LEGAL APPROVAL
JUL-16-01 15,53 FROM,Gc
'heror Deody EZrol
lD.954771"1
PACE
p. 1
1/2
.Ju1 16 01 04:0510
Clt~ Attorne~'5 OFTice
561-742-6054
JOSIAS, GOREN, CHEROF, DOODY & EZROL. P.A.
3099 East Commerdill Boulevard
Suite 200
FC)l1 Lauderdale, Florida 33308
(954) 771-4500
Facsimile So. (954) 771-4923
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
RECIPIENTS FAX NO. 1561 742-6054
TO: Mike: Rwnpf
DATE: July 16,2001
FROM: Michael D. Cjrullo,1I.,
Assistant City Attorney
Fn.E REFERENCE
Boynton Beach adv. RHS Corpor.l\1on
File No
990437
PAGES' 2
COMMENTS:
Please review the attached Request to Produce.
The information cantained in this rllC$ltTule message and the p~ fol1owini lIle anomey privileged llnd confidential
inrormatiQTl intended ol1ly f(1f lhe u.sc oftbe individual or Clllity named above. If the readL!:T of -.his mesAg' is not the intendod
ro;ipiCllt. you arc hereby noti:fied 1lW lilY 4iUCfToI!litIOfl, distribution or cop)' of this ~uni~tiOll is $tI'i~y prohibited. If
you have received this ctlrnm..wcaticn in error, please immediately nolify us by te1ephODe md r~ the original message t(l
us 81 the above ~dress vi. the u.s. POslBl Slnice. Thlllk you
If any problems occur in receiving this message, please call this office at (954) i71-4500. Thank
you
11.\1 ~9904!i\fQtS'M;ke Rump! tU l.doe
.Ju1 16 01 04:0610
JUL-16-0J 15 S~ FROMoGo
Clt~ Attorne~'s OTFice
'heror Dood)' EZTOI lD,9S4771<l~
561-742-6054
10.2
PACE: 2/2
IN THE ClR.curr COUR.TFO& PALM 8EACH COUNtY, FLOlUDA.
ltHS CORPORAnON.
PlU2tift. Cae No.: CL 9910891~
w.
CITY Of BOYNTON B!AcH, PLOlUDA,
\II.
~titf
and 1bircS-Pcty PlIiC
ct.E.U COPY.
Third Put)' Dofcaad-.
TA'IDJ)!'~~~~FLORW/t.
ro; Mic:blle1.D. CirWlo. Jr.. Baq.. 3099 E. Cammerdal Blvcl.. SIIe. 200, Ft. LauderdlIe, PI. 3330.
YOU AU .Q;QlJESn:D to procb:c tile fOllowing itl!mS for lDspectioD and copym. by tb&:
\ID~ ailSS1 Ponaf1acc. SuiteIfJOO-F. West PalmB_h.F1orid8, 33401, withlA thirty fi-ve
(35) day, frcxa b dDI btftotlll ten o'clock (10:00) IIJJ\., in ~ with Floticla Rule afCi'lil
~-ur. 1.3.50:
1. NSPM91-GOZ
2. SUnIey UtI litaplan datBclltamped AlJpr I', 1997 for t!Ie subjec;t property.
v3. ~lDEIlIanmdum 97-467
I H'RRRBY CD.TIPY lIlat& true copy Of'the fOfegOiDllw been Mat 'by U.S. Mail fbis_ day of
July, JOOl tD the foUowiDg: Michael D. 0ruU0, Jr., EIq.,.3099 E. Commadal Blvd.. Ste. 200, Pt. LalstIetdale,
FL 33308 ami l~~ TombIlrg, BIq" J.D.. P A, 6~ SE 4. Place. BOyDtOa ~ FL )34~S.
Cl:ye A RiclwdIcD. f.A.
1551 PonmI ~ SlIil& 13()().1
W< ~ BeKb. FL 33401
Asmn1cy tbt PIaiMitf
(561) 411-9600
(561) 471-9655 - Fu:.simi1c:
By'
Kevin P. J.idmrdscm
F1a. BarNo: 3~lM
~-d
t.I)5lJ~Il:I 'lI J...l.l::J),-O WdllCl:110 fe. 9t Tit
JUL-19-01 13,40 FROM,Goren Cherof Doody Ezrol
10,9547714923
PAGE
1/20
JOSIAS, GOREN, CHEROF, DOODY & EZROL, P.A.
3099 East Commercial Boulevard
Suite 200
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308
(954) 771-4500
Faesimile No. (954) 771-4923
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
RECIPIENTS FAX NO. 1 561 742-6054
TO: Mike Rumpf
DATE: July 19,2001
FROM: Michael D. CiruJlo, Jr.,
Assistant City Attorney
FILE REFERENCE
Boynton Beach adv. RHS Corporation
File No 990437
PAGES: 23
COMMENTS: Attached for your infonnation and review are the following docwnents:
1. Plaintiff's First Request for Admissions
2. Plaintiffs Notice of Service Second Set of Interrogatories.
3. Plaintiffs Request for Access to Clear Copy's property,
The infonnation contained in thi~ facsimile message and the pages following are attorney privileged llJld confidential
information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you arc hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this corranunication is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this communication in etTor, please immedJately notify us by telephone and return the original message to
us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank you.
If any problems occur in receiving this message, please call this office at (954) 771-4500. Thank
you.
H:\1999\990431\faxeslMike Rumpffax 2.d<x:
JUL-19-01 13,40 FROM,Goren Cherof Doody Ezrol
10,9547714923
PAGE 2/20
IN TIIE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
RHS CORPORA nON,
Plaintiff,
Case No.: CL 9910891~AN
vs.
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA,
vs.
Defendant/CounterPlaintiff
and Third-Party Plaintiff,
CLEAR COPY,
Third Party Defendant.
/
PLAINTIFF~S FIRST REOUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO
DEFENDANT. CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
TO: Michael D. Cirullo, Jr., Esq., 3099 E. Conunercial Blvd., Ste. 200. Ft. Lauderdale, FL
33308
The Plaintiff, RHS CORPORATION, request the Defendant, CITY OF BOYNrONBEACH,
FLORIDA, to make the following admissions in this action.
_- "L
1. The August 20, 1997 Site Plan Review Application filed by CLEAR COpy, INC.
(CLEAR COPY) is a new site plan application, as Exhibit 1 attached. (See September
23, 1997 Minutes of Planning and Development Board as Exhibit 2 attached).
2. The CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH (CITY) has not issued a Certificate oC.
Occupancy (C.O.) and/or Temporary C. O. subsequent to October 10, 1997 for the
premises located at 660 West Boynton Beach Blvd., Boynton Beach, FL, and owned
by CLEAR COPY, INC.
3. The CITY has performed no inspections of CLEAR COPY'S premises subseauent
to October 10, 1997 with regards to the October] 0, 1997- Development Order issued
by Defendant for the property premises located at 660 West Boynton Beach Blvd.,
Boynton Beach, FL.
4, The CITY has issued no building and/or development pennits to CLEAR COPY
subseauent to October 10, 1997 with regards to the October 10. 1997 -Development
Order for the property premises located at 660 West Boynton Beach Blvd., Boynton
Beach. FL.
JUL-18-01 13,40 FROM,Gor~n Cherof Doody Ezrol
10,8547714823
PAGE
3/20
5- The CITY has issued no variances to CLEAR COpy on or after October 10, 1997
for the property located at 660 West Boynton Beach Blvd., Boynton Beach, FL.
6. The actual widTh measurement of the landscape buffer, at its narrowest width, next
to the parking lot on the east perimeter of CLEAR COpy'S property is nineteen (19)
inches.
7. The "Boynton Beach Landscape Code," in Chapter 7.5, Article II, Section 3, states
the word "shall" is always mandatory and not discretionary. Thus, the city
commission, and only the city commission, can vary Or modify the requirements set
forth in the landscape code when the code specifically uses the word "shall" by
issuing a variance.
8. The "Boynton Beach Landscape Code," in Chapter 7.5, Article II. Section 3, requires
each new development in Boynton Beach to provide a landscape barrier to be located
between the common lot line and the off-street parking area Or other vehicular use
area in a planting strip of not less than two and one-half (2 V% ) feet in width, unless
an exemption is applicable.
9. The "Boynton Beach Landscape Code," in Chapter 7.5, Article II, Section 3, allows
the landscape barrier planting strip requirement to be avoided only when an abutting
property provides a hedge that meets all applicable standards of the code and/or when
a property line abuts a dedicated alley. A hedge meets the requirements of the code
as follows: 1) a hedge has a planting strip of not less than two and one-half (2 Y2 )
feet in width; and 2) the hedge is not less than four (4) fe~t nor greater than six (6)
feet in height - ,.
10. The landscape barrier planting strip of the abutting property adjacent to CLEAR
COPY'S parking lot is nineteen (19) inches. Since the landscape barrier planting--
strip of the abutting property to CLEAR COPY is not thirty (30) inches in width, the
hedge does not meet all applicable standards of the Boynton Beach Landscape Code
and the hedge is therefore a non-conforming hedge.
II. The width of the strip of land of the landscape buffer on the south perimeter of
CLEAR COPY'S property', next to the parking lot, located between the abutting right
of way and the off-street parking area is 3.1 feet. The "Boynton Beach Landscape
Code," in Chapter 7.5, Article II. Section 3, requires the landscape barrier planting
strip of landscape barrier planting strip to be five (5) feet in width. The 3.1 feet
measurement on the survey, dated 7/1/97, by Richard L Shepard & Associates, Inc.,
Registered Land Surveyors, that CLEAR COPY submitted to the CITY'S Planning
and Zoning Department on August 18, 1997. Since the aforementioned landscape
barrier planting-strip is not five (5) feet in width, the landscape buffer does not meet
the applicable standards of the Boynton Beach Landscape Code.
JUL-19-01 13,40 FROM,Goren Cherof Doody Ezrol
10,9547714923
PAGE
4/20
12. The Development Order issued by the Defendant on October 10, 1997 for the
premises located at 660 West Boynton Beach HI vd., Boynton Beach, FL allowed the
use of CLEAR COPY'S property to change from vacant property to that of a
commercial print shop, which in turn alters the density and intensity on the property.
