LEGAL APPROVAL
, certily tf,1atthis Subpoena was recelve( 1 served as follows:
RETURN OF SERVICE
......... -,.. -." ..
...:-, ." ..' ,,' .
Dale Received
For First Person Named On Front:
E( by delivering a copy 01 this Subpoena to the lirst person
nnmed on the honl.
o Ihis Subpoena WAS NOT served for the lollowing reasons:
o
Service Fee Paid Date SelVed
$ Due
For The Third Person Named On Front:
o by delivering a copy 01 this Subpoena to the third person
named on the Ironl.
o this Subpoena WAS NOT served lor the lollowing reasons:
<:;ervice Fee
$
B Paid Date Served
Due
INFORMATION FOR WITNESS
o by lelephone commllnicalion with the lilst person named on
the lront (use only with subpoena to appear and testily).
o by registered or certilied mail return. receipt requested and
aUached, on the first person named on the IranI.
AU1ht.::!-se(j';::S
o by telephone communication with the second person named
on the hont (u~e only with subpoennto "[mem nnd testily).
o by regislered or cerlilied mnil ralum, receipl mquested and
aU ached. on the second person named on the hont.
'Signature Of Autllorized Server
o by telephone communication with the third person nnmed on
the lront (use only with subpoena to appem and testily).
o by registered or certilied mail return, receipt requesled and
attached, on the third person Mmed on the fronl.
Signature Of Authorized Server
::: .;.;:,...
1 he Subpoena
t he subpoena Is a court order requiting you to appear in court on the day and at the lime stated. You have been cnlled (subpocnned)
to court to be a wilness In a case.
Duties Of ^ Wnn~ss
.Unless yoll are a custodian of medical or public records, you must allend court on the day and at the time stated In tile subpoena.
.Unless otherwise directed by the presiding ludge, you must answer all questions asked when you are on the stand giving
testirnony.
'Your answers to questions must be truthlul.
.11 you ate commanded to produce any Items, you must bring them with you to court.
11 you have any questions about being subpoenaed as a witness, you should contact the allorney or ollicial who had Ihe
subpoena Issued. The name of that person Is on the other side of this Subpoena fotm.
Understand The Question And Speak Out
When you are on the witness stand. listen carelully to any question, and make sure that you understand the question before you
try to answer It. If necessary. ask that the question be repeated.
In answering questions, speak out clearly and loudly enough to be heard. "you are testilying belore a jury, speak out so that all
01 the lutors can hear you.
Bribing Or Threatening A Witness
II is a violation of stale law for anyone to allernpt to bribe, threaten, harass, or intimidate a wilness. 11 anyone allelllpts to do any
of Ihesn things concerning your Involvement as a witness In a case, you should promptly report that to the district allomey or Ihe
plesldlng judge.
Witness Fee
A witness is enlilled to a small daily fee. and to travel p"rense reimbursement il it is necessary to travel Irom outside the counly in
order 10 testily. (The lee for an -expert witness. will be set by the presiding Judge.) ^"er you have been disch:'ltged as a witness. if
you desire 10 collect the stalutory fee. you should Immediately coni act the clerk's office and certily to your allendance as a witness
so that you will be paid any amount due you.
^OC.G-100. Side Two. Rev. 7/89
CITY OF BOYNTO~ BEACH
REQUEST FOR PUBLIC RECORD INFORMATIOM
,
Request submitted by:
RECEIVED
//h~~-I ~~
~
Name
Address
,JUL ~3 '9 ~
PLANNI1~G DEPT.
REQUESTED INFORMATION:
Phone
ORDINANCE NO.
RESOLUTION NO.
MINUTES - MEETING & DATE (Comple~e Set)
MINUTES - MEETING & DATE (Excerpt Only)
MINUTES - VERBATIM EXCERPT (Subject to hourly charge at
Recording Secretary's Wage)
OTHER ~~~h~ )J/-elV ~ Y &daA/~
aC-~~. /?'K/-Lb7Av-' ~/
NOTICE
1. You may inspect the requested records without charge unless the
nature or volume requested requires extensive clerical or super-
visory assistance in which case you will be advised of a special
service charge.
