CORRESPONDENCE
.
FPL
Florida Power & Light Company, P.l
ilX 6367, Ft. Lauderdale. FL 33340-6367
North qERrdtU1:eS~OftiC"0Pf ~ l~
I ~ \, \'. LJ n \
II l . ,,~i
" '! ,,' . . : I U !
...,.....1. . ,U
PLANNING AND
ZONING DEPT.
June 21, 1996
Ms. Tambri J. Heyden
Planning and Zoning Director
City of Boynton Beach
P.O. Box 310
Boynton Beach, FL 33425-0310
RE: COMMUNICATION TOWERS IN REC/PU CORY 96-005
AMENDMENT TO ZONING CODE.
Dear Ms. Heyden:
On June 13th, 1996, I wrote a letter to Bill Hukill regarding our conversation on the above
subject matter. I expressed to Bill at the time that the wording in the definition of
telecommunications towers, could impact the existing use of telecommunications
technologies of FPL. The term similar forms is so broad that I am concerned that once
passed, this ordinance could unintentionally affect FPL's core business needs.
I have attached a copy of my letter to Bill for your review, and simply ask that you
consider the request, to exempt FPL's use of its telecommunications signals from the
term"similar forms of electronic communications." Hopefully, since the ordinance will not
be up for second reading until July 16th, clarity could be written into the document.
Should you have any questions regarding this request for clarification, please refer them
to me at 407-265-3103. Thank you for your kind consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
cc:City Manager
attachment
an FPl Group company
.
F=PL
Florida Power & light Company. P.... Box 6367. Ft. Lauderdale. FL 33340-6367
North Broward Business Office
June 13, 1996
Mr. William Hukill, P.E.
City Engineer
City of Boynton Beach
P.O. Box 310
Boynton Beach, FL 33426
RE: COMMUNICATION TOWERS IN REC/PU CORY 96-005
AMENDMENT TO ZONING CODE
Dear Mr. Hukill.:
Thank you for taking a few minutes out of your busy day to talk with me regarding the
proposed' communications tow.~r ordinance. As mentioned during our discussion, Section 1,
paragraph F contains a defmition of telecommunications towers which, when viewed from
FPL's perspective, is so broad that it will impact FPL's ability to continue to utilize existing
telecommunications technologies associated with its daily operations.
Currently, FPL uses telecommunications signals to remotely control automated devices which
monitor and manage the operation of switches, capacitor banks, and automated meter reading.
All of these applications are an integral part of our electric system that could fall under the
term "similar forms of electronic communications." Adoption of the ordinance with the
current definition could significantly impede our ability to implement electronic technologies
in the operation and maintenance of our electric system.
I would appreciated as we had discussed, your taking this concern to the City's attorney and
the planning director. If language exempting the electric utility's ancillary use of its
associated telecommunications from the ordinance is included, FPL's needs would be met.
If I can be of assistance prior to the second reading of the ordinance, I can be reached at
265-3103. I will be in attendance for the commission hearing on Tuesday and will be
available to answer any concern from the commission.
Sincerely,
aL~~
A.L. Newbold
External Affairs Manager
an FPL Group company
/
~ City of
tJ3oynton 'Beacli
Pfanning & Zoning 'Department
100 'E. 'Boynton 'Beac.n 'Boulevard
P.o. 'Bo'(310
'Boynton 'Beadt., :Fforitfa 33425-0310
(407) 738-7490, :FJJlX: (407) 738-7459 January 13, 1992
Ms. Tina Golden, Specialist
Palm Beach County Property Appraiser's Office
301 N. Olive Avenue
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
RE: ZONING ON COMMERCIAL PROPERTY'AT HUNTER'S RUN PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT AS OF JANUARY 1, 1991.
Dear Ms. Golden:
In response to your request for information regarding the current
zoning on the above referenced property, I am providing you with
an indication of the current zoning, including an explanation of
several issues/events which have had, and continue to have, an
impact on the land use and zoning on this property. Those
issues/events are summarized below:
1) The City'S Comprehensive Plan was adopted on November 7,
1989. The new Future Land Use Map, which was adopted as
part of the Comprehensive Plan, changed the land use
classification of this property from Local Retail Commercial
to Office Commercial. The current zoning on this property,
C-3 Community Commercial, will remain until the Zoning Map
is officially changed as part of the subsequent procedures
to implement the Comprehensive Plan.
2) This property was the subject of a 1973 Final Judgement,
and for several years had been interpreted to restrict this
property's zoning to that which was in effect in November of
1972. Subsequent to the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan,
yet prior to the rezoning of this property, the owners of
the subject property requested that the land use be reverted
back to Local Retail Commercial, as Office Commercial land
use is inconsistent with the Final Judgement that they
believe still governs this property.
3) On June 18, 1991 the City Commission was presented with this
request for an amendment to the Future Land Use Map.
Cognizant of the contradicting opinions regarding the
current validity of the 1973 Final Judgement, the City
Commission directed the City Attorney to seek a Declaratory
Judgement. This action was filed in Circuit Court of Palm
Beach County on June 19, 1991.
;jf,mencas gateway to the (julfstream
/,1
./'
/' To: Ms Tina Golden
-2-
December 23, 1991
Since the Declaratory Judgement was filed, no action has occurred
that would change either the future land use or the zoning on
this property. Therefore I conclude by indicating that the
future land use classification remains, as effectuated by the
Comprehensive Plan, Office commercial, and since the zoning has
not been changed to conform to the Future Land Use Map, the zoning
remains C-3 Community Commercial (as indicated by the current
Official Zoning Map).
I hope I have sufficiently responded to your request. However,
if you are in need of additional clarification or information,
please contact Senior Planner Michael Rumpf at 738-7490.
Very Truly Yours,
~~
Christopher Cutro, AICP
Planning Director
CC:mwr
A: ZONHUNT
100 'E. 'Boynton 'Beadi 'Bou1evanf
P.O. 'Bo:(310
'Boynton 'BetUn, '}'forida 33425-0310
City :Haff: (407) 734-8111
'}'ftX: (407) 738-7459
~
,~~
'Ww',.
4
t~t~
crFte City of
'13oyn ton '13eacfi
March 21, 1991
Sherry Lefkowitz Hyman
Legal Counsel for Summit Associates
Hunters Run
3500 Clubhouse Lane
Boynton Beach, FL 33436
Re: Hunters Run Commercial Parcel
Dear Ms. Hyman:
As a recap of our phone conversation on Wednesday, March 20, 1991, please
be advised that Planning Department has provided an annotation to the
Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Plan reference this development.
