Loading...
Minutes 01-10-95MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPHENT BOARD MEETING HELD IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, ON TUESDAY, JAI~JARY I0, 1995, AT 7:00 PRESENT Gary tehnertz, Chairman Stanley DubS, Vice Chairman Jim Golden Tom Walsh Bradley Weigle Maurice Rosenstock Pat Frazier, Alternate Tambri Heyden, Planning and Zoning Director Michael Rumpf, Senior Planner PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Vice Chairman Dub~ called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m., and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. INTRODUCTION OF HAYOR~ COMMISSTONERS AND BOARD MEMBERS This item is addressed later in the meeting. AGENDA APPROVAL Mr. Rosenstock moved to approve the agenda as presented. motion, which carried unanimously. Chairman Lehnertz arrived for the meeting. INTRODUCTION OF HAYOR~ COMMISSIONERS AND BOARD MEMBERS Chairman Lehnertz introduced the members of the Board. Mr. Walsh seconded the APPROVAL OF MINUTES Vice Chairman Dub~ moved to approve the minutes of the December 13, 1994 meeting as submitted. Mr. Rosenstock seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. COMMUNICATIONS AND ANNOUNCEHENTS A. Report fr~m the Planning and Zoning Department 1. Final DIsposition of Las[ Month's Agenda Items Ms. Heyden reminded the members that five (5) agenda items were addressed last month. Two of the items were master plan modifications for Woolbright Place and Bethesda Memorial Hospital. Those two items did not move forward to the City Commission since they are disposed of at the Planning and Development Board. Listed below is the final disposition of the remaining three (3) items addressed by the Board at its December 13th meeting: - 1 - MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD NEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA dANUARY 10, 1995 Sears Auto Center - This project went before the City Commis- sion on December 20th. With four Commissioners in attendance, a 2-2 vote resulted, which is neither considered a denial or a~ approval. The p~oject did not move forward. At the danuary 3rd City commission, Mayor Pro Tem Bradley requested that the project be reconsidered. With five Commissioners present, the' project was approved subject to staff comments, with the exception of construction of the wall. In lieu of the walt, additional ]andscapi.ng along the north property line and the northeast property line were required. F~rther, the CityC~mmission bas required that the dumpster enclosure be widened to accommodate the second dumpSter, 2. Abandor~ent for the Vtnln9$ - This abandonment was unanimously a~proYe~ by the commission ~ubject to Staff comments. 3. Citrus Park Time Extension - The City Commission approved the six-month time extension subject to staff comments. B. Filing of Quarterly Report for S~lte Plan Waivers and Minor Site Plan Nndification~ There were no questions from the members with regard to the filing of the Quarterly Report for Site Plan Waivers and Minor Site Plan Modifications. OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS A. PUBLIC HEARING LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT/REZONING Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Woolbrl~ht Professional Center John B. Glander Woolbright Professional Center (partnership) Woolbright Road at L.W,D.D. E-4 Canal, southwest corner Request for a map amendment to the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan from Office Com- mercial to Local Retail Commercial and rezoning from C-i {Office/Professional) to C-2 {Neighborhood Commercial). Mr. Rumpf made the presentation. The current designation restricts development to office andprofessional businesses, whereas the proposed zoning would also allow small commercial facilities of a retail convenience nature. -2- HINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPNENT BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BERCH, FLORIDA ~ANUARY 10, 1995 With regard to the history of this site, the subject property was rezoned from C-4 to R~lAA in 1980. In November, 1987, it was rezoneo from R-1AA to C-1 to allow for the development of a 26,550 square foot professional medical/office complex consisting of two separate single-story structures. As conditions of ultimate site approval, staff recon~ended, when rezoned, that the standard buffer wall be placed on both the south and west sides of the property, parking lot lighting located along the perimeter be directed away from existing resi- dences, and that the development be limited to a height of one story. Although the rezoning was approved, the site plan was not fully processed. The surplus of office space was recognized at the time of the previous rezoning; however, the proposed medical uses constituted a slightly different market than those in abundance in the area. Following is a list of the current/adjacent land uses in the area: Direction Use Zonin9 North and Northwest Farther North East Farther East South and West Farther Northwest Woolbright Road N/A Chua Eye Clinic C-1 L.W.D.D. E-4 Canal N/A Boynton Commerce Center PID Boynton Beach Leisureville R-1AA Leisureville Center Shcpping C-2 Plaza Mr. Rumpf added that the Shoppes of Woolbright PCD and the Home Depot project are also nearby. Mr. Rumpf addressed the review criteria as noted in Planning and Zoning Depart- ment Memorandum No. 94-379 dated January 4, 1995, to the Chairman and Members of the Planning and Development Board. The Planning and Zoning Department recommends that the application submitted by John G. Glander be approved based on the following: 1. The proposed amendment and zoning would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan objectives and policies; 2. The proposed amendment would not be contrary to the established land pattern; The requested land use and zoning would be compatible with capacities of utility systems, roadways, and other public facilities; The proposed land use and zoning would be compatible with the current and future use of adjacent and nearby properties and, would not affect the property values of adjacent or nearby properties; and -3- HIHUTE$ PLANHING AND DEVELOPHENT BOARD I~EETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JANUARY 10, 1995 The proposed land use and zoning is of a scale which is reasonably related to the needs of the neighborhood and the City as a whole. The Planning and Zoning Department further repeated the conditions which were placed on the rezoning when this parcel was rezoned to C-1 and recommends that those conditions be applied. They are: 1. Distances between the future commercial building(s) on the subject property and the adjacent existing homes be maximized; 2. Construction of the required six foot high concrete block wall along the southern and western property boundaries; 3. Parking lot lighting be directed away from adjacent residences; and 4. Building height be limited to one story (15 feet). Mr. Golden asked for clarification on whether there is a vacant, as well as a developed parcel, on the C-~ property across the E-4 canal to the east. Mr. Rumpf confirmed that the Paychex Office Building is only one-half of the office building site plan which was originally approved on the property. John Glander~ Real Estate Appralser~ displayed photos of the property and the neighborhood. He explained that the subject of rezoning arose because the prop- erty does not appear to be marketable. He made an inspection of office build- lngs in the