2. Plain paper copies shall be furnished upon payment of 1SC if the
paper is copied on one side and 20C if the paper is copied on both
sides. r
3. Copies of micrgfiche shall be furnished upon payment of 25C per
page (copy on one side of the paper only).
4. Certification of documentations shall be charged at $1.00 per
document.
5. Used cassette tapes shall be furnished at a charge of $1.00 each.
~a.c
?"~d1/9-r
DATE OF REQUEST
:- 7-)" ;,-'12-
DATE COMPLETED
Revised: 01/24/91
PARTY
BY
Harmening: I don't have a question of Mr. Staudinger at this point in time
regarding the drainage other than the fact that by increasing the,
in the event that we increase the density because of change of
zoning from R1AA to PUD, it would contribute to the runoff to some
exent; however, I'm sure that if the developer would like to spend
enough money for storm drainage, that can be handled, if not on
site then off site to the nearest Lake Worth Drainage District canal
or some suitable place, but again, while drainage is important, and
certain aspects of this are extremely important, I want to reiterate
again that this is primarily devoted, this rezoning is primarily
devoted to the highest and best use of the land and 11m not sure
that really the drainage is of paramount importance at this point in
this. At least it's not in my mind.
Walshak: I totally agree with Commissioner Harmening. When we initially
tabled this I was prepared that evening to vote on it on the basis
of it being a rezoning rather than get into the drainage and things
of that nature which will come through site plan approval, but the
applicant is here requesting a rezoning and I have a feeling that we
have to make a decision whether or not as the Comprehensive Plan
calls for rezoning matters that it benefit not only the landowner,
but it also benefits the City and the City's residents and thatls
the decision that I'm prepared to make tonight, not on drainage or
any other technical aspects of site plan.
Harmening: In my opinion, a PUD was inserted in the zoning code, and I havenlt
researched this, I donlt remember the exact year, in about 1973, in
order, and at the request of then staff members in order to accom-
modate new developments, primarily annexations. We normally annex
property and put in R1AAA zone and then after the developer got
ready to develop it, some of it went into a PUD. In some cases
nearly all of it went into a PUD. The only reason the PUD is really
in our zoning ordinance is simply because we thought some of the
annex land was suitable and might be a good idea for the City to
have a zoning classification approved PUD or planned unit develop-
ment. The theory behind planned unit developments is an interesting
one really. At the time I guess it sounded good. 11m not certain
it has always worked out that well. In fact in my own personal opi-
nion, planned unit developments are probably the result of some
college professor somewhere at one time who decided he would come up
with a new scheme of things and promote a whole new science and a
whole new philosophy in land use and you got to give him credit at
least in one respect. He probably was successful in that. But
zoning comes down basically to what is in the best interests of the
land; what is the highest and best use that the land can be used for
and what wilt benefit the property owner the most and what will
better the cjtizens and the City the most. And in my personal esti-
mation, in this City, in this particular piece of property, a
planned unit development is not appropriate. It's not the highest
and best use of this land and when you add the impacts that the
increased density, and there are impacts, both on the preserve area
and on drainge, that increased density, which is what a planned unit
development can result in and usually does, it certainly, in my
mind, renders a planned unit development as not the highest and best
use of the land. Therefore, I am not in favor of the rezoning for
this property. I think the R1AA zoning that has been in place is
far and away the more appropriate zoning for several reasons which
have been enunciated before but it's in keeping with the zoning in
the area on nearly all sides of it so consequently I see no reason
to change it.
Mr. Perry, I want to mention something on a statement you made
earlier to the effect that I agree with you. You, as well as your
applicant, have provided all of the things that the Code require. I
don't argue that; I never have. The problem that I've had, par-
ticularlly with this project from the beginning since I've been
involved in it anyway, is that I believe that in order for me to
make a responsible judgment on whether this is going to ultimately
work, I personally don't have enough because I see some problems
with it and we talked about that on May 19th and I went through
them. So nobody's argued that you have provided all of the things
that the Code requires. I was just looking for a little bit more to
make my job a little easier and I thought myself acting more respon-
sible. So that's really all I wanted to answer that because you
brought it up. But anyway, as you know I have spent some time on
this and I understand the property owner's rights to develop and do
what he feels is appropriate. At the May 19th meeting I went
through a long list of concerns that I had with this project. I
stated what I felt what our responsibilities were in reviewing the
rezoning request and my concerns not only with the request but with
the level of infonmation provided, not from a Code point of view but
from an infonmational point of view in order to make a judgment.