Attached hereto please find a copy of the area and the referenced annota-
tion (sorry about the copy quality).
.
In my subsequent discussions with Chris Cutro, City Planner, reference the
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, Mr. Cutro has infonmed me that the
City is in the midst of completing the appropriate paperwork to file its
application by April 1st (the deadline established for Comprehensive Plan
amendments). A tentative schedule would see this proposed amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan being heard by the Planning and Zoning Board on May 14,
1991, and thereafter in a fonm of a transmittal hearing before the City
Commission on May 21, 1991. At that time the amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan is forwarded to the State for their review and comment,
which usually takes between 60-90 days. Upon receipt of comments from the
Department of Community Affairs the City will then schedule first and
second reading of an ordinance amending the Comprehensive Plan. Please
take note that this is only a preliminary schedule and could be subject to
change.
RECEIVED
MAR 21
PLANNiNG DEPT.
..
~merica's gateway to the (julfstream
'~~..~.";ii
. ~ ~ ~l~~~ .if; "
, ,..:;OO:it",;, ~~~.: . ~ .,'w. ' -y.
f::I*-,~'.?JV--'1 · ~ ~ i
",' ...... -;...;// .4,
,,~ . ... -L .~. .' .
. . hI _ . I--"~' "... ;:;; t' . .' ~f'
0:: .-:-r',' ! ~,.::
',:.J!:L ~lirl:' ~~~1' ~
.r"'.'If.." .' " .
, '~u-~~.~z). . ",hl<\t, vl'.t,.. f.: '
P. --":L~ ~G .;".
. ..... 1 T't n itJ' ! :i, .::' r Ir l"f';": )::r 'h'
~~, II ,....
J-:":-N"^':':--~::""'.I' :l ,_-:-..::.~,:::,,,,,,";~~~~7 ,,"'-'
~ ' . ^,. . .. ? N . . .,..' .,"",",,' ..,.",' ','
,'. . ,,;;,~;X; ;':,.;;:~.: ..,.~, ".,.~ :., '.:, ! ,)'".,~
'j6..' t'l'.'. '." .....:.:jo~. /.... ..' '. ;;.:."~''''. ...;,.~ .:,.;,....n
~" ',:.,' . ,-:<-~<:"",'>'l ' .... -.,' .~. l' Vi"'~' 'I
">i yd ..,.' .,.),;~,.~~).:"'., . "/;/lf .:~'::.?,
.,(.. '.';:;' ~>V," ....,......\, ".,,~\ ,'e"
...... l"" '....... ,> ".'. ',""' - ,_...' . 1/,' ..,,','
__ . ..,..... . ~ " ." ,;~.:; \:'" :;.'-".:1 'I I I; '. ,r'
~ _"_ )..., ....,., .' :r. .]:..... '.. ~ 'I,.. ,', , '",. . '''':' ,...
~_. " .~ ~... ..' 4., ' \ .' ..,.. .,' ., ... ., " , "".
..." ."...,,\)._. ......... ....v. .__ . ,.."1.,......, .."
.'....hew; ~l'''.~~.. . "'7:- ',,; '..... .... '/.:- <. .~'.:~, :;-:--Y~, :,l I ' "
. >,-". ,,~...., ..', . ....' ,J.'" ',' . . ". ,.,," .'. .., ,,' .,
::?_-.'_'l ':' ,~Ii. ..;. .i...v. . ,: _.'~ ,'" ....',;, ' ~ ~
;.7-0..;.~;~i:..:~ ~ r.>.. i, ~~~@'.:,.:"-., r.<;'~: ~'~~~";~~~~!II' "
\:', ~v,,"!:1'-\ r.~ ....' . . .... ~'\. ,.iI.' '.:,";
;:-,.;'1'")~~'....'.'.. ~ '... , '-'..'; ~ ~,-,,'\.,...""'.r
.,.~,.," ._..-.....':~')" .t ~ ~ ;.:.... . .~... '1'"
",._...".,; " ..," '..'C.'. ~
-;,~ ~.; _,.' 3i~ ... .' . ' ,..' .~~~;. ~~i
~..~.~?t" _,y..t..t~'" m..... '''' ... ~'Y .....,\. .l'" IJ
--\..-~;'\'.. -""". -",' ...,-'.' >',-..-' .".'" .,
... .....~,~~~~ :1.::': ;; <~'7.- g'~ .\\ '"' ~~ ~'''. '> \""..."':':-: '. .., 0
~ _.~'_.~ ~", ,,;.;.: X.$, E.:i;;"C,' - ";,, ......"i. ....".;? I
. .",,-,,'~ 7;.,"-'.; ..;:.;, "",\'$~~ ~.,'>.,.,;,.,..,,-' I,
\ "" ~,~ .' :':::: ;'.,:~~...~. ."',.... ....,' ..... ,..",...7 II
..' ,"';. ~;- j~ . ,-.....~~...::.:,'~\~~~ ~:..,-.;~ 'I
\,' .... . . .... ...." \ ,~ ,..." ',.., ~.".... , j J
:'.'.' .: ..;:.~:.;:~;:::<,:\'i:--:~.~.._~,~.:~<:~r .' /'
f. . . .......".. .' ~ ,,' :'. . , '1 ....' -\' I.
.... . ...,...,....' .........,'.... ",.; . ' ,~. ", f
. "I' '," ,~......,,:-. ,~........, . ";';;" ':.2~.: ,',';
!;v '~'.?'\~
f/.fl/,';;
$Ih ..
W fJ
~j
'",' "4'" "T' .'>>....:: .. ,). ': f;~- "'S: ~~
1 Jjl~1 "'~ "J //} J~'''~' . ~~ · '/ 1//1 .;. ~t;'!^ i""",,3,",
l'-! .u., ~', J . _! ,> .. f." >-- '-''''"
~. . - ~ ~"'"
..
~ .
'"
~ .
'" r . .. ,
~' ~~ ~j: I .., /;~~~;j ~'~ .~ ' " l~-..
'~..1l\.' IE; _ ,I<" +: :; f': n 7, ?!! r /2' . 1/ 9: e
"1\I\I\l~ '~:: ;;;'... ';-' !(V{ h II, .: .-
NOTI' THE LAI'ID tlSE1Z0N'~G.USE.ANO DEVELOP ENT OF THIS pRjbPERlV. .
