S., for a municipality.
The notice requirements for LPA meetings follow:
1. The local government places the advertisement in a
newspaper of general circulation in the county or
municipality .
2. no size requirements; and
3. no requirement for a specific portion of the newspaper;
1. The advertisement must:
1. Include the date, time, and place
of the LPA meeting;
2. Include the title or titles of the
proposed plan amendment;
3. Identify the place or places
within the municipality where the
proposed amendment may be
inspected by the public (copies
of county proposed plan
amendments must be kept
available for public inspection
during regular business hours of
the office of the clerk of the
board of county commissioners);
and
4. Advise that interested parties
may appear at the LP A meeting
and be heard with respect to the
proposed plan amendment.
http://www.dca.state.fl.us/fdcp/dcplProcedures/lpanoticereq.htm1/18/2005 6:00:53 AM
Untitled Document
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS
FOR
SMALL SCALE AMENDMENTS
November 2001
Section 163.3187(1)(c)2, F.8., provides that a local government does not have to comply with the
procedures of Section 163.3184(15)(c), F.S., if the local government complies with the provisions in
Section 125.66(4)(a), F.S., for a county or in Section 166.04I(3)(c), F.S., for a municipality.
I. The notice requirement for Small Scale that is initiated by local government:
A. County: (See Section 125.66(2) and (4)(a), F.S.)
I. LP A Hearing See notice requirements on page 1.
2. Governing Body adoption Hearing
a. notice by mail to the owners of the property covered by the
amendment at least 30 days prior to the date set for the public
hearing
b. notice in a newspaper (See section 125.66(2), F.S.): 10
days before hearing of general circulation in the county
- no size limitation or requirement for the ad;
- no limitation on the location of the ad in the
newspaper;
which must state:
- the date, place and time of the
meeting;
- the title of the proposed
ordinance;
- the place in the local
government where the proposed
ordinance can be inspected by
the public;
- and that interested parties can
appear and be heard.
http://www.dca.state.f1.us/fdcpldcplProcedureslnoticereqssamed.html/18/2005 6:01:03 AM
Michael Wm. Morell
Attorney and Counselor
Administrative, Governmental and
Regulatory Law
Land Use, Planning and Zoning Law
Redevelopment Law
Historical Preservation Law
Elections, Ethics and
Public Disclosure Law
Via Hand Delivery
Mailing Address: Also admitted to the
Post Office Box 18649 District of Columbia
West Palm Beach, FL 33416-8649
(561) 714-7533 Offi ce
(561) 868-6543 Fax
morellmw @ bellsouth.net
January 18, 2005
Mayor Jerry Taylor
City of Boynton Beach
Boynton Beach City Hall
100 East Boynton Beach Blvd.
Boynton Beach, FL 33425
Re: Seaview Park Club Proiect; LUAR 04-0 I 0 (legislative public hearing on small
scale plan amendment and quasi-judicial pubic hearing on rezoning) and NWSP
04-014 (quasi-judicial public hearing on request for new site plan approval)
Dear Mayor Taylor:
I represent sixteen (16) landowners who reside in the Yachtmans Cove and Coquina
Cove subdivisions who oppose the above referenced project in its current form. No decision has
been made by my clients to initiate litigation either against the applicant or the City. However,
my clients have retained me to make an evidentiary record which would preserve the issues and
arguments for resolution elsewhere in the event that the City, the applicant and my client are
unable to work out their differences on the proposed project.
In my research I have discovered procedural irregularities with regard to how the City
has proceeded in this case. The irregularities I have discovered prevent my clients and other
citizens within the City from participating in the comprehensive planning and land development
regulation adoption processes "to the fullest extent possible" which is the standard provided for
under Florida's landmark Growth Management Act.
As a courtesy to your attorney, I spoke with him about these issues briefly after the
agenda review meeting. I followed up with correspondence to him yesterday in which I
explained my clients' position further regarding the plan amendment public hearing issue.
Attached are two (2) procedural arguments which I will be making tonight which suggest
that the City has recently failed to follow the Florida Statutes in how it allows the public to
participate in both the adoption of comprehensive plan amendments and land development
regulations like the Infill Planned Unit Development regulations (IPUD). The IPUD regulations
are those which are being applied to the applications being considered tonight, hence the need
for me to raise these issues and to preserve them on behalf of my clients.
Mayor Jerry Taylor
City of Boynton Beach
January 18, 2005
Page Two
Via Hand Delivery
Regardless of how this evenings public hearings turn out, my clients and I remain
available to work with the City Commission and its staff so that I may share with YOLl my
extensive statewide experience in how other municipalities and counties have structured their
public participation programs to comply with the mandate of Florida's Growth Management Act.
Thank you for the opportunity to present these arguments and to propose these solutions
which would further a goal that I am sure you and your fellow commissioners share in: To
improve and strengthen the City's public participation procedures on behalf of both my clients
and all citizens and landowners within the City.
Sincerely,
~lMnw.
MWM:mm Michael Wm. Morell
Enclosures
cc: City Commissioner Bob Ensler
City Commissioner Mack McCray
City Commissioner Muir C. Ferguson
City Commissioner Carl McCoy
City Attorney James Cherof
City Manager Kurt Bressner
Quintus Greene, Director of Development
Mike Rumpf, Director of Planning and Zoning
Michael Weiner, Esquire
Clients
Procedural Argument #1
The citizens of the City of Boynton Beach have been been denied
the opportunity to participate in the adoption of Lennar's proposed
small scale comprehensive plan amendment to the fullest extent
possible because the statutorily required public hearing before the
City's local planning agency has not been conducted. Therefore, the
small scale plan amendment, together with the applications for
rezoning and for new site plan approval, should be tabled until the
requisite public hearing before the LPA can be conducted.
1. Under Florida's landmark Growth Management Act (GMA), citizens and
landowners have been granted the right to participate in the comprehensive planning
process to the fullest extent possible.
It is the intent of the Leqislature that the public participate in
the comprehensive planninq process to the fullest extent
possible. Towards this end, local planning agencies and
local governmental units are directed to adopt procedures
designed to provide effective public participation in the
comprehensive planning process and to provide real
property owners with notice of all official actions which will
regulate the use of their property. The provisions and
procedures required in this act are set out as the minimum
requirements towards this end.
~163.3181(1), F.S. (Emphasis supplied).
One of the very first cases heard by the Governor and Cabinet under the GMA
broadly interpreted the citizens' right to participate in comprehensive planning to the
fullest extent possible. In that case, Governor Martinez and the Cabinet, sitting as the
Administration Commission, emphasized:
[T]he commission notes that communication at the draft
and proposed plan staqes can be as essential to the
outcome of an effective plan as the more formal adoption
procedures. Furthermore, citizens should be afforded
timelv access and education concerninq the qrowth
manaqement decisions entrusted to elected and appointed
officials. In considering the requirements of section
163.3181, F.S., the commission notes leqislative intent that
the public participate in the comprehensive planninq
process to the fullest extent possible,
Austin et al. v. City of Cocoa Beach, AC Case No. 89-31 (AC Amended Final Order
entered on Sept. 29, 1989; AC Final Order entered on August 20, 1990); DOAH Case
Nos. 88-6338GM and 89-0291GM, 1989 WL 645182 (DOAH Recommended Order
entered on June 2,1989; DCA Order entered on Aug. 20, 1990)(Emphasis supplied.)
1 of 3
2. The requirement that each local government designate a local planning
agency (LPA) and that the LPA must hold at least one public hearing on proposed
comprehensive plan amendments prior to making a recommendation to adopt the plan
amendment is one of the provisions of the GMA which the legislature set out in
S163.3174(3)(a) as a "minimum requirement" to guarantee citizen participation in
comprehensive planning to the fullest extent possible.
3. The City of Boynton Beach appears to have complied with the LPA public
hearing requirement for 25 years from 1975 to 2000. Prior to adopting its 1989
comprehensive plan, the City even adopted public participation procedures which
recognized the publics' right to participate in the comp plan amendment process to the
fullest extent possible. However, the City has not followed its public participation
procedures regarding LPA hearings for the last 5 years, including in this case.
4. In 2000, the City transferred the powers of its Planning and Development
Board (P&DB) to the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) for projects located
within the boundaries of the CRA. Part III, Chapter 1.5, Article I, Sec. 5. At that time,
the City Commission designated itself to be LPA but unexplainably stopped holding the
required public hearings that had been held within the City for the past 25 years.
Previously, the P&DB, and its predecessor agency the Planning and Zoning Board
(P&ZB), had been designated as the City's LPA. The P&DB/P&ZB had properly noticed
and conducted the public hearings on plan amendments required by both S 163.3174
and the City's own public participation procedures.
5. While the City has failed to conduct the requisite LPA public hearing in this
case, in 1997 it adopted Ordinance No. 097-09 which approved its Evaluation and
Appraisal Report (EAR) of the City's comprehensive planning program. The EAR
emphasized the importance of the City's public participation procedures and promised it
would "ensure" that the procedures would be followed and the requisite public hearings
would be held:
10. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND SCHEDULE OF PLAN AMENDMENTS
A. Adopted Participation Procedures
The City of Boynton Beach adopted the following procedures for public
participation in plan adoption and amendments,
(a) The City of Boynton Beach will ensure that public hearinos, meeting
and workshops are held whenever the City proposes to consider any
issues involvino the Comprehensive Plan. includinq plan amendments
and Evaluation and Appraisal Reports...."
City of Boynton Beach 1996 Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report,
February 1997, Pg. 10-1 (Emphasis supplied).
2 of 3
6. The required public hearing before the LPA has not been held or noticed on
Lennar's application for a small scale plan amendment in this case. Therefore, the
citizens have been denied their right and opportunity to participate in the comprehensive
planning process in this case to the fullest extent possible - a right guaranteed by both
the statutes and the City's public participation procedures.
7. The City Commission has the authority to table a proposed Development
Order which has been removed from the consent agenda to a future meeting date to
insure that proper notice and opportunity to be heard is provided to applicant, the public,
and any other interested parties. Part III, Chapter 1.5, Article I, Sec. 4.3, C. 4.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Therefore, the sixteen (16) clients which I represent who reside in the Yachtmans
Cove and Coquina Cove subdivisions request that the City Commission table Lennar's
application for proposed small scale plan amendment, together with Lennar's
applications for rezoning and request for new site plan approval (which can only be
considered and approved after the proposed small scale plan amendment has been
adopted), until the proper notice and opportunity to be heard at a public hearing before
the Land Planning Agency is provided to my clients and the citizens of Boynton Beach
as required by law and the City's own public participation procedures.
3 of 3
Procedural Argument #2
The Infill Planned Unit Development (IPUD) regulations are invalidly
adopted land development regulations because the City did not
comply with the statutory requirements to refer the proposed IPUD
regulations to the Local Planning Agency for public hearing, review
and recommendation as to the relationship between the proposed
regulations and the adopted comprehensive plan. Therefore the IPUD
regulations should not be applied to Lennar's application for
rezoning.
1. In addition to its statutory responsibility to conduct public hearings before the
City can adopt proposed plan amendments, the local planning agency (LPA) also has
specific statutory duties regarding the adoption of land development regulations which
have not been complied with in this case. Section 163.3174(4) provides that the LPA
shall:
Review proposed land development requlations, land development
codes, or amendments thereto, and make recommendations to the
qoverninq body as to the consistency of the proposal with the adopted
comprehensive plan, or element or portion thereof, when the local
planning agency is serving as the land development regulation
commission or the local government requires review by both the local
planning agency and the land development regulation commission,
(Emphasis supplied.)
2. Furthermore, 9163.3194(2) provides that proposed amendments to land
development regulations are not to be adopted until the LPA fulfills its responsibilities
required by 9163.3174(4):
After a comprehensive plan for the area, or element or portion thereof,
is adopted by the governing body, no land development requlation, land
development code. or amendment thereto shall be adopted by the
Qoverninq body until such requlation, code, or amendment has been
referred either to the local planninQ aqency or to a separate land
development requlation commission created pursuant to local
ordinance, or to both, for review and recommendation as to the
relationship of such proposal to the adopted comprehensive plan. or
element or portion thereof...
3. In the case of Lee County v. Lippi et aI., 693 So. 2d 686 (Fla 2nd DCA 1997),
the court invalidated an adopted land development regulation which had not been
subject to review by the LPA under 9163.3174(4) and 9163.3194(2), F.S.
1 of 2
4. The originallPUD ordinance, Ordinance No. 02-025, and the recently adopted
revised IPUD ordinance, Ordinance No. 04-068, are both land development regulations
that have not been referred to or reviewed by the LPA as required by S163.3174(4),
S 163.3194(2) and the City's Code of Ordinances, Part III, Chapter 1.5, Article I, Sec. 5.
5. S163.3194(2) does not expressly require a public hearing before the LPA
conducts its review and recommendation regarding the relationship of the proposed
amendment to the land development regulation to the adopted comprehensive plan.
However, the City's public participation procedures exceed the minimum requirements
set forth in the last sentence of S 163.3181 (1) and therefore grant more public
participation than the statute requires:
10. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND SCHEDULE OF PLAN AMENDMENTS
A. Adopted Participation Procedures
The City of Boynton Beach adopted the following procedures for public
participation in plan adoption and amendments.
(a) The City of Boynton Beach will ensure that public hearinqs, meeting
and workshops are held whenever the City proposes to consider any
issues involvinq the Comprehensive Plan. includinq plan amendments
and Evaluation and Appraisal Reports...."
(Emphasis supplied.) The LPA's recommendations regarding the relationship of both
the original and revised IPUD regulations are "issues which involve the comprehensive
plan" and therefore should have been subjected to public hearing before the LPA as
provided for by the City's procedures.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Therefore, the sixteen (16) clients which I represent who reside in the Yachtmans
Cove and Coquina Cove subdivisions request that the City Commission table Lennar's
request for rezoning and application for site plan approval until:
A.. The originallPUD ordinance, Ordinance No. 02-025, and the revised IPUD ordinance,
Ordinance No, 04-068 are referred to the LPA as required by Section 163.3194(2) and the case of Lee
County v. Lippi et al.;
B. The proper notice and opportunity to be heard at a public hearing before the LPA are provided
to the Citizens of Boynton Beach as required by the City's public participation procedures;
C. The LPA conducts the review of the original and revised IPUD land development regulations
and makes a recommendation to the relationship of such IPUD regulations to the adopted comprehensive
plan; and
D. The City Commission re-adopt Ordinance Nos. 02-025 and 04-068 after A.-C. above have
been completed.
2 of 2
Administrative. Governmental and
Regul atOf'}' Law
Land Use, Planning and Zoning Law
Redevelopment Law
Historical Preservation Law
Elections, Ethics and
Plblic Disclosure Law
Michael Wm. Morell
Attorney and Counselor
Mailing Address:
Post Office Box 18649
West Palm Beach, FL 33416-8649
(561) 714-7533 Office
(561) 868-6543 Fax
morellmw @ bellsouth,net
Also admitted to the
District of Columbia
Via Fa.x (954) 771-4923 and U.S, Mail
January 17, 2005
James Cherof, Esquire
Goren, Cherot: Doody & Ezrol, P,A,
3099 E Commercial Boulevard, Suite 200
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33308-4311
Re: City of Boynton Beach, Florida; Seaview Park Club Project;
Request to bifurcate first of three public hearings on City Conunission Meeting
Agenda for January 18,2005; LUAR 04-010 (legislative public hearing on small
scale plan amendment and quasi-judicial pubic hearing on rezoning) and NWSP
04-014 (quasi-judicial public hearing on request for new site plan approval)
Dear Jim:
At the January 14, 2005 agenda review meeting of the City Commission, you stated to
Commissioners that you would be providing them with a copy of a document titled Quasi-
Judicial Procedures Before the City Commission which would govern the above-referenced three
(3) pubic hearings, I assume the document you were referring to is the same that you provided to
me by fax on Jarmary II, 2005, If my assumption is wrong, please provide me with what you
intend to provide the City Conunissioners,
The purpose of this letter is to request that the City Commission bifurcate the small scale
plan amendment public hearing, which is a legislative hearing, from the rezoning public hearing
and application for new site plan approval public hearing which are quasi-judicial hearings,
If the bifurcation is granted, the presentation on behalf of my sixteen (16) clients in the
legislative plan amendment proceeding would be limited to the small scale plan amendment
issue and would include argument presented by myself (including the enclosed Procedural
Argument # 1), testimony presented by my clients' expert and the testimony of I of the 16
individual clients.
If the bifurcation is not granted, my clients' reserve the right to have me make the same
argument on their behalf within the consolidated proceechngs together with other procedural and
substantive arguments that are relevant to the ISSlles in the quasi-judicial hearings,
James Cherof, Esquire
January 17,2005
Page Two
Via Fax (954) 771-4923 and U,S, Mail
Furthermore, should bifurcation of the hearings not be granted, by copy of this letter I
would ask that the City include this letter and the enclosed Procedural Argument # I as part of
the record of the consolidated proceedings as both argument made on behalf of my clients within
the consolidated hearings and arglUllent proffered that would have been made within only the
small scale plan amendment heanng had that legislative hearing been bifurcated,
Thank you for allowing me to file this request for bifurcation in order to facilitate the
orderly presentation of both procedural and substantive issues at tomorrow evenings public
hearings,
Sincerely,
~lMnW
MWM:rnm Michael Will. Morell
Enclosure
cc: Michael S, Weiner, Esq, (via fax and US, Mail with enclosure)
Procedural Argument #1
The citizens of the City of Boynton Beach have been been denied
the opportunity to participate in the adoption of Lennar's proposed
small scale comprehensive plan amendment to the fullest extent
possible because the statutorily required public hearing before the
City's local planning agency has not been conducted. Therefore, the
small scale plan amendment, together with the applications for
rezoning and for new site plan approval, should be tabled until the
requisite public hearing before the LPA can be conducted.
1. Under Florida's landmark Growth Management Act (GMA), citizens and
landowners have been granted the right to participate in the comprehensive planning
process to the fullest extent possible,
It is the intent of the Leqislature that the public participate In
the comprehensive planninq process to the fullest extent
possible Towards this end, local planning agencies and
local governmental units are directed to adopt procedures
designed to provide effective public participation in the
comprehensive planning process and to prOVide real
property owners with notice of all offiCial actions which will
regulate the use of their property. The provisions and
procedures reqUired In thiS act are set out as the minimum
requirements towards thiS end
S163.3181(1), FS. (Emphasis supplied).
One of the very first cases heard by the Governor and Cabinet under the GMA
broadly interpreted the citizens' right to participate in comprehensive planning to the
fullest extent possible, In that case, Governor Martinez and the Cabinet, sitting as the
Administration Commission, emphasized:
(TJhe commiSSion notes that communication at the draft
and proposed plan staqes can be as essential to the
outcome of an effective plan as the more formal adoption
procedures, Furthermore, citizens should be afforded
timelv access and education concerninq the qrowth
manaqement decisions entrusted to elected and appointed
officials, In considering the requirements of section
163,3181, FS" the commission notes leqislative intent that
the public participate In the comprehensive planninq
process to the fullest extent possible,
Austin et al. v, Citv of Cocoa Beach, AC Case No, 89-31 (AC Amended Final Order
entered on Sept. 29, 1989; AC Final Order entered on August 20, 1990); DOAH Case
Nos. 88-6338GM and 89-0291 GM, 1989 WL 645182 (DOAH Recommended Order
entered on June 2, 1989; DCA Order entered on Aug, 20, 1990)(Emphasis supplied,)
1 of3
2, The requirement that each local government designate a local planning
agency (LPA) and that the LPA must hold at least one public hearing on proposed
comprehensive plan amendments prior to making a recommendation to adopt the plan
amendment is one of the provisions of the GMA which the legislature set out in
9163.3174(3)(a) as a "minimum requirement" to guarantee citizen participation in
comprehensive planning to the fullest extent possible,
3, The City of Boynton Beach appears to have complied with the LPA public
hearing requirement for 25 years from 1975 to 2000, Prior to adopting its 1989
comprehensive plan, the City even adopted public participation procedures which
recognized the publics' right to participate in the comp plan amendment process to the
fullest extent possible, However. the City has not followed its public participation
procedures regarding LPA hearings for the last 5 years, including in this case,
4, In 2000, the City transferred the powers of its Planning and Development
Board (P&DB) to the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) for projects located
within the boundaries of the CRA, Part III, Chapter 1 ,5, Article I, Sec, 5, At that time,
the City Commission designated itself to be LPA but unexplainably stopped holding the
required public hearings that had been held within the City for the past 25 years,
Previously, the P&DB, and its predecessor agency the Planning and Zoning Board
(P&ZB), had been designated as the City's LPA. The P&DB/P&ZB had properly noticed
and conducted the public hearings on plan amendments required by both 9163,3174
and the City's own public participation procedures,
5, While the City has failed to conduct the requisite LPA public hearing in this
case, in 1997 it adopted Ordinance No, 097-09 which approved its Evaluation and
Appraisal Report (EAR) of the City's comprehensive planning program, The EAR
emphasized the importance of the City's public participation procedures and promised it
would "ensure" that the procedures would be followed and the requisite public hearings
would be held:
10 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND SCHEDULE OF PLAN AMENDMENTS
A Adopted Participation Procedures
The City of Boynton Beach adopted the following procedures for public
participation In plan adoption and amendments
(a) The City of Boynton Beach Will ensure that public heannqs, meeting
and workshops are held whenever the Citv proposes to consider any
issues Involvinq the Comprehensive Plan includinq plan amendments
and Evaluation and Appraisal Reports "
City of Boynton Beach 1996 Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report,
February 1997, Pg. 10-1 (Emphasis supplied),
20f3
6, The required public hearing before the LPA has not been held or noticed on
Lennar's application for a small scale plan amendment in this case, Therefore, the
citizens have been denied their right and opportunity to participate in the comprehensive
planning process in this case to the fullest extent possible - a right guaranteed by both
the statutes and the City's public participation procedures,
7, The City Commission has the authority to table a proposed Development
Order which has been removed from the consent agenda to a future meeting date to
insure that proper notice and opportunity to be heard is provided to applicant, the public,
and any other interested parties, Part III, Chapter 1,5, Article I, Sec, 4,3, C, 4,
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Therefore, the sixteen (16) clients which I represent who reside in the Yachtmans
Cove and Coquina Cove subdivisions request that the City Commission table Lennar's
application for proposed small scale plan amendment, together with Lennar's
applications for rezoning and request for new site plan approval (which can only be
considered and approved after the proposed small scale plan amendment has been
adopted), until the proper notice and opportunity to be heard at a public hearing before
the Land Planning Agency is provided to my clients and the citizens of Boynton Beach
as required by law and the City's own public participation procedures,
30f3
b1/17/2005 16:14
9547714923
GOREN CHEROF ET AL
PAGE 02/03
GOREN, CHEROF, DOODY & EZROL, P.A.
ATTOIHII;VS AT LAW
~tJI'TE 200
3099 BAST CO,",'-'ERC1AI. aOU1.1!VARD
FORT LAUOI".R.DHB, FLORIOA 33308
SAMUEL S, GOREN
JAMES A, CHE!,!OF
DONALD J. DOODY
KERRY L. EZROL
MICMAEL D. CIRUI.LO. JR
TeLEPHONE (964) 771.4500
F'ACS1MILE (954) 771-4923
JULIE l' KLAM F!
DAVID N. TOLces
MICHAEl. J. PAWELCZYK
RICHARD J DEWITT (11
STEVI:N L. JOSIAS, OF COUNSEL
January 17, 2005
Via Facsimile 561-868-6543
Michael Wm. Morell, Esquire
P.O. Box 18649
West Palm Beach, FL 33416-8649
Re: City of Boynton Beach I Seaview Park Club
Dear Mr. Morell:
I am in receipt of your letter of January 17, 2005 which I received by facsimile transmission at
2:13 p.m.
With respect to you inquiry regarding the document that the City Commission will have before
it to assist them in conducting their quasi judicial hearing, it is in fact the same document that I
provided to you by facsimile on January 11, 2005.
With respect to your request that the City bifurcate the small scale plan amendment public
hearing from the re-zoning and site plan app,roval public hearing, I can assure you that notwithstanding
the manner in which the City Commission conducts its fact finding, it wilt dispose of each the small
scale plan amendment, the Ie-zoning, and the site plan by separate discussion an,d vote. In any event,
you have failed to explain how your client would be prejudiced by the City Commission consolidating
the public hearings provided that they discuss alld vote on the three separate items individually.
I have also reviewed your procedural argument #1 and disagree with your opinion regarding the
role of the City Commission as the local planning agency as well as your opinion that citizens have
been denied their right and opportunity to participate in the comprehensive planning process in this
case as well as others.
I haVE: no authority to either grant your request for bifurcation nor to make your .T anuary 17,
2005 document part of the record. You will need to address both issues with the City Commission as
part of your presentation when the Seaview Park Club project matter is reached.
H:\ 1990\900 I 82.BB\SEA VIEW PARK CLUB\Lctter Michael Morcll.doc.dot
~1/17/2005 15:14
9547714923
GOREN CHEROF ET AL
PAGE 03/03
Michael Wm. Morell, Esquire
January 17,2005
Page 2
Since you. have copied Michael S. Weiner, Esquire with your letter to mel I will provide him
with my response to you so that he is fully kept in the loop.
JAMES A. CHEROF
JAC:nm
cc: Michael S. Weiner, Esquire
Kurt Bressner, City Manager
Mayor Gerald Taylor
City Commissioners
H:\1990\90Cl182.BBISEA VTEW PARK CLUf.I\Letter Michael Morell.doc.dot
CITY COMMISSION AND
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR
THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
IN RE: Seaview Park Club Project,
LUAR 04-010, application for amendment
to future land use element of comprehensive
plan and application for rezoning, and,
NWSP 04-014, site plan review application
for new site plan submitted by Lennar
Homes, Inc.
c:>
,-"
c.-
,..,..
~
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF MICHAEL Wm. MORELL
AS COUNSEL OF RECORD
COMES NOW Michael Wm. Morell, Attorney and Counselor, and files this appearance
as counsel of record representing John V. and Saundra K. Alvaroe, Robert F. and Joan R. Corey,
Stephen R. Homrich and Rose M. Homrich, Osvaldo and Rosa Leal, Stanley L. and Stacey B.
Nitowski, Adrian H. Winchell, as Trustee of the Adrian H. Winchell Revocable Living Trust,
Helen 1. Winchell, as Trustee of the Helen 1. Winchell Revocable Living Trust, Harry John
Woodworth and Joy H. Woodworth, and James E. Buchanan, Jr. and Susan S. Buchanan, in the
above-referenced proceedings. The undersigned counsel has agreed to represent these sixteen
(16) individual land owner/residents at the public hearings scheduled in the above-referenced
matter.
Copies of all notices of meetings, public hearings and workshops of the City of Boynton
Beach City Commission ("City Commission"), the City of Boynton Beach Community
Redevelopment Agency ("CRA"), the City of Boynton Beach Technical Review Committee
("TRC") regarding the above-referenced applications, together with copies of all: (a) agendas,
(b) agenda back-up; (c) staff reports; (d) amendments to the original application, (e) motions, (f)
1
I
cJ1
~
()~
~-<
-<.0
",""
-~
-'0
." -<
---
.:~
-'-
:2
-~
- '1
f":? '" C:J
__f"T'I
r<) '.''J:>'
:.::> ~(")
:x:.
pleadings, (g) orders and (h) correspondence served by the applicant and its representatives, the
City Council, CRA, TRC, the City Clerk, and/or the staff of the Planning and Zoning
Department in the above-referenced application files, should be furnished by U.S. Mail or Fax to
the undersigned counsel at the following West Palm Beach mailing address:
Michael Wm. Morell
Attorney and Counselor
P.O. Box 18649
West Palm Beach, FL 33416-8649
Fax: 561-868-6543
Service by hand delivery and delivery by overnight courier service should be furnished to the
undersigned at his West Palm Beach physical office address:
2615 S. Garden Drive
Bldg. 12, Unit 203
Lake Worth, FL 33461
Respectfully submitted this 5th day of January, 2005.
~~.~
Michael Wm. Morell
Attorney and Counselor
Florida Bar No. 0570280
(561) 714-7533 PHONE
(561) 868-6543 FAX
E-mail: morellmw@bellsouth.net
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 18649
West Palm Beach, FL
33416-8649
Office Address: 2615 S. Garden Drive
Bldg. 12, Unit 203
West Palm Beach, FL 33461
2
CERTIFICA TE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the original of the foregoing Notice of Appearance of Michael
W. Morell as Counsel of Record was filed by hand delivery on this 5th day of January 2005 with
Janet Prainito, City Clerk; and copies were provided by hand delivery to Mayor Jerry Taylor,
City Commissioner Bob Ensler, City Commissioner Mack McCray, City Commissioner Mike
Ferguson, City Commissioner Carl McCoy, City Attorney James Cherof, City Manager Kurt
Bressner, Director of Development Quintas Greene, Director of Planning and Zoning Mike
Rumpf, Senior Planner Dick Hudson, Principal Planner Ed Breese and Site Plan Reviewer Eric
Johnson, all of whom are located at 100 East Boynton Beach Boulevard, Boynton Beach, FL
33425. Copies were also provided this same day to; CRA Chairperson Jeanne Heavilin, CRA
Vice Chair Henderson Tillman, CRA members James Barretta, Alexander DeMarco, Don
Fenton, Marie Horenburger and Steve Myott and CRA Executive Director Doug Hutchinson, all
of whom are located at 639 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 103, Boynton Beach, FL 33435.
Finally, a copy was provided this same day by fax and U.S. mail to the CRA's Counsel, Ken
Spillias, Esq., Lewis Longman and Walker, 1700 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 1000,
West Palm Beach, FL 33401, Fax: 561-640-8202, and by Fax and U.S. Mail to the applicant's
agent, Michael S. Weiner, Esq., Weiner & Aronson, P.A., 102 North Swinton Avenue, Delray
Beach, FL 33444, Fax: 561-272-6831.
~UM.,~tU
Michael Wm. Morell
3
Michael Wm. Morell
Attorney and Counselor
Administrative, Governmental and
Regulatory Law Mailing Address: Also admitted to the
Land Use, Planning and Zoning Law Post Office Box 18649 District of Columbia
Redevelopment Law West Palm Beach, FL 33416.8649
Historical Preservation Law
Elections, Ethics and (561) 714.7533 Office
Public Disclosure Law (561) 868.6543 Fax
morellmw @ bellsouth.net
Via Fax (954) 771-4923 and U.S. Mail January 17,2005
James Cherof, Esquire
Goren, Cherof, Doody & Ezrol, P.A.
3099 E. Commercial Boulevard, Suite 200
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33308-4311
Re: Public Records Request regarding City of Boynton Beach, Florida;
Seaview Park Club Project; LUAR 04-010 (legislative public hearing on small
scale plan amendment and quasi-judicial pubic hearing on rezoning) and NWSP
04-014 (quasi-judicial public hearing on request for new site plan approval)
Dear Jim:
This is a public records request. The notice for above-referenced hearings stated that
certain ordinances to be considered at the public hearings were on first reading. Please provide
me with copies of the draft ordinances before tomorrow's public hearings.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
~~W
MWM:mm
Michael Wm. Morell
.-'
~
APR
'~
v
lE@&U
W7 ;~~
','j -~,
ORDINANCE NO. 097-tJ9
PlANNING AND
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSIO ZONING DEPT.
THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
ADOPTING THE 1996 EVALUATION AND
APPRIASAL REPORT OF THE COMPREHENISVE
PLAN; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS,
SEVERABILITY, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, via Ordinance No, 089-38, the City of Boynton Beach
adopted the document entitled "Comprehensive Plan - City of Boynton Beach,
Florida"; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 163.3191, Florida Statutes, the
Comprehensive Plan is required to be updated periodically through the
preparation of an evaluation and appraisal report and subsequent amendment;
and
WHEREAS, in January, 1996, the City contracted with Berryman &
Henigar, Inc., to prepare the City's Evaluation & Appraisal Report (EAR);
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, THAT:
Section 1. The City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida,
hereby adopts the 1996 Evaluation and Appraisal Report of the Comprehensive
Plan, prepared by Berryman & Henigar, Inc.
;!
Section 2. That the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Boynton Beach
will be amended, consistent with the findings and recommendations of the "1996
Evaluation and Appraisal Report", within one year of its adoption.
Section 3. That this Ordinance shall become effective upon the date a
sufficiency determination is issued by the Florida Department of Community
Affairs in accordance with Chapter 163.3191, F. S.
Section 4. All laws and ordinances applying to the City of Boynton
Beach in conflict with any provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed.
Section 5. Should any section or provision of this Ordinance or any
portion thereof be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid,
such decision shall not affect the remainder of this Ordinance.
FIRST READING this ~ day of March, 1997.
SECOND, FINAL READING AND PASSAGE this -L- day of April, 1997.
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
rA;;!-~-~~
~'f/ ,
~~ P:L~
Commissioner
"
"
C '\
,'-"'"
I ATTEST:
~~~~_~~J~
City lerk
City of Boynton Beach
1996 Comprehensive Plan
Evaluation and Appraisal Report
~~,
.r'
;it'
..., ~
.;.;:&
.~
February 1997
<iiiiR-'
City of Boynton Beach Comprehensive Plan
Evaluation and Appraisal Report
City of Boynton Beach
100 East Boynton Beach Boulevard
Boynton Beach, Florida 33425
Mr. Gerald Taylor, Mayor
Commissioners
Ms. Shirley Jaskeiwicz Vice Mayor
Mr. Matthew Bradley
Mr. Henderson Tilman
Mr. 1amie Titcomb
Ms. Carrie Parker, City Manager
Ms. Tambri Heyden, Planning and Zoning Director
Mr. Michael Rumpf, Senior Planner
Prepared for the City of Boynton Beach by Berryman &Henigar
Preparation of this document WIS aided through the fUllDCial assiSllDC;c rcc:civcd from the State of Florida
under the Local Govcmmcnt Evaluation and Appraisal bport Assistance Program autbcrized by
Chapter 93-206, Laws of Florida and administered by the Department of Community Affairs.
Section 5
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F,
G.
H.
Section 6
A.
B,
C.
D.
E.
F
G,
H.
Section 7
A.
8.
C.
D.
E.
F,
Section 8
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Section 9
A.
8.
C.
D,
E.
F.
G.
&.
SectiCXl101N
Ii.
B.
C.
RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
Coodition of Element at Time of Adoption
Coodition of Element at Time of EAR and Inventory of Sites and Facilities
Inventory of Sites and F acliitles
Achievement of Level of Service Standards
Inventory of Private Sites and Facilities
Objectives Achievement Mattix; Comparison of Objectives to Results
Effect of Statutory and Rule Changes Since 1989
R..:commended Plan Amendments.and Need for New Actions
HOUSING
Condition of Element at Time of Adoption
Condition of Element at Time of EAR
Summary of Anticipated lnfonnation from Affordable Housing Needs Assessment
Physical Condition and Deterioration of Housing Stock
Inventory of Group Homes and Special Needs Housing
Objectives Achievement Mattix; Comparison of Objectives to Results
Effect of Statutory and Rule Changes Since 1989
Recommended Plan Amendments and Need for New Actions
COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
Condition of Element at Time of Adoption
Condition of Element at Time of EAR
Development in Coastal High Hazard Area
Objectives Achievement Matrix; Comparison of Objectives to Results
Effect of Statutory and Rule Changes Since 1989
Recommended Plan Amendments and Need for New Actions
IN1ERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION ELEMENT
Condition of Element at Time of Adoption
Condition ofElcment at Time of EAR
Objectives Achievement Matrix; Comparison of Objectives to Results
Effect of Statutory and Rule Changes Since 1989
Recommended Plan Amendments and Need for New Actions
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
Condition of Element at Time of Adoption
Condition of Element at Time of EAR
Effects of Concurrency and Level of Service Standards
Actual va. Anticipated Revenues and Expenditures
New Revcauc Sources
Objectives Acbicvcment Matrix; Comparison of Objectives to Results
E1I'ecCs of StItuta:y and Rule Changes Since 1989
~II.I~ Plan Amendments and Need for New Actions
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND SCHEDULE OF PLAN AMENDMENTS
Adopted Participation Procedures
Schedule for Adoption of EAR-Based Amendments
Meeting Notices
Q\cpl-*i"'\proj<<tll664S9bo}.wlOlllc:ootUnuall
12112196
u
5-1
5.1
5-10
5-14
5-14
5-15
5-17
5-20
5-20
6-[
6-1
6-4
6-6
6-6
6-7
6.8
6.12
6.14
7.1
7-1
7.11
7-17
7-19
7-24
7-25
8-1
8-1
8-4
8-8
8-15
8-15
9:1
9-1
9-5
9-7
9-8
9-8
9-9
9-14
9-14
10-1
10-2
10-3
10. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND SCHEDULE OF PLAN AMENDMENTS
A. Adopt_ Ptuticipation I+ocedures
The City of Boynton Beach adopted the following procedures for public participation in plan adoption and
amendments.
