The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda 01-18-05 (2)(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 i-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 Cherof to Morell dated 1-17-05 re: City of Boynton Beach; Seaview Park Club (2 pages totaI) 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, 2Q05_.(Aqaage. lolaD. ~t from Department of Community Affairs Web page, ~t?:/~vw.~ca.state.fl.ns/fdcp/dcp, Division of Community Planning, Procedures for ,S,ub..mit~ng qomprehensive Plan Amendments and Developments of Re_g!onal !mpa_c_t No!i~c.e !}e~luir, ements: Notice requirements./bt Local Planning Agency, November 2001, an_~d Noticing Requirements jbr Small Scale Plan Amendments (7 pages total) 4 p~ge Ordinance 04-056, relating to small scale comp plan ame~Fn~fir Fo~ Waterside IPUD project. (4 pages total) TRANSMISSION VERIFIOATION REPORT TIME 01/20/2005 06:03 NAME OITY:OLERK FAX 6090 TEL ?426090 DATE,TIME FAX NO./NAME DURATION PAGE(S) RESULT MODE 81/28 86:83 9?426854 80:88:33 81 OOVERPAGE OK STANDARD EOM TRANSMISSION VERIFIOATION REPORT TIME NAME FAX TEL 81/28/2885 86:12 CITY:CLERK 6098 7426898 DATE,TIME FAX NO./NAME DURATION PAGE(S) RESULT MODE 81/28 86:i8 974268S4 88:82:24 87 OOVERPAGE OK STANDARD EOM 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 [[, F.S., the Local Government Comppehensive I Planning and Land Development Regu/a~on Act), the Developments of Regional Tmpact Program (Section 380.05, F.S.), and the Areas of Critical State Concern Program (Section 380.06, F.S., the Environmental Land and Water I~fanagement Act). Select a topic below to learn more about the Division's programs. Need help finding what you're Io~king for? Call Vicki Morrison, (850) 922-1815, or email vicki.morrison~dca.state.fl.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 (DR]) and Fiorida Quality Developments (FQDs) · Evaluation and Appraisal Reports (EAR) · Growth Management Workshop : · Hazard Mitigation Planning > Homeowners Association Covenants · ]nterlocal Service Delivery Agreements · Land Use and Environmental Siting > ListServer · Marina Siting > 2004 Legislative Summary > Weklve Parkway and Protection Act > Ils Your Local Government's Comprehensive Plan on line? · Procedures for Submitting Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Developments of Regional Impact > Division Directory > Community Planning (Division Newsletter) · Division Program Summary · Directory of Planning Officials > Statutes and Rules · Disaster Planning for Florida's Historic Resources · Preparing a Boating Facility Siting Plan: Best Management Practices for Marina Siting · Protecting Plorida's Springs: Land Use Planning Strategies and Best Management Practices · Wildfire Mitigation in Florida: Land Usa Planning Strategies and Best Development Practices > Military Base Encroachment · Optional Sector Plans · Partners/Links · Planning Grants · Procedures for Submitting DRZs, Comprehensive Plans and Amendments · Publications > Rural Land Stewardship Areas Program · School Planning and Coordination > Springs Protection > TranspoKcation Planning · Visioning and Facilitation Services · Water Supply Planning · Waterfronts Floride Partnership Program · Wekiva Parkway and Protection Act Department of Community Affaira Divbion of Community Planning 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Ta/laha~ee, FL $2399-2Z00 (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 lf~ha file will not oloen eryou receive. blink ~ereen, lave the flhl to your hlrd drive and thin ~ It. To do this, pi~,~' yol~ cumor m~ t~e ,ak, tight dick, lalac~ "lave t~rgot as" and ~lve the file to your hard Alia bo aura you have the mast re(:eot ver~o n ~' ~b~ A~t P~a~r. Click the Iron above to download aad Install. PDF flies ere graphic Ir~vt. Be sure give the document; pler, ty rd' time to load. Procedures for Submitting Comprehensive Plan Amendment~ and Development~ of Regional Zmpact (DRI) Read information about the extension of deadlines resulting from the impacts of Hurricanes Charley, Frances, ivan and The Plan Amendment/DR/Processing office coordinates the review schedule for local comprehensive plans and amendments, DP,! applications, Evaluation and Appraisal Reports, Campus Nester Plans, .]ob Siting amendments, and Pliiitary Base Closure amendments. The office maintains a library of comprehensive plans and plan amendments for Florida's 476 local governments, DR[S, Strategic Regional Policy Plans, and Hazard Mitigation Plans. ; SB 1906, which became law on Hay 3Z, 2002, streamlined the timing of comprehensive plan amendment review in several ways: Agency review of proposal amendments is now · one-~tep proce~a rather than the former two- cleared through the review pro~ee~ more quickly. The bill also provided for internet notice of Department action to View ORC Reports and Notices of Intent online. Ted~nic~l ~nformetion Following are rules, forms, procedures and oilier technical assistance documents to guide you through the comprehensive planning and DR[ processes. You will need Adobe Acrobat Reader Veraion 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. For more information contact: Ray Eubanks (850) 922-1767, SC 292-1767 ray.eubanks@dca.state.fl.us LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLANS ; Chapter 163, Part II, F.S. (Growth Management Act) > 2004 Laglsiative Summary > Wekiva Parkway and Protection Act > is Your Local Govemmenfs Comprehensive Plan on line? > View recently issued ORC Reports, NO~s, School Znterfocel Agreements > Procedures for Submitting Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Developments of Regional Impast > Division Directory Community Planning (Division Newsletter) Division Pregrem Summary > Directory of Planning Officials > Statutes and Rules > BE~T IRU~I/CI~ ~EltZE~: · Disaster Planning for Rorida's Historic Resources · Preparing a Beating paclllty Siting Plan: Beet Management Precticos for Madna SlUng · Protecting Florida's Spdngs: Land Use Planning Strategies and Sest Management PracUces · Wildfire Mitigation in Rorida: Land Use Planning Strategies and Bast Development Practices Rule 9]-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 (3une 2002) Notic~ Requirement: Notice requirements for the Local Planning Agency Submittal Procedur~ Requirements: List of agency contacts to receive proposed and adopted Procedures for submitting proposed comprehensive plan amendments (Rule 9.]-11.006, F.A.C.) Procedures for submitting adopted comprehensive plan amendments (Rule 9.]-11.011, F.A.C. Procedures for submitting adopted small-scale comprehensive plan amendments (Rule 9.]-11.015, F.A.C.) Procedures for submitting public school intedoeal agreements and amended agreements (Rue 9.]-1! 022, F.A. C.) I~i~c~eneou~ Znforn~t~n : '. Lis~ of coastal communities required to prepare e Coastal I I~anegement Element as pert of their comprehensive plans, pursuant to Sections 380.24 and 163.3177(6)(g), F.$. Smafl Scale Development Amendment Submittal Form Citizen Courtesy Tnformation Roster to assist local govemments with recording citizen attendance at public hearings If tho file will not open or you mc~lw I bl~nk ~, ~ tl~ fll~ to your hard drlv~ mM th~n ope~ It. To do th~ I~cu your cursor on I/~ fink, r~lht dido, sel~t "s~ve to,M; ~s" and s~v~ tho fl~ to your PDF ffie~ om grephlc Intormlve. Be m.~re you give ttm -.'~o. mmnt plenW of tlm~ to Io~d. DEVELOPHENTS OF REGZONAL I'HPACT DRZ Thre~l~olds: 200'1 residential thresholds for DRIs based on county population DRZ Procedures: View a flow chart of the DR! process (3PG file) DRZ Fo~n~: Annual Status Report Form Application for Abandonment of a Development of Regional Impact, FORPI RPM-BSP-ABANDON DR/-:/. Application for a Binding Letter of Development of Regional Impact, FORM-RPM-BSP-BLID-1 Application for a Bind/rig Letter of M~dification to a DR! with Vested Righbs, FORM-RPM-BSP-BL.[M-! Application for a Binding Letter of Vested Rights for a DR/, FORM-RPM-IBSP-BL1VR-! DR[ Application for Development Approval (ADA), FORM- RPH-BSP-ADA-! (long form) DRI Application for Development Approval (ADA), FORM RPM-BSP-ADA-2 (short form) DR/ Preapplication Conference and Information Information to include when requesting a DRT Clearance Letter Model Preliminary Development Agreement Notification of a Proposed Change (NOPC) to a Previously Approved DR/, FORN-RPN-BSP~PROPCHANGE-1 Notice Requirements for LPA 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 govemment 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; ]. 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 dudng 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 LPA meeting and be heard with respect to the proposed plan amendment. http://xvww.dea.state.fl.us/fdcp/dcp/Pxocedure, s/Ipanoticereq.html/18/2005 6:00:53 AM UntUfted Document NOTICING REQUIREMENTS FOR SMALL SCALE AMENDMENTS November 2001 Section 163.3187(1)(c)2, F.S., 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 166.041(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.) 1. LPA Hearing See notice requirements on page 1. 2. Goveming 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:/Avww.dea.state.fl.us/fdcp/dcp/Procedures/noticereqssavaed.html/18~O05 6:01:03 AM 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 Michaet Wm. Moret[ Attorney and Counsetor /Ylailing Address: Post Office Box 18649 West Palm Beach, FL 33416-8649 (561) 714-7533 Office (561) 868-6543 Fax morellmw @ bellsouth.net January 18, 2005 Also admitted to the District of Columbia Mayor Jerry Taylor City of Boynton Beach Boynton Beach City Hall 100 East Boynton Beach Blvd. Boynton Beach, FL 33425 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) 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 ! 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, 1 spoke with him about these issues briefly after the agenda review meeting, l followed up with correspondence to him yesterday in which 1 explained my clients' position further regarding the plan amendment public hearing issue. Attached are two (2) procedural arguments which ! 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 1 remain available to work with the City Commission and its staffso that I may share with you 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. MWM:mm Enclosures CCi 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 Sincerely, Michael Wm. Morell 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 timely access and education conceminq the growth management 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 planninR 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 §163.3174(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 §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 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...." 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, §163.3194(2) provides that proposed amendments to land development regulations are not to be adopted until the LPA fulfills its responsibilities required by §163.3174(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 Cloverning body until such requlation, code, or amendment has been referred either to the local planning 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 al., 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 §163.3174(4) and §163.3194(2), F.S. 1 of 2 4. The original IPUD 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 §163.3174(4), §163.3194(2) and the City's Code of Ordinances, Part Ill, Chapter 1.5, Article I, Sec. 5. 5. §163.3194(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 §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 involving the Comprehensive Plan, including plan amendmenm 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 original IPUD 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 Administra~ve, Governmental and Re~Jlatcry Law Land Use, Planning and Zoning Law Redevelopment Law Historical Prese~a~on Law Ele~ons, Ethics and P~lic Disclosure Law Michael Wm. Morell Attorney and Counselor West Palm Beach, FL 33416-8649 (561) 714-7533 Office (561) 868-65~3 Fax morellmw @ bellsouth net Via Fax (954) 771-4923 and US. Mati lames Cherof, Esquire Gorer~ Cherof, Doody & Ezrul, P.A. 3099 E. Conuneralal Boulevard, Suite 200 Ft. Lauderdale. FI, 33308-4311 January lT, 2005 Re: Dear Jim: City of Boynton Beach. Florida; Seaview Park Club Project; Request to bifurcate first of three public hearings on City Commission Meeting Agenda for January 18, 2005; LUAR 04-010 (legislative public hearing on ~nall scale plan amendment and quasi-judicial puhic hearing on rezoning) and NWSP 04 -014 (quasi-judicial public heahng on request for new site plan approval) At the January 14, 2005 agenda review meelmg of the City Commission, you stated to Conmfissioners that you would be providing them with a copy of a document htled Quasi- Judicial Procedures Before the City Commission wlfich would govem the above-re f~renced three (3) pubic hearings. I assun~e the doctwnent you were referring to is the same that you prowded to me by fax on January 11,2005 If my assumption is wrong, please provide me with what you intend to provide the CiW Commissioners. The purpose of tlus letter is to request fl~at the City Commisalon bif~cate the small scale plan anaendment public hearing, which is a legislattve heating, ~om the rezom]~g public hearing and application for new site plan approval public hearing which are quasi-judicial hearings If the bifitrcation is granted, the presentahon on behalf of my sixteen (16) clients in the legislative plan amendment proceeding would be limited to the small scale plan an~endment issue and would include argument preseuled by myself (including the enclosed Procednral Argtm~ent #1). testimony presented by my alients' expert and the testimony of I of the 16 individual clients. If the bifltrcafion is not granted, my clients' reserve the nght to have me make the same argument on theii betmlfwitlun the consolidated proceechngs together with odier proceth~ral and substantive a~gmnents that are relevant to th~ issues in the quasi-judicial h~anngs James Cherof, Esquire Via Fax (954) 771-4923 and U.S. Mml January 17, 2005 Page Two Fmthermore, al~ould Iff