Loading...
Minutes 07-27-10 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING HELD IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FL, ON TUESDAY, JULY 27, 2010 AT 6:30 P.M. PRESENT Roger Saberson, Chair Matthew Barnes, Vice Chair Sharon Grcevic Candace Killian Steve Myott Leah Foertsch, Alternate Mike Rumpf, Planning & Zoning Director Eric Johnson, Planner Kathleen Zeitler, Planner Jamila Alexander, Assistant City Attorney ABSENT Shirley Jaskiewicz Warren Timm 1. Pledge of Allegiance The Chair called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. and Ms. Killian led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 2. Introduction of the Board Introduction was made of the Board members and revealed a quorum was present. 3. Agenda Approval Motion Mr. Myott moved to approve the agenda. Mr. Barnes seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 4. Approval of minutes Motion Mr. Barnes moved to approve the minutes of June 22, 2010. Ms. Grcevic seconded the motion. The motion carried. Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, FL July 27, 2010 5. Communications and Announcements. Report from Planning and Zoning Director Mr. Rumpf reported on July 6, 2010 the second reading of the electrified fence Code amendment was approved within the M-1 zoning district. On July 20, 2010 the setback variance for Dr. Jaffe was tabled due to the absence of the applicant. The matter will be brought back before the Commission on August 17, 2010. Group 8 of the Land Development Regulations (LDR) Rewrite deliverable was presented and accepted by the Commission without any concerns. 6. Old Business: None. 7. New Business: Attorney Alexander administered an oath to all those intending to testify on matters brought before the Board. A.1. Habitat for Humanity (ZNCV 10-008), Zoning Code Variance - Request for relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 5.F.2.a., requiring a minimum side yard setback of 10 feet, to allow a variance of 5 feet and a side (east side) yard setback of 5 feet; and, Request for relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 5.F.2.a., requiring a minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet, to allow a variance of 5 feet and a rear yard setback of 20 feet, for a proposed two-family dwelling (duplex) within the R-2 Duplex Residential zoning district. Applicant: Michael Campbell/Habitat for Humanity Kathleen Zeitler, Planner, located the property on NE 11th Avenue within the Heart of Boynton Community Redevelopment Area. A half-acre lot was proposed to include a small residential subdivision for low income families. It is zoned R-2 permitting single family or duplex residential with a 10-foot side setback and 25-foot rear yard setback. The site plan shows the proposed duplex was shifted east to comply with the 10-foot side setback on the west property line. The change would lessen the number of variances required and the impact of a reduced setback on the east side would be minimal. The lot to the east will remain undeveloped due to size and configuration. A variance of five feet would be required from the rear yard setback from the north property line. The floor plan includes one unit with 1,796 square feet and the second unit with 1,754 square feet having three bedrooms, two bathrooms and a one-car garage. The 2 Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, FL July 27,2010 applicant did not meet all the criteria for a variance and the hardship was created by the applicant proposing two units on the lot. The duplex could be redesigned, reducing the size of the duplex or building single family residences to avoid the need for variances. The applicant rejected those options. Staff recommended the request be denied. However, staff did support residential redevelopment and associated improvements and previous variances have been approved under similar circumstances, placing greater emphasis on economic potential, minor home improvements, characteristics of or impact on surrounding properties. Granting the variance would be in harmony with the general intent of the ordinance without any negative impact on the area. The adjacent single-family residences will not be impacted and the eastern lot will remain vacant and create a greater setback. There is also a history of variance in the neighborhood and non-conforming conditions. The proposed project would have the appearance of conformity with the surrounding homes. The site is in the Heart of Boynton Community Redevelopment Area and revitalizes a vacant, unused parcel. It provides new housing with home ownership. A duplex would provide low income housing for an additional family in need and have a greater economic impact for the City. No letters or phone calls were received in opposition to the variance. No conditions of approval were necessary. Mike Campbell, 181 SE 5th Avenue, Delray Beach, advised Habitat for Humanity had bought the property in January 2008 and through January 2010 devised a plan to maximize the property for a community known as Boynton Beach Gardens. It was anticipated to be in a land