(a) The City of.Bo~nton Beach will ensure that public hearings. meeting and workshops are held
whenever the City proposes to consider any issues involving the Comprehensive Plan, including plan
amendments and Evaluation and Appraisal Reports.
Status: Three workshops were held to consider the draft Evaluation and Appraisal Report (March
25, April 22, and May 13, 1996). A minimum of one public hearing will be held at the time of
adoption of the EAR
(b) To ensure that real property o\\'ners are put on notice of official actions that will affect the use of
their property, the City of Bo}nton Beach will notify all property owners in the surrounding area of
any proposed land use amendment or rezoning application. This notification will occur sufficient
time for the property owners to make plans to attend any scheduled public meetings,
(c) To ensure that the general public is infonned of any activities pertaining to the comprehensive
plan, the City of Boynton Beach shall advertise any workshops, public hearings, or public meetings
in a local newspaper. Notice will also be posted in City Hall, the civic center, and the public library.
In addition, a notice will be included in the City's newsletter which is sent to every person receiving a
water bill and hand delivered to large condominium owners. The City's newsletter provides an
excellent opportwtity for the citizens to be informed of all city-related activities.
Status: See accompanying notices and newspaper advertisements. The City's newsletter could not
be utilized due to the timing of publications (publication is not placed within utility bills).
(d) In addition to allowing citizens to speak about their concerns during public meetings, the City of
Boynton Beach will provide an opportwlity for citizens to voice their opinions in writing. During.
public meetings citizens will be informed. and encouraged to submit written comments. Citizens are
also allowed to comment in person or in writing to the Planning Department any time during regular
working hours.
Status: Notices invited written conuncnts; however, no written comments have been received to date
011 tho draft EAR.
(e) 'J'IItf:ityofBoynton Beach will consider and respond to all citizen comments. All comments will
then ..~ IIId compiled into a report which will then be transmitted to the Local Planning
Ageor;y IIId tho City Commission. The LP A and Commission will then vote on each public comment
individually IS to whether or not the particular comment will be incorporated into the Plan.
Status: Few individuals from general public participated in workshops on draft EAR Those in
attendance at meetings were invited to speak openly and converse with both staff and
-
10-1
whole or in part. The City is managed through the use of a rigorous budgeting and capital programming
effort, which has an annual cycle for review and approval.
The Wldeilyin, pwposc of the CIE element is to draw together an analysis of the conunWlity' s planned
resources and the service needs of new development. [n this respect, the City of Bo)nton Beach has met the
intent of the CIE element. However, the "housekeeping" aspect of the CIE, in which the element is revIewed
each year, has been superseded in practice by the annual budgeting process.
It would be appropriate to modify the annual budget docwnent, to include a CIE section of the annual budget,
which inc:ludes the projected CIE cxpenditw'es, their fWlding soW'ccs and expenditw'e year and the actual
budget year. As an alternative, it would be helpful to note those expenditures in the annual budget which are
also part of the CIE. This would have the effect of more closely aligning the budget fWlction with the
comprehensive plan. The ability to do this would depend on rcsoW'CCS available in the City's finance
department. It may be appropriate to consider adding a policy to the comprehensive plan to evaluate the staff
time which would be required to complete this annual feedback loop.
....~~
.:!1"':;
,~-
9-15
ORDINANCE NO. 02- cas-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA AMENDING
LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, CHAPTER 2
ZONING, SECTION 5. CREATING A NEW SUBSECTION
"L"; ESTABLISHING THE INFILL PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (PUD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE
PURPOSE OF IMPLEMENTING THE FEDERAL
IDGHW A Y CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PLAN;
PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS, SEVERABILITY,
CODIFICATION AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the current Land Development Regulations do not address the
development of single-family attached dwellings, and
WHEREAS, the current PUD regulations are based on the Urban Land Institute's
and Use Intensity (LUI) design methodology, which may preclude small (i.e. infill) parcels
from being developed as a PUD;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, THAT:
Section 1.
The foregoing whereas clauses are true and correct and are now ratified
and confirmed by the City Conunission.
Section 2.
That Chapter 2. Zoning, Section 2, Section 5. "L" is hereby amended
y adding the words and figures in underlined type, as follows:
Sec. 5.. Residential district regulations and use provisions.
.II
! '
1 acre
5 acres
45 ft. be
Residential R or
Residential.
100 s . ft.
S:\(;A 'Ordinances\IDR ObangeslAmdcnding !DR - Chapter 2 - See 5 - IPUD.doc ScI; 5 _ IPUD
Section 3.
Each and every other provision of the Land Development Regulations
ot herein specifically amended, shall remain in full force and effect as originally adopted.
Section 4. All laws and ordinances applying to the City of Boynton Beach in
onflict with any provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed.
Section 5. Should any section or provision of this Ordinance or any portion
ereofbe declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not
ect the remainder of this Ordinance.
Section 6.
Authority is hereby given to codify this Ordinance.
Section 7. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately.
FIRST READING this ~ day of June, 2002.
S:\CA\Ordinances\LDR Changcs\Amdcnding IDR - Chapla" 2 . See 5 - IPUD.doc See 5 -IPUD
SECOND, FINAL READING AND PASSAGE this -11L day of
rune, 2002.
AiceMayo, '.
~C~
Commissioner ~
~
~..
~ner
S:\CA\Ordinancea\lDR Changes\AmdCDdinglDR - Chapter 2 - See S - IPUD,doc See S - IPOO
II
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
ORDINANCE NO. 04-0'=>€>
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH,
FLORIDA AMENDING LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS, CHAPTER 2 "ZONING", SECTION 5.L.
INFILL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT; PROVIDING
ADDITIONAL STANDARDS FOR BULIDING DESIGN,
USABLE OPEN SPACE AND COMP A TffiILITY WITH
SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT; PROVIDING FOR
CONFLICTS, SEVERABILITY, CODIFICATION AND AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
14
; i
I WHEREAS, the City adopted the IPOO-Infill Planned Unit Development Zoning
! tegulations in June 2002; and since that adoption staff has become concerned that regulations
, ,
: fo not offer adequate protection to existing and stable single-family residential developments
~hat may be adjacent to the infill projects; and
I I WHEREAS, the City Commission, upon recommendation of staff, approved a Notice
f Intent (NOI) for the IPOO Zoning District on January 20, 2004, and a six month period
as allocated for staff to complete a study and to initiate amendments to the Land
evelopment Regulations to ensure that the qualify of any Infill project approved under the
egulations is consistent with the stated intent of the zoning district and the Federal Highway
orridor Redevelopment Plan;
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF
HE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, THAT:
24
25
Section 1.
The foregoing whereas clause is true and correct and is now ratified and
26 onfirmed by the City Commission.
27 Section 2. Chapter 2. "Zoning", Section 5.L. of the Land Development
28 egulations of the City of Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances is hereby amended by adding
29 e words and figures in underlined type. and by deleting the words and figures in struck-
30 rough type, in the attached Exhibit "A".
31 Section 3. Each and every other provision of the Land Development Regulations
32 ot herein specifically amended, shall remain in full force and effect as originally adopted.
33 Section 4. All laws and ordinances applying to the City of Boynton Beach in
34 onflict with any provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed.
15 Section 5. Should any section or provision of this Ordinance or any portion
36 ereof be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not
37 ffect the remainder of this Ordinance.
38
Section 6.
Authority is hereby given to codify this Ordinance.
:\CA\Ordinances\LDR Changes\Amdending LDR - Chapter 2,-5.L. IPlJD,doc
II
2
Section 7. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately.
FIRST READING this.3 day of August, 2004.
SECOND, FINAL READING AND PASSAGE this -1L day of
I
LA.ugust,2004.
I
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
,......---.... - ..
~G
I!
'I
I
I
(/C
.~
:\CA\Ordinances\LDR Changes\Amdending LDR - Chapter 2.-5,L IPUD.doc
1
CHAPTER 2 - ZONING
Sec. 5 Residential district regulations and use provisions
EXHIBIT A
L. INFILL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (IPUD). The Infill Planned Unit
Developrnent (IPUD) District standards and regulations are created for the purpose of allowing
flexibility to accommodate infill and redevelopment on parcels less than five (5) acres in size.
Parcels five or more acres in size shall comply with normal Planned Unit Development
regulations found in Chapter 2.5 of the Land Developrnent Regulations.
1. IntentieB and expectation~.
a. The IPUD regulations are intended to be used in situations where new
development or redevelopment is proposed within an already developed area or neighborhood
located in the "Federal Highway Corridor Community Redevelopment Plan" Study Areas I and
V. A mixture of uses, including residential, retail commercial and office, may be allowed to the
extent that no land use conflicts will result and the basic intent of the Zoning Code and the
Comprehensive Plan will be followed.
b. It is a basic public expectation that landowners requesting the use of the
IPUD district will develop design standards that exceed the basic development standards in terms
of site design, building architecture and construction materials, amenities and landscape design.
The extent of variance or exception to basic design standards, including but not limited to
requirements for parking spaces, parking lot and circulation design, and setbacks, will be
dependent on how well the above stated planning expectations are met in the proposed
development plan.
c. The IPUD shall minimize adverse impacts on surrounding property. The
City is not obligated to automatically approve the level of development intensity requested for
the IPUD. Instead. it is expected to approve only such level of intensity that is appropriate for a
particular location in terms of land use compatibilities. The City may require, as a condition of
approval. any limitation condition, or design factor that will provide a reasonable transition to
adjacent development.
d. In order to be approved, an IPUD project must be compatible with and
preserve the character and sanctity of adjacent residential neighborhoods. Further. it must be an
enhancement to the local area and the city in general. Presentation of projects that fail to do so
will be denied.
e. Each IPUD project is independent and will be evaluated solely on its own
rnerits. The inclusion of certain features in a previously approved IPUD proiect will not be
entertained as a valid argument for the inclusion of that same feature in any other IPOO proiect if
the City decides to reiect those features.
S:\CAIRAlIIPUD 07-21-04FIOaLdoc
2
2. Application process.
a. The procedures and requirements for applying for rezoning to the IPUD
district are the same as those for rezoning to the PUD district as stated in Chapter 2.5, Section 10
of the Land Development Regulations.
b. When the IPUD is to be developed in a single phase, the Site Plan for the
development may also represent the Master Plan.
c. The entire property proposed for development as an !PUD shall be under
common ownership or unified control. so as to ensure unified development.
3. Development standards.
Maximum lot coverage (Building):
Maximum density
1 acre
5 acres
45 ft. (lesser height may be required for
compatibility with adjacent development)
50%
Determined by underlying land use:
. 10.8 dulac for lands classified High
Density Residential (HDR) or Local
Retail Commercial (LRC)~ or
. 20 dulac for lands classified Special
High Density Residential.
-1- lOO sq. ft.
Shall mirror setbacks of adiacent zoning
district(s) but with a minimum of the
setback required for a single-family
residence, as determined by the orientation
of structures in the IPUD.
Minimum lot area:
Maximum lot area
Maximum height
Minimum usable open space per dwelling unit:
Perimeter Setbacks
4. Additional standards.
a. Building design elements.
(1) Massing. The proportions and relationships of the various architectural
components of the buildings should be utilized to ensure compatibility with the scale of other
development in the vicinity. The buildings should not detract from or dominate the surrounding
area.
(2) Materials. A variety of materials must be utilized to provide visual
interest to the buildings. Colors and materials must be selected for compatibility with the site
and the neighboring area. The exterior building design must be coordinated on all elevations
with regard to color, materials, architectural form. and detailing to achieve design harmony and
continuity.
S:\CAIRAlIlPUD Q7-21-Q4Final.doc
3
(3) Articulation. Well-articulated buildings add architectural interest and
variety to the massing of a building and help break UP monotonous facades. A variety of features
must be incorporated into the design of the buildings to provide sufficient articulation of the
facades. This may be achieved by incorporating the use of vertical and/or horizontal reveals,
stepbacks, modulation. proiections, roof detailing, and three dimensional details between surface
planes to create shadow line and break up flat surface areas.
(4) Overall design. Design of the proiect shall be tailored to the specific site
and shall take into consideration the protection and enhancement of any natural features of or
adjacent to the site as an element in the overall design.
a:-b. Screening and buffering.
(1) Appropriate screening and buffering will be required.
(2) Such screening sReHkl must be intended to shield neighboring properties
from any adverse external effects of the proposed development.
(3) Screening and buffering sheWQ must also be used to shield the proposed
development from the negative impacts of adjacent uses.
(4) Special emphasis should be placed on screening the intrusion of
automobile headlights on neighboring properties from parking areas and driveways.
lr.c.Pedestrian circulation.
(1) Pedestrian circulation should be carefully planned to prevent pedestrian
use of vehicular ways and parking spaces.
(2) In all cases, pedestrian access to public walkways shall be provided.
b. ~. Reql:lired Usable open space.
(1) The usable open space, sucR as recreatioR areas and passi':8 sammon
ownership areas,Shall be required for residential development projects and mixed-use residential
projects~ shall be designed to be available to every d'llelling unit proposes.
(2) TRis reql:lired usable open space shall Be sesigned to maximize privaey
and 1:lsabilit)' to the residents. Shall include active or passive recreational space;
(3) Private courtyar-ds, natural afeas and '.vater bodies shall Rot COURt to\vard
requir-ed open spaee. Shall not be occupied by streets, drives, parking areas, or structures other
than recreational structures;
S:\CA\RAL~PUO 07'21-04Final,doc
4
(4) Shall be designed to be available and accessible to every dwelling unit
proposed;
(5) Shall. where feasible. be centrally located in the development; and
(6) Shall not include private courtyards. natural areas and water bodies.
4:e. Trash collection.
(1) Special emphasis shall be placed on trash collection points.
(2) Trash containers or dumpsters sfiaH must be screened and designed such
that they are not visible from or disruptive to adjacent properties. streets. and rights-of-way while
still being so as to be conveniently accessible to their users and collectors.
(3) Dumpsters or trash containers shall not be located within setbacks abutting
single-family residential developments.
e,.LMixed land uses.
(1) Within the IPUD, mixed land uses may be proposed.
(2) Commercial uses shall only be allowed for developments fronting on
streets classified as "arterial" on the "Functional Classification of Roadways" map in the
Boynton Beach Comprehensive Plan.
(3) HO'Never, ~such development must be found compatible with adjacent
uses and established design characteristics.
(4) Compatibility 'Hill also be judged OR ROW well the ~ro~osed develo~mcmt
fits ',Vithin the cORtext of the Reighborhood and aOuttiRg pro~erties. Any commercial uses shall
be small-scale retail and services. primarily to serve the residents of the IPOO, and not the public
in general.
(5) Any commercial uses must front on the arterial roadway or on an access
wholly contained within the project with neither entrance nor exit on or visible from or
disruPtive to adjacent properties. streets. and rights-of-way.
& Compatibility with surrounding development.
(1) Compatibility will be judged on how well the proposed development fits
within the context of the neighborhood and abutting properties. For this purpose. elevations and
cross-sections showing adjacent structures shall be included with the site plan allplication.
S:\CA\RAL~PUO 07.21-04FinaJ.doc
5
(2) If vegetation. screening or other barriers and/or creative design on the
perimeter of an IPUD achieve compatibility with adjacent uses. the City may grant some relief
from the following two requirements:
a. Any IPOO located adjacent to an existing single-family residential
development(s) must locate structures of the same unit tyPe or height allowed by the adlacent
zoning district( s ).
b. Structures on the perimeter of an IPUD project. in addition to the basic
setback requirements. must be set back one (1) additional foot for each one (1) foot in height for
the perimeter structures that exceed thirty (30) feet.
ill If an IPUD is located with frontage on the Intracoastal Waterway,
conditions of approval shall include a deed restriction requiring that any marina or dockage built
will not exceed in width the boundaries of the project's actual frontage on the water. regardless
of what any other governing or permitting entity may allow or permit.
f.h. Vehicular circulation.
(1) Privately owned streets providing secondary vehicular circulation internal
to the IPUD may be considered for approval with rights-of-way and pavement widths less than
the requirements stated in the City's Land Development Regulations. However. in no case shall
health, safety and/or welfare be jeopardized.
(2) However, in no case shall health, safety aRdlGf v/elfare be jeopardized.
Roadways providing external connections to the City's street network shall meet all requirements
contained in the City's Land Development Regulations.
~i. Exterior lighting. Lighting of the exterior. parking areas and watercraft docking
facilities of the planned development shall be of the lowest intensity and energy use adequate for
its purpose. and shall not create conditions of glare that extend onto abuttin~ properties.
Ir.t Natural features. The physical attributes of the site shall be respected with
particular concern for preservation of natural features, tree growth and open space.
S:\cAIRALIIPUD 07-21-04FinaJ,doc
II
1 ORDINANCE NO. 04- oSlo
2
3 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BOYNTON
4 BEACH, FLORIDA, REGARDING PROPERTY
5 CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 7.29 ACRES
6 AND LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF FEDERAL
7 lllGHW A Y, NORTH OF CHUKKER ROAD;
8 AMENDING ORDINANCE 89-38 BY AMENDING
9 THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE
10 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY FOR THE
11 PROPERTY MORE P ARTICULARL Y DESCRIBED
12 HEREIN; THE LAND USE DESIGNA nON IS BEING
13 CHANGED FROMCH-5 AND MR-5 (PALM BEACH
14 COUNTY) TO SPECIAL lllGH DENSITY
15 RESIDENTIAL; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS,
16 SEVERABlllTY, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
17
18 WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida has
19 adopted a Comprehensive Future Land Use Plan and as part of said Plan a Future Land
20 Use Element by Ordinance No. 89-38 in accordance with the Local Government
21 Comprehensive Planning Act; and
22 WHEREAS, the procedure for amendment of a Future Land Use Element of a
23 Comprehensive Plan as set forth in Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, has been followed;
2 4 and
II
25 I WHEREAS, after public hearing and study, the City Commission deems it in
26 I, the best interest of the inhabitants of said City to amend the aforesaid Element of the
27 I Comprehensive Plan as adopted by the City herein.
28' NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF
29 I THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, lHA T:
30 i Section 1: The foregoing WHEREAS clauses are true and correct and
31
) S:\CA\Ordinances\Planning\La.nd Use\Waterside Land Use.doc
I
II
1 incorporated herein by this reference.
2
Section 2:
Ordinance No. 89-38 of the City is hereby amended to reflect the
3 following:
4 That the Future Land Use of the following described land shall be designated as
5 Special High Density Residential (SHDR). Said land is more particularly described as
6 follows:
A PARCEL OF LAND IN SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 43
EAST, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 48, "TRADE WINDS
EST A TES FIRST ADDmON" ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS
I
I RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 22, PAGE 44 OF THE PUBUC RECORDS OF
! ' PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, SAID CORNER BEING ON THE
I WESTERLY RIGHT -OF- WAY LINE OF THE INTRACOASTAL W A TERW A Y;
THENCE NORTH 05026'06" EAST ON SAID WESTERLY RIGHT -OF- WAY
LINE 365.92 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH
89018'46" WEST 385.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 05026'06" EAST 4.08
FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89018'46" WEST 35.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH
05026'06" WEST 174.98 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89018'46" WEST 236.14
FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CIRCULAR CURVE, CONCAVE
SOUTHEAST; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ON THE ARC OF SAID CURVE,
WITH A RADIUS OF 102.47 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 34034'00"
AN ARC DISTANCE OF 61.82 FEET TO A POINT OF REVERSE
CURV A TURE OF A CIRCULAR CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHWEST; THENCE
SOUTHWESTERLY ON THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, WITH A RADIUS OF
82.59 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 34034'00" AN ARC DISTANCE
OF 49.83 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE SOUTH 89018'46"
WEST 94.20 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION WITH THE EASTERLY
RIGHT-OF-W A Y OF U.S. mGHW A Y NO.1 (STATE ROAD NO.5), SAID
INTERSECTION BEING ON THE ARC OF A CIRCULAR CURVE, CONCAVE
I WEST, THE RADIUS POINT OF WmCH BEARS NORTH 73025'48" WEST;
THENCE NORTHERLY ON SAID EASTERLY RIGHT -OF- WAY AND ON THE
ARC OF SAID CURVE, WITH A RADIUS OF 11,509.20 FEET AND A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02023'09" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 479.27 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 89014'41" EAST 245.48 FEET; THENCE NORTH
05026'06" EAST 95.70 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION WITH A LINE
PARALLEL WITH AND 578.97 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTH LINE OF
7
8
9
10 t
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
i I
!
Is: \CA \Ordinances \Planning\Land Use\Wat.erside Land Use. doc
I
I
II
1 SAID SECTION 4; THENCE NORTH 89018'46" EAST ON SAID PARALLEL
2 LINE 274.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 06036'55" WEST 40.21 FEET TO
3 THE INTERSECTION WITH A LINE PARAlLEL WITH AND 618.85 FEET
4 SOUTH OF THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 4; THENCE NORTH
5 89018'46" EAST ON SAID PARAlLEL LINE 250.00 FEET TO THE
6 INTERSECTION WITH THE AFOREMENTIONED WESTERLY RIGHT -OF- WAY
7 LINE OF THE INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY; THENCE SOUTH 05026'06"
8 WEST ON SAID WESTERLY RIGHT -OF- WAY LINE 315.29 FEET TO THE
9 POINT OF BEGINNING.
10
11 SAID LANDS SITUATE, LYING AND BEING IN THE CITY OF DELRA Y
12 BEACH, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND CONTAINING 317,676
13 SQUARE FEET, 7.2928 ACRES.
14
15 Section 3: That any maps adopted in accordance with the Future Land Use Element
16 shall be amended accordingly.
17 Section 4: All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby
18 repealed.
19 Section 5: Should any section or provision of this Ordinance or any portion thereof
20 i be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect
21 J, the remainder of this Ordinance.
22 Section 6: This Ordinance shall take effect on adoption, subject to the review,
.1
23 '! challenge, or appeal provisions provided by the Florida Local Government Comprehensive
24 Planning and Land Development Regulation Act. No party shall be vested of any right by
25 virtue of the adoption of this Ordinance until all statutory required review is complete and
26 all legal challenges, including appeals, are exhausted. In the event that the effective date is
27 established by state law or special act, the provisions of state act shall control.
28
FIRST READING this ~O day of Ju.ly
,2004.
29
s: \CA\Ordinances\Planning\Land Use\Waterside Land Use.doc
\1
1 SECOND, FINAL READING and PASSAGE this L day Of~'
2 2004.
3
4
5
6 '
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 ATTEST:
20
21
22
23
24 (Corporate Seal)
25
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACI:I, FLORIDA
~--
(~
s: \CA\Ordina.:1ces\Planninq\Land Use\Waterside Land Use.doc
Palm Beach Post, January 1, 2005, Page 12-C
NO. 760872
NOnCE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE OF LAND USE AMENDMENT
NOTICE OF REZONING
NOTICE IS HEREIIY GIVEN Ihat .... Community ~...,I ~ Board of THE CITY Of
BOYNTON lEArn. FlORDA. wiI concilCI a PUBIJC HEARI'lG, an T.M.lQy, ~"'Iry 11, 2005 '" 6:
30 p,m, in the CITY HAll COMMISSION OiAMIIERS, 100 East Ilayntan BeOch -.., 10 consiclor
!hi. ~ submilled b,. W.... & _, P.A 9" behalf of..._ Harne., Inc:. The CiIv Cammiuian
aiM CITY Of BOYN1'ON lEArn, flORIDA, will aI.., hold ~ '-"!'II' to consider Ihi. reqo,oest an
T~ January 18, 2005 and T~. Febn.ary 1,,2005, Ead. CiIv COmmiuian "-i'lllwill_~ '"
7:00 'p,m~ ooanll1erealter CD .... Og.nda I*')'Mb "'.... CITY H.l.U COMMISSION OtAMIIfRS,
100 East Beach~, The roqueoI i. clo.cribod '" follow.: '
~ 1620 N, Federal Highway (llOsI .ide 01 F.deral Highway approxirncIely
1.000 feot nar1h 01 the ~ IC-161 Conal)
~ Amendn:.~o:.:~~~~~~
CommerciciI
10 - Special High Donoity Residont;aI
~ . Rezone:
F..... - R.3 Muhi-~ RMidonIial and C-3 Communily Conwnercial
10 . II'\JD Inlill Planned Unit o-Iopnent
PIIOI'05ED USE: Residential Condominium ~t
I.EGAL DESCIlI'TlON:
A PARCEL Of lAND LYING IN SCCT10N 22, TOWNSHIP 4S SOlJl!1A.1!ANGf 43 EAST, PAlM lEArn
COUNlY, flORIDA. 8E~ MORE PARTICUlARLY DESCRIBED AS ruuOWS:
THAT PORTION Of lHf FOllOWING DESCRIBED PARCfllYlNG EAST Of THE EASTERlY RlGKT-OF-
WAY lINE Of U,S,/l (STATE ROAD IS)
COMMENCING AT A POINT 314.74 FEET SOUTH Of THE NORTHWEST CORNER Of SCCT10N 22.
~~~~~.fF~~~~E~~~2f~
TO lAKf WOImi; THENCE SOUTH 158.32 FEET; THENCE WEST ON A UNE PARAIlfL WITH SAID
SECTION LN 1426.53 FEET TO 11-E SCCT10N UNE BETWEEN SECT10NS 21 AND 22; THfNCE
NORTH 158,32 FEET TO THE POINT Of BEGINNING,
_A
...vtew P..tl Club
Loc:MIonM...
~\
I : i I
.J, /--('\.-.. i ~'
~~I
\
o 7!. '110
-- +
-
Thi. roqueoI con be ~ ~ the houn 018:00 o,m, and 5:30 p,m, at the Cily of Ilayntan 8ead1
Planning and Zoning Civi.ian. 100 Eo" Ilaynlon Beach Ilaule.ord,
All inlerested pan;.. are noIil;ed Ia __ at ..,id hea~ in _ 0< In< aIIDmey and be heard.
I>.ny """"" wOO decides Ia appeal any deci.ion of the Cainmuility ~tlloard ~ 0<
City Cammiuian with """*" to any rnalIer ccnoidwed at the.. -"9' WIll .- 0 recx>Id 01 the
p<Oc;-lir>lP. and fa. such purpoM may "..j Ia enwr. that a wtbatim _on! of the ~ is
inade, whiCh _on! include. 1he leslimany and evidonce upon whic!. the appeal i.1o be bcned,
The Cil):. sha!1. /urni'" appropriaIe awUliary '!ic!> and oervice..where neceuary, Ia afIord an individual
with a ilitab;lity an ~ ~ity Ia partiClpaIe In and enlO)' the ......... 01 a "",""", program 0<
!JdMIy oonducled by ihe Clly, PIem8 ccnlact PDtricia TucMr I~ 1 ) 742-6268, ",least -..y-1Our 1~4)
houn prior 10 the program 0< adivity in ardo< lor the City Ia reasOnobly ooco...mocll:a your request,
COY Of BOYNTON lEArn
PlANNING ~ ZONNG DMSION
(~1) 742-6260
PUBUSH: The Post
January 1 , 2005 and Jan~ry 11, 2205
Public Notice
Financial Audit e2003-2004
Financial Audit
Boynton Beach Community Redevelopment agency (CRA)
639 E. Ocean Avenue, Suite 103
Boynton Beach, FI 33435
GENERAL INFORMATION:
This notice is to serve as public notice to the general public that the report of
activities for the CRA's Fiscal Year-2004, which includes a complete financial
statement setting forth the assets, liabilities, income, and operation expenses,
has been filed with the City of Boynton Beach. The report is available for public
inspection during normal business hours in the City Clerks' Office of the City of
Boynton Beach or the CRA Offices from 8 AM to 5 PM.
BOYNTON BEACH COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORTS, BASIC FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS AND REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION
For the Year Ended September 30, 2004
DUFRESNE & ASSOCIATES, CPA, PA
357 STILES AVENUE
POST OFFICE BOX 1179
ORANGE PARK, FLORIDA 32073
(904) 278-8980 PHONE
(904) 278-4665 FAX
BOYNTON BEACH COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2004
PAGE
INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT
REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Management's Discussion and Analysis (MD&A)
BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS:
1
3
Government-wide Financial Statements:
Statement of Net Assets
Statement of Activities
Governmental Fund Financial Statements:
9
10
Balance Sheet 11
Reconciliation of the Balance Sheet to the Statement of Net Assets 12
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Change in Fund Balance 13
Reconciliation of the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and
Change in Fund Balance to the Statement of Activities 14
Notes to Financial Statements 15
REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Budgetary Comparison Schedule
ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS REQUIRED BY THE RULES OF THE AUDITOR
GENERAL:
23
Report on Compliance and on Internal Control Over Financial
Reporting Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in
Accordance with Government Auditing Standards 26
Management Letter 28
DUFRESNE ED ASSOCIATES, CPA, PA
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
MAILING ADDRESS:
POST OFFICE Box 1179
ORANGE PARK. FLORIDA 32067-1179
\VWW, d u fresnecpas.com
SATELLITE OFFICE
237 NINTH AVENUE NORTH
JACKSONVILLE BEACH. FLORIDA 32250
TELEPHONE: 904 270-8820
FACSIMILE: 904 270-8821
MAIN OFFICE
357 STILES AVENUE
ORANGE PARK. FLORIDA 32073
TELEPHONE: 904278-8980
FACSIMILE: 904 278-4665
December 24, 2004
INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT
To the Board of Directors
Boynton Beach Community Redevelopment Agency
We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the governmental activities
of the Boynton Beach Community Redevelopment Agency (the "CRA"), a component
unit of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida, as of and for the year ended September 30,
2004, which collectively comprise the CRA's basic financial statements as listed in the
table of contents. These financial statements are the responsibility of the CRA's
management. Our responsibility is to express opinions on these financial statements
based on our audit.
We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in
the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits
contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the
United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the
amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing
the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well
as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit
provides a reasonable basis for our opinions.
In our opinion, the basic financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all
material respects, the respective financial position of the governmental activities of the
eRA as of September 30, 2004, and the respective changes in financial position thereof
for the year then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in
the United States of America.
In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued a report
dated December 24, 2004 on our consideration of the CRA's internal control over
financial reporting and our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws,
regulations, contracts and grant agreement and other matters. The purpose of that
report is to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting
and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the
internal control over financial reporting or on compliance. That report is an integral
part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards and
should be considered in assessing the results of our audit.
1
The management's discussion and analysis and the budgetary comparison information
on pages 3 through 8 and page 23 through 24 are not a required part of the basic
financial statements but are supplementary information required by accounting
principles generally accepted in the United States of America. We have applied certain
limited procedures, which consisted principally of inquiries of management regarding
the methods of measurement and presentation of the required supplementary
information. However, we did not audit the information and express no opinion on it.
f);"" t"-id/l '-/
~ {C L-J' J r-~ [{' "", ir,
L,' .. - (. L /'\1-
I".' J,'-l J.71
( r , / ~ .
Dufresne & Associates, CPA, PA
2
MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
(Unaudited)
The Boynton Beach Community Redevelopment Agency's (CRA) management
discussion and analysis (MD&A) is designed to provide an objective and easy to read
analysis of the financial activities based on currently know facts, decisions, and
conditions. The MD&A provides a broad overview and short-term and long-term
analysis of the CRA's activities based on information presented in the financial
statements. Specifically, this information is designed to assist the reader in focusing
on significant financial issues, provide an overview of the CRA's financial activity, and
identify changes in the CRA's financial position and its ability to address the next
year's challenges. Finally, the MD&A will identify any material deviations from the
approved budget.
The CRA is an independent agency for the City of Boynton Beach. The CRA has
presented its financial statements in accordance with the reporting model required by
Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 34, Basic Financial
Statements - and Management's Discussion and Analysis - for State and Local
Governments (Statement 34).
The information contained in this MD&A is only a component of the entire financial
statement report. Readers should take time to read and evaluate all sections of the
report, including the footnotes and other supplementary information provided.
FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS
· The CRA began the fiscal year with a net assets balance of $3,295,802. The
CRA's total revenues were $2,589,280, while total expenses were $3,268,867.
· The CRA has decreased net assets by $679,587.
· The CRA's total investment in capital asset projects was $1,330,578. These
investments included the purchase of the Relax Inn property.
OVERVIEW OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
The CRA's basic financial statements are comprised of the 1) Government-Wide
Financial Statements, 2) Fund Financial Statements, and 3) notes to the financial
statements. This report also contains other supplementary information in addition to
the basic financials statements themselves.
Government-Wide Financial Statements
The Government-Wide Financial Statements provide readers with a broad overview of
the CRA's finances, in a manner similar to a private-sector business. In addition, the
government-wide statements are prepared using the accrual basis of accounting.
The statement of net assets (Balance Sheet) presents information on the CRA's assets
and liabilities, with the difference between the two reported as Net Assets.
3
The statement oj activities (Income Statement) presents information showing how the
CRA's net revenues changed during the most recent fiscal year. All changes in net
revenues are reported as soon as underlying events giving rise to the change occur
regardless of the timing of related cash flows. The expenses are reported in this
statement for some items that will only result in cash flows in future fiscal periods.
The Government-Wide Financial Statements present functions of the CRA that are
principally supported by tax: increment financing (governmental activities). The
governmental activities of the CRA include general government activities and
redevelopment projects. Thus, the CRA has no business-type activities.
The Government-Wide financial statements are found on pages 9-10 of this report.
Fund Financial Statements
The Fund Financial Statements provide readers with an overview of each fund and its
related function in a traditional format. A fund is a grouping of related accounts that
maintain control over resources that are segregated for specific activities or objectives.
The CRA, like other state and local governments, uses fund accounting to ensure and
demonstrate legal compliance with finance-related legal requirements. The CRA
utilized only one fund, the General Fund, which is a governmental fund, and accounts
for all financial resources of the CRA.
Governmental funds are used to account for essentially the same functions reported
as governmental activities in the government-wide financials statements. However,
unlike the government-wide financial statements, the governmental fund financial
statements focus on near-term inflows and outflows of spendable resources, as well as
on balances of spendable resources available at the end of the fiscal year. Such
information may be useful in evaluating a government's near-term financing
requiremen ts.
The focus of governmental funds is narrower than government-wide financial
statements, and it is therefore useful to compare the information presented for
governmental funds with similar information presented for governmental activities in
the Government-Wide Financial Statements. By comparing and contrasting, readers
may better understand the long-term impact of the CRA's near term financing
decisions. The Balance Sheet and the Governmental fund statement of revenues,
expenditures, and changes in fund balances provide a reconciliation to facilitate this
comparison between the governmental fund and governmental activities.
The CRA adopts an annual appropriated budget for its General Fund. A budgetary
comparison schedule provided for the General Fund demonstrates compliance with
this budget.
The basic governmental fund financial statements can be found on pages 11 and 13 of
this report is the reconciliation between the governmental funds and governmental
activities found on pages 12 and 14.