Is'16 BE iN ACCORDANC~ WITH"THE COURT-ORDERED sEhLEi..\eNT
.. ...
STIPULATIONS IN EFFECT FOR THIS AREA AS SlOT FORtH. fi.l
APl'~flDIX. 0 QF.. TH~ FUniRE-LAND USE ELEMEtrn~upP15i\1
DO?U~E"'TS~_ . .: ',-;- .., .,' . --: -- '..: .
THIS PROPER"" IS THE SUBJECT OF, A COURT ORDER ENTERED MAV 10
..... . -. : - . - . .-' .. -- . . .. ....
REi1ERENCE SHOULD BE't.lJ(PE rO THAT COURT ORD~.R. .
A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVl; PLAN IS CONTEMPL
_~~. .'i - -~~~~
~,.,/-\ \ ~. ';t~'\.'
<Z8 ~~'H-I ; ~-.~:!:~
"v, ;:: ~ '
~~ ./"1-7-...1 '1~;: r;; :..
~/\J.L; \1~\~~ ~ ~.. '
_ ff - ~.-'L__~ l~j ~ ~:." ..
I :..f.J ..~ :~...;> ~~...
,---" ~ . ~1~..t1 ~1 ',' -
"cc.-Jj . . i-J, . t;:?i ~i'
"~"".
~ 1;'" '."'
'\ . of .,' ...
'\ . .
f'M' "2,~'.>i
~ .' . ,
J .
. '
~ti.fYoo"J .'
;t'
~ .. ~
~;".' :,~~~ 'ea'~.~-. .~.. ~'i ,.
~.,~ . ." .~.~... ~.;..~ ~"J,~
i,;~: ~'~' . .~e\J,''' ~,." '~"'.i:~"f'.;.l.k '
.. ,'~' #.. .)"'J:->\.....~~1 1)r~..."i.~ w""
,If;. ~~.~7 . ,,- .11-:-;t;.. [; jfi/t,,! -
.11 Ii J-':':'/1.".\ 't . ,,,.' 't ..~~.~ ',~ ., ..
.~ ~ . ,~.;.::,.:'\~ "f'."?~" ~~,~.,
.- ' ...", -~:.t.~~.' - ~; .'
p' '.'t -,. f', >. . . ~.
J).' '~7'~;~' "1 '>'~' ~~~:,
, ~ .....' Cl ~... ">
-; :-,f':'::' '. ",'~,',
. . .. J." . ~ .-.' . -f) \v.~
~ m~'~'''"'''''''''''~'~'' ~
fa . .~.. ;:- , ·
= { '. ,~..;.~._~~:: .;~~).~1
. .' STACH.,;. .:"';"
~.:a.'\.\a-- . 'l'.;~~. ~~~~~'" .
1;;~':' . I .t.'t~' '-1i ~~ N-
~~; ~_':~ ~ -~.f\.::<< ~l:JJ~'~I,~
,c. .~~ ~~~.a~ .~
.... . Bv,' . . - ' "'1 f .
, ~~. -:;. ~ . ~ '~, r, ~ ..... L ; ~.:
~~~'~.:. ..:0~~" <:<t~
, .' ~ ~ :. . ,-.. .\ ." \ & ..~ ~ .
.:'. .. ~. ,." ~ :'c~;j' ,~. 1& ~~\ ";~'. .,'
...:t..:.. . ", .,.~, ~;,. :'\,....,.
_ ......" ' ,'. ( '"_ ..".'4"_,#0.
"V~ -= . ~.. k ".r. .' '.-, .
. i"~-> "', ...;
i =am ,if.;..... ~ ,.~~. ..;,.~, ~Ii.~ J.
, }" .' '. ~ ~. '
. _. . . f. ~.J.", ,.. ..,
~. ,:,1 -,,:::.~. .' .' . '~:~;~~A:.t '
.., .... ~+. ,,,, ;~}t~.~.,,-- ~
bOO
.
,.
IOU\- .
. "'OC.
~
,
.~
~. ~
. ,0.l.
~ .lJ...J J
-.;;::..... l{
(.~
~-_.
~
~~.
...... ,
"'\~
"
...:~ '
,)
':
.'f,
I
....
" ~
,. 1.:,,'
. "
,
,
c
\,-
!
~: Ii J.
-..~ tf11l
,11111
\1
..f
i!
.
o/~
%e City of
tBoynton tBeac/i
100 'E. 'Boynton 'Beadi 'Boulevard
P.O. 'Bo;r..310
'Boynton 'Beadi, :f{orida 33435-0310
City J{a[f: (407) 734-8111
:FJtX: (407) 738-7459
December 18, 1990
Sherry Lefkowitz Hyman
Counsel for Summit Associates, Ltd.
200 Admirals Cove Blvd
Jupiter, FL 33477
RE: Hunters Run Commerical Tract
Dear Ms. Hyman:
In response to your letter dated December 5, 1990, inquiring as to the sta-
tus of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and annotating the
Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map reference the above noted devel-
opment, I have been reminded that the City is awaiting an Attorney
General's opinion, as directed to the City Attorney's office by the City
Commission at the October 16, 1990, City Commission meeting. Pending the
outcome of said opinion, the City will then take appropriate action accord-
ingly.
As soon as this office receives word, we in turn will infonm you. In the
interim should you have any questions or concerns relative to this matter,
please feel free to contact either Jim Cherof, City Attorney, or myself.
Si ncerely,
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
'---;7 - "~~mo. ,~jl --
,--./ ....:w.v:z{[/r~--
,1"--.-
RECEIVED
J. Scott Mi 11 er
City Manager
DEe 18 1990
PLANNING DEPT.
JSM:cd
cc: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
Chris Cutro, Director of Planning
Central File
-
51merica's gateway to tne ylllfstream
? .it
~'
CITY MANAGER' S OFFICE
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
TO:
Chris Cutro
DATE
December 11, 1990
DEPARTMENT
Planning
APPROPRIATE ACTION ~
'EVALUATION/RECOMMENDATION []
FOR YOUR FILES []
ACTION DESIRED PRIOR TO
[]
D
D
FOR YOUR INFORMATION
NOTE AND RETURN
OTHER
SUBJECT: Hunters Run Commercial Tract
Attached hereto please find a copy of a letter dated December 5, 1990,
from Sherry Lefkowitz Hyman, Counsel for Summit Associates, Ltd. reference
the Hunters Run Commercial Tract. At the October 16, 1990 City Commision
meeting the City Commission agreed to a program involving 5 conditions with
regards to the commercial parcel on Congress Avenue. Specifically, the
City was to sponsor an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan on Condition #3.