trust with a 99-year lease to each homeowner. There would be a community garden established for the homes in the area. It would be governed by a homeowners association and have a lawn maintenance program rather than the individual homeowners. There would be a water system for the residences for irrigation without a cost to the homeowners. The adjoining vacant lot was not affordable for acquisition by Habitat for Humanity. Ms. Grcevic inquired if there had been any interest generated and Mr. Campbell responded four families had inquired and two families were working through the process. The build time would be approximately six months. Mr. Saberson opened the issue for public hearing. Karen Potts, 409 NE 11th Avenue, lived adjacent to the project, and voiced concern over the park that would be located behind her property. She did not want a garden and people hanging out in the lot. She would have not bought her house if she had known a park was a being planned. Ms. Potts liked the development coming to the area, but she strongly opposed a park behind her home. Mr. Barnes confirmed that the park was not a part of the application before the Board. He explained to Ms. Potts her concerns should be addressed to Habitat for Humanity or City staff. Ms. Potts reiterated her understanding Mr. Campbell indicated a garden 3 Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, FL July 27, 2010 would be planted. There were many parks in the area and she did not understand why a park was needed for the small project. Ms. Zeitler clarified that Ms. Potts' lot was west of lot one and the variance was for lot two. Ms. Grcevic explained the Board was only considering lot two and not the lot for the garden/park. Mr. Myott inquired if the garden issue would be brought before the Board. Mr. Rumpf replied community gardens would not be site planned. Parks and signage would get site planned. It depended on the characteristics that had not been disclosed. Mr. Myott noted the community gardens are generally fenced with no light. They appear to only be used during daylight hours and limited to a small number of people. Mr. Campbell explained there was not a park function planned. It is an interior area that will ultimately be open green space for all homes that is not accessible to the community at large, but all the project homes would open to the area. The space is relatively small and passive. Mr. Myott commented the idea was ground-breaking ideas Habitat for Humanity would not generally be able to do a multi-family type project. Several site plans have been proposed and failed. Even though the plan was contrary to the Code, he supported the project and design for housing at a reasonable cost. Mr. Barnes echoed Mr. Myott's comment and offered that non-profit home builders should be afforded incentives such as smaller setbacks. Many of the current lots were non-conforming and inappropriate widths. He favored the proposal. Mr. Saberson also supported the request because the variances were non-impacting and it was a worthwhile project. Motion Mr. Myott moved to approve the Habitat for Humanity zoning Code variance request for relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2 Zoning, Section 5.f.2.a requiring a minimum side yard setback of 10 feet to allow a variance of 5 feet on the east side and an east side yard set back of 5 feet. Mr. Barnes seconded the motion. The motion carried. Motion Mr. Myott moved to approve a request for relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 5.F.2.a., requiring a minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet, to allow a variance of 5 feet and a rear yard setback of 20 feet, for a proposed two-family dwelling (duplex) within the R-2 Duplex Residential zoning district subject to all staff comments. Ms. Grcevic seconded the motion. The 4 Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, FL July 27,2010 motion carried. B.1. Gateway Hotel (NWSP 09-003), New Site Plan - Request for New Site Plan approval for construction of a four (4) story, 77,744 square foot, 108 room hotel on Lot 2, Quantum Park, in the Planned Industrial Development (PID) Zoning District. Applicant: John Vaughan, Art & Architecture, Inc. Ed Breese, Principal Planner, reviewed the request of North Boynton Beach Hospitality for a new site plan approval. It would be adjacent to the Hampton Inn & Suites in Quantum Park. The applicant owns Hampton Inn & Suites and has been negotiating with hotel chains to locate on the site. The main point of ingress and egress would be Quantum Boulevard and a secondary point through the Regions Bank site on an existing easement. The parking requirements have been met including five handicap spaces. There was a waiver granted by the Engineering Department for the size of the parking spaces to coordinate with the previous parking sizes for the existing properties. Landscape proposed was reviewed. Staff recommended the placement of taller shrubs along the east side of the hotel, with substantial plant materials between the hedge and tree heights. The smaller areas of sod onsite should be