13. Land development regulations are the specific and detailed provisions necessary to
implement the adopted comprehensive plan and thus, a development order that
violates or fails to implement the provisions of the land development regulations is
not consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan.
14. Should it be determined that elements of CLEAR COPY'S approved site plans do not
conform to the CITY'S land development regulations before a Certificate of
Occupation has been granted, the CITY must enforce its land development
regulations by requiring the completed construction to comply VJith the CITY'S land
development regulations.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing has been sent by U.S. Mail this
Jd-- day of July, 2001 to the fOllowing: Michael D. Cirullo, Jr., Esq., 3099 E. Commeteial
Blvd., Ste. 200, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33308 and Jeffrey Tomberg, Esq., J.D., P.A, 626 SE 4th Place,
Boynton Beach, FL 33425.
Clyatt & Richardson, P.A.'. 'l.
1551 Forum Place, Suite #300-F
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Attorney for: Plaintiff
(561) 471-9600
(561) 471-9655 - acsimile
By:
Kevin F. Richardson
Fla, BarNo: 329185
JUL-1S-01 13,41 FROM,Goren Cherof Doody Ezrol
I 'i~~~'~'~~EE~PAfii~~~~~if;t:i~:~.. ~. ,.- .
'. '. :.< REc:EfiTuNOtmER: .~ ~"",f~~>~
I '. ,,;" '~"-..' 'r ...",..;.;,-::,~{..."'~"~..,..~~",,,,.,. ..... _ .;"~",.......
I ,i;:i"/."f8 -.. '~'.-::~r::.~}:.~~-c'.~Z:~:~..~.~,~~~~~~'" ~-':'-~
'j ... .,. .... . ..,.....: ,~r;..I!.'C.OF BOYNTON; BEACH, FLORIDA:' ,
:." ".'.-'~;.:-':'~' .' ., .--. ~~PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT
PAGE 5/20
,
.>
ST'!'E PLAl'L~EV!EW A.pP'f,rCATION
r"OR
NEW SITE ~LANS & MAJOR MODIFICATIONS TO EXISTING SITE
Application Acce~t2nce Da~e:
Fee Paid:
Receipt Nc.mber:
T~is a?plication mug~ be filled out com~letely, accu~ately and su~mi~ted as
an o!:iginal to the Planning and Zoning Department.- Twel~e complete,
sequen~ially numbered and assembled Sets of plans including a recen~ su~vey
and app~opriate fee shall be submitted with the applieat~on for t~e. ~nitial
process of the Site Plan Review procedure. An incomplete sub~ttal will no~
be processed.
Please print legibly (in in~} or type all infor.mGtion.
I. Gt;NERAL INFORMATION
1. Project Name: J ~\LQ\54 i.. eb.l21l!.u.)l. lo"T ~
~(~N' It..rC.
2. 1\pplicant' s name (person or business entity in whose name t~.i'S
application is maQe>:
1l.o~1" f6<.0~
~loar\. c.u-"tt. ~N I l)Jt:. l :;'J.l~")
~ to - fzc.J~ ~ ~1), .b.tUftU ~
~. (Zip cone)
~h\-7"'l- ~ Fax: %l~ ~t:t- 3~~1 .
, '-ry;;
Addre.ss:
Phone:
3. Agen~'s Name (person, if any, representing applicant):
Address:
(Zip Code)
~hone;
fax:
4. ?roperty Qwn@r's [or Trustee's) Name:
2l.dd~ess:
Phone:
~ CD~ I ltSC..
~
~Mt!.
(Zip Code)
fax:
~
EXHIBIT
I
JUL-19-01
13,41 FROM,Goren Cherof Doody Ezrol
10,9547714923
PAGE
6/20
~..1~"" '::
...' ~_.:' .~- '
.
,
. 1
I
5.
Correspondence to be mailed to aqen~ only; if no agent~ then ~o
applicant unless a subs~itut~ is specified below:.
.This is the one addr~ss to which all agendas, le~tezs and othe~
rna~9~~~ls will b~ ma~led.
6. Wha~ is applica~t's inte:2sC in ~he ~~e~~ses a!fec~ed? ~wn~ buye~,
lessee, ~uilder, developer, contract pu~chaser, e~c.)
~
7. St:-eet address or location of site: .&::,too U). ~~ ~
A...
8. Property Cont:rol J: Of,- &:7- 4-S . '1-' - 0\ -00'2.. - 0'2-40
Legal description of. site: L.D"tS a,'1,~, 1J.e,
~~tJLO~ ~'TA~
f'tA3 ~ l'?, ~ ~1..
9.
Intep-ded ~se(s) of site;
c..of..l~l,). 1'IZ,UJ"tu.J, ~\USS
-'",:
-
L:.t-~ ~O~l.
10. Developer O~ Builder:
11.
Architect; ~ C. ~S
Landscape Architect: ~-cfE.
Site Planne~: N"OtJe-
~ Wu-ll~: T~f- bQ$(GA'"'fEJ>
Engineer: ~rt;~.sM(', ~. W~1:'c...r St.M~
Su~veyor: rz.~ L. ~Ep~D ! ks~~s, ltJG
12.
13.
14.
15.
Planning and Zoning Department . Rev. 3118197
SYl~OAMS\APPS\NWSP\SrrsPLAN.WPD
Doody Ezral tD.S547714~~~
. ".~-~,~~~.~~~~iffi~{~:~-{~F'~.- ..
PAGE
7/20
JUL-1S-01
13.41 FROM.Goren Chera~
.' ", I.,", . 'l
16. Traffic Engineer:
~O\4
17. Has a site plan been previously approved by the City Commission fo~
this p~operty? ~~
lS. Esti~tec constru~tion cos~s of proposed i~provemen~s shown on this
site pla.n~ t-lW 1 ~nD 00
!I. SITE DATA
2.
3.
Zoninq i); ~triC't
tJ6t'~D, C.1-
~, ~ tAJ;'"
sq. ft.
l~. '1S1O
Area of Site
acrel
4. t,;n"d n:'!l~ -- A~rea~e Breakdown
a.
Residential, including acres \ of site
surrounding lot area
of grounds
Recreat.ion Areas · acres % of site
{excluding wat.er a.rea)
Water A.t'ea acres t of 5i t.e
Commercial (!) .~\4~ acre~ 'tPO % of site
-.-, It.
Industx:ial r- acres 1 \' of site
Public/Institutional acres =! of site
I I '--.
Public, Private and
Canal rights-af-way aCI:es \ of site
I I
Other (specity) acres % of site
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
Other [specify)
\ of si'l:e
acres
Planning and Zoning Department . Rev. 3118191
S;\PtANfID H.WPO
JUL-19-01
j .
13,41 FROM,Goren Cheror Oaody Ezral
To:a.l area of site- \~ '4~;g;;~~~:~~~~~~-;~~;:,,~~~
· including open space suitable for ou~door
a minimum dimension of 50 ft. by 50 ft-
10,9547714923
PAGE
8/20
. ,...~,-,,,' of,si te .~;:,~'
recreation, ~nd having
5.
Su"'fac<=o CovAr
a.
Ground iloOI: build.inq d:> "c;d:..";'2.;acrej
area (-building !oot~rint")
o . f? 1 q
t of sit:e
b.
Wacer a=ea
(9
aCJ;es
o
\ of Site
c. Other impervious areas, including
raved area of public & private
s~=eets. paved area of parking
lo~s , driveways (excluding 1044-<;{A ~J
landscaped areas), and ~
sidewalks, patios, decks, 1
and athletic courts. l).lhl acre$
d. Tot:al impervious area 0 ,U~ acre4
'Z~~'F7 no
e. Landscaped area {) . dD /,. I acre4
inside of parking loes
(20 sq. ft. per interior
pa~king space requi~ed -
see Sec. 7.5-3S(g) ot
Landscape Code)"
(!;>, 514-t '" of site
() . ,"~ '1 \ of site
o . 'l<:? \ of sit.e
f.
Other landscaped areas,
D
acres
f/
% of siee
~. Ocher pervious areas, including
qolf course, natural areas,
yards, and swales, but excluding
waeer areas C> acres
L
Total area of site
o . O~~ acre/
(') · 3l~ acre;
..:.... '... 0
% of site
O,~ \ of si.te
lcPO \ of si~e":'
h.
To:al pervious areas
6. noo'" A~ga
a. Residential
b. Co~ercial/Office
c. Indu$trialfWarehou~e
d. Recreational
e. Public/lnsti~utional
f. Other (specify)
~
sq . f t _
~sq. fLlst Fiv, ISlfCrC, rt-,Ul tLC.
"'~--=- ft.
,
/
~::.
sq. ft.
ft.
ft;.
Planning and Zoning Department . Rev. 3/18197
S:~lNG\SHARE1)I.WP\FORMSW>PS\NWSPIStT'"'~wpo
JUL-19-01
13.42
10.9547714923
Cherof Ooody Ezrol , " _
FROM. Go r eO;AC"=' ~ .Y;', ..~;. '~~'. :~~.~~!;:~;~,f.'.i~!>-~' ;t#~~~~:;:~:-;:'!.;'
Other (sp@' -y)
PAGE
~"':6!1O
,-;..-",':::~ :.
. .-.,-...-'
~ . z ::~:r",.J: . '-" ..
~
,~
,
'.',f~t4_.
.., <J.
. '~-~;:~''':~~~~;.
o
sq. fr:..
~sq. It.
h.
Total floor area
7. Nu~er n~ Regid~nt~al Dw~11ing Qnits
a.
Single-family detached
sq. ft..
o.
Duplex
sq.
&:-
.. '- .
d.
Total mult1-family
(3 + attached welling units)
dwellinq units
=t=dwellin~ units
dwelling units
dwelling units
.
d\olelling units
c.
(1)
(2)
(3}
( 4 )
Multi-FamiLy
E:fficiet:cy
1 Bedroom
:2 Bedroom
. 3+ Bedroom
e.
Total number of dwelling units
Nb.-
8.
G~QSg Q~m~ity
N~
dwelling units per acre
9.