Also, the City was to provide an annotation to the Comprehensive plan and
Future Land Use Map reference Condition #4.
I would ask that you please review the subject matter and provide to this
office an update as to where you are in accomplishing these 2 noted
conditions. Your prompt response to this offfice would be greatly appre-
ciated so that I in return can inform Ms. Hyman of the sta~~ Thank you.
~CEIVED
"
ui:C 1 1 1990
PLANNING DEPT.
JSM : j b
Attachment
-
-
cc: Sherry Lefkowitz Hyman
Counsel for Summit Assoc. Ltd.
3500 Clubhouse Lane
Boynton Beach, FL 33436
RESPONSE:
tlUJ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ 1'(1' ~ U~~t
~ --L.. ~ ~ 1vrv.fL ~O- ~ (J'~. 4 -~ ~~ ~ 0..., ~ cr~
Hi. ~~~.. ~ ~ JJ- ~ ~ ~ (V W- ~~v..... ~~4, ~L
_ "tL"""if k \'L~~ P- ~~ Uw ~<>JW. l.AMfu ~ ~ c~
~~ ~~ ~~. , REC-;jIVED
Date (Action Completed) I~
~o
DEe 17 1990
Signature \::t~~~~FFICE
SfTA,RY: '"
1,,"",1 .,),
j
.
12-13-91 ; 4:03PM; PRe PROPERTY APrR.~
REBECCA (. WALKf:A, (fA.. ASA
PALM lEACH COUNTY PRO'IRTY APPRAISER
CUtI,... U,Ili&....."
,"" ~ aMJNG'11t. CIJQI
301 ... aM A\'DI.I
~ Hut IUOf, fUMlIIl
))401
.. DAft.
I'J../ I'll ~ I
,
'AX HUM811 SENDl.G tel
-738' -}q~?
J'aoec.
~NJ9- C-,~~J
PLEASE DELIVER TO.
t11Kt
~1Jhr'T
10TAL MUftlU or PAGES llfCLUDIMG coval' '3&.'.,_ 1/
Boynton Bth fax:# 1/11
....,
~... ....,t~
'ttr \ ,.,.s..
, "'J~.~
, ':.i~~
tIOII. (II'; Ill-I...
,.. (t') ) .>>U
~
lIJlp""" ........
lr YOU DO NOT RlellYI THE I.TlkI TELICOPY MESSACE, PLIAS! ~ALL
(401) 355-2"0.
Itt!SACla
..
...
JT
.-
"
O'ZMfOU IWII,
pur
,
SENT BY:
12-13-91 4:03PM
POC PROPERTY APfR,...
Boynton Bch fax;# 2/11
III 'l'HE CIRCUIT OOlJRT OF THE h ~ 3 X
15TH JUDICIAL CIItCUIT IN AN~j ..
CASE NO. C t (7/ ---' j;);) ~
FLA. BAR NO. 291946
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, a
Florida municipal corporation,
Plaintift,
VS.
SUMMONS
SUMMIT ASSOCIATES, LTD.. a
Flori~a limited partnership,
Defendant.
/
THE STATE OF FLORIDA:
To All and Sinqular the Sheriffs of said state:
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to serve this Summons and a copy of
the Complaint in this action on Defendant,
SUMMIT ASSOCIATES, LTD., by serving its
Registered Agent - BReN, Ino.
~401 Forum Way
Wast Palm B~ach, FL 33401
Each Defendant is required to serve writt:en defenses to 1:he
Co~plaint on JAMES A. CHEROF, ESQUIRE, Wh058 addres5 is 3099 B.
Commercial Boulevard, suite 200, Fort Lauderdale, Florida JJJ08
within twenty (20) dl:lY5 afte:t' 5eI"Vice of thi5 Summon5 on that,
Defendant, exclusive or the day or service, and to' rile the
oriqinal ot' the defenses with the Clerk ot this court either
before service on Plalntlrt's attorney or immediately thereafter.
Ir a De!en~ant tails to ~o so, a default will be entered against
the Derenda~t tor the relief demanded in the complaint.
'JUN 1 9 1901'
WITNESS my hand and seal ot said court
JOHN B. DUNKLE
As Clerk of said Court ~
":"l
MARLA J. HOVAN
Deputy Clerk
By:
SE,I\JT BY:
12-13-91 4:03PM
PBC PROPERTY APPR.~
Boynton Bch fax;# 3/11
, ,
IN 'l'HB CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
15TH JUDICIAL craCUIT IN AND
FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO. O^- 01 ," 7~;).5 7 A-~
FLA. eAR NO. 291846
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, a
Florida municipal corpora~1on,
Plaintiff,
V&.
COMPLAINT
SUMMIT ASSOCIATES, LTD., a
Florida limited partnership,
Defendant.
.' ~ ~'. )fIt~.'
oni'~:,;~-::,!. ;:" .-'!' !'....., ;t!:~ ;io-iU~..
JI ill , .... ~C{'1
VI~ I.;i 1))1
j
.i.. "";'" '....d '!:. <i4~
.~:~> I"'~ ,':~r. !.~."i1l'!':0!~
Plaintiff, THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH (hereinafter referred
to a. the "CITY"), sues Defendant, SUMMIT ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(hQroinafter referred to as "DEFENDANT"), and alleges:
PRELIMINARY ALLEGATIONS
1. The CITY is a municipal corporation looat.ed in Palm
Beach Coun~y, Florida, and is the governing body and looal
government as those terms are defined in the Loc;:al Government
Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act.
2. DEFENDANT 1s a Florida 11m1~ed partnership with offices
located in Palm Beach County, FlQrida.
3. DEFENDANT is the owner of real property located in Palm
Beach County within the jurisdictional limits of the CITY and
more particularly described on Exhibit "AU attached hereto. The
property is cOlUlonly referred to as the "HUNTER'S RUN COMMERCIAL
TRACT-, and that desiqnation will be used herein. The HUNTER'S
Piige 1 of 9
SENT BY:
12-13-91 4:04PM
PBC PROPERTY APPR.~
Boynton Bch fax;# 4/11
" '
RUN COMMEKCIAL TRACT 10 depicted on ~he map attaohed as Bxhibit
"B" and is highlighted in yellow.
4. This action is an action tor declcu;at.oq judgment.
brought pursuant to cnapter 86, Florida statutes and jurisdiction
is vested in the Circuit Court.
