Loading...
LEGAL APPROVAL MINUTES - CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JANUARY 17, 1995 f ;t,.;p Annexat10n - W1 ndwerd PUD /J IJJJc'X Y if ..()O to ~roperty owners within the Windward PUD 110 acres at the northeast corner of Military Trail and Gateway Boulevard Land Use Element Amendment/Rezoning: 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) Ms. Heyden stated that the Windward PUD is a County approved project. The Windward PUD master plan contains two single family residential projects (the Palm Shores project and the Princeton Place project, which is under construc- tion). It also includes some nonresidential (a private child care center, which exists in a 2.32 acre parcel designated for commercial). E. Project Name: Owner: Location: Description: The completed portions of the PUD include the child care center, the Palm Shores project, and approximately 30 dwelling units within Princeton Place. The construction of Princeton Place began in 1993, and in addition to homes, has included all necessary infrastructure to support th~ project. The providers of major urban services (Fire, Police, and Public Works) evaluated this property for annexation for impact on service delivery. Public Works has indicated that they could serve all sites with existing capital and personnel. The Police Department would require only one additional employee. This property is within the service area of Fire Station 3, which has superior service capa- bilities compared to the corresponding County station. Ms. Heyden reviewed the proposed land uses. No changes are proposed to the existing uses. She reviewed the existing land uses and zoning. Upon annexation of this piece of property, it will be contiguous with the City along its south- east boundary. Staff recommended that this request be transmitted to the Department of Community Affairs. No one wished to speak in favor of this annexation. The following people spoke in opposition to this annexation: Attorney carl Clsc1o, 639 East Ocean Avenue, Suite 407, was present on behalf of all the individual homeowners within Palm Shores at Gables End. He said there are a number of reasons why this annexation is being opposed by the residents. The number one reason is that they want to have some say in the matter if they are going to become a part of this municipality in the future and be held to pay taxes. The City is trying to annex them through a voluntary petition pursuant to Florida Statute 171.044. There are three criteria which he feels the City has failed to meet in order to meet the requirements of the statute. First of all, there has to be contiguity at the time of the voluntary petition. Mr. Cascio read Statute 171.044(1) which requires the owner or owners of real - 15 - - - MINUTES - CITY CtIIeISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, flORIDA JANUARY 17, 1995 property in an unincorporated area of a county which is contiguous to a munici- palityand reasonably compact may petition the governing body of said munici- pality that said property be annexed to the municipality. He asked what document the City contends is the petition for voluntary annexation. Mayor Hannening stated that would be the water service agreement that was signed by the original owner. City Attorney Cherof reminded the Commission that this is just a preliminary transmittal to DCA and this does not constitute review of an annexation. Review of an annexation will come back to the Commission in ordinance fonn for first and second reading if and when the DCA considers the matter and sends it back. Mr. Cascio said the agreement was entered into on March 20, 1984 between the City and Frank A. Flower. He entered a copy of that agreement into the record and asked if any of the current residents that are now property owners within the Palm Shores development signed that water service agreement. He wanted the record to reflect what the boundaries were at the time of the signing of the water agreement, before it is sent to DCA for their review. Mr. Cascio stated that there currently is not contiguity unless the City annexes Royal Manor Mobile Home Park. He submitted an excerpt from the Annual Report of the Attorney General, AGO 85-58, JUly 31, 1985. It is the Attorney General's opinion that courts are against the City annexing property to create the necessary contiguity to then annex another area through a voluntary petition. Mr. Cascio stated that 171.044(2) requires that all the property owners sign the voluntary annexation. He submitted another opinion from the Attorney General (AGO 87-54, June 1, 1987) dealing with this issue. The president of a condo- minium association signed a voluntary petition. It was the Attorney General's opinion that a municipality cannot voluntarily annex a land unless it obtained each individual condominium unit owner's signature on the voluntary petition. Mr. Cascio stated that the City does not have all the signatures of the property owners that currently reside in the Windward PUD. The only signature which the City has on the water service agreement, dated March 20, 1984, is that of Frank A. Flowers. Mr. Cascio stated that the residents have other concerns, such as the enforcea- bility of the covenant within the agreement, which the City is claiming the right to annex, specifically paragraph 7. Mr. Cascio asked when the City began providing water to this area. He asked if there was any agreement between the Federal government and the City whereby the City receives Federal funding with the agreement that they would provide water to the outlying western area. City Attorney Cherof stated that there is no way to supplement the record from tonight's meeting and that each request can be treated as a request for public records. He asked the Clerk to provide a list following the meeting so that staff could respond. - 16 - MINUTES - CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH. flORIDA JANUARY 17. 