~aximum he'ah~ of structures or. ~it~
1)7
feet
J!-
stories
10. ~equ~~ed off-s~r~~~ oa~kina
a. Calculation of required
nu~e~ of off-s~ree~
parking spaces
b.
Off-street parking spaces
provided on site plan
?;!-~
~
l?~
l?~
,=-,"k
~:;
Planning and Zcning Oepar1ment - Rev. 3118197
S:1Pt..ANN ~WPD
JUL-19-01
13,42 FROM,Goren Cherof Doody Ezrol
10,9547714923
PAGE
10/20
~'i;.. ". ,
.' ~ ~. ',,'.~
......,... ..
:;. ;..:::~. ~7'~'
--'-.--'- ............ "
..
.:
III.
CE:RTIFICATION
{!} ~ und~rseand that thi.s application and all papers and plans
submitted herewith become a pa~t of the per.manent records of the
Planninq and Zoning Department (I) (We) he=eby ce:r:t:ify ~h.at tte
above statements and any seatements or showin9s in any papers o~
plans 5ubmitte~ herewith are true to the best of (my} (ou=)
knowledge and belief. This applica~ion will no~ be accepted unless
~S~CCO<ding the instruc<ions belo".
Signature of Owne:(s) or Trustee, of
Authorized ~rincipal if property is owned by
a corporation or other business entity_
{[;'1 ~
Date
[1 "it
IV. AUTHORIZATION OF ~G~T
Signature of Authorized Agent
Date
(I) (We) hereby designate the above signed person as (my) (our)
au~horized agen~ in rega~d to this application.
Signature of Owner(s) or Trustee,
or Authorized Principal if property is owned
by a corporation or other business entity.
Date
~A~~ BELOW THIS LINE fOR OFFI~E OS~ ONLY
.,.. . I..
Review Schedule:
Date Received
Technical Review Committee
~lanninq & Development Board
Community Appearance Board
City Comm.ission
Date
Date
Date
Date
Stipulations ot Final Approval;
Other Government Agencies/Persons to be contacted:
Additional Remarks:
Flanoing and Zonmg Dep3l1ment - Rev. 3/18/97
S;\PtN&N~~I.AN_WPO
JUL-19-01 13,42 FROM,Coren Cherof Doody ~~rOl
J .H.._.,.....~<.r.J.'"'~l;.'..~~~-;,.. . .,' ...~,...,~..""Ii.~
.' *7\~~~~,:....~~~~....~<;?r~~:'"-;.~.....,...'....C..,l:"-'"...,,. '''':'\'<,--,:". ..",
RIDER TO S!Te PLAN
10,9547714923
PACE 11/20
. '~~!~"'~~~:::'";'......
..'!
"
APpT...YCArrCN
The undersigned as applicant for E"i::lal Site Plan Approval does hereby
acknowl~qe, represent and agree that all plans, specifications, drawings,
engineerinq, and ocher data submitted with thi~ applica~ion for review by the
Ci:y of Boynton Beach shall be reviewed by the various boards, commissicns,
sta~f pe~sonnel and other parties designated, appoin~ed or em910yed by the
City of Boynton Beach. and any such pa~cy reviewing ~he same shall rely upon
the acc~racy thereof, anc d::lY change in any item submitted shall be dee~ed
material and subs~antial.
The undersigned ne~eby ag=ees tl:'at. all plans, s!?ecifica.tions. drawings,
en9ineerinq and other data which may be approved by the City of Boynton
Beach, or its boards, commissions, staff or designees shall be constructed in
s~rict compliance with the form in which ~hey are approved. arid any change ~o
~he same shall be ~eemed material an~ shall place the applicant in violation
of ~his application and all approvals and permits which may be grante~.
The applicant agrees to allow the City of Boynton Beach all rights and
remedi~s as provided fo~ by the applicable codes and ordinances of the City
of Boynton Beach to bring any violation into compliance, and the applicant
shall inde~ify, reimbu~se and save the Ci~y of Boynton Beach harmless f.om
any cost, expense, claim. liability or any ~ction which may arise due to
~hei= enforcement of the same.
ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED TO
. 19
......~Jl.:ss /
~. /r;i~~
//. ~~~'/M.' .. i~
Wit.n~
/..-
/,/
i/
~ . &~H~
{ ....
~. ""/1 .
~~~~
this fk;'ft... day of Ih.?r. {- (~11
v/Yi2t&/~ .
Applicant
I
.;r' \..
..
Planning and Zoning DePiU1nleflt - Rev. 3/18/97
S~N~ORMSW'PSINWSP\SlTB'LAN,'NPO
10,9547714923
r Doody Ezrol
FROM,Coren Chero _~
JUL - 19- 01 13, 4 ~ ~~''':>"'''f~''''':'''''''''#'*''~!'::::'~'';'"'S'~~~:~~~' ~-:-
.. '.' ;..._.... \:....~..,j,,;~:..::~~:~t2. ..~~
..;~~j.~!~~../.,. -
~.
MlNUTei
PlANNING AND orvaoPMENT BOARD - '3-2,3-97
BOYNTON SEACH, FLORIDA
8. NEW BUSINESS
A. Site Plan
~. -, ' ",; ::%:\~/-..~""{:'. :'- '-.i"...~: -:l.~; :..'~.:;; --.
QZ:'i>Mff.IJ.j~~
Agent:
Owner:
Location:
Description;
Bob Feldman
Bob Feldman
Southeast wmer of Boynton Beach Boulevard
and N.W.th SIlllet
Request for site plan approval of Ii 3.760 square root
print sJ10p on a .31 acre parcel afland.
~
. Bob Feldman was present to answor any questions.
Chairman WlSChe advised that the members of the board have revieWed the backup
material and are familiar with this project. He opened the public hearing.
Malt E. Roberts. 0.0-5. \'Diced an objection to the application that Clear Q)py has
subtritted as a major site plan mocflfation. He submitted a letter lIOicing his objection,
In addition to 13 exhibits and an excerpt of the minutes of !he City commission meeting
held on Man:h 19, 1996. (Allhese documents are attached tD the original minutes of
this meeting.) Exhlbit 1 is from the CilaJit Court of the Fifteenth Juc1kial CiR:uit in and
for Palm Beach <Aunty. whictl ind"JCates that the initial site plan was quashed.
Therefore. there is no site p(an to modify. Exhibit 2 is a mandate from the Court to have
new site plan hearings. not mod"died site plan hearings. Exhibit 3 is a letter that Dr.
Roberts sent to Mr. Lewid<i indicating fhat the SIre plan was quashed and !hat this
needs to be noticed as a new site plan hearing. not a modification a( a site plan.
At1Dmey Rubin stated that the City will roncsde that it is a new site plan <l9pfa!iOfl.
ApparenUy, it 'N'a~..termed 8 modffieallon because there was a previously submitted site~~. "i..
plan. However. it was processed by staff as a new site plan appflC3lioo, Dr. Roberts Is
correct that the Court squashed the original sito plan. It is a new site plan; hCMI6Wr. the
procedure would be the same for a major modification or a new site plan.
Ms. Heyden stated that on September 19, 1995, the City Commission approved.
subjed to staff comments, a site plan re<1u~ fO( Clear Copy. This proposal was (or a
new print shOp and copy center to be located at the southeast comE!( of Boynton Beam
Boulevard and N.W. 7th Street, {h'e address of whi<;h is 60 W. Boynforl Beach
9
~rr
PACE l2/21Z1
JUL-19-01 13.43 FROM.Goren Cheror Doody Ezrol
10.9547714923
PAGE 13/20
~_. ..:.......'...
;..,<t:"~~l.. " '.:.."......~i~..~~S_~:.;.
"-1',_ s:... I v':,',' ~~_:( .~:"~--
.. ,'.., .-..,---.... ..
.., .-
MINUTES
Pl:ANNING AND DEVRorMENT 80"RD . 9-23-97
80YNTON BEACH, F1.0RlOA
Boulevard. The property Is OJrreotly zoned nelghbortlood commercial (C2) and hcis a
land use plan designation of kx41 retail commercial. The applicant and property owner
is Bob Feldman.. The property has.. site area of .3145 ac;es and a building area of
3.780 square feel After the City Commission approved !tie site plan, RHS Corporation
filed a Notiea of Administrative Appeal. Pnor 10 the resdutioo of that appeal, the
appticant proceeded through the permit process and the constnJc:ion process and has
obIained a CertiflC3te of O~pancy. The Court has determined that the City needs to
~ this application as a site plan: therefc~. ~ are going back through the
process of 5ite plan approvaL This is why this appfication is before this boan:I now.
Wdh resped to traffic:. this has been revilewed by the Palm Beach County Traffic
Division and meets their $landards. AI> requested by the Palm Beach CaW1ty TrZfic
Oivi$ion. !he applicant placed a restridive covenant on the property that [imits !he use
of the stNdure In a print shop. However. at any Ume in the future. if there were a
desire to change the use. it would have to So bade ~ the Palm Beach County Traffic
Division.
Our Engineering DlYlsk)n has determined thaf !he drainage plans meet the dry code
and drainage levels of service.
There ~ two driveways on rn Slte8t The south driveway is ingress only and the
north driv~ is egress only.
With regard to par1cing. access is on the west side of the property and parking :lpZlce$
are aligned alof1g the east side of the property. There are 13 parting spaces. including
one handicap pamng space. The Engineering OMslon. police Department. Fire
Department, and Pubfic Worb Department have l1iviewed 1his layout and have
determined that the design meets lIle code wlIt1 respect to adequate aa;ess for
emergency and sanitation vehid&s.. In addition. because It1e property is already
COnstluded, we have the added benefit of seeing that this properly worts in terms of
access.
The landscape design meets the c:ty's landscape code. Howewr. theta is a
requirement in the landscape code for a perimeter hedge where parking spaces abut
the prcperty line. Our landscape code allows one to receive c:recfrt for an existing
hedge on an adjaC2l1t piece of property it !hat hedge meets the code requirementS.
This hedge. at time of maturity, will meet code requirements. Therefore. a landscape
strip with hedge, in aediljon to what already exists on tt1e adjacent property. has not
been provided.