planted with native plantings to reduce the irrigation requirements. The roof height would be 41 feet with an average parapet of 45 feet or 50 feet and below in compliance with the Planned Industrial District (PID) maximum height regulations. The architectural designs follow the Hampton Inn as well as Renaissance Commons structures and paint colors. The signage would be on Quantum Boulevard and individual channel wall signage. The Architectural Review Committee for Quantum Park reviewed and approved the plans. Staff recommended approval subject to the conditions listed. Mr. Barnes questioned if the larger sod areas could be eliminated for environmental purposes. Mr. Breese would support that change; however, noting green areas are sometimes available for play space John Vaughan, Art & Architecture, Inc, 1055 SW 15th Avenue, Delray Beach, was willing to investigate landscape changes as suggested. The new hotel would enhance the area and be a positive image for the City. Mr. Saberson confirmed the applicant was in agreement with the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Vaughan concurred. Mr. Barnes requested clarification that the easement to the south was available, since a dumpster was there. Mr. Vaughan explained it had been moved to the location temporarily and remained for some time. It was a dedicated easement. Mr. Myott inquired if there were any green initiatives or LEED applications. Mr. Vaughan indicated interior items would lend it to sustainability. It would not be listed as a LEEDs, but items were being pursued to conserve water and waste. Mr. Myott further 5 Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, FL July 27,2010 asked, if by design, the building would meet the needs of other hotel chains. Mr. Vaughan replied both Hilton products and Marriott products would be compatible with brand. The question of possible conflict or competition for survival between the two hotels was addressed by Mr. Myott. It was asserted that the new adventure would lend itself to slightly longer stays and would eliminate any possible conflict. The management would remain separate. Ms. Grcevic commented the small kitchenettes were a positive for those coming to the area wanting to stay for a longer period without a monthly commitment. Renaissance Commons across the street would be an asset also for shopping. Chair Saberson opened the issue for public hearing. No one came forward. Motion Mr. Barnes moved to approve the request for new site plan approval for construction of a four (4) story, 77,744 square foot, 108 room hotel on Lot 2, Quantum Park, in the Planned Industrial Development (PID) Zoning District subject to all conditions. Ms. Grcevic seconded the motion. The motion carried. C.1. South Florida MasterCraft (aka JR Watersports) (COUS 10-003), Conditional Use - Request to amend two (2) conditions of approval associated with the previously granted conditional use approval for a 7,419 square foot new boat dealership to extend the timeframe to complete all site improvements by six (6) months and to allow one (1) watercraft to be displayed forward of the front building line in the General Commercial (C-4) zoning district. Applicant: Mike Wood, South Florida Master Craft. Mr. Myott disclosed he had to excuse himself on this item as the architect for the renovation of the building. Mr. Breese reviewed the request to amend two conditions of approval relating to the conditional use approval for a boat dealership on Federal Highway. Approval was received in 2009 and the building had been renovated and opened for business. There was a request to add one boat to be displayed in front of the building, during the hours of operation, which was previously precluded. A blue rock area had been included to give the illusion of the boat being in water. The second request was for an additional six months to complete the site improvements. It would be easier to complete the changes during the off season and be the least disruptive to operation. Additional revenue could continue to accumulate pending the completion. The improvements to be completed include installation of a decorative chain-link fence, additional landscaping and a drainage system. Staff recommended approval of the requested changes. The applicant had made a good faith effort to complete the site improvements. The justification for the six-month extension was determined to be valid 6 Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, FL July 27,2010 and the display of one watercraft, forward of the building line, during the hours of operation was supported. The extension would be to January 21, 2011. Mike Wood, 803 NW 11th Street, was present to respond to any questions. Ms. Grcevic commented there had been resistance when the project was first proposed. Her view of the property was that it had been greatly improved and does have a positive impact on the area. Mr. Barnes agreed the property looked great and the boat in front during business hours was not an issue. He was in favor of the project. Ms. Killian drove by the property regularly and agreed it was a major