fur cat~on of the hearings not be granted, by copy of this letter I would ask that the City ~nclude this letter and the enclosed Procedural Argument # 1 as part of the record of the consolidated proceedings as both arg/maenI made on behalf of my clients vatlun the consolidated hearings and argument proffered that would have been made w~thin only the small scale plm~ an~endment ha anng had that legislative hearing been b~furcated Thank yon for allowing me to file this request for bifitrcation in order to t~acilitale the orderly presentahon of both procedural and substantive issues at tomorrow evenings public hearings Sincerely, MWM:mm Michael Wm. Morell Enclos,tre cc: Michael S. Weiner, Esq (via fax and U S. Mail with enclosuxe) Procedural Arqument #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 Js the intent of the LeRislature that the public participate in the comprehensive pla nninq process to the fullest extent possible Towards this end, local p~anning 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 (e~uired in this act are set out as the minimum rec~u~rements 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 draf~ and Dcooosed r~lan staaes can be as essential to the outcome of an effective plan as the more formar adoption procedures Furthermore, citizens should be afforded timely access and education 6oncernlno the arowth manaaement decisions entrusted to elected and a[~inted officials In considering the requirements of section 163.3181, F S t he commission notes leqislative intent t hat the public participate in the compreher~srve plan blnq 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 §163,3174(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 LP^ 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 asthe City's LPA. The P&DB/P&ZB had properly noticed and conducted the public hearings on ptan amendments required by both §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 padicipation 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 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 Repods " City of Boynton Beach 1996 Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report, February 1997, Pg. 10-1 (Emphasis supplied) 2of3 6. The required public hearing before the LPA has not been held or noticed on Lennar'$ 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 ptan amendment, together with Lennar's applications for rezoning and request for new sJte plan approval (which can only be considered and approved alter 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 0~717/200~ 1~:~ 9~??~923 GOREN CHEROF ~¥ ~L P~ 02/03 GOREN, CHEROF, D00DY & ~ZROL, P.A. JULI~F. KLAHE OAVID N, TOLCES M~CHAEL J, PAW~LCZYK RI~HAED J [~EW[TT STEVEN L. JOSlAS, OF COUNSS~- ~anuary 17, 2005 Via F~es~m!!e 561-868-6543 Michael Wm Moretl Esquire P.O. Box 18649 West Palm Beach, FL 33416-8649 Re: City of Boynton Beach / Sea¥iew Park Club Dear MI. Morell: I am in receipt of y0ur letter of January 17, 2005 which I received by facsimile transmission at 2:13 p.m. With respect m you inquiry regarding the documem that the City Commission will have beforc 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 bifumate the small scale plan amendment public hearJaag from the re-zoning and site plan approval public hearing, [ can assure you that notwithstanding the manner in which the City Commission conducts its fact finding, it wi. Il di~ose of each the small scale plan amendment, the re-zoning, mad the site plan by separate discussion and vote. In any event, you have failed to explain how your client would be prejudiced by th.e City Commission consolidating the public hearings provided that they fliseuss and vote on the three separate items individually. I have also reviewed your procedural argument #1 mxd disagree with your opinion regarding the role of the City Commission as the local pla, ning 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 January 17, 2005 document pm of the record. You will need to addxess both issues with the City Con'unission as part of your presentation when the Seaview park Cl:ub project matter is reached. Michael Wm. Mor¢ll, Esqaire January 17 2005 Page 2 Since you. have copied Michael S. Weiner, Esquire with your letter to me, 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 CITY COMMISSION AND COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA IN R.E: 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. NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF MICHAEL Wm. MORELL AS COUNSEL OF RECORD COMES NOW Michael Wm. Moreli, 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. Homrieh and Rose M. Homrich, Osvaldo and Rosa Leal, Stanley L. and Staeey B. Nitowski, Adrian H. Winchell, as Trustee of the Adrian H. Winchell Revocable Living Trust, Helen J. Winchell, as Trustee of the Helen J. Winehell 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 represen~ 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) pleadings, (g) orders and (h) correspondence served by the applicant and its representatives, the City Council, CRA, TRC, the City Clerk, and/or the staffofthe 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 5'h 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(&bells01it h.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 CERTIFICATE 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. Michael Wm. Morell 3 Administrative, Governmental and Regulatory Law Land Use, Planning and Zoning Law Redevelopment Law Historical Preservation Law Elections, Ethics and Public Disclosure Law Michaet Wm. Moretl. Attorney and Counsetor Post Office Box 18649 West Palm Beach, FL 33416-8649 Via Fax (954} 771-4923 and U.S. Mail (561) 714-7533 Office (561) 868-6543 Fax morellmw @ bellsouth.net January 17, 2005 Also admitted to the District of Columbia James Cherof, Esquire Goren, Cherof, Doody & Ezrol, P.A. 3099 E. Commercial Boulevard, Suite 200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33308-4311 Re: Dear Jim: 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) 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. MWM:mm Sincerely, Michael Wm. Morell ORDINANCE NO. O97-,~,~ ~L//JI AP,~ ? AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSI~J 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. O89-38, 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. ~ection 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 / day of April, 1997. ATTEST: City~lerk Vice ~l~.or · CommisSioner ~'Commissioner Commissioner CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA City of Boynton Beach 1996 Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report February 1997 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 Ja~keiwicz Vice Mayor Mr. Matthew Bradley Mr. Henderson Tilman Mr. J'amie Titcomb Ms. Carrie Parker, City Manager Tmubri Heyden, Planning and Zoning Director Mr. Michael Rump[ Senior Planner Prepared for the City of Boynton Beach by Berryman &Henisar Preparation of this docume~ w~ aided flaroush the financial assislm~e received from tl~ Sm of FIc~da und~ the Local Govmaunont Evaluation and Appraisal Repo~ Assistance ProSram ~aized by Chap~' 93-206, Laws of Florida and adminis~*ed by Section 5 A. B. C. D. E. F. G H. Section 6 A. B. C. D. E. F. 0. H. S~tion 7 A. B. C. D. E. F. Section 8 A. B. C. D. E. S~cfiea 9 A. B. C. D. E. F. B. C. RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE Ccn~diti~ of Elemem at Time of Adoption C~ndition of Eleraent at Time of EAR and Inventory of Sites and Facilities Invantocy of Sites and Facilities Achi~ven~m of L~vel of Servic~ Standards Inventory of Private Sites and Facilities Objectives Achievement Mamx; Comparison of Objectives to Results Effect of Statuto~ and Rule Chang~ Since 1989 Recommended Plan Amandments,and Need for New Actio~ 5-1 5-1 5-10 5-14 5-14 5-15 5-17 5-20 5-20 HOUSING 6-1 Condition of Element at Time of Adoption 6-l Condition of El~t at Time of EAR 6-4 Summary of Aaticipated h~ormation from Affordablc Housing Needs Assessment 6-6 Physical Condition and Deterioration of HOUSing Stock 6-6 Inventory of Group Homes and Special N~Ss HOUSing 6-7 Objectives Achievement Matrix; Comparison of Obj~tives to R~ults 6-8 Effect of Statutory a~d Rule Changes Smc~ 1989 6-12 Recommended Plan Amendments and Ne~l for N~w Actions 6-14 COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT Condition of Element at Time of Adoption Condition of Element at Time of EAR D~velopment in CoasUfl High Hazard Area Objectives A~ievement Matxix; Comparison of Objectives to Results Effect of Statuto~ and Rule Chartres Sin~ 1989 R~comm~ad~d Plan Amendments and Nesd for N~w Action. s INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION ~'I.I:MENT Condition of Element at Tim~ of Adoption Condition of Element at Tim~ of EAR Objectives Ac, hi~ Matrix; Compmsoa of Obj~tives to Results Eff~:t of St~mto~ ~l Rule Changes Smc~ 1989 Recx~nmmd~l Plan ~enla and ~ for bL-w A~ons CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Condi~ of Ei~nmt at Tin~ of Adoptioo Co~iti~ of Elem~mt at Time of EAR Eff~.s of ~ and Level of S~'vic~ Stand~ Obi ~,~*_ _iv~ Ae, hlmm~nt Matrix; C~p~ ~Ob~ m ~ ~~ ~ R~e C~ S~ 1~ ~ PI~ ~ ~ N~ f~N~ ~ PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND SCHEDULE OF PLAN AMENDMENTS ~ Pmi~ipation Pr~_ _~_,,~,'es $e.~dul~ fo~ Ad~tio~ of EAR-Based ~ 7-1 7-11 7-17 7-19 7-24 7-25 8-1 8-1 8-4 8-8 8-15 8-15 9-5 9°7 9-8 9-8 9-14 9-[4 10-1 10-2 10-3 10. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND SCHEDULE OF PLAN AMENDMENTS Adopt~I l~'tlC~on Procedures The City of Boyntou Bt. ach adopl~.d the following procedures for public participation in plan adoption and (a) The City.' of Boynton Beach will ensure that public hearmgs, meeting and workshops are held whenever tl~ City propo~s m consider any issues involving the Comprehansive 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, t996), A minimum of one public heanng will be held at the time of adoption of the EAR. (b) To ensm'¢ that real property, ov, ner~ are put on notice of official actions that will aff~ct the use of their property., the City of Boynton Beach will notify, all property owners ia the sunounding 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 ansur~ that the general public is informed of any activities pertaining to tbe comprd~-nsive plan, tho City of Boynton Beach shall advertise any workshops, public h~trings, or public m~tmgs m a local t~nvspapur. Notice will also be posted in City Hall, {1~ civic eenter, and the public library. In addition, a notice will be included in the City's newsletter which is sent to evegy pe~on receiving a water bill and hand delive~d to large condominium ovnm's. The City's newsletter provides an excellent opl~ty fo~ the cit~ to be informed of all city-related activities. Status: See ac~m~panying noti~ and nt~vspaper edverti~t~. Tbe City's newsletter could not be utiliz~ d,,,, to tbe timin8 of publications (publicetion is not pl,_¢ed within utility bills). (d) In addition to allowing citizens to speak about their concerns during public meetings, the City of Boynton ~ will provida an opportunity for citizens to voice their opinions in writing. During. public m~.-tings citizens will be infom~d, and encouraged to submit written comments. Citizens are also allowed to comment in person or in writing to tbe Planning Dcpartmant any time durra8 regular w~'king hours. Status: No6ces invited written comments; however, no written comments have ~ received to date (c) ~ ogBoynton l~ach will consider and respond to all citizen comments. All comments will then llll*l~mg~ and ~mpiled into a report which will then be transmitted to the Local Planning A~n~'y and tl~ City Commission. The LPA and Conumssion will'then vote on each public comment individually as to whether or not the particular comment will be incorporated inW the Plan. Status: Few individuals from general public participated in wod~shops on draft EAR. Those m att~:lanee at meetings w~c invited to spuak openly and converse with both staff and 10-1 whole or in part. TI~ City is managed through the use ora rigorous budgetm$ ~ capit~l pro~mming effcxt, which has an annual cycle for review and approval. Thc un~' .~ pu~uose o£the CIE element is to draw together an analysis of'the community's planned resources ~d the service needs of new development. In this respect, the City of Boynton 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 mndi~' the annual budget document, to include a CIE section of thc annual budget, which includes the projected CIE expenditures, their funding sources and expenditure year and the actual budget year. As an alternative, it would be helpful to note those expenditures in the am.ual budget which are also part of the CIE. This would have the effect of more closely alining the budget function with the comprehensive plan. The ability to do this would depend on resources available in the City's finance department. It may be appropriate to consider adding a policy to the comprehensive plan to evaluate the staff tune which would be required to complete this annual feedback loop. 9-15 ORDINANCE NO. 02- ~5'" AN ORDINANCE OF TIlE 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 TIlE PLIRPOSE OF I/vlI~LEMENTING THE FEDERAL KIGHWAY CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMEI',Fr PLAN; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS, SEVERABILITY, CODIFICATION AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the current Land Development Regulations do not address the development of ~ingle-farnily attached dwellings, and WREREAS, the current PUD regulations are based on the Urban Land Insfitute's and Use Intensity {LUI) design methodology, which may preclude small (i.e. infill) parcels · om beIng developed as a PUD; NOW TItEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF rltE cITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, THAT: S. ection 1. The foregoing whereas clauses are true and correct and are now ratified nd confirmed by the City Commission. 