9
. .~~~,~-;.~~~?S~.:~~:.~~:~{,,;~i-; .;, ~ 7t""
. " .' I ,!:,,......: ~~. '.~ ';
- "'I
43 FROM,Garen Cheraf Doody Ezra1
JUL-19-01 13,
1D'9547714923
:~~~;~,;'~I"~~~:if~'~~';;~~:::.'~ 7 ~'. ': ~
.';::..~,~. . ..~~~7i' :~;: ,~~?o,:,~,':i~?'"f~~~5.
X:i.':''' -=->,
MINllllS
PlANNING AND DMlOI'MENT 80AllD. 9-23-'7
BOYNTON .tACH. flQlttOA.
The "laos meet the bundlng and site tegUlatiotls. The building covel'3g8 is 37 pe~
and the building hGight is 25 feet.
The elevations that have been submitted. whidt are ac:ually photographs of the existing
bUjJ(1jng. "lust1'3te a two-s:ory buil~ing WIth brick colored dIe rooting. The extetiOr walls
are finis~ with a pink/peach slllceo with white raised stucco bands. The windows are
arcl1ed with bron:re colored shtJtte~. The bui1din9 has a $panishIMeditelT3l'learl style,
which is compatible with the existing buildings lD the east and west.
The ftee$t3nding sign inolCated on the plat\3 meets the sign COde requirements.
There are no T edlnic:al Review Committee <XlITlment$ with respect to this project
Therefore. staff cucommeOOs approval of this project as submitted.
A1 this time, Chairman WJSChe adulowledged lf1e presence. of Mayor and Mrs. Jeny
Taylor.
Dr. Roberts asked Ms. Heyden if she is famirl3C with 1he City's umd Development
RegulaOOns and the Landscape Code. Ms. Heyden answered affirmatively- Or.
Rob8l'ts asked hor what the word .shalr means in the code.
Dr. Roberts advised that the landscape code stales !hat a landscape smp $haII be two
and a half feet wiele. The memorandum dated September 14.. 1995 (EJh1rlit 9) that Ms.
Heyden present.ed to the City Commission states lha1: CSear Copy has not provided a
landscape strip and hedge and has no room to provide it wflh<llJt significantly altering
the site plan. In this memorandum, Ms. Heyden indic3tes that the buffer did not meet
COde. He asked how it meets code now.
Ms. Heyden acMsed that this is a brand new site plan submitlal.
Dr. Roberts referred to JItJ Newbold's memorandum \hat .tes !hat from his obselvation
of !he tie--in $Urvey. the paving appear$ to be 1.58 feet wide. With regard to the
exemption !hat Ms. Hqyden ref8mxj to, he staled that the landscape cede ~tes that it -
is only valid when lhe existing hedge meets all applicable standards of the landscape -- ~"'.
code. There are only two standards of the COde. One Is that it has to be at least !bur
feet tall and not more than six feet high. The set:X)nd is that II has to be two and a half
feet wide. He asked Ms. Heyden if it is $till her contention that ttre adjacent Landscape
hedge meets code.
Ms. Heyden advlse<1 that she has been inteq:>reting tile landscape code for ten aM a
half Yeaf'S. Her interpretation of that $fiction is that the existing hedge can be applied to
9
---------------"-----~_._._._-~.----.'"...- -
PAGE 14/210
c . -~~iPt
.:~:~),...,....~... ~~;,
--!~;~:~:~,-,-/~~~,\,. :
~~":
JUL-19-01 13,44 FROM,Goren Cheror Doody Ezrol
10,9547714923
. '.,...' .,........~.,' . """ ~""~-"""'~'" ~.,.- ,,,.,-
...':~......!..v"'" .. '..,..., _...... ~~~ ~_..,.~
'" .....~&~\; > .~!.i/..~ ._.( _,'... .~ -.: "...... lOI; .' ,'_ "...'........:....-- .._~~~' . ~" r. ' _....~ ~.~!
MINUTES
PlANNING AND DEVROPMlNT BOAaD - g..2J-97
BOYNTON BEACH, flORIDA
those s12ndaros if it meets code. The standam is the he:ght of the hedge. She said it
meets code.
Dr. Roberts asked if Ms. Heyden prepared the document that was presented to !tie
~ard as the adCendum ba<;f(up. Ms. Heyden acvlsed !Nt It was a joint effort between
her staft and he~elf. Dr. Rober1:l said it states that Itte initial site plan was quashed
only bec2~ impro~~r notica was given, He asked her if that is her position.
Attomey Rubin "dvised that the site plan was quashed because of notk:e. In addition.
Ihe Court notea that !tie sidewalk was not the ~ired width. l-lowever, IhaI haG bGen
correaed in the new site plan application.
Dr. Roberts inqUired about the method of garbage pidwp that Ms. Huyden is
recommending for this property. Ms. Heyden stated that the dumpster is b::ated
southeast of the building and is cummIly being picked up by the Public Worlcs
Department to their salisfactiort. They have signed olf on 1flis plan without any
comments.
Dr. Robert:> asked if it is legal for the City dump truck to encroach on !he handicap
parking $Paco when it ente~ to a(;CeSS the dumpster. Ms. Heyden did not know if that
is happening. She slated that per the Public Works Department. thore is no problem
wittt this sim in farms of sanitation vehide acoess. AtlIlmey Rubin c:fJd not know !he
answer to Dr. RobelU" question but offered lD researeh that issue. A5 far as he knows.
the space has been designed adeQtJately.
Or. Roberts referred 10 Itle September 14, 1995 memorandum In wtl.i<n Ms. Hoyden
in<flCated that the City buGk.s did not tvJvo .dequate acx:ess on the exact 5alTle site
plan. Now she is saying they do. He asted If the We of !he City ~ has dlanged
since September 14. 1995.
Attorney Rubin pointed out that Dr. Roberts keeps refening to the 1995 memorandum
and the 1995 site plan, which has been quashed. l-le stated that what happened in _ "'I~'
1995 is not relevant to the apprgval of this site plan. ..='
Mr. Rosenst~ asked Dr. Roberts' what his objection is to this site plan. Dr. Roberls
eJqJlained that he owns tM building next door. He bum the largest building that 1h8 City
would aBow him 10 build on over seven tenths of ~;. ~ae. It is 4.500 square feel The
Clear Copy property is three tenths of an aae anc.~iluilding is almost 4,000 square
feet This building is over 100 percent larger than a:lowed by the City Building Codes.
He old not think anybody should be granted special favors and be aDowed to buid ..
9
,~\.f,. ~.' "
PAGE 15/20
. J". .~, . ". ' ., ~
~
.-
JUL-19-01
CheraF Doody Ezra1
13,44 FROM,Caren
10,9547714923
~ :', " ..
.,. ~_ ~., Ii"
.-.:;-;...........
....
MrNuns
PlANNING AND OEVUO,MENT BOARD. 9-23-\97
BOYNTON BEACH, FtOIUOA
sidewalk. which has been addcwsed. Wrth regard 10 the aPPeals. this is not the proper
forum for UlaL Also, Dr. Roberts filed a mandamus adion against the City to have U1e
City hear his apPGals. and that count was dismissed.
Dr. Roberts asked Ms. Heyden if the site plan that was submitted this evening is
different from the site pfan that was previously determined by 1he Court as not meeting
the essential requirements of 1he law. Attorney Rubin stated that the Court oMi
addressed !he initial si18 plan approval. Th~ was an initial ~te pfan approval and a
mocfdic3tion Chat staff detemUned was a minor modification, wflich Or. Roberts also
challeng~. The Court quashed the fil'$t site pian apprcJvaI. whicn was d'le one !hat was
changed, and detetmiOed that the other site plan apptoVal was moot. It iI; ltle City's
posiCIon that they never readted ltIe modified site plan. Therefore. !he Court never
real1y determined whether' the modIfied site plan met the code or not. The sidewalk
issue was an issue in the very first one, and he believes it was cotl'eCWd by the lime it
was modified. The Court never got to ltIe modified site plan.
Or. Roberts asked if it was the Cily's argument to the court that he did not prevail in the
second lawsuit Attorney Rubin $fated !hat the second Iawsull was rendered moot
Or. Robel1$ said the Court awarded him oourt costs because he prevailed. Atlomey
Rubin agreed that Or. Roberts was the prevasling party in the Petition for Writ of
eoo;orari.
It seemed Ie Mr. Myott that the site plan review has gone U'ln:llJgh aD the departments
and that the site plan,; as submitted. generalJy conforms to the City's deveiopment
starJdsnjs for site plan approval. Ms. Heyden confirmed thal1his is correct
Or. Roberts asked what the responsibilities of the Planning and Zoning Department
would be if it could be demonstrated that the new site plan has code YioItrtjons. Ms..
Heyden sts1ecl Ih8t if the~ had been code 'iiolations. one of lhe Techni<:al Review
COmmitt.ee members would have listed them it! their comments. If something was
overtooked. anybody can bring it up Ie us and we will saa !hat it gets remedied. - :,;
Dr. Roberts stated that the current plan that has been submitted has a notation on if
that the City will veril'y that the existing hedge is two and a half feet wide. For thiS
particular approval. Ms. Heyden stated that it does not matter if that notation is on the
plan. She slated that ooly U'le landscape hedge has to meet that section. Staff has
done a site Visit of Ule ~ng hedge and the strip. Staff <fld not have 10 measure the
strip, but they did it anyway. The hedge meets code_
9
---~--,._-"-------------_.,~-
.l.'...~..,l f./
PAGE
16/21lJ
..~': ~~.:f:~" ;:~~~.;,,:.-:,~-'
_ 714923 PACE 17/20
JUL-19-01 13,44 FROM Goren CheroF Doody ~~~~1__ 10.9547 . .~_._.~
. "r' .~- -- n- - .~",:o- .:.~.~_-;"";'~_:':e:~7~~~~lIr.::ej~~~~~'.-~-k.~~,,:t(~-,,,;_.- ..'
-<:,~::'~:'~'~:': \ ':::~;;;:':.~.~~-
MINUTES
PlANNING AND DEVelOPMENT BOARD - ,)-23-~J7
BOYNlON BEAOf, flORIDA
Dr. Roberts stated that the landscape code states that tI1e strip has to be 30 inches,
Ms. Heyden indicated in a memorandum that the strip is 20 inches. He asked how this
meets the code. Attorney Rubin stated that Ms. Heyden testified that it was the hedge
that had to be in conformance and that it is in confonnance. Dr. Roberts contended
that the hedge is not 30 inches and, therefore, does not meet the code.