improvement Chair Saberson opened the issue for public hearing. Daniel Spotts, had a retail store immediately north of the proposed site. He expressed concern with the ultimate plan for the zone. When he originally brought his business to the City of Boynton Beach he was encouraged to come to the industrial zone because it was being developed and there were exciting plans. Many of the businesses have been torn down and the area improved, particularly the project site. He had questioned the planned project because it was similar in nature to the previous operation and contrary to the plans for the area that had been explained to him originally. His primary objection was the slow creep of the site back to its original use and the ultimate plan for the entire area. The proposed trees in the front would block the view of his business and he did not trust the City of Boynton Beach to stand by their plan in the future. Chair Saberson encouraged Mr. Spotts to meet with staff and review the information. The two issues before the Board for consideration were reviewed. Mr. Spotts reiterated he specifically objected to the boats in the front of the business which had not been agreed to in the beginning. Mr. Barnes stressed it was only one boat in the front and the fencing would be more decorative in nature than screening. The change is incremental and involves a sub- standard lot. Mr. Breese clarified the zoning was C-4, intense commercial, and did allow some industrial characteristics. It is a retail store for boats. The location of the display boat is in a corner. Chair Saberson advised Mr. Spotts he was asking for something the Board could not legally do. The Board cannot guarantee that Conditions of Approval would not be changed. Mr. Spotts argued he had been told the plan was to change the area and it was now creeping back to the same type of culture as existed. Ms. Grcevic emphasized boat maintenance would not be undertaken along Federal Highway. The request was to showcase one boat and not a storage location. She 7 Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, FL July 27, 2010 hoped it would attract those with boats to the Promenade or Marina Village and take advantage of the waterway that exists. Mr. Wood indicated the boat was valuable and it would not be appropriate to park it in the front when the business was not in operation. It has to be stored within a building. Mr. Wood advised he had surveyed his neighbors and had received no objections. Ms. Killian understood Mr. Spotts' concerns based on the past owners; however, Mr. Wood had made a good faith effort to improve the site and the City. Mr. Barnes did not feel the establishment of retail boat sales would constitute a creep of industrial type development. Chair Saberson developed that the location of some of the trees had been moved to accommodate the signage on Federal Highway. Mr. Breese cautioned the gradual growth of the canopy trees may eventually obscure the visibility of the adjacent property and signage. Mr. Wood had spoken with the adjacent property owner and had agreed on what trees should be moved and where. He had no problem with altering the location of the trees if necessary. Motion Mr. Barnes moved to approve the request of J.R. Watersports of South Florida to amend two (2) conditions of approval associated with the previously granted conditional use approval for a 7,419 square foot new boat dealership to extend the timeframe to complete all site improvements by six (6) months and to allow one (1) watercraft to be displayed forward of the front building line in the General Commercial (C-4) zoning district with all conditions of approval. Ms. Foertsch seconded the motion. The motion carried. D.1. Dry Cleaners in Mixed Use (CDRV 10-006), Code Review - Request approval for proposed amendments to the Land Development Regulations Part III LDR, specifically to Chapter 1, Article II Definitions by adding a definition for dry cleaners, and to modify Chapter 2. Zoning, Sections 6.F.4 Table 6F-1 and H.3 Table 6H-1 by allowing such establishments within all mixed use districts, requiring conditional use approval if they clean or launder clothing on-premises. Applicant: City-initiated. Eric Johnson, Planner II, explained the proposed Code amendments. There would be new definitions for dry cleaner and dry cleaning plant. The zoning changes would change the matrix of permitted uses. The change was prompted by an operator of a dry cleaner who wants to locate in the mixed use district and do laundering or cleaning type of activities onsite. Currently dry cleaners encompass only onsite drop off with no cleaning activities allowed. Dry cleaners are allowed in most commercial districts and the mixed use districts. The current restrictions were based on untested and unproven mixed use regulations and uncertainty as to the development pattern. There was also a 8 Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, FL July 27,2010 perception that dry cleaning activities could be disruptive to adjacent residents due to machine noise and chemicals, plus a concern regarding