neighborhood to determine their vacancy factor. The vacancy factor is a great deal higher than he expected. He stated that there is no market for office space at the present time. Mr. Glander also displayed an artist's rendering of a project which the owner has in mind for the parcel; however, there is no tenant for that property yet. The owner would like to keep the character of the neighborhood similar to what it is currently. Mr. Rosenstock pointed out that C-2 zoning encompasses auto service stations without major repairs, car washes, taxicab offices, fabrication, installation or furniture slipcovers, laundromats, beer and wine sales, etc. Mr. Glander said the owner is interested in having uses that would be compatible with the market. The owner is trying to interest people who would like to serv- ice the homes in the area and be compatible with the neighborhood. They are not interested in changing the character of the area. Mr. Rosenstock referred to the staff report and read from the "Site History". This property has already been rezoned twice. Now there is another recommen- dation to rezone it. He questioned how the Planning and Zoning Department could say we need another shopping center because the nearest shopping center is a mile away. He pointed out that most people in the nearby community have cars or have access to the new transit system. Mr. Rosenstock feels a decision must be made regarding how this City should look. He stated he does not want to be a part of a proliferation of gas stations and strip shopping centers. He will not be a part of making Congress Avenue, from the L-30 Canal to the northern boun- dary, another "northern New Jersey". He will not support this request. -4- NINUTE$ PLANNZNG AND DEVELOPI4ENT BOARD MEETZNG BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA ,,1ANUARY 10, 1995 Mr. Golden asked Mr. Glander if he had submitted a market study or analysis which would support his contention. Mr. Glander responded negatively and said he has been doing this work for thirty years. He had wanted to do a direct mail campaign to the owners to determine what they would like to see developed in the area. Mr. Glander said this is a commercial piece of property from the stand- point of the market. The assessment has been reduced twice in the last two years. There is no market for office space. Mr. Glander stated that he met with Mr. Bill Lynch to explain his intentions. He was seeking ioput from the surrounding residents and they appeared interested in working with him. Mr. Golden advised that he has read recent articles which attest to the fact that office rates are decreasing significantly in the Cou,nty. Mr. Glander said the rates are decreasing severely. Much of the space which was $10, is now $8. Chairman Lehnertz noted that the staff report contained comments with regard to the vacancy rate in the office/professional bu~ldings. He ques~tioned whether or not Mr. Glander had done a survey of the vacancy rates of C-2 ~nd C-3 zoned buildings. Mr. Glander said he did not find much C-2 in the area. Chairman Lehnertz pointed out that there is a s4gn~fic~mt a~lo~nt of vacancies in all types of commercial buildings. This Beard~s seem~ sit~pns where a shop- ptng center or strip mall will offer discount ~tes for r~n~swhich lure tenants from a nearby center into their center. The Places ~he~e te~qa~s leave become vacant. A year or two later, a ~ew shopping c~n~ter c~mes imI a6d lures those tenants again, resulting in a situation much li~e th~'o~w~!ic~ioccurred the year before. Chairman Lehnertz said he would haive )ike~ tOihaV~ seen a statis- tical analysis which would ha~e included C-2 a~weli as C-i. · Mr. Glander said he contacted the Building Depar~en~ to leQrn how many building permits were issued for office buildings. The/Building Department informed him that no permits were issued in the past two ye~r~. Ue ~oi~ted out that Leisure- vt)le Sh~pping Center has had only one vacancy.i ~n ~al~ing with the merchants jn that center, M~. Glander ima~rned thatt~ey were hamm~, with the )oc-~-- uecause of the 2,BO0 homes in Leisureville~ Mr.~ ould be perfect for another small shopping c~ter. Mr. Rosenstock felt it was unfair of ~r. Gl~ander Go appear before the Board requesting a zoning change without having ~ne va~id ~esearo~ W~h need for office buildings' and shopp~n~ centiers. Although he"ap~C~t~~ ~"~ ?fort to market ~hat property, Mr. ~s~ns~:ock fe~ls the Board has an obligation ~o protect the City and its residents. Mr. Glander said he met with the Board at Leisureville on two occasions to inform them of what was intended for this property. Leisureville consists of fa'irly high-income people which presents an excellent market, tf a shopping center is built, these residents will be able to walk to it. This property will eventually be developed, and Mr. Gland~r feels it would be much more beneficial develop it in a ma~nner which would please the nearby residents. Mr. Rosenstock pointed out that no petitions were received from Leisureville either in support or opposition of this request. to -5- HINUTE$ PLANHZNG AND DEVELOPHENT BOARD HEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JANUARY 10, 1995 Vice Chairman Dub~ wondered whether or not the residents of Leisureville are aware of all of the uses permitted in C-2 zoning. In reviewing the list of uses permitted, the only thing that area would need would be a gas station or repair shop. He pointed out that although Leisureville Shopping Center is a very suc- cessful center, it is the meat market which draws people to it. Probably more than half of the people serviced by the meat market in that center are not from Leisureville. Mr. Golden referred to the information boards Mr. Glander presented earlier in the meeting which showed the vacancy rates in the office buildings. He realizes that the vacancy rates are primarily in the larger, multi-story type office buildings. He pointed out that what would be allowed under the current zoning would be smaller office buildings in different categories. Some categories have higher vacancy rates than others. This is an issue which must be considered. There is a good deal of property in the City which is undeveloped, and the reasons for that vary from property to property. Mr. Weigle stated that there are objectionable uses associated with the C-2 zoning designation. If the 'Board were to recommend approval of the rezoning, he inquired as to what assurances would be provided guaranteeing that no objection- able uses would be developed. Mr. Glander said he would assure the Board with stipulations from the owner that no gas station or other objectionable use would be developed. He will advise his client that stipulations are required. Btll k~nch~ 1912 SW 18th Avenue~ Prestdenb of Boynton Lelsurevllle~ said a meeting was held ~'~ December 8th with the residents who abut the property. They were in favor of having this project move forward. However, Mr. Lynch does not believe they understood the full ramifications of what could be developed on that property. Mr. Lynch feels stipulations would be in order before any agree- ment is made so that no gas stations or objectionable use could be developed. If such a situation cannot be worked out, Leisureville will go against the proj- ect at the City Commission level. Mr. Lynch stated he is not objecting to the project as long as the stipulations are met and agreed to by Leisureville and the developer. THERE WAS NO ONE ELSE PRESENT WHO WISHED TO SPEAK AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. Mr. Golden pointed out that the Board does not have any stipulations available tonight. Further, there is an issue of contract zoning which the City Attorney would have to investigate. Chairmen Lehnertz explained that contract zoning is illegal. While there may be a possibility of something coming before the Board in the future, he does not believe the Board could accept a blanket statement that the owner would like a compatible development as a binding statement. Mr. Weigle stated that there have been times when a developer has wanted a proj- ect to go through a rezoning, that he comes before the Board with the drawn -6- MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA OANUARY 10, 1995 plans showing what will be developed. The residents of the area are then aware of the plans. Regardless of whether office or retail is developed, if it is a good project, it will be more aesthetically pleasing than the vacant lot which now exists. He suggested that the applicant bring the entire program before the Board. Once zoning is granted, it is illegal to stipulate what can or cannot be put on that property. Mr. Glander said he will make every effort to give the City what it wants, Chairman Lehnertz feels that this applicant came before the Board saying that because the property has not been developed for a certain number of years, it is unusable and unmarketable under the current zoning. He recalled the situation with Casablanca Apartments on Boynton Beach Boulevard. That property was zoned as a multi-family residential area. Over a period of four to six years, the Board saw between four anP five applications by peoole who said the property could not be developed or marketed as residential and must be changed to commer- cial. The Board and City Commission did not agree. Casablanca Apartments now exist on that property. Further, Page 4 of the staff report states additional land for retail develoo- ment exists to the east of this site at the planned Shoppes of Woolbright proj- ect, and to the west of this site at the corner of Congress Avenue and Woolbright Road. Chairman Lehnertz feels this proves that there are nearby areas already zoned for the type of development which is being proposed by Mr. Glander. Those areas should be allowed to be built rather than changing the zoning on this parcel. Chairman Lehnertz offered his remarks regarding the staff recommendation. The following are his responses to staff recommendations. (The numbers refer to those contained in the staff report.) He does not believe this amendment would be consistent with the ComprehensiVe Plan Objectives and policies. If the Comprehensive P)an were reviewed, this request wouTd not fall under the Compre- hensive Plan policies. #2 He believes granting this request would be contrary to the established land use pattern and would grant a special privilege to an individual property owner. He referred to the C-1 parcel which is onl~ partially developed. All three parcels should be included ~in a ComPrehensive Plan evaluation rather than just looking at t~hem individually. He feels that if this request is granted, a request to rezone would be received immediately rela- tive to the parcel on the east. #4 He does not agree with the remarks by staff in Item #4. There are a large number of uses in the C-2 zoning designation which would be highly detrimental to the residents of the community and would not be compatible With a residential area. #B He feels it would be difficult to find many uses in this shopping strip which would be useful. Mostly everyone in this community drives Or has access to the bus. -7- NZNUTE$ PLANNING AND DEVELOPNENT BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA ~ANUARY 10, lgg5 In addition, Mr. Golden pointed out that another use which could go into a C-2 designation with conditional use approval would be a drive-thru restaurant. Ms. Heyden said that this proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding and as such, she must state for the record that her office and the Board Chairman had contact this morning. However, no additional information was provided which is not in the staff report or which was provided to the applicant, Mr, Walsh feels this parcel of landis an eyesore. It has been vacant for many years. Although he is concerned that a proper use is put in this location, we are receiving little or no ta,x money is 6ei~g realized from that property. The owner will spend about $500,000 todevelop the parcel in anticipation of renting it out to cormmercial establishments. He does not feel a person who spends that much money on a piece of property would put in a gas station or any other objec- tionable use. If the drawing is indicative of what will be built, it would be an asset to the area residents and Would be in the best interest of City resi- dents in terms of taxes. He will v~te in fawor of this neq~e~t, subject to the stipulations whi:ch c~n be worked out through the City Attorney. Mr. Rosenstock felt Mr. Walsh's remarks were out of order si~nce nothing was pre- sented by the applicant relative to exactly what will be :bui)t on the parcel. Chairman Lehnertz feels every Board member has a right to share his opinion. Motion Mr. Rosenstock moved that Page 1, Item 7.A.1, "Woolbright Professional Center", the petitioner's request be denied and that the Board vote in the negative and not grant the change in zoning from C-1 to C-2. Mr. Golden seconded the motion, which carried 6-1. {Mr. WalsK cast the dissenting vote.} Project Name: Owner: Location: Description: Annexation Program Appltcatlon #1 Windward PUD Property owners within the Windward PUD 1110 acres at the northeast corner of Military Trail and Gateway Boulevard. Request to show annexed land as Low Density Residential and rezone from RS-SE {Single- Family Residential - Special Exception) in Palm Beach County to PUD {Planned Unit Development) Mr. Rumpf made the presentation. This application is part of the City's current efforts to annex western properties through the Annexation Program. On October 18, 1994, the City Commission directed staff to continue implementing the Annexation Program by annexing the next group of eligible properties which are identified as Phase 2-Group 2. The Windward PUD is one of four {4) eligible properties now being recommended for annexation. Windward is a County-approved PUD that comprises approximately 110 acres located at the northeast corner of Military Trail and Gat,ward Boulevard. The master plan includes two single-family residential areas {Palm Shores consisting of 222 -8- N~NUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPNENT BOARD NEET~NG BOYNTON BEACH, FLORZOA JANUARY 10, 1995 detached dwelling units and Princeton Place consisting of 196 detached dwelling units), a private child care center, and 2.32 acres designated for commercial use. The completed portions of the PUD include the child care center, the Palm Shores project and approximately thirty (30) dwelling units within Princeton Place. This is the first time the City may annex a partially-completed project. If, once annexed, the City were to attain total jurisdiction over this project, the City would be responsible for completing the necessary reviews, issuance of per- mits and inspections for a project which was not formally reviewed by the City. It should be noted that the City will, prior to annexation, attempt to arrive at a solution acceptable to both the City and the County. Since