Mr. Rosenstock asked if the Clear Copy building occupies more square footage than
pennissib/e by the code and if a mocflfication was granted. Ms. Heyden advised that
the building coverage is only 37 percent on this site and the code allows in excess of
that.
Mr. Rosenstod( asked if Dr_ Roberts could have buit a bigger building. Ms. Heyden
answered affirmativety. Dr. Roberts explained that he would have had to have certain
requirements met. such as bumper strips and a certain amount of interior landscaping.
He advised that the night that thjs was approved, there were three site pfans all on the
three comers of this property. Two of the site plans were turned down because one
was four inches 100 short and another was about eight inches too short. Clear Copy's,
which is 30 inches too narrow, was approved. He felt Clear COpy is being granted
special privileges that the farm store and pizza place were not granted.
Mr. Myott pointed out that the requirement is for a two and a half foot landscape strip,
not for a two and a t1alHoot hedge.
t:r' ::0.1;
Dr. Roberts said the Code states that there has to be 30 inches of planting area
between the pavement on his side and the pavement on Clear Copy's side. bot there is
only 20 inches. The Code also states that if the property next to you is vacant, you
have to instaU a 3O-inch hedge. If you come in and there is a 3O-inch hedge and it
meets code, you are exempt from putting it in. The Code further states that if you abut
a nonconforming hedge, you are required to install a hedge. He said he has been told
that because his hedge is nonconfonning. that he cannot alter his building in any way
without ripping up his whole parking lot to mak.e his pal1<ing lot conforming. He has
been granted a nonconfonning status on his hedge, which means that he cannot alter
or modify his building in any way without upgrading it to meet the standards. He said
Ms. Heyden is stating that although the hedge is nonconfonning for Dr. Roberts, it is
conforming for the adjacent property owner. He did not think this was fair. Ms. Heyden
could not verify that anybody from the City has told Mr. Roberts this.
Mr. Myott asked if ML Roberts could obtain a variance for this situation. Dr. Roberts
said he cannot because the condition was created by himself.
9
9
JUL-19-01 13,45 FROM,Coren Cherof Doody Ezrol
10,9547714923
PACE 18/20
IN mE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
RHS CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
Case No.: CL 9910891-AN
vs.
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA,
vs.
OefendantlCounterPlaintiff
and Third-Party Plaintiff,
CLEAR COPY,
Third Party Defendant.
/
PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF SERVING SECOND SET
OF INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT. CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
TO: Michael D. Cirollo, Jr., Esq., 3099 E. Commercial Blvd., Ste. 200, Ft. Lauderdale, FL
33308
The Plaintiff, RRS CORPORA nON, hereby give notice that pursuant to Rule 1.340
of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, its set of Interrogatories directed to Defendant, CITY OF
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA have been served on July 6, 2001.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing has been sent by U,S. Mail this
--.1l-daY of July, 2001 fO the following: Michael D. Cirollo, Jr., Esq., 3099 E. Commercial
Blvd., Ste. 200, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33308 and Jeffrey Tomberg, Esq., lD., PA., 626 SE 4d1 Place,
...- i.
Boynton Beach, FL 33425.
Clyatt & Richardson, P.A
1551 Forum Place, Suite #300-F
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Attorney for Plaintiff
(561) 471-9600
(561) 471-9655 - Facsimile
By: \< ~
Kevin F. Richardson
Fla. Bar No: 329185
JUL-18-01 13,45 FROM,Goren Cherof Doody Ezrol
10,8547714823
PAGE 18/20
./
INTRODUCTION and DEFINITIONS
1. These Interrogatories shall be deemed to seek answers as of the date hereof, but shall
be deemed to be continuing so that any additional information relating in any way to these
Interrogatories which Defendant acquires or which becomes known to Defendant up to and including
the time of Trial shall be furnished to Plaintiff immediately after such information is acquired or
becomes known.
2. As used herein, the term "document" is employed to obtain discovery in its
customary board sense as described in Rule 1.280 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Florida
Rules of Court.
3. As used herein, "person" shall mean both natural persons and corporate, municipal7
or other business entities, whether or not in the employment of Defendant.
As used herein, "identify" or to give "identity of' means, in general to give the fullest
description:
a.
For a natural "person", to state:
(1) Name;
(2) Last known address;
(3) Employer or business affiliation;
(4) Occupation and business position held and length of time in that position,
i.
b.
For a "document", to state:
(1) "Identity of' the person(s) who prepared it;
(2) Title or a description of the general nature of its subject matter;
(3) Date of preparation;
(4) Location of each copy and "identity of' present custodian;
(5) If privilege is claimed, the specific basis therefor.
Under Rule 1.340, an officer or employee of the City of Boynton Beach who answers
interrogatories must furnish such information as is available to the party on whose behalf the
answers. An officer, employee or agent of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida, who has not
sufficient familiarity with the facts to answer the interrogatories either as knowledge or on
information, is required to make such inquiry as ""ill enable him to supply the answers, when the
inforxnation is accessible to the City of Boynton Beach, Florida.
JUL-19-01 13,45 FROM,Goren Cherof Doody Ezrol
10,9547714923
PAGE 20/20
/-, ~
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
RHS CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
Case No,: CL 9910891-AN
vs.
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORlDA,
vs.
Defendant/CounterPlaintiff
and Third-Party Plaintiff.
CLEAR COPY,
Third Party Defendant.
I
PLAINTIFF'S REOUEST FOR ACCESS TO. ENTRY UPON. AND TO PHOTOGRAPH
THIRD PARTY DEFENDANT, CLEAR COPY. INC.'S PROPERTY
The Plaintiff, pursuant to FRCP 1.350, request that it, its agents and attorneys be permitted
access to, entry upon. and permission to photograph the exterior of the building and the land oVllIled
by Third Party Defendant, Clear Copy, Inc, located at 660 West Boynton Beach Blvd., Boynton
Beac~ Florida, on a date to be agreed upon between counsel within thirty.-five (35) days from the
date of this request
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing has been sent by U.S. Mail this
/3 day of July. 2001 to the following: Michael D. Cirollo. Jr.. Esq., 3099 E. Commercial
Blvd., Ste. 200. Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33308 a."ld Jeffrey Tamberg, Esq., J.D., P.A" 626 SE 4th Place,
Boynton Beach. FL 33425.
Clyatt & Richardson, P.A.
1551 Forum Place, Suite #300-F
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Attorney for Plaintiff
(561) 471-9600
(561) 471-965 - Facsimile
By:
Kevin F. Richardson
Fla BarNo: 329185
JUL-19-01 13,46 FROM,Goren Cheror Doody Ezrol
1D,9547714923
PAGE
1/1
1. Identify each person who took part in or was responsible for the administrative decision that
Clear Copy meet the requirements set forth in Chapter 7.5, Article II, section lOA, Land
Development Regulation (LDR) for issuance of a "Certificate of Occupancy and Use". and
identify all documents kno\.\'Tl to Defendant regarding the facts for the foregoing
administrative decision.
2. Please read your answer to Interrogatories 3. a(l) and (2 ), to the Plaintiff's First Set of
Interrogatories. Identify the source (5) from which the answers to definitions for "Certificate
of Occupancy" and "Certificate of Occupancy and Use" were obtained.
,. -I.
JUL-19-01 13,47 FROM,Goren Cherof Doody Exrol
10,9547714923
PAGE
1/1
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF
I HEREB Y CERTIFY that on this day, before me, an officer duly authorized in the State
aforesaid and in the COWlty aforesaid to take the aCknowledgments, personally appeared
to me known to be the person described in who executed the
foregoing instrument and has acknowledged before me that HE/SHE executed the same.
2001.
WITNESS my band and official seal in the County and State aforesaid this _ day of July,
My Commission Expires:
Notary Signature
Printed Notary Signature
...;.... I.
~ll-
~ ~ .n"1
~V\-
MEMORANDUM
e21.
rn
November 20, 1997
FROM:
Sue Kruse, City Clerk
Tambri Heyden, Planning Director
James A. Cherof, City Attorney 'r#f (jh j
flLANNING AND
ZONING DEPT
TO:
RE: Dr. Roberts vs. City of Boynton Beach
Attached is a copy of the Summons and Complaint for the above-
referenced new mandamus lawsuit regarding public records. Would you please
review and same and provide me with your comments regarding the records I ~A
production. ( ~ /V'-""!
I appreciate your assistance. --I2Ji~ .
JAClral
Encs. as stated
S:caldeplslCity ClerklRoberts
t
,\~ ..
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT IN THE 15TH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM
BEACH COUNTY. FLORIDA
DR. MARK ROBERTS.
CASE NO.: CL 97-010305 AJ
Plaintiff.
vs,
SUMMONS
L I .3ERVED
Date: /1 If] (0; r T~e:
8~D(Cle rm{G~ih~ ,,'r> __ 76 (
pro~ ~<:ryer PI. ~ ~.::~~ ~
Signatur~r:c.;;ss ~erver
i Arr. A Certified preces~rver In geod
Standing in and r,)r the J J Judlc:al elfCl
f,;-;
,. .,.,.",.
urrl'j
THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH.
a Florida
Defendants,
I
TIIE STATE OF FLORIDA:
To Each Sheriff of the State:
YOU ARE COMMANDED to serve this summons and a copy of the Amended Complaint. Petition For Writ of
Mandamus in this action on Defendant. TIIE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH. a Florida Municipal Corporation.. by serving:
JERRY TAYLOR, as Mayor for The City of Boynton Beach for service of process at:
100 E, Boynton Beach Boulevard
Boynton Beach. Florida 33435
Each Defendant is required to serve written defenses to the Complaint on Plaintiffs attorney, whose address is:
REGINALD G. STAMBAUGH. ESQ.
REGINALD G. STAMBAUGH, P.A.