Some of my concerns at that time included both internal as well as
off site traffic impacts, the location of the project ingress and
egress and the location of the second access point. I stated con-
cerns with the requested number of units without enough information
as to the ability to accommodate the requested 234 units on site. I
wasn't convinced at the time that they would really fit. I stated
concerns with various incentives recommended by staff to encourage
the applicant to provide more or an increase size of the preserve.
I see where they've taken advantage of the incentives, those being
the size of the lots and the acre in lieu of, the one acre credit
for the parks as well as the dollars in lieu of real recreation on
site and I donlt see that the preserve is any larger than what the
Code requires it be so I see that the applicant has taken the incen-
tives ... not giving anything in return. Maybe I missed something
but I don't see it. One of my greatest concerns, of course, goes
for the issue of drainage. Whether it has anything to do with the
rezoning or not, in my mind is relevant. If I see that the drainage
is going to create a potential large problem for the wildlife, I
have to raise the issue. Well it's been two months now and all
we've gotten to date is a new drainage plan that is questionable as
to whether it would or would not be approved and 11m not going to
get into that debate. I contend that the preserve is in the worse
possible place on the site and I contend that those gopher tortoises
and any other wildlife thatls there is probably not going to survive
this radical change to their habitat. So as requested, based on the
fact that none of my concerns have been addressed at all, I feel
very uncomfortable granting this request so therefore I move that
this application for rezoning be denied based on the following
points:
A. That sufficient infonmation has not been provided to this Commissioner and
this Commission to adequately detenmine the eventual feasibility of the
request as stated.
Aguila:
B. That site as submitted is not consistent with the current development pat-
terns in the area.
C. There currently exists an adequate zoning classification in place.
Commissioner Harmening seconded the motion. City Clerk Sue Kruse took a roll
call vote. The motion carried 4-0.
-- --%e City of
'Boynton 'Beacli
~'F~
Pranning & Zoning 'Department
100 'E. 'Boynton 'Beacfi 'Boulevard
P.o. 'Bo:t310
'Boynton 'Beacfi, '.}"(orida 33425-0310
(407) 738-7490, 'J.'U: (407) 738.7459
July 23, 1992
Mr. Julian Bryan
3191 Leewood Terrace L-136
Boca Raton, FL 33431
RE: Cedar Grove PUD - File No. 654
Rezoning
Dear Mr. Bryan:
Please be advised that the City Commission, at their July 23,
1992 meeting, denied the Cedar Grove PUD rezoning request. This
denial was based on the City Commission conclusion that
sufficient information had not been provided to determine the
feasibility of the proposed rezoning and accompanying master
plan, that the request is not consistent with the current
development pattern in the surrounding area and that the property
is developable under the existing zoning.
I have enclosed the copies of the information you requested from
our office on July 21, 1992. The cost of these copies ($2.40)
has been added to your unpaid balance for processing your
rezoning request of $343.26 as referenced in our April 21, 1992
letter to you, bringing the total amount due to $345.66.
Please mail a check, payable to the City of Boynton Beach, for
this new balance as soon as possible. If you have any questions,
please contact me.
Sincerely,
JhJ-'<L '9, ~dz.v
Tambri J. Heyden
Senior Planner
TJH/jm
Att.
cc: Christopher Cutro
Planning & Zoning Director
f4merUa~, gateway to tlie (julfstream
.--r
........--
~
- '7
-S~,RA'/T f ~~t2_
PUBLISHING
lOR LEGAL ADVERTISEMENTS
A completed copy of this routing slip must accompany any request
to have a Legal Notice or Legal Advertisement Published and must
be submitted to the Office of the City Attorney 8 working days
prior to the first publishing date requested below.