S. All conditions precedent to the institution of this
action have occurred.
~OUNT I
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
6. The CITY, realleges and reavers paragraphs 1 through 5
of the preliminary alleqations.
,. This coun~ is an action for declaratory jUdgment
pursuant to Chaptor 96, Florida Statute~.
8. DEFENDANT acquired the HUNTER'S RUN COKMRRCIAL TRA~ on
January 31r 1978. A true a.nd correoi: oopY of the Special
Warran~y Deed conveying the property to DEFENDANT is attaohed as
Exl1.ibi t IleM.
9. on May 10, 1973, a Final Judgment was entered in Palm
Beach County Circuit court case No. 73-579 CA(L:)-Ol-smith
(hereinafter referred to as the "1973 Final Judgment") ~ A copy
of the 1973 Final Judgment is attached hereto as Exhibit "D'I.
10. The 1973 Final Judgment was based upon a Stipulation
and Agreement between The CITY and PALMLAND DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION arising from a dispute over zoning and pennitted
uses. The stipulation and Aqreement is attached as Exhibit HE."
page 2 at 9
SENT BY:
12-13-91 4:04PM
PBC PROPERTY APPR,~
Boyn:on Bch fax;# 5/11
11. The HtJlf'l'ElR' S ItUN COMMERCIAL 'l'RACT ba8 1:"ellQ inec1
undeveloped and unimproved. since the entry of the 1973 Fimll
Judgment.
12. The HUNTER'S RUN COMMERCIAL TRACT is unplatted. NO
app11cation for development ot the tract has :been sU:bmitted to
the CITY or to Palm Beach County, and there has been no request
for the issuance of buildinq permits.
13. In 1985 the State adopted the Local Government
Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act
(Florida statute 163.3161-163.3215) I hereinafter referred to as
the "ACT". The A~ provides that it is the intent of the ACT,
inter alia t :
That adopted ComprQhon~ivo Plan~ ~hal1 have the 1&9a1
status "cat out. in this Aot. and t.hat. no pUblio or
private development shall be permitt.ed exoept. in
conformity with oomprehensive plans or elements or
portions thereof, prepared and adopted in confomi ty
with this ACT. (F.S. 163.3161(5))
14, The ACT required The CITY to prepare a Comprehensive
plan in a manner consistent with the ACT and with Chapter 9J-5
F.A.C., the Minimum Criteria for Review of Local Government
Comprehensive Plans and Determination of Compliance of the
Department of Community Affairs (hereinafter referred to as the
"RULES").
15. The CITY, acting pursuant to the ACT and in accordance
with the RULES, conducted public hearinqs and adopted its 1989
Comprehensive Plan by Ordinance No. 89-38.
The Ordinance was
adopted on the November 7, 1989. The 1989 Comprehensive Plan is
page J Of 9
SENT BY,
12-13-91 4:05PM
PBC PROPERTY APPR.~
BoyntD~ Bch fax;# 6/11
too vOlum1nous to a~~acn as an ~xh1bit hereto but ia AvailAble to
DEFENDANT up,on request.
ordinance NO. 89-J8 is a.ttached ~s
Exh1bit "F."
~ The m~ER'S RUN COMMERCIAL TRACT was lden~1fled in the
1989 Comprehensive Plan as Planninq Area S.h. The 1989
Comprehensive Plan adopted by the CITY provided for a land use
classification des1qnation change for the HUNTER'S RUN COMMERCIAL
TRACT from .Local Retail CQmnercial to Office Commercial with a
corrAspondinq zoninq chanqe from C-3 to C-l.
The 1989
Co.preh~nsive Plan made no reference to the 1973 Final Judqment
in it~ trGatmont of Planning Araa a.h.
17. The CITY administration was apparently awarQ of the
existence of 'the 1973
Final ~udqment durin9 thQ 1989
Comprehenmive Plan adoption prooess.
The CIT~' s then Planning
Direotor, Cermen s. Annun~iAto, requeated G legal opinicn
regarding the restrictionli imposed by the 1973 Final J'udqrnent by
memorandum aated March 16, 1988, a copy or which is attached as
Exhibit "G". The then City Attorney, Raymond Rea, responded by
memorand~, dated April 1, 1988, holding in essence that the 1973
Final JUdgment did not restrict the CITY's ability to ~ezone the
property. The city Attorney's memorandum is attached as Exhibit
WH".
18. DEFENDANT did not appear at the pUblic hearings which
were held in conjunction with the adoption of the 1989
ComprahansivQ Plan nor did they chal1enqe the plan as. an
Waffected partyM in a manner pr&5cribed by the ACT.
Page 4 of 9
SENT BY:
12-13-91 4:05P~
POC PROPERTY APPR."
Boynton Bth fax:# 7il1
19. In July of 1990 repreee.ntatdvct.S of DBF'ENDAHT Clont.acl't:e,d
members of the CITY Administration to protest the -creatment of
t.he IfUNTER'S RUN COMMERCIAL TRACT in the CIT~is 1989
Comprehensive Plan and to insist ~hat the zoning and development
ot the lane be governec1 by the 1973 Final Judgment. The
DEFENDANT'S position is more specifically set forth in a letter
dated JUly 6, 1990, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit "In.
20. DEFENDANT'S protest reached the City Commission on
October 16, 1990 at which time ,the City commission acknowledged
the existence of the 1913 Final Judgment. and directed the City
Administration to initiate a comprehensive plan amendment.
2 L The City Planner, pursuant to the Commiss ion dil:'ec:t.iv~
of Oct.ohar 16, 1990, initiated an amQndmgnt to thQ 10ao
Comp~ehQnsivQ Plan.
22. On June 11, 1991, the City of Boynton Beach Planning &
Zoning' Soard C!IIi~t.inq as the Local Planning Agency, held a public
hearinCJ on ehe propo::ied change to the 1.989 Comprehensive Plan.
'ths Planninq &I zoninq Board vot:ed 7 -0 to recommend to the c1 ty
Commission that the 1989 comprehensive Plan not be amended. The
Minu~es of the Planning and Zoninq Board meeting are attached as
Exhibit "J.B
23. O~ June 18, 1991, the city Commission conducted a
public hearing to consider the proposed 1989 Comprehensive Plan
change. Two diametrically opposed positions were asserted at the
public hearing.