1400 Centrepark Boulevard, Suite 860
West Palm Beach. FL 33401
(407) 687-8100
within 20 days after service of this summons on that Defendant, exclusive of the day of service. and to file the original of
the defenses with the Clerk of this Court either before service on Plaintiffs attorney or immediately thereafter. If a
Defendant fails to do so, a default will be entered against that Defendant for the relief demanded in the Complaint or
Petition,
NOV 1 R '9~7
DATED on
,1997.
DOROTHY WILKIN
As Clerk of the Circuit Court
(SEAL)
By:
KELLI J, DENNO
As Deputy Clerk
1
fMPORT ANTE
Usted ha sido demandado legalmente. Tiene 20 Dias. contados a partir del recibo de esta notification. para contestar
la demanda adj\mta. por escrito. y presentarla ante este tribunal. Una Hamada telefonica no 10 protegera. Si usted desea que
el tribWlal considere su defensa. debe presentar su respuesta por escrito. incluyendo el nwnero del caso y los nombres de las
partes interesadas. Si usted no contesta la demanda a tiempo. pudiese perder el caso y podria ser despojado de sus ingreasos
y propiedadwes. 0 privado de sus derenchos. sin previo aviso del tribunal. Existen otros requisitos legales. Si 10 desea. puede
usted consultar a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no conoce a un abogado. puede llamar a una de las officinas de asistencia
legal que aparecen en la guia telefonica.
Si desea responder a la demanda por su cuenta. al mismo tiempo en que presenta su respuesta ante el tribunal. debera
usted enviar por correo 0 entregar una copia de su respuesta a la persona denominada abajo como "PlaintifIlPlaintifl's
Attorney" (Demandante 0 Abogado del Demandante),
IMPORTANT
Des poursuites judiciares ont ete entreprises contre vous. V ous avez 20 jours consecutifs a partir de la date de
l'assignation de cette citation pour deposer une response ecrite a Ia plainte ci-jointe aupres de ce tribunal. Un simple coup de
telephone est insuffisant pour vous proteger, V ous etess oblige de deposer votre reponse ecrite, avec mention du numero de
dossir ci-dessus et du nom des parties nommees ici, si vous soubaitez que Ie tribunal entende votre cause. Si vous ne deposez
pas votre res\ponse ecrite dans Ie relai requis, VOllS risquez de perdre la cause ainsi que votre salaire, votre argent, et vos biens
peuvent etre saisis par la suite, sans aucun preavis ulterieur du tribunal. II y a d'autres obligations juridiques et vous pouvez
requerir les services immediats d'un avocat. Si vous ne connaissez pas d'avocat, vous pourriez telephoner a un service de
reference d'avocats ou bureau d'assustabce hyruduqye (figurant a l'annuaire de telephones).
Si vous choisissez de deposer vous-meme \me reponse ecrite, il vous faudra egalement, en meme temps que
cette formalite, faire parvenir ou expedier une copie de votre reponse ecrite au "PlaintiIDPlaintiffs Attorney" (plaignant ou a
son avocat) nomme ci-dessous,
2
I~ THE 15TH Jl'DICL\L CIRCl'lT COL'RT.
P.-\L\I BEACH COUNTY. FLORIDA.
CASE No, CL 97-0 10305 .-\.1
DR. !\L-\RK ROBERTS,
Petitioner,
--.
I
l
copy
-....EI"r-n ,..."" ;:"1 li\IG
OR1GI"'AL 0._, .r", ,......f., .....' .
'" ~.,..-. .1'___"-'"
,,.----- -----,
j I
.~ . ,
: NOY 1 8 1991 I
i j
1-
'DOROIHY H. WILKEN
CLERK OF CIRCUIT COURT
CIRCUIT CIViL DI'J1SiON
v.
THE CITY OF BOY;..JTON BEACH,
a Florida !\lunicipal Corporation,
Respondent.
A:\IENDED COMPLAINT
DR. MARK ROBERTS, ("Roberts"), files this Petition and Amended Complaint against
THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH ("'City"), and says:
Prior to service on the City a Complaint was filed in this action which did not fully state
the relief Roberts requests, specifically lacking a request for the Court to enter an Alternative
Writ of Mandamus. Therefore, Roberts, pursuant to Rule 1.190(a) files this Amended Complaint
as a matter of course and before the City's responsive pleading is served.
Roberts presents this Petition for Writ of :\1andamus pursuant to Rule 1,630, Florida
Rules of Civil Procedure; and a Complaint for Injunction, pursuant to Rule 1.610, Florida Rules
of Civil Procedure.
PETITIO~ FOR \VRIT OF 'IA~DA'H;S
I. .Jt:RISDICTION
This Court has jurisdiction over this petition pursuant to .-\rticle V. Section 5 (b). Florida
Constitution, which grants circuit courts original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus. This
Petition is brought pursuant to Rule 1.630, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.
---_..-~-----,._'--~,. ~------_.__._--
II. THE FACTS
A.O\'ERVIE\V
I. Rob~rts is a Florida resid~nt haying a d~ntal practice in Palm Beach COllnty. Florida.
Roberts owns property contiguolls to a site known as "Clear Copy" which has had a site plan and
building constructed that Roberts contests is not in accordance with the City of Boynton Beach's
Land Development R~gulations ("Land Development Regulations").
2. Roberts uses public records as a principal source of information to assure the Clear
Copy site is in accordance with the Land Development Regulations and the City is acting in
accordance with Florida law in their site plan approval process.
3. The City is a Florida municipal corporation and has a ministerial duty to permit the
inspection, examination, and copying of the public records of the City by any person desiring to
inspect such records at reasonable times and under reasonable conditions pursuant to section
119,07, Florida Statutes. See Fla Stat. Section 119.07 (1995 & Supp. 1996) (the "Public
Records Act").
4. Section 119.011 defines "public records" which are open to inspection as follows: "...
all documents, papers, letters, maps, books, tapes, photographs, films, sound recordings, data
processing software, or other material, regardless of the physical form, characteristics, or means
of transmission, made or received pursuant to law or ordinance or in connection with the
transaction of official business by any agency. "
5. Using a series ofprete:o..1s, the City has unlawfully denied Roberts with access to
public records. At first, the City denied access by advising documents did not exist, more
specific information was needed, or documents would be provided at a later time. with no
specified date and time. Subsequently, Roberts provided more specific information and
2
additional sp~cific r~qu~s1S. but th~ City has not proyid~d Rob~rts with all ofth~ information
r~quested.
B. THE I~ITL\.L DENIAL
6. On Octob~r 8. 1997, Susan \1itchdl, an ~mployee of Roberts, made a \uitten r~quest
to obtain copies ofTambri Heyden and Al I\e\vbold's building code administrator lic~nses as
required pursuant to Fla. Stat. Section 468 (1995). (Exhibit "A" attached and made a part
hereof). Tambri Heyden, Director of Planning and Zoning for the City of Boynton Beach, and
AI Newbold are employees of the City of Boynton Beach. Fla. Stat. Section 468.607 (1995)
states, "No person may be employed by a state agency or local governmental authority to
perform the duties of a building code administrator, plans examiner, or inspector after October 1,
1993, without possessing the proper valid certificate issued in accordance with the provisions of
this part."
7. On October 9, 1997 Roberts visited the Planning and Zoning department and
requested in writing: (1) Tambri Heyden's Building Code Administrator license, (2) a written job
description of duties and responsibilities of the Director of Planning and Zoning, (3) copies of all
signatures as they appear on the plan review for the Clear Copy site plan for both site plan
reviews in 1995 and 1997, specifically including signatures of the officials who appro\'ed the site
plans prior to granting site plan approval and building permits, and (4) copies of all licenses of
City officials who signed the plan review. The City employee Roberts met at the Planning and
Zoning Department, "Doris", denied Roberts request and directed Roberts to make the same
request to the City attorney's office.
8. On October 9. 1997, Roberts requested to the City attorney's office in writing by
tacsimile: (1) Tambri Heyden's Building Code Administrator license. (2) a written job
3
d~scription of dllti~s ~nd r~sponsibiliti~s ofth~ Dir~ctor of Planning and Zoning, (3) copi~s of all
signatur~s as th~y app~ar on the plan revi~w for the Clear Copy site plan for both sit~ plan
reviews in 1995 and 1997. sp~cifically including signatures of the officials who approved the site
plans prior to granting site plan approval and building permits. and (4) copies of alii icenses of
City otTicials who signed the plan review. (Exhibit "B" attached and made a part hereof).
9. On October 20, 1997, Leonard Rubin, Assistant City Attorney for Boynton Beach,
advised Roberts: (1) that there was no record ofTambri Heyden's Building Code Administrator
license, (2) that Roberts will be provided with a copy of the job description for the position of
Director of PlalUling and Zoning, (3) that no city officials' signatures "appear on the plan
review", and more specific information was needed in that regard. (Exhibit "C" attached and
made a part hereof). The City did not provide Heyden's license which she is required to have
under Fla. Stat. Section 468 (1995). The City did not provide either the signatures or the licenses
of the City officials who signed Clear Copy's site plan during the site plan review process. The
City used the pretex.1. for denying access to the information that more specific information
concerning the officials who signed Clear Copy's site plan review was needed. For some reason,
the City was unable to conclude from Roberts' request that Roberts wanted proof that licensed
City officials had approved Clear Copy's site plan.
e. THE SECOND ATTE~IPT
10. On October 22, 1997, Roberts responded to Rubin's October 10, 1997 letter, Roberts
again requested the signatures on the 1997 site plan review: Roberts also requested "any and all
documentation showing the site plan review v.:as done" for the Clear Copy site and included the
requests for the City's departments' written comments and conditions for the Clear Copy site
plan. Roberts elaborated on the initial request, requesting "any and all documents relating to the
4
approval"' and "'copi~s ofth~ Stat~ of Florida lic~nses for each plan r~\'i~w~r \\ ho gave their
approval." (Exhibit '"D"' attach~d and made a part her~of).
11. On October 30. 1997, the City pro\"ided Rob~11S \vith a list of memorandums from
various City d~partments including copies of the memorandums. (Exhibit hE" attached and made
a part hereof). Conspicuously absent. hov,:ever, was Tambri Heyden's license as required
pursuant to Fla. Stat. Section 468 (1995), the job description for the position of Director of
Planning and Zoning, and the licenses for the City employees who revie\ved Clear Copy's site
plan.