it is not feasible to negotiate a plan that meets City regulations to the greatest extent possible, it is recommended that the property be zoned to PUD, subject to the County-approved site plans. Staff recommends that this application be approved in connection with the Annexation Program based on: 1. The subject property is contiguous to the corporate limits; 2. The subject property lies within the City's Reserve Annexation Area; 3. The annexation of this property is consistent with the City's Annexation Program; and 4. The proposed land use amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Chairman Lehnertz feels staff was really stretching in stating that this prop- erty is contiguous to the corporate limits of the City. The only way it is con- tiguous is that one corner of the property touches a corner of City limits. Mr. Rumpf agreed with these remarks, but pointed out that there are several State Statutes which need to be applied. Carl Casclo~ Attorney for Palm Shores at Gables End Homeowners' Association, ask6d if the City had received a.response to a letter to Mr. Dave Kovacs of Palm Beach County Planning Division, dated December 16, 1994. Mr. Rumpf responded negatively. Mr. Cascio asked that the letter be submitted as part of the record. With regard to traffic, Mr. Cascio stated that there has been no response to a letter dated December 22, 1994, to Mr. Dan Weisburg, P.E., Traffic Division. Mr. Rumpf responded affirmatively. Relative to adequate drainage, Mr. Cascio said there has been no response to a December 16, 1994 letter to Pat Martin. Mr. Rumpf responded affirmatively. In response to Mr. Cascio's question, Mr. Rumpf stated that the City has received a response to the December 16, 1994 letter to Mark Brunet of Solid Waste Authority. -9- MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACN, FLORIDA OANUARY 10, 1995 Mr. Rumpf confirmed for Mr. Cascio that the City is annexing this property as part of a water service agreement dated back to 1984. Mr. Cascio questioned whether or not the City is in possession of any studies which can verify that adequate Police, Fire and emergency services can be pro- vided to the community. Mr. Rumpf advised that the Police and Fire Departments have reviewed this application and have indicated that they can adequately pro- vide the necessary services. In response to Mr, Cas¢io's request, Mr. Rumpf agreed to supply him with copies of their responses. Mr. Rumpf also confirmed that no agreement exists at this time between the City and the County with regard to review and permitting. Mr. Cascio submitted an Attorney General's opinion on contiguity for the record. He referred to the definition of "contiguous" on Page 164, wherein it states, "...that a substantial part of a boundary of the territory sought to be annexed by amunicipality is coterminous with a part of the boundary of the municipality". Mr. Cascio pointed out that only the northeast corner of this property touches any part of the City. The City is relying on the annexation of Royal Manor to make this property contiguous. Mr. Cascio feels the City is creating contiiguity by annexing properties. He feels the court will likely rule that is not how contiguity should be created. Vice Chairman Dub~ explained to Mr. Cascio that the City Attorney was not avail- able tonight to advise the Board, and he ~elt it is the Board's function only to make a finding with regard to the recommendations made by the Planning and Zoning Department. He pointed out that the Board would not be annexing the property since that is a City Commission decision. Vice Chairman Dub~ felt Mr. Cascio's arguments were being made to the~wrong board. Mr. Rosenstock asked whether or not stall, had consulted with the City Attorney relative to the legality of this annexation,~ Ne also realized that Mr. Cascio was creating a record for future use in a lawsuit which might be brought against the City. Us. Heyden advised that before staff embarked on this phase of the Annexation Program, it was brought to the City Commission where a decision to proceed received their concurrence. Discussions were held with the City Attorney who supported proceeding with the Annexation Program, Ms. Heyden advised that the annexation powers are within the jurisdiction of the City Commission. Mr. Cascio feels approval of this application should fail for two reasons: 1) this property is not contiguous; and 2) the lack of signatures of the prop- erty owners. The City is attempting to annex this property based on a water service agreement which was signed by a previous owner. None of the current property owners signed a petition to annex, and they are objecting to this annexation. 10- HINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPI4ENT BOARD #EET~NG BOYHTON BEACH, FLORIDA ~IANUARY 10, 1995 Mr. Cascio requested that the City vote against this annexation at this time, and recommended that the Board not be a part of it. (Mr. Cascio submitted two pieces of correspondence to become part of the record: 1) Letter from Carl A. Cascio to Mayor EdwardHarmening and City Commissioners dated January 6, 1995; and 2) copies of Pages 163 through 166 of the Annual Report of the Attorney General 85-58. Copies are attached to the original set of these minutes on file in the City Clerk's Office.) Mr. Cascio advised that the letters he presented set forth the grounds upon which the residents will object to a vote by the Board, and the grounds upon which they wilt fight the annexation. Mr. Cascio stated that he has serious problems with the way in which the City is going about annexing these proper- ties. There are other requirements which can be met, one of which is voluntary annexation. In such an instance, the property owners vote to annex by sub- mitting it to a referendum. This wo~ld create a better atmosphere. Forcing an agreement on the people which was signed back in 1984 is creating ill wi-ll by the City for these future ~esidents. Mr. Cascio pointed out that the City will not be providing anymore adequate services to thesepeople than they are already receiving. However, the City will be collectfng additional .tax cevenues as a result of this annexation. He feels this is a p~or poli~cy decision. Mr. Golden is in agreement with the staff recommendations on this annexation and the others which a~re proposed. These annexations are consistent with,the Comprehensive Plan, He fulrther pointed out that it has been the City s policy to armex out to Military Trail. He is in favor of this annexation and the others proposed. Discussion ensued by the Board members with regard to what they were being asked to do this evening with regard to these applications. Mr. Rumpf explained that the Board is not being asked to approve the annexations. The Board is being asked to de~l with the Land Use Element Amendments and Rezonings. The Board's decision will have no bearing on th:e annexations. Chairman Lehnertz expressed bewilderment regarding how the Board could make a recommendation to show annexed }and as a particular zoning category when that land has not yet been annexed. He was advised by Ms. Heyden that the Board will make its decision based on an assumption that the land has been annexed. Ms. Heyden explained that the land use and zoning processes take longer than the annexation. Since the City is interested in annexing this property and must set land use and zoning, these processes are done simultaneously so that they will come together in the end. Of the three