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 ~strict regulations and use provisions. L. INFILL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ([PUD). The Infill Planned Unfit Development ([PLffD) District standards and re~ulafions are created for the puxpose of allowing flexibility to accommodate in/ill and redevelovment on t~arcels less than five (5) acres in size. P~tcels five 0r m0r~ acres in size shall comply wilh normal Planned Unit Development ~e~,ulations found in Chanter 2.5 of the Land Develot~ment Re~lafions. The IPUD rec, ulation~ ~ i~mnd~l to l~e B,sed in si~fions wh~ n~ d~clonm~t or ~ev,lopmmt is m~os~ ~ ~ ~v develo~ ma or nd~rh~ loeat~ in ~e Ve~ral Highway Comdor Commgniw Red~lonment Plan" 8~dy ~ I ~d V. A ~x~c of uses. ~clndino r~id~tial re~l ~i~ ~d office, ~v be ~ow~ to ~e extent ~at no l~d ~e eo~ic~ ~11 result ~d ~e b~ic intent of ~e ~g ~de md ~e Comprehegsive PI~ ~1 be follow~. is a basic public expectation that landowners requesting the use of the [PUD district will develop design standards that exceed the standard~ of the basic develooment standards in terms Of site .tie,in.ma, building architecture and construction materials, amenities and lan&qcape design. The ~xtent of variance or exception to basic desian standards, includin~ ut not limited to requirements for parking spaces, parking lot and circulation desian, and ,~tbacks, will be dependant on how well the above stated p]annlng expectations are exoressed ~ the proposed development plan. 2. APPLICATION PROCESS. The procedures and requirements for anvlving for rezoning to the I~UD distriqt are the same as those for rezgning to the PUD disffict as stated in Chapter 2.5. Section 10 Of[he Land Development Regulations. When the IPUD is to be developed in a .qln~rle pha~e, t~e Site plan for the development may al~p represent [he Master Plan. 3. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. Vlinimum lot aroa: Vlaximum lot ama Vlaxhnurn height 45 ft. (lesser height ma'/ be -equired for compatibility with adjacent development) Vlaximum lot coverage (Building): 50% Vlaximum deus~B' 10.8 du/ac for lands classified High Density Residential (HDR) or Local Retail Commercial (LRC). 20 du/ac for lands classified S~ecial Hi~ Density Residential. ~linimum usable open svace per dwelling unit: 100 sa. fl. ADDITIONAL STANDARDS. a. SCREENING AND BUFFF. RING. Anoronriate screening and buffering will )e rcouired. Such screening should be intended to shield neighboring nmoerties from any ulverse external effects of the ~ro~osed development. Screening and buffering should also )e used to shield the proposed development from [he negative impacts of adiacent uses. ~pecial emphasis should be placed on screening the intrusion of automobile headlights on ~einhborint, om~erties from ~arldng areas and driveways. b. PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION. Pedestrian circulation should be carefully lanned to vrevent oedestHan use of vehicular ways and parking s~aces. In all cases, edestrian access shall be vrovided to oublic walkwavs. c. REOUIRED OPEN SPACE. The usable open soace, such as recreation areas nd passive common-ownershin areas, reauired for residential devclooment pr0j~cts and nixed-use residential omiects ~h~ll be desioned to be available to every dwcllirm unit proposed. Th/s~reoulred usable open ~acc shall be desi~ued to maximize urivacv and USability tO the r~idents. Private courtyards, natural areas and water bodies shall not covint toward reouired OPen suace. d. TRASH COLLECTIQN. Special emphasis shall be placed on trash collection ~oints. Trash containers or dumpsters shall be screened and designed so as to be :onvenlentl¥ accessible to tt~eir users and collectors. e. MIXED LAND USE. Within thc IPUD, mixed land uses may be proposed. Uommercial uses shall only be allowed for developments frontin~ on streets classified as 'arterial" on the "Functional Classification of Roadways" map in the Boynton Beach Eomprehensiv¢ Plan; however, such development must be found compatible with adiacent ases and established design characteristics. Compatibility will also be judged on how well fie proposed development fits within the context of the neighborhood and abutting ~roperfi~s. Any commercial uses shall be small-scale retail and services, primarily to serve ~ae residents of thc IPUD. and not the oublic in general. f. VEHICULAR CIRCULATION. Privately owned streets nroviding secondary ~ehjcnlar circulation internal to the 1PI, JD may be considered for approval with fights-of-my md vavement widths less than the rennirements stated in the City's 1.and Developmem ~egnlations: however, in no c~e shall health, safety and/or welfar~ be ie, o~ardized. Roadways providing external connections to the City's street network shall meet all :eauirements contained in the City's Land Develenment Regulations. g. EXTERIOR LIGHTING. Lieahtin~, of the exterior and varkin~ areas of the flanned develovment ~aall be of the lowest intensity and energy use adequate for its purpose, md shall not erea~e conditions of glare that extend onto abutting properties. h. NATURAL FEATURES. The physical attributes of the site shall be respected adth oarticular concern for nreservafion of natural features, tree growth and open space. Section 3. Each and every other provision of the Land Developmem Regulations mt 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 thereof be declared by a coart of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect 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 ~4 day of June, 2002. SECOND, FINAL READING AND PASSAGE this [ ~ day of June, 2002. ~.TTEST: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1,4 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 36 37 38 ORDINANCE NO. O4- 0(08 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CiTY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA AMENDING LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, CHAPTER 2 "ZONING", SECTION 5.L. INFT[.I. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT; PROVIDING ADDITIONAL STANDARDS FOR BULIDING DESIGN, USABLE OPEN SPACE AND COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS, SEVERABILITY, CODIFICATION AND AN EI~FIzCTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City adopted the IPUD-Infill Planned Unit Development Zoning I !egulations that staff has become concerned that regulations in June 2002; and since adoption to not offer adequate protection to existing and stable single-family residential developments hat may be adjacent to the infill projects; and WHEREAS, the City Commission, upon recommendation of staff, approved a Notice ff Intent (NOI) for the IPUD 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 ,-gulations is consistent with the stated intent of the zoning district and the Federal Highway 2orridor Redevelopment Plan; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF ?HE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, THAT: Section 1. The foregoing whereas clause is true and correct and is now ratified and onfirmed by the City Commission. Section2. Chapter 2. "Zoning", Section 5.L. of the Land Development ',egulations of the City of Boyaton Beach Code of Ordinances is hereby amended by adding he words and figures in underlined type. and by deleting the words and figures in struck- brough type, in the attached Exhibit "A". Section 3. Each and every other provision of the Land Development Regulations tot 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 hereof be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not .fleet the remainder of this Ordinance. Section 6. Authority is hereby given to codify this Ordinance. ~:\CA\Ordinances~LDR ChangcskAmdending LDR - Chapter 2.-5L IPUD.doc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Section 7. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately. FIRST READING this ~ day of August, 2004. SECOND, FINAL READING AND PASSAGE this __ l&ugust, 2004. [TTEST: 21 23 24 25 26 day of CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA ~_~or /. ~}:~~~ Vice .Magor-~ ;:\CA\OrdinancesXLDR ChangesLamadending LDR - Chapter 2.-5.L. IPUD.doc CHAPTER 2 - ZONING Sec. 5 Residential district regulations and use provisions EXHIBIT A L. 1NFILL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ([PUD). The Infill Planned Unit Development ([PUD) 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 Development Regulations. 1. lntentio~ and expectations. 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 [PUD 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 cimulation design, and setbacks, will be dependent on how well the above stated planning expectations are met in the proposed development plan. c. The [PUD shall minimize adverse impacts on surrounding property. The City is not obligated to automatically approve the level of development intensity requested for the [PUD. 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 [PUD proiect must be compatible with and preserve the character and :ancfit7 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 merits. The inclusion of certain features in a previously approved [PUD proiect will not be entertained as a valid argument for the inclusion of that same feature in any other [PUD project if the City decides to reject those features. 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 IPUD shall be under common ownership or unified control, so as to ensure unified development. 3. Development standards. Minimum lot area: Maximum lot area Maximum height Maximum lot coverage (Building): Maximum density Minimum usable open space per dwelling unit: Perimeter Setbacks I acre 5 acres 45 ft. (lesser height may be required for compatibility with adjacent development) 50% Determined by underlying land use: · 10.8 du/ac for lands classified High Density Residential (HDR) or Local Retail Commercial (LRC); or · 20 du/ac for lands classified Special High Density Residential. ~- 200 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. 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. 3 (3) Articulation. Well-articulated buildings add architectural interest and variety to the massin[[ 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 ma'/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 fiat surface areas. (4} Overall design. Design of the project shall be tailored to the specific site and shall take into consideration the protection and enhancement of any natural features of or adiacent 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 r,~cu!~ must bc-q,m~L~Mo shield neighboring properties from any adverse cxte:-na! effects of the proposed development. (3) Screening and buffering :hau!~ 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. b: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. ~ ~ Usable open space. (1) The .... ~'~ .............. ~' ......... ~ ......... '~ .... : ......... ob ........ v ..... Shall be required for residential development projects and mixed-use residential pr ects.~ oha ...... ~,~..~.,~ ~ ...... Shall include active or passive recreataonal space; .~ ..... ...... :-~'~ .... t~v.. :?ace. Shall not be occupied by streets, drives, parking areas, or structures other than recreational structures; 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. de_.Trash collection. (1) Special emphasis shall be placed on trash collection points. (2) Trash containers or dumpsters ...... 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 r,c as tc be conveniently accessible to their users and collectors. (3) Dumpsters or trash containers shall not be located within setbacks abutting single-fanfily residential developments. e-:f_.. Mixed land uses. (l) 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) ~ S_such development must be found compatible with adjacent uses and established design characteristics. .; ..... ;,,.;~ .,. .... +~v, ~e +,.~ _~;~.~.~_~.~-a ~.~ ~-..,+: ........-+:no Any commercial uses shall be small-scale retail and services, primarily to serve the residents of the IPUD, and not the public in general. (5) Any commercial uses must front on the arterial roadway or on an access wholly contained within the proiect with neither entrance nor exit on or visible from or disruptive to adiacent 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 application. (2) If vegetation, screening or other barriers and/or creative design on the perimeter of an Il>LID achieve compatibility with adjacent uses, the City may grant some relief from the following two requirements: a. Any IPUD located adiacent to an existing single-family residential development(s) must locate structures of the same unit type or height allowed by the adiacent 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. .(~ If an IPUD is located with frontage on the lntracoastal 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. gh~ 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. Roadways providing external connections to the City's street network shall meet all requirements contained in the City's Land Development Regulations. si_. 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 abutting properties. l~.j_. Natural features. The physical attributes of the site shall be respected with particular concern for preservation of natural features, tree growth and open space. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 ORDINANCE NO. 04- O~ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, REGARDING PROPERTY CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 7.29 ACRES AND LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF FEDERAL HIGHWAY, NORTH OF CHUKKER 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 FROMCH-5 AND MR-5 (PALM BEACH COUNTY) TO SPECIAL HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS, SEVERABIL1TY, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida has adopted a Comprehensive Future Land Use Plan and as part of said Plan a Future Land Use Element by Ordinance No. 89-38 in accordance with the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act; and VqHEREAS, the procedure for amendment of a Future Land Use Element of a Comprehensive Plan as set forth in Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, has been followed; and WHEREAS, after public heating and study, the City Commission deems it in the best interest of the inhabitants of said City to amend the aforesaid Element of the Comprehensive Plan as adopted by the City herein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, THAT: Section 1: The foregoing WHEREAS clauses are true and correct and II incorporated herein by this reference. 