Page 5 of 9
SENT BY'
12-13-91 4:06PM
PBC PROPERTY APPR.~
Boynton Bch fax;# 8/11
A. DEl'!NDAJJT asserts thAt the 197J Jl'inlll JuClqmen-c is
binding on the CITY and that any treatment ot the HUNTER'S RUN
COHMIRCIAL TRACT 1nconsistent with the 1973 Final Judqment 1s
imprQper and unlawful. DEFENDANT further asserts that the
Commission action of October 16, 1990, mandates an amendment to
the 1989 Comprehensive Plan to allow the uses set forth in the
1913 Final Judgment and to support a C-3 zoninq classification.
the CITY takes an adverse view with respect to both positions
asserted by DEFENDANT.
B. The re5idant~ of the Hunter's Run community (a planned
un! t. devca1op1DQnt locatod WOSo\t of the HUNTER'S RUN COMMERCIAL
TRACT) assortc that there has been substantial development in the
community. surrounding the COMMERClAL TRACT ,..inca t;.hQ log'3 and.
that. 'those changes should override the 1973 Final Judgment.
These re6idents assert thae the 1989 Comprehen~ive F1an and the
ACT, it followed, mandate a C-l lionin9 cl~uisification.
Additionally, this group asserts that the DEFENDANT derives no
vested rights from the 1973 Pinal Judgment.
24. The city Planner has determined that the uses proposed
by the 1973 Final Judgment are inconsistent with the 1989
Comprehensive Plan and that an amendment of the plan to conform
to the 1973, Final Judqment would be improper from a planning
perspective 6 The City Planner's analysi~ is more specifically
set forth in the city of Boynton Beach Planninq Department
Memorandum No. 91-131, l!l copy of which is attached as Exhibit
Page Ei of 9
SENT BY:
12-13-91 4:06PM
PBC PROPERTY APPR.~
Boyn:on Bch fax;# 9/11
"KM. Thi5 position 1. adverse to the position ~~Berted by the
DEFENDANT.
Z:). The CITY'S r1gl1ts, powers, and l:Suties to adept and
amend a comprehensive plan and to zone and rezone property
consistent therewith are controlled by the ACT tne 1989
Comprehensive Plan adopted thereto. The mandates of the 1973
Final Judgment as asserted by DEFENDANT are irreconcilable with
the proper exercise of the CITY's rights, powers, and duties.
26. The CITY cannot follow the mandate of the 1973 Final
Judgment and ignore its own Comprehensive Plan or its duty to
amend its Comprehensive Plan in a manner consistent with the ACT.
Nor. does the CITY desire to follow the mandates of the
ComprQhonsivQ Plan and tho ACT and abrogate ths 1973 Final
Judgment. Tho rightG of DEFENDANT and of tho CITY aro dQPondant
upon a determination of priori~y between these conflictinq
airec:tives.
27. There is a present ana actual controversy between the
CITY and the DEFENDANT as exemplified bY the pUblic hearings and
the recommendation of the City Planner and the CITY is in doubt
as to its rights and duties and as to the rights of DEFENDANT as
controlled by the 1973 Final Judgment.
28. The CITY desires to act in a manner whioh does not
place it in violation of either the 1973 Final Judqment, the ACT,
or the 1989 Comprehensive Plan. The CITY cannot do so without a
declaration of their rights being first determined by the Court.
paqe 7 of 9
SENT BY:
12-13-91 4:07PM
PBe PROPERTY APPlt ~
Boynton Bch fax:#10/11
29. There i. no other legal proceeding now pending or
available to resolve the issues presented by this Complaint. A
decla~atory judgment i5 the only remedy available to resolve the
doubts enumerated by the CITY with respect to the powers ot the
CITY and the rights of the parties.
WHEREFORE, The CITY prays that this Court takes jurisdiction
pursuant to Chapter 86, Florida statutes, and that this Court
render a declaratory decree which:
A. Determines the enforceability and binding effect of the
1973 Final Judqment.
B. Determines the enforceability and bindinq effect of the
Local GOVQrn:ment Comprehensive. Planning and Land Development
Rogulation Act.
C. Detarmin8G tho enforoeability and binding effect of the
1989 CQnp~ehensive Plan.
D. Determines the legal requirements of the 1973 Final
Jud9lDent, the Local Government Comprehensi Vii! Planning and Land
Development Act, and the 1989 comprehensive Plan as they affect
the HUNTER'5 RUN COMMERCIAL TRACT.
D. Determine whether DEFENDANT, SUMMIT ASSOCIATES I LTD.,
has succeeded to the interests of the oriqinal parties to the
1973 Final Judgment.
E. Detemine whether DEFENDANT, SUMMIT .ASSOCIATES.. LTD. I
is estopped from challenging, and is therefore bound by, the
\1.~j\,.~\f."'"!I\1i1T~1"1~,'i~Vf .~l"n.lJn}J.. .1 It,&" .tlj~u~c.."'+.'la...attnJJo;) .r.Ll"1 ..mli',l~ n
hearings or to perfect a challQngs ~o ~hQ plan as p~e~cribed by
Page 8 of 9
SENT BY:
, I
t~-13-91 4: 07PM
PBe PROPERTY APPR--.
Boynton Beh fax,#ll/ll
~e LOcal Government co~prehensive Pl~nnin9 end LAnd Development
Regulation Act.
F. Establishes an appropriate procedure wnich w1ll permit
all interested or affected parties to intervene in this
proceedinq.
Petitioner anticipates that the Department of
community Affairs and the Florida League of cities may have a
sufficient interest to warrant intervention and requests leave to
place such parties on notice of this proceeding.
G. Grant such other relief as is proper and consistent
with th& all~gations of this Complaint.
JOSIAS & GOREN. P.A.
AttornGYs for CITY
3099 East Commercial Blvd.
suite 200
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308
(305) 771-4$00
8y~
JAMES A. CHEROF
J'AC/lms
P/B
HUNTRCMP
Page 9 of 9
~
LAW OFFICES
MOYLE, FLANIGAN, KATz, FITZGERALD & SHEEHAN, P.A.