1995 Mayor Hanmening did not believe any Federal money was ever involved. Mr. Cascio stated that there l.s also a question as to the length of time before a covenant that runs with the land may be exercised where it should be held enforceable against subsequent land owners. At this time, the water service agreement was signed on March 20, 1984 and the City is now attempting to exer- cise that covenant whichs runs with the land. It is Mr. Cascio's position, and his clients' position, that this is an unreasonable length of time. In addi- tion, these people were not given actual notice prior to this. Mr. Cascio would like added to the record any minutes of meetings at which the water service agreement was adopted. Mr. Cascio felt the covenant which runs with the land is an illegal and unen- forceable covenant and that it violates antitrust laws. He contended that it ;s an illegal arrangement and there is no reasonable relationship between providing water to an outlying area and then tying in a required annexation. Mr. Cascio wanted the record to reflect any discussions between Mr. Flowers and the City as to why he agreed to annexation of the land in return for the water if he was' not already receiving water from the City. Mr. Cascio talked about the ability of the City to adequately service the people which they are proposing to annex at this time. He submitted Fire Department Memorandum 94-456 regarding annexation of property west of Lawrence Road. Mr. Cascio drew the Commission's attention to'some of the comments that were made by Chainman Gary Lehnertz at the January 10, 1995 Planning and Development Board Meeting regarding this proposed voluntary annexation. He read from a Court Reporter's transcription in which Mr. Lehnertz states he thinks the City.s priorities at this time should be on making the boundaries more even. This annexation is creating more uneven damage than already exists and priorities should be placed on annexing some of the enclaves. As far as Mr. Cascio can .tell, the purpose of annexing is to make the provision of services to people in unincorporated areas, as well as people in the incorporated areas, more effi- cient. When you start stretching the boundaries out and making them even more uneven than they already are, and leaving existing enclaves, you are defeating the purpose. He asked the City to take a serious look at annexation. He pointed out that Mr. Lehnertz also expressed those concerns. Mr. Cascio would like to make this part of the record that is submitted to the DCA. In closing, Mr. Cascio stated that his clients are concerned about being annexed into a City which does not feel comfortable with giving them the right to vote on that. He believes if the City has enough to offer them in the future in the fonm of services, which are already being adequately provided by the County, they will have no problem listening. What they do have a problem with is that they are not being listened to. They are being told that because some previOUS property owner signed an agreement, which is a covenant running with the land according to the City, that they are going to be annexed regardless of what - 17 - MINUTES - CITY COIIUSSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JANUARY 17. 1995 their will or intents are. to oppose this all the way matter, whether this be by tary petition themselves. Vice Mayor Matson stated that she voted against this before and she intends to vote against it again. She did not know if Mr. Cascio is aware of the fact that the City's Planning and Development Board is no longer a quasi-judicial board. All they are is an advisory board. She was confused as to why Mr. Cascio and his court reporter are present tonight when this is not an ordinance on annexation. The City Commission is merely discussing turning it over to DCA. Mr. Cascio stated that he wants DCA to have these concerns brought to their attention as early as possible, and the only way to do that is to create a record for them. He advised that his clients expressed their intent until they are given the right to have a say in the referendum or through a right of signing the volun- City Attorney Cherof stated that the City will consider the documents requested by Mr. Cascio as public records requests. To the extent they exist, they will be provided. However, they cannot be made part of the record because they were not offered tonight. Mr. Cascio can provide them directly to the DCA with a copy of his transcript of tonight's proceedings. Dr. carol Wlrshaw is the fonmer President of Palm Shores at Gables End, part of the Windward PUD. She said she also spoke at the October meeting when the Commission voted, over the protest of several hundred Palm Shores residents, to continue with the annexation process. In the last three months, the community of Palm Shores has sought to understand why the City of Boynton Beach is so ada- mant about annexing them at this time. 