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT:
Planning & Zoninq
PREPARED BY:
TAMBRI HEYDEN
DATE PREPARED: 4/16/92
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF NOTICE OR AD:
Rezoninq of the South Seacrest scrub site to PUD to be
known as Cedar Grove
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS: (Size of Headline, Type
size, Section Placement, Black Border, etc.)
as required by Florida Statutes
SEND COPIES OF AD TO: Planning & Zoning Dept., newspaper,
property owners within 400 feet of subject parcel
NEWSPAPER(S) TO PUBLISH:
The Boynton Beach News
DATE(s) TO BE
PUBLISHED:
To be determined by City Clerk
APPROVED BY:
(1) \~t~~d)
( 2 )
(City Attorney)
(Date)
( 3 )
(City Manager)
(Date)
RECEIVED BY CITY CLERK:
COMPLETED:
A:REQPUB
April 14, 1992
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Commission of the CITY OF
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, shall meet at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday,
May 19, 1992, at City Hall Commission Chambers, 100 East Boynton
Beach Blvd., Boynton Beach, to consider an application for
REZONING covering the parcel of land described as follows:
Applicant/
Owner:
Cedar Grove Investments, N.V.
Agent:
Julian Bryan
Legal
Description:
That part of the Southwest quarter of
Government Lot 2 lying West of the
Florida East Coast Railway right-of-way,
together with the South half of
Government Lot 3, the Southeast quarter
of Government Lot 4, that part of the
North quarter of the Southwest quarter
of the Northeast quarter of Section 4;
lying West of the Florida East Coast
Railway right-of-way; and the North
quarter of the Southeast quarter of the
Northwest quarter of Section 4, all
lying in Section 4, Township 46 South,
Range 43 East, Palm Beach County,
Florida: EXCEPTING THEREFROM that part
of Government Lot 4 lying within an
SO-foot road right-of-way as conveyed to
the County of Palm Beach in Deed Book
901, Page 234.
SUBJECT TO conditions, restrictions, and
reservations of record, if any.
Containing 53.69 acres, more or less.
Project Name:
Cedar Grove PUD
Proposed Use:
Planned Unit Development for 234 units
(single-family and duplex).
Location:
East side of South Seacrest Boulevard,
approximately 100 feet south of S.E.
31st Avenue.
Request:
Rezoning from R1AA (single-family
residential) and R2 (single and
two-family dwellings) to PUD (Planned
Unit Development).
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 & Zoning Board or City
Commission with respect to any matter considered at this meeting
will need a record of the proceedings, and for such purpose, may
need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made,
which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the
appeal is to be based.
SUZANNE M. KRUSE, CITY CLERK
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
PUBLISH: April 30 May 7
THE BOYNTON BEACH NEWS
A:PUBHRGCD.JM
~F~
April 14, 1992
ATTENTION PROPERTY OWNER:
At the April 7, 1992 City Commission meeting, the applicant for
the Cedar Grove rezoning requested a two week postponement of the
April 7th public hearing. However, the City Commission granted a
postponement of the pUblic hearing before the City Commission to
the date and time indicated in the notice below. This
postponement was granted provided readvertisement in the Boynton
Beach News newspaper and remailing of notices to property owners
within 400 feet of the property to be rezoned. To that end, this
notice is being sent.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Commission of the CITY OF
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, shall meet at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday,
May 19, 1992, at City Hall Commission Chambers, 100 East Boynton
Beach Blvd., Boynton Beach, to consider an application for
REZONING covering the parcel of land described as follows:
Applicant/
OWner:
Cedar Grove Investments, N.V.
Agent:
Julian Bryan
Legal
Description:
That part of the Southwest quarter of
Government Lot 2 lying West of the
Florida East Coast Railway right-of-way,
together with the South half of
Government Lot 3, the Southeast quarter
of Government Lot 4, that part of the
North quarter of the Southwest quarter
of the Northeast quarter of section 4;
lying West of the Florida East Coast
Railway right-of-way; and the North
quarter of the Southeast quarter of the
Northwest quarter of Section 4, all
lying in Section 4, Township 46 South,
Range 43 East, Palm Beach County,
Florida: EXCEPTING THEREFROM that part
of Government Lot 4 lying within an
80-foot road right-of-way as conveyed to
the County of Palm Beach in Deed Book
901, Page 234.