4
Notes to the Financial Statements
The notes provide additional information that is essential to a full understanding of
the data provided in the Government-Wide and the Fund Financial Statements. These
notes to the financial statements are located beginning on page 15 of this report.
In addition to the basic financial statements and accompanying notes, this report also
presents certain required supplementary information concerning the CRA's budget to
actual results for the General Fund for the current year. The required supplementary
information can be found on page 23 of this report.
GOVERNMENT-WIDE FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
As noted earlier, net assets may serve over time as a useful indicator of a government's
financial position. In the case of the CRA, assets exceeded liabilities by $2,616,215 at
the close of the most recent fiscal year.
However, the largest portion of the CRA's total assets, 72%, is reflected in its cash and
investment accounts. The CRA will use this cash asset for economic redevelopment;
consequently, this asset is available for future spending on redevelopment and
repayment of the related debt.
CRA Net Assets at September 30,2004
2004
Assets
Current assets
Capital assets
Total assets
$ 4,195,488
1,330,578
5,526,066
Liabilities
Long term liabilities
Other liabilities
Total liabilities
2,630,845
279,006
2,909,851
Net assets
Invested in capital assets
Unrestricted
Total net assets
1,330,578
1,285,637
$ 2,616,215
2003
$ 5,212,257
880,809
6,093,066
2,759,607
37,658
2,797,265
880,809
2,414,993
$ 3,295,802
CRA assets are unrestricted indicating the CRA will have assets available for future
projects.
5
Governmental Activities
Governmental activities decreased the CRA's net assets by $679,587. Key elements of
this decrease are as follows.
CRA Changes in Net Assets for the Year Ended September 30,2004
2004
2003
Revenues
General Revenues
Tax increment revenues
$ 2,517,635
$
1,330,409
Other revenues
Total Revenues
71,645
2,589,280
79,667
1,410,076
Expenses
General government
Redevelopment projects
Interest on Long-Term Debt
Total Expenses
684,318
2,403,496
181,053
3,268,867
389,888
462,299
194,503
1,046,690
Increase (decrease) in net assets
(679,587)
363,386
Net assets beginning of year
Net assets end of year
$
3,295,802
2,616,215
$
2,932,416
3,295,802
Tax increment revenues increased by $1,187,226 during fiscal year 2004. Tax:
increment revenue increases are a product of increases in property values in the CRA's
redevelopment area. In addition, increases in general government expense is directly
due to the creation of an independent CRA with offices, staff, equipment, and supplies.
6
General Budgetary Highlights
During the year, staff made five requests for budget transfers within categories.
However, actual revenues exceeded budgetary estimates by $17,550.
The CRA originally budgeted $100,000 for the Fa<;:ade Grant Program, which was an
existing program assumed from the City of Boynton Beach. The CRA approved the
following recipients to receive the Fa<;:ade Grant:
· Delray-Boynton Academy
· Weiss Memorial Chapel
· St. Mark Church
· Colonial Center Condo Association
· Scully Burgers
· Welch Plastering
· Provident Missionary Baptist Church
· Salefish Realty
$15,000
1,139
15,000
30,000
10,498
1,800
11,000
9,227
$ 93.664
In addition, the CRA assumed the Development Regions Core Grant Program in 2003
from the City of Boynton Beach. The CRA Board approved the Development Regions
Core Grant for Delray-Boynton Academy.
The CRA staff brought forth to the CRA Board a CRA Pilot Police program for the
Central Business District and the Heart of Boynton areas. These special police are
over and above the regular police assigned within these areas. The program has been
successful in placing a constant police presence, which has resulted in lowering the
crime rate in these areas within the first month.
The CRA has also moved forward with several projects: Riverwalkj Promenade/
Boynton Beach Boulevard Extension project, a Way-Finding Sign program, and
Boynton Beach Boulevard District Redevelopment Plan Phase II Update and the CRA
Master Plan development.
The CRA Board approved the acquisition of 31 properties in the Heart of Boynton area
that will be developed into mixed use projects, which will include elements of retail,
office condo and residential. The CRA contracted with The Urban Group for acquisition
and is complying with all HUD guideline for these purchases. Two of these properties
were purchased during the year ended September 30,2004.
The CRA contracted with Jack of Arts for Phase I of its website development and
implementation, which has been a great success. Today, current projects, new
development, grant and incentive programs, festivals and events, as well as guidelines
for development within the CRA area, can be viewed and printed from the website. In
addition to the website development, the CRA produced its first annual report, which
can be viewed and printed from the website.
Finally, expenditures were $9,215 less than budgetary estimates.
7
Capital Assets and Debt Administration
Capital Assets
The CRA purchased the Relax Inn property as part of the Riverwalkj Promenade j
Boynton Beach Boulevard Extension project in 2002. During 2004, the CRA
purchased two of the 31 properties approved for acquisition in the Heart of Boynton
area that will be developed into mixed use projects, which will include elements of
retail, office condo and residential.
Long Term Debt
The CRA has a Note Payable with Bank of America initiated on September 20,2001 for
$3,000,000, together with interest on the principal balance outstanding at the rate per
annum of 6.56% per annum based upon a year of 360 days for the actual number of
days elapsed. The principal and interest on this Note are payable in thirty (30) equal
installments of $158,649.14 each, due March 20 and September 20, commencing
March 20,2002. This loan is scheduled to be paid in full September 20,2016.
Economic Factors and Next Year's Budget and Rates
The CRA Board approved the 2004-2005 budgets, which included projections through
2009. Tax Increment Revenues projections were based upon actual tax appraiser's
office 2003 values and the projections of projects coming on line between the years of
2004 and 2009. In addition, the CRA Tax Increment income was derived from two
factors: first the "New Construction" within the district, which was generated from new
projects, Secondly, the CRA captured the difference between the 2003 base evaluation
and the new appraised value for these new construction projects. The second area of
tax revenue generation is from appreciation within the CRA district, which was
substantial at 15%.
The CRA Board approved the issuance of $19.575 million in Tax Increment Bonds
secured by CRA Tax Increment Revenues with a City back-up pledge, which would
allow the CRA's debt to be issued with bond insurance and rated "AM", the highest
tax-exempt bond rating.
The CRA has appropriated approximately $1.9 million for general operations, $1.67
million for programs, $8.7 million for projects, and an ending fund balance of $12.4
million carry forward for additional future projects for the fiscal year 2004-2005.
Requests for Information
This financial report is designed to provide a general overview of the CRA's finances for
all those with an interest in the government's finances. Questions concerning any of
the information provided in this report or requests for additional information should
be addressed to the Executive Director at 639 E. Ocean Ave. Suite 103, Boynton
Beach, FI 33435.
8
BOYNTON BEACH COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS
SEPTEMBER 30, 2004
GOVERNMENTAL
ACTIVITIES
ASSETS
Cash and cash equivalents
Accounts receivable
Prepaids
Capital assets:
Land
Depreciable capital assets, net
$
3,972,574
221,887
1,027
1,309,378
21,200
TOTAL ASSETS
5,526,066
LIABILITIES
Accounts payable
Accrued salaries and benefits
Accrued interest payable
Long-term liabilities:
Due within one year
Due in more than one year
267,296
6,917
4,793
145,708
2,485,137
TOTAL LIABILITIES
2,909,851
NET ASSETS
Invested in capital assets
Unrestricted
1,330,578
1,285,637
TOTAL NET ASSETS
$
2,616,215
See notes to financial statements.
9
BOYNTON BEACH COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
STATEMENT OF ACTMTIES
FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2004
FUNCTIONS/PROGRAMS
GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES:
General government
Redevelopment projects
Interest on long-term debt
TOTAL
See notes to financial statements.
EXPENSES
CHARGES FOR
SERVICES
$ 684,318 $
2,403,496
181,053
$ 3,268,867 $
GENERAL REVENUES
Tax increment revenue
Interest and other income
TOTAL GENERAL REVENUES
CHANGE IN NET ASSETS
NET ASSETS - October 1, 2003
NET ASSETS - September 30, 2004
10
PROGRAM REVENUES
OPERATING
G RANTS AND
CONTRI-
BUTIONS
$
$
CAPITAL
GRANTS AND
CONTRI-
BUTIONS
$
$
NET
$ (684,318)
(2,403,496)
(181,053)
(3,268,867)
2,517,635
71,645
2,589,280
(679,587)
3,295,802
$ 2,616,215
BOYNTON BEACH COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
BALANCE SHEET - GOVERNMENTAL FUND
SEPTEMBER 30,2004
GENERAL
FUND
ASSETS
Cash and cash equivalents $ 3,972,574
Accounts receivable 221,887
Prepaids 1,027
TOTAL ASSETS $ 4,195,488
LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE
LIABILITIES
Accounts payable $ 267,296
Accrued salanes and benefits 6,917
TOTAL LIABILITIES 274,213
FUND BALANCE
Unreserved 3,920,248
Reserved for Prepaids 1,027
TOTAL FUND BALANCE 3,921,275
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE $ 4,195,488
See notes to financial statements.
11
BOYNTON BEACH COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
RECONCILIATION OF THE BALANCE SHEET TO THE STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS
GOVERNMENTAL FUND
SEPTEMBER 30, 2004
FUND BALANCE - TOTAL GOVERNMENTAL FUND
Amounts reported for governmental activities in the statement of net assets
are different because:
Capital assets used In governmental activities are not reported in the
governmental fund.
Capital assets - net
Long-term liabilities are not reported in the governmental fund,
Compensated Absences
Accrued interest
Note Payable
$
3,921,275
1,330,578
(14,468)
(4,793)
(2,616,377)
NET ASSETS OF GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES
2,616,215
$
See notes to financial statements,
12
BOYNTON BEACH COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGE
IN FUND BALANCE - GOVERNMENTAL FUND
FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2004
REVENUES
Tax increment revenue
Interest and other income
TOTAL REVENUES
EXPENDITURES
General government
Current
Fixed Capital Outlay
Total General Government
$
686,707
Redevelopment projects
Debt Service:
Principal Retiremen t
Interest
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
EXCESS OF EXPENDITURES OVER REVENUES
FUND BALANCE, Beginning of Year
FUND BALANCE, End of Year
See notes to financial statements.
13
674,283
12,424
GENERAL
FUND
$
2,517,635
71,645
2,589,280
2,843,665
135,968
176,259
3,842,599
(1,253,319)
5,174,595
$
3,921,276
BOYNTON BEACH COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
RECONCILIATION OF THE STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGE
IN FUND BALANCE TO THE STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES - GOVERNMENTAL FUND
FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2004
NET CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE - TOTAL GOVERNMENTAL FUND
Amounts reported for governmental activities in the statement of activities
are dIfferent because:
Governmental funds report capital outlay expenditures, However, in the
statement of activities, the cost of those assets is depreciated over
their estimated useful lives.
ExpendItures for capital assets
Less current year depreciation expense
Repayment of principal is an expenditure in the governmental funds, but
the repayment reduces long-term liabilities in the statement of net assets,
PrinCIpal payments
Some expenses reported in the statement of activities do not require the use
of current financial resources and, therefore, are not reported as
expenditures in governmental funds.
Change in Long-term Compensated Absences
Interest on long-term debt in the statement of activities differs from the
amount reported in the governmental funds because interest is recognized
as an expenditure in the funds when it is due, and thus requires use of
current financial resources. In the statement of activities, however,
expense is recognized as the interest accrues, regardless of when it is due,
CHANGE IN NET ASSETS OF GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES
14
$ (1,253,319)
452,592
(2,829)
135,968
(7,206)
(4,793)
$ (679,587)
BOYNTON BEACH COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
SEPTEMBER 30, 2004
1. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
The accounting policies of the Boynton Beach Community Redevelopment Agency
(the "CRA") conform to generally accepted accounting principles as applicable to
governments. The following is a summary of the more significant policies.
A. Reporting Entity
The CRA is a dependent special district established by the City of Boynton Beach,
Florida under the authority granted by Florida Statutes 163, Section III. The
purpose of the CRA is to promote and guide physical and economic redevelopment
in the City of Boynton Beach. The CRA is a legally separate entity established by
Ordinance number 83-41 of the City of Boynton Beach on December 20, 1983.
The CRA has adopted Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement No.
14 (GASB 14), the Financial Reporting Entity, for the purpose of evaluating its
component unit financial statements. Based on the criteria in GASB 14, the CRA
has determined that there are no units that meet criteria for inclusion in the
Agency's financial statements.
B. Reporting Model
The CRA's basic financial statements consist of government-wide statements,
including a statement of net assets and a statement of activities, and fund financial
statements which provide a more detailed level of financial information.
Governmen t - Wide Financial Statements
The statement of net assets and the statement of activities report information on all
of the activities of the CRA. Governmental activities are reported separately from
business-type activities, which rely on fees charged to external parties as their
primary revenues. The CRA has no business-type activities.
The statement of net assets reports the CRA's financial position as of the end of the
fiscal year. In this statement, the CRA's net assets are. reported in three categories:
invested in capital assets, net of related debt; restricted net assets; and
unrestricted net assets.
The statement of activities presents a comparison between direct expenses and
program revenues for each function of the CRA. Direct expenses are those that are
clearly identifiable with a specific function. Program revenues include charges for
services that are directly related to a given function and grants and contributions
that are restricted to meeting the operational or capital requirements of a
particular function. Tax increment revenue and other items not meeting the
definition of program revenue are reported instead as general revenue.
15
BOYNTON BEACH COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
SEPTEMBER 30, 2004
1. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (continued)
B. Reporting Model (continued)
Fund Financial Statements
The CRA utilized only one fund, the General Fund, which is classified as a
governmental fund and accounts for all financial resources of the CRA. The
governmental fund statement includes reconciliations with brief explanations to
better identify the relationship between the government-wide statements and the
statement for the governmental fund,
C. Measurement Focus and Basis of Accounting
The government-wide financial statements are reported using the economic
resources measurement focus and the accrual basis of accounting. Revenues are
recorded when earned and expenses are recorded when a liability is incurred,
regardless of the timing of related cash flows.
The governmental fund financial statements are reported using the current
financial resources measurement focus and the modified accrual basis of
accounting. Revenues are recognized as soon as they are both measurable and
available. Revenues are considered to be available when they are collectible within
the current period or soon enough thereafter to pay liabilities of the current period.
For this purpose, the CRA considers revenues to be available if they are collected
within 60 days of the end of the current fiscal period. Expenditures generally are
recorded when the related fund liability is incurred. However, debt service
expenditures, as well as expenditures related to compensated absences and claims
and judgments, are recorded only when payment is due.
D. Cash and Cash Equivalents
Cash and cash equivalents consist of petty cash and deposits with financial
institutions qualified as public depositories under Florida law. All deposits are
insured by federal depository insurance and/or collateralized with securities held
in Florida's multiple financial institution collateral pool as required by Chapter
280, Florida Statutes.
E. Capital Assets and Depreciation
Capital assets are defined by the CRA as assets with an initial, individual cost of
$1,000 or more and an estimated useful life of more than one year. These assets
are recorded at historical cost. Donated capital assets are recorded at estimated
fair value at the date of donation. Capital assets are depreciated using the
straight-line method over the assets' estimated useful lives of all reported capital
assets, except land and land improvements. The estimated useful life of furniture,
fixtures and equipment is five to seven years.
16
BOYNTON BEACH COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
SEPTEMBER 30t 2004
1. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (continued)
F. Revenue Sources
Tax increment revenues are the primary source of revenue for the CRA. Tax
increment revenue is collected from two governmental entities that levy property
taxes within the legally defined redevelopment area of the CRA, which are the City
of Boynton Beach and Palm Beach County,
G. Compensated Absences
It is the CRA's policy to permit employees to accumulate earned but unused
vacation and sick pay benefits. Employees may, depending on their level of service,
be paid for various amounts of their total accrued leave upon termination or
retirement. The CRA accrues a liability for leave hours that meet the criteria for
payment at the eligible employees' current rates of pay.
H. Long-term Liabilities
All long-term debt and other long-term obligations are reported in the government-
wide financial statements.
In the fund financial statements, long-term liabilities are not reported because
governmental funds use the current financial resources measurement focus.
I. Net Assets
Net assets represent the difference between assets and liabilities and are reported
in three categories as hereafter described. Net assets invested in capital assets, net
of related debt, represent capital assets, net of accumulated depreciation and any
outstanding debt related to those assets. Net assets are reported as restricted when
there are legal limitations imposed on their use by legislation, or external
restrictions imposed by other governments, creditors, or grantors. Unrestricted net
assets are net assets that do not meet the definitions of the classifications
previously described.
When both restricted and unrestricted resources are available for use, it is the
CRA's policy to use restricted resources first, and then unrestricted resources as
they are needed.
17
BOYNTON BEACH COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
SEPTEMBER 30,2004
1. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (continued)
J. Budgets and Budgetary Accounting
An annual budget is adopted on the modified accrual basis of accounting,
consistent \vith generally accepted accounting principles, with the exception of
compensated absences and festivals/events/seminars expenditures. Compensated
absences are budgeted only to the extent expected to be paid, rather than on the
modified accrual basis. Festivals/events/seminars expenditures are netted against
revenue generated from these expenditures, rather than reporting revenues and
expenditures individually. Amendments to the budget can only be made with the
approval of the Board of Directors. The fund is the legal level of control.
K. Use of Estimates
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted
accounting principles requires management to make various estimates. Actual
results could differ from those estimates.
2. CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS
At September 30, 2004 the CRA's cash and cash equivalents included deposits
with financial institutions with a bank balance of $3,990,712 and $500 of petty
cash.
3. ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE
At September 30, 2004 the CRA's accounts receivable included due from other
governments and due from employees with balances of $219,117 and $2,769,
respectively.
18
BOYNTON BEACH COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
SEPTEMBER 30,2004
4. CAPITAL ASSETS
Capital asset activity for the year ended September 30, 2004 was as follows:
Balance at
Beginning of
Year
Balance at
End of
Additions Deletions Year
Capital assets not being depreciated:
Land
$869,210
$440,168
$
$1,309,378
Depreciable capital assets
Furniture, fixtures and equipment
Total depreciable capital assets
13,720 12,430 26,150
13,720 12,430 26,150
2,121 2,829 -- 4,950
11,599 9,601 21,200
$880,809 $449,769 $ $1,330,578
Less accumulated depreciation
Depreciable capital assets, net of
accumulated depreciation
Total capital assets
5. LONG-TERM LIABILITIES
A summary of changes for the current fiscal year follows:
Balance at Balance at
Beginning of End of
Year Additions Deletions Year
Compensated Absences $ 7,262 $ 7,206 $ $ 14,468
Note Payable 2,752,345 135,968 2,616,377
Total $ 2,759,607 $ 7,206 $ 135,968 $2,630,845
19
BOYNTON BEACH COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
SEPTEMBER 30, 2004
5. LONG-TERM LIABILITIES (continued)
The CRA is a party to a promissory note to Bank of America, N.A. at 6.56%
interest, payable in thirty semi-annual installments. Debt service requirements to
maturity are as follows:
Fiscal Year End
September 30, Principal Interest Total
2005 145,708 17 1,590 317,298
2006 155,560 161,738 317,298
2007 166,079 151,219 317,298
2008 176,904 140,395 317,299
2009 189,270 128,028 317,298
2010-2014 1,156,235 430,257 1,586,492
2015-2016 626,596 55,214 681,810
Total $ 2,616,352 $1,238,441 $3,854,793
6. RISK MANAGEMENT
The CRA is exposed to various risks of loss related to torts, theft of, damage to, and
destruction of assets; errors and omissions; injuries to employees; and natural
disasters. The CRA purchases commercial insurance for the risks of loss to which
it is exposed. Policy limits and deductibles are reviewed by management and
established at amounts to provide reasonable protection from significant financial
loss. Settlements did not exceed insurance coverage for the current fiscal year.
7. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES
A. Lease Commitments
The CRA leases buildings and equipment under noncancelable operating leases.
Future minimum rental payments as of September 30, 2004 required by these
leases are as follows:
2005 $ 35,156
2006
2007
2008
2009
Thereafter
$ 35.156
Rental costs for the year ended September 30,2004 approximated $19,000.
20
BOYNTON BEACH COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
SEPTEMBER 30, 2004
7. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES (continued)
B. Facade Grant Program
The CRA established a Facade grant program in an effort to promote the
redevelopment of the facades of existing businesses located in the City of Boynton
Beach. The program offers businesses a $15,000 matching grant to improve the
facades of their businesses. During the year ended September 30, 2004, the CRA
had committed $93,664 for facade grants. For the year ended September 30, 2004
the CRA closed and disbursed $28,882 for facade grants.
C. Grants
Amounts received by the CRA from grantor agencies are subject to audit and
adjustment by those agencies. Any disallowed claims, including amounts already
received, might constitute a liability of the CRA for return of those funds. During
September 30, 2004 the CRA had committed $66,000 in matching grant funds
from a Palm Beach County grant to create at least nineteen full-time jobs in Palm
Beach County.
8. RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS
The CRA is a component unit of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida. For the year
ended September 30, 2003 the CRA's tax increment revenues include $1,573,522
received from the City. The CRA reimbursed the City for certain costs such as
recording and information technology services, festival expenses and police services
during the year. Total payments to the City for the year ended September 30, 2004
were approximately $51,066.
9. SUBSEQUENT EVENT
On December 22, 2004 the CRA dated and delivered $18,970,000 Tax: Increment
Revenue Bonds, Series 2004 (the "Series 2004 Bonds). The Series 2004 Bonds are
being issued for the purpose of providing funds to (1) pay the cost of various capital
improvements described in the community redevelopment plan of the CRA, (2) fund
the 2004 Subaccount of the Reserve Fund in an amount equal to the Reserve Fund
Requirement for the Series 2004 Bonds, and (3) pay costs and expenses related to
the issuance of the Series 2004 Bonds. The Series 2004 Bonds were sold at a
premium, and the subsequent repayment of this debt will come from the Tax
Increment Revenues that have been designated as Pledged Funds.
21
REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION
22
BOYNTON BEACH COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE
FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2004
Actua] Budget to
Amounts GAAP Actual
Budgeted Amounts Budgetary Difference Amounts
anginal Final Basis Over (Under) GAAP Basis
REVENUE:'i
Tax Increment revenue $ 2,36],158 $ 2,517,635 $ 2,517,635 $ $ 2.517,635
Interest and other income 75,000 48,725 66,275 (1 ) 5,370 71,645
Total revenues 2,436,158 2,566,360 2,583,910 5,370 2,589,280
EXPENDITURES
General government
Salanes and benefits 25] ,602 24] .890 237.774 (2) 7,206 244,980
Professional services 243,660 344,131 344,130 344,130
Occupancy 23,787 23,076 23,066 23,066
EqUlpment leases 4,356 4.356 4,358 4,358
Insurance 5,688 4,661 4,400 4,400
Travel 19,7]9 25,199 25,195 25.195
Licenses, books, & publications 5,066 4,676 4,691 4,691
Advertising 4,000 1,842 1,842 1,842
Career development 4,000 1,782 1.782 1,782
Printing 22.000 5,158 5,156 5,156
Miscellaneous 500 183 183 183
Office supplies and equipment 11,500 14,461 14,421 14,421
Office leasehold improvements 1,500 942 942 942
Web Site Update/Expansion 10,000 15,622 15,621 15,621
MarketIng and PromotIOns ],529 1,529 1,529
Police 350,000 42,361 42,36] 42,361
Total general government 957,378 731,869 727,451 7,206 734,657
Redevelopment projects
Festlvals/ events/ semInars 50,000 30,223 30,223 (3) 5,370 35,593
Fa<;:ade grants 100,000 28,882 28,882 28,882
Economic Development Grants 50,000 16,783 16.783 16,783
Transportation / Trolley 150,000
Manna Parking Garage 1,050,000 157,500 157,500 157,500
Riverwalk/ Promenade project 2,150,000 ],992,469 1,992,468 1.992,468
CDC Parking Site 1,750,000
Way-Finding Signage 50,000 51,986 51,986 51,986
Miscellaneous Projects 50.000 10,710 10,710 10,710
Savage Creatures Complex 75,000 50,162 50,162 50,162
HOB / CommerClal/ lmprovemen ts 600,000 451,632 451,631 451,631
Total redevelopment projects 6,075,000 2,790,347 2,790,345 5,370 2,795,715
Debt service
Principal payments ]34,925 133.315 135,968 135,968
Interest expense 182,373 183,707 176,259 176,259
Debt Issue 1 200,000
SinkIng Fund 20,000
Issuance Cost 60,000
Total debt service 597,298 317.022 312,227 312.227
Total expenditures 7,629,676 3,839,238 3,830,023 12,576 3.842,599
Net change In fund balance (5,193,518) (1,272,878) (1,246,1131 (7,206) 11 ,253,319)
Fund Balance, BegmnIng of Year 4,751,917 5,207,162 5,207,162 (4) (32,567) 5,174,595
Fund Balance, End of Year $ (441,601) $ 3.934,284 $ 3,961,049 $ (39,773) $ 3,921,276
23
BOYNTON BEACH COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE (continued)
FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2004
Explanation of differences:
(1) The Agency does not budget for festival and event income~
The income generated is netted against the expenditures incurred,
rather than reporting the revenues and expenditures individually,
$ 5,370
(2) The Agency budgets for compensated absences only to
the extent expected to be paid, rather than on the modified
accrual basis, (7,206)
(3) The Agency budgets for festival and event expenditures by
netting the income generated against the expenditures incurred,
rather than reporting the revenues and expenses individually. (5,370)
$ (7,206)
(4) The amount reported as "fund balance" on the budgetary basis of accounting
derives from the basis of accounting used in preparing the Agency's budget. (See
Note IJ for a description of the Agency's budgetary accounting method.) This
amount differs from the fund balance reported in the statement of revenues,
expenditures, and changes in fund balance because of the cumulative effect
of transactions such as those described above.
24
ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS REQUIRED BY
THE RULES OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
25
DUFRESNE (6 ASSOCIATES. CPA, PA
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
MAILING ADDRESS:
POST OFFICE Box 1179
ORANGE PARK. FLORIDA 32067-1179
www.dufresnecpas.com
SATELLITE OFFICE
237 NINTH AVENUE NORTH
JACKSONVILLE BEACH. FLORIDA 32250
TELEPHONE: 904 270-8820
FACSIMILE: 904 270-8821
MAIN OFFICE
357 STILES AVENUE
ORANGE PARK. FLORIDA 32073
TELEPHONE: 904278-8980
FACSIMILE: 904 278-4665
December 24,2004
INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT ON COMPLIANCE AND ON INTERNAL
CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING BASED ON AN AUDIT OF FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT AUDITING
STANDARDS
To the Board of Directors
Boynton Beach Community Redevelopment Agency
We have audited the accompanying combined financial statements of the
governmental activities of the Boynton Beach Community Redevelopment Agency (the
"CRA"), a component unit of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida as of and for the year
ended September 30, 2004 which collectively comprise the CRA's basic financial
statements, and have issued our report thereon dated December 24, 2004. We
conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the
United States of America and standards applicable to financial audits contained in
Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United
States.
COMPLIANCE
As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the CRA's financial
statements are free of material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance
with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements,
noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the
determination of financial statement amounts, However, providing an opinion on
compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit, and accordingly,
we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of
noncompliance that are required to be reported herein under Government Auditing
Standards,
INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING
In planning and performing our audit, we considered the CRA's internal control over
financial reporting in order to determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of
expressing our opinion on the financial statements and not to provide an opinion on
the internal control over financial reporting. Our consideration of the internal control
would not necessarily disclose all matters in the internal control over financial
reporting that might be material weaknesses. A material weakness is a reportable
condition in which the design or operation of one or more of the
26
internal control components does not reduce to a relatively low level the risk that
misstatements caused by error or fraud in amounts that would be material in relation
to the financial statements being audited may occur and not be detected within a
timely period by employees in the normal course of performing their assigned
functions. We noted no matters involving the internal control over financial reporting
and its operation that we considered to be material weaknesses. However, we noted
other matters involving the internal control over financial reporting that we have
reported to management of the CRA in a separate letter dated December 24,2004.
This report is intended for the information of the CRA. This restriction is not intended
to limit the distribution of this report, which is a matter of public record.
/P)'bA.-i<J~ 9"- {i~j.~;l-~.li~-1 (r)/~ /~4
Dufresne & Associates, CPA, PA
27
DUFRESNE & ASSOCIATES, CPA, PA
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
MAILING ADDRESS:
POST OFFICE Box 1179
ORANGE PARK. FLORIDA 32067-1179
www.dufresnecpas.com
SATELLITE OFFICE
237 NINTH AVENUE NORTH
JACKSONVlLLE BEACH. FLORIDA 32250
TELEPHONE: 904 270-&&20
FACSIMILE: 904 270-&&21
MAIN OFFICE
357 STILES AVENUE
ORANGE PARK, FLORIDA 32073
TELEPHONE: 904 27&-&9&0
FACSIMILE: 904 27&-4665
December 24, 2004
MANAGEMENT LETTER
To the Board of Directors
Boynton Beach Community Redevelopment Agency
We have audited the basic financial statements of the CRA, a component unit of the
City of Boynton Beach, as of and for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2004, and
have issued our report thereon dated December 24, 2004.
We conducted our audit in accordance with U.S. generally accepted auditing
standards and Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of
the United States. We have issued our Independent Auditor's Report on Compliance
and Internal Control Over Financial Reporting based on an audit of financial
statements performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards.
Disclosures in that reported, dated December 24, 2004, should be considered in
conjunction with this management letter.
Additionally, our audit was conducted in accordance with the provlslOns of Chapter
10.850, Rules of the Auditor General, which require that we address certain
compliance and other matters in the management letter, if not already addressed in
the auditor's report on compliance and internal control. In planning and performing
our audit of the financial statements of the CRA for the year ended September 30,
2004, we considered the CRA's internal controls in order to determine the scope of our
audit procedures for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the financial statements
and not to provide assurance on internal control. While our purpose was not to
provide assurance on internal control, certain matters came to our attention that we
want to report to you.
PRIOR YEAR FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Rules of the Auditor General require that we address in the management letter, if
not already addressed in the auditor's reports on compliance and internal control,
whether or not inaccuracies, shortages, defalcations, fraud and/ or violations of laws,
rules, regulations and contractual provisions reported in the preceding annual
financial report have been corrected. Additionally, the Rules of the Auditor General
require that we address in the management letter, if not already addressed in the
auditor's reports on compliance and internal control, whether or not recommendations
made in the preceding management letter have been followed and otherwise apply,
28
There were no pnor year findings or recommendations that needed to have been
corrected.
CURRENT YEAR RECOMMENDATIONS
PETTY CASH
Condition: We noted that when the petty cash account was reimbursed, the
reimbursement check was made out to "petty cash." This is an undesirable practice
because checks made out to cash may be cashed by unauthorized persons, and the
bank cannot be held liable for cashing them.
Recommendation: We recommend that checks written to reimburse the petty cash
account be made payable to the person authorized to cash such checks. Additionally,
we also recommend that the petty cash fund be periodically reconciled by someone
other than the petty cash custodian. This reconciliation should be indicated by the
reconciler signing the reconciliation.
Response: The CRA has hired a bookkeeper to assist in the accounting of the CRA. The
CRA will write the petty cash check to the controller, who will immediately go to
SunTrust Bank, cash the check, and return the cash to the bookkeeper to count and
place in the locked cabinet. The petty cash will be verified independently by the
bookkeeper and controller each Friday.
CHECK SIGNING POLICY
Condition: Once the checks are signed, they are returned to the preparer for mailing.
Recommendation: In order to reduce the risk that checks could be altered after
being signed, we recommend that once checks have been signed, they are immediately
mailed by someone with no access to the accounting records and not returned to the
preparer.
Response: The CRA checks will be input by the bookkeeper, printed by the controller,
and returned to the secretary for preparation for mailing.
BANK STATEMENT REVIEW AND RECONCILIATION
Condition: At present, the controller completes the bank reconciliation.
Recommendation: We recommend that the director open the bank statements and
review them for any unusual checks or other transactions before giving them to the
controller to perform the reconciliation. Management's review of the bank statement
will ensure that unusual items are investigated on a timely basis.
In addition, the bank statement reconciliation should be reviewed by someone other
than the controller, since the controller keeps the general ledger and reconciles the
bank statement. The reviewer should indicate their review by initialing the
reconciliation.
29
Response: The CRA Director or designee will open the bank statements and review the
checks for unusual amounts. The CRA Director or designee will give the bank statement
and checks to the bookkeeper, who will reconcile the checks, print the reconciliation and
give to the controller for review and initial the bank reconciliation.
ANNUAL VACATIONS
Condition: We noted that employees with accounting responsibility are not required
to take vacations and that while they are on vacation another employee does not
perform their duties.
Recommendation We believe that the CRA should require employees with accounting
responsibility to regularly take vacations. In addition to improving employee morale
and preventing burnout, vacations help the CRA ensure that job tasks are being
performed according to CRA policy. This helps maintain internal controls and reduces
the risk of fraudulent activities being undetected. The occasional temporary
disassociation of persons in trust from their regular duties to permit other persons to
perform their duties for a period of several days while the regular employee is on
vacation is a desirable element of a system of internal check and control. Internal
control is strengthened when employees do not maintain continuous control over their
particular area of responsibility.
Response: All employees are encouraged to take their vacations. The new bookkeeper
will be fully trained in all aspects of the accounting program, policies and procedures.
The bookkeeper will be able to perform all functions while the controller is on vacation.
OTHER REQUIRED INFORMATION
Based on the criteria specified in 218.503(1) Florida Statutes, nothing came to our
attention to cause us to believe that the CRA is, or during the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2004 was, in a state of financial emergency as defined in the Statutes.
We applied our own financial condition assessment procedures. The results of our
procedures disclosed no matters that are required to be reported.
The CRA is in compliance with Section 218.415, Florida Statutes, regarding the
investment of public funds.
The eRA has been classified as a dependent special district for the purpose of filing
the annual financial report with the Department of Banking and Finance pursuant to
Section 218.32, Florida Statutes. Accordingly, the CRA does not file a separate annual
financial report with the state. Instead, the CRA's annual financial information will be
included in the annual financial report of the City of Boynton Beach for the year ended
September 30,2004.
This management letter is intended solely for the information and use of the Board of
Directors and management of the CRA, the City of Boynton Beach, and regulatory
agencies and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these
specified parties.
30
Thank you and your staff for the cooperation and courtesies extended to us during the
course of the audit. Please let us know if you have any questions or comments
concerning this letter, our accompanying reports, or other matters.
at Jb/C('4 '1-1'
Dufresne & Associates, CPA, PA
?1
(, (,
/'~.., " .'~'~"-- ", ,-'"il
_1.'1/)" (" l..~Ct, , _1." /
(.:P /1 / !1~.
31
CITY COMMISSION AND
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR
THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
IN RE: Seaview Park Club Project,
LUAR 04-010, application for amendment
to future land use element of comprehensive
plan and application for rezoning, and,
NWSP 04-014, site plan review application
for new site plan submitted by Lennar
Homes, Inc.
REOUEST FOR PARTY STATUS
John V. and Saundra K. Alvaroe, Robert F. and Joan R. Corey, Stephen R. Homrich and
Rose M. Homrich, Osvaldo and Rosa Leal, Stanley L. and Stacey B. Nitowski, Adrian H.
Winchell, as Trustee of the Adrian H. Winchell Revocable Living Trust, Helen J. Winchell, as
Trustee of the Helen 1. Winchell Revocable Living Trust, Harry John Woodworth and Joy H.
Woodworth, and James E. Buchanan, Jr. and Susan S. Buchanan, by the through their
undersigned counsel, and pursuant to Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, including Sections
163.3164 through 163.3217, Florida Statutes, the Local Government Comprehensive Planning
and Land Development Regulation Act ("Growth Management Act"), and the City of Boynton
Beach Code of Ordinances, hereby file this request for party status in the above-captioned
proceedings and state as follows:
1. On or about August 24, 2004, Lennar Homes, Inc. ("Lennar" or "applicant")
submitted four (4) applications for development approval to the City of Boynton Beach, Florida
("City"): an application for plan amendment, an application for rezoning, an application for new
.,.,
-'-.-
N
,.. ..)