D. THE FI~AL DENIAL
12. Roberts subsequently visited the City attorney's office to obtain the documents
attached to the October 30, 1997 letter. Roberts met with an assistant City attorney and advised
that the documents provided with the October 30, 1997 letter were incomplete. Specifically, the
job description of the Director of Planning and Zoning was missing and the licenses from the
City officials who approved Clear Copy's site plan v.'ere missing. The assistant City attomey
responded that he could not get involved with the issue presented and to speak with the City
attorney's secretary. Roberts then spoke with the City attorney's secretary who advised that she
would call Roberts. Roberts never received a call, and no additional information was
forthcoming from the City attorney's office.
13. Having no response from the City attorney's office. Roberts is now compelled to file
this action. Many of the requested documents have still not been produced.
14. The requested documents were made or received by the City's employees in
connection with the transaction of the City's official business and were prepared ,,,'ith the int~nt .
to communicate, perpetuate or formalize knowledge. Therefore these documents constitute
5
public r~cords within th~ m~aning of s~ction 119.0 11, S~~ Sh~vin v. BHon. HarI~ss. Schatl~r.
R~id and Assoc., 379 So, 2d 633,640 (Fla, 1980),
15. The City's rdusal to provide access to public records and to timdy stat~ the basis for
a statutory exemption violaks section 119.07.
III. RELIEF REQUESTED
16. The City's continual refusal to permit the inspection and examination of public
records as provided by law is a refusal to perform an official ministerial duty in violation of
section 119.07 of the Public Records Act.
17. A Writ of ~.fandamus is the appropriate remedy to compel the City to perform the
specific, legal, ministerial duty of permitting the inspection, examination, and copying of any
original public records bY.,any person desiring to do so, at reasonable times, under reasonable
conditions, pursuant to section 119.07.
18. Roberts has a clear legal right to insist upon the performance of the City's ministerial
duty to provide timely access to the requested records or cite, in writing, with particularity, the
basis to v.'ithhold the requested records. Mills v. Dovle, 407 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981);
Von Stephens v. School Board of Sarasota Co., 338 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976).
19. The Petitioner is entitled to an immediate hearing on this Petition, "giving the case
priority over other pending cases." S~e Fla. Stat. Section 119.11(1) (1995).
WHEREFORE, Roberts requests that the Court issue an Alternative Writ of~1andamus
commanding the City to either produce public records and discontinue a policy and practice of
denying Roberts acc~ss to public records or show cause why the relief sought herein should not
be granted: and that the Court grant Roberts all costs and attorney's fees as provided by section .
119.12, Florida Statutes. and such furth~r reli~f as the Court may d~~m proper.
6
CO:\IPLAI~T FOR :\1.-\:\0..\ TORY I~.Jl::\CTIO:\
This is an action tor a p~mlan~nt. mandatory injunction brought against th~ City,
20, Robc:rts r~alleges paragraphs 1 through 18 contained in the Pc:tition tor Writ of
~Iandamus as if set forth fullv herein.
21. The City has been and is now in contravention of the Public Records A.ct. Chapter
119, Florida Statutes, by engaging in policies arbitrarily and unlawfully denying Rob~rts access
to public records without the benefit of a statutory exemption.
22. The City's actions amount to a knowing and willful effort to violate the letter and
spirit of the Public Records Act.
23. Upon information and belief, the City has instituted a policy of discriminatorily
denying the City with access to public records as evidenced by its continued attempts to find
alternative bases to avoid providing the City with access to public documents.
24. Unless enjoined, the above enumerated policies and practices of the City shall cause
irreparable harm to Roberts by causing him not to have documents needed in evaluating the
Clear Copy site plan in its compliance with the City's Land Development Regulations, an
evaluation that must occur immediately as a petition for Writ of Certiorari is now pending before
the Court to determine whether the City's site plan approval is proper.
25. Roberts has been forced to expend the efforts of the undersignc:d counsel and has
become obligated to pay a reasonable attorney's fee for his services. Such fees and costs are
recoverable against the City pursuant to section 119.12 of the Public Records Act.
WHEREFORE, Roberts requests that this Court, after an accelerated final hearing
pursuant to section 119.11 of the Public Records Act, issue a permanc:nt mandatory injunction
enjoining and restraining the City and its agents. servants and employc:es from c:ngaging in
7
pradic~s that contrav~n~ Ih~ Public R~cords Act and in particular enjoining and r~slraining th~
City from:
a. discriminating against Roberts in th~ City's duty to provid~ access to public records in
a timely manner; and,
b. withholding public docum~nts based on a desire to preclude their review by Roberts
prior to the proper site plan approval for Clear Copy and enforcement of the Land Development
Regulations to which the documents pertain.
Roberts further requests entry of an order awarding costs and attorney's fees against the
City as provided by section 119.12, Florida Statutes, and such further relief as the Court may
deem proper.
Respectfully submitted,
By:
Regl a
Bar No. 57127
1400 Centrepark Blvd., Suite 860
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Attorney for Petitioner
8
IN THE 15TH JCDICIAL CIRCl:IT CGeRT.
PAUIBE CHCOUNTy,F001~~ 0 5 fi,j
CASE X
DR. MARK ROBERTS,
Petitioner,
COPY. I iN""
"E.CC\VSD FO~ F,L" ~
ORIGINAL n -
v.
THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH,
a Florida !\ilunicipal Corporation,
NO'J 1'7 1997
W'LK=N
DQRO~14~ H6U\T COURT
CLERKuOIT' C....l~ii.. O\\i\SiON
CIRC I
Respondent.
I
I
COMPLAINT
DR. MARK ROBERTS, ("Roberts"), files this Petition and Complaint against
THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH ("City"), and says:
Roberts presents this Petition for Writ of Mandamus pursuant to Rule 1.630,
Florida Rules of Civil Procedure; and a Complaint for Injunction, pursuant to Rule 1.610,
Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.
PETITION FOR 'VRIT OF :\IANDA:\ICS
I. .Jl'RISDICTIO~
This Court has jurisdiction over this petition pursuant to Article V. Section 5 (b),
Florida Constitution, which grants circuit courts original jurisdiction to issue writs of
mandamus. This Petition is brought pursuant to Rule 1.630, Florida Rules of Civil
Procedure.
II. THE FACTS
A.OVERVIE'V
1. Roberts is a Florida resident having a dental practice in Palm Beach County,
Florida. Roberts owns property contiguous to a site known as "Ch~ar Copy" which has
had a sit~ plan and building construct~d that Rob~rts conksts is not in accordance with
th~ City of Boynton B~ach's Land D~\'e1opm~nt R~gulations ("Land De\'e1opm~nt
R~gulations .").
2. Rob~rts uses public records as a principal source of information to assure the
Clear Copy site is in accordance with the Land Development Regulations and the City is
acting in accordance with Florida law in their site plan approval process.
3. The City is a Florida municipal corporation and has a ministerial duty to
permit the inspection, examination, and copying of the public records of the City by any
person desiring to inspect such records at reasonable times and under reasonable
conditions pursuant to section 119,07. Florida Statutes. See Fla. Stat. Section 119.07
(1995 & Supp. 1996) (the "Public Records Act").
4. Section 119.011 defines "public records" which are open to inspection as
follows: "... all documents, papers, letters, maps, books. tapes, photographs, films, sound
recordings, data processing software, or other material. regardless of the physical form,
characteristics, or means of transmission, made or received pursuant to law or ordinance
or in connection with the transaction of official business by any agency."
5. Using a series of pretexts, the City has unlawfully denied Roberts \J,:ith access
to public records. At first, the City denied access by ad\'ising documents did not exist,
more specific information was needed, or documents \-\Could be provided at a later time,
with no specified date and time, Subsequently, Roberts provided more specific
information and additional specific requests, but the City has not provided Roberts with
all of the infonnation request~d.
2
B. THE I:\TITIAL DE:\L\L
6. On Octob~r 8, 1997, Susan ~litch~II. an ~mploy~~ of Rob~rts. mad~ a \\'ritt~n
r~qu~st to obtain copi~s of Tambri H~yd~n and,-\1 l\~\\bold's building cod~ administrator
licens~s as required pursuant to Fla. Stat. Section 468 (1995). (Exhibit ".-\.., attached and
made a part hereof). Tambri Heyden, Director of Planning and Zoning for the City of
Boynton Beach. and .--\1 ~ewbold are employees of the City of Boynton Beach, Fla. Stat.
Section 468.607 (1995) states, "No person may be employed by a state agency or local
governmental authority to perform the duties of a building code administrator, plans
examiner, or inspector after October 1, 1993, without possessing the proper valid
certificate issued in accordance with the provisions of th is part."
7. On October 9, 1997 Roberts visited the Planning and Zoning department and
requested in writing: (1) Tambri Heyden's Building Code Administrator license, (2) a
\\Titten job description of duties and responsibilities of the Director of PlalU1ing and
Zoning, (3) copies of all signatures as they appear on the plan review for the Clear Copy
site plan for both site plan reviews in 1995 and 1997, specifically including signatures of
the officials who approved the site plans prior to granting site plan approval and building
permits, and (4) copies of all licenses of City officials who signed the plan review. The
City employee Roberts met at the Planning and Zoning Department, "Doris", denied
Roberts request and directed Roberts to make the same request to the City attorney's
office.
8. On October 9, 1997, Roberts requested to the City attorney's oflke in writing
by facsimile: (l) Tambri Heyden's Building Code Administrator license, (2) a written job
description of duties and responsibilities of the Director of Planning and Zoning, (3)
copies of all signatures as they appear on the plan re\'iew for the Clear Copy site plan for
3
both site plan reviews in 1995 and 1997. specifically including signatures of the otlicials
who approved the site plans prior to granting site plan approval and building permits, and
(4) copies of all licenses of City ot1i(:ials who signed the plan review. (Exhibit "B"
attached and made a part hereof).
9, On October 20, 1997. Leonard Rubin, .-\ssistant City Attorney for Boynton
Beach, advised Roberts: (1) that there was no record ofTambri Heyden's Building Code
Administrator license, (2) that Roberts will be provided \,,'ith a copy of the job description
for the position of Director of Planning and Zoning, (3) that no city officials' signatures
"appear on the plan review", and more specific information was needed in that regard.