the size and frequency of delivery trucks. The dry cleaning process includes the use of PERC (perchloroethylene) which is not environmentally friendly. The perspective vendor had indicated it would be a green cleaner, doing wet and dry cleaning and using liquid silicone, which is more environmentally friendly. Mr. Johnson cautioned that other dry cleaners would be allowed to operate and could use PERC only. The zoning changes would be allowed as a conditional use in the mixed use districts. Staff recommended that any onsite cleaning or laundering would require conditional use approval so interior or external alteration would have little or no adverse impact or conflict with the existing buildings' architecture or quality. It would guarantee that the use could co-exist and be compatible. There would be a maximum size of 2,000 square feet to prevent the growth or conversion of each store to a more intense or unintended use. Mr. Myott inquired if the prospected location was in Renaissance Commons and Mr. Johnson confirmed. Chair Saberson declared there was no audience for public hearing comments. Motion Mr. Barnes moved to approve dry cleaners in mixed use with all staff conditions. Mr. Myott seconded the motion. The motion carried. E.1. LDR Re-write Group 8 continued (CDRV 07-004), Code Review - Request approval of a portion of Group 8 deliverable, pursuant to the LDR Rewrite Work Schedule, including: Chapter 1, Article VII Administrative and Decision Making Bodies: Chapter 1, Article VIII Appeals; Chapter 1, Article IX Notice of Intent; and all applications administered by the Planning and Zoning Division. Mr. Johnson announced this was the final installment of the LDR (Land Development Regulations) re-write process. It includes the administrative and decision making bodies, language on appeals, notice of intent and new land development applications. The wireless communication provisions are not completed at this time. The City Clerk submitted comments regarding Article VII resulting in the appointees of the Planning and Development Board shall be members until their term expires. The sentence relating to alternate members having preference should be deleted and the annual appointments would be in January of each year. Staff was seeking approval of the draft version and forward to the City Commission. There was speculation that the final ordinance would be presented to the Commission in September or October for approval. 9 Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, FL July 27,2010 Mr. Barnes noted in the existing Code, the Board only had authority over existing mobile vendor units and it did not appear in the proposed Code amendments. Mr. Johnson agreed it should be included. Relating to the authority of the CRA it would be erroneous to have the CRA indicated in the LDR with the same kind of authority of the Planning and Development Board. Mr. Barnes suggested final authority to approve variances should remain with the Planning and Development Board. It would take the approval out of the political realm. Mr. Johnson refined the suggestion that it should be any variance, not attached to a site plan, should remain with the Planning and Development Board. Mr. Barnes contended it would be cumbersome to split up the variance and new site plan. Attorney Alexander agreed a variance and new site plan should travel together to the City Commission. Mr. Myott inquired if some municipalities have Boards of Adjustment and Attorney Alexander agreed there are Boards of Adjustment in other cities. Any change would be a Code change. Currently the Planning and Development Board deals with variances and makes a recommendation to the City Commission. Mr. Myott surmised the variances do not make it to the Planning and Development Board unless they have a good chance of approval. He speculated that the system was good for a developer friendly community. Ms. Killian added the citizen should be able to face off with the City Commission because they are voters and they have a right to expression. Mr. Barnes understood that aspect, but added the Code of Ordinances would be upheld that should not be subject to political whims. Ms. Grcevic was in favor of the current system because the majority of the public with concerns want to go to the Commission meeting. Mr. Johnson clarified a variance request without a site plan attached would be decided at the Planning and Development Board. The applicant could then file an appeal to the City Commission. Mr. Barnes disagreed and countered that any appeal would go directly to the Courts rather than the Commission. There would be additional fees. Ms. Killian reiterated the citizens have a right to speak to their elected officials and have their concerns heard. It is a significant event for a homeowner. Staff should interpret the rules and the Planning and Development Board makes recommendations to the City Commission. Mr. Rumpf added there had been review of the time and effort required for the process and attempts to expedite the process. Very few variances get denied. With the Planning and Development Board