';;:J
F
r::1
(.J~
(")
:, =...
=1-<
-<0
-) "l
, '~:J
-iC)
_! ...~
.:-~
7 -1
,;~
'1 ::0
-",
.~?~>
. "ICJ
<-
:!.:o-
:&t:
I
Ul
site plan approval and a height exception request. I Together, the applications seek development
approval for a project referred to as the Seaview Park Club Project ("Project"). The project
proposes a four (4) story, seventy-two (72) unit residential town home development on a 3.81
acre parcel of land which is only 158 foot wide. The project site is located east of Federal
Highway within Planning Area I of the City's Federal Highway Corridor Community
Redevelopment Area at 1620 North Federal Highway, Boynton Beach, FL.
2. Public hearings on the application for plan amendment, and quasi-
judicial public hearings on the applications for rezoning and new site plan approval, have been
scheduled before the City's Community Redevelopment Agency ("CRA") on January 11,2005
and before the City Commission on January 18,2005 and February 1,2005.
3. John V. and Saundra K. Alvaroe are the owners of, and reside in, the following
waterfront property which is located at 680 NE I SCh Place, Boynton Beach, FL 33435: Lot 8,
together with the south 74.86 feet, as measured at right angles, of Tract "A" within the
Yachtman's Cove Subdivision according to the plat thereof recorded in Palm Beach County,
Florida Plat Book 31, Page 225. The Alvaroe's property is located within 400 feet of the project
site which is the subject of the applications for development approval.
4. Robert F. and Joan R. Corey are the owners of, and reside in, the following
property which is located at 675 NE 15th Place, Boynton Beach, FL 33435: Lot 12, within the
Yachtman's Cove Subdivision. The Corey's property is located immediately adjacent to, and
within 400 feet of, the southern boundary of the project site which is the subject of the
I The Staff of the Planning and Zoning Department informed the undersigned counsel on
December 14,2004 that the applicant's request for height exception had been withdrawn.
2
applications for development approval.
5. Stephen R. Homrich and Rose M. Homrich are the owners of, and reside in, the
following waterfront property which is located at 690 NE 151h Place, Boynton Beach, FL 33435:
Lot 9, together with the north 81.24 feet of the south 158.10 feet, as measured at right angles, of
Tract "A" within the Yachtman's Cove Subdivision. The Homrich's property is located within
400 feet of the project site which is the subject of the applications for development approval.
6. Osvaldo and Rosa Leal are the owners of, and reside in, the following property
which is located at 660 NE 15(h Place, Boynton Beach, FL 33435 : Lot 6, within the Yachtman's
Cove Subdivision. The Leal's property is located within 400 feet of the project site which is the
subject of the applications for development approval.
7. Stanley L. and Stacey B. Nitowski are the owners of, and reside in, the following
property which is located at 670 NE lyh Place, Boynton Beach, FL 33435 : Lot 7, within the
Yachtman's Cove Subdivision. The Nitowski's property is located within 400 feet of the project
site which is the subject of the applications for development approval.
8. Adrian H. Winchell and Helen J. WinchelI are the owners of, and reside in, the
following property which is located at 635 NE 15th Place, Boynton Beach, FL 33435 : Lot 16,
within the Yachtman's Cove Subdivision. The Winchell's property is located immediately
adjacent to, and within 400 feet of, the southern boundary of the project site which is the subject
of the applications for development approval.
9. Harry John Woodworth and Joy H. Woodworth are the owners of, and reside in,
the following waterfront property which is located at 685 NE 151h Place, Boynton Beach, FL
33435: Lot 11, together with the North 75.46 feet of Tract "A" within the Yachtman's Cove
3
Subdivision. The Woodworth's property is located immediately adjacent to, and within 400 feet
of, the southern boundary of the project site which is the subject of the applications for
development approval.
10. James E. Buchanan, Jr. and Susan S. Buchanan, are the owners of, and reside in,
the folIowing waterfront property which is located at 807 Ocean Inlet Drive, Boynton Beach, FL
33435-2809: Lot 12 witin the Coquina Cove Subdivision according to the plat thereof recorded in
Palm Beach County, Florida Plat Book 24, Page 14. The Buchanan's property is located within
400 feet of, the southern boundary of the project site which is the subject of the applications for
development approval.
11. The sixteen (16) individua11and owner/residents specified in Paragraphs 3-10
above, learned of the scheduled public hearings referred to in Paragraph 2 above when they
received written notice by U.S. Mail on or about December 11,2004. For purposes of the
duration of these proceedings, the address, telephone and fax numbers of the individua11and
owner/residents shall be the address, telephone and fax number of their undersigned counsel
through whom official communication to the individual land owner/residents shall be conducted.
12. The City of Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances, including but not limited to Part
II, Chapter 2, Article I, Section 2.20, Part III, Chapter 1.5, Article I, Section 4.1 and Part III,
Chapter 1.5, Article II, Section 2.1 relate to quasi-judicial action by the City. These code
provisions provide that in quasi-judicial proceedings, including the zoning and new site plan
approval proceedings scheduled before the CRA on January 11, 2005 and before the City
Commission on January 18, 2005 and February 1, 2005, interested parties shalI be provided with
notice of the proceeding and the opportunity to testify, to introduce evidence, to call witnesses
4
and to cross-examine other witnesses. Furthermore, the law of quasi-judicial proceedings in
Florida land use law has evolved over the last twelve (] 2) years since the Florida Supreme Court
issued its landmark decision in the case of Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County v.
Snyder, 627 S.2d 469 (Fla. ] 993) which applied the law of quasi-judicial proceedings to certain
rezoning proceedings. The law of quasi-judicial proceedings in Florida now requires not only
that local governments recognize and protect those rights of interested parties enumerated in City
Code provisions above, but also additional rights. These additional rights for interested parties
now also include the right to an impartial decisionmaker, including the right to voir dire the
City's elected and appointed officials upon their disclosure of ex parte communications, the right
to be informed of all of the facts upon which the CRA and City Commission act, and the right to a
final order in writing, which contains findings of fact and conclusions of law upon which the
decision is made, and which is rendered on a clear date so as to start the appeal clock running.
13. The 16 individua11and owner/residents specified in Paragraphs 3-10 above, are
interested parties, affected persons, and aggrieved and adversely affected persons as those terms
are used in Florida's Growth Management Act and the City's Code of Ordinances. The 16 will
suffer special injury as a result of the approval of the Seaview Park Project and therefore should
be admitted as fulI parties to these proceedings in order that they be alIowed to protect their
interests. Furthermore, because the land owner/residents' stable, low-rise, low density, single-
family residential neighborhood is immediately adjacent to the project site and/or overlooks the
site across waterfront and riparian vistas associated with their individual properties, the land
owner/residents who have joined in this request for party status have standing and can
demonstrate that their interests in the project are greater in both degree and kind than the general
5
public's interests at large in the project. Impacts of the project, including but not limited to,
negative impacts to community character, compatibility, and aesthetics of the residential areas
and neighborhoods within which the 16 land owners reside, wilI severely, adversely and
disproportionately affect the value of their property, their property rights and the quality of their
lives as citizens, property owners and residents of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida.
WHEREFORE, John V. and Saundra K. Alvaroe, Robert F. and Joan R. Corey, Stephen
R. Homrich and Rose M. Homrich, Osvaldo and Rosa Leal, Stanley L. and Stacey B. Nitowski,
Adrian H. WinchelI, as Trustee of the Adrian H. Winchell Revocable Living Trust, Helen J.
WinchelI, as Trustee of the Helen 1. Winchell Revocable Living Trust, Harry John Woodworth
and Joy H. Woodworth, and James E. Buchanan, Jr. and Susan S. Buchanan, hereby respectfully
request that:
A. the CRA and City Commission consider this request for party status before
opening the public hearings scheduled for January 11, 2005, January 18, 2005 and February 5,
2005.
B. the CRA and City Commission grant the request for party status and enter either an
oral ruling or written order which recognizes the requestors' status as fulI parties to the above-
captioned proceedings with all rights, including the folIowing specific rights:
(1) the right to notice;
(2) the right to a fair opportunity to be heard at all proceedings, including the
right to testify;
(3) the right to an impartial decisionmaker, including the right to voir dire the
City's elected and appointed officials upon their disclosure of ex parte communications;
6
(4) the right to present evidence, including both fact testimony presented by, or
on behalf of, the 14 individual landowner/residents, and expert testimony;
(5) the right to cross-examine witnesses;
(6) the right to be informed of all of the facts upon which the CRA and City
Commission acts in reviewing the applications and conducting the public hearings scheduled for
January 11, 2005, January 18,2005 and February 5,2005; and
(7) the right to a final order in writing, which contains findings of fact and
conclusions of law upon which the decision is made, and which is rendered on a clear date so as
to start the appeal clock running.
Respectfully submitted this 5th day of January, 2005.
~~.~
Michael Wm. Morell
Attorney and Counselor
Florida Bar No. 0570280
(561) 714-7533 PHONE
(561) 868-6543 FAX
E-mail: morelImw@bellsouth.net
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 18649
West Palm Beach, FL
33416-8649
Office Address: 2615 S. Garden Drive
Bldg. 12, Unit 203
West Palm Beach, FL 33461
7
, ~
CERTIFICA TE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the original of the foregoing Request for Party Status was filed
by hand delivery on this 5th day of January 2005 with Janet Prainito, City Clerk; and copies were
provided by hand delivery to Mayor Jerry Taylor, City Commissioner Bob Ens1er, City
Commissioner Mack McCray, City Commissioner Mike Ferguson, City Commissioner Carl
McCoy, City Attorney James Cherof, City Manager Kurt Bressner, Director of Development
Quintas Greene, Director of Planning and Zoning Mike Rumpf, Senior Planner Dick Hudson,
Principal Planner Ed Breese and Site Plan Reviewer Eric Johnson, all of whom are located at 100
East Boynton Beach Boulevard, Boynton Beach, FL 33425. Copies were also provided this same
day to; CRA Chairperson Jeanne Heavilin, CRA Vice Chair Henderson TilIman, CRA members
James Barretta, Alexander DeMarco, Don Fenton, Marie Horenburger and Steve Myott and eRA
Executive Director Doug Hutchinson, all of whom are located at 639 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite
103, Boynton Beach, FL 33435. FinalIy, a copy was provided this same day by fax and U.S. mail
to the CRA's Counsel, Ken SpilIias, Esq., Lewis Longman and Walker, 1700 Palm Beach Lakes
Boulevard, Suite 1000, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, Fax: 561-640-8202, and by Fax and U.S.
Mail to the applicant's agent, Michael S. Weiner, Esq., Weiner & Aronson, P.A., 102 North
Swinton Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33444, Fax: 561-272-6831.
~~.~
Michael Wm. Morell
8
APPLICANTS ELIGIBLE FOR APPOINTMENT - 01/18/05
LAST FIRST 1st CHOICE 2nd CHOICE 3rd CHOICE APPLICATION
NAME NAME SUBMITTED
Blehar Jon B. P & D Board CRA 04/23/03
*Ewing Alyssa Children & Youth 03/08/04
Grcevic Sharon Planning & Development 12/20/04
Board
Levy Alfred Senior Advisory Board Community Advisory Bd.
Relations Board On Children & 12/14/04
Youqh
McMahon James R. P & D Board Recreation & Parks 03/29/04
Murray Rosalind CRA 02/24/04
Pereira Terrence CRA 05/05/04
P.
Ramnarace Bali Recreation & Parks Children & Youth Code 03/24/04
Compliance
Sheldon Christopher CRA Planning & Building Board
Development of Adj. & 12/01/04
Appeals
Silberstein Enid Arts Commission 03/26/04
Slocombe Anderson P & D Board 09/10/03
Siegel Lawrence Child & Youth Adv. Bd. Education CRA 10/26/04
I A.
TIllman Henderson CRA
*
Eligible for student membership only
jmp
1/13/2005 10:49 AM
S:\CC\WP\BOARDS\APPMENTS\Board Year 2004\Advisory Board Eligibility\year 200S\Advisory Board Eligibility list - Ol-18-0S.doc
APPOINTMENTS TO BE MADE ON 01/18/05
ADpointments to be made:
IV McKoy Bldg. Bd of Adj & Appeals Alt 3 yr term to 4/07
Mayor Taylor Bldg. Bd of Adj & Appeals Reg 3 yr term to 4/07
I Ensler Bldg. Bd of Adj & Appeals Alt 1 yr term to 4/05
II McCray Bldg. Bd of Adj & Appeals Alt 1 yr term to 4/05
III Ferguson Cemetery Board Alt 1 yr term to 4/05
III Ferguson Code Compliance Board Alt 1 yr term to 4/05
II McCray Code Compliance Board Alt 1 yr term to 4/0STabled (3)
I Ensler Community Relations Board Alt 1 yr term to 4/0STabled (2)
II McCray Community Relations Board Alt 1 yr term to 4/05
III Ferguson Education Advisory Board Stu 1 yr term to 4/0STabled (2)
jmp
1/13/2005 10:50 AM
S:\CC\WP\BOARDS\APPMENTS\Board Year 2004\Appointments To Be MadeWear 200S\Appointments to be made on Ol-18-0S.doc
EXHIBIT "e"
Conditions of Approval
Project name: Boynton Village
File number: LUAR # 04-006
Reference: Future Land Use Amendment and Rezoning application prepared by Ruden
McClosky. Smith. Schuster & Russell. P.A.
ADDmONAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDmONS INCLUDE REJECT
1. Require a note on the Future Land Use Map, to read: X
"This property is restricted to a maximum of 1,120 high density
residential units, 10,000 s.f. of office commercial use and 149,000 s.f. of
local retail commercial use."
ADDmONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDmONS
2. To be determined.
"
EXHIBIT "B"
Conditions of Approval
Project name: Boynton Town Center I
File number: LUAR # 04-007
Reference: Future Land Use Amendment and Rezoning aoolication orepared bv Ruden
McCloskv, Smith, Schuster & Russell, P.A.
ADDmONAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDmONS INCLUDE REJECT
1. Require a note on the Future Land Use Map, to read: "This property X
is restricted to a maximum of 250,000 sJ. of local retail commercial
use."
ADDmONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDmONS
2. To be determined.
CITY of
BOYNTON BEACH
@
l' 0 IOJC 310
Boynton Beach, Florida 33425-0310
(407) 738-7485
() ;::" L -- /) ':."
("(. '- r- C: !'-:. __, ()
,\
n R. E/V'T/-} ~_ PERMIT
April 13, 1990
I
i
I
I
,I
I
1j
I
I
. '
Mr. Andre St. Juste
~,92~/,Greenbriar Drive
Boynton Beach, FL 33435
Dear Mr. St. Juste:
Our records indicate that no inspection was IIlCl(k 'Ii your- r'(:r"
at. 44Q:'N.E. 14th Avenue.
P~leas_e..ca.11 738-7482, to schedule the neceSSal'} :~;spection.
'I,
I'
.f:
Yours truly
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACh
.::!
!;
).
:::
"
~~ ~\r\f\.~
Betty McMinamen
Occupational License Administrator
/ah
xc:"':Central,Files
Geno"'Ruffolo, Codes & License Inspector
NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR TAX DEED
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that JW LIENS LLC FOOTHILL CAPITAL AS SECURED PARTY the holder of the following
certificate has filed said certificates for a tax deed to be issued thereon. The certificate number and year of issuance, the description
of the property, and the names in which it was assessed are as follows:
Certificate No:
13396
Year ofIssuance: May-31-2oo2
Description of Property:
LT 29 AND W 1/2 OF LT 30 BLK 18 1ST ADD TO ROLLING GREEN
08-43-45-21-02-018-0290
Name in which assessed:
ANDRE ST JUSTE
Said property being in the County of Palm Beach, State of Florida
Unless said certificate shall be redeemed according to law the property described in such certificate shall be sold to the highest bidder
at the courthouse door on the 15th day of December, 2004 in the JUDICIAL CENTER DINING AREA ROOM 1.2406 at 9:00a.m
SUBJECT TO TAXES BEGINNING 2001
Dated this 27th day of October, 2004
SignahIre ~~w~~~.
Clerk of Circuit Court of Palm Beach County. Florida
........,...."'"",
_---~ Oltq, 'I..
/~OOl10111'l' ~\,
rff G~
~ ~ ~
:; -1~
~-a -1~
~'E:" IC;;
',;"I, ~,.:
'. Z
"~CH .---
'''''''....,.......-
PUBLISH: Nov-09-2004 Nov-16-2004 Nov-23-2oo4 Nov-30-2004
DELINQUENT REAL ESTATE TAXES DUE FOR THE YEARS: 2001, 2002, 2003
BASE BID AMOUNT: $ 3,952.15
REDEMPTION AMOUNT: $ 3,958.40
WARNING!
THERE ARE UNPAID TAXES ON TmS PROPERTY WHICH YOU EITHER OWN, BA VE A LEGAL
INTEREST IN, OR IS CONTIGUOUS TO YOUR PROPERTY. THE PROPERTY WITH THE UNPAID
TAXES WILL BE SOLD AT PUBLIC AUCTION ON Dec-15-2004 UNLESS THE BACK TAXES ARE PAID.
TO MAKE PAYMENT OR TO RECEIVE FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT THE CLERK OF COURT
AT 205 NORTH DIXIE mGBWAY, ROOM 4.2500, WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA, 33401, OR BY
TELEPHONE (561) 355-2962.
Note: When redeeming property please be advised that we cannot accept personal checks.
PLEASE REMIT A MONEY ORDER OR CASHIER'S CHECK FOR TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE REDEEMED.
MAKE PAYABLE TO: TAX COLLECTOR. PB COUNTY
MAIL TO: CLERK CIRCUIT COURT. PB COUNTY
P.O. BOX 484
WEST PALM BEACH. FLORIDA 33402
Statement Date: 1l/14/02
Payment Past Due After: 12/09/02
ase Make Check Pa)'able in U.S. FllOds To:
ry OF BOYNTON BEACH/UTILITIES DEPT.
). BOX 190
IYNTON BEACH, FL 33425-0190
DO NOT SEND CASH THROUGH THE [.1AIL
OR PLACE CASH IN OUR NIGHT DEPOSITORY.
'"
'"
N
PAYMENT COUPON
ANDRE ST JUSTE
925 GREENBRIAR DR
BOYNTON BEACH FL 33435-6105
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
50 BDRAFTC
BANK
DRAFT
809 SE 4TH ST B 07-01
D Comments on back
Changes to Customer Billing Address
BANK DRAFT DO NOT PAY
!t:. ...". . ~ ':"
<<> Customer Relations Monthly Billing Statement
,,(i. 100 E. Boynton Beach Blvd. Statement Oat", 11114/02
". ~ P.O. Box 190 Payment Past Due After: 12/09/02
.' <' Boynton Beach, FL 33425-0190
'Urmainofficeis;. '. -' . . ~:.. .
lCared m CilY Hall 1
llOOE.BoynlOn .00 574.30 .00 574.30 62.52 636.82
leach Blvd. ~-
lours of operation
i1on-Fri
7:30 am-5:30 pm
:-Josed
Sat/Sun/Holidays
'hone
(561) 742-6300
Fax
(561) 742-6303
For your
:::onvenience. a
deposilor)' is
10caled in the
parking 101 of Cil)'
Hall al 100 E.
Roynlon Bea"-h
Blvd for after
Itours payment,
PaymcDlS may
also be dropped
off al Cily Hall in
the Mall in the
BoynlOn Beach
Mall (next to
Burdine's) al 801
~, Congress Ave.
Hours of opel1ltion
Mon - Sal
10am.7pm
Closed
Sun & Holidays
Phone
(561) 74:2-6650
After Hours UtililY
Problems (Water
line breaks and
Sewer back-ups)
Phone
Automatic Bank Drafting
Sign up for bank drafting and have one less bill to have to
remember to pay each month. Please see the enclosed information
and bank draft application.
City Hall in the Mall Hours
Effective December I, the hours of business for City Hall in the
Mall, located in Boynton Beach Mall next to Bmdines, will he as
follows: Monday - Friday 10 am - 7 pm; Saturday 10 am - 3 pm.
For News from the City. City Servius Directory. tlltd policies
regarding billing and delinquent accounts, please see tire rnerse
side of bilL
Total Consumption
6 thousand gallons
WATER
SEWER
RESUDENTIAL REFUSE
STORM WATER
13.30
25.45
16.10
7.67
Total Current Charges
62.52
574.30
A~j\!!'hr!....t<;
Your bank account will be drafted for: 636,82
*** BAN K D R AFT **:
/;'-";7-<"
/ . /,1 "Z.
1(-/ " '
/
./1
/) 0 Cc
.~ I
vt
..-
,.:)?
t"l2:.
C
?3
,.S)
Ul
~
.
c..
c::.
tIl
~
;
o
~
c..:t
.fr
0-
..-
...,
..;;.
-t
"T
~Ui
O!!
F
~~
.0'"
..- ";:
.6-
ulz
I'I~
~
a
",
3J
~
4~
-....
"o.,..r--
,: ~ :.<::4
JJ .- -<.
~
\
\
,...1
~~:e~. ';
t<. '" ~ 19,
-;;;!: sO~;
... ~ '
o. _.\
... ca va -\
..,~o
'" .. .
...... eo.
,..... c
n'" III
::C till ..
':-
till
..
r"
SO
va~
",-
...
va
Ul
.~ ?\
... ~o
..0 _ C.
. .0 OCR
". Ift;;..t
\ zQ
vi c.>
;~
os
.~~
-_..~
8\ ~\
0'
....
~~~~
~.~~
- ~~\
11\~ ~.
..~
ttll
lit
.... -'
ClI -.
... f!J.
~~.
,... "".
~ -..
-~.
o~.
"~.
... a4.
n
....
~.
-0
~ to
~t~
-oa,,"
~"3I
'c~!\
!t~
."
~
c
(p
en
~
~
11
N
...
.
"",,,,
I"ol"''-'
o~.o
. . .
.0....0
..ON
.,
(p
~
en
:0
..
o
.
",.
o
.
\
,~
-
.,.
..~.
,
;.
08/27/2001 00:44
541371 7
STJUSTE
PAGE 09
".-/
TO:
FROM;
DATE:
Alex
Andre
5/17/0]
---.,.-
The P<u;pose of thislDClmO is 1D um."" YOU of:lpOoifj., h6raasing ""ollis that the City of
8oy.uton Boooh hao put mo Ihrouah. As 1 haw de1lIiJod in 0lIJcr Icu= to the City which
you have oopies of, I wanted to fucus in on today flbout the wrongly placed code .
violation on my propclty at 925 Greenbrier Drive.
--->....-
~
Tho! vlolatJon """ wrilI<:n top In 8I3~, Which statAld that I ..... reatiog out the Ilou", as
an Adult Care Home wUOOut a Jicell8e (Bee~. lllever received the notice ftom
the city, lU)J' did Robert 1l~ the tlWl wbo bad mlnanced lily IlM>I'l!Iagc and .....
helping me with my prob'-o witll tho city. r only -.mly fuund out IlI>out the <>ode
wIatiolJ, in the beginnu.g of 200 I. that boos been!1ll>llins all this tUue, when I went to go
ooffuance my mortgage ~d the title company infonncd nte that they could oot olose the
loan due to a $12.000 lien on the house. The city stopped the dAil)' tines about 3 months
ago~ when my work was completed 81td tbey issued me a license,
Duriug this timc, in 1999, r bad 2 ~le in the house, which the Qte Jaw allows without
a license. as long M I was fdteropting to get a Hcense.. I have twice tried to get the
license~ but was in a ~5catch 22" beamse th~ city said they would not issue me a li~:se
until the work on the house was completed. The C<>mInenrs the city gave lQe was that
they considered the house to be COmntereil\J. and they furccd me to instaII a COtnlOOrcial
fire a1ann system, which cost me close to $5.000. The city _ admitte<l that the house
was residential and only nt:>eded a $tDOkc: detector, IlQt 8. COI!lme.t.~lal f'lte alann.. This is
another example Qftbe city doina a.nythjng they want, n~t e"\Ien folJowin,g their own rules,
tQ cause nw fInancial.PJ.'oblems.
I am now requesting that you have the city waive this WJ:o.Q8'fuJ lien as this $12,000 lien is
preventing me from refinancing Illy house and causing me financial harm. There was 00
proper notification on their part, and the code WJation was inco~ these should be the
basis of your argumem. I need thm done as quicldy as POssible. I will be willit,g to
forget about the $5~OOO that they 1brced ~ to spend on the QOmmc:rcial fire aJa.nn if they
waive the $12,000 liell. 1 just wamjustice.
08/27/2001 00:44
541371 7
STJUSTE
PAGE 07
./
March 23~ 200 J
:Mr. Kurt Brassier
City Manager
City of Boynton Beach
100 E. Boynton Beach Blvd.
Boynton Beach, FL 33425
BAND DEUVERE~
RE Follow-up Letter to Letter of 2/19/01 Regarding City Liens on 925 Greenbriar
Drive & 809 S.E. Street, Boynton Beach, FL 33435
Dear Mr. Bressner:
It has been exactly 4 'Weeks since I hand delivered my first letter to you outlining
wrongfully placed liens that the City of Boynton Beach has placed on two of my
properties, and the 9 years of racial discrimination that I have endured as a result
of2 City employees,
I understand that you held a meeting regarding my letter. but yet I have heard
nothing about the removal of the liens and the waiver offines. Possibly the City
of Boynton Beach's position is to ignore me and string me out and force me into
financial min again., knowing that I have limited financial resources and the City
has all the resources and time in the wodd.
I rush around all day long trying to satisfY the City's demands. hustling trying to
make some money~ while Scott Blaise sits in his air condition office collecting his
stable salary never worrying that he will lose his job even though he has been
trying to destroy my life for the past 9 years.
I know the City would like to drag me out of town~ so instead of killing me slowly
everyday with financial discrimination, Now there are 12 liens On all of my
properties, why don~t you buy all of my houses and I will leave, Is it your
intention to let the fines and liens to continue to grow to the point that they are
greater than the value of my houses?? Do you want me to become homeless and a
beggar On the street? Because that is exactly 'What the City is doing to me.
I have asked you in a civil way to put a stop to this discrimination, You have the
power to waive the fines and life the liens. So how much longer must I wait~ until
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY
GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION
JPMorgan Chase Bank, f/k/a Chase Manhattan Bank, as
Trustee for Asset Backed Securities Corporation Home
Equity Loan Trust 1999-LBl,
No. 50-2004-CA-012117
PLAINTIFF
vs.
Valoria Brown; Robert Jones a/k/a Robert L. Jones, et
aI.,
DEFENDANTS.
NOTICE OF FILING
Plaintiff, JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, F/K/A CHASE MANHATTAN BANK, AS
TRUSTEE FOR ASSET BACKED SECURITIES CORPORATION HOME EQUITY LOAN
TRUST 1999-LBl, by and through its undersigned counsel, files with this Court the attached
documents, to wit:
Pro Se answer from Christy Jenkins
NOTE: Pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act you are advised that this law firm is
deemed to be a debt collector attempting to collect a debt and any information obtained will be
used for that purpose.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing was
I \ . '~Q'c-'
mailed this _ ,}-day of ~C( ..r\ ;~ ,)fO?
Valoria Brown
P.O. Box 647
Boynton Beach, FL 33425
Robert Jones a/k/a Robert L. Jones
P.O. Box 647
Boynton Beach, FL 33425
The City of Boynton Beach, a municipal corporation
Office of the Mayor
100 E Boynton Beach Blyd
Boynton Beach, FL 33425-0310
Clerk of the Circuit Court for Palm Beach County
c/o Dorothy H. Wilken, Clerk
205 North Dixie Highway
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
State of Florida Department of Reyenue, Child Support Enforcement Program
Attention Legal Section, Department Agency Clerk
501 S Calhoun Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399
Tia L. Walker
***Skip***
Rosa Smith
3080 Congress Park Dr., Apt. #822
Lake Worth, FL 33461
Dorothy Haynes
***Skip***
Patricia Jamison
17 SW 14th Avenue
Delray Beach, FL 33444
Naomi McCray
1627 N.E. 3rd Court
Boynton Beach, FL 33435
Chari sty Jenkins a/k/a Christy S. Jenkins
915 S.W. 4th Street
Delray Beach, FL 33444
County Collection Services, Inc.
c/o James P. McCarthy, RA.
1136 Hatteras Circle
West Palm Beach, FL 33413
State of Florida, Department of Revenue, successor in interest to Department of Labor and
Employment Security
c/o Executive Director
Carlton Building, 501 S Calhoun Street, Room 104
Tallahassee, FL 3239
Palm Beach County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida
c/o Palm Beach County Attorney
Governmental Center, 6th Floor
301 N Olive Avenue
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Barnett Technologies, Inc., a dissolved corporation, successor by merger to Barnett Recoyery
Corporation flk/a State Wide Collection Corporation
c/o Joy Wimberly, Officer
1425 NW 62nd Street
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309-1990
SunTrust Bank f/k/a Sun Bank/South Florida, N.A.
c/o Cathy Homa Arthur
SunTrust Legal Department
200 South Orange Avenue, Tower - 9
Orlando, FL 32801
Royal Palm Beach Shopping Plaza & Medical Center Limited
c/o Jess R Santamaria, RA.
155 Galiano Street
Royal Palm Beach, FL 33411
Codilis & Stawiarski, P.A.
4010 ~cout Boulevard, Suite 450
Tamp FL 3 7 f
Telep one: 813) 8 -6008
C&S ~10-0 4452 I..
; _, f
, .~
By: i
AN H
Flori a Bar
\,
"I(}
Nt\.)\
LOr
, J
~
l....... L-i.O (+n:;~e ,-
(, ,.,.
~p NoF eft, A V1.S oJ ~
:)t, i..,~ ,"' (.
January 4, 2005
RE: CASE #: CA012117
JPMorgan Chase bank, f/k/a/ Chase Manhattan Bank, as
Trustee for Asset Backed Securities Corporation Home
Equity Loan Trustee 1999-LBl (plaintiff)
Vs.
Valoria Brown; Robert Jones a/k/a/ Robert L. Jones, et al.,
(Defendants)
To Whom It May Concern:
I received a civil actions summons at my home for the above referenced case on
December 29, 2004. This letter is to inform the courts that I am an interested party in this
case, based on the fact that Robert L. Jones fathered my daughter, who was born in 1994.
Unfortunately, child support payments from Robert L. Jones have not been consistent and
I have not received a payment since the early part of 2003.
As unfortunate as it for both Robert Jones and Valoria Brown to haye a foreclosure
lawsuit filed against them, if the courts deemed it necessary to contact me with this
information as a way to collect on back child support payments owed (and any future
payments that may be difficult to collect), I feel it is important for me to let the courts
know that I am interested. I would like to receive all information as it pertains to this
case and dates fo~~y and all court dates where it benefits me to appear.
Tl1af1k /7::;/
c'
/,/'
,
/
{/
2004 Report
fie
MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT
(')" n beh,d( of the I~oard (,f Dlrector,,- \\T arc pleased to present om :21111--1 Report \\c arc HTI' proud of the last lear', achln l'1l1ellh I"
, both our organl/',Itloll and the resldenh of the Ilcan of BOl"!llon (,01l11l111tl1t\', \ddltionalh-, OITr the past H'al our Ot',l':'IIlI/,lllOll h'I'
grOl\'n ,Ind ImproH'd In order 10 better meet the challenges of Imni-.Ting pOSlll\l' change to the COmmll11!t\
\mong our proudest ,lclue\Tments arc:
. ~ecunng a constructIOn loan \\'1th I,OCII Inltiatl\'es ~upport ( OrpOLltlOn (I J~(:\ In the amount, ,( $-1 111,11111 I
. Implementation of our I{ehab Program
. \s part of a collaborati\T partnerslup the orga11lzatlon helped to secure funding for ,I \'outh after school program
. \sslstlng (J low Income famlhes unpro\'e the condition of theu homes through out I ranch .\Ian I'rogram
. \\'orking w1Ih the commullltl. the cm', churches, local busl11es" and non profit orgamzatlOtb to produlT :1 SUCCl's,;ful ,nil" of ltlllt
m U11l tl' C\Tnl,,-
. The continual deH'lopmellt of our diverse and dedlcaled board o( dlITctOr, and completing our tlfth IT,ll' l\'1th full tim,' p,ud slatf,
contracted, and I \menCorps member.
. J ':\:panding our communltl' partnerships to ll1clude OITr I') orgalllz,ltlons
These accomphshments were made possible through the delhcated support of our commun1l\ partners, \\ e \\'mIld hke 10 parncularh
dunk the City of Boynton Beach for their support and leadership, \ddlllOnalh, we would hke to thank I,oct! 111ltlatlves Support (-')1'1'0
ration (LISC) for their contl11ued techntcal and financial support 'lIld all our dedicated lenders for helping to make the dre,lm of 110m,
ownerslllp a reaht\' for so ma11l
\s I"llU Will see later 111 the report, thiS IS Just the bebTin11lng for our orgamzation, There IS so much more to he done, and rlH' (1)( n'
mal11s committed to bnmng opportunities to the residents of the Ileart "f Bonllon (:ommUniIY
Thanks for \'llUr support and we look forward to a great 21111')
Slllcereh,
('ourtney Cain, President
BOInron Beach hlith Based CDe
BACKGROUND
Conllnun1fY met,nbers founded the Bon1ton Beach hlith Based (D( 111 laIc I 'J'Jl) ['Ill' (])( W,IS founded to develop ,Ind sml.tln
partnerships With vanous groups and agenCies 111 the Bonlton Beach Target :--':elghhorhood In order to ensure th,u dn clopment I'
streamhned and resources arl' put to the Inost effiClent use, The target area IS now known as the [leart of BOI nton
The real estate program 11<Is a homeownership componenl and a home repair componellf (wlllch has heen supporled ll\ \\ 'Islllngtoll
,\Iutual and the Di\ers1t\ hll1d of [inlted \\"a\') , Through the latter, the BOUlTon Beach hlith Based CD( prondes hght rep'llt ,l1ld paint
Ing for those reSidents who can not perform the tasks necessary to bnng them Into (,ode (:omphance, The hOl11eo\\'nershlp u)mpOnelll
assists first time homebuyers to obtain mortgages and also gO\Trnment grants to part1<Jlh' pal for repaIrs on e\:lstlng hOl11e:' ,[ml dO\\'1l
pa\'lllents for elther e\:lstlllg homes or new construcT1on, In (krobn, \\T closed on our fourth nC\\' home. \\e ,tlso conduC1 hrsl lUlll
I [omelJUITrs hurs (free communlty e\'ents that have 11lcluded blood pressurl' sCt:eell1ng and nlter regJstral1<lJl :1'; well as dlssl'mtnatlon of
homebU\Tr Information), The n1aloritl' of staff tIme IS spent on the real estate program, Including parttclp,ltlOn I]] related org,11llZ,II\()]]'
such as the Palm Beach (,ounty Prosperity Campaign and the ['aim Beach ( :OUIlfY \ ffordable I low;l1lg Collabmaf1\('
The youth program has I11cluded recreation actlYltles for children dunng the school lear, and more ,slgnlfiunth ,I j)eC"muki'n j)m~Ii/JJI
The j'eacemaken Pm~ram IS a referral program through the (;ala\:I' and 1'0ll1Clana IJementan' Schools of BO\'llTon [k,[ch, ()ur [)o,lrd \ !em
bers orgalllzed and coordinated the program, Through the referrals chlldre]] 111 grades" -- =, wllh heha\'\()r problems \\TH' ,[bk to meet
\nth mentors (communltl' members nom1l1ated bl Board \lembers)I 'hn mer ,II our faciht\ and the I ':zell I [estCl (~ommU1lltl (,enter
Recreational actlntles were also held at the \\'illison CommUnllY (:entel Tutors ,[sSlsled children with school ,lssIgnment"md ITntll'd
thai assignments were completed, :\lonthh- speCial OLlt1l1gS -' fishIng 11'11'';' mones, roller,sLltlng. etl \\TIT held for thw;,' 'Iudents \\,1](>
h,ld been on task,
.....2
;_.......,_~-IUllllllll.1l
Home Ownership Program.- The CDC provides one-on-one homebuyers education to low-
and moderate-income families. The CDC also builds brand new affordable single-family homes
in the community.