(Exhibit "C" attached and made a part hereof). The City did not provide Heyden's
license which she is required to have under Fla. Stat. Section 468 (1995). The City did
not provide either the signatures or the licenses of the City officials who signed Clear
Copy's site plan during the site plan review process. The City used the pretex1 for
denying access to the information that more specific information concerning the officials
who signed Clear Copy's site plan review was needed, For some reason, the City was
unable to conclude from Roberts' request that Roberts wanted proof that licensed City
officials had approved Clear Copy's site plan.
e. THE SECO:\"D ATTE:\!PT
10. On October 22, 1997. Roberts responded to Rubin's October 10, 1997 letter.
Roberts again requested the signatures on the 1997 site plan review; Roberts also
requested "any and all documentation showing the site plan review \\;as done" for the
Clear Copy site and included the requests for the City's departments' written comments
and conditions for the Clear Copy site plan. Roberts elaborated on the initial request,
requesting "any and all documents relating to the approval" and "copies of the State of
4
Florida lic~ns~s for ~ach plan r~\'i~w~r who ga\'~ th~ir approval. " (Exhibit "0" attach~d
and mad~ a pail h~r~ot).
11, On Octob~r 30. 1997, th~ City pro\'id~d Rob~rts with a list of m~morandums
from various City departments including copi~s of the memorandums. (Exhibit "E"
attached and mad~ a part hereof). Conspicuously absent, however, was Tambri Heyden's
license as required pursuant to Fla. Stat. Section 468 (1995), the job description for the
position of Director of Plalming and Zoning, and the licenses for the City employees who
reviewed Clear Copy's site plan.
D, THE FINAL DENIAL
12. Roberts ~ubsequently visited the City attorney's office to obtain the
documents attached to the O.:tober 30, 1997 letter. Roberts met with an assistant City
attorney and advised that the documents provided with the October 30, 1997 letter were
incomplete. Specifically, thejob description of the Director of Planning and Zoning \\'as
missing and the licenses from the City officials who approved Clear Copy's site plan
were missing. The assistant City attorney responded that he could not get involved with
the issue presented and to speak with the City attorney's secretary. Roberts then spoke
with the City attorney's secretary who advised that she would call Roberts. Roberts
never received a call, and no additional information was forthcoming from the City
attorney's office,
13. Having no response from the City attorney's office, Roberts is now
compelled to file this action. !\fany of the requested documents have still not been
produced.
14. The requested documents w~re made or r~c~i\'~d by the City's employe~s in
connection with the transaction of the City's official business and \vere prepared with the
5
inknt to communil.:ak. p~rpduak or formaliz~ kIlO\\ I~dg~, Th~rd,)f~ th~s~ docum~nts
constitut~ public r~cords within th~ ll1~aning of s~ction 119.011. S~~ Sh~\'in v. Bvron.
Harless. Schaffer. Reid and .-\ssoc,. 379 So, 2d 633,640 (Fla. 1980).
15, The City's refusal to provide access to public records and to timely state the
basis for a statutory exemption violates section 119.07.
III. RELIEF REQUESTED
16. The City's continual refusal to permit the inspection and examination of
public records as provided by law is a refusal to perform an official ministerial duty in
violation of section 119,07 of the Public Records Act.
17. A Writ of Mandamus is the appropriate remedy to compel the City to perform
the specific, legal, ministerial duty of permitting the inspection, examination, and
copying of any original public records by any person desiring to do so, at reasonable
times, under reasonable conditions, pursuant to section 119.07.
18. Roberts has a clear legal right to insist upon the performance of the City's
ministerial duty to provide timely access to the requested records or cite, in writing, with
particularity, the basis to withhold the requested records. IvIills v. Dovle. 407 So. 2d 348
(Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Von Stephens v. School Board of Sarasota Co., 338 So. 2d 890 (Fla.
2d DCA 1976).
19. The Petitioner is entitled to an immediate hearing on this Petition, "giving the
case priority over other pending cases'" See Fla, Stat. Section 119.11 (1) (1995).
CO:\-lPLAI:\lT FOR :\IA:'\DA TORY I:\lJUl\'CTIO:\T
This is an action for a pern1anent. mandatory injunction brought against the City.
20. Roberts rea lieges paragraphs 1 through 18 contained in the Petition for Writ
of !\!andamus as if set forth fulIy herein,
G
21. Th~ City has b~~n and is now in contrav~l1tion ofth~ Public R~cords Act.
Chapt~r 119, Florida Statuks, by engaging in policies arbitrarily and unlawfully denying
Roberts access to public records without the bendit of a statutory exemption,
22. The City's actions amount to a ktlo\ving and willful efIort to violate the lett~r
and spirit of the Public Records Act.
23. Upon infonnation and belief, the City has Instituted a policy of
discriminatorily denying the City with access to public records as evidenced by its
continued attempts to find alternative bases to avoid providing the City with access to
public documents.
24. Unless enjoined, the above enumerated policies and practices of the City shall
cause irreparable harm to Roberts by causing him not to have documents needed in
evaluating the Clear Copy site plan in its compliance with the City's Land Development
Regulations, an evaluation that must occur immediately as a petition for Writ of
Certiorari is now pending before the Court to determine whether the City's site plan
approval is proper.
25. Roberts has been forced to expend the efforts of the undersigned counsel and
has become obligated to pay a reasonable attorney's fee for his services. Such fees and
costs are recoverable against the City pursuant to section 119.12 of the Public Records
Act.
WHEREFORE, Roberts requests that this Court, after an accelerated final hearing
pursuant to section 119.11 of the Public Records Act, issue a permanent mandat0ry
injunction enjoining and restraining the City and its agents, servants and employees from
engaging in practices that contravene the Public Records Act, and in particular enjoining
and restraining the City from:
7
a, discriminating against Roberts in the City's duty to provide access to public
records in a timely m<.llmer; and,
b. withholding public documents based on a desire to preclude their review b:"
Roberts prior to the proper site plan approval for Clear Copy and enforcement ofthe
Land Development Regulations to which the documents pertain.
Roberts further requests entry of an order awarding costs and attorney's fees
against the City as provided by section 119.12, Florida Statutes, and such further relief as
the Coul1 may deem proper.
Respectfully submitted,
By:
mbaugh, Esq.
Bar No. 957127
1400 Centrepark Blvd., Suite 860
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Attorney for Petitioner
8
/ ,-~tt .
ce.'
~t~07 J'>' 0 ~f .
,/ ,/ '-"- em OF BOYMTOII lEACH
/ ' REQUDr FOR PUBlIC RftCItD INf~nON
Request su~itted by:
(Name)
(Address)
:/7 - / c
'-J d - 47C I C
Requested Infonnation:
',: '.~K I. ROlJk'fla. D..O.&.
830 W. BOYNTON BEACH BLVD.
~UrTE 112
s.::r{r,:TON E.~ACH. FlORIDA 33426
.0'&/- '7' 3 ~ - /7CO
(Phone ,>
ORDINAHCE HO.
RESOlUTION HO.
MINUTES:
Meeting & Date (Complete Set)
Meeting & Oate (Excerpt Only)
. '
Verbatim Excerpt (Subject to hourly charge
Record1ng Secretary's Wage):
9THER' ~/7C('~/'J'..d" 0p-<~.o c-II &/7?c./&~~ du./aL.7t2. ~.ed~-?7~
Al /? ..0. , [,,:-L 'I' j /7/1 ;y
wde. [.tb"';;-:".t.-~r,;._/!.-bv .,?~Lf.-:- -.J!~~~. ~ tL ~
//.e.. /. ~ --<./Pt /~/7? "., {'--:' ~ ~;'k' L-~/K-"_u a-o
() -} ,. ),. ,f t 1/ ." I -
.~ VzaLJ:tcu L/~ P j _' z.u:6..J ~J-c7 _. .
HOTICE..I d:V~'0
1. You may inspect the requested records without charge unless the nature or .~
volume requested requires extens1ve c1er1cal or supervisory assistance 1n
which case you will be advised of a special service charge.
2. Pla1n paper cop1es shall be furnfshed upon payment of 1St 1f the paper fs
copied on one s1de, and 20t 1f the paper 1s cop1ed on both sides.
J. Copies of mfcrof1che shall be furnfshed upon payment of 25t per page (copy
on one sfd~'of the paper only).
4. Certif1cation of documentatfons shall be charged at $1.00 per document.
5. Used cassette tapes shall be furnfshed at a tharge of $1.00 each.
/0 - ,-9- 9 7
Date of Request
71( ~ ;e.--t-~ .;)o.d
SIgnature of Request1ng Party
E)<.t\ \ ~'\1" 'I ~ \ I
,
,) . 7
--!~ c9c.~ )/JJd'
em OF 8QYMTQI lEACH
REQUEST fOR PUBlIC ItECOID INFOItMTICII
Request su~itted by:
5 ;l/:)-: t,d;;;Y
(Name )
(Address)
Requested Infonnat1on:
ORDuwtCE NO.
RESOlUTION NO.
MINUTES:
Meeting & Oate (Complete Set)
~''',r=K FE ROBERTS, D.D.S.
.. .-\.. .. vo
..-. .., O"'rNrC~l ~ii'\"'r 1=11 -
l.... ~~ _ . .. ....,
SUITE #2
_ ......... "7'-.': 1:' .!'.I""~ ~I ORIDA 33426
.'. ,~&/- '7.:3?:/7(/-cO
{Phone .>
Meeting & Date (Excerpt Only)
, '
Verbatim Excerpt (Subject to hourly charge
Recording Secretary's Wage):
OTHER:
~~L /l~'d-OL:
NOTICE:
1. You may inspect the requested records without charge unless the nature or
volume requested requires extensive clerical or supervisory assistance 1n
which case you will be advised of a spec1al service charge.
2. Pla1n paper copies shall be furnished upon payment of 1St if the paper 1s
copfed on one side, and 20t 1f the paper is copied on both sides.
3. Coptes of m1croftche shall be furn1shed upon payment of 25t per page (copy
on one sfd~