SUBJECT TO conditions, restrictions, and
reservations of record, if any.
Containing 53.69 acres, more or less.
Project Name:
Cedar Grove PUD
Proposed Use:
Planned Unit Development for 234 units
(single-family and duplex).
Location:
East side of South Seacrest Boulevard,
approximately 100 feet south of S.E.
31st Avenue.
Request:
Rezoning from R1AA (single-family
residential) and R2 (single and
two-family dwellings) to PUD (Planned
Unit Development).
NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNERS
Page 2
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 & Zoning Board or City
commission with respect to any matter considered at this meeting
will need a record of the proceedings, and for such purpose, may
need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made,
which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the
appeal is to be based.
SUZANNE M. KRUSE, CITY CLERK
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
A: PROPOWNR.JM
April 14, 1992
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Commission of the CITY OF
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, shall meet at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday,
May 19, 1992, at City Hall Commission Chambers, 100 East Boynton
Beach Blvd., Boynton Beach, to consider an application for
REZONING covering the parcel of land described as follows:
Applicant/
OWner:
Cedar Grove Investments, N.V.
Agent:
Julian Bryan
Legal
Description:
That part of the Southwest quarter of
Government Lot 2 lying West of the
Florida East Coast Railway right-of-way,
together with the South half of
Government Lot 3, the Southeast quarter
of Government Lot 4, that part of the
North quarter of the Southwest quarter
of the Northeast quarter of Section 4;
lying West of the Florida East Coast
Railway right-of-way; and the North
quarter of the Southeast quarter of the
Northwest quarter of Section 4, all
lying in Section 4, Township 46 South,
Range 43 East, Palm Beach County,
Florida: EXCEPTING THEREFROM that part
of Government Lot 4 lying within an
80-foot road right-of-way as conveyed to
the County of Palm Beach in Deed Book
901, Page 234.
SUBJECT TO conditions, restrictions, and
reservations of record, if any.
containing 53.69 acres, more or less.
Project Name:
Cedar Grove PUD
Proposed Use:
Planned Unit Development for 234 units
(single-family and duplex).
Location:
East side of South Seacrest Boulevard,
approximately 100 feet south of S.E.
31st Avenue.
Request:
Rezoning from R1AA (single-family
residential) and R2 (single and
two-family dwellings) to PUD (Planned
Unit Development).
All interested parties are notified to appear at said hearing in
person or by attorney and be heard. Any person who decides to
appeal any decision of the Planning & Zoning Board or City
Commission with respect to any matter considered at this meeting
will need a record of the proceedings, and for such purpose, may
need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made,
which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the
appeal is to be based.
SUZANNE M. KRUSE, CITY CLERK
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
PUBLISH: April 30 May 7
THE BOYNTON BEACH NEWS
A: PUBHRGCD.JM
C I T Y
o F
BOY N TON
B E A C H
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING
AGE N D A
DATE:
Tuesday, March 10, 1992
TIME:
7:00 P.M.
PLACE:
Commission Chambers
100 E. Boynton Beach Blvd.
Boynton Beach, Fl.
1. Pledge of Allegiance.
2. Introduction of Mayor, Commissioners and Board Members.
3. Agenda Approval.
4. Approval of Minutes.
5. Communications and Announcements
A. REPORT OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
6. Old Business.
A. PUBLIC HEARINGS
REZONING (Continued February 11, 1992)
1. PROJECT NAME: Cedar Grove PUD
AGENT:
Julian Bryan
OWNER:
Cedar Grove Investments, N.V.
LOCATION:
The east side of South Seacrest
Boulevard, approximately 100 feet
south of S.E. 31st Avenue (South
Seacrest scrub site)
DESCRIPTION:
Request to rezone 53.69 acres from
R1AA, Single Family Residential and
R2, Single and Two Family
Residential to PUD, Planned Unit
Development to allow for the
construction of 234 dwelling units,
comprised of single family
dwellings and duplexes.