Clients Counseled
New Homeowners
New Homes Constructed
210 families
18 families ($2,1 00,(0)
1 Rehab home ($170,000)
Handy Man Program.-The Handy ~Ian program provides free minor home repairs to Boyn-
ton Beach homeowners who are unable to make minor repairs due to fmancial and physical
limitations.
Projects Completed
\' olunteers recruited
\' olunteer hours worked
\' alue of labor
\'Cashington ~Iutual
Total \' alue
6 projects
42 volunteers
112 hours contributed
$4,600
$2,000
$6,600
Youth Activities.- The CDC believes in a comprehensive community building approach that
includes providing support for the community's youth. The Heart of Boynton Community has
the highest concentration of youth in the City. The CDe's youth Peacemaker program pro-
vides a supportive environment for youth to share their problems and work on dealing with
them in a positive way.
Peacemaker Program:
Participation
~Ieals provide
40 youth
Everyday
2004 Progress Report.
\' olunteer hours contributed
Number of volunteers
Community Events (5 events)
(:lients (:ounseled
J lomeowners
Rehab. Program
i\linor I lome Repairs
Students Tutored
'.:nriching held Trips (1 trip)
[':mployment
People Reached/Involved
Client New Construction
Consumer Debt Reduced
Dollar value of [ lome Repairs provided
Dollar value of volunteer hours
Total contribution to the community
2004 ( Jperating Budget
909 hours
85 peoples
1,072 people
210 families
18 homes value at $2,100,000
1 I lome value at 5170,000
6
40 vouth
40 participants
3 Fr, 6 Contract, 1 .\meriCorps
1413
4 homes (value 5470,000)
58,500
54,600
59,090
52,1 04,600
5153,000
The more people that get involved, the larger these numbers get.
f I
CDC
Boynton Beach Faith Based
Community Development Corp.
2191 North Seacrest Boynton Beach, FI. 33435
Phone (561) 752-0303 Fax (561) 752-0302
David Zimet
Executive
Dircctor
Gerone Powell
Assistant
Exccutivc Director
James Horne
ScniOl
Ilol1lcbll\ cr ( "unsel"
i I,sandra \1;,1<,'..1111"
\1\j1..-'1
Cheryl Banks
Branch Banking & Trust
"u..If~:Ii.ill'1.irl illtl~..rI804
Margaret Johnson, Secretary
Community Representative
Dorothy Davis
PBC I lousing Authorit)
Everlene Baker
School Board of PB('
Josephus McDonald
Community Representative
Octavia Sherrod
City of Boynton Beach
Ci(V o(Boynton Beach
Locollnitiatives Support ('orporation ILIS( 'j
Ojfice Depot
fl'ashington Mutual
If 'achovia
vcn
Bank Atlantic
Imerican Debt Solutions
., olJrtne~ Cain, President
('it\ of fl,,' 11!()11 Ik:Ic'h', 1 "'<lh.l'"
Steve Miller
I kl'l .d',lu\l'JlIIe Ili'II(,'
Valerie Bush
Ikpl ,)f.lUVL'11lk .Iusticl
Thelma Lyons
il\ of Boynton [kach
James Collins
Mi11ister. Faith Farm 1\1i11istrie\
Carlene Jackson
Poinciana Elemental')
"en Dod.ge ojIewis, [,onWllan. and /Valker PI
( 'ollsllfller ( 'redit ( 'ollnselor ,'lervui
8ovn/oll Beach ( hamher ot ('omnU'I'i
I 'omenca BanA
Jlln\!oron r ollndalton
ffS81
88&1
RM Let' ( Dr
~
BOYNTON BEACH FAITH BASED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
POST OFFICE BOX 337 · BOYNTON BEACH, FL 33425-0337 . PALM BEACH COUNTY
PHONE (561) 752-0303 . FAX (561) 752-0302
Honorable Commissioners:
Greetings.
I regret very much that urgent personal business does not allow me to be here
tonight.
I believe that we had a successful year in 2004. I believe that we were able to
build on the comerstone of support that you have given us. We have served
hundreds of people in our community and have been able to diversify our
funding sources somewhat. For example, we were able to secure substantial
grant funding to operate the Peacemakers Program for this academic year.
We will soon close on a property acquisition-home construction line of credit
with L1SC, the Local Initiatives Support Corporation.
We have been working closely wit the CRA and plan to do so with RM Lee
CDC in order to help further the Heart of Boynton Plan.
Thank you for your support and trust in us.
David Zimet, Executive Director
Boynton Beach Faith Based
Community Development Corporation
Home Ownership. Home Improvement. New Home Construction
Rehab. Program. Youth Program . Community Events
2005 Goals
During the year of 2004 the organization has made tremendous progress thanks to a broad base of
support. Working with local churches and schools and with the support of the Jim Moran Foundation
and the city government we plan to improve the quality of life for all community residents, particularly
youth. Working with those organization and Local Initiative Support Corporation (L1SC), the nations
largest supporter of CDCs; The City of Boynton Beach; Palm Beach County Housing Authority; The
Chamber of Commerce; Washington Mutual; Bank Atlantic; local schools; Wachovia; Comerica; BB& T;
Publix and the support of the community and the Jim Moran Foundation the COC goals in 2005 are
to:
. Increase the number of clients counseled from 210 in 2004 to 300 in 2005.
. Increase the number of first-time homebuyers from 18 in 2004 to 25 in 2005.
. Assist 8 homeowners through our Handy Man Program that helps low-income
households with painting and minor home repair.
. Continue the success of the Peacemaker Program.
. Continue the success of the Homebuyer's Club.
· Hold 8 Community Events or Programs: Love Festival, Toys for Tots, CDC Annual
Banquet, Christmas Dinner, Thanksgiving Dinner, Talent Show and (2) Homebuyer's
Fair.
· Construct two (2) homes.
. Rehab two (2) homes.
· Successfully apply for HUD Housing Counseling Agency status.
· Successfully apply for HUD to participate in their single-family programs.
On behalf of the entll'e ol'lanlzatlon, I'd like to thank all our partners for contdbutlng to
oursuccess, and helplngto build a better community In Boynton.
~
~
~
o
o
~.
o
bIJ
· ....-t
~
E
c
~
1;)
c
ca.
.
"CI
C
C
.c
..
c
.Q
.c
"QO
"a;
C
.
~
~
~
~
]
o
~
Q.)
00
\" 00
S't)
~Oj)
<4
S
-w~
~ ~.
~b()
~o
a
~
~
I
~
S
Q.)
~
~.
~
....
en
C
~
.c
Co)
as,
CD
m
E
7i
~
CD
.c
....
Ill-
C
C
C
=
Co)
CD
en
>-
:;:
CD
.~
c.co+-'
~.- a.>
SOgE
~~ ~
"" 0
19+-'.0
en re
t::.?(/)Q.)
""'m=
:;;:~fo-
en u .
~Q.>i::'
:::u.e:;l
"'" c c
~ Q.> Q.>
> '(3 E
mQ.>
Q.>i:iJ
'0>>
~x
'OOre
..t:ro
t:~
::>0
.E+-'
mm
.- Q.>
=0
.... '00
J2 0 ~
Q.>= t::
'0 3: C1:
co -"'S:
E+-'_
=....
Q.>."gf ~
=-",
~ -"C:
J::o~
+-'-ro
:x r:::.-l2
Ore
.oEE
13-=~
cQ.>o
~Ec
~~o
~-::~
'OOQ.>u
="'Cr.p
::: co: ~
.!Q So~
='re
:t:::g'O
0= t:
m+-'ro
3: '0 I
0a5f!:
-5i:E~
o .!Q .0
-=ro
E!! B l!i
$ i::'~
ctlctlro
3:~~
.:s: Q.> c.;
.g ~ :i
~i:iJa.
rn ""!"8::~ j
v-E 0 l-. co::l V ~ U'
- , ~"O"O .a B..o .- .~.B ,~ -E"O _
' '.. 1;100 ~~wvo~"'~ o"'v ,
-s~'o, ~::lv - . o~~ 0 "'"..0 '
- 00 v ~ 0"0 -- v 0 E 0 00 00'00 ~ h 0 .!!J ~ _ ~ ~
~ , 0 N. ", 1;1 "' 0 0. w.\;' -0" 00 '-' '" '" '" 8 2'f' ~ 8 v j!l B ~ .
co::l aJ 0 l5.- ~ .;:::; 't:: ....."00, ~ 0 ~ 0 . e,., '" -O.!S -0 .. 0 0._ -..0 .. 0 ~
'" o.~. ~ " -a ~~ ..0- ..oo~._'"v"Ot_~ ".
..0 ~ ~ 0 ';;.g E ~ 2 E ~ ..0 ~ t 00.0 . '" E -0 ~ ID <i: 0 U v 0 ~..o :!l'm :
'~1l ~~ iiI''E 8] ~ ~ [j ~ H'iEj ~H~,g ]~F 3-5 ~~ ~ 11'~ ]'3 ~ '
01111 a 11 5 ii '" 0 00 ~ ~ ~ :: 8 13.11 ~:..'~ .~>> 0 '" : s: 11.~ ;;;" ~ v fr,s
00 "t.... ~- o. -- E oo~v 0-00' ->>~-""'-,so.
iI~~~;'1 So&> fa ~ 8:>lNg ~,s.1;'. ] g~,s a ~ 08] v a] ~~E ~O a
"' ~~.1;' ~ s ~.~ ~] 8~~ Ii ~ ~; ~ ~~~ h.~ '" E-::;; ~ -ll J5~ t'~;
~':.E fr ~ ~ 1! ~ ~ ~Q,s ~ H~] 0 oj ~ 0.] E~.g ~-E:E l! 01! F ~~
~ 0 ~ v ~ 0" - '-0_ '" E' ",.~ _ v 0'0 00 v 0 ....,s.... 00"
e~ co::l ~:; ~"' ~ g':;;]'iil ~ ~ . ~ 1 tf ~.~ i '" P::;: "" ] ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ .E .0,9
0. vv~v. ~~o'.B 020 '--.Ew~ o~....-o"'~"'
<S"'.ov,s~~ .>1E"Z;i3&o.g Ovo 00 00 "",0 i'J
.1! 0 '5.13.....g E ~ ,... oS" V .~ ~ :g,g ..0 "" ~ ~ 'v v ' iil ~ g '" ~:': 0
.... ~ v!€l Ii t .g.~ g Jl ,s." V . a ~ .S 'il iil ~,s [j El ~ -5:e E g v
e -E :.0"00 B . v ..~:l3 2: ~ :..... . 0 .e- ~::!3 .;:::; 'S u ::;s p.. Cfl r.a ~ ~ 'i
o v 'a ~ 0 ..0 0 v u .. 0 ...._ E -0 ~ 0 -0 _ ~.~ v ~
v,s ~... ~o ~ -!l =", ~ 3 .. E= ~ e.1l~.. 0%'"
~"O 0 v.s ~.B~-E [g ~-'. 813 v 82:&3 o~. ~ l-. f;; 0.,5,
~ 0 ~,s 11... ~" B ~ ''E E~~ 1! u;'1-o <S'u~:<l ,
~ I ~-'l.8 ~ ~ ll'g!1: E;~ ~ 13 8~ E ;h~ 11 : ~ ~.~ 81.i'!!
~ = ~:::l en -E e ;:l ~ is.e 00 ~v 1! ..; B 1'.1!.. ~.~ ~ So"" ~ , ~
=\> "' ~ 00-0 E 00 0 T', ....~ ... ..0 ~ 0 0 -0 0..0...
1il~ ~~.~~ ~ ~ ~~..o .J;i-o~ 1I'~.g 0 iil ~~j,:813. ~ ~ 1jiJ
1\ d! '" o.'~ .<S:ll E v ~.s -b ~ Ii g-jl ~ ~ '~r~ &> ~ 0 ~.~ il ~ <S i[
~~ z :~81~.s..c:..c:~~ ~]. ,:Q~, ~. i~:.~ 88 bAl.~, .e-.3 ~.g] Clii~
>.~ ~ '..~ '" 0 ~ v . c",;'1 v ;'1-. P~ ~.~ ~ _~ v._ V
m~ ~,g.-,:;'S 13~.B ~'~~'!::e.f/)~ entil8 l5 0 3] 8 atil'!a-E~
0;; 0 "\i'O.??~~ ~~~, 11 iil... ~~~ ~. ~"' E
l:QJl e] ~~ 0 5'0 ~~-E-.
~8J5g:~ ..c:C11
~
~~
;s~~
l::~~
~..c~
~.e;::
,~.C) ~
.~ ~.~
~'- 'Q()
~.~ ~
~~~
;~l
~.~~~~~~=~~=~6~~ ~~~~
CIJ ~ ~ cd ::s..... Q):8 = ~o cd ::s cd = cd rn e cd
:a::s~p.. e ~]'u ~..s ~ 6O~~.g ~ 0 rn
, u;> 0 .c: cd ::s :3 Q) !:; cd ~ rn~ E
.~'S ~ rn~~~l--o-l.. "8 =.S.s ~ ~ >. g -= u : ~~ ~
~ Q. ~Q) ~ t: l-o oN ..0 l-o Q)~::S ~ rn
~ '8 bOB ~] U ~ ~ e .s ~ ~ ~ 15 Q) ~ ~ ~ 0 2-
~..s.~~ cd]~.s~~~l3,~~.~ c~-g ~-=~.~ i
rn l-o..o '-= rn';;;; - ~ . :.a Q) .!:l l-o cd ~ = -= -g
::: J; cd Q) Q) Q., Q) l-o cd......~ = ~ 0" .c
'i o.feJ; t> ~-=B ~~ 8 S Q)J; ,,,E ~~]~ 0 col
Q) ~cd ~ ... cd.s.- ~ Q > = Z ~ l-o .~
~ i]~!i]~~ ~'~]j ~1: ~~J~ :
~
=
· fIIIIIII
~
· i-If
Q.)
~ I ~ ~ rh !3 ~ cd .J.. cd ~ ~ ~ Q) rh Q) vi >. ~ 6
· ] cd 15;.::::1 0 cd'S ~ e ~.... ~ ~ cd ~ e = '(E::s
'-c - ~ ~ ~ ...... '0 ~ :a bO 0 0 ..... -= Q) 0 Q) Q.,
Q) Q) = 0 S'C .8 rn So 0 Q):Q ~ cd
.. . la ~ ~.g::a'o~ 'S il bO 0 Q., ~ blJ:: e Q) ~ ~ ~
r';". ~ ~ Q) ~ p.. U bO.~ ~ cd -.El >.::s Q., i:: S -g-=
I.I..J. .... rna ~ ~ ~ ~ ctl ~ Q) = ..0 _ ~. cd
00 ' ~ "' ~ '''''''.13 l-o I:: Q)..c CIS 1; ~ cd vi m >- ~ @--
..... a Q) Q) 8 rn Q) o~ cd u ~~ 8 ~ >
~ ."\ rn -.El e ~ Q) ~ ~ '+"<.E 8 ~ ~ ~ ::s ~ 0> a 2 .bo ~
~ ~ 8 ~ ~! ~~ 60 ~.s ~] u rn l3 !ii] ~ g cd S
:~ I 0 ~ !:; ......a I -= .... cd = Q) rn rn
I." ~, r' ~ ~. ~ ~~:€ g 0 ~ ~ ~ rn .~ ~ ~ ..0 ~ ~ ~.~
"'. ;;;; bO =, = CIS ::s::::; .;;;; a.- ~ :3.a 0 Q) ~ ~ cd
00,- -,.,:;.S "E: ~"a..g<: "a-.El-=::s~ rn rn la~ rn =
.r.l.J-
~
. -..--.:.8 C'.
=..
~
I - I c; Q., J, ~ <"'! >. 0 = l-o I 0 Q) Q) Q).....
= ~ ~ <:. - <IJ U 0;;;; ..0 (;) .... Q) 8..... ~ ~ l-o cd
~ t: l-o ~..o cd ...... ~ Q.,.......... ..... cd-=
!:; 0 ~ cti rn~ ~ S a:l 0 ~ ~ Q) ~ ~ ~ rn blJ
. ~J;]~~~~.~.8~.a:l ~ .,S-=::s ~ ~ 5]
\:) ~=15~~o~ 8~~ lE~~Q) O~"a)
~ ~ cd.... ~ Q) "'" rn = Q., >. U' ~ w - rn.a 8
c.n rn l-o~= 8 rn 8 ~ = = -5 ;.::::l Q) ~ .... rn 0
c::::: ~...s ~ rn 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 0 cd cd rn rn ~ Q) rn rn
~ ~u E ~]~] s:s~~~~.~o5 ~t~~~.~ I
LLJz rn ~ ~'2 = 0 ~ Q) Q) 0 ~ <r: s.S Cl ~ 8.:fl 1i -5 ~
Q).:j:::; l-o 0 0 -5 Q., ..... -0 a rn 0'" .;;;;
:E ~ <: rn 1:: ~ !3 s Q) -BS ~"3 ~ p...s; ~ >. ~ Cl om ~
":$ .s E ~~~.s~ B~~~ ~ 6O-ai}J s~
"Cl
~
....
=
...
CJ
= ...
{I!l ~
{I!l ~
<~
{I!l ~
~ CJ
= ==
u .~
,e.'Q.
... a
u =
"au
~ ~
...."Cl
= =
au
;:: ...
{I!l ~
r-::l~
{I!l
...
=
-
-
=
Q
==
~
:3
-Ie
=
=
=
=
\C
vS
.....
~
go
.....
..c
N
~
N
="
go
l/'l
.....
=
M
.....
vS
'..-1 N
N .....
M ~
N M
=" l/'l
vS r-:-
~ l"--
\
go
.....
..c
l"--
~
M
\C
-
=
....
=
~
..
=
="
\C
=
=
=
=
N
I
=
="
~
{I!l
=
u
QO
M
.....
.....
I
\C
="
~
{I!l
=
u
..
="
N go
~ .....
N go
I I
l"-- go
=" ="
~ ~
{I!l {I!l
= =
u u
go
go
.....
~
I
go
="
~
{I!l
=
u
N
.....
~
M
l/'l
~
~
N
.....
~
M
\C
l/'l
M
go
~
="
="
~
{I!l
=
u
=
=
M
go
~
...;
=
=
M
go
~
...;
l/'l
.....
I
~
=
~
{I!l
=
u
=
N
l"--
.....
I
~
=
~
{I!l
=
u
=
=
=
N
.....
-
"Cl
~
'E
=
CJ
t
....
~
....
....
=
==
{I!l
~
~
bJl
==
.~
-Ie
go
l"--
='
="
=
...;
\C
!!!
\C
="
vi
N
="
r.;\
M
~
.....
(A
.... ~,..;==~
== == N .S ....
~ 'C t' -; =
! ~=-=-;
_ {I!l = ... ....
... 'c == ~ =
~ ... = = -:
- a""...
= "Cl=cS"B
== = .... l/'l ....
~ == =......0
......... . ~
~ {I!l"Eil/'l =
.... ~ {I!l g ~
~ == t "'
~ 8.=~t'
... ~ {I!l (A ~
~ ~=-"ag.
... t:l .,.- ~ ...
o =... == c.
~UI::{I!l
'E ~ c.. ~ = .-
~~ =~~;9
= ~ ~ "Cl CJ "Cl
~~ ~ ~.s~
CJ.... ~~~=
==.c ....=...==
.~ == .S b .s .!
'Q.~ Ec"Cl =
a = ::! ~ ~ {I!l
CJ l!"'--
U= I:: .5'" e =
... :s::: = "Cl
~ "Cl .... CJ "Cl -
"Cl= E{I!l"'=
= a ... = =
U ~ .... = -=
= -=.... = = ....{I!l
Q,l.... ....-=Q,l~
~"t ==;;; CJ
... .....Q,l ~..... == ~
~ {I!l. = a
.c Q,l = :.=
:- ~ a~ c.a ;::
Q,l ~ t (A .~
=... ....=-=
...= ~~u::
~ ~ ... - Q,l =
= {I!l ~ -= "Cl "Cl
.... = ... CJ =...
... CJ _ = u =
{I!l ~ ..... A' C.
=... . - ==
''MQ,l~ ~j~~
Q,l = = "Cl ... ...
-= Q,l = -e =a
.... ... = ~
.c\, = bJl ~
E-- \, = = .S ...
. ; Q,l ~ ~
1:: ~ .c .= I::
= = = ... ~
= .c.!a~.c
~u : :'=~
~~ -====...:
.c.... ....a=~
a "Cl;:: ~
.... ~{I!lCJ'"
= .c .... ... = ....
== "Cl = -= "Cl \I.)
~Q,l ==~Q,l-=
~t .!~~~
-=c "Cl~==r-::l
~ ~ - = .~ \I.)
=CJ~="
=Q,l~=
=]g~
-Ie ~....N=
..
{I!l
-
=
....
=
~
""
~
Q.
rI:l
==
b1l
=
....
~
El
"'Cl
=
==
b1l
=
....
=
==
~
-
CJ
rI:l
~
.;
c:7'
~
""
f
~
Q.
=
""
Q.
~
.cl
-
-
==
~
"'Cl
=
==
f
~
Q.
=
""
Q.
~
~
"'Cl
~
=
~
~
-
rI:l
=
...,
..:
~
..:
~
~
El
.:~
.cl ==
CJ"'Cl
:as
~ =
b1l=
=:c
'C CJ
= ~
"'Cl~
rI:l =
~ ....
El ~
:c El
~
....
rI:l
==
-
=
;:
=
CJ
~
..
........, ......~r..~~..........~~~.~~:.w!"i.-;.
"-, ,
i/ -.,}:..: ~ ::
'J.<:'
,~
COI:'F, EIlr"'!~~"'1"'1"
crY OF. BOYNTON BEACH
100 E. BOYNTON BEACtf. BlVD.
P.Oo' Box 310
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
. 3342S001<f
IVU flllIT cwa 'OITAGE I>
~TfO OPTIONAl, $EIVICU. (~18 l ','. i:0; \
:: ~ tlgh/ 0/ 11II' "IutGldcllll r.
. WllI'lWIdklowwrw:
~~ 10 lIlI righI 0/ lIlIl.lutn .
It Ind YOlllIlinll .....
by ~ G/ ...Iddr.SI 0/1
Ie IliTUIlN lIlI"O~ IIldI U 'I
--__T f1EQU
ilhotilld ;g'1I/ o/JIlt Iddr.....,
i': .f' ':;~, \,\,.1\ "\f \ \.' ~\ I'D
,~,
'..
~~ ~~ ltOlll G/ IhIs llCllpl. I
· U.s.G.P.O, 1988-2 J
-~.,
.,.
'.
'. .: - ~~--- .,.,. ~- '"* u . ~
CODE ENfORCEMENT-' ~ ,. . ': i.:, >i
art OF BOYNTON. BEAeth'{.$; '{ig
;!'l E.BOBOx 003109N..~~;:~~;11
.';"l5. . ,..,l.":,, .', ""l:
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA d "
3342S0010 . ____.' .
..... '0
. io,\\)RNEe. ,X;;
,0 ..: i
!;C\-\r.~. 9...
y.'..,..
.' '. '~~:~.".::~:~-:.::.
((!,,"."\1,.\\.~ tI \ \'\1\ I' ".. '..__
~.. .,_., .,' .. ..' of
. ,I.. ..\ !J-,I''"' :. t.!,.......... .
~~~:J~~~~nwlElID
SEP 14 1990
CODE ENFOnCEMENT
..
"'~'~-~~~ -;-::Ii',~ .:-.
It>, I,~r ;~,~.. ~
\..... "/.'..\<1"-
r . :.
\~
'. .
.,
.~;
.' . ~
..
'In ('111/ !;..r:IlIr'I II",""""',."
t;ht'w Ill" ,',\rir':""
WI~I1J 6eli~f;iflrj.
./
1ST CWI rosrAdL
'11OlW.1fI~.~ l~~;.:, ,i.
" rlg/ll II "" -. ."....~..D}c, . . (,
kldow or IlIallIlIU- 1\Ili:" '?'c
; "0" . I;
.~_.--
..,--...
.,..-.......
Andre St. ste
440 NE th Avenue
Boy n Beach. FL 33435
>1'-"1 .';
~. - .... ;.
.~ . ,. ..' . "-...;,;;~.:-.-
r(.~\ !......I~;~.: ._._
j,.
on Iht ~ool 01 WI rlCllpl. i
,3411. '
I
. u.s.G.P.o, 1888,1
i i
I
:;.( f
/ I/..~ I /
('
'1
.......
.....
,
-
,
t
'"
'"
..
......
~....
....
os
p..a
e-
...
.......
. """$
1ft-
, ';:)IP~
, "~1iI
. iii ell
. OE4-
.. ,- fA 0 -
\ --:l- ~
. OS -
'. ~O'" 0 \gi Cl '" ...
..... -'" \\~2
-~ '"' . . . .
0
" .U .",0 ...
... tot - .". C'lottnC'lot
..... en c5 tft ~...
._0 :> --7 .... .
.~. \ 0:::: fill
-0 N .. W
.....a ~4. ~ 0: ..
.. ::J
..... 4 a:.W i Ii
o..a:. ~ ~
..,:t'-:' ; .. ~
...~ i\
R 0 "
,~\ \ ~ ......
i.i IN ('l
.s 'i ~.S i~ "'*
~~ ~
.tt It - ... ..
\ ,- .40 ;;'0- ('l
\t~ '60-
~iQ\ "'* 1'1
-;10 0
\() ;..Ii ~- 0
Do ~
I-
~
\
:.
tt)
=-
W':J
.
E:"
tt)
e."
~
~~
~l'4
-
~ Dale: II/14m
Paymeol Past Due Afiel": 12m9J02
~ Make Cbeck Pa}ahIe in V.s. FdDds To:
OF BOYNTON BEACHJUm.JTIES DEPT.
BOX 190
ffON BEACH, FL 33425-0190
BANK
DRAFT
DO :J8T S:::',: '~:.v- ~~=:: - -~ ~~=- :::.-
G~ PLk:::: ::::~:::~ 00 -~;:).. ~~- =:::-_::- -=~
Ai
809 SE 4TH ST B 07-01
PAYMENT COUPON
o Qmnnenr!t on back
ChaDps to Customer BIlling Address
ANDRE ST JUSTE
925 GREENBRIAR DR
BOYNTON BEACH FL 33435-6105
1..11. ..11. .1..1..11..1.1..11.....111I... .1.1...1.1.1.1. ..11.1
BANK DRAFT DO NOT PAY
- -". D€tabt+-Peraand LetlJrn ~LP.Q.(tl.Q.rl ,'.,:rL ~~JH_[l-"!'L!1J~D.L _._,.
50 BORAFTC
D-. Cust........ ~ MOdtIIIy BiIJiDg Statement
- 100 E. BoyDtOn Beach Blvd. SIaIemeot Date: 11/14/02
- P.O. Box 190 Paymeat Past Due After: 12109/02
. 8oyIJIOD ~ FL 33425-0190
-_.~~
ia CIIy Hal
~~ .00 514.3. .00 574.3' 62.52 636.82
>f opeAIioa
rI
....5:30 PB
IIIIHoIdIIys
U2~
741-6303
.,
icacc.a
OIyis
ladle
f lot 01 01)'
100 E.
1I~
II' after
18}'IDlS.
-1D8f
drupped
:iIr Hall ill
DiII_
.. &adl
ICll:IIO
e'.) II 801
lp!SI Awe.
01 openIbI
Sat
- '7pm
t; Holidays
.742-456!1O
-lours UdIiIy
_ IWMCr
elIb ...
bKk~
ToIal ~...ioa 6 thousand gallons
WATEIl
SEWER
ItP..SIDEN'I'fA REFUSE
S'I'ODI WATEIl
Teal CIa:Ted ~
13.30
25.45
16.10
7.67
62.52
574.30
~_~~.f'I
A:.d r ~:&.IIk ....
Sip lip ...__.1o.-n;.....Jaw: cae less 1IiIlID IIaw; ID
~~ 1O)J8Y adl........ PIaIse see die e&1Mcd iDfonDatioa
.. JJ.kdaIA .....;..--....
Oty lid ia 8Ie AbII B-.n
EfIectiye ~ I, die.... on . r" belly BaD iD. die
Mall, ___ iD.BoyIIIOIlBeld1 Mall DCXtIO~ will be_
tbIIDws: MOBdIly - Friday 10 _ -7..-; ~ ko.. 10 _ - 3 pa.
y_..... ~ _ be..fted for:
636.82
IT""~"''' tiOl. CfOrs.... D6~-'l> ",,*rt~-T
,_ rr J. ~.." rlf(!q;y--.q!'IICC , .".. see........
aiM "./'biIL
***BANK DRAFT **:
/1 "- ~....n
/\~
a~a.=,
~~!r;.
'l:>t""jg
en _. is:'
t!":l1)
~~~:
~~~!
g g. s ~
~=Jl)=-
~;=': :
5(~g-:;
rlira-~
<ll> cro ...
""I S. Jl) oS
;~cr:~
lID c:r 0 ...
~. r;" Q. =
~ =- /;t" g
a &! a_
'a f'II .... _
!!. g ;; Jl
Cl"Cl"o=
11'1 ftI = ..
::t"':l~~
ro-
F;;" a ~ ~
~ 1!. ;;l =:
EI _. Q <'ll
P == f= ~
... ""'. Ct
=n>...........
=-.....
;'oag-
o lit F;;" SI
e. a. ... s.
:- 2 I:: ~"
FA;;;-~
o Q. Ct ~
:rS'~=f
a:[~i
[,;2.a
... _ 1;00
e:-!;2,
... :::I ~ ""
'a 1:1 .:;." lit
a:-:=t
"g - '= ::=
:::L~..'a
<<~a~
~ ~e.!
~ ~ ~ a.
2.c;>...!.
lit "" c....r..
.. Jl) =.
g~.:= ;.
::.o..~
o g- ~ :2.
;:; o' ~J:
0--=-
HI 3Sl';1d
.... ...,
:1=-
I!
~;
;rc:r
<ll> ...
t"'}:I
co ""
=oa
:li
;2a
~&
:~ f'II
~g-
lit ...
*=
flI'J ~
2 ..
- ...
"" ...
.. a
: It
~1i:
..... ...
a&
- ....
; 8:
&of'll
Sit"'}
... I:>
a.a
6"'S!.
a ..
a-t:l
~ ...
t""'f'll
... =
a: =
~a.
o
a.
<'ll
...
-<
f'"
&t
<ll>
"!j
5"
ee.
~
g"
1
-
...
'""
!"""
-
~
~
N
(It
~
~
'=
--=
--=
:....:.
1:10
...
~
o
ii"
f'r
~
\'0
'N
\Cl
-.J
\D
<..oJ
,~
I
c
",.
,
-
t::J
c=
,~
~
a
o
!.
IB
IJQ
a-
Ct
o
....
~
:1.
~
...
a:
-
~
!
g
t"'}
.
...
f'll
c=
'f""
-
VI
...
...
~
8
"6
e
co
==
g;
..
("}
o
...
~
t"'}
~
...
~
oe
(N
tit
!2
:-
N
...
1:10
~
...
:-
N
~
;
--=
1:10
.L..
-
gg
oe
N
~
-
oe
~
':...I
~
....
oe
("}
-
...
...
--=
~
1:10
-
QCl
~
...
....
N
::::t
~
."..
-
N
...
0--
e
N
-
("}
~
<'ll
\oC>
~
",.
N
~
~
N
N
-
!
--=
0\
,
-
-
c...o
?!'
-
~
c=
~
!A
"'ii
~.
o
&
q
i
III
1
cr
'<
("}
g
-
CJ".
.....
w
1=
-
tit
!
~
-
oe
i:;i
-
0\
...
c=
c=
8
111219(;pLI99
("}
-
...
<ll>
--=
'r'
I
~
--
<.N
\'0
~
!=lO
-
VI
.-
-l
~
i
"Tl
...
...
v.>
0'
....
j:)>
==
~
~
...
~
t"'"
g-
...
oS
>>
;;!
!'
II
i'
i=
l:I:
~
~
t"'"
g.
f
r
=
Ii'"
lie.
f'II
.!f
e' ,;t
Q.
Iii.
cllJQ
t:I ~
~~
~=-
. ~
a
...
3:
:"'l
~
~
....
g-
~
a.
&t
f'II
'a
a
"g
~
=
Q.
-
=-
..
.....
z::,
""'='t.-oJ
~t
o ...
~~
n2,
o t"'}
-!~
f("')
f'O i
<ll> Q'
~~
~ -
-. 0
~ S.
S[
~ !.
a.
~
:z
t'JI!:l
-
~
9-
~
9(;:91 9121121(;/81/1121
Date:
To:
From:
January 18, 2005
City of Boynton Beach Commission
Peter M. Ryland 1311 S.W. 25th Avenue
Boynton Beach, FL 33426
Subiect: Venetian ViIlas- Lake Worth Drainage District Right-of-Way
My property is directly opposite and contiguous to the Venetian Villas development on its
Southeast corner and across the Lazy Lake Canal. My purpose in coming before the City
Commission is to save the large native trees and natural environment in the Lake Worth Drainage
District (L WDD) right-of-way between the canal and the Venetian Villas project. This property,
including the canal, is owned by the City of Boynton Beach, It was acquired in March, 1998 for
$100.
The following are facts relating to this matter:
1. On October 19,2004 the 15th Judicial Court in the case of Milnor Corporation (now
RSPB) vs. City of Boynton Beach approved an amendment to the declaration of
covenants and restrictions for Alhambra Square (now Venetian Villas on the eastern
portion and ARC on the West).
2. The amendment included 10 development restrictions in Exhipit B. #5 of those
restrictions, states:
"The developer further agrees to petition the Drainage District in cooperation with the
Governing Associations to allow the existing vegetation located within the District's right-of-
way to remain, however the parties to the Declaration all understand that the vegetation is
109cated within the Drainage District's right-of-way and is not under the full control or
authority of the developer or any other party to the Declaration."
3. The vegetation referred to in restriction #5 consists primarily of 15 southern (slash) pine
trees with an overall height of approximately 60 feet and breadth of up to 30 feet. One
25th A venue resident, who moved to Golfview Harbour in 1972, reports that those trees
we approximately 20 feet tall when she moved in, making them at least 30 years old and
probably more than 40. During 2003, two hurricanes and several tropical storms hit the
area. Not one of these trees was damaged (other than a few limbs). As these trees are
extremely sensitive to their ground environment, I am told that altering the canal
embankment will destroy them.
4. The developer applied for a drainage permit from L WDD and received a permit which
requires him to remove the trees and dredge the canal, creating a steep embankment
similar to what is now on the ARC portion of the property. This topography is expected
to obliterate the current wildlife.
5. In accordance with restriction #5, the Developer filed an appeal and notified the Golfview
Harbour Homeowners Association and myselfas representative of the contiguous
homeowners, ofa hearing to be held at 9:45 AM on Wednesday, January 12th at the
L WDD offices.
6. Five contiguous property owners on the south side of the canal attended the hearing on
January 12th. Four of the property owners spoke. In their presentations they brought out
the following points:
o Dredging of the canal is unnecessary. Current surveys show that the canal
averages 20 feet deep in the center and 80 feet wide in front of the Venetian
Villas development. The canal narrows to on approximate 8 foot ditch at
Congress Avenue, just west of the ARC property. In addition, the canal narrows
to an approximate 20 feet and shallows to only 3 feet at the 11 th Street Bridge. If
water flow were a problem, the L WDD would first need to improve these
conditions.
o The trees and canal embankment are home to dozens of wildlife species. Pictures
of wildlife inhabiting both the embankment and the trees were shown to the
LWDD Board. The wildlife includes Otters, Wood Storks, Osprey, Mallards.