applications to be submitted, two require the Planning and Development Board's recommendation to the City Commis- sion. Chairman Lehnertz explained that he reviewed the back-up material in terms of the annexations rather than in terms of the land use and zoning. With regard to the Windward PUD and Lawrence Oaks, he feels the City is showing misplaced priorities. There are many enclaves within the City and many partial enclaves - 11 MIN~T£S PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD HEET~NG BOYMTON BEACH, FLORIDA JANUARY 10, 1995 which are surrounded by corporate limits on three sides. In looking at Royal Manor, a larger pocket will be created. He feels the City should be concen- trating on logically extending its borders instead of leap frogging out to the west. Chairman Lehnertz also expressed a problem with the table in the staff report which lists acres and units. The bottom line comes down to tax revenue and Solid Waste revenue. The City will make a tot of money by annexing this prop- erty. He feels that if all the City had to do was annex property to make money, the property owners should not be paying any taxes now. Growth to generate taxes will not make us money. It is his opinion that this Program is mis- directed and bhe City should be looking at making the boundaries much more con- tiguous as opposed to going out west. He does not support this application. Mr. Golden agreed that annexation of residences has a negative financial impact. HoWever, he still agrees with the annexation policy. As far as a fiscal impact, he feels Chairman Lehnertz has made a good point. Mr. Walsh will not support this land use amendment and rezoning until he knows the City can annex this property. Vice Chairman Dub~ again stated that these remarks made have nothing to do with the Board's responsibility this evening. Motion Vice Chairman Dub~ moved that we approve the request to show annexed land as Low Density Residential and rezone from RS-SE (Single-Family Residential - Special Exception) in Palm Beach County to PUD (Planned Unit Development), subject to staff comments and that it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Golden seconded the motion. Im response to Chairman Lehnertz' question, Ms. Heyden reiterated that the City must have the Ordinances adopted concurrently for annexation, land use amend- ment and rezoning. She further explained that if this request was denied by the Board, the annexation would still move forward. The motion carried 6-1. 3. Project Name: Owner: Location: (Chairman Lehnertz cast the dissenting vote.) Annexation Program Application #2 Royal Manor Mobile Home Park Royal Manor Mobile Home Estates, Inc. 85.60 acres on the north and south sides of Gate- Way Boulevard, approximately 1,350 feet west of Lawrence Road Description: Request to show annexed land as Moderate Density Residential and to rezone from RS-SE {Single-Family Residential - Special Exception) in Palm Beach County to R-1 {Single-Family Residential). Mr. Rumpf made the presentation. This is a 437 unit mobile home community occupying approximately eighty-five {8~5) acres of property on the north and - 12- PLANNING ANO OEVELOPNENT BOARO MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIOA JANUARY 10, 1995 south sides of Gateway Boulevard, immediately east of the Windward PUD. This property is owned and operated by Royal Manor Mobile Homes Estates, Inc. It is not individually owned. The proposed Moderate Density Residential land use is comparable to H8 (High Residential 8) in the County. Policy 6.4,1 of the Comprehensive Plan requires that mobile homes be allowed in all zoning districts where single-family detached dwellings are permitted. The Planning and Zoning Department recommends that this application be approved based on: 1. The subject property is contiguous to the corporate limits; 2. The subject property lies within the City's Reserve Annexation Area; 3. The annexation of this property is consistent with the City's Annexation Program; and 4. The proposed land use amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. CHAIRMAN LEHNERTZ ANNOUNCED THE PUBLIC HEARING; HOWEVER, THERE WAS NO ONE WHO WISHED TO SPEAK. Chairman Lehnertz felt this annexation is not appropriate at this time since there are other things the City can do. Notion Vice Chairman DubA moved to approve the request to show annexed land as Moderate Density Residential and to rezone from RS-SE (Single-Family Residential - Special Exception) in Palm Beach County to R-1 (Single-Family Residential) sub- ject to staff comments and that it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Weigle seconded the motion, which carried 6-1. (Chairman Lehnertz cast the dissenting vote.) 4, Project Name: Annexation Program Appllcatlon ~3 Carriage Gate Condominium Owner: Property owners w'thin Carriage Gate Condominium Location: 9.70 acres on the south side of Old Boynton Road, opposite Nickles Boulevard Description: Request to show annexed land as High Density Residential and to rezone from RM-SE (Multi-Family Residential, Medium Density - Special Exception) in Palm Beach County to R-3 (Multi-Family Residential) Mr. Rumpf made the presentation. This community contains eighty-eight (88) con- dominium units. It is built and occupied, and the majority of the units were sold between the years of 1990 and 1993. Through the Comprehensive Plan, this 13- NINUTE$ PLANNING AND DEVELOPNENT BOARD NEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JANUARY 10, 1995 property was earmarked for High Density Residential. The proposed land'use is appropriate because it is comparable to the County's H8 land use. The proposed zoning of R-3 is also comparable to the County's RM-SE zoning classification. Planning and Zoning Department staff recommend approval of this application based on: 1. The subject property is contiguous to the corporate limits; 2. The subject property lies within the City's Reserve Annexation Area; 3. The annexation of this property is consistent with the City's Annexation Program; and 4. The proposed land use amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. CHAIRMAN LEHNERTZ ANNOUNCED THE PUBLIC HEARING. Robert Stlefel, 9769 Nickels Boulevard~ had questions with regard to changes in the residents' tax str-~-ure, and residents' responsibility relative to roadway lighting, road drainage and maintenance to the lake. Mr. Rosenstock recalled attending a City Commission meeting where one of the things mentioned was the poor preparatio~ on the part of the City in advising the residents of the benefits and disadvantages of annexation. He felt it was obvious that staff had not done its homework in this case. Ms. Heyden advised that Mr. Rumpf met with the homeowners' association presi- dent, Mr. Don Ray. Mr. Stiefel advised that Mr. Ray resigned as of November 29, and Ann Burns assumed his responsibilities as president. Ann Burns, 9770 Nickels Boulevards advised that she had just become aware of this annexation. In response to a question from Mr. Rosenstock, Ms. Burns said the past president mentioned the possible annexation, but the residents Still have questions. Mr. Ray advised the homeowners that their tax rates would rise. Mr. Rumpf explained in detail how the City taxes would be assessed. With regard to the other questions posed by Mr. Stiefel, Mr. Rumpf explained that the City would only accept the road into a public status if it meets the standards. However, he pointed out that most small projects do not meet those