7. Comments by members.
8. Adjournment.
NOTICE
Any person who decides to appeal any decision
of the Planning and Zoning Board with respect
to any matter considered at this meeting will
need a record of the proceedings and for such
purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim
record of the proceedings is made, which record
includes the testimony and evidence upon which
the appeal is to be based. (F.S. 286.0105)
A:PZAGDA.JM
---
~;;tf~
(; JaJL ,~~
.
February 21, 1992
ATTENTION PROPERTY OWNER:
As stated in the January 10, 1992 letter to you from the Planning
and Zoning Department regarding the Cedar Grove rezoning
application, public hearing notices to property owners within 400
feet of the property to be rezoned, would be remailed when the
application was ready for public hearing. The original hearings
were scheduled for December 10, 1991 and December 17, 1991. The
notice below contains the new dates, times and places of the
public hearings.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning & Zoning Board of the
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, shall meet at 7:00 P.M. on
Tuesday, March 10, 1992, at Gity Hall Commission Chambers, 100
East Boynton Beach Blvd., Boynton Beach, to consider an
application for REZONING covering the parcel of land described as
follows:
Applicant/
Owner:
Cedar Grove Investments, N.V.
Agent:
Julian Bryan
Legal
Description:
That part of the Southwest quarter of
Government Lot 2 lying West of the
Florida East Coast Railway right-of-way,
together with the South half of
Government Lot 3, the Southeast quarter
of Government Lot 4, that part of the
North quarter of the Southwest quarter
of the Northeast quarter of Section 4;
lying West of the Florida East Coast
Railway right-of-way; and the North
quarter of the Southeast quarter of the
Northwest quarter of Section 4, all
lying in Section 4, Township 46 South,
Range 43 East, Palm Beach County,
Florida: EXCEPTING THEREFROM that part
of Government Lot 4 lying within an
80-foot road right-of-way as conveyed to
the County of Palm Beach in Deed Book
901, Page 234.
SUBJECT TO conditions, restrictions, and
reservations of record, if any.
Containing 53.69 acres, more or less.
Project Name:
Cedar Grove PUD
Proposed Use:
Planned Unit Development for 234 units
(single-family and duplex).
Location:
East side of South Seacrest Boulevard,
approximately 100 feet south of S.E.
31st Avenue.
Request:
Rezoning from R1AA (single-family
residential) and R2 (single and
two-family dwellings) to PUD (Planned
Unit Development).
A PUBLIC HEARING will be held by the City Commission of the City
of Boynton Beach on the above request on April 7, 1992 at
7:00 p.m. at the Commission Chambers, or as soon thereafter as
the agenda permits.
)
: I
/'
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Page 2
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 & Zoning Board or City
Commission with respect to any matter considered at this meeting
will need a record of the proceedings, and for such purpose, may
need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made,
which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the
appeal is to be based.
SUZANNE M. KRUSE, CITY CLERK
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
A:PUBHRG.JM
THE PALM BEACH POST
SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 9. 1992
Support
for scrub:
Some petitions were orgat!ized I
by residents such as Natalie Mali- .
son, who opposes the developrPent :
plans because they would add. traf- ;
fie to her neighborhood in Chapel i
Hill. ". ~
Stan Palivoda, who bought his
home on Southeast 31st AVEmue.17
years ago because of the abUndant
wildlife in the bordering sc~bl has
hand-delivered letters alertmg his 1
neighbors to the plans. t; .!. . ..; j
"There are scrub jays the~. thilt
take peanuts from your I$nds,'~. i
~id ~livoda, who remembeJs tat; 1
109 his 21-year-old daught~r. ~Qr]
walks through the scrub wh~ she i
was a young girl. ~ --: 1
"Half the turtles running J
around in there have the kids' 1ni- 1
tials painted on their backs. It's just I
a beautiful piece of land. I'll do
everything I can to save it."! : '. i
Voters in Palm Beach COimty'
who helped pass a $100 ~on
bond issue to save 31,000 acres of
rare land have done their part.-to.o~
But money from the bond issuEds
not available yet to buy the Sea-
crest Scrub, said Kathleen Bren-
nan, a senior environmental ana-
lyst with the county.