Turtles, Cormorants, White, Green and Blue Herons and even an Alligator,
o The native vegetation provides an additional, natural screen between the
contiguous homes on the South side of the Canal and the Venetian Villas
development.
During their discussion on the matter, the L WDD Board referred to adhering to policy
and not repeating what happened in Boca. A compromise of creating an access road
which would save most of the trees and embankment was offered by the residents;
however, by resolution of the LWDD Board, the developer's request to retain the native
vegetation and embankment was denied, thereby forcing the developer to remove all
vegetation and widen the canal plus create an embankment according to the District
permit.
7. Subsequent investigation with Boca government and LWDD has revealed that Boca, like
Boynton, has tree protection laws. In this case, the L WDD attempted to clear cut and
embank a portion of canal right-of-way in Boca. At the urging of Boca residents, the
Boca City Commission met with the District Board on site and developed a compromise
which provided the District access to the right of way without removing major trees on
the property. In this case, the LWDD has created an exception to its apparent policy of
clear cutting and embanking rights-of-way.
8. The L WDD reportedly has no intentions of widening or deepening the canal now or in
the near future.
9. The developer has offered to refrain from making any changes in the L WDD right-of-
way for two weeks. During the construction permitting process, the developer has taken
care to preserve a majority of similar southern pines on the balance of the property,
thereby indicating his willingness to preserve these trees and the canal embankment they
are on.
On the basis of these facts, I am requesting the City Commission to take the following specific
actions;
I. Enter mediation with L WDD on their right-of-way as it applies to the Venetian Villas
drainage permit this week.
') Develop, with contiguous resident and developer participation, a compromise L WDD
permit which provides for retention of native trees and wildlife while providing
reasonable access for necessary L WDD maintenance,
3. Accomplish a compromise permit before this date in February.
In a related matter, I am also requesting that the City Commission enter mediation with L WDD
on their right-of-way east of Venetian Villas to the 11 th Street Bridge as it relates to reasonable
access versus retention of wildlife, vegetation and homeowner improvements, In the past, cable.
phone and electric companies have all used the City owned right-of-way maintained by me on
25th A venue without destroying homeowner improvements. Why should L WDD be different
unless th.Crc is adem... ons.trated nffd to widen and/or deepen the Lazy Lake Canal')
~<t(j,----i
r yland " ,
. ~
1
BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
IN RE:
AN ORDINANCE TO EST ABLlSH
THE MONTEREY/CONGRESS COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
)
)
)
PETITION
WESTBROOKE HOMES, A Florida general partnership (the "Petitioner"), hereby
petitions the City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida, pursuant to the "Uniform
Community Development District Act of 1980," Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, as amended and
supplemented (herein, the "Act). Specifically this Petition is made pursuant to Section
190.005(2) of the Act, to establish a community development district with respect to the lands
described herein. In support of the Petition, Petitioner states:
1. The proposed District (as defined below) is located within the incorporated area
of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida. Exhibit 1 depicts the general location of the proposed
District. The proposed District covers approximately 31.5 +/- acres of land. The real property
within the boundary of the proposed District is a parcel of land located on Congress Avenue
North of Summit Boulevard. The metes and bounds description of the external boundaries of
the District is set forth on Exhibit 2.
2. Attached to this Petition as Exhibit 3 and made a part hereof is the written
consent to the establishment of the District of the owner of 100% of the real property to be
included in the District.
3. The five persons designated to serve as initial members of the Board of
Supervisors of the proposed District are as follows:
Name
Harold Eisenacher
David Webber
Russell Barnes
Michael DeBock
Claudia Feldman
4. The proposed name of the District to be established is the Monterey/Congress
Community Development District ("the District").
5. There are no existing major trunk water mains, sewer interceptors and outfalls.
6. The proposed timetable for the construction of District services is shown on
Exhibit 4, as well as the estimated cost of constructing the services. This is a good faith
estimate but is not binding on the Petitioner and the District and is subject to change.
7. The future general distribution, location and extent of public and private uses
within the District are limited to residential sites and open space. The proposed uses are
consistent with the future land use plan element of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of
WPB.FS 1\SANFORDS\502177v02\6128104\99903~ 426594
Boynton Beach, Florida (the "City"). The future land use map is shown on Exhibit 5. The land
within the proposed District is zoned for high density residential use. It is further anticipated that
the subject lands will be permitted to be developed for approximately 300 townhomes ranging in
approximate square footage of 1,131 to 1,536 with prices ranging from $180,000 to $225,000.
The Petitioner intends that the District will finance (i) surface water management and control
systems, (ii) water distribution and wastewater collection and transmission facilities, (iii)
wetlands mitigation, (iv) offsite turn lanes, (vi) offsite placement of certain utilities, and (v)
related incidental costs which may include the acquisition of real property (collectively, the
"Public Infrastructure"). Upon completion by the Petitioner of the water distribution and
wastewater collection and transmission facilities and acquisition by the District, such facilities
will be dedicated to the City to be connected to the City's existing water and wastewater lines.
8. Exhibit 6 is a statement of estimated regulatory costs prepared in accordance
with the requirements of Section 120.541, Florida Statutes.
9. Petitioner hereby requests that the proposed District be granted the right to
exercise all powers provided for in Section 190.012(1), Florida Statutes and the additional
powers listed in Section 190.012(2)(a) and (d).
10. The Petitioner is Westbrooke Homes, a Florida general partnership. The
Petitioner is acting on behalf of itself as a landowner, which owns 100 percent of the real
property to be included in the proposed District. Petitioner will develop the land within the
District, including the construction of the Public Infrastructure, which will be acquired by the
District. It is contemplated that the vertical improvements on the developed lots will be
constructed by the Petitioner and possibly other builders. Copies of all correspondence and
official notices should also be sent to: Stephen D. Sanford, Esq., c/o Greenberg Traurig, P.A.,
777 South Flagler Drive, Suite 300 East, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401; (561) 650-7945.
11. The property within the proposed District is amenable to operating as an
independent special district for the following reasons:
(a) Establishment of the District and all land uses and services planned within the
proposed District are consistent with applicable elements or portions of the effective City's
Comprehensive Land Use Plan, as amended.
(b) The area of land within the proposed District is of sufficient size and is sufficiently
compact and contiguous to be developed as one functional interrelated community.
(c) The community development services of the District will be compatible with the
capacity and use of existing local and regional community development services and facilities.
(d) The proposed District will be the best alternative available for delivering
community development services to the area to be served because (i) the District provides a
governmental entity for delivering those services and facilities in a manner that does not
financially impact persons residing outside the District, (ii) the Act authorizes a community
development district to acquire infrastructure improvements previously constructed by the
Petitioner or allows for a community development district to, in the first instance, construct such
infrastructure improvements, (iii) the timing for the creation of the proposed District and the
issuance of special assessment bonds is compatible with the timing for the construction and
acquisition of such infrastructure improvements which will result in direct benefit to the
landowners and their assigns within the District, (iv) establishment of a community development
WPB-FS1\SANFORDSI502177V04\7121104125443.010900
2
1/
district in conjunction with a comprehensive planned community, as proposed, allows for a more
efficient use of resources as well as providing the opportunity for new growth to pay for itself,
and (v) establishment of the District will provide a perpetual entity capable of making reasonable
provisions for the operation and maintenance of many of the District services and facilities.
12. The Petitioner undertakes on behalf of the District that the District will provide full
disclosure of information relating to the public financing and maintenance of improvements to
real property to be undertaken by the District as required by Section 190.009 and Section
190.048, Florida Statutes of the Act, as amended.
[Remainder of page intentionally left blank)
WPB-FS1\SANFORDS\502177v04\7121104125443.010900
3
WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests the City Commission of Boynton Beach,
Florida to:
Hold a public hearing as required by Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes to consider
the establishment of the Monterey/Congress Community Development District; and
Enact an ordinance pursuant to Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, granting this Petition and
establishing the Monterey/Congress Community Development District.
Respectfully submitted this J/1 iI\ day of July, 2004.
WESTBROOKE HOMES, a Florida general
partnership, as Petitioner
By: WESTBROOKE COMPANIES, INC., a
Delaware corporation and general partner
By: dkt~~
Name: David Webber
Title: Vice President
WPB-FS1\SANFORDS\502177v04\7121/04\25443.010900
4
MONTEREY/CONGRESS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1 Location Map
Exhibit 2 Legal Description
Exhibit 3 Consent and Proof of Ownership or Control
Exhibit 4 Construction Timetable and Good Faith Cost Estimate
Exhibit 5 -- Future Land Use Map from the City of Boynton Beach, Florida
Comprehensive Plan depicting the location of the proposed District
Exhibit 6 -- Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs
WPB-FS 1\SANFORDS\5021771104\7121/04\25443.010900
5
~~~ ~
w
o
o
0::::
Z
<C
w
U
_ .0
. "'. ............ .
(.f)
W
N
W
W
0::::
m
>-
z
0::::
..m,..
2
<C
w
0::::
f-
en
....::::;
I
I
I
1-'f--
: \
I ~I
I
I
I
: I
I I
I
I
I ~I
Q)
::J
C
Q)
>
<f
...... ..
) I
. , a^ \-I
.~_~ ~_j, V
~~l 1 ~(j)u
I") I Lrl"\
0-.J ())"--"
+...J
cc
::::J::::J
~:
-0'
<D n::=
1'0
'+- I
o
C')
LAND DESCRIPTION
MONTEREY/CONGRESS COMlVIUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
Being a parcel of land in a portion of the southwest one-quarter (sw l/4) of section 5,
township 46 south, range 43 east, Palm Beach County, Florida, being more particularly
described as follows:
Commencing at the southwest corner of said section 5;
THENCE fUn north (the west line of section 5 is assumed to bear north-south and all
other bearings are relative thereto) along the west line of said section 5. a distance of
110.00 feet to a point;
THENCE run south 890 48 minutes 45 seconds east, a distance of 53.00 feet to a point
on the east right-of-way line of congress avenue and the point of beginning of the herein
described parcel;
THENCE continue on the preceding described course, a distance of 1460.21 feet to a
point in the westerly right-of way line of the seaboard coast line railroad;
THENCE run north 180 21 minutes 59 seconds east, along westerly right-of-way line, a
distance of 607.01 feet;
THENCE north 890 58 minutes 02 seconds west, a distance of 891.35 feet;
THENCE north 000 01 minutes 58 seconds east, a distance of390.75 feet;
THENCE north 48035 minutes 55 seconds west, a distance of 407.05 feet;
THENCE north, a distance of 232.00 feet;
THENCE west, a distance of 455.00 feet, more or less, to the said easterly right-of-way
line of congress avenue;
THENCE south along said right-of-way line; a distance of 1463.76 feet to the point of
beginning. Said parcel subject to the following:
LESS AND EXCEPT:
The north 21.34' of the 131.34 right-of-way for lake worth drainage district latera] canal
1-30 as described in chancery case #407, as recorded in official records book 6495, at
page 761, and the official records book 6495, at page 1165, of the public records of Palm
Beach eounty, Florida.
LESS AND EXCEPT:
A right-of-way over the westerly 80 feet of the easterly 190 feet (as measured at right
angles to) thereof for the Lake Worth Drainage District Canal No. e- 3-1/2, as recorded in
official records book 1803, at page 254, of the public records of Palm Beach County,
Florida.
Further less and except right-of-way for congress avenue conveyed to palm beach county
by deed filed in official records book 5430, at page 1725. and as described in order of
taking filed in official records book 7322, at page 262, of the public records of Palm
Beach County, Florida.
LESS AND EXCEPT:
A parcel of land lying in section 5, township 46 south, range 43 east, Palm Beach County,
Florida, said land being more particularly desnibed as follows:
Commencing at the southwest corner of said section 5;
THENCE with a bearing of nOOoOO'OO"e along the west line of said section 5, for a
distance of 110.00 feet to a point;
THENCE with a bearing of s89048'45"e along a line lying 110.00 feet north of and
parallel to the south line of said section 5, for a distance of 1397.43 feet to a point;
THENCE with a bearing of nI8021'59"e, along the east line of 80 foot right-of-way for
Lake Worth Drainage District Canal No. e- 3 1/2 os recorded in official records book
1803, page 254 of the public records of Palm Beach County, Florida and also the west
line of 110 foot Florida Power and Light Company easement as recorded in official
records book 602, page 623 of the public records of Palm Beach County, Florida, for a
distance of 158.79 feet to the point of beginning:
THENCE continue with a bearing of n18021'59'e, along the east line of said 80 foot right-
of-way for Lake Worth Drainage District. Canal No. e-3 1/2 and also the west line of said
110 foot Florida Power and Light company easement, for a distance of 26.53 foot to a
point;
THENCE with a bearing of s63028'06'e, for ,a distance of 32.44 feet to a point;
THENCE with a bearing of s12034"28"w, for a distance of9.58 feet to a point;
THENCE with a bearing of s87049'54"w, for a distance of 35.32 feet more or lees, to the
point of beginning.
Containing 590 square feet (0.014 acres, more or less. and subject to easements,
reservations. restrictions and right-of-way of record.
Said lands lying in the city of Boynton Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida and
containing 1,370,970 square feet (31.473 acres) more or less.
EXHIBIT" A"
LAND DESCRIPTION
MONTEREY/CONGRESS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
Being a parcel of land in a portion of the southwest one-quarter (sw 1/4) of section 5,
township 46 south, range 43 east, Palm Beach County, Florida, being more particularly
described as follows:
Commencing at the southwest corner of said section 5;
THENCE run north (the west line of section 5 is assumed to bear north-south and all
other bearings are relative thereto) along the west line of said section 5, a distance of
110.00 feet to a point;
THENCE mn south 890 48 minutes 45 seconds east, a distance of 53.00 feet to a point
on the east right-of-way line of congress avenue and the point of beginning of the herein
described parcel;
THENCE continue on the preceding described course, a distance of 1460.21 feet to a
point in the westerly right-of way line of the seaboard coast line railroad;
THENCE mn north 180 21 minutes 59 seconds east, along westerly right-of-way line, a
distance of 607.01 feet;
THENCE north 890 58 minutes 02 seconds west, a distance of891.35 feet;
THENCE north 000 01 minutes 58 seconds east, a distance of390.75 feet;
THENCE north 48035 minutes 55 seconds west, a distance of 407.05 feet;
THENCE north, a distance of232.00 feet;
THENCE west, a distance of 455.00 feet, more or less, to the said easterly right-of-way
line of congress avenue;
THENCE south along said right-of-way line; a distance of 1463.76 feet to the point of
beginning. Said parcel subject to the following:
LESS AND EXCEPT:
The north 21.34' of the 131.34 right-of-way for lake worth drainage district lateral canal
1-30 as described in chancery case #407, as recorded in official records book 6495, at
page 761, and the official records book 6495, at page 1165, of the public records of Palm
Beach County, Florida.
Page 1 of 3
LESS AND EXCEPT:
A right-of-way over the westerly 80 feet of the easterly 190 feet (as measured at right
angles to) thereof for the Lake Worth Drainage District Canal No. e- 3-1/2, as recorded in
official records book 1803, at page 254, of the public records of Palm Beach County,
Florida.
Further less and except right-of-way for congress avenue conveyed to palm beach county
by deed filed in official records book 5430, at page 1725, and as described in order of
taking filed in official records book 7322, at page 262, of the public records of Palm
Beach County, Florida.
LESS AND EXCEPT:
A parcel ofland lying in section 5, township 46 south, range 43 east, Palm Beach County,
Florida, said land being more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the southwest comer of said section 5;
THENCE with a bearing of nOOoOO'OO"e along the west line of said section 5, for a
distance of 110.00 feet to a point;
THENCE with a bearing of s89048'45"e along a line lying 110.00 feet north of and
parallel to the south line of said section 5, for a distance of 1397.43 feet to a point;
THENCE with a bearing of nI8021'59"e, along the east line of 80 foot right-of-way for
Lake Worth Drainage District Canal No. e-3 1/2 os recorded in official records book
1803, page 254 of the public records of Palm Beach County, Florida and also the west
line of 110 foot Florida Power and Light Company easement as recorded in official
records book 602, page 623 of the public records of Palm Beach County, Florida, for a
distance of 158.79 feet to the point of beginning:
THENCE continue with a bearing ofn18021'59'e, along the east line of said 80 foot right-
of-way for Lake Worth Drainage District. Canal No. e-3 1/2 and also the west line of said
110 foot Florida Power and Light company easement, for a distance of 26.53 foot to a
point;
THENCE with a bearing of s63 o28'06'e, for ,a distance of 32.44 feet to a point;
THENCE with a bearing of s12034"28"w, for a distance of9.58 feet to a point;
THENCE with a bearing of s87049'54"w, for a distance of 35.32 feet more or lees, to the
point of beginning.
Page 2 of3
Containing 590 square feet (0.014 acres, more or less, and subject to easements,
reservations. restrictions and right-of-way of record.
Said lands lying in the city of Boynton Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida and
containing 1,370,970 square feet (31.473 acres) more or less.
Page 3 of3
EXHIBIT 3
AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP AND CONSENT
TO THE CREATION OF
MONTEREY/CONGRESS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
STATE OF FLORIDA )
)SS
COUNTY OF PALM BEACH )
On thisrJt{II. day of July, 2004, personally appeared before me, an officer duly authorized
to administer oaths and take acknowledgments, David Webber, who, after being duly sworn,
deposes and says:
1. Affiant, David Webber, an individual, is a Vice President of Westbrooke
Companies, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company").
2. The Company is the general partner of Westbrooke Homes, a Florida general
partnership (herein, the "General Partnership").
3. The General Partnership is the owner of the following described property, to
wit:
See Exhibit "A" attached hereto (the "Property").
Affiant, David Webber, hereby represents that he has full authority to execute
all documents and instruments on behalf of the General Partnership,
including the Petition before the City Commission of the City of Boynton
Beach, Florida, to enact an ordinance to establish the Monterey/Congress
Community Development District (the "Proposed CDD").
The Property represents all of the real property to be included in the
Proposed CDD.
Affiant, David Webber, on behalf of the General Partnership, as the sole
owner of the Property in the capacity described above, hereby consents to
the establishment of the Proposed CDD.
FURTHER, AFFIANT SA YETH NOT.
4.
5.
6,
dkJ4w~
David Webber
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ;)q 'fI.. day of July, 2004, by David Webber, a
Vice President of Westbrooke Companies, Inc., a Delaware corporation, the general partner oJ
Westbrooke Homes, a Florida general partnership, who personally appeared before me, [}Yfs
personally known to me or 0 produced Notary:~':I1- ~j~
[NOTARIAL SEAL] Print Na~: ~Il "
Notary Public, State of Florida
My Commission Expires:
~" Merilyn M. VtWlIImI
. . My UlmI'I1IIIIIOn 00213071
\:.,,.0; ExpIrM JIJ'le 21. 2007
WPB-FS1\SANFORDS\502177V04\7121/04\25443.010900
EXHIBIT 4-A
MONTEREY/CONGRESS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION TIME TABLE
Earthwork
Water and Sewer System
Stormwater Drainage
Wetlands Mitigation
Offsite Improvements, including Turn Lanes
Start
June,2004
January, 2005
January 2005
January, 2005
January, 2005
Finish
December, 2004
March,2005
March,2005
March, 2005
March, 2005
EXHIBIT 4-B
MONTEREY/CONGRESS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
GOOD FAITH COST ESTIMATE
Stormwater Drainage, including Earthwork
Water and Sewer System
Wetlands Mitigation
Offsite Improvements, including Turn
Lanes and Placement of Certain Utilities
Total
$1,958,000
1,159,000
100,OQO
250,000
$3.467.000
MONTEREY/CONGRESS CDD
LDR - Low Density Residential
HDR - High Density Residential
IND - Industrial
~ City Boundary
N
w*
s
o 100200 400 600 800
_ _ Feet
MONTEREY/CONGRESS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
STATEMENT OF ESTIMATED REGULATORY COSTS
July, 2004
Prepared by
Special District Services, Inc.
11000 Prosperity Farms Road, Suite 104
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410
(561) 630-4922 Phone
(561) 630-4923 Fax
STATEMENT OF ESTIMATED REGULATORY COSTS
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Purpose and Scope
This Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs ("SERC") supports the petItIOn to
establish the Monterey/Congress Community Development District ("District") The
District comprises approximately 315 +/- acres of land located in the City of Boynton
Beach, Florida. The limitations on the scope of this SERC are explicitly set out in
Section ]90002(2) (d), FS (governing community development district establishment)
as follows
"That the process of establishing such a district pursuant to uniform general law shall be
fair and based only on factors material to managing and financing the service delivery
function of the district, so that any matter concerning permitting or planning of the
development is not material or relevant"
1.2 Overview of Monterey/Congress Community Development District
The District is designed to provide district infrastructure, services, and facilities along
with their operations and maintenance to a master planned residential development
containing 300 residential townhomes within the boundaries of the DistricL
1.3 Requirements for Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs
Section] 20 54] (2), F. S (1997), defines the elements a statement of estimated regulatory
costs must contain
(a) A good faith estimate of the number of individuals and entities likely to be required to
comply with the rule, together with a general description of the types of individuals likely
to be affected by the rule.
(b) A good faith estimate of the cost to the agency, and to any other state and local
government entities, of implementing and enforcing the proposed rule, and any
anticipated effect on state and local revenues
(c) A good faith estimate of the transactional costs likely to be incurred by individuals
and entities, including local governmental entities, required to comply with the
requirements of the ordinance As used in this paragraph, "transactional costs" are direct
costs that are readily ascertainable based upon standard business practices, and include
filing fees, the cost of obtaining a license, the cost of equipment required to be installed
or used or procedures required to be employed in complying with the rule, additional
operating costs incurred, and the cost of monitoring and reporting.
(d) An analysis ofthe impact on small businesses as defined by Section 288.703, F.S.,
and an analysis of the impact on small counties and small cities as defined by Section
120.52, F.S. The City of Boynton Beach is not defined as a small City for purposes
of this requirement.
( e) Any additional information that the agency determines may be useful.
(f) In the statement or revised statement, whichever applies, a description of any good
faith written proposal submitted under paragraph (1) (a) and either a statement
adopting the alternative or a staternent of the reasons for rejecting the alternative in
favor of the proposed ordinance.
"Note: the references to "rule" in the statutory requirements for the Statement of
Estimated Regulatory Costs also apply to an "ordinance" under section 190.005(2)
(a), Florida Statutes."
2.0 A good faith estimate of the number of indiyiduals and entities likely to be
required to comply with the ordinance, together with a general description of the
types of individuals likely to be affected by the ordinance.
The Monterey/Congress Community Development District will serve land that
comprises approximately 31.5 +/- acres of residential development to be made up of
an estimated 300 residential townhomes. The estimated population of the District is
750 +/-. The property owners in the District will be individuals and may operate
industrial, manufacturing and other retail and non-retail related businesses outside the
boundaries of the District.
3.0 A good faith estimate of the cost to the agency, and to any other state and local
government entities, of implementing and enforcing the proposed rule, and any
anticipated effect on state or local revenues.
There is no state agency promulgating any rule relating to this project that IS
anticipated to effect state or local revenues.
3.1 Costs to Governmental Agencies of Implementing and Enforcing Ordinance
Because the results of adopting the ordinance is establishment of a local special
purpose government, there will be no enforcing responsibilities of any other
government entity, but there will be various implementing responsibilities which are
identified with their costs herein.
State Governmental Entities
There will be only modest costs to various State governmental entities to implement and
enforce the proposed establishment of the District. The District as established on the
proposed land, will encompass under 1,000 acres, therefore, the City of Boynton Beach is
the establishing entity under 190.005(2), F.S. The modest costs to various State entities
2
to implement and enforce the proposed ordinance relate strictly to the receipt and
processing of yarious reports that the District is required to file with the State and its
yarious entities. Appendix A lists the reporting requirements. The costs to those State
agencies that will receiye and process the District's reports are very small, because the
District is only one of many goyernmental units that are required to submit the yarious
reports. Therefore, the marginal cost of processing one additional set of reports is
inconsequential. Additionally, pursuant to section 189.412, F.S., the District must pay an
annual fee to the State of Florida Department of Community Mfairs which offsets such
costs.
City of Bovnton Beach
There will be only modest costs to the City for a number of reasons. First, reyiew of the
petition to establish the District does not include analysis of the project itself. Second,
the petition itself proyides much of the information needed for a staff reyiew. Third, the
City already possesses the staff needed to conduct the reyiew without the need for new
staff. Fourth, there is no capital required to review the petition. Finally, the City
routinely process similar petitions though for entirely different subjects, for land uses and
zoning changes that are far more complex than is the petition to establish a community
deyelopment district.
The annual costs to City of Boynton Beach, because of the establishment of the District,
are also yery small. The District is an independent unit of local goyernment. The only
annual costs the City faces are the minimal costs of receiying and reviewing the yarious
reports that the District is required to proyide to the City, However, the Petitioner has
included a payment of $15,000 to offset any expense the City may incur in the processing
ofthis Petition, or in the monitoring of this District
3.2 Impact on State and Local Revenues
Adoption of the proposed ordinance will haye no negatiye impact on state or local
reyenues. The District is an independent unit of local goyernment. It is designed to
proyide infrastructure facilities and services to serve the deyelopmentproject and it has
its own sources of reyenue. No state or local subsidies are required or expected.
In this regard it is important to note that any debt obligations incurred by the District to
construct its infrastructure, or for any other reason, are not debts of the State of Florida or
any other unit of local goyernment. In accordance with State law, debts of the District
are strictly its own responsibility.
4.0 A good faith estimate of the transactional costs likely to be incurred by individuals
and entities required to comply with the requirements of the ordinance.
Table 1 proyides an outline of the yarious facilities and services the proposed District
may provide. The water and sewer utilities, stormwater drainage, wetlands mitigation
and certain off site improyements will all be funded by the District.
3
Table 1
PROPOSED FACILITIES AND SERVICES
FACILITY FUNDED O&M BY OWNERSHIP
BY BY
Stormwater Drainage System CDD CDD CDD
Potable Water Supply System CDD City City
Sanitary Sewer System CDD City City
Wetlands Mitigation CDD CDD CDD
Offsite Improyements CDD County County
The petitioner has estimated the costs for providing the capital facilities outlined in
Table 1. The cost estimates are shown in Table 2 below. Total costs for those
facilities, which may be provided, are estimated to be approximately $3,467,000. The
District may issue special assessment bonds to fund the costs of these facilities.
These bonds would be repaid through non ad valorem special assessments leyied on
all properties in the District that may benefit from the District's infrastructure
program as outlined in Table 2.
Prospective future landowners in the District may be required to pay non-ad valorem
assessments levied by the District to secure the debt incurred through bond issuance.
In addition to the levy of non ad valorem special assessments by various names for
debt service, the District may also impose a non-ad valorem assessment to fund the
operations and maintenance of the District and its facilities and services.
Furthermore, locating in the District by new property owners is completely voluntary.
So, ultimately, all owners and users of the affected property choose to accept the non
ad valorem special assessments as a tradeoff for the benefits and facilities that the
District provides.
A community development district ("CDD") provides property owners with the
option of having higher leyels of facilities and services financed through self-imposed
reyenue. The District is an alternatiye means to manage necessary development
services with related financing powers. District management is no more expensive,
and often less expensive, than the alternatives of a municipal service taxing unit
(MSTU), a property association, provision by the City, or through developer equity
and/or bank: loans.
In considering these costs it shall be noted that owners of the lands to be included
within the District will receive three major classes of benefits.
First, landowners in the District will receive a higher long-term sustained level of
public services and amenities sooner than would otherwise be the case.
4
Second, a CDD is a mechanism for assuring that the community services and
amenities will be completed concurrently with development of lands within the
District. This satisfies the current growth management legislation, and it assures that
growth pays for itself without undue burden on other consumers. Establishment of
the District will ensure that these landowners pay for the provision of facilities,
services and improvements to these lands.
Third, a CDD is the sole form of governance which allows District landowners,
through landowner voting, to determine the type, quality and expense of District
services they receive, provided they meet the City's overall requirements.
The cost impact on the ultimate landowners in the District is not the total cost for the
District to provide infrastructure services and facilities. Instead, it is the incremental
costs above what the landowners would have paid to install infrastructure via an
alternative management mechanism. Given the low cost of capital for a CDD, the
cost impact to landowners is negligible. This incremental cost of the high quality
infrastructure provided by the District is likely to be fairly low.
Table 2
COST ESTIMATE FOR DISTRICT FACILITIES
Cost Estimates
Stormwater Drainage System (incl. Earthwork) $ 1,958,000
Potable Water Supply System and Sewer System $ 1,159,000
Wetlands Mitigation $ 100,000
Offsite Improvements (incl. Turning Lane) $ 250,000
Total $ 3,467,000
~-_.__._---
Table 3
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION TIMETABLE FOR DISTRICT FACILITIES
~-
Category Completion Date
Earthwork December 2004
Water and Sewer System March 2005
Stormwater Drainage System March 2005
Wetlands Mitigation March 2005
~gffsite Improvements March 2005
5.0 An analysis of the impact on small businesses as defined by Section 288.703, F.S.,
5
and an analysis of the impact on small counties and small cities as dermed by
Section 120.52, F.S.
There will be no impact on small businesses because of the establishment of the District.
The City of Boynton Beach has an estimated population in 2002 that is greater than
10,000; therefore the City is not defined as a "small" City according to Section 120.52,
F.S, and there will accordingly be no impact on a small City because of the formation of
the District.
6.0 Any additional useful information.
The analysis proyided aboye is based on a straightforward application of economic
theory, especially as it relates to tracking the incidence of regulatory costs and benefits.
Inputs were receiyed from the petitioner and professionals associated with the petitioner.
****************
6
APPENDIX A
LIST OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
REPORT
Annual Financial Audit
Annual Financial Report
TRIM Compliance Report
Form 1: Statement of Financial
[nterests
Public Facilities Report
Public Meetings Schedule
Bond Report
Registered Agent
Proposed Budget
Public Depositor Report
FL. STATUE
CITATION
1 I .45
218.32
200.068
112.3145
189.415
189.417
218.38
189.416
189.418
280.17
DUE DATE
within 45 days of audit completion, but
no later than 12 months after end of
fiscal year
within 45 days of financial audit
completion, but no later than 12
months after end of fiscal year; if no
audit required, by 4/30
no later than 30 days following the
adoption of the property tax levy
ordinance/resolution (if levying
property tax es)
within 30 days of accepting the
appointment, then every year thereafter
by 7/1 (by "local officers" appointed to
special district's board); during the
qualifying period, then every year
thereafter by 7/1 (by "local officers"
elected to special district's board)
within one year of special district's
creation; then annual notice of any
changes; and updated report every 5
years, 12 months prior to submission
of local government's eyaluation and
appraisal report
quarterly, semiannually, or annually
when issued
within 30 days after first meeting of
governing board
prior to end of current fiscal year
annually by 11/30
QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION!
1, The Mayor announces the agenda item.
2. The City Attorney or City Clerk swears in all witnesses.
3. The City Attorney outlines the hearing procedure, including a statement that
any member of the City Commission may, at any time during the presentation
of testimony, question any witness.
4. Attorneys or other individuals acting in a representative capacity make their
appearances.
5. The Applicant presents its case, including acceptance or objection to proposed
conditions of approval.
6. City staff members present a summary of the issues before the Commission,
testify as to their opinions and make recommendations for conditions of
approval.
7. Supporters of the application present their case, offer their opinions, and cross-
exam previous witnesses.
8. Opponents of the application present their case, offer their opinions, and cross-
examine previous witnesses.
9. Other members of the public offer their opinions.
10. Rebuttal evidence and cross-examination of witnesses by applicant.
11. Re-questioning by Opponents, strictly limited to newly raised facts or opinions
and closing comments.
12. Closing comments by applicant.
13. Closing comments by City staff.
14. Deliberation and questions by the Commission.
15. Commission vote.
I These guidelines represent a generalized procedure for conducting quasi-judicial hearings and are subject to
modification on a case-by-case basis. The controlling principle is that all interested parties have the opportunity to offer
testimony, evidence and conduct cross-examination of witnesses.
S:\CA\JAC\Quasi-Judicial Procedures Commission,DOC
7/20/2004
Palm Beach County Property Appraiser Property Search System
Page i of2
Property Information
Location Address: 675 NE 15TH PL
Municipality: BOYNTON BEACH
Parcel Control Number: 08-43-45-22-20-000-0120
Subdivision: YACHTMANS COVE
Official Records Book: 07009 Page: 1486 Sale Date: Oct-1991
Legal Description: YACHTMANS COVE LT 12
Owner Information
Name: COREY ROBERT F & JOAN R
L",:&",J!!!~,t'iU),,,,,. .J
L,.~~'.L2~m~ri..w.","}
Mailing Address: 675 NE 15TH PL
BOYNTON BEACH FL 334352831
Sales Information
Sales Date Book/Page Price 5c:11e Type Owner
Oct-1991 07009[1486 $150,000 WARRANTY DEED
Apr-1987 05230/1542 $180,000 WARRANTY DEED
Jan-1979 03136/1716 $15,000 NO DATA FOUND
L., "e.aIS.Itt.$, .... J
"~'~;&"'i"".~,,,..'4';'" ,~,h"';~1fn'W""1,,,,';.;,.";!>:_:'"
Exemptions
Year of Exemption: 2005
Regular Homestead $25,000
Total: $25,000
Appraisals
Tax Year:
Improvement Value:
land Value:
Total Market Value:
Use Code:
Tax Year 2004
Number of Units: 1
*Total Square Feet: 3290
Descri ption: RESIDENTIAL
* in
te living area.
frtfPb')f
~q ~~
Tax Year:
Assessed Value:
Exemption Amount:
Taxable Value:
Assessed and Taxable V.
~
L,!~~L'~~.!!J
Tax Values
Tax Year:
Ad Valorem:
Non Ad Valorem:
Total Tax:
L"tJ!?c","S!!~mr,,,,J
L"';""'''0.RS.L\.> ,,,"J
L,,"~!Sl~,,t~LS.~_1 Id~.R..:.,J L~;.=,f~~.,.,~J
NOTE: Lower the top and bottom margins to 0.25 on File->Page Setup menu option in the browser to print the
detail on one page.
Record Search I Information I Exemptions I Community I Employment I New Home Buyer I Office Locations
hrtp:/ /www.co.palm-beach.f1.us/papalaspx/web/detail_info.aspx?p_entity=0843452220000...1/18/2005
Palm Beach County Property Appraiser Property Search System
Page 1, of 2
Property Information
Location Address: 670 NE 15TH PL
Municipality: BOYNTON BEACH
Parcel Control Number: 08-43-45-22-20-000-0070
Subdivision: YACHTMANS COVE
Official Records Book: 16248 Page: 255 Sale Date: Noy-2003
Legal Description: YACHTMANS COVE LT 7
Owner Information
Name: NITKOWSKI STANLEY L &.
L""~Y~~!p.,,,,,...J
l ~.. .AQ Qwne~.]
"'''"'h,""",._,.~~=.i4."""", .
Mailing Address: 670 NE 15TH PL
BOYNTON BEACH FL 334352831
Sales Information
Sales Date Book/Page
NoY-2003 16248/255
Apr-1987 05255/1405
Jan-1986 04763/0005
Price 5c:11e Type
Owner
L."",,",.,,.M,3!!!tci>i2ii,,,,,,,1
$348,000 WARRANTY DEED NITKOWSKI STANLEY L &.
$33,000 WARRANTY DEED
$28,000 WARRANTY DEED
Exemptions
Year of Exemption: 2005
Regular Homestead $25,000
Total: $25,000
Appraisals
Tax Year:
Improvement Value:
Land Value:
Total Market Value:
Use Code: 0100 .