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Section 2: Ordinance No. 89-38 of the City is hereby mended to reflect the following: 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 ESTATES FIRST ADDITION" ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 22, PAGE 44 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, SAID CORNER BEING ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY; THENCE NORTH 05026'06'' EAST ON SAID WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE 365.92 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 89° 18'46" WEST 385.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 05°26'06" EAST 4.08 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89018'46" WEST 35.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 05o26'06.. WEST 174.98 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89°18'46" 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 34°34'00" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 61.82 FEET TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE OF A ClRCULAR CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHWEST; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ON THE ARC OF SAIE) 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-WAY OF U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1 (STATE ROAD NO. 5), SAID INTERSECTION BEING ON THE ARC OF A CIRCULAR CURVE, CONCAVE WEST, THE RADIUS POINT OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 73°25'48" 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 02°23'09'' AN ARC DISTANCE OF 479.27 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89°14'41'. EAST 245.48 FEET; THENCE NORTH 05°26'06" EAST 95.70 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION WITH A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 578.97 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTH LINE OF 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 SAID SECTION 4; THENCE NORTH 89018'46'' EAST ON SAID PARAI ].EL LINE 274.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 06036'55'' WEST 40.21 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION WITH A LINE PARAI.I.~L WITH AND 618.85 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 4; THENCE NORTH 89018'46'' EAST ON SAID PARAI.I.EL LINE 250.00 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION WITH THE AFOREMENTIONED WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE IN'IRACOASTAL WATERWAY; THENCE SOUTH 05026'06'' WEST ON SAID WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE 315.29 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID LANDS SITUATE, LYING AND BEING IN THE C1TY OF DELRAY BEACH, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND CONTAINING 317,676 SQUARE FEET, 7.2928 ACRES. Section 3: That any maps adopted in accordance with the Future Land Use Element shall be amended accordingly. Section 4: All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith 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. Section 6: This Ordinance shall take effect on adoption, subject to the review, challenge, or appeal provisions provided by the Florida Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act. No party shall be vested of any right by virtue of the adoption of this Ordinance until all statutory required review is complete and all legal challenges, including appeals, are exhausted. In the event that the effective date is established by state law or special act, the provisions of state act shall control. FIRST READING this aO dayof dO.[~4 ,2004. / SECOND, FIiNAL READING and PASSAGE this 2004. __day of~, 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12 14 3_5 16 17 19 ATTEST: 21 22 23 24 (Corporate Seal) 25 CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA Vice ~ Comrnj~ion¢;.//' /~ gCommi~ibn~dJ ~ Palm Beach Post, January 1, 2005, Page 12-C NO. 760872 NOTICE OF PUBUC HEARING NOTICE OF LAND USE AMENDMENT NOTICE OF REZONING I~JIRiSH: The Post January 1,2005 and Janue. ry 11,220,5 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 CPA'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 RE(~UIRED 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 INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Management's Discussion and Analysis (MD&A} BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS: Government-wide Financial Statements: Statement of Net Assets Statement of Activities Governmental Fund Financial Statements: Balamce Sheet Reconciliation of the Balance Sheet to the Statement of Net Assets Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Change in Fund Balance Reconciliation of the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Change in Fund Balance to the Statement of Activities Notes to Financial Statements REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Budgetary Comparison Schedule ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS REQUIRED BY THE RULES OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL: Report on Compliance and on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards Management Letter PAGE 1 3 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 23 26 28 DUFRESNE ASSOCIATES, CPA, PA CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS MAILING ADDRESS: POST OFFICE BOX 1179 ORANGE PARK, FLORIDA 32067-1179 ~xw~'.du fresnecpas.com SATELLITE OFFICE 237 NINTH AVENUE NORTH JACKSONVILLE BEACH. FLORIDA 32250 TELEPHONE: 004 270-8820 FACSIMILE: 904 270-8821 MAIN OFFICE 357 STILES AVENUE ORANGE PARK, FLORIDA 32073 TELEPHONE: 004 278-8980 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 financiad statements as listed in the table of contents. These financial statements are the responsibility of the CPA'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 CPA 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 Gouernment 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. The managcment'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. Dufresne & Associates, CPA, PA 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 Covernments (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 of activities (Income Statement} presents information showing how the CPA'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 requirements. 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 thc General Fund demonstrates compliance with this budget. The basic governmental fund financial statements can be found on pages 1 1 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 CPA'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 2003 $ 4,195,488 $ 5,212,257 1,330,578 880,809 5,526,066 6,093,066 2,630,845 2,759,607 279,006 37,658 2,909,851 2,797,265 1,330,578 880,809 1,285,637 2,414,993 $ 2,616,215 $ 3,295,802 Assets Current assets Capital assets Total assets Liabilities Long term liabilities Other liabilities Total liabilities Net assets Invested in capital assets Unrestricted Total net assets CRA assets are unrestricted indicating the CRA will have assets available for future projects. 5 Governmental Activities Governmental activities decreased the CPA's net assets by $679,587. Key elements of this decrease are as follows. CRA ChanEes in Net Assets for the Year Ended September 30, 2004 Revenues General Revenues Tax incrementrevenues 2004 2003 $ 2,517,635 $ 1,330,409 71,645 79,667 2,589,280 1,410,076 684,318 389,888 2,403,496 462,299 181,053 194,503 3,268,867 1,046,690 (679,587) 363,386 3,295,802 2,932,416 $ 2,616,215 $ 3,295,802 Other revenues Total Revenues Expenses General government Redevelopment projects Interest on Long-Term Debt Total Expenses Increase (decrease) in net assets Net assets beginning of year Net assets end of year 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 CPA's redevelopment area. In addition, increases in general government expense is directly due to the creation of an independent CPA 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 Fagade Grant Program, which was an existing program assumed from the City of Boynton Beach. The CRA approved the following recipients to receive the Facade Grant: · Delray-Boynton Academy $15,000 · Weiss Memorial Chapel 1,139 · St. Mark Church 15,000 · Colonial Center Condo Association 30,000 · Scully Burgers 10,498 · Welch Plastering 1,800 · Provident Missionary Baptist Church 11,000 · Salefish Realty 9,227 $_9__3,~ 64 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: Riverwalk/ 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 prqjects, 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 Riverwalk/ Promenade / 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 m/xed 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 xvith a City back-up pledge, which would allow the CRA's debt to be issued with bond insurance and rated "AAA", 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, F1 33435. 8 BOYNTON BEACH COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS SEPTEMBER 30, 2004 ASSETS Cash and cash equivalents Accounts receivable Prepaids Capital assets: Land Depreciable capital assets, net GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES $ 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 PROGRAM REVENUES OPERATING CAPITAL GRANTS AND GRANTS AND CHARGES FOR CONTRI CONTRb EXPENSES SERVICES BUTIONS BUTIONS NET $ 684,318 $ $ $ $ (684,318) 2,403,496 {2,403,496) 181,053 (181,053) $ 3,268,867 $ $ $ {3,268,867) Sec notes to financial statements. 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 2,517,635 71,645 2,589,280 {679,587) 3,295,802 $ 2,616,215 10 BOYNTON BEACH COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BALANCE SHEET - GOVERNMENTAL FUND SEPTEMBER 30, 2004 ASSETS Cash and cash equivalents Accounts receivable Prepaids TOTAL ASSETS LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE LIABILITIES Accounts payable Accrued salaries and benefits TOTAL LIABILITIES FUND BALANCE UnreseFved Reserved for Prepaids TOTAL FUND BALANCE TOTAL LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE See notes to financial statements. GENERAL FUND $ 3,972,574 221,887 1,027 $ 4,195,488 $ 267,296 6,917 274,213 3,920,248 1,027 3,921,275 $ 4,195,488 11 EOYNTON 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 $ 3,921,275 Amounts reported for governmental activities in the statement of net assets are different because: Capital assets used m governmental activities are not reported in the governmental fund. Capital assets - net 1,330,578 Long tcrm liabilities are not reported in the governmental fund. Compensated Absences Accrued interest Note Payable (14,468) (4,793} (2,616,3771 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 FL<ed Capital Outlay Total General Government Redevelopment projects Debt Service: Principal Retirement Interest TOTAL EXPENDITURES EXCESS OF EXPENDITURES OVER REVENUES FUND BALANCE, Beginning of Year FUND BALANCE, End of Year See notes to financial statements. 674,283 12,424 GENERAL FUND $ 2,517,635 71,645 2,589,280 686,707 2,843,665 135,968 176,259 3,842,599 {1,253,319) 5,174,595 $ 3,921,276 13 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 Anmunts 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 Repaymenl 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 thc statement of activities, however, expense ~s recognized as the interest accrues, regardless of when it is due, CHANGE IN NET ASSETS OF GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES $ (1,253,319) 452,592 (2,829) 135,968 {7,206) (4,793) $ (679,587} 14 BOYNTON BEACH COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2004 I. 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 I4, 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. Government-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 ar.e. 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 xvithin 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 judgraents, 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-fine 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 30, 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. LonE-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 with 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 CPA'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 balaames 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 Additions Deletions Balance at End of 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 Less accumulated depreciation 2, 121 Depreciable capital assets, net of accumulated depreciation I 1,599 2,829 4,950 9,601 21,200 Total capital assets $880,809 $449,769 $ $1,330,578 5. LONG-TERM LIABILITIES A summary of changes for the current fiscal year follows: Balance at Beginning of Year Additions Compensated Absences $ 7,262 $ 7,206 Note Payable 2,752,345 Total $ 2,759,607 $ 7,206 Deletions Balance at End of Year $ $ 14,468 135,968 2,616,377 $ 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, 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010-2014 2015-2016 Total 6. RISK MANAGEMENT Principal 145708 155 560 166 079 176 904 189 270 1,156 235 626 596 Interest Total 171 590 161 738 151219 140 395 128 028 430 257 55,214 317,298 317,298 317,298 317,299 317,298 1,586,492 681,810 $ 2,616,352 $1,238,441 $3,854,793~ 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 au-e as follows: 2OO5 2006 2007 2008 2009 Thereafter $ 35,156 25,156 Rental costs for the year ended September 30, 2004 approximated $19,000. 2O BOYNTON BEACH COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2004 7. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES (continued} B. Facade Grant Pro§ram 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 $1,573,822 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. SUBSE/~UENT 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 BOYNTON BEACH COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2004 Original Final REVENUES Tax inclement revenue $ 2,361,158 $ 2,517,635 Actual Budget to Amounts GAAP Actual Budgetary Difference Amounts Basis Over (Under) GAAp Basis $ 2,517,635 $ $ 2,517,635 66,275 Il) 5,370 71,645 Total revenues 2,436,158 2,566,360 2,583,910 5,370 2,589,280 EXPENDITURES Salaries and benefits 251,602 241,890 237,774 Professional services 243,660 344, ] 31 344,130 Occupancy 23,787 23,076 23,066 Equipment leases 4,356 4,356 4,358 Insurance 5,688 4,661 4,400 Travel 19,719 25,199 25,195 Licenses, books, & publications 5,066 4,676 4,691 Advertising 4,000 1,842 1,842 Career development 4,000 1,782 1,782 Printing 22,000 5,158 5,156 Miscellaneous 500 183 183 Office supplies and eqmpmcnt 11,500 14,461 14,421 Office leasehold improvements 1,500 942 942 Web Site Update/Expansmn 10,000 15,622 15,621 Marketing and Promo~mns 1,529 1,529 Police 350,000 42,361 42,361 Total general government 957,378 731,869 727,451 (21 7,206 244,980 344,130 23,066 4,358 4,400 25,195 4,691 1,782 183 14,421 942 15,621 1,529 42,361 7,206 734,657 Redevelopment projects Festlvals / events/seminars Fat-ode grants Economic Development Grants Transportation/Trolley Marina Parking Garage Rivel walk/Promenade project CDC Parking Site Way-Finding Signage Miscellax}eou s ProJects Savage Creatures Complex HOB/Commercial/Improvements Total redevelopment projects 50,000 30,223 30,223 100,000 28,882 28,882 50,000 16,783 16,783 150,000 1,050,000 157,500 157,500 2,150,000 1,992,469 1,992,468 1,750,000 50,000 51,986 51,986 50,000 10,710 10,710 75,000 50,162 50,162 600,000 451,632 451,631 6,075,000 2,790,347 2,790,345 5,370 35,593 28,882 16,783 157,500 1,992,468 51,986 10,710 50,162 451,631 5,370 2,795,715 Principal payments Debt Issue 1 Sinking Fund Total expenditures Fund Balance, Beginning of Year Fund Balance, End of Year 134,925 133,315 135,968 I82,373 183,707 176,259 200,000 20,000 60,000 597,298 317,022 312,227 7,629,676 3,839,238 3,830,023 {5,193,5181 {1,272,878) (1,246,1 13) 4,751,917 5,207,162 5,207,162 {4) $ (441,601} $ 3,934,284 $ 3,961,049 23 135,968 176,259 312,227 12,576 3,842,599 (7,206) (1,253,319J {32,567) 5,174,595 $ (39,773} $ 3,921,276 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 lncorlle 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) $ (?,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 1J 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 DUFRESNE ~ ASSOCIATES, CPA, PA CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS MAILING ADDRESS: POST OFFICE BOX 1179 ORANOE PARK. FLORIDA 32067-1179 SATELLITE OFFICE 237 NINTH AVENUE NORTH JACKSONVILLE BEACH, FLORIDA 32250 TELEPHONE: 904 270-8820 FACSIMILE: 904 270-8821 MAIN OFFICE 35l STILES AVENUE ORANGE PARK, FLORIDA 32073 TELEPHONE: 904 278-8980 FACSIMILE: 904 278-4005 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 GOVERAIJVIENT 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 a_nd material effect on the determination of financial statement amounts. However, providing an opinion on compliance ~vith 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 plmaning and performing our audit, we considered the CPA'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. Dufresne & Associates, CPA, PA 27 DUFRESNE g ASSOCIATES, CPA, PA CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS MAILING ADDRESS: POST OFFICE BOX I179 ORANGE PARK. FLORIDA 32067-1179 ww,~'.du fresnecp as.corn SATELLITE OFFICE 237 NINTH AVENUE NORTH JACKSONVILLE BEACH, FLORIDA 32250 TELEPHONE: 904- 270-8820 FACSIMILE: 904 270-8821 December 24, 2004 MANAGEMENT LETTER MAIN OFFICE 357 STILES AVENUE ORANGE PARK, FLORIDA 32073 TELEPHONE: 904 278-8980 FACSIMILE: 904 27,3-4665 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 provisions 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 GeneraJ 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 ~vere no prior 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 ~;erified 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 secretartj 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 bamk statement will ensure that unusual itelns 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 Resl~onse: The CRA Director or designee will open the bank statements and review the checks for unusual amounts. The CPA Director or designee will give the bank statement and checks to the bookkeeper, who will reconcile the checks, prinl; 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. Resl~onse: 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 CRA 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. Dufresne & Associates, CPA, PA 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. Winehell, as Trustee of the Adrian H. Winchell Revocable Living Trust, Helen J. Winehell, as Trustee of the Helen J. 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 site plan approval and a height exception request? 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 15'h 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 15~h 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 ~ 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. 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 15~ 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'~' Place, Boynton Beach, FL 33435: Lot 6, within the Yachtman's Cove Subdivision. The LeaFs 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 15th 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. Winchell are the owners of, and reside in, the following property which is located at 635 NE 15'~ Place, Boynton Beach, FL 33435: Lot 16, within the Yachtman's Cove Subdivision. The Winchell's properly 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 15th Place, Boynton Beach, FI., 33435: Lot 11, together with the North 75.46 feet of Tract "A" within the Yachtman's Cove 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 following 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) individual land 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 individual land 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 shall 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 (12) 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. 1993) 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 ofexparte 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 individual land owner/residents specified in Paragraphs 3-10 above, are ~nterested 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 full parties to these proceedings in order that they be allowed 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, will 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. 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 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 full parties to the above- captioned proceedings with all rights, including the following 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 ofexparte communications; 6 (4) the fight 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: morellmw~bellsouth.net Mailin~ 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 CERTIFICATE 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 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 !03, 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. Michael Wm. MorelI 8 Z[t'.-ANNOUNCEHENTS & PRESENTATZONS ~tem C.2 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 December 23, 2004 City Clerks Office City of Boynton Beach 100 E. Boynton Beach Blvd Boynton Beach, FL 33425 The BOYNTON BEACH FAITH BASED CDC would like to address the City Commission on Tuesday, January 18, 2005. In its address representatives of the CDC (President Courtney Cain and several Board members) would like to thank the Commissioners for their support of the CDC and to · Review the major accomplishments of 2004 and · Present pdmary objectives for 2005. The presentation should take no more than 10 minutes. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Courtney Cain President Date: January 18, 2005 T~o: City of Boynton Beach Commission From: Peter M. Ryland 1311 S.W. 25* Avenue Boynton Beach, FL 33426 Subject Venetian Villas- 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 (LWDD) 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 15' Judicial Court in the ease 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 Exhibit 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 lo9cated 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 25* Avenue 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 LWDD 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 myself as representative of the contiguous homeowners, ora hearing to be held at 9:45 AM on Wednesday, January 12' at the LWDD offices. 6. Five conti,g~uous property owners on the south side of the canal attended the hearing on January 12 . 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 fcet and shallows to only 3 feet at the I lth Street Bridge. If 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 padnership (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 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 fudher 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 properly 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 properly within the proposed District is amenable to operating as an independent special distdct 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 district in conjunction with a comprehensive planned community, as proposed, allows for a more efficient use of resources as well as providing the oppodunity 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, Flodda Statutes of the Act, as amended. [Remainder of page intentionally left blank] 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 c~')~ day of July, 2004. WESTBROOKE HOMES, a Florida general partnership, as Petitioner By: WESTBROOKE COMPANIES, INC., a Delaware corporation and general partner Name: David Webber Title: Vice President Exhibit 1 -- Exhibit 2 -- Exhibit 3 -- Exhibit 4 - Exhibit 5 -- Exhibit 6 -- MONTEREY/CONGRESS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT EXHIBITS Location Map Legal Description Consent and Proof of Ownership or Control Construction Timetable and Good Faith Cost Estimate Future Land Use Map from the City of Boynton Beach, Florida Comprehensive Plan depicting the location of the proposed District Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs D 0 Z )- 0 ,1213 Iii 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 comer of said section 5; THENCE mn 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 89° 48 ~ninutes 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; TH]~NCE 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 18° 21 minutes 59 seconds east, along westerly right-of-way line, a distance of 607.01 feet; THENCE north 89° 58 minutes 02 seconds west, a distance of 891.35 feet; THENCE north 00° 01 minutes 58 seconds east, a distance of 390.75 feet; THENCE north 48° 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 2t.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 76 l, 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. c-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 Palrn Beach County, Florida. LESS AND EXCEPT: A parcel of land lying in section 5, township 46 south, range 43 east, Pahn Beach County, Florida, said land being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of said section 5; THENCE with a bearing of n00°00'00"e along the west line of said section 5. for a distance of 110.00 feet to a point; THENCE with a bearing of s89°48'45"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 n18°21'59"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 Cotnpany 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 begi~ming: THENCE continue with a bearing of n18°21'59'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 ll0 foot Florida Power and Light company easement, for a distance of 26.53 foot to a point: THENCE with a bearing of s63°28'06'e, for ,a distance of 32.44 feet to a point; THENCE with a bearing of s12°34"28"w, for a distance of 9.58 feet to a point: THENCE with a bearing of s87°49'54"w, for a distance of 35.32 feet more or lees, to the point of beginning. I Containing 590 square feet (0.014 acres, more or less. and subject to easements, reservations, restrictions and right of-way of record. Said lands lyiug 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 south~vest one-quarter (s~v 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 comer of said section 5; THENCE mn north (the west lh~e 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 89° 48 nfinutes 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 fight of way line of the seaboard coast line railroad; THENCE mn north 18° 21 minutes 59 seconds east, along westerly right-of-way line, a distance of 607.01 feet; THENCE north 89° 58 minutes 02 seconds west, a distance of 891.35 feet; THENCE north 00° 01 minutes 58 seconds east, a distance of 390.75 feet; THENCE north 48° 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 tess, 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, mid the official records book 6495, at page 1165, of the public records of Palm Beach County, Florida. Page i 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 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 n00°00'00"e along the west line of said section 5, for a distance of 110.00 feet to a point; THENCE with a beating of s89°48'45"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 nl 8°21'59"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 ofn18°21'59'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°28'06'e, for ,a distance of 32.44 feet to a point; THENCE with a bearing ofs12°34"28"w, for a distance of 9.58 feet to a point; THENCE with a bearing of s87°49'54"w, for a distance of 35.32 feet more or lees, to the point of beginning. Page 2 of 3 Containing 590 squ,'trc feet (0.014 acres, more or less, and subject to easements, reservations, restrictions and right ol'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 of 3 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~7~i 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 padner of Westbrooke Homes, a Florida general padnership (herein, the "General Partnership"). 3. The General Padnership is the owner of the following described property, to wit: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto (the "Property"). 