standards. He also explained that easements run with the land. In response to Vice Chairman Dub~'s question, Ms. Burns advised that the home- owners hold title to the lake and the roads. Vice Chairman Dub~ explained that those areas woUld then remain the responsibility of the homeowners. - 14 - NINUTE$ PLANN]'NG AND DEVELOPt4ENT BOARD NEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORTDA JANUARY 10, 1995 Ms. Burns expressed the opinion that the residents would not gain anything for the extra tax dollars. Vice Chairman Dub~ advised that they would be receiving City services which include Police, Fire and emergency rescue services in addi- tion to refuse collection. Mr. Rumpf advised that the Police, Fire and Rescue have evaluated the property and indicated that it exists within their service area. They can immediately take over responsibility at a higher quality than the County provides. Although sanitation rates wilt increase, water and sewer rates will decrease since the City is allowed to charge a premium for water and sewer to out-of-City residents. Mr. Rumpf advised Ms. Burns that the refuse collection rates could increase up to $50 more per year if the condos are con- sidered single-family residences with curbside pickup. Mr. Weigle inquired as to whether or not the City has noted a rise in property value because a property was annexed into the City. Mr. Rumpf was unable to respond Since th~s ~rogram has not been in place long enough to be a good indi- cator. ~ccording to the County, properties are not appraised based upon juris- diction. Motion Mr. Golden moved to approve the request to show annexed land as High Density Residential and to rezone from RM-SE {Multi-family Residential, Medium Density - Special Exception) in Palm Beach County to R-3 {Multi-family Residential), sub- ject to the recommendations and findings in the staff report and that it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Vice Chairman Dub~ seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Project Name: Owner: Location: Description: Annexation Pro, ram Application #4 Lawrence Oaks Lawrence Oaks - Oriole Homes, Inc. 42 acres at the northwest corner of Lawrence Road and Knollwood Road Request to show annexed land as Low Density Residential and to rezone from RS-SE {Single-Family Residential - Special Exception) in Palm Beach County to PUD {Planned Unit Development). Mr. Rumpf made the presentation. He advised that this is a County-approved project which received site plan approval in 1993. This is the remaining phase of Fox Hollow. With respect to reviewing and permitting, this would be a simi- lar situation as exists with the Windward PUD. If annexed, at that point in time, the City would be responsible for completing the necessary reviews, issuing permits and making the inspections for a project not reviewed in the City. The City is working on finding a solution to this problem. The proposed Low Density Residential land use is comparable to the County's Medium Residential 5. The Planned Unit Development zoning district is proposed as it is the most comparable distri:t to the County's PUD district, and is the only City district that will accommodate the County approval of the Lawrence Oaks site plan. Staff recommends that the property be zoned to PUD with the County-approved site plan. Staff conducted a technical review and forwarded comments. - 15 - MINUTES PLANNING ANO DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JANUARY 10, 1995 Staff recommends approval of the application based on: 1. The subject property is contiguous to the corporate limits; 2. The subject property lies within the City's Reserve Annexation Area; 3. The annexation of this property is consistent with the City's Annexation Program; and 4. The proposed land use amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. CHAIRMAN LEHNERTZ ANNOUNCED THE PUBLIC HEARING. Japtce Burke~ representing Lowell Home$~ reported that she has a master model of all of the elevations of the--~-6-~ts that will be built on the property. Because of this, the submittal process of any model she sells is not very intense and she is able to secure a permit within three to five working days. Ms. Heyden advised that in anticipation of this annexation, the City has approached the County to see if they will continue the permitting even though the property is annexed. So far, there has been no response from the County. If that proposal is not suitable to the County, the City will take on those functions. We should have a response shortly. If the County does not support the proposal, staff will meet with Lowell Homes as soon as we hear from DCA to make a decision on how the permitting will be accomplished. Ms. Burke expressed concerns about time delays, and questioned whether the City has a Master Model Program. She explained the Program for Ms. Heyden, who advised that the process sounds similar to what we have in place in the City. Ms. Heyden suggested that Ms. Burke meet with the~Building Department if she wants an answer prior to this returning from DCA. Dr, B. J, Hunts resident of Fox ~llow, said his board asked that he attend this meeting and bring back in~-~rm~ion. He explained that Lawrence Oaks and Fox Hollow were one property. Fox Hollow was developed and Lawrence Oaks was taken over by the present developer. Both developments are attempting to effect a separation which the County does not presently recognize. Ms. Heyden advised that the City is not planning to annex the northern part of Fox Hollow at this time. A resident of 7613 Green Lake ~ said his area was not considered for annexa- tion. There will be a common road with Police protection only up to a boundary. Chairman Lehnertz again reiterated his earlier remarks regarding investigating other properties throughout the City for annexation. This property has a very irregular barrier in terms of service providers. It will be easy to mix up the locations of the barriers. - 16 - HINUTES PLANNING AHD DEVELOPHENT BOARD HEETZNG BOYHTON BEAL'H, FLORIDA ~ANUARY 10, 1995 In looking at this in terms of land use and zoning, the Board is being asked to zone something and provide a land use designation for uses with 10' front and rear setbacks. No setbacks are provided for screen or pool enclosures, While this might be okay for the County, it is not good for the City. Even staff com- ments state this is not :onsiste~t with what we have in the City. Chairman Lehnertz stated that he has major problems with this request. Further, as pointed out by Mr. Rumpf, annexation is not supposed to create pockets. This application comes very close to creating an unincorporated pocket in the City. Notloq Vice Chairman Dub~ moved to approve the request of Annexation Program Application #4 - Lawrence OaKs, to show annexed land as Low Density Residential and to rezone from RS-SE (Single-Family Residential - Special Exception) in Palm Beach County to PUD (Planned Unit DevelGpment), subject to staff comments and that it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Golden seconded the motion, which carried 6-1. (Chairman Lehnertz cast the dissenting vote.) OTHER None CONMENTS BY NENBER$ Chairman Lehnertz stated that although the Board normally has legal representa- tion, there was no representation this evening. There were a number of times during this meeting when legal counsel was needed. Chairman Lehnertz asked that staff or the City Commission work on making sure legal representation is avail- able to the Board. Mr. Rosenstock said this happened in the past when he was Chairman of the Board. He feels the City Commission is not reading the minutes of thesemeetings. He sugges~ted that Chairman Lehnertz contact the City Manager's Office and dictate a letter stating that the City Attorney was not present and find out whether there has been a change in policy relative to the Attorney advising this Board. If no such change haS taken place, an explanat$on regarding his absence should be pro- vided to the Board. Vice Chairman Dub~ expressed his concern because of the fact that the City Com- mission and the CitY Attorney were aware that there would be legal representa- tion appeari!ng before the Board on one of the applications. The Board members were placed at a disadvantage not having an attorney present to advise them. Mr. Golden also expressed his opinion that the Board should have had legal representation because of the iSsues that had to be addressed this eVening. AD,)OURNNENT adjourned at 9:35 p.m. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting properly Prainito Recording Secretary (Three Tapes) - 17 - CARLA. CASCIO, P.A. FIRSTFINANCIALPLAZA 639"East Ocean Avenue Suite 407 Boynton Beach, FL 33435 Tel: (407)736-7743 Fax: (407)736-7743 Carl A. Cascio, Esq. January 6, 1995 Honorable Ed Harmening and City Commissioners 100 East Boynton Beach Boulevard City Hall Boynton Beach, FL 33425 RE: Proposed Annexation of Winward PUD My Clients: Individual Homeowners of Palm Shores at Gables End HomeoWners' Association Dear Mayor Harmening and City Commissioners: I have had the opportunity to review the documents in the Planning and Zoning file on the proposed annexation of the Winward PUD as of January 3, 1995. As you may know I have been retained collectively by the homeowners in the Palm Shores at Gables End Homeowners' Association to prevent the proposed annexation of the Winward PUD (which encompasses their property). The city's proposed annexation should be sUbmitted to the registered voters of the area referred to as Winward PUD by referendum. The City's attempt to "voluntarily" annex the property under the guise of Florida Statute Annotated Section 1711044 is legally unenforceable on several grounds and will be vehemently opposed by my clients. The use of ParagraDh 7 of the agreement dated March 20, 1994 between the City of Boynton Beach and Frank A. Flower does not legally constitute a Voluntary petition for annexation by the current property owners. The "annexation clause" of the agreement is unenforceable as a matte~ of law for lack of consideration. Additionally, the "annexation clause" does not meet the definition of a petition for voluntary annexation as required under Section 171.044 (1). The city also fails to meet Mr. Mike Kumpf January 6, 1995 Page Two the requirements set forth in Section 171.044 (1) because of the lack of conti~uity between the city and the area proposed to be annexed. Also, the signatures of all the property Owners of this area have not been obtained as required by Section 171.044 (2). Furthermore, the attempt to annex an area without a vote by referendum, unless by special act of the legislature, is unconstitutional for lack of due process. It is our bel ~ city's, attempts to force unincorporated residen , is solely for the purpose of expanding thetax base and the city coffers without any consideration being given to the property owners and taxpayers. Please be advised that I will be representing the homeowners of Palm Shores at the Planning and Development Board on January 10, 1995 at 7:00 p.m.. and if necessary at the hearing to be held before the City Commission on January 17, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. My clients have proposed to settle this matter if the city fulfills the requirements of Section 171.0413 and other requirements as set forth under Chapter 171. Please direct allfuture correspondence to my attention. If you have any questions please d6 not hesitate to contact this office. Ver/~ truly yours, cc: Milton Geller, President FROM ~T~ORNE~ GENERAL TO ANNUAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 85-58 l~ducation Finance Program ~o pay all personnel in accordance with payrol! period schedules adopted by the ~chool board and included in tl~e officia~ salary schedule, and to expend funds for salaries in accordance with salary schedule$ adopted by the board in accordance with the provisio~ of l~w and the re~lations oft~e S~te Board of Education. The school beards are requi~d to ~rovide writ~n contracts with all re~lar momars of the iu~ctional st~. ~ction 230.23(~d), F.S: (1984 Supp.). All such contrz~s, which ~e to be in accordance ~th the sat~ schedules adopted by the zch~l board, "shall be in writing for definite amounts and ~r de,hire ~rms of so.ice, and ~all speci~ the numar of monthly pa~nen~s to be mada." Id Sub~ct~on (SXd~ f~ther provides fl~at the sch~l b~rd "~ proh~bit~ from p~ying any sala~ ~o any member of the instructional staff. except when th~s provision has ~en obze~e~' Thus the ~yment of retroactive compensation~ lump sum zllowances or other fo~s of compensation not provided for by law or con,race and no~ earned in re.ar ~onthiy ins~ll~ents ~e ~rO~ibi~ed by s. 215.~25~ The statute conta~n~ a Hm~ted exCeptio~ to i~ general pr~bitiou by pro~ding tha~ a distric~ school year "m~y apply the schedule d~s no~ a~p~ to the i~tan~ si~tiom and n0 o~her exception may be ~]~ms v. Americ~ S~ety Company of New York, 99 ~t~ forth ~ceptious. no other~ may ,56 So~d~341 CFla. ~952). And w~th i~tru~ionat per~nnel providing ~tiv~ ~ng ~u~quent the teaching ~ervices .~ to the current year, pre~vJous 2earb salary schedule with the un<ter~tanding that the new schedule to which such personnel the teachers had already performed their for such services at an agzeed upon wage :~82 school year. Moreover. the mas~ers degree uutil late in the ~ference in to such teachers e pursuant aires, that each certificate fiscal year for which it ~ issued question constitutes a servi~e has been rendered as AGO 85-58--July 31. 1985 ~Y MUNICIPALITIES STRIP OR CORRIDOR ANNEXATION To: Fred S. Disselkoem Jr., City Attorney, City of O~mond Beach Prepared by: Kent L. Weissinger, Assistant Attorney General fa fu 15:$~ ~ROM ATTORNEY ~ENERAL TO ANNUAL REPORT OF THE ATI'ORNEY GENERAL .~ MacKinlay v. City of Stuart, 321 So.2d 620 (4 D.C.A. Fla., 1975). Cf AGO 32. concluding that a tract of land that is separate from a municipality only county road that runs parallel to the city limits is ~contlguous" for purpose~ duntary annexation, with AGe's 74-61 and 71.315, distinguishing AGO 32 from the situation presen~d where z city at~mp~s ~o ~nnex territory ically separated from it and connec~d only by ~ road, since such ~ituetion within the di~avored ~strip" or "~rridor" type of ann~ation. ~ile it still nec appear that there is a Florida appellate decision precisely on point, ~er appears that a ~oriW ofjuris&cti~z c~tinues to disapprove of AGO 77-18; accord Board of County ~ of Jefferson v. Ci~' and Co~ty o~ Denver, 543 P.2d Village of Ben~nvi]le, 381 N.E.2d 1170 Sioux Township v. Streeter, 272 N.W.2d 924 (S.D. 1978). See &.L.R.3d 589, et seq. he ~1 of pro~ ~ for volun~ the City of Ormond Beach is "~nti~ous' for pu~os~ of ), the p~posed $~exation t off'compactneSs'' in s. 171.0~1(12), F.S. (1984 Supp.). Moreover, I view that use of the previously annexed corridor as ~ device for requirement would not be viewed favorably by the a r~unicZpality shouM not unde~ke to