Tax Year 2004
Number of Units: 0
*Total Square Feet: 2470
Description: RESIDENTIAL
* in
:e living area.
I\ff ~'J.
~ ( elo
Tax Year:
Assessed Value:
Exemption Amount:
Taxable Value:
Assessed and Taxable V~
I:!!
2~
~
~
l~~,P"lLJ
Tax Values
Tax Year:
Ad Valorem:
Non Ad Valorem:
Total Tax:
1"..",!e~Q!9l!~i",1
Li.~",...~~Jt~~,."."""J
L",,,,~JOM~._,,~"J I~~~",","I 1......~..,'"""P!in.~i"'.~.i""J
NOTE: Lower the top and bottom margins to 0.25 on File->Page Setup menu option in the browser to print the
detail on one page.
Record Search I Informa~ion I Exemptions ICommunity I Employment I NewHomeBuyer I Office Locations
http://www.co.palm-beach.fl.us/papa/aspx/web/detaiCinfo.aspx?p_entity=0843452220000...1/1812005
Palm Beach County Property Appraiser Property Search System
Page 1 of2
Property Information
Location Address: 635 NE 15TH PL
Municipality: BOYNTON BEACH
Parcel Control Number: 08-43-45-22-20-000-0160
Subdivision: YACHTMANS COVE
Official Records Book: 12590 Page: 191 Sale Date: Apr-2001
Legal Description: YACHTMANS COVE LT 16
Owner Information
Name: WINCHELL ADRIAN H &.
L".)(~,.Map...,.. 4'- .J
-:;.,i<'&*,"",~",~' -,..,~ i-', ...."'<'~'^ .~..
L>",~,~J!""~~S.1'!~;;,,,,,,,1
Mailing Address: 635 NE 15TH PL PO BOX 61
BOYNTON BEACH FL 33425 0061
Sales Information
Sales Date Book/Page
Apr-2001 1259..0[189
Apr-2001 12590/ 191
Jan-1979 03136/1780
Price sale Type Owner
$10 QUIT CLAIM WINCHELL ADRIAN H TR &.
$10 QUIT CLAIM WINCHELL ADRIAN H &.
$69,000 NO DATA FOUND
Exemptions
Year of Exemption: 2005
Regular Homestead $25,000
Total Perm Serv Con Ver $93,806
Total: $118,806
Assessed and Taxable Value
Tax Year: 2004
Assessed Value: 116 5!
Exemption Amount: 116 5!
Taxable Value:
Appraisals
Tax Year:
Improvement Value:
Land Value:
Total Market Value:
Use C9c:1l:!: 0100
Tax Values
Tax Year:
Ad Valorem:
Non Ad Valorem:
Total Tax:
Tax Year 2004
Number of Units: 1
*Total Square Feet: 2558
Description: RESIDENTIAL
* in resic
ing area.
^f>ft.J ~
;(~
[.~~J!.'II
t",~~",~",~..J
L"""ll,&,~l!!!",.,,~~
L.!!~,1;p~~~~~,1.,1 ~IR_..,,1 1.<"""".".>i1I;!'lt''''t''''....~1
NOTE: Lower the top and bottom margins to 0.25 on File->Page Setup menu option in the browser to print the
detail on one page.
http://www.co.palm-beach.fl.us/papalaspxlweb/detail_info.aspx?p_entity=0843452220000...1/18/2005
Palm Beach County Property Appraiser Property Search System
Page 1 of 1
~~J;r~";l,l:'"__~'Y'_ ~6Jlt, AflPUilHlf'S P\,O!IG Acces& 8151'3111
,'Ii ' , :~. . r.- ,... _" ,
~~. .', . , -
....~~~t';l ~ 'j , ;.
..1,;Ii\.jf~-.#,~....."
Property Information
Location Address: 800 NE MARINE DR
~.,.V_l'!1~,..}
,/},...'t.,,,~mi:.l;l>"i."ffi"d~L,,,,,," ,'Jose ".
Municipality: BOCA RATON
Parcel Control Number: 06-43-47-17-15-001-0110
Subdivision: HARBOUR EAST SEC 4 IN
Official Records Book: 09129 Page: 0448 Sale Date:
Legal Description: HARBOUR EAST SEC 4 LOT 11 BLK 1
Owner Information
Name: RAINBOW INV L TD
~/l
Feb-19fL/
L"""",~l~'!.Me,",3i;,,J
Mailing Address: 800 MARINE DR
BOCA RATON FL 334316938
Sales Information
Sales Date Book/ Page
Feb-1996 Q!U29I0448
Mar-1988 0561Zi 1457
Price SaJeT~pe
$1,150,000 WARRANTY DEED
$400,000 WARRANTY DEED
Owner
Exemptions
Exemption Information Unavailable.
Appraisals
Tax Year:
Improvement Value:
Land Value:
Total Market Value:
Use Code:
Tax Year 2004
Number of Units: 1
*Total Square Feet: 4643
Descri ption: RESIDENTIAL
.,.3 .(of;
* in residential properties may indicate living area.
Tax Year:
Assessed Value:
Exemption Amount:
Taxable Value:
L"~~..QJ.~l!",1
Tax Values
Tax Year:
Ad Valorem:
Non Ad Valorem:
Total Tax:
L~~S!!2t~.cil
I;",,~~~~....,..,l
1''iI',~m~~ 1i.,,,~,,,I?"L.J 1""""""~,.1r.t!'!t"0"'A,,,,,,,,,,1
NOTE: Lower the top and bottom margins to 0.25 on File->Page Setup menu option in the browser to print the
detail on one page.
Record Search I Informatioo I Exempti9nS I Community I Employment I New Home Buyer I Office Locations
Value Adjustment Board I Save Our Homes I Senior Corner I Qisclaimer
Home I Li!ll<s I Gloss<lry I FAQ I Forms I Cont.,ctU$ I PN'A
@ 2004 Palm Beach County Property Appraiser.
http://www.co.palm-beach.fl.us/papa/aspx/web/detail_info.aspx?p_entity=06434717150010...1/612005
Palm Beach County Property Appraiser Property Search System
Page 1 of2
...~M'~:\'-:-~.~ 'P(......ell.. AnpfalslH's PutfllG Acc..ss Sf&'em
m"~'~ "~jtdi;f!'< _'d:\c .. ~ ~,'-r,,J:' ~
'-"'\ ,_ "'......... ~ -,'r
fr: j I ~ ~, ......'. 1 ~ -- r
~1l<'"", ' " -
'il~!!,i"" '
~VilU~#"" ;;;1;
Property Information
Location Address: 1275 NE 4TH AVE
L"0.~I~;~~IAw~&.J
Municipality: BOCA RATON G r€e..Jv tl.ev~es
Parcel Control Number: 06-43-47-20-23-004-0030
Subdivision: WHISEM UNIT B IN
Official Records Book: 13974 Page: 1594 Sale Date: Jul-2002
Legal Description: WHISEM UNIT B LT 3 BLK 4
Owner Information
Name: ROGERS JOHN
Mailing Address: 1275 NE 4TH AVE
BOCA RATON FL 33432 2807
[.AII&~~A~ ...1
;.Jit-'hifili:'f","'b.i-W >!i'?"~ - '~ritlV!i'
Sales Information
Sales Date Book/Page
Jul-2002 :13974/1.594
Jan-2002 :1.3334/835
Jan-1977 Q268Q/1565
Price SClI~_TYRe Owner
$10 WARRANTY DEED ROGERS JOHN
$10 WARRANTY DEED ROGERS JOHN TR
$42,500 NO DATA FOUND
Exemptions
Year of Exemption: 2005
Regular Homestead $25,000
Senior Over 65 - Countywide $25,000
Widower $500
Total: $50,500
Appraisals
Tax Year:
Improvement Value:
Land Value:
Total Market Value:
Use Code: 0100
Tax Year 2004
Number of Units: 1
*Total S uare Feet: 1518
Descri ption: RESIDENTIAL
* in residential properties may indicate living area.
Tax Year:
Assessed Value:
Exemption Amount:
Taxable Value:
Tax Values
Tax Year:
Ad Valorem:
Non Ad Valorem:
Total Tax:
I~KIlE..t9~~tHib~1 !::B~~..1 "~Jil;,"lrJ!l~,~.,;.~,J
(P~/>O(p
0)
L.&f!t~Jt'I,,Q!_J
L&~"S!!~~""J
L,,_j,,",,~l~,,",,~J
http://www.co.palm-beach.flus/papa/aspx/web/detaiCinfo.aspx?p_entity=06434720230040...1/6/2005
114 So.2d 357
(Cite as: 114 So.2d 357, *361)
against the defendants based on such violation. The
application of simple mathematics to the sun studies
filed in evidence by plaintiff in support of its claim
demonstrates conclusively that to move the existing
structure back some 23 feet from the ocean would
make no appreciable difference in the problem which
is the subject of this controversy. Cf. Taliaferro v.
Salyer, supra. The construction of the 14-story
addition is proceeding under a permit issued by the
city pursuant to the mandate of this court in City of
Miami Beach v. State ex reI. Fontainebleau Hotel
Corp., supra, which permit authorizes completion of
the 14-story addition according to a plan showing a
76-foot setback from the ocean bulkhead line.
Moreover, the plaintiffs objection to the distance of
the structure from the ocean appears to have been
made for the first time in the instant suit, which was
filed almost a year after the beginning of the
construction of the addition, at a time when it was
roughly eight stories in height, representing the
expenditure by defendants of several million dollars.
Page 4
In these circumstances, it is our view that the plaintiff
has stated no cause of action for equitable relief based
on the violation of the ordinance--assuming,
arguendo, that there has been a violation.
Since it affirmatively appears that the plaintiff has
not established a cause of action against the
defendants by reason of the structure here in question,
the order granting a temporary injunction should be
and it is hereby reversed with directions to dismiss
the complaint.
Reversed with directions,
HORTON, C. J., and CARROLL, CRAS" J., and
CABOT, TED, Associate Judge concur,
114 Soold 357
END OF DOCUMENT
@ 2005 ThomsonlWest. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt, Works.
114 So.2d 357
(Cite as: 114 So.2d 357, *359)
Landowners, 9 51, And the English doctrine of
'ancient lights' has been unanimously repudiated in
this country. 1 AmJur., Adjoining Landowners, 9 49,
p. 533; Lynch v. Hill, 1939, 24 De1.Ch. 86, 6 A.2d
614, overruling Clawson v. Primrose, 4 Del.Ch. 643.
[4] There being, then, no legal right to the free flow
of light and air from the adjoining land, it is
universally held that where a structure serves a useful
and beneficial purpose, it does not give rise to a cause
of action, either for damages or for an injunction
under the maxim sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas,
even though it causes injury to another by cutting off
the light and air and interfering with the view that
would otherwise be available over adjoining land in
its natural state, regardless of the fact that the
structure may have been erected partly for spite. See
the cases collected in the annotation in 133 A.L.R. at
pp. 701 et seq.; 1 Am.Jur., Adjoining Landowners, 9
54, p. 536; Taliaferro v. Salyer, *360 1958, 162
Ca1.App.2d 685, 328 P.2d 799; Musumeci v.
Leonardo, 1950, 77 R.I. 255, 75 A.2d 175; Harrison
v. Langlinais, Tex.Civ.App.1958, 312 S.W.2d 286;
Granberry v. Jones, 1949, 188 Tenn. 51,216 S.W.2d
721; Letts v. Kessler, 1896,54 Ohio St. 73, 42 N.E,
765; Kulbitsky v. Zimnoch, 1950, 196 Md. 504, 77
A.2d 14; Southern Advertising Co. v. Sherman,
Tenn.App.1957, 308 S.W.2d 491.
[5] We see no reason for departing from this
universal rule. If, as contended on behalf of plaintiff,
public policy demands that a landowner in the Miami
Beach area refrain from constructing buildings on his
premises that will cast a shadow on the adjoining
premises, an amendment of its comprehensive
planning and zoning ordinance, applicable to the
public as a whole, is the means by which such
purpose should be achieved. (No opinion is expressed
here as to the validity of such an ordinance, if one
should be enacted pursuant to the requirements of
law. Cf. City of Miami Beach v. State ex reI.
Fontainebleau Hotel Corp., Fla.App.1959, 108 So.2d
614, 619; certiorari denied, Fla,1959, 111 So.2d
437.) But to change the universal rule--and the
custom followed in this state since its inception--that
adjoining landowners have an equal right under the
law to build to the line of their respective tracts and to
such a height as is desired by them (in the absence, of
course, of building restrictions or regulations)
amounts, in our opinion, to judicial legislation. As
stated in Musumeci v. Leonardo, supra [77 R.I. 255,
75 A.2d 177], 'So use your own as not to injure
another's property is, indeed, a sound and salutary
principle for the promotion of justice, but it may not
Page 3
and should not be applied so as gratuitously to confer
upon an adjacent property owner incorporeal rights
incidental to his ownership of land which the law
does not sanction.'
We have also considered whether the order here
reviewed may be sustained upon any other reasoning,
conformable to and consistent with the pleadings,
regardless of the erroneous reasoning upon which the
order was actually based. See McGregor v. Provident
Trust Co, of Philadelphia, 119 Fla. 718, 162 So, 323.
We have concluded that it cannot.
The record affirmatively shows that no statutory
basis for the right sought to be enforced by plaintiff
exists. The so-called Shadow Ordinance enacted by
the City of Miami Beach at plaintiff's behest was held
invalid in City of Miami Beach v. State ex rel,
Fontainebleau Hotel Corp., supra. It also
affirmatively appears that there is no possible basis
for holding that plaintiff has an easement for light and
air, either express or implied, across defendants'
property, nor any prescriptive right thereto--even if it
be assumed, arguendo, that the common-law right of
prescription as to 'ancient lights' is in effect in this
state. And from what we have said heretofore in this
opinion, it is perhaps superfluous to add that we have
no desire to dissent from the unanimous holding in
this country repudiating the English doctrine of
ancient lights.
The only other possible basis--and, in fact, the only
one insisted upon by plaintiff in its brief filed here,
other than its reliance upon the law of private
nuisance as expressed in the maxim sic utere tuo ut
alienum non laedas--for the order here reviewed is
the alleged violation by defendants of the setback line
prescribed by ordinance. The plaintiff argues that the
ordinance applicable to the Use District in which
plaintiff's and defendants' properties are located,
prescribing 'a front yard having a depth of not less
than one hundred (100) feet, measured from the
ocean, * * *,' should be and has been interpreted by
the City's zoning inspector as requiring a setback of
100 feet from an established ocean bulkhead line, As
noted above, the addition to the Fontainebleau is set
back only 76 feet 8 inches from the ocean bulkhead
line, although it is 130 feet from the ocean measured
from the mean high water mark.
*361 [6] While the chancellor did not decide the
question of whether the setback ordinance had been
violated, it is our view that, even if there was such a
violation, the plaintiff would have no cause of action
(Q 2005 ThomsonlWest. No Claim to Orig. U.S, Govt. Works.
114 So.2d 357
114 So.2d 357
(Cite as: 114 So.2d 357)
H
District Court of Appeal of Florida,
Third District.
FONTAINEBLEAU HOTEL CORP., a Florida
corporation, and Charnofree Corporation, a
Florida corporation, Appellants,
v.
FORTY-FIVE TWENTY-FIVE, INC" a Florida
corporation, Appellee.
No. 59-450.
Aug. 27, 1959.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 23, 1959,
Action to enjoin owners from continuing with
construction of fourteen-story addition to their hotel
on a beach facing the Atlantic Ocean. The Circuit
Court, Dade County, Robert H. Anderson, J., entered
an order temporarily enjoining owners from
continuing with the construction and they appealed.
The District Court of Appeal held that where a
structure serves a useful and beneficial purpose, it
does not give rise to a cause of action, either for
damages or for an injunction under the maxim sic
utere tuo ut alienum non laedas, even though it causes
injury to another by cutting off the light and air and
interfering with the view that would otherwise be
available over adjoining land in its natural state,
regardless of the fact that the structure may have been
erected partly for spite.
Reversed with directions.
West Headnotes
[1] Constitutional Law ~87
92k87
The maxim sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas, does
not mean that one must never use his own property in.
such a way as to do any injury to his neighbor, but
means only that one must use his property so as not to
injure the lawful rights of another.
[2] Adjoining Landowners ~10(1)
l5k10(1)
At common law, a landowner had no legal right, in
the absence of an easement or uninterrupted use and
enjoyment for a period of 20 years, to unobstructed
light and air from the adjoining land.
[3] Easements ~ 11
141k11
The English doctrine of "ancient lights" has been
unanimously repudiated in the United States.
Page 1
[4] Adjoining Landowners ~10(3)
l5klO(3)
[4] Injunction ~51
212k51
Where a structure serves a useful and beneficial
purpose, it does not give rise to a cause of action,
either for damages or for an injunction under the
maxim sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas, even
though it causes injury to another by cutting off the
light and air and interfering with the view that would
otherwise be available over adjoining land in its
natural state, regardless of the fact that the structure
may have been erected partly for spite.
[5] Zoning and Planning ~604
414k604
(Formerly 268k63(l))
If public policy demands that a landowner in the
Miami Beach area refrain from constructing buildings'
on his premises that will cast a shadow on the
adjoining premises, and amendment of its
comprehensive planning and zoning ordinance,
applicable to the public as a whole, is the means by
which such purpose should be achieved,
[6] Injunction ~113
2l2kl13
Where construction of a 14-story addition was
proceeding under a permit issued by the city pursuant
to mandate of the District Court of Appeal in a
previous action between owners of the addition and
an adjoining landowner, and such mandate authorized
completion of the addition according to plan showing
a 76- foot setback from the ocean bulkhead line, and
adjoining landowner's objection to the distance of the
structure from the ocean was made for the frrst time
in a suit to enjoin further work on the structure, and
such suit was filed almost a year after the beginning
of the construction of the addition, at a time when it
was roughly eight stories in height, and represented
an expenditure by owners of several million dollars,
adjoining landowner stated no cause of action for
equitable relief based on violation of setback
requirement of an applicable city ordinance, even if
there was in fact a violation of such ordinance.
*358 Sibley, Grusmark, Barkdull & King, Miami
Beach, for appellants.
Anderson & Nadeau, Miami, for appellee,
PER CURIAM,
This is an interlocuory appeal from an order
temporarily enjoining the appellants from continuing
~ 2005 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works,
/.,
,,,-
COLONIAL APTS. v. CITY OF DeLAND
CUe as 5n So.2d 593 (F1LApp. S 0101. 1991)
induced the then-landowner to seek annexa-
tion in return for the R-4 zoning and avail-
ability of sewer facilities.
As to the language of the ordinance, we
note the following:
1. The ordinance does not define the
terms "low density" and "large tracts of
land" as stated in section 33-8.1(A)(I).
Some assistance in interpreting the term
"Iow-density" can be gleaned, however,
from several sections of the ordinance:
(a) Subsection (EXl) provides that a mul-
ti-family dwelling project site ("multi-
ple-family dwelling"), which includes a
"garden apartment" pursuant to sub-
section (B)(3), should be approximately
one acre or more in size to accommo-
date at least two or three buildings.
Subsection (B)(2) describes a garden
apartment as a group of two to eight
owner- or renter-occupied dwelling
units, but this number may be in-
creased to twelve if approved by the
planning board. This implies that each
building can have eight units without
the approval of the planning board. If
eight units are allowed and at least
two buildings are to be accommodated
on approximately one acre, a simple
calculation allows us to arrive at the
maximum project density of sixteen
units per acre: Whether sixteen units
per acre are considered low, medium,
or high density in other legislation is
not clear or even material to this case
but in this ordinance, this number of
units appears to fit the definition of a
low-density, garden-type apartment.
(h) The ordinance contemplates that the
R-4 zoning use would be placed adja-
cent to a single-family residential area
indicating compatibility. Subsection
(F)(3) prohibits three-story structures
adjacent to a single:famiJy residential
area, and subsection (H) requires
screening through the use of hedges
and wood or masonry construction
along side and rear lot lines abutting a
single-family residential area. This
recognition in the ordinance that R-4
and single-family districts can abut in
the city's seheme of zoning undercuts
the city's argument that the instant
petitioner's attempt to gain approval of
Fla. 597
a site-plan showing thirteen units per
acre is absurd when considering the
surrounding properties, The city's
own professional planning board did
not seem to consider the site-plan ab-
surd when it endorsed it with suggest-
. ed changes not involving a density
change.
The operative portions of the ordinance
reviewed indicate that, for purposes of this
ordinance, sixteen units per acre is within
the term "low density" used in the state-
ment of intent portion of the ordinance.
Furthermore, nothing in the ordinance
would lead one who examines the ordinance
to suspect that the term "compatibility" as
used in the statement of intent was meant
to allow adjustment of the cap of sixteen
~un' per acre prescribed in subsection (E).
The city relies in part on Life Concepts.
nc. v. Harden. 562 So.2d 726 (Fla. 5th
DCA 1990), for its contention that the al-
lowable density can be adjusted because
the statement of intent requires that a
pr:oject ~ave a "comp~tib.!f relationship"
WIth adjacent propertles.:-\ The City of
Apopka ordinance under review in Life
Concepts required that a use be "compat-
ible with the surrounding residential uses."
However, that ordinance is unlike the one
in the instant case in that the phrase used
in Apopka constituted a density restriction.
The operative portion of the Apopka ordi-
nance specifically provided that "[t]he max-
imum number of OCcupants to reside in the
facility shall be compatible with the sur.
rounding residential uses. . . . " Id. at 72:7.
Moreover, unlike DeLand's ordinance,
Apopka's ordinance never specified density
at a certain number. We fmd most signifi.
cant the comment in Life Concepts: "Had
the ordinance provided a specific numerical
cap on the occupancy of the home, the
zoning board would have been prohibited
from considering the actual impact of the
proposed use." Life Concepts, at 728.
(3,4) We agree with the city that
project density is a legitimate concern and
go further in stating that it is a most
important concern. But it is a concern that
must be addressed and expressed in appro-
priate ordinances. rA;" community should be
developed in acco~ce with planned ac-
tion. Development decisions should not be
-'
y
! .
, '
'1 ;
q: ~
J:
"
;: ~
f .
11
.i
.1,
i.'
: i
.1:
'I"
'r
.,1;
. ~'i i
, i
, '
;
.....
596 Fla.
",. "\
577 SOUTHERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES
ment in ordinance number 72-34 that "the
building of R-4 multiple family dwellings
on the subject property would be consistent
with the City's Comprehensive Use Plan.
which plan has been approved by the Plan-
ning Board of the City of DeLand as well
as the technical assistance of the V olusia
Council of Governments. . . _" The appen-
dices contain neither copies of pertinent
portions of the comprehensive plans nor
minutes of the 1989 city commission meet-
ings that would allow any insight into the
substantial down-zoning of the' site.
We view the issue that was presented to
the circuit court as one of construction of
the R--4 ordinance. While there may have
been an additional issue initially on the
validity of ordinance 72-34 that zoned the
site R--4 and annexed it into the city limits
of DeLand, that issue was removed from
consideration by the circuit court through
~ stipulation of the parties.
I (1] The elected and appointed officials
charged with the administration of city and
county government are subjected to in-
creasing pressures. On one hand, they are
pressed to allow growth only if it is com-
mensurate with available roads and servic-
es. On the other hand is the pressure from
landowners who wish to develop their va-
cant properties in a manner that results in
the largest return of capital or pleasure.
Still another pressure is the desire of
neighbors who do not wish their present
enjoyment of their lands disrupted in the
slightest. by the use of adjoining vacant
property, Opposition of surrounding prop-
erty owners must be considered by the city
in the instant case since the statement of
intent of the R--4 ordinance includes the
desire to achieve aesthetic and compatible
relationships between adjacent. properties.
But the opinions of neighbors by them-
selves are insufficient to support a denial
of a proposed developme~ BML Invest-
ments v. City of CasseLberry, 476 So.2d
713 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), rev. denied, 486
So.2d 595 (Fla. 1986); Conetta v. City of
Sarasota, 400 So,2d 1051 (Fla. 2d DCA
1981).
General rules of statutory construction
in zoning matters have evolved in past judi-
cial attempts at interpretation and are ap-
propriate in our review of the DeLand ordi-
nance. Some of the basic rules were set
forth in Rinker Materials Corporation v.
City of North Miami, 286 So.2d 552. (Fla.
1973): .
rea) In statutory construction, statutes
must be given their plain and obvious
meaning and it must be assumed that the
legislative body knew the plain and ordi-
nary meanings of the words~
. . . . .
(c) Since zoning regulations are in der-
ogation of private rights of ownership,
words used in a zoning ordinance should
be given their broadest meaning when
there is no definition or clear intent to
the contrary and the ordinance should be
interpreted in favor of the property own-
er.
Id. at 553 (footnotes omitted). In Rinker,
the supreme court also cited Rose v. Town
of HiLlsboro Beach, 216 So.2d 258 (Fla. 4th
DCA 1968), for the rule that courts gener-
ally may not insert words or phrases in
municipal ordinances in order to express
intentions which do not appear, unless it is
clear that the omission was inadvertent,
and must give to an ordinance the plain and
ordinary meaning of the words employed
by the legislative body. [d. at 553.
[2] This court followed another basic
rule in City of Ormond Beach v. State ex
reL DeL. Marco, 426 So.2d 1029 (Fla. 5th
DCA 1983), when w~ stated that the pri-
mary guide to statutory interpretation is
the determination of legislative intent. It
is only the interpretation of the statement
of intent of the DeLand ordinance that
causes the problem in the instant case,
since the other portions of the ordinance
are rather precise in directing the manner
in which a parcel of land designated R-4
may be used. This st;4ement of intent was
used by the city to vary the rather straight-
forward pronouncement of the ordinance
that limited the Jll'Oject density to sixteen
units per acre, The record shows there
was no evidence of intent before the trial
court other than the language of the ordi-
nance and the history of the annexation.
The history seems to indicate that the city
~
<
-=
~
.,..;
~
z
=
'l::I'
'l::I'
.=
;::It'l
~~
"O~
~ .......
.... .,..;
=
... ~
~ .~
: t
<~
~ ~
~ C.l
~ =
u .S
.e-'a
... a
u ~
~u
~~
= ~
au
-.: &.
~ ~
~~
r;
=
-
-
~
Q
=
~
...
~
-
=
....
~
E-c
~
&.
=
-
-
~
Q
~
~
=
~
~
~
&.
=
~
..
=
~
\C
=
=
=
=
N
I
=
~
~
~
=
u
-Ie
=
=
=
=
\C
\IS
.,..;
~
go
.,..;
~
N
'l::I'
~
~
go
~
CIl
il)
CIl
tI:l
u
-
~
l-c
r.2
CIl
il)
il)
~
-a
01)
il)
.....:l
-a
.....
o
E-<
'-'
V)
-
00
"<t'
00
N
M
{A
It'l
.,..;
=
M
.,..;
\IS
.-
~
u
U
>.
.c
"0
~
C.l
=
"0
e
~
~
=
~
't
&.
b
It'l
.,..;
=
~
...
.,..;
<
.,..;
N
M
N
~
\IS
'l::I'
-...J
N'
-....
\'f'
.,..;
N
M
N
~
e\
N
'l::I'
N
I
r---
~
~
~
=
u
N
.,..;
~
M
It'l
r:
r---
N
.,..;
~
M
\C
\
go
.,..;
go
I
go
~
~
~
=
u
go
.,..;
~
r---
r---
...
M
\C
go
.,..;
~
N
go
,
go
go
.,..;
'l::I'
I
go
~
~
~
=
u
N
.,..;
~
M
It'l
~
'l::I'
N
.,..;
~
~
}
It'l
M
go
~
~
~
~
~
=
u
It'l
.,..;
I
'l::I'
=
~
~
=
u
=
=
M
go
'l::I'
...;
.-
<IJ
....
~
~
u
=
~
...
-
...
-
~
a
~
e
=
=
M
go
'l::I'
...;
=
~
.,..;
I
'l::I'
=
~
~
=
u
=
=
=
N
.,..;
.-
"0
~
"0
&.
~
C.l
e
....
~
>.
....
~
=
~
~
~
~
=
.~
a
....
~
8,
~I
r,j
-
=
....
~
E-c
-Ie
go
r---
='
~
=
...;
\C
!!!
\C
~
lI'i
N
~
~
M
-:.
.,..;
Ell'}
....
=
~
!
"0
~
-
=
=
~
~
.=
....
~
>
&.
~
"E
o
"E...:
= =
~ ~
~ ~
~~
C.l >.
=.c
.S =
'a.S
a-=
~~
u ...
~"O
"0 ~
~ a
u ~
~....
;!~
&. .2-
~.c
g.=
"0 ~
~ ~
e ;
~.!l
= ~
.-:: 8
~.::c
= &.
~ =
= g.
-==
~ =
.=~
.... ~
.....=
~E-c
~
~~
g.&.
~ =
&. ~
~u
&. ~
~;!
a >.
=.c
="0
~ e
~ ~
.=....
E-c ~
M
0\
r---
0\
C"l
C"l~
"<t'
{A
-Ie
... .. \C
~.,..; 0 M
= N ... ....
'c C> -= ~
~==";
~ = ... ....
... = > ~
.S = = ....
a'" &. =
"O=cS"O
= .... ~
= ~ ~'o
.,...... .
~ -= It'l ~
~ = =
~~~~
= &.=b
~ = .,..; 1:
I>'l~EII'}~
~ =.... Cl.
=.e-: e
=... = g.
~u-=~
~~=:a
~....~....
a"O~as
&.~"O""
~ ~ ~ ~
.... ~ &. =
.S ~ .s ~
!: -= "0 ~
::::t ~ ~ ~
!:&.';";
.... &. &.
=: = "0
.... C.l "0 -
:to <IJ &. =
ili:.... = ~
~....~.=
:~';;~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ =.s a
a~ g.-':
e Ell'} '"".~
-~.=
~~u""
&.-~....
=-"0 =
~ ~ "Cl
.... C.l ~...
-~u=
.... ~ g.
~~.==
~ a .... =
~-':'5 ~
~ "Cl ... ...
~~.==
&. ~ ~ a
= ~ = ~
~ = ... &.
- ~ ~ ~
~ .c .S ~
~ ~ &. ~
.c.!J5.=
===E-c
~ ~=..:
.... e:l ~ ~
"0 '""... ~
~~~&.
.... ... = ....
~'="ClfZl
=E-c~.=
~~~~
"Cl~~~
- = .... fZl
=C.l...:l~
~~'l::I'=
-;J~=go
.....==....
~....N=
'"
~
Q.
rI.l
==
b1l
=
....
~
=
e
"'Cl
=
==
b1l
=
....
=
==
~
-
CJ
rI.l
~
'"
....
=
I:l'"
~
'"
t'
~
Q.
=
'"
Q.
~
.cl
.....
.....
==
.cl
.....
"'Cl
=
==
t'
~
Q.
=
'"
Q.
~
-s
"'Cl
~
=
~
=
~
.....
rI.l
=
""'
...:
rJ':J
~
~
~
e
....
~~
.~ "'Cl
.cl =
~.....
b1l~
=:::
'C ~
= Q.
"'Cl rI.l
rI.l =
~ ....
~S'
~
....
rI.l
==
-
=
~
=
CJ
rJ':J
January 18, 2005
Tuesday
January 2005
sMTWTFs
1
2 345 6 7 8
9 10 1112 13 14 15
161718192021 22
23 2425 26 27 28 29
3031
February 2005
sMTWTFs
------
1 234 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
131415 16 1718 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
2728
TaskPad
-
7am 1"---
,
~tT7:45am~9:i5am Partner'S-Meeting --
Cl ~ TaskPad
1100
c.._ .
'~T ~ I BB: Jada Call Arbitrator Dennis and Mar..,
~ I RSVP to Weiss Serota Seminar on 2/4/0..,
- ~ I Texas MCLE Compliance work on it
~ I Texas MCLE Compliance Deadline
~ I BB CRA Audit Response
~ I BB: NCFO PERC deadline to file exceptio..
~ I BB: Holt deadline for Holt to file Pet Wri...
~ I BB: Barcelona - File Notice to Set NonJu,.
~ I BB: NCFO Unit Clarif. Local 1227's Resp..,
~ I NL: Mohamed Work on stmt Position
~ lOP: Graf: FOIA Request Response due t..
~ I NL: Mohamed stmt of Position Due to E..,
~ I BB: Jada FOIA request to Atty Richard ..,
~ I NPB: FPE Ballots counted in Tally
~ I NPB: FPEMail Ballot Election Held 12/2...
~ I PP: Guerra Our Response to Not Dismiss
~ I NL: adv RayAssocPaving Public Records...
~ I NL adv Ray&AssocPaving: FOIA Deman...
~ I NPB: Election Eligibility List 4 days' notice
::LJ ~ <mn. ,-, _~:. ~"'" cr . - ~
.~-
SOO
gOO
----- ,-
1000 I
12pm!
I
-----
100!
----
~
200
u-
BB: Mtg. w/J, Jordan re: blue/white hurricane grievances (per Lynn)
-~ ----.-
Notes
3 00 In BB: Mtg w/Det. Schilke re: Leal
4riOFB~Mt9 w/Mummert:~Munro re purchasing policies
---
:
500
-----
.-----
f--....
600
~~'3oPrT1-9:30pm BS-- CommiSSion'meeting .
------ ---.-
I
Jim Cherof
1
1/18/2005 10:45 AM
...._~,
/--
)
COLONlAL ^rL~. .. ---
Cite as 577 So.1d 5'3 (fla.App.5 DiaL. ,,"II
eration given to the relationship of ex- development plan. The city further argued
isting adjacent development in terms that a planned development in the R-4 zon-
of building height, mass, texture. line, ing district was more analogous to a special
and pattern. exception use than a rezoning, and that
Additionally, the ordinance provided in density was a proper consideration under
rather specific terms for setback require- the "statement of intent" portion of the
ments. spacing between buildings. .umbe' o..dinance that required an "aesthetic and
of stories and height requirements. mini- compatible relationship" with~ adjacent
mum livable floor area in square feet. properties.
screening. parking requirements and de- The circuit court denied the petition in a
sign, vehicle access lanes. sidewalks. open sixteen-page opinion and order in which it
space requirements. landscaping, signs, discussed: (1) the illegality of the initial
and architectural and environmental quali~ rezoning (noting that it was not necessary
ty guidelines. - to rule upon this issue since "all parties
1 Petitio..... au.mpred to <omply with the agreed that the R-4 zoomg designation
requirements of the ordinance and sub- should be presumed valid"); (2) the inade-
mitted for approval a site plan that provid- quate level of city services and increase in
I_eel fo' a deosity of thirteen units p'" """l:..l traffic; (3) the fa<t that the site is sut-
_ The city's planning authorities recom- rounded on three sides by low density, sin-
mended to the city commission that the gle-family, residential and agricultural use
plan be approved with certain changes not and the fact that the closest existing multi-
involving density; the petitioner agreed in family development has a density of 4.25 to
writing to make the suggested changes- 4.5 units per acre; and (4) the generally
The city commission tabled action on the accepted planning standard for low-density,
plan at the first consideration when adjoin- multi-family developments of five to eight
ing landowners voiced opposition. Then, at units per acre. The order concluded by
a commission meeting on December 18, holding that the city had discretion to con-
1989, final action was taken that approved dition site plan approval for a multi-family
the plan with the single condition that the development in the R-4 zoning district on a
density not exceed six units per acre. The reduction of project density, and that the
city directed a letter to petitioner on De- city's determination was supported by sub-
cember 21, 1989, stating the reason for its stantial competent evidence that six dwell-
action: ing units per acre would be more compat-
1. Based upon Section 33-8.1(A){1), the ible with surrounding properties. The cir-
proposed development did not meet the cuit court also commented that "{Plroject
criteria of being "low~ensity low-rise density is of legitimate concern to the City
garden type apartments on relatively Commission in determining whether or not
large tracts of land"; and to approve a site plan for a multifamily
2. Based upon Section 33-8.1(A)(4I, the development in the R-4 zoning district."
propose.rl development ~d not a.chi.eve ~n The appendices provided by the. parties
a~thetic a?d compatlbl~ relatlonshlP included copies of the legislative history of
With the adjacent properties. the annexatiOn. including 1972 minutes and
Petitioner' then requested that the circuit ordinances. That history reflected that the
court grant review of the action of the city primary purpose of the city in annexing the
commission and argued that the action had site in 1972 was to promote the joint ef-
the practical effect of illegally down-zoning forts of developers of lands in the general
the site from sixteen to six units per acre. location of the site to constrUct a master
Tfte city responded by arguing that the site sewer lift station and discourage installa-
had never been properly zoned R-4 when tion of four to six individual small package
annexed because of non-compliance by the treatment plants. Nothing in the 1972
applicant and the city with notice and hear- records provides the slightest hint that den-
ing requirements and/or a required sketch sity was a consideration except the state-
."'.