having final authority, it would reduce approximately three weeks in the approval process. Mr. Myott stressed it was imperative that the quality of the presentations and level of detail should be high so that everyone has a very clear picture of the request. Mr. Rumpf commented the issue had been recognized and more detail has been added with the last few projects. It is best addressed in the Administrative Guidelines and could be enhanced in the site plan submittal requirements. Chair Saberson and Ms. Foertsch had no comments. Mr. Barnes was content to accept the remarks as 10 Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, FL July 27,2010 discussed. Mr. Johnson requested direction if the mobile vendor approval should go directly to the Commission or be reviewed by the Planning and Development Board and then to the Commission. Mr. Myott and Mr. Barnes felt the request should go through the Planning and Development Board. Mr. Myott added it influenced the quality of retail. Attorney Alexander advised the last Ordinance was 07-024 that addressed the issue indicating the approval would be with the Planning and Development Board or the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) Board. Ms. Grcevic agreed the final decision should remain with the Planning and Development Board. Mr. Barnes suggested for consistency, the Mobile Vending Units approval process should be added. Mr. Saberson questioned the advertising requirement for site plans as part of the condition of approval. Mr. Johnson pointed out a site plan is not advertised with a legal notice published in the newspaper. Motion Mr. Myott moved to recommend that this section of the LDR Re-write be forwarded to the City Commission. Ms. Grcevic seconded the motion. The motion carried. 8. Other None 9. Comments by members Mr. Myott inquired about the status of the WalMart site plan at the Gulfstream Mall. The fence has been taken down and it was an eyesore. He wanted an update on the South Federal Corridor. Mr. Breese advised WalMart was completing the permit set to submit for permit drawings. A minor modification had been submitted for the landscaping and parking. It was continuing to progress to a permit set of drawings. Mr. Breese reported there have been more pre-application meetings and more inquiries on previously approved projects or other pieces of property. The Board was pleased to have the new hotel being added. 10. Adjournment There being nothing further business to come before the Board, Chair Saberson adjourned the mee ing at 8:21 p.m. 11 FORM 88 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER lOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS NAME OF BOARD, COU IL: COMMISSION. AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE fJ10tJ - THE 80 D. COUNCIL, COMMISSION. AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE es ICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: c... CITY 0 COUNTY 0 OTHER LOCAL A<IEI!ICY NAM F POLITICAL SUB ISION: IJ &rt CITY N 'o;J rT'lO ='::Z --< c ~ro z:- - rT1 ,_.. C"')> ........ rr1n :r This form is for use by any person srrving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112,3143, Florida Statutes. o ELECTNE WHO MUST FilE FORM 8S. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which "'Ires to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- e which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative~ includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). . ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: AlttlOugh you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. 1'- IV INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE _N: . You must complete and fife this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) :E FORM 88 - EFF_ 1/2000 PAGE 1 . ~. . . APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) . A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of Hle illwnC\ . The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is flleeJ IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING . You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I, ____~:7ff3v~11 () rr ,hereby disclose that on__ ---~4- _.Z ]_~~~_. _. _~___, 20 ~. (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) X inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, ___~ inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, _ inured to the special gain or loss of~ .____ whom I am retained; or _ _.___' by inured to the special gain or loss of ._ _ _______. __, which is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: j: 'AliV~) tM~ A(iL'H rrf::iCr l/ A 16 1,{:("Xf .A )J [I RI~JH E e-AFl--i'f ~ f7 . t....,u I L. j) J ~. (, (2.c}\)(.) \/ III JD\{ $ IN /"il :~ (: ij(.~ J / i ., /'1.-1 / /t Date Filed / I '<":::~ ....... --~,-.._.- . -' _ / {L~_________ __ s~;e NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES S112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOllOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A. CIVil PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 88 - EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 2