voluntarily property, one side of which is conti~ous ~ a previously ~ ~i~orporated d~ice is disfavored by ~e courts i a the ~bsence of ~ statu~. ~uch az s. ~ is a re~ . s~pr~' AGe's 77-18 ~nd 71-315./ 85-59--July 31, 1985 MUNICIPALITIES REQUIREMENT OF CONTRACTOR BONDS Gilbert, City Attorney, City of Port St. Lucle by: Kent L. V¥'eissinger~ Assist~ant Attorney General )N: May a municipality, pursuant to an adopted minimum building uire that registered and certified contractors post a bond s a prerequisite to obtaining a building permit? MARY: Unless and until legislatively or iudicdally determined otherwise, a ~ur~clpalikv. pursuant to an adopted minimum building code. may ~ot require certified contractors to post a bond as a prerequisite to ~bt. atnlng a building permit, but that such bond requirement ,m~ay ~e K'nposed on contractors who are registered ~vlth. but not certified V, the state. state in your inquiry that the City of Port St. Lucie has adop~d the ~rd Building Code in compliance with the provfs~ons of s. 558.73, F.S., and 166 P.16 · JAN-10-1995 15:51 FROM ATT[~RNEY GENERAL TO 64077367743 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 85-58 ,~ntities such as rights-of-way, or strips of land~ "to be annexed in a corridor 'ashion to gain contiguity" (Emphasis supplied.), the statute appears to speak to ~.~ture annexations and i~ plain meaning d~ not ~e~ ~ app~ to the presumptively ralid annexation in 1962 of the co~idor to which your inquiry refers. See ~5.297. Laws of Florida, amending s. 171.031(1D, F.S. (1974 Supp.). Cf ch. 74-190, ,aws of Florida. Tho phrase, "to be," has a fut~istic implication. See Equitable ,ife As~ur. Soc. of United Sta~z v. Davis, 137: P.2d 548. 554 (Okla. i948). Cf {ta~ ex roi Turner v. Hocker. 18 So. 767~ 769 (Flu. 1895) (u*e of phrz,,. "to be l~ned." in.siatu~ry title contemplates a change, or difference, ~om preexisting lefini~on). In add~tiom *he tala ~at a statute iz presumed to o~ra~ pro~tively nly, m th~ absence of el~ le~$1at~ve intent ~ the comrary, apphes w~th ~,micular force where retroactive ~ect wo~d impak or destroy existing rights {~te v~ LamzzolL 434 So.2d 321 (Fla. i983); Trustees of Tu~s Cvlle~ v. Triple R. lan~, I~c., 275 So.2d 521:(Fli. 1973). Howe~er, in~ad~ition to requki~g that the property ~ be annex~ be '- 17 ~:~4, F.S., ~n pre~riBi~g the PrOcedure for volunt~ annexation, requires in the ereation of enclaves, s~e ,. i71.;~1(12). F.S. (1~4 Supp.), which '~compactneS,' to mean a "eone~trati~ ~ a piece of properkv in a single ~ea md preclud~*~any action which ~outd ~eate enclaves, p~ke~, or finger areas in erpentme p~fter~." This office has previouslg~ define~ "e~clave" az mclos~ witkln foreign terMtO~y' and "an outlying por~[on 0f a eount~, entirely ~r mmt!y surrounded by the ~erritory o~ another country," see AGO 77.18, and as 'a tract of ~?ritory enclosed wl!hin foPelgn ~rrliory," *ce AGO:80-84, citing to [i~iona~ d~hitions in bo~h ~i~o~ C~ City o~Sa~inawv ~aPd of Superhsor, of .ounty of Sa~lnaw, 184 N.~V.'~d-878 f~. 1965). also mtmg ~ su~ dictionary lefim?mns..In AGO 77-18 Ibm office add,zed a la, ual mt~txon vxrtuallv ndiztm~is~ble from yo~ i~ui~ an~ concluded that ~he ~u~s would probabl~ riaw sudh ~lentary annexa~mn as re~ultifig in the ~eatioh of ~n ~clav~ and huz p~ohib~d by s. 171.~4 In hghI ~0f ~e above. ~t ap~ that the ztatu[ory }rohib~tlon 6~ the creation old,dares: may prevent thel~Xat~n of ~he ~rcel question. See also City of S~nrise *. gr~war8 County, Ca~ No 84-i715 .C.A. Fla., July 3, 1985), denying cert~aram revrew ~o a ~ml cou~ judgmen[ v~ invali~ a xmlun~ ~g~og;o~i~ce on the ~i* ~at~uch ahne~tion .e,ulted in t~e creation of ea~l~ve, of'county land surrounded by ~corporated and ~d that the annexahon ar~ was, not reasonably comgac~. However. in the tbsence of a statutory definitl~ o~ "enclave" for purples ~of ck. 171. F.S.. any definitive de~rmination as m whether a particular annexation r~ult* in the creation of a~ "enclave" must come ~om the COurt$ a~ a result of ca,-by-case II[ eview. NotWithstanding the appli0atiqn of the *ta~uto~ langu~ I am of the [[view thai th~ remaining cone. tn*ions 0f AGO 77-18 are m~t res~omive W your ~1 ~llquestion~h~t opinion considered wheiher a parcel of land ~coul~ be voluntaril [[l:~nnexed ~ ~ ciW if such pa~eel were ebnt~guous .with the city easy by ~rtue [~ide of the pamol meeting one side 0f a h~ghway previously ~nne~d into the city. I[lThe opinion concluded a* follows: A municipality should not undertake ~ voluntarily annex a parcel of land. pursuant to ~. 171.044. F.S. (1976 Supp.). if contiguity of the municipality with the par~l to be annexed exists only through contact wi~ a highway previously annex~ by the munlcipaliW, or ~su~ a~exa~on would result in creation of an enclave. Use of a "st~p" or "corridor." such as a highway, as a device to gum conti~ity is disapproved by a majority of jurisdictions. Conti~ity of the annexing municipaliEv with the area to be annexed is required even in the absence of a sta~u*e such as s. 171.044. supr~ which requires conti~ity and compactness of the area to be annexed and which prohibits ~e creation of enclaves. ] 185 P.15 85-[ QUI 5:58 =ROM C~TTORNEY GENERAL TO 64877367743 ANNUAL REPORT OF TIlE ATTORNEY GENERAL ?ION: ] [~)oes s. 171.044, F.S., permit the City of Ormond Beach ~ voluntarily ~{~nex a parcel of property, one s~de of which is contiguous to a ,l~evio. usly annexed corridor, but which is otherwise e~rrounded ~U umncorporated land? SUI~ARY: [~nt~, and unless legislatively or judicially determined other~4.s,e, City of Ormond Beach should not undertake to voluntarily of property, one side of which is contiguous to a . but which is otherwise surrounded land. information provided to this office states that annexation for a large tract of property, one side of unimproved real property which the southwest corner of the city proper and in 1962 b.v ordinance pursuant to s. 171.04, F.S, ~. Although that s'tatute was held unconstitutional in City of Auburndale v. A ~d~?ackiUg Assoc%tion, 171 ~.2d 161 ~a. 1~), the ~l~t~e sub~enflv ~na~.~l~h. 85-86Z, ~ws ~ Plorida, p~porting ~o v~lidz~e munici~l prlo~:[~ ~u~ 1, ~964, as of ~he d~te of the annexation, wi~h an exception no~ per~ .to yo~ ig~i~y, :~us, ~h~ lOB~ a~exatio~ of the corridor involwd here~e be eofi~idered presump~Jwly valid. ~nd no eommeng is ther~ s. 171.044, F.S.; ss. 171.~4(1) and g body for the voluntary u~inco~orated area of a county "which will and the 932 ( 177.~ an provisions of s. :[71,044 F,S. (1984 Supp.), for :tuestlon Whether the parcel of property voluntary annexa~i0n pursuant to s. 171.044. F.S,, ~qies several miles west of is surrounded by [Volusia] City 0fD~ytone Beach Shores, 356 So.2d ;], F,S., provides that s, th~ Volusia County charter does i71,031(1 ~ F.S, (1984 Supp.), provides in pertinent pazt as follows: (~t~guous me, ns that a substantml part cfa boundary of the tertiary ~i~t to be ~nffexed b~ a ~unicipality is coterminous with apart of the ~ oft~ ~n~li~y .... HoWever nothi~ herein ~all ~ co~ l~ntities ~ b~ anneked in a corridor fashion ~ gain contiguity .... (~shasis suppl~ed.)~ .n~ble to conclude that s~ ~71.031(11), F.S. (1984 Suppj, opera.s ~o control the dis~si~ion of your question, zince the ~acts upon which your b~sed demonstrate that ~a ~ubstantial part of a ~und~ry of the by ~e City o~ ~ond Bea~ is b~d~ "con~mo~ previously described ~rr~dor which mus~ be presumed ~ validly annex~, ~ the extent that the sta~u~ dir~ts ~s construction against allo~ing P.14 ii