~
-. .I
594 Fla.
577 SOUTHERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES
challenge to city's denial of approval of site
plan was limited to determination of wheth.
er circuit court afforded procedural due
process and applied correct law. U,S.C,A.
ConsLAmends. 5, 14.
Jason G. Reynolds of Coble, Barkin, Gor.
don, Morris & Reynolds, P.A., Daytona
Beach, for petitioner.
Astrid de Parry, City At~y., DeLand, for
respondent.
PETERSON, Judge.
Colonial Apartments, L.P., petitions for a
writ of certiorari to review the circuit
court's denial of a petition for a writ of
certiorari filed in that court. The petition
in the circuit court asked for relief from an
administrative action by the City of De-
Land in denying approval of a site plan
submitted by petitioner. We grant the
writ.
Petitioner sought to construct an apart-
ment project on an approximately twenty-
acre site in the City of DeLand. The site
had been rezoned R-4 under section 33-8.1
V of the DeLand Code of Ordinances at the
~ ;s-' time of its annexation into the city in 1972.
/'. .r?' The ordinance has remained substantially
,.:j" unchanged since the annexation.
\.,~.. Pertinent portions of the ordinance pro-
~ 1 ~\:-I vide: .
, i0- (A) Statement of intenL The intent of
v..J . 'J" the R-t dwelling district is to:
~\oJ\\ ~ lJ\ (1) Permit the construction of totally
~<N"-.l J \J planned single-family cluster develop-
tv~ '\ .' \J ments or duplexes, triplexes and low-
, .;.;\,J
'~,J .~. density low-rise garden type apart-
Q-' ,J'0 /~ar\ ments on relatively large tracts of land
pu -\\.;'\J in single or common ownership;
, . trU..J (2) Require the preparation and ap-
~(J) proval of detailed site, landscape, traf-
e \!i fic, parking and other plans deemed
\ necessary as part of an overall devel-
~ \ ' opment concept;
\ \ ) J\J-, , (3) Require a greater amount of open
\J ,...).i~' space and recreation area to building
hJ'J (r' area; and
I 'J'\ (4) Achieve an esthetic and compatible
iJ.)\. . relationship between buildings, yards,
patios, parking areas, common open
space, recreation areas, and adjacent
properties.
(E) Dimensional reguirements. The
following requirements shall apply in the
R-4 District:
(1) Minimum project site. A two-fami-
ly or multi-family dwelling project site
should be approximately one acre or
more in area in order to accommodate
at least two (2) or three (3) buildings,
and in any case be sufficient in size to
meet the requirements set out herein,
(2) Project density. The maximum al-
lowable number of dwelling units shall
not exceed sixteen (16) units per acre.
(F) Building heighL In order to encour-
age variety in the appearance of building
roof lines and more usable or landscaped
area, developers are permitted to design
a portion of the multi-family dwelling
project to a maximum height of three (3)
stories or forty-five (45) feet provided the
following conditions are met:
(3) No three-story structures shall be
located adjacent to a single-family resi-
dential area as shown on the zoning
map or land use plan.
(H) Screening. A minimum five-foot
high screen shall be provided along side
and rear lot lines that abut upon a single-
family residential area as shown on the
zoning map or land use plan but shall not
be required in any front yard or along
side lot lines abutting a street, park,
stream. lake or golf course. . . .
(N) Architecture and environmental
quality guidelines. In order to prgg10te
architectural and environmental qnality
within the project, the developer is en-
couraged to utilize the following guide-
lines in designing the project:"
(2) The architectural design of build-
ings should be developed with consid-
f,
,#.<--;
"
~
)
COLONIAL APTS. v. CITY OF DeLAND
Cite as 577 So.1d 593 (Fla..App.5 DIaL ,,,I)
Fla. 593
nual income. This is not a pittance, but is
patently inadequate in view of the hus-
band's gross income of $240,000 a year
($130,000 net income) ~ a successful car-
diologist and the relatively affluent life
style which the parties enjoyed during the
marriage. The wife, at the very least, de-
serves $3,000 a mon~ in permanent alimo-
ny so that her gross annual income, includ.
ing her teaching.income, is increased to a
far-from-handsoft'& $60,000 a year-as
urged by the wife. Although I am loathe
to interfere with the trial court's discretion
on this matter, I am nevertheless driven to
the conclusion that the $1,500 a month
awarded in permanent alimony was arbi-
trary and unreasonable under any reason-
able view of this record-and that the
wife's request for a meager increase to
$3,000 per month in permanent alimony
would tend to right, at the lower end of the
reasonableness scale, the income imbalance
which unfortunately the final judgment
creates. DeCenza v. DeCenza, 433 So.2d
1316, 1318 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Carr v.
Carr, 522 So.2d 880, 884 (Fla. 1st DCA
1988); Pirina v. Pinna, 525 So.2d 1028
(Fla. 5th DCA 1988),
I. would therefore reverse the alimony
awarded herein and remand the cause to
the trial court with directions to award the
wife $3,000 a month in permanent alimony;
in all other respects, however, I would af-
firm the final judgment under review.
COLONIAL APARTMENTS, L.P.,
etc., Petitioner,
v.
CITY OF DeLAND, etc., Respondent.
No. 90-1377.
District Court of Appeal of Florida,
Fifth District.
Feb, 14, 1991.
Rehearing Denied April 8, 1991.
Limited partnership sought to con- I
struct apartment project and sought ap-
:"
proval of site plan. City denied approval.
Partnership petitioned for writ of certiora-
ri. The Circuit Court denied the petition.
Partnership petitioned for writ of certiorari
to review Circuit Court's denial. The Dis-
trict Court of Appeal. PeteFSon, J" held
that city could not approve site plan for
construction of apartment complex which
would have density of 13 units per acre on
condition that density not exceed 6 units
per acre, in that ordinance specifically al-
lowed for density of 16 units per acre in
district in which complex was sought to be
built.
Writ granted. order quashed, remand-
ed with directions,
1. Zoning and Planning $=>378
Opinions of neighbors, by themselves,
are insufficient to support denial of pro-
posed development.
2. Zoning and Planning $=>382.1
City could not approve site plan for
construction of apartment project which
would have density of 13 units per acre on
condition that density not exceed 6 units
per acre; 16 units per acre was within term
"low density" used in statement of intent
portion of zoning ordinance, and nothing in
ordinance would leave one who examined it
to suspect that term "compatibility" as
used in statement. of intent was meant to
allow adjustment of cap of 16 units per
acre.
3. Zoning and Planning e=>66
While project density is legitimate con-
cern and is most important concern, it is
concern that must be addressed and ex.
pressed in appropriate ordinances.
4_ Zoning and Planning e=>66
When law establishes specific allow.
able density, its clear terms cannot be var-
ied by forced interpretation of intent.
5. Zoning and Planning $=606
Review by District Court of Appeal of
circuit court's decision denying petitioner's
>..
~
~
to
-
-
;;:..
-~
<t
~~
C
t
J
~
(
(
BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
IN RE:
AN ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH
THE MONTEREY/CONGRESS COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
PETITION
WESTBROOKE HOMES, A Florida general partnership (the "Petitioner"), hereby
petitions the City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida, pursuant to the "Uniform
Community Development District Act of 1980," Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, as amended and
supplemented (herein, the "Act). Specifically this Petition is made pursuant to Section
190.005(2) of the Act, to establish a community development district with respect to the lands
described herein. In support of the Petition, Petitioner states:
1, The proposed District (as defined below) is located within the incorporated area
of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida. Exhibit 1 depicts the general location of the proposed
District. The proposed District covers approximately 31.5 +/- acres of land. The real property
within the boundary of the proposed District is a parcel of land located on Congress Avenue
North of Summit Boulevard. The metes and bounds description of the external boundaries of
the District is set forth on Exhibit 2.
2. Attached to this Petition as Exhibit 3 and made a part hereof is the written
consent to the establishment of the District of the owner of 100% of the real property to be
included in the District.
3. The five persons designated to serve as initial members of the Board of
Supervisors of the proposed District are as follows:
Name
Harold Eisenacher
David Webber
Russell Barnes
Michael De Bock
Claudia Feldman
4. The proposed name of the District to be established is the Monterey/Congress
Community Development District ("the District").
5. There are no existing major trunk water mains, sewer interceptors and outfalls.
6. The proposed timetable for the construction of District services is shown on
Exhibit 4, as well as the estimated cost of constructing the services. This is a good faith
estimate but is not binding on the Petitioner and the District and is subject to change.
7. The future general distribution, location and extent of public and private uses
within the District are limited to residential sites and open space. The proposed uses are
consistent with the future land use plan element of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of
WPB-FS 1 ISANFO RDS\502177v0216128/04199903.426594
Boynton Beach, Florida (the "City"). The future land use map is shown on Exhibit 5. The land
within the proposed District is zoned for high density residential use. It is further anticipated that
the subject lands will be permitted to be developed for approximately 300 town homes ranging in
approximate square footage of 1,131 to 1,536 with prices ranging from $180,000 to $225,000.
The Petitioner intends that the District will finance (i) surface water management and control
systems, (ii) water distribution and wastewater collection and transmission facilities, (Hi)
wetlands mitigation, (iv) offsite turn lanes, (vi) offsite placement of certain utilities, and (v)
related incidental costs which may include the acquisition of real property (collectively, the
"Public Infrastructure"). Upon completion by the Petitioner of the water distribution and
wastewater collection and transmission facilities and acquisition by the District, such facilities
will be dedicated to the City to be connected to the City's existing water and wastewater lines.
8. Exhibit 6 is a statement of estimated regulatory costs prepared in accordance
with the requirements of Section 120.541, Florida Statutes.
9. Petitioner hereby requests that the proposed District be granted the right to
exercise all powers provided for in Section 190.012(1), Florida Statutes and the additional
powers listed in Section 190.012(2)(a) and (d).
10. The Petitioner is Westbrooke Homes, a Florida general partnership. The
Petitioner is acting on behalf of itself as a landowner, which owns 100 percent of the real
property to be included in the proposed District. Petitioner will develop the land within the
District, including the construction of the Public Infrastructure, which will be acquired by the
District. It is contemplated that the vertical improvements on the developed lots will be
constructed by the Petitioner and possibly other builders. Copies of all correspondence and
official notices should also be sent to: Stephen D. Sanford, Esq., clo Greenberg Traurig, P.A.,
777 South Flagler Drive, Suite 300 East, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401; (561) 650-7945.
11. The property within the proposed District is amenable to operating as an
independent special district for the following reasons:
(a) Establishment of the District and all land uses and services planned within the
proposed District are consistent with applicable elements or portions of the effective City's
Comprehensive Land Use Plan, as amended.
(b) The area of land within the proposed District is of sufficient size and is sufficiently
compact and contiguous to be developed as one functional interrelated community.
(c) The community development services of the District will be compatible with the
capacity and use of existing local and regional community development services and facilities.
(d) The proposed District will be the best alternative available for delivering
community development services to the area to be served because (i) the District provides a
governmental entity for delivering those services and facilities in a manner that does not
financially impact persons residing outside the District, (ii) the Act authorizes a community
development district to acquire infrastructure improvements previously constructed by the
Petitioner or allows for a community development district to, in the first instance, construct such
infrastructure improvements, (iii) the timing for the creation of the proposed District and the
issuance of special assessment bonds is compatible with the timing for the construction and
acquisition of such infrastructure improvements which will result in direct benefit to the
landowners and their assigns within the District, (iv) establishment of a community development
WPB-FS1 ISANFORDS\502177v04\7121104125443.01 0900
2
district in conjunction with a comprehensive planned community, as proposed, allows for a more
efficient use of resources as well as providing the opportunity for new growth to pay for itself,
and (v) establishment of the District will provide a perpetual entity capable of making reasonable
provisions for the operation and maintenance of many of the District services and facilities.
12. The Petitioner undertakes on behalf of the District that the District will provide full
disclosure of information relating to the public financing and maintenance of improvements to
real property to be undertaken by the District as required by Section 190.009 and Section
190.048, Florida Statutes of the Act, as amended.
[Remainder of page intentionally left blank]
WPB-FS 1\SANFORDS\502177v04\7121104125443.01 0900
3
WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests the City Commission of Boynton Beach,
Florida to:
Hold a public hearing as required by Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes to consider
the establishment of the Monterey/Congress Community Development District; and
Enact an ordinance pursuant to Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, granting this Petition and
establishing the Monterey/Congress Community Development District.
Respectfully submitted this ~q'f/{ day of July, 2004.
WESTBROOKE HOMES, a Florida general
partnership, as Petitioner
By: WESTBROOKE COMPANIES, INC., a
Delaware corporation and general partner
By: dkt~Jfl--
Name: David Webber
Title: Vice President
WPB-FS1ISANFORDS\5021 nv04\7121104125443.010900
4
MONTEREY/CONGRESS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1 Location Map
Exhibit 2 Legal Description
Exhibit 3 Consent and Proof of Ownership or Control
Exhibit 4 Construction Timetable and Good Faith Cost Estimate
Exhibit 5 -- Future Land Use Map from the City of Boynton Beach, Florida
Comprehensive Plan depicting the location of the proposed District
Exhibit 6 -- Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs
WPB-FS1 \SANFORDS\502177v04\7121104125443.010900
5
LAND DESCRIPTION
MONTEREY/CONGRESS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
Being a parcel of land in a portion of the southwest one-quarter (sw l/4) of section 5,
township 46 south, range 43 east, Palm Beach County, Florida, being more particularly
described as follows:
Commencing at the southwest corner of said section 5;
THENCE run north (the west line of section 5 is assumed to bear north-south and all
other bearings are relative thereto) along the west line of said section 5, a distance of
110.00 feet to a point;
THENCE run south 890 48 minutes 45 seconds east, a distance of 53.00 feet to a point
on the east right-of-way line of congress avenue and the point of beginning of the herein
described parcel;
THENCE continue on the preceding described course, a distance of 1460.21 feet to a
point in the westerly right-of way line of the seaboard coast line railroad;
THENCE run north 18021 minutes 59 seconds east, along westerly right-of-way line, a
distance of 607.01 feet;
THENCE north 890 58 minutes 02 seconds west, a distance of 891.35 feet;
THENCE north 000 01 minutes 58 seconds east, a distance of 390.75 feet;
THENCE north 480 35 minutes 55 seconds west, a distance of 407.05 feet;
THENCE north, a distance of 232.00 feet;
THENCE west, a distance of 455.00 feet, more or less, to the said easterly right-of-way
line of congress avenue;
THENCE south along said right-of-way line; a distance of 1463.76 feet to the point of
beginning. Said parcel subject to the following:
LESS AND EXCEPT:
The north 21.34' of the 131.34 right-of-way for lake worth drainage district lateral canal
1-30 as described in chancery case #407, as recorded in official records book 6495, at
page 761. and the official records book 6495, at page 1165, of the public records of Palm
Beach County, Florida.
LESS AND EXCEPT:
A right-of-way over the westerly 80 feet of the easterly 190 feet (as measured at right
angles to) thereof for the Lake Worth Drainage District Canal No. e-3-1/2, as recorded in
official records book 1803, at page 254, of the public records of Palm Beach County.
Florida.
Further less and except right-of-way for congress avenue conveyed to palm beach county
by deed filed in official records book 5430, at page 1725, and as described in order of
taking filed in official records book 7322, at page 262, of the public records of Palm
Beach County, Florida.
LESS AND EXCEPT:
A parcel of land lying in section 5, township 46 south, range 43 east, Palm Beach County,
Florida, said land being more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the southwest comer of said section 5;
THENCE with a bearing of nOOoOO'OO"e along the west line of said section 5, for a
distance of 110.00 feet to a point;
THENCE with a bearing of s89048'45"e along a line lying 110.00 feet north of and
parallel to the south line of said section 5, for a distance of 1397.43 feet to a point;
THENCE with a bearing of nI8021'59"e, along the east line of 80 foot right-of-way for
Lake Worth Drainage District Canal No. e-3 1/2 os recorded in official records book
1803, page 254 of the public records of Palm Beach County, Florida and also the west
line of 110 foot Florida Power and Light Company easement as recorded in official
records book 602, page 623 of the public records of Palm Beach County, Florida, for a
distance of 158.79 feet to the point of beginning:
THENCE continue with a bearing of n18021'59'e, along the east line of said 80 foot right-
of-way for Lake Worth Drainage District. Canal No. e-3 1/2 and also the west line of said
110 foot Florida Power and Light company easement, for a distance of 26.53 foot to a
point;
THENCE with a bearing of s63028'06'e, for ,a distance of 32.44 feet to a point;
THENCE with a bearing of sI2034"28"w, for a distance of9.58 feet to a point;
THENCE with a bearing of s87049'54"w, for a distance of 35.32 feet more or lees, to the
point of beginning.
Containing 590 square feet (0.014 acres. more or less. and subject to easements.
reservations. restrictions and right-of-way of record.
Said lands lying in the city of Boynton Beach. Palm Beach County. Florida and
containing 1,370,970 square feet (31.473 acres) more or less.
EXHIBIT 3
AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP AND CONSENT
TO THE CREATION OF
MONTEREY/CONGRESS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
STATE OF FLORIDA )
) SS
COUNTY OF PALM BEACH )
On this~'{fIt day of July, 2004, personally appeared before me, an officer duly authorized
to administer oaths and take acknowledgments, David Webber, who, after being duly sworn,
deposes and says:
1. Affiant, David Webber, an individual, is a Vice President of Westbrooke
Companies, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company").
2. The Company is the general partner of Westbrooke Homes, a Florida general
partnership (herein, the "General Partnership").
3. The General Partnership is the owner of the following described property, to
wit:
4.
See Exhibit "A" attached hereto (the "Property").
Affiant, David Webber, hereby represents that he has full authority to execute
all documents and instruments on behalf of the General Partnership,
including the Petition before the City Commission of the City of Boynton
Beach, Florida, to enact an ordinance to establish the Monterey/Congress
Community Development District (the "Proposed CDD").
The Property represents all of the real property to be included in the
Proposed CDD.
Affiant, David Webber, on behalf of the General Partnership, as the sole
owner of the Property in the capacity described above, hereby consents to
the establishment of the Proposed CDD.
FURTHER, AFFIANT SA YETH NOT.
5.
6.
414w.ft---
David Webber
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ;)tj'J/.. day of July, 2004, by David Webber, a
Vice President of Westbrooke Companies, Inc., a Delaware corporation, the general partner oJ
Westbrooke Homes, a Florida general partnership, who personally appeared before me, ilI"'Is
personally known to me or 0 produced as identification.
[NOTARIAL SEAL] ~~~r.t~AJ~
Notary Public, State of Florida
My Commission Expires:
~ MerIIyn M. WIIIemI
. . My Ullm1IIIIan 00213071
\;_ ~ EllpiNI"..,. 21. 2007
WPB.FS1 \SANFORDS\502177v04\7121104\25443.01 0900
EXHIBIT" A"
LAND DESCRIPTION
MONTEREY/CONGRESS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
Being a parcel of land in a portion of the southwest one-quarter (sw 1/4) of section 5,
township 46 south, range 43 east, Palm Beach County, Florida, being more particularly
described as follows:
Commencing at the southwest corner of said section 5;
THENCE run north (the west line of section 5 is assumed to bear north-south and all
other bearings are relative thereto) along the west line of said section 5, a distance of
110.00 feet to a point;
THENCE run south 890 48 minutes 45 seconds east, a distance of 53.00 feet to a point
on the east right-of-way line of congress avenue and the point of beginning of the herein
described parcel;
THENCE continue on the preceding described course, a distance of 1460.21 feet to a
point in the westerly right-of way line of the seaboard coast line railroad;
THENCE run north 180 21 minutes 59 seconds east, along westerly right-of-way line, a
distance of607.01 feet;
THENCE north 890 58 minutes 02 seconds west, a distance of891.35 feet;
THENCE north 000 01 minutes 58 seconds east, a distance of390.75 feet;
THENCE north 480 35 minutes 55 seconds west, a distance of 407.05 feet;
THENCE north, a distance of232.00 feet;
THENCE west, a distance of 455.00 feet, more or less, to the said easterly right-of-way
line of congress avenue;
THENCE south along said right-of-way line; a distance of 1463.76 feet to the point of
beginning. Said parcel subject to the following:
LESS AND EXCEPT:
The north 21.34' of the 131.34 right-of-way for lake worth drainage district lateral canal
1-30 as described in chancery case #407, as recorded in official records book 6495, at
page 761, and the official records book 6495, at page 1165, of the public records of Palm
Beach County, Florida.
Page 1 of3
LESS AND EXCEPT:
A right-of-way over the westerly 80 feet of the easterly 190 feet (as measured at right
angles to) thereof for the Lake Worth Drainage District Canal No. e-3-1/2, as recorded in
official records book 1803, at page 254, of the public records of Palm Beach County,
Florida.
Further less and except right-of-way for congress avenue conveyed to palm beach county
by deed filed in official records book 5430, at page 1725, and as described in order of
taking filed in official records book 7322, at page 262, of the public records of Palm
Beach County, Florida.
LESS AND EXCEPT:
A parcel ofland lying in section 5, township 46 south, range 43 east, Palm Beach County,
Florida, said land being more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the southwest comer of said section 5;
THENCE with a bearing of nOOoOO'OO"e along the west line of said section 5, for a
distance of 110.00 feet to a point;
THENCE with a bearing of s89048'45"e along a line lying 110.00 feet north of and
parallel to the south line of said section 5, for a distance of 1397.43 feet to a point;
THENCE with a bearing ofnI8021'59"e, along the east line of 80 foot right-of-way for
Lake Worth Drainage District Canal No. e-3 1/2 os recorded in official records book
1803, page 254 of the public records of Palm Beach County, Florida and also the west
line of 110 foot Florida Power and Light Company easement as recorded in official
records book 602, page 623 of the public records of Palm Beach County, Florida, for a
distance of 158.79 feet to the point of beginning:
THENCE continue with a bearing ofn18021'59'e, along the east line of said 80 foot right-
of-way for Lake Worth Drainage District. Canal No. e-3 1/2 and also the west line of said
110 foot Florida Power and Light company easement, for a distance of 26.53 foot to a
point;
THENCE with a bearing of s63028'06'e, for ,a distance of 32.44 feet to a point;
THENCE with a bearing ofsI2034"28"w, for a distance of9.58 feet to a point;
THENCE with a bearing of s87049'54"w, for a distance of 35.32 feet more or lees, to the
point of beginning.
Page 2 of3
Containing 590 square feet (0.014 acres, more or less, and subject to easements,
reservations. restrictions and right-of-way of record.
Said lands lying in the city of Boynton Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida and
containing 1,370,970 square feet (31.473 acres) more or less.
Page 3 of3
EXHIBIT 4-A
MONTEREY/CONGRESS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION TIME TABLE
Water and Sewer System
Stormwater Drainage
Earthwork
Wetlands Mitigation
Offsite Improvements, including
Turn Lanes
Start
January, 2005
January 2005
June,2004
January, 2005
January, 2005
Finish
March, 2005
March,2005
December, 2004
March, 2005
March,2005
WPB-FS1\SANFORDS\502177v04\7121104125443.010900
EXHIBIT 4.B
MONTEREY/CONGRESS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
GOOD FAITH COST ESTIMATE
Water and Sewer System
Stormwater Drainage, including Earthwork
Wetlands Mitigation
Offsite Improvements, including Turn Lanes and
Placement of Certain Utilities
Total
$1,159,000
1,958,000
100,000
250.000
$3.467.000
WPB-FS1\SANFORDS\502177v04\7121104125443.010900
i :~I
"
~:
~
I : I'
II
. r : II !~:
? I : ;gl
;'1 I : I
,I I I, f'
~
I ~i
! fi
., J') I I ..,:
">'.'-'-L-----' 'a;"
-(;~-- I ~--~illE----- - -'t
I. If
-( i
1,. u_
I.- :-'- i I -. I
I) / - I d -- - - -.- - - -- - -- - -..
I.-~<I~' .-~ I ~
I H_~II )) I &:~~=~ ~ '~'i~~ = ~ =-- - = ~
I -l.S -~ I (II I
L .-
I
< I
,H'f
_ 4
"
",
, ;
-"-- )1
ii
Ii
:-;',". ,CITY BOUNDAR'Y
I J WATER
D LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LOR)
D MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MOOR)
MEDIUM DENSITY RE~SI[)Et,ITIAL (MEDR)
HIGH DENSITY RESI[)E:Nr1'1~\L (HDR)
Max. 10.8 D.U./Acre
MONTEREY/CONGRESS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
STATEMENT OF ESTIMATED REGULATORY COSTS
July, 2004
Prepared by
Special District Services, Inc.
11000 Prosperity Fanus Road, Suite 104
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410
(561) 630-4922 Phone
(561) 630-4923 Fax
STATEMENT OF ESTIMATED REGULATORY COSTS
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Purpose and Scope
This Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs ("SERC") supports the petItIOn to
establish the Monterey/Congress Community Development District ("District"). The
District comprises approximately 31.5 +/- acres of land located in the City of Boynton
Beach, Florida. The limitations on the scope of this SERC are explicitly set out in
Section 190.002(2) (d), F.S. (governing community development district establishment)
as follows
"That the process of establishing such a district pursuant to uniform general law shall be
fair and based only on factors material to managing and financing the service delivery
function of the district, so that any matter concerning permitting or planning of the
development is not material or relevant."
1.2 Overview of Monterey/Congress Community Development District
The District is designed to provide district infrastructure, services, and facilities along
with their operations and maintenance to a master planned residential development
containing 300 residential townhomes within the boundaries of the District.
1.3 Requirements for Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs
Section 120 541 (2), F. S (1997), defines the elements a statement of estimated regulatory
costs must contain
(a) A good faith estimate of the number of individuals and entities likely to be required to
comply with the rule, together with a general description of the types of individuals likely
to be affected by the rule.
(b) A good faith estimate of the cost to the agency, and to any other state and local
government entities, of implementing and enforcing the proposed rule, and any
anticipated effect on state and local revenues.
(c) A good faith estimate of the transactional costs likely to be incurred by individuals
and entities, including local governmental entities, required to comply with the
requirements of the ordinance. As used in this paragraph, "transactional costs" are direct
costs that are readily ascertainable based upon standard business practices, and include
filing fees, the cost of obtaining a license, the cost of equipment required to be installed
or used or procedures required to be employed in complying with the rule, additional
operating costs incurred, and the cost of monitoring and reporting.
(d) An analysis of the impact on small businesses as defined by Section 288.703, F.S.,
and an analysis of the impact on small counties and small cities as defined by Section
120.52, F.S. The City of Boynton Beach is not defined as a small City for purposes of
this requirement.
(e) Any additional information that the agency determines may be useful.
(f) In the statement or revised statement, whichever applies, a description of any good
faith written proposal submitted under paragraph (1) (a) and either a statement adopting
the alternative or a statement of the reasons for rejecting the alternative in favor of the
proposed ordinance.
"Note: the references to "rule" in the statutory requirements for the Statement of
Estimated Regulatory Costs also apply to an "ordinance" under section 190.005(2) (a),
Florida Statutes."
2.0 A good faith estimate of the number of individuals and entities likely to be required
to comply with the ordinance, together with a general description of the types of
individuals likely to be affected by the ordinance.
The Monterey/C<jlnpess Community Development District will serve land that comprises
approximately 3&:~ acres of residential development to be made up of an estimated 300
residential townhomes. The estimated population of the District is 750 +/-. The property
owners in the District will be individuals and may operate industrial, manufacturing and
other retail and non-retail related businesses outside the boundaries of the District.
3.0 A good faith estimate of the cost to the agency, and to any other state and local
government entities, of implementing and enforcing the proposed rule, and any
anticipated effect on state or local revenues.
There is no state agency promulgating any rule relating to this project that is anticipated
to effect state or local revenues.
3.1 Costs to Governmental Agencies of Implementing and Enforcing Ordinance
Because the results of adopting the ordinance is establishment of a local special purpose
government, there will be no enforcing responsibilities of any other government entity,
but there will be various implementing responsibilities which are identified with their
costs herein.
State Governmental Entities
There will be only modest costs to various State governmental entities to implement and
enforce the proposed establishment of the District. The District as established on the
proposed land, will encompass under 1,000 acres, therefore, the City of Boynton Beach is
the establishing entity under 190.005(2), F.S. The modest costs to various State entities
2
to implement and enforce the proposed ordinance relate strictly to the receipt and
processing of various reports that the District is required to file with the State and its
various entities. Appendix A lists the reporting requirements. The costs to those State
agencies that will receive and process the District's reports are very small, because the
District is only one of many governmental units that are required to submit the various
reports. Therefore, the marginal cost of processing one additional set of reports is
inconsequential. Additionally, pursuant to section 189.412, F.S., the District must pay an
annual fee to the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs which offsets such
costs.
City of Boynton Beach
There will be only modest costs to the City for a number of reasons. First, review of the
petition to establish the District does not include analysis of the project itself. Second,
the petition itself provides much of the information needed for a staff review. Third, the
City already possesses the staff needed to conduct the review without the need for new
staff. Fourth, there is no capital required to review the petition. Finally, the City
routinely process similar petitions though for entirely different subjects, for land uses and
zoning changes that are far more complex than is the petition to establish a community
development district.
The annual costs to City of Boynton Beach, because of the establishment of the District,
are also very small. The District is an independent unit of local government. The only
annual costs the City faces are the minimal costs of receiving and reviewing the various
reports that the District is required to provide to the City. However, the Petitioner has
included a payment of $15,000 to offset any expense the City may incur in the processing
ofthis Petition, or in the monitoring ofthis District
3.2 Impact on State and Local Revenues
Adoption of the proposed ordinance will have no negative impact on state or local
revenues. The District is an independent unit of local government. It is designed to
provide infrastructure facilities and services to serve the development project and it has
its own sources of revenue. No state or local subsidies are required or expected.
In this regard it is important to note that any debt obligations incurred by the District to
construct its infrastructure, or for any other reason, are not debts of the State of Florida or
any other unit of local government. In accordance with State law, debts of the District
are strictly its own responsibility.
4.0 A good faith estimate of the transactional costs likely to be incurred by individuals
and entities required to comply with the requirements of the ordinance.
Table 1 provides an outline of the various facilities and services the proposed District
may provide. The water and sewer utilities, stormwater drainage, wetlands mitigation
and certain off site improvements will all be funded by the District.
3
Table 1
PROPOSED FACILITIES AND SERVICES
FACILITY
FUNDED
BY
CDD
CDD
CDD
CDD
CDD
O&M BY
OWNERSHIP
BY
CDD
Cit
City
CDD
Cit
The petitioner has estimated the costs for providing the capital facilities outlined in Table
1. .The cost estimates are shown in Table 2 below. Total costs for those facilities, which
may be provided, are estimated to be approximately $3.467.000. The District may issue
special assessment bonds to fund the costs of these facilities. These bonds would be
repaid through non ad valorem special assessments levied on all properties in the District
that may benefit from the District's infrastructure program as outlined in Table 2.
Prospective future landowners in the District may be required to pay non-ad valorem
assessments levied by the District to secure the debt incurred through bond issuance. In
addition to the levy of non ad valorem special assessments by various names for debt
service, the District may also impose a non-ad valorem assessment to fund the operations
and maintenance of the District and its facilities and services.
Furthermore, locating in the District by new property owners is completely voluntary.
So, ultimately, all owners and users of the affected property choose to accept the non ad
valorem special assessments as a tradeoff for the benefits and facilities that the District
provides.
A community development district ("CDD") provides property owners with the option of
having higher levels of facilities and services financed through self-imposed revenue.
The District is an alternative means to manage necessary development services with
related financing powers. District management is no more expensive, and often less
expensive, than the alternatives of a municipal service taxing unit (MSTU), a property
association, provision by the City, or through developer equity and/or bank loans.
In considering these costs it shall be noted that owners of the lands to be included within
the District will receive three major classes of benefits.
First, landowners in the District will receive a higher long-term sustained level of public
services and amenities sooner than would otherwise be the case.
4
Second, a CDD is a mechanism for assuring that the community services and amenities
will be completed concurrently with development of lands within the District. This
satisfies the current growth management legislation, and it assures that growth pays for
itself without undue burden on other consumers. Establishment ofthe District will ensure
that these landowners pay for the provision of facilities, services and improvements to
these lands.
Third, a CDD is the sole form of governance which allows District landowners, through
landowner voting, to determine the type, quality and expense of District services they
receive, provided they meet the City's overall requirements.
The cost impact on the ultimate landowners in the District is not the total cost for the
District to provide infrastructure services and facilities. Instead, it is the incremental
costs above what the landowners would have paid to install infrastructure via an
alternative management mechanism. Given the low cost of capital for a CDD, the cost
impact to landowners is negligible. This incremental cost of the high quality
infrastructure provided by the District is likely to be fairly low.
Table 2
COST ESTIMATE FOR DISTRICT FACILITIES
Cost Estimates
$ 1,958,000
$ 1,159,000
$ 100,000
$ 250,000
Total
$ 3,467,000
Table 3
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION TIMETABLE FOR DISTRICT FACILITIES
Category Completion Date
Water and Sewer System March 2005
Stormwater Drainage System March 2005
Earthwork December 2004
Wetlands Mitigation March 2005
Offsite Improvements March 2005
5.0 An analysis of the impact on small businesses as defined by Section 288.703, F.S.,
5
and an analysis of the impact on small counties and small cities as dermed by
Section 120.52, F.S.
There will be no impact on small businesses because of the establishment of the District.
The City of Boynton Beach has an estimated population in 2002 that is greater than .
10,000; therefore the City is not defined as a "small" City according to Section 120.52,
F.S, and there will accordingly be no impact on a small City because of the formation of
the District.
6.0 Any additional useful information.
The analysis provided above is based on a straightforward application of economic
theory, especially as it relates to tracking the incidence of regulatory costs and benefits.
Inputs were received from the petitioner and professionals associated with the petitioner.
****************
6
APPENDIX A
LIST OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
REPORT FL. STATUE
CITATION
Annual Financial Audit 11.45
Annual Financial Report 218.32
TRIM Compliance Report 200.068
Form 1: Statement of Financial 112.3145
Public Facilities Report 189.415
Public Meetings Schedule 189.417
Bond Report 218.38
Registered Agent 189.416
Proposed Budget 189.418
Public Depositor Report 280.17
DUE DATE
within 45 days of audit completion, but
no later than 12 months after end of
fiscal year
within 45 days of financial audit
completion, but no later than 12
months after end of fiscal year; if no
audit required, by 4/30
no later than 30 days following the
adoption of the property tax levy
ordinance/resolution (if levying
property taxes)
within 30 days of accepting interest the
appointment, then every year thereafter
by 7/1 (by "local officers" appointed to
special district's board); during the
qualifying period, then every year
thereafter by 7/l (by "local officers"
elected to special district's board)
within one year of special district's
creation; then annual notice of any
changes; and updated report every 5
years, 12 months prior to submission
of local government's evaluation and
appraisal report
quarterly, semiannually, or annually
when issued
within 30 days after first meeting of
governing board
prior to end of current fiscal year
annually by 11/30