TALL.AHASSEE OFFICE
SUITE 100. THE PERKINS HOUSE
118 NORTH GADSDEN STREET
TAL.LAHASSEE, f'L.ORID'" 32301
TELEPHONE (904) 1581.3828
......CSI....ILE (904) 1581' 8788
ANOR€:W ..I. MCMAHON
LISA ..... MILLER
.JON C. MOYLE
.JOOY H OLIVER
O"'VIO S. PRESSLY
NANCY "ORPE QUINLAN
PA.TRICK E. OUINLAN
M...RK E. R..........OND
THOM"'S .... SHEEH...N, m
OONN'" H. STINSON
.......RT... ..... SU...REZ' MURI",S
S"'MUEL .... THOM"'S
WILTON L. WHITE
THOM"'S L. YOSET
.JOEL H. YUOENf'REUNO
THOM"'S" BE"'SON
PETER L. BRETON
ROBERT BROOY
GREGORY O. COO'"
ECOLE ""TZGER"'L.O. m
.JOHN ~. FLANIGAN
ROv W F'OXALL
"'NOREW f'ULTON, m
..yR... GENOEL
NANCY MALLEy GR....HAM
WINSLOW O. HAWKES, m
LYNN G. HAWKINS
MART'N V. KATZ
WILt-lAM B. ~ING -=
RON"'L.O .... KOL.INS
STEVEN .... ...........NS
9- FL.ooR, 8ARNETT CENTRE
52S NORTH FLAGL.ER CRIVE
POST OFFICE BOX 3888
WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA. 33402
TEL.EPHONE (407) 659.7500
f''''CSI'''LE (407) 659 . I 789
July 6, 1990
"-""" "'-.
If"-. . . .-"'---.
.0( ~ _ , ." :_ ':-
.'.:..~
i --<iJ
James A. Cherof, Esq.
City Attorney
City of Boynton Beach
P .0. Bo x 310
Boynton Beach, FL 33425
JUt
9
1990
CrT',' ,.
. /'-.!
..
" ',':(
--------
Re: Hunter's Run Commercial Parcel
Dear Mr. Cheroff:
We appreciated the opportunity to meet with you and Mr. Cannon
last week to discuss the land use and zoning status of the
commercial parcel fronting on Congress Avenue east of Hunter's
Run. This parcel is identified as Parcel 8h in the Land Use
Problems and Opportunities section of the Comprehensive Plan.
The purpose of this letter is' to explain, in greater detail,
why my client has vested rights against the apparent reduction of
permi tted uses on this parcel. Parcel 8h is the subject of a
Stipulation and Agreement, entered into between, as here relevant,
the City and Palmland Development Corporation (my client's
predecessor) . The St ipulat ion and Agreement was approved by the
Circuit Court and incorporated by reference into a Final Judgment
and Order dated May 10, 1973. Copies of both documents are
attached.
Both the St ipulat ion and Agreement and the Fi nal Judgment and
Order remain valid and binding upon the parties.
The Stipulation and Agreement states that:
-WHEREAS, the parties hereto,
of the various civil actions
as a part of the settlement
now pending, desire to make
3015B
~
James A. Cherof, Esq.
July 6, 1990
Page 2
certain agreements regarding
said lands."
the use sand zoni ng of
It goes on to state that:
"It
now,
is specifically agreed that the parcels of land
and were in November of 1972, zoned as follows:
are
* * *
Parcels: 19 and 20 are zoned C-2
It is further agreed that the said Parcels
developed in accordance wi th the said
classifications as they existed on the effective
Ordinance No. 72-27 except as hereinafter limited:
may be
zoning
date of
* * *
(d) palmland will restrict the uses of Parcel 19 and 20
by eliminating the following permitted uses under the
above described zoning classifications:
C-2
Animal hospitals when all
conducted within the building
activities
are
Shops for painters, plumbers, paperhangers,
electricians, upholsterers and other of a
similar nature. Outdoor storage yards are
permitted when accessory to the above uses;
provided all equipment and merchandise are
enclosed behind a screen consisting of
plantings or a closed or semi-closed type fence
not less than five feet in height
Mobile home sales
Used car lots
Warehouses, wholesale commercial establishments
Residential uses.
3015 B
James A. Cherof, Esq.
July 6, 1990
Page 3
C-l
Boarding and rooming houses
Mortuary
Residential uses.w
Therefore, it is clear that the parties settled the cases by
agreeing, among other things, that the two commercial parcels
could be developed for all the uses permitted by the C-2 zoning
district regulations (circa 1972'), with the exception of certain
specified uses.l
This is confirmed by the
states:
Final Judgment and Order which
-The Court further finds that Palmland Development
Corporation, in accordance with the said Stipulation and
Agreement, is entitled to develop the said lands in
acco rdance ,wi th the above zoni ng class i fica t ions as they
existed in November, 1972, except as hereinafter limited.-
It appears that the Court also found the elements of equitable
estoppel against the City. The Court recites that the original
controversy arose out of the original Ordinance No. 72-27 (the
annexation and rezoning ordinance) and the subsequent conduct of
the City in passing Ordinances No. 73-7 and 73-11 wherein and
whereby the general uses permitted under zoning ordinances in
existence at the time of passage of Ordinance No. 72-27 were
changed with the expressed intent of City Officials to down-zone
the Pa1mland Development Corporation property.
After finding that the annexation was valid and Ordinance No.
72-27 validly rezoned the land, the Court found:
- that after the enactment of Ordinance 72-27,
Pa1m1and Development Corporation, in reliance upon said
Ord inance, did subst ant i ally cha nge its posi t ion by the
expenditure of sums of money.-
1 C-2 zoning was the most intensive commercial district at that
time. Subsequently, the zoning code was rewritten and the present
C-3 district became the functional equivalent of the prior C-2
district.
3015B
~
James A. Cherof, Esq.
July 6, 1990
Page 4
It is clear, therefore, that the use and
Palmland property (now known as Hunter's Run)
terms of the attached Final Judgment and Order
and Agreement. Changes can only be effected,
through the mutual agreement of the parties or
assigns.
development of the
is governed by the
and the Stipulation
at the very least,
their successors or
The validity and binding effect
Order has been acknowledged by the
First, the City Zoning Map, until
Palmland property with a note stating:
of the Final Judgment and
City on several occasions.
recently, - designated the
-All zoning, Charter World, per final judgment Case No.
72-6624, dated May 10, 1973.-
Also, in the prior Comprehensive Plan, the following reference
to the Final Judgment and Order is made:
-Area 17
Ten Acre Tract at Entrance to Hunter's Run
This Parcel is currently zoned for commercial use.
However, a court ordered land use designation
remains in effect, specifying the development of a
200 room hotel. Based upon requests by
representatives of the property owner and a policy
decision by the Local Planning Agency, this parcel
shou Id remai n in its cu r rent land use des igna t ion
with the court-ordered restriction removed.-
(emphasis mine)
Although the parcel referred to above is Parcel 22 and not the
parcel which is the subject of this letter, it too was covered by
the same Final Judgment and Order, and thus the quoted passage
clearly shows that the City acknowledges the validity and vitality
of that Final Judgment and Order.