4. 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"). 5. The Property represents all of the real property to be included in the Proposed CDD. 6. Affiant, David Webber, on behalf of the General Padnership, as the sole owner of the Property in the capacity described above, hereby consents to the establishment of the Proposed CDD. FURTHER, AFFIANT SAYETH NOT. ~ David Webber Subscribed and sworn to before me this ~Y'~ day of July, 2004, by David Webber, a Vice President of Westbrooke Companies, Inc., a Delaware corporation, the general partner Westbrooke Homes, a Florida general partnership, who personally appeared before me, ~is personally known to me or [3 produced as identification. [NOTARIAL SEAL] Print Name: Notary Public, State of Florida My Commission Expires: 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 Stad June, 2004 Januaw, 2005 Januaw 2005 Januaw, 2005 Januaw, 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 1,159,000 100,0q0 250,000 $3.467,000 MONTEREY/CONGRESS CDD SW 3,STFf AVE _ HDR IND NEPTUNE DR- - Subject Prope~y LDR - Low Density Residential HDR - High Density Residential IND - Industrial c--~ City Boundary 0 100200 4OO 600 800 Feet MONTEREY/CONGRESS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT STATEMENT OF ESTIMATED REGULATORY COSTS July, 2004 Prepared by Special District Services, lng 11000 Prosperity Farms Road, Suite 104 Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 (561) 630-4922 Phone (561) 630-4923 Fax i.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 STATEMENT OF ESTIMATEI) RE(;UI,ATORY COSTS Introductiun Purpose and Scope This Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs ("SERC') supports the petition to establish the Monterey/Congress Community Development District ("District") The District co~nprises approximately 315 ~/- acres of land located in the City of Boynton Beach, Florida The li~nitations 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 lair and based only on factors material to ~nanaging 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" Overview of Mouterey/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 bonndaries of the District Requirements for Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs Section t 20 541 (2), F S (I 997), defines the elements a statement of estimated regulatory costs lrmst 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 thc 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 revennes (c) A good faith estimate oF the transactional costs likely to be incuncd by individuals and entities, including local govermnental 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 infonnation that the agency determines may be usefid. (0 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 requircments 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/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 ~vill 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 3.2 4.0 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 of this Petition, or in the monitoring of this District 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. 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 offsite improvements will all be funded by the District. 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 Improvements 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 levied on all properties in the District that may benefit from the District's infrastructure program as outlincd 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 groxvth inanagement 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 Stor~nwater Drainage System March 2005 March 2005 Wetlands Mitigation Offsite Improvements March 2005 5.0 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 det'med 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" CiO~ 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 REPORT APPENDIX A LIST OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FL. STATUE CITATION DUE DATE Annual Financial Audit Annual Financial Report TRIM Compliance Report Form 1: Statement of Financial Interests Public Facilities Report Public Meetings Schedule Bond Report Registered Agent Proposed Budget Public Depositor Report 11.45 218.32 200.068 112.3145 189.415 189.417 218.38 189.416 189.418 280.17 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 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 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 cOLONIAL APTS. v. CITY OF DeLAND 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 ($180,000 net income) as 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. fcom-handsom~ $60,000 a year--as urged by the wife. Although I am loathe to interfere with the t.,4al 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 unfo~unately the final judgment creates. DeCenzo v. DeCenzo, 433 $o.2d 1316, 1.318 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Car; v. Carr, 522 So.2d 880, 884 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Pirino v. Pirino, 525 $o.2d 1028 (Fla. 5th DCA !988). 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 al- firm the final judgment under review. cOLONIAL APARTMENTS, L.P., et~, Petitioner, CITY OF DeLAND, etc., Respondent- No. 90-1377. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District. Rehearing Denied April 8, 199L Limited partnership sought to con- struct apartment project and sought ap- Fla. 593 prOval of site plan. City denied approval. Partnership petitioned for writ of certiorn- ri. The Circuit Court denied the petition. Partnership petitioned for writ of certiorari to review Circuit Court's denial. The Dis- trier Court of Appeal, Pete~zon, J, held that city could not approve site plan for construction of apartment complex which would have density of 1.3 units per acre on condition that density not exceed 6 units per acre, in that o.rdinance 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 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 "compau"uility" as Used in statement of intent was meant to allow adjustment of cap of 16 units per 3. Zoning and Planning ~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 When law establishes specific allow- able density, its clear terms cannot be var- led by forced interpretation of intent. 5. Zoning and planning m:~606 Review by District Court of Appeal of circuit court's deciaion denying peOtaoner C F ( 594 Fla. 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.$.C.A. ConsLAmends. 5, 577 SOUTHERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES space, recreation areas, and adjacent properties. Jason G. Reynolds of Coble, Barkin, Gor- don, Morris & Reynolds, P.A., Daytona Beach, for petitioner. Astrid de Parry, City Atty., 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 of the DeLand Code of Ordinances at the time of its annexation into the city in 1972. The ordinance has remained substantially unchanged since the annexation. Pertinent portions of the ordinance pro- vide: (Al Statement of intent. The intent of the R-4 dwelling district is to: (1) Permit the construction of totally planned single-family cluster develop- merits or duplexes, triplexes and Iow- density Iow-rise garden type apart- ments on relatively large tracts of land in single or common ownership; (2) Require the preparation and ap- proval of detailed site, landscape, traf- fic, parking and other plans deemed necessary as part of an overall devel- opment concept4 (3) Require a greater amount of open space and recreation area to building area; and (4} Achieve an esthetic and compatible relationship between buildings, yards, patios, parking areas, common open (El Dimensional reguirements. The following requirements shall apply in the R-4 District: (Il 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. (Fl Building height. 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 metz (3) No three-stery 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 qualit!t guidelines. In order to prgl;note architectural and environmental quality within the project, the developer is eh- couraged to utiliae the follow~g guide- lines in designing the project; (2) The architectural design of build- ings should be developed with consid- COLONIAL' Ar ko ...... development plan. Thc city further argued eration given ~o the relationship of ex- isting ad{anent development ~n terms of building height, mass, texture, line, and pattern. Additionally, the ordinance provided in rather specific terms .for setback require- mentS, spacing between buildings, number of stories and height requirementS, mini- mum livable floor area in square feet. screening, parking requirementS and de- sign, vehicle access lanes, sidewalks, open space requirementS, landscaping, signs, and architectural and environmental quali~ ty guidelines. '~/- petitioner attempted to comply with the that a planned development in the R-4 zon- ing district was more analogous to a special exception use than a rezoning, and that density was a proper consideration under the ,'statement of intent" portion of the ordinance that required an "aesthetic and compatible relationship" with., adjacent properties. The circuit court denied the petition in a sixteen-page opinion and order in which it discussed: (1) the Blegality of the initial rezoning (noting that it waS not necessary to rule upon this issue since "all parties agreed that the R-4 zoning designation requirementS of the ordinance and sub- should be presumed valid"); (2} the inade- mitred for approval a site plan that provid- quate level of city services and incrense in ~'The city's planning authorities recom- three sides by low density, sin- mended to the city commission that the gie-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 writing to make the suggested changes. The city commiSsion tabled action on the plan at the first consideration when ad]nih- lng landowners voiced opposition- Then, at a commission meeting on December 18, 1989, final action waS taken that approved the plan with the single condition that the density not exceed six units per acre. The city directed a letter to petitioner on De- cember 21, 1989, stating the reason for itS action: 1. Based upon Section 33-8.1(AX1}, the proposed development did not meet the criteria of being "low<lensity low-rise. garden type apartments on relatively hrge tracts of land"; and 2. BaSed upon ~ection 33-8.1(AX4L the proposed development did not achieve an aesthetic and compatible reintionship with the adjacent properties. petitioner' then requested that the circuit court grant review of the action of the city commission and argued that the action .had the practical effect of illegally down-zomng the site from sixteen to six units per acre. Tl~e city responded by arguing that the site had never been properly zoned R-4 when annexed because of non-compliance by the applicant and the city with notice and hear- lng requirements and/or a required sketch family development has a density of 4.25 to 4.5 unitS per acre; and (4) the generally accepted planning standard for low-density, multi-family developmentS of five te eight unitS per acre. The order concluded by holding that the city had discretion to con- dition site plan approval for a multi-family development in the R-4 zoning district on a reduction of project density, and that the city's determination was supperted by sub- stantial competent evidence that six dwell- ing units per acre would be more compat- ible with surrounding properties. The cir- cult court also commented that -[p]roject density is of legitimate concern to the City · ' whether or not Commission in determ~mng to approve a site plan for a multifamily development in the R-4 zoning district-" The appendices provided by th~ parties included copies of the legislative history of the annexation, including 1972 minutes and ordinances. That history reflected that the primary purpose of the city in annexing the site in 1-9~/2 was to promote the joint ef- forts of developers of lands in the general location of the site to construct a master sewer lift station and discourage installa- tion of four to six individual small package treatment plantS. Nothing in the 19/2 records provides the slightest hint that den- sity was a consideration except the state- January 18 2005 Janua 2g05 Eebrua 2OOS ,~ SM TW T F S SM TWT F S 1 12345 /uesaay 2 345678 6789 1011 ~.2 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 27 28 30 31 TaskPad ~ ami ~ ~ TaskPad ~ ~ BB: ]ada Call Arbitrator Dennis and Har.., ~% 7:45am*9:~5am Pa~er's Heeting ~ - RSVP to Weiss Sero~ Seminar on 2/4/0.. 00 ~ Texas HCLE Compliance work on it ~ Texas HCLE Compliance Deadline ~ BB C~ Audit Response ~ - BB: NCFO PERC deadline to file exceptio. ~ O0 ~ - BB: Holt deadJine for Holt to file Pet WrL. ~ - BB: Barcelona - File Notice to Set NonJu,. ~ - BB: NCFO Unit Clarif. Local 1227's Resp_ ~ O0 ~ - NL; ~ohamed Work on Strut Position ~ - OP: Graf: FO]A Reque~ Response due t.. ~ - NL: Nohamed Strut of Position Due to E.. ~ ~ O0 ~ BB: ]ada FO[A request to A~ Richard ... ~ NPB: FPE Ballots counted in Tally ~ - NPB: FPE Mail ~llot Election Held ]2/2.,. ~ PP; Guerra Our Response to Not Dismiss 1~ pm ~ NL: adv RayAs~cPaving Public Records.. ~ NL adv Ray~ssocPaving: FO[A Deman.. ~ NPB: Ele~ion Eligibffi~ List 4 days' notic~ 1°° ~ NPB Ek~foo EJ{j[b~y.k~f to'Con}n, ~ .: Notes ~ O0 ~ BB: Htg, w/]. Jordan re: blue/white hurricane grievances (per Lynn) ~ O0 ~ BB: ~tg w/Der. Schilke re: Leal 4 O0 ~ BB: ~tg w/MummeA, Hunro re purchasing policies ~ oo 6:30pm-9:3Opm BB - Commi~ion meeting Jim Cherof 1 1/18/2005 10:45 AM 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 bas been approved by the Plan- ning Board of the City of DeLand as well as the technical assistance of the Volesia 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 inte the city limits of DeLand, that issue was removed from consideration by the circuit court through .