'They would like to know what they would gain by becoming a part of the City. They are not interested in savings on a beach decal, cemetery plot, summer camp, tennis penmit, or recreational classes. In addition, the Palm Beach County Library is only five minutes from Palm Shores. The residents of Palm Shores would have to travel 10 to 15 minutes to get to the Boynton Beach Library. Many of the residents would find that a hardship. Dr. Warshaw explained that Palm Shores would lose the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office Citizens on Patrol Program and police car if annexed into the City. In addition, response time for fire rescue emergencies would not be ade- quate. Dr. Warshaw stated that the Chainman of the Planning and Development Board said that if the City is looking only at the new source of revenue, they must be very careful, for nothing is for free. It will cost the City for new policemen, firemen and equipment, as well as a loss of water and sewer taxes. Dr. Warshaw stated that Palm Shores has an awful lot to lose and nothing to gain. Her community took a vote this past December and 99% of the residents voted no when asked if they wanted to be annexed into the City. She asked the Commission to vote against annexing them. They do not want to become citizens of Boynton Beach and will do what they have to in order to prevent that from happening. - 18 - MINUTES - CITY COIIUSSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JANUARY 17. 1995 NO ONE ELSE WISHED TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF OR AGAINST THIS PROPOSED ANNEXATION. THEREFORE, MAYOR HARMENING DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. Motion Mayor Pro Tem Bradley moved to forward this annexation request to DCA. Commissioner Katz seconded the motion. Vice Mayor Matson said that she would love to have these people as residents of the City. However, she did not want to force annexation upon these people. She hoped they would change their minds in the future. The motion carried 3-1. Vice Mayor Matson cast the dissenting vote. MAYOR HARMENING DECLARED AT RECESS AT 8:10 P. M. HE CALLED THE MEETING BACK TO ORDER AT 8:20 P. M. YII. PUBLIC AUDIENCE Carl McKoy, spoke of behalf of Andre St. Juste due to a language barrier. In 1990, Mr. St. Juste repaired a small 1eak.in the roof of his house located at 440 N. E. 14th Avenue in Boynton Beach. The cost of this repair work was $21.80. Mr. St. Juste submitted an application to the City and the penmit department signed that application, stating that no penmit was needed because the work cost less than $500.00. Mr. St. Juste was not served with any Notice of Violation from the City. However, a Notice was served on Theresa Boise, who was Mr. St. Juste's fonmer wife at the time. Mr. St. Juste was never notified that a lien had been placed on his property until a year later when the City showed up at his residence. Mr. McKoy stated that the Code Enforcement Inspector who was assigned this area claimed that he did not know where Mr. Juste resided. However, he sent Mr. St. Juste a letter twelve days prior to that to his correct address at 925 Greenbriar Drive in Boynton Beach. This letter regarded a rental license for 440 N. E. 14th Avenue. Since Mr. Juste was not served with any Notice of Violation and no penmit was needed for the roof repair, it seems to him that it is only right that all the Code Enforcement charges against him should be looked into. Mr. McKoy was in possession of documents signed by the City stating that a penmit was not needed because the work only cost $21.80. He said the house was foreclosed on and the lien is now over $300,000.00. This has caused severe problems for Mr. St. Juste and his family. He asked the Commission to look into this matter as quickly as possible. NO ONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK, PUBLIC AUDIENCE WAS CLOSED. - 19 - NOT ICE 0 F Z 0 N I N G C H A N G E C I T Y 0 F BOY N TON B E A C H PUB L I C H EAR I N G S In connection with the city's Annexation Program, the city of Boynton Beach proposes to annex, amend the land use plan for, and rezone the property indicated on the map below. A public hearing on these proposals will be held before the Planning and Development Board on January 10, 1995, at 7:00 P.M. at city Hall in the Commission Chambers, 100 East Boynton Beach Boulevard, Boynton Beach, Florida. A public hearing will also be held before the City Commission on January 17, 1995 at 7:00 P.M. or as soon thereafter as the agenda permits, at City Hall in the Commission Chambers, 100 East Boynton Beach Boulevard, Boynton Beach, Florida. "BOVNTON NURSERIES" PUC LUI:4.0 ~..-:.:, CJ ~.r:~~~JaA W;",:::; Q I~ ~ )< ,U ~ ~ ~ \1 APPLICATION #1 - WINDWARD PUD OWNER: PROPOSED: LOCATION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: All property owners within the Windward PUD No change to existing residential development. 110 acres of property at the northeast corner Military Trail and Gateway Boulevard Complete legal description on file in the Planning Department, 100 East Boynton Beach Boulevard, Boynton Beach, Florida. APPLICATION: APPLICATION: ANNEXATION INTO CITY AMENDING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP From - Residential 5 (County) To - Low Density Residential (City) REZONING OF PROPERTY From - RS-SE Single Family Residential with Special Exception for Planned Unit Dev. (County) To - PUD Planned unit Development (City) APPLICATION: ALL INTERESTED PARTIES ARE NOTIFIED TO APPEAR AT SAID HEARINGS IN PERSON OR BY ATTORNEY AND BE HEARD. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD OR CITY COMMISSION WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THESE MEETINGS WILL NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS BASED. PLEASE CALL (407) 375-6260 FOR ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THE ABOVE MATTERS. SUZANNE M. KRUSE CITY CLERK ANX2:P2G2WINW.AD MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT .JARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACHt FLORIDA. JANUARY lOt 1995 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 Chainman had contact this morning. However, no additional infonmation was provided which is not in the staff report or which was provided to the applicant. Mr. Walsh feels this parcel of land is 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 tax money is being realized from that property. The owner will spend about $500,000 to develop the parcel in anticipation of renting it out to commercial 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 tenms of taxes. He will .vote in favor of this request, subject to the stipulations which can be worked out through the City Attorney. Mr. Rosenstock felt Mr. Walsh's remarks were out of order since nothing was pre- sented by the applicant relative to exactly what will be built on the parcel. Chairman Lehnertz feels every Board member has a right to share his opinion. Mot1on Mr. Rosenstock moved that Page 1, Item l.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. Walsh cast the dissenting vote.) Annexat10n Progr~ Appl1cat1on '1 W1ndward PUO 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. 2. Project Name: OWner: Location: Description: Windward is a County-approved PUD that comprises approximately 110 acres located at the northeast corner of Military Trail and Gateward Boulevard. The master plan includes two single-family residential areas (Palm Shores consisting of 222 - 8 - MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT dOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA 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 Cascio, Attorney for Palm Shores at Gables End Homeowners' Association, asked 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 affinmatively. 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 Bruner of Solid Waste Authority. - 9 - MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT bOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH. FLORIDA JANUARY 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. Cascio.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 a municipality 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 contiguity by annexing properties. He feels the court will likely rule that is not how contiguity should be created. Vice Chairman Dube explained to Mr. Cascio that the City Attorney was not avail- able tonight to advise the Board, and he felt 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 Dube felt Mr. Cascio's arguments were being made to the wrong board. Mr. Rosenstock asked whether or not staff had consulted with the City Attorney relative to the legality of this annexation. He also realized that Mr. Cascio was creating a record for future use in a lawsuit which might be brought against the City. Ms. 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 - MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ~UARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH. FLORIDA JANUARY 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 Edward Harmening 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 will 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 would create a better atmosphere. Forcing an agreement on the people which was signed back in 1984 is creating ill will by the City for these future residents. Mr. Cascio pointed out that the City will not be providing any more adequate services to these people than they are already receiving. However, the City will be collecting additional tax revenues as a result of this annexation. He feels this is a poor policy decision. Mr. Golden is in agreement with the others which are proposed. Comprehensive Plan. He further to annex out to Military Trail. 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 deal with the Land Use Element Amendments and Rezonings. The Board's decision will have no bearing on the annexations. the staff recommendations on this annexation and These annexations are consistent with the pointed out that it has been the City's policy He is in favor of this annexation and the Chairman Lehnertz expressed bewilderment regarding how the Board could make a recommendation to show annexed land 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 - MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT QOARD MEETING BOYNTON 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 fragging 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 lot 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 the 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 Dube again stated that these remarks made have nothing to do with the Board's responsibility this evening. Motion Vice Chairman Dube 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. In response to Chainman Lehnertz' question, Ms. Heyden reiterated that the City must have the Ordinances adopted concurrently for annexation, land use ameod- 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. (Chairman Lehnertz cast the dissenting vote.) Annexation Pro9r~ Application '2 Royal Minor 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 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 (85) acres of property on the north and 3. Project Name: Owner: Location: Description: - 12 -