The new Comprehensive Plan recognizes that there are several
parcels in the City where court-ordered settlements govern land
use. Several such settlements are included in Appendix D of the
Future Land Use' Element. A note also appears on the Future Land
Use Map indicating several parcels covered by the following legend:
-Note: Comprehensive Plan
concerning these two native
objectives and policies
habitat sites do not apply,
3015B
....-:
James A. Cherof, Esq.
July 6, 1990
Page 5
as long as the court ordered stipulation regarding the
zoning and development of this property remain in effect.-
It is my cl ien t 's posi t ion that the zoni ng and deve Ibpment of
the Hunter's Run commercial parcel is also governed by the
at tached court ordered st ipulat ion and shou Id be simi lar ly
des ig na~ed in the Fut u re Land Use Element and on the Map. It is
our belief that the failure to have done so previously is simply
due to inadvertence and, now that the City staff is aware of the
omi ssi on, the appropr i ate cor rect i on wi 11 be made as qu ickly as
possible.
In that this action is merely the correction of an
administrative oversight which affirms the existing status of the
property, it should not be characterized as an -amendment- to the
plan. Therefore, we do not feel the cor rection should go through
the amendment process or be bound by the twice-year-ly limi tat ion
on amendments.
It must also be stated that there are additional, independent
arguments why the redesignation of the parcel to c-o is not
effective to limit the uses of the parcel, and we are not waiving
these. However, the existence of the Final Judgment and Order and
the Stipulation and Agreement should be dispositive of the matter.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me.
Very truly yours,
/
-+- ~ ~"
? p' 7'./ ~' 7/ / /' h, \
~----- ---S-//_-/Lf7~/.-/~ /7~
( Peter L. Braon
PLB/dl
Enclosure
cc: Sherry L. Hyman, Esq.
Ronald K. Kolins, Esq.
3015B
:-4
'..'":>>
.. .
-. .
:" :
:-
,,~
- ..
.. :..
I')
-
,
" ...
'. I"
,. ..
,. ,.,
" oJ
. .
.
.
-..- .
. ... - -/
='''':::'~~ .
...; 'J -
'. e... -:-1.1 :.... .... .... r.. ell" ~T :'\... ..... ....
.., ,'n, '.:' ,.:c.
i:lFli..u;;.iti JUi.HCIAL l:IR'';urr,
l:~ AXD FOP. I'At:,l BI!ACH COU~:T'.",
FLORTU~. '
;Iu.t liU~3 CQu:tit. :j~rt '1 'l.G::U
t hcr~" cercif, ~u tit.
fC'lt.:;foJlrt;: I, a u". ~o"7
of c:,. r~ot~ :..-. t~., oHt<.t
1'1\b._0"'I:l __1'_
'!;~:~:j c. t :';:I:(~E
c..~:c C:.:\ILI ~
..
-
-
..
,
,. :)O~'~R'l' TC.t~'S-O'\~ CT ~n""c", Q
,.,. .:.. !:It;. .. I;' 1 .'1, ...1\1'.=" &; .'
........1. '. "~nO-flv ~ nO""EU--
..;'J:.";~, u.,n... 1 . I.. .. 1) ,:,,,..~,
;),:,\"lD RO;qlRTS, E:.;IJ.Y :.i. JACKSOX
d "'ILL - .', C SC"-O"
:lr, Ii .:..:....1. '-'4\1..,
- ':$-
\
o Plaintiffs,
\
\
!
CIVIL ACTION }:O.
\:
72 -C. (j6Z,~ - JOY/"'
fJ ..
--J
Co.,)
-
.,-
.
o;c..
CITY OF BOYNTC~ BEACH, a Florida
municipal cor,orati~n a~d
P;\L~i!..A.:'!D DEVELOP~:EN1t CO~.? I a
.' '
corpora'-1on,
, .
..~
I"\~
., r- '~
,..., ""'-
.. :r.. \,":'
~ :---, I -.
;; r:, ,..'
,..,'" 'o.J~
~ !:! J.
~ i:.: ,"~'
<-t!:: .;"..
~:.. -.... ....
~;f c-:t ?
- m ..-:-...
- =: . (~
:t:~
--- .
""'"": ,
'-
-,...
. ~
..-
;-
~
f'1
0'
\
n,fendants.
c::::a
before the
/
~
-.
...:.,
~
.. .
FINAL
~~
<::)
upor. the Complaint
herein -and upon the Sti ulation a~ ~greement as executed by
. /
the parti~s, thro~gh the r resp,ftive attorney. The said
Stipulation and Agreement\isi'ttached hereto as Exhibit A and is
incorporated into and cade
Court finds from the sail
/
/
tations made to the Co~rt
I
/
/
part of this Finc:.l J\l~gwent. The
action and in
Agreement and represe~-
counsel that tho controversy in this
Ordinance No.
79 CAeL) 01 arises out of the or~gin.
attached to the Stipulation
and out f the subsequent conduct of the Cit
and J\g-re er:\en t
of Eoynton Beac in passing Or inances ~ 73-7 and ~i3-l1
wherein and wh reby uses permitted und~r zoni~~ ordin
ances in existence at the time f tho pass~ge of Ordinanca i 72-~
were ch~nged and further ~risi~g out of the expressed ir.tent of
various officials of-the City or ol'nton Beach to cha~ge the
zonin~ classifications on the pro?~rty o~ned by ralml~~d DcY~lop
=cnt Corporation from ~lassific~tions as t~ey existed in Ordin~n
;i.-27 to R-l.A or R-l-AA. COI",tro\'ersy furthc:' arises bct-;;cen tr.
p~rties in th~sc suits as to tho validity of Ordin~nce 72-2i bo:
as to it's annc',a..iOi) und zoni~~ &1J'o....is ions. It furth~r appear:
t~ th~ Court. t~~t tl~~ p~rt lC.i h;.\\'~ :1::\: .~i.l'ccd th~t thnsc ccrt&1i'
~
l~nds being p;:tic~13rlr described in said Stipul~tion
i\~c!.
.
I\~re
/'-"
'. ~
2:)( M ( ::;:, \ -~. U'::-2,.-'-:" ~,
v
.~~::~? ~ ~ '" .,.... 4 n....,- ;::",," J..J/ -fll r f, A 1/
.(, ,_ 1..'_ r... L) I -'! n.J /_'
0-
..
.