The owners of the land, Cedar
Groves Investment Co., intend to
proceed with the development pro-
cess, said Julian Bryan, a consul-
tant for the company. Bryan also
said the owners are willing to sell
the land "for the right price" to the
Nature Conservancy, a non-profit
group negotiating the purchase for
the county.
Mike Rubin, an attorney for
Cedar Groves, refused to discuss
what they'd sell for. He said the
owners are angry with recent accu- .
sations by environmentalists that .
Cedar Grov~s Investment is using
the threat of development as a
bargaining tool to get the highest
sale price for the land.
The land is still being ap-
praised. The most recent county
assessment put the value at $1.6
million.
Despite Bryan's comments that
the owners are willing to sell, Bren-
nan said the company has not been
willing to enter into a purchase
contract with the Nature Conser.-
vancy.
"That still doesn't mean they
arc zo!ng to build," Brennan said.
.
growlng:t -~,
Boynton residentS:~c~::
to stop developme)i(~1
;i ~ ~
By JOE CAPOZZI -L.
Palm Beach Post Staff Writer f ::' .,
BOYNTON BEACH ~ .~Th~
economy has hurt her real ~fate
business. But Mary Louise Liw ~J
using the marquee outside her .Fed-'
eral Highway office to prevehf de;'
velopers from destroying the~ city,~
last chunk of environmentally
threatened land. ", ';
"SAVE THE SEACREST
SCRUB! Sign petition here" reads
the marquee, which is the.. sole
means of advertising for Law Real
Est~te at 625 Federal Highway, . :
. . Two or three months of a4ver"
tIslOg devoted to this may n~t ~ i
su~h ~ sm~rt business move, ..~~ 'I
saId. I think I'm the only nut>wtio.,
would do that. But I want to 40'1
everything I can to preserveftbat;
land." , . 1- ".
Law is among several cityfresi-
dents who are spreading the ~ord '
about development plansstluit;
would turn the 50-acre Seatrest I
Scrub into 234 homes. .. ~~- . . .
Planning Director Chris Cutro
said he has been swamped with so
many calls about the land th8t he .
will ask the Plannlng and z4niiIg
Board on Tuesday to set a special.
meeting later this month devoted
to the plans. ;
When that meeting is h~.~tY
Hall will be packed, acco . to
environmentalist Stella Rossi. : < ,
Law and Rossi say they have \
heard of about a dozen siWIar
petitions being passed arOun(f
Boynton Beach. Many of the Qrga-
nizers ~on't even know each~ ()~her,
Law saId. .. ,. . .
.''''~.~~''
Support.. }..
for scrub!.
, t' ';' .,
.' t
, .. . , . I.
gr.oW":lng','::"~,~,:,':
. '.' ',' j" "', '.I \ .... ',\.,: -i. .
Boynton residents"actl '.
. " , .', 1 't' -'!, ",:~: ".- ". '.' :
to, ~~()p' ,~(ey~J9Pirl~llt'~:;,; ;
1I}i.1OE C~.' .' ZI ;~:,.' P.' .~(,j. .,'f1~~:~, t;
Palm Beae st Wrtt&r' ,.' ,~,::,':':~
'.'BOYN ' '" EACu,'...F'TM
economy;: bAS', burt het'i...;'kestate: ,
b~ness,;~But Mary' Lolli~Uiw bt ,-'
usmg the, '!1arqueeoutsi~ h~r..Fed-! i:, i
eral IDghWily office to Pretehtder: . ,
velopers from d~~roying't~ clty'j", '
last chunk of" 'env~nment8lly
threatened land .. ':.' " . !. ;. '" ~
"SAVE . ,THE.n SEACREST .
SCRUB! Sign petition here" reads "
the marquee, which. is tbe sole' .,
meanS of advertising for,Law Real:' '
Estate at ,625 Federal Highway. .'
"Two or three,months of adver: '
tising devoted to this.may not be
such a smart, busmessmove," Law
said., "I think I'm the only nut.who
would do that. But'l 'want to do',
everything I' can. to. preserVe'th8t '. l
land.". , " ..' . ",: ',.,. I. .... ; I,
. Law'is among several city resi.'.~ I' ,
dents who are spreading the word" "
ab9.ut~ ~~evel~pment',: pia.. oS. 'that .