~[lstipulation of the parries. ] 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- mensurete with available reads and servic- es. On the other hand is the pressure from landowners who wish to develop their va- cant properties in a manner that re~ults 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 prep- erty owner~ 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 neighber~ by them- selves are insufficient to support a denial of a proposed developmen~ BML Invest. ments ~. City of Ca~eib~rry, 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- cia] attempts ac interpretation and are ap- prnpriate 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): ]'~'a) 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- ogatiou 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 te the contrary and the ordinance should be interpreted in favor of the property own- er. Id. at 553 (foot. notes omitted). In Rinker, the supreme court also cited Rose v. Toum 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. Id. at 553. [2] This court followed another basic rule in City of Ormond Beach v. State ex rcL Del. Marco, 426 So.2d 1029 (Fla_ 5th DCA 198~), when we 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 stl~mnnt of intent was used by the city to vary the rather straight- forward pronouncement of the ordinance that limited the peoject density to sixteen unite per acre. The record shows there wes 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 COLONIAL APTS. v. CITY OF' DeLAND 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(AX1). Some assistance in interpreting the term "low~iensity" can be gleaned, however, from several sections of the ordinance: (a) Subsection (E)(1) provides that a mul- ti-family dwelling project site ("multi- pie-family dwelling'3, which includes a "garden apartment" pursuant to sub- section (BX3), should be approximately one acre or more in size to accommo- date at least two or three buildings. Subsection (BX2) describes a garden apartment az a group of two to eight owner- or renter-eccupied dwelling units, but this number may be 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 calcuhtion allows us to art/ye at the max/mum preject density of s/xteen units per acre: Whether sixteen units per acre are conaidered 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, gnrden-type apartment. (b) 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) prehibit~ three-story structures adjacent to a single:family residential area, and subsection (H) requires screening through the use of hedges and wood or mnaonry construction along side and rear lot llne~ abutting a single-family residential area. This recognition in the ordinance that R--4 and single.fam~y districts can abut in the city's scheme of zoning undercuts the e~ty~s ~'ument that the instant Fla. 597 a site-plan showing thirteen units per acre is absurd when considering the surrounding properties. The city's own professional planning beard 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 w/thin the term "low density" used in the stat~ 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 ~ta~ p or acre prescribed in subsection (E). L..The city relies in part on Life Concept~. ~n~ 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 p ]ect have a cornpaUb.]~ relationship" with adjacent proporties;~ The City of Apepka ordinance under review in Life Con~ept~ required that a use be "compat- · le with the surrounding resklentlal 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 "It]he max- unum number of occupants to reside in the facility shall be compaWole with the sur- rounding residential uses .... "Id. at 727. l~oreover, unlike DeLand's ordinance, Apopka's ordinance never specified density at a cartaln number. We find 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 m.ust be a..~dronsed ~.~d expre~ed in appro- prmte ord/nancea. TA)community should h~ Palm Beach County Property Appraiser Property Search System Page 1 of 2 Property Tnformation Location Address: ].275 NE 4TH AVE Municipality: BOCA RATON Parcel Control Number: 06-43-47-20-23-004-0030 Subdivision: WHISEM uNrr B ZN Official Records Book: ].3974 Page: :1.594 Lega! Description: WHltSEM UNIT BLT 3 BLK 4 Sale Date: Jul-2002 Owner Information Name: ROGERS JOHN Mailing Address: ].275 NE 4TH AVE BOCA RATON FL 33432 2807 Sales Information Sales Date Book/Page Price Sale Type Owner Jul-2002 ~3974/1594 $10 WARRANTY DEED ROGERS JOHN Jan-2002 13334/835 $10 WARRANTY DEED ROGERS JOHN TR Jan-1977 0268011565 $42t500 NO DATA FOUND Exemptions Regular Homestead $25,000 Year of Exemption: 2005 Senior Over 65 - Countywide $25,000 Widower $500 Total: $50,500 Appraisals Tax Year: 2004 I 2003 I 2o~2 Ir Improvement Value: ~82,0391 ~;70,77q 967t9401 ! Land Value: ,187~20q *].621,00q *13S'O00i / Total Market Value: ~269~24~ ~232r77~ $202,94~' Use Code: 0~00 Description: RES~DEN~AL Tax Year 2004 Number of Units: *Total Square Feet: * in residential properties may indicate living area. Assessed and Taxable Values Tax Year: I 200~ / 2003 / 2002 Assessed Value:I ~113r194{ ~111r0831 ~t108r479 Exemption Amount: I ~25r5001 ~25;5001 ~25r500 Taxable Value:I ~87t694~ ~85r5831 ~82r979 Tax Values Tax Year: Ad Valorem: Non Ad Valorem: Total Tax: 2004 ~zt6s; ~1r76~ 2003 ~1t761 ~;104 ~1f86.' 20O 2 ~tlr714 ~104 ~1r818 http://www~c~~pa~m~beach~~~us/papajaspx/w~b/d~tai~-inf~~aspx?p-~ntity=~643472~230040... 1/6/2005 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: 08-43-4S-22-20-000-0070 Subdivision: YACHTMANS COVE Official Records Book: 16248 Page: 255 Legal Description: YACNTMANS COVE LT 7 Sale Date: Nov-2003 Owner Znformation Name: NITKOWSK! STANLEY L & Mailing Address: 670 NE [5TN PL BOYNTON BEACH FL 3:3435 2831 Sales Information ;ales Date Book/Page Nov-2003 16248/255 Apr-1987 05255/1405 30n-1986 04763/0005 Price Sale Type $348,000 WARRANTY DEED $33,000 WARRANTY DEED $28,000 WARRANTY DEED Owner ~ NTTKOWSKr STANLEY L & Exemptions Regular Homestead $25,000 Year of Exemption: 2005 Total: Appraisals Tax Year: Tmprovement Value: Land Value: Total Market Value: 2004 $162r356 ~lOOrO00 ~262r356 Use Code: 0100 . * in Assessed and Taxable V~ Tax Year: I 201 Assessed Value:I ~2{ Exemption Amount: ~; Taxable Value: ~22 Tax Values Tax Year: Ad Valorem; Non Ad Valorem: Total Tax: 2004 ,174 ~5t729 2003 2002 / $14'~tS& 7 ,149t, 244 [ '64r740 *s°p761 / *20BrSS7 ,200f2161' Description: RESZDENTZAL Tax Year 2004 Number of Units: 0 *Total Square Feet: 2470 :e living area. 2003 I 2°°21 fl fl ,5r137~ ~4r923~ NOTE: Lower the top and bottom margins to 0.25 on Flle->Page Setup menu option in the browser to print the detail on one page. Record Search I Information I Exemptions I Community I Employment I New Home Buyer I Office Locations http://www.c~.pa~m~beach.~.us/papa/aspx/web/detai~-.mf~.aspx?p-entity=~84345222~~~~... 1/18/2005 Palm Beach County. Proper~y Appraiser Property. Search System Page i of 2 Property Information Location Address: 675 NE lSTH PI_ Municipality: BOYNTON BEACH Parcel Control Number: 08-4-4-45-22-20-000-0120 Subdivision: YACHTMANS COVE Official Records Book: 07009 Page: 1486 Legal Description: YACHTMAN$ COVE LT 12 Sale Date: Oct-1991 Owner Information Name: COREY ROBERT F & 30AN R Mailing Address: 675 NE 15TH PI_ BOYNTON BEACH FL 334'45 2831 Sales Information iales Date Book/Page Price Oct-1991 07009/1486 $150f000 Apr-1987 05230/1542 $180f000 Jan-1979 03136/1716 $15,000 Sale Type WARRANTY DEED WARRANTY DEED NO DATA FOUND Owner Exemptions Regular Homestead $25~000 Total: $25,000 Year of Exemption: 2005 Appraisals Tax Year: Improvement Value: Land Value: Total Market Value: Use Code: 0100 I 2004 I 2003 2002 ,=B2,5251 * 2,0151 ,164,869 ~Bs~oool ~ss,o2BI~4a,aaOl * in Tax Year 2004 Number of Units: 1 *Total Square Feet: 3290 Description: RESIDENTTAL :e living area. Assessed and Taxable Vi Tax Year:I 20 Assessed Value: Exemption Amount: Taxable Value: ~1 )511 Tax Values Tax Year: I 2004 I 2003 ! 2002 Ad Valorem: ~3t275~ ~3f257~ ~3f203 Non Ad Valorem:I ~1741 ~174t ~174 Total Tax: ~3t4491 ~3r4311 ~i3r377 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 InformaUo~ I E~emp~ion~ I ~ornmunjty ] Employment I New Home Buyer [ Office Locations http://www~c~~pa~m~beach~~~us/papa/aspx/~eb/detai~-inf~~aspx?p-entity=~84345222~~~~~~~ 1/18/2005 QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE TH~ CITY COMMISSION1 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. Attorneys or other individuals acting in a representative capacity make their appearances. The Applicant presents its case, including acceptance or objection to proposed conditions of approval. City staff members present a summary of the issues before the Commission, testify as to their opinions and make recommendations for conditions of approval. Supporters of the application present their case, offer their opinions, and cross- exam previous witnesses. Opponents of the application present their case, offer their opinions, and cross- examine previous witnesses. Other members of the public offer their opinions. Rebuttal evidence and cross-examination of witnesses by applicant. Re-questioning by Opponents, strictly limited to newly raised facts or opinions 10. 11. and closing comments. 12. Closing comments by applicant. 13. Closing comments by City staff. 14. Deliberation and questions by the Commission. 15. Commission vote. ~ 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:\CAXJAC\Quasi-Judicial Procedures Cornmassion. DOC 7/20/2004 R6sum6 Jennifer L. Morton, Director Landscape Architect LAND DESIGN SOUTHW 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 Dimctur 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 FlorMa 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 APPLTCANTS ELZGZBLE FOR APPOI'NTMENT - 01/18/05 LAST FZRST Ist CHOI'CE 2nd CHOI'CE 3rd CHOI'CE APPLI'CATZON NAME NAME SUBMi i i ED Blehar _Ion 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 Youcjh McHahon .lames 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 i 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 iA, Tillman Henderson CRA * Eligible for student membership only imp 1/13/2005 10:49 AN S:\CC\WP\BOARDS~APPMENTS\BOard Year 2004~dvisory Board Eligibility\Year 2005~,dvisor% Board Eligibility List - 01-18-05.doc APPO]'NTMENTS TO BE MADE ON 01/18/05 Aooointments to be made: IV McKoy Mayor Taylor I Ensler II McCray III Ferguson III Ferguson II McCray I Ensler II McCray III Ferguson Bldg. Bd of Adj & Appeals Bldg. Bd of Adj & Appeals Bldg. Bd of Adj & Appeals Bldg. Bd of Adj & Appeals Cemetery Board Code Compliance Board Code Compliance Board Community Relations Board Community Relations Board Education Advisory Board Alt 3 yr term to 4/07 Reg 3 yr term to 4/07 Alt I yr term to 4/05 Alt i yr term to 4/05 Alt 1 yr term to 4/05 Alt Alt Alt Alt Stu 1 yr term to 4/05 i yr term to 4/051-abled (3) i yr term to 4/05Tabled (2) i yr term to 4/05 1 yr term to 4/05-Fabled (2) imp 1/13/2005 10:50 AM S:\CC\WP\BOARDS~,PPMENTS\BOard Year 2004~ppointments To Be Made\Year 2005~,ppointments to be made on 01-18-05.doc Project name: Boynton Village File number: LUAR # 04-006 Reference: EXHIBIT "C" Conditions of Approval Future Land Use Amendment and Rezonine application oreDared by Ruden McCloskv, Smith, Schuster & Russell, P.A. ADDITIONAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDITIONS 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." ADDI-I~ONAL CFI'Y COMM]~SSION CONDIT/ONS 2. To be determined. EXHTBZT "B" Conditions of Approval Project name: Boynton Town Center ! File number: LUAR # 0~-007 Reference: Future Land Use Amendment and Rezoninq application prepared by Ruden McCIoskv, Smith, Schuster & Russell, P.A. ADDITIONAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDI-I-IONS INCLUDE RF1ECT 1. Require a note on the Future Land Use Map, to read: "This property X is restricted to a maximum of 250,000 s.f. of local retail commercial use." ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS 2. To be determined. APpLI'CANTS ELi'GI'BLE FOR APPOi'NTMENT - 01118/0;; LAST FI'RST 1~ CHOTCE 2n'~ CHOZCE 3~ CHOZCE APpLTCATZON NAME NAME SUBMZTTED Blehar .1on 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 Yough McMahon 3ames 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/:~0/03 Siegel Lawrence Child & Youth Adv. Bd. Education CRA 10/26/04 A. Tillman Henderson CRA * Eligible for student membership only imp 1/13/2005 10:49 AH APPOZNTMENTS TO BE MADE ON 01/18/05 Appointments to be made: IV McKoy Mayor Taylor I Ensler II McCray III Ferguson III Ferguson II McCray I Ensler II McCray III Ferguson Bldg. Bd ofAdj & Appeals Bldg. Bd of Adj & Appeals Bldg. Bd of Adj & Appeals Bldg. Bd of Adj & Appeals Cemetery Board Code Compliance Board Code Compliance Board Community Relations Board Community Relations Board Education Advisory Board Alt 3 yr term to 4/07 Reg 3 yr term to 4/07 Alt 1 yr term to 4/05 Alt I yr term to 4/05 Alt 1 yr term to 4/05 Alt Alt Alt Alt Stu 1 yr term to 4/05 i yr term to 4/05Tabled (3) 1 yr term to 4/05-fabled (2) i yr term to 4/05 1 yr term to 4/05Tabled (2) imp 1/13/2005 10:50 AM S:\CC\WP\BOARDS~PPMENTS\Board Year 2004V~ppointments To Be Made\Year 2005V~ppointments to be made on 01-18-05.doc 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 PROFESSIONAL/AFFILIATIONS/LICENSURE' LICENCED BY THE 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 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 TEQUESTA 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 I YACHTMAN'S COVE COQUINA COV~ - MASS & ORIENTATION- COMPARISON _COVE _ C-16 CANAL _ CITY of BOYNTON BEACH 310 ~eitch~ FlorLda 33425-0310 (407) 738-7485 Apt-t1 13, lggO gr. Andre St. Ouste ~925~*~reenbrtar Drive Boynton Beach, FL 33435 DearNr. St. Juste: Our records indicate that no inspection was ,~a~ ~ your~ ,'~r~' · ~at* 440 N.E. 14th Avenue. ~:lease:,~a]l 738-7482, to schedule the necessa?y ~::spec~ion. Yours truly CITY OF BOYNTON BEACh Betty McNinamen Occupational License Administrator /ah xc: ;'~:'Central;.Fi les Geno*~Ruffolo, Codes & License Inspector 85/27/2001 88:44 5413717 STJUSTE PAGE TO: Alex FROM: Andre DATE: 5/17/01 Thc purpose ofthls memo is to inform you of ~o~f~ ha~siag evo'nts Boyaton Beach ha~ 1~ me through, have detailed in other le~rs ~o ~ City, which that the City ofAs I you have copies o4 1 wan~ed ~o fo~ ia on axl -- - vloladon on my ~oi:¢rty at 925 Orc~nbr~ DriP?