,i~'WbWd~tur#. t6e :,50~apn!~Sea~rest
Scrub into 234 hoines:t:,",-."j, j.';' '. .
> . Planning Db.:ector ChriS Cutro
. said he has been swamped with so Y
many calls about the land that he .
,will ask the Planning and Zoning ,
';7" Board, on ruesdaY,to set a special,.
,; meeUlig la~r ~. m~ntb:,devote(1:
i to the plansi'. , .". '"I, ~.. '",' "", ~. ... ":
i;/" W~en~t.'nieeiing:is, beld,'Ciiy'.:~
Halt wn~ tie packed, according to,;
environmentalist Stella Rossi. .
Law and Rossi say they have ,
heard of, about a dozen' similar
" petitions "being pall8ed,'around'
~ynton .Beach.' Many of the. orga. :..',
mzers dOb,'t even know each other '
, Law said.-' .~. .' .~' ,. , '
I Some petitions were organized '
, by residents such as Natalie Mali- ..
son, who opposes the.development:':
. plans because they would add traf-;'
~ fi~ to her i1eighborhood, i11, Chapel :;
~l. J.:' ~ ',' ., ,.:' ...
.,' S~Pilllv(lda,'w1i~:,bought his;
'i',I1091~, PD.~Utheast ,31st ^yenue,11 ::
~.years aSo because of.the abundant:
t: wil~e In the 'bordering scrub, has" -
~~\hand-de1i~~ letters ~erlinghiS :.. .
r.D~l~bors to/the plans. "",.,' ,.: - _: ...
'I' · '1h~11! are scrub jays there thai~.: '
i take-.peanuts .from yo1irhaDds'!,:~ :
: said, paUvoda, who remembers ta~..
:"ptg ,his;. ,~lLyear-old daughter. .for: ,
:;',wa~ through the sCnib',when ihi-,:
~~ waS a young girl. - ~':,~,1, ',' -: - : - :
t~. 'l)~~!,HaU the tu~t1~~",ruri.n~iig:::.:
~aroun~ in there have, the kids' ini.".'
~ ,ttals painted on their backs. It's just ....
,,':a beautiful piece of land.. I'll: dQ ~
! ,;~verything 1 can to save itl" :, .~. : .
;,' Voters in Palm Beach County :
who helped pass a $100 mill1on~'
, bond issue to save 31,000' acres of:
rate la~d have done their part,-ioo::
, , L P1eas~ se~ !iCRUBI5.S:
" ~ , . ,", ' , '." ~~ ..
t ytJ.." tr-~
~k~\
~ \t b--
. ~!,~ it':: . '>,;, .. ., Photo by RICHARD GRAULlCH
Stan railYdda, whose home borders the scrub, says, 'it's just a
beautlfMl ,piece of land, 1'1I_~0. ~veryt~lng _I can to Save It.'
R~iden~~:i::g~i~~~g "
to {Save Seacrest Scrub
, t -:i ,'!, '.' .
. SCRUB/frOm IS . what they'd sell f~r. He said the
.' .. " . <. owners are angry WIth recent accu-
But money from the bond issue is' sallons by. environmentalists that
not avan~ble yet to buy the Sea-. 'Cedar Groves Investment is using
crest Scrub, said Kathleen Bren- the threat of development as a
nan, a senior environmental ana- bargaining tool to get the highest
lyst with tl,ie county. . .," sale price for the land.
The owners of the land, Cedar'" The. land is still being ap-
Groves lnvestment Co., intend to praised. The most recent. county
" proceed with the development pro-. assessment put the value at $1.6
. cess, said Julian Bryan, a consul. million.
tant for, the company. Bryan also Despite Bryan's comments that
said the owners are willing to sell the owners are willing to sell, Bren-
the land "for the right price" to the nansaid the company has not been
Nature Conservancy, a non-profit . willing to enter into a purchase
group negotiating the purchase for contract with the Nature Conser.
the county. ' .:. vancy.
Mi~e Rubin, an attorney for "That still doesn't mean they
Cedar Groves, refused to discuss, are going to build," Brennan said.