~ut tl~ wrongly plaoed code an Aduk Care Hom~ witho,~'~ ._o,-.t,z:,~., w'hieh statmt that I v,,as r~nth,~ ou**~- ,-- the city, nor did Robert tludd/esto~, t t ~~; I ~wer e~iv~ t/~ Iptag with my pmb tm, ts, city. r art c v~olation, m the i~ainn~o f2 Y .r~ly fotmd out abo ~ . ~ o 001. that has bega -'"~m,, ........ ~ tho ood¢ re&ronco my mott~a~ and th~ title ~ ~"'" ~ au m~ tmae, wl~n i wemt to go loan due to a $12,000 ~ on the houseC°,mpany i~formod m~ that they coukl n~t olose the Th~ clty stopp~ tl~ ~go. when my work was completat ~ad ~ issued daily ~ about 3 rno~ttm ~ a During this ~imtg i~ 1999, I had 2/.~ple ia the lin.. , a lleen~ as bag a~ ! was att~ to ga a lictor' which th~ state law atlews li~nse, bu~ was in a "catch 22' I~ase the ca3, a~id I have ~ trlotl to get the tlmy would not issue me a ticease until th~ work on the house was eonrpleae~. fa-e a~-"_,-m system, which cost ra~ close to $$,000. TI~ city was r~sidential and only a~led a ~no'- ~ ~ ~',,~;*a~ tlxat tl~ another le . . ~e aetcctor, not a ~ ea~mp oftl~¢~tydomgam,rSt,,~,,q. ....... /atflrealam.~ Thisis to cause rn~ financial .problems: --- ,-,,,~ rata- own rules, I am now requesting that y~a have t~e city waive this w~,oagful tica as tttis $12,000 liea is pr~wming me l~om refina~ing my ~ ~ ceusi~ rae lt~macial han~ proper notif~tion on thei~ pat't, mad the ¢o .... T~e was ~ v~o~tion was incom~% tl~se shoukl be basiao~'yourarilumml;, l~e~dtltis don~a~ quieldyasposslb~e. I willl~willi~to ~orget about the $~,000 that they forc~ me to spend on'th~ ~ommcr~ial ava alarm if they waive t/a~ $I2,000 lien. l just want ju~i~e. 8, ,./~_ ,,/z081 88:44 5413717 STJUSTE PAGE 87 March 23, 2001 Mr. Kurt Brassier City Manager City of Boynton Beach 100 E. Boymon Beach Blvd. Boynton Beach, FL 33425 RE Follow-up Letter to Letter of 2/l 9/01 Regarding City Liens on 925 Oreenbrlar Drive & 809 S.E. Street, Boynton Beach, FL 33435 Dear Mr. Bressuer: It has been exactly 4 weeks since I hand de/Jvered my first letter to you outlining wrons:fully placed liens that the City of Boyuton Beach has placed on two of my properties, and the 9 years of racial discrimination that I have endured as a result of 2 City employees. I understand that you held a meeting regarding my letter, but yet I have heard nothing about the removal o£the liens and the waiver of fines_ Possibly the City of Boyrrton Beach's position is to ignore me and string me out and force me into financial ruin again, knowing that I have limited financial resources and the City has all the resources and time in the world. 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 wonying that he will lose his job even though he has been trying to destroy my fife for the past 9 years. I am an old man black man who has never taken a penny fi.om the City, County, .State or Federal Government, but I guess, it is the City of Boynton Beach's retention to strangle me to death financially,/~lot aa es b tha! o not u er nu oft ed' rimi ati, tha 2of eCi's io ve I know the City would like to drag me out of town, so instead ofldlling 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 intemion to let the fines and liens to continue to grow to the point that they are greate~ 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 faust I wait3 until 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. ~ 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 w~messes. S:\CAXJAC\Quasi-Judicial Procedures Commission. DOC 7/20/2004 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-LB 1, PLAINTIFF VS. Valoria Brown; Robert Jones a/k/a Robert L. Jones, et al., DEFENDANTS. No. 50-2004-CA-012117 NOTICE OF FILING Plaintiff, JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, F/IUA CHASE MANHATTAN BANK, AS TRUSTEE FOR ASSET BACKED SECURITIES CORPORATION HOME EQUITY LOAN TRUST 1999-LB1, 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 mailed this_/~_ day of Valoria Brown P.O. Box 647 Boynton Beach, FL 33425 Robert Jones aJk/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 Blvd 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 Revenue, 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 Charisty 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, R.A. 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 Bamett Technologies, Inc., a dissolved corporation, successor by merger to Barnett Recovery Corporation f/kfa State Wide Collection Corporation c/o Joy Wimberly, Officer 1425 NW 62nd Street Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309-1990 SunTrust Bank f/kfa 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, R.A. 155 Galiano Street Royal Palm Beach, FL 33411 Codilis & Stawiarski, P.A. 4010 Bo.Y-Scout Boulevard, Suite 450 rampaf~L 607 Telephone: 13) 87/7-6008 C&S ~10-C 452 By: AN'H Flo~ TTO, JR. ~107~557 January 4, 201)5 CASE #: CA012117 JPMorgan Chase bank, f/k/a/Chase Manhattan Bank, as Trustee for Asset Backed Securities Corporation Home Equity Loan Trustee 1999-LB1 (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 bom 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 have 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,for.~any~ ?~"/ and all court dates where it benefits me to appear. :** J~dVH(I -~d [- m O! ,~.'md L- m Ol/mll~- ,~ptoJq.'utf4lO~ podd~p 00' 06I. ~ 'o'~t tn]' ~, 'p, qs ~,,,,*~,o~ -~, oo, It,../)' AVd 1ON OO I:IVI:IO )INV8 I'll*"l'l'l'l'"l'l"'llll'""ll"l'i"ll'l"l"ll"'ll"l gO L9'gf~t'E;£ 1:1 I.~g9 NOINAOg 31Sftt~ J..S 31JONY NOd_ClOD J~Vd 061 X(~ '.Ld~(l S~It.LI~IJ'~TID~r'~[8 NOZNXO~ -40 :O.L -p,,,,,3 '9'fl ~q ,m,tq,,,~--~ ~ ~; 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 cornerstone 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 LISC, 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 Fa/th Base# Camm#riley Development CorporaUon 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 (LISC), 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 CDC goals in 2005 ara 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 Iow-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 ent/rs organizer/o#, I'd lIke to thank all our partners for con~but/ng to our success, and be/ping to build a better community In Bo nton. o n n III SPECIAL DISTRICT SERVICES, INC. Public · Private · Partnerships James D. DeCocq District Manager Harbour Point Plaza Contact: 561.308.6147 Toll Free: 877.737.4922 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 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 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 Traudg, 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 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 Distdct 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] 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 ~Z:~'J~ day of July, 2004. WESTBROOKE HOMES, a Florida general partnership, as Petitioner By: WESTBROOKE COMPANIES, iNC., a Delaware corporation and general partner Name Daw : Title: Vice President 4 Exhibit 1 -- Exhibit 2 -- Exhibit 3 -- Exhibit 4 -- Exhibit 5 -- Exhibit 6 -- MONTEREY/CONGRESS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT EXHIBITS Location Map Legal Description Consent and Proof of Ownership or Control Construction Timetable and Good Faith Cost Estimate Future Land Use Map from the City of Boynton Beach, Florida Comprehensive Plan depicting the location of the proposed District Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs 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 comer of said section 5; THENCE mn north (the west line of section 5 is assumed to bear north-south and alt 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 89° 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 18° 21 minutes 59 seconds east, along westerly right-of-way line, a distance of 607.01 feet; THENCE north 89° 58 minutes 02 seconds west, a distance of 891.35 feet; THENCE north 00° 01 minutes 58 seconds east, a distance of 390.75 feet; THENCE north 48<> 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 76 l, 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 n00°00'00"e along the west line of said section 5, for a distance of 110.00 feet to a point: THENCE with a bearing of s89°48'45"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 n18°21'59"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 n 18°21'59'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°28'06'e, for ,a distance of 32.44 feet to a point; THENCE with a bearing of s 12°34"28"w, for a distance of 9.58 feet to a point; THENCE with a bearing of s87°49'54"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~JT')~ 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"). 4. 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"). 5. The Property represents all of the real property to be included in the Proposed CDD. 6. 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 SAYETH NOT. ~ ~,~. David Webber Subscribed and sworn to before me this ~"~ day of July, 2004, by David Webber, a Vice President of Westbrooke Companies, Inc., a Delaware corporation, the general partner o.1~ Westbrooke Homes, a Florida general partnership, who personally appeared before me, Jill's personally known to me or [~ produced as identification. [NOTARIAL SEAL] Print Name: ~ Notary Public, State of Florida My Commission Expires: ~ 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 comer of said section 5; THENCE mn north (the west line of section 5 is assumed to bear north-south and all other beatings are relative thereto) along the west line of said section 5, a distance of 110.00 feet to a point; THENCE mn south 89° 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 18° 21 minutes 59 seconds east, along westerly right-of-way line, a distance of 607.01 feet; THENCE north 89° 58 minutes 02 seconds west, a distance of 891.35 feet; THENCE north 00° 01 minutes 58 seconds east, a distance of 390.75 feet; THENCE north 48° 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. Page I 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 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 n00°00'00"e along the west line of said section 5, for a distance of 110.00 feet to a point; THENCE with a bearing of s89°48'45"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 ofni8°21'59"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 n l 8°2 I'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 1 t0 foot Florida Power and Light company easement, for a distance of 26.53 foot to a point; THENCE with a bearing of s63°28'06'e, for ,a distance of 32.44 feet to a point; THENCE with a beating ofs12°34"28"w, for a distance of 9.58 feet to a point; THENCE with a bearing of s87°49'54"w, for a distance of 35.32 feet more or lees, to the point of beginning. Page 2 of 3 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 of 3 EXHIBIT 4-A MONTEREY/CONGRESS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION TIME TABLE Water and Sewer System Stormwater Drainage Earthwork Wetlands Mitigation Offsite Improvements, Tum Lanes including S~d Janua~,2005 Janua~ 2005 June, 2004 Janua~,2005 January, 2005 Finish March, 2005 March, 2005 December, 2004 March, 2005 March, 2005 EXHIBIT 4-B MONTEREY/CONGRESS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT GOOD FAITH COST ESTIMATE Water and Sewer System Stormwater Drainage, including Earthwork Wetlands Mitigation Off=site Improvements, including Turn Lanes and Placement of Certain Utilities Total $1,159,000 1,958,000 100,000 250,000 $3.467.000 t'ROP~T~ (~S) CITY BOUNDARY WATER LOW DENSITY RESIDEi!,4'TI,~,L (LDR) MODERATE DENSITY R, ESt2~ENTIAL (MODR) MEDIUM DENSITY RE,.?.'.;I[:)EiI,,iTIAL (MEDR) HIGH DENSITY RESID:ii:!hr"'"i ::~ ~_, (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 Farms Road, Suite 104 Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 (561) 630-4922 Phone (561) 630-4923 Fax 1.0 1.1 STATEMENT OF ESTIMATED REGULATORY COSTS Introduction 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 1.3 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. 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. 2.0 3.0 3.1 (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 (I) (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 "role" in the statutory requirements for the Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs also apply to an "ordinance" under section 190.005(2) (a), Florida Statutes." 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/Cr~gress Community Development District will serve land that comprises approximately 30~ 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. 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 role relating to this project that is anticipated to effect state or local revenues. 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 3.2 4.0 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 Depamuent 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 of this Petition, or in the monitoring of this District 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 consmact 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. 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 offsite improvements will all be funded by the District. 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 Improvements CDD City City 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 aitemative 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 ease. 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 infi'astmcture 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 $ 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., and an analysis of the impact on small counties and small cities as defined 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. REPORT APPENDIX A LIST OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FL. STATUE CITATION DUE DATE Annual Financial Audit Annual Financial Report TRIM Compliance Report Form 1: Statement of Financial Public Facilities Report Public Meetings Schedule Bond Report Registered Agent Proposed Budget Public Depositor Report 11.45 218.32 200.068 112.3145 189.415 189.417 218.38 189.416 189.418 280.17 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 7/1 (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 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 WPB-FS I ~S ANFO RDS ~505108v03 \7 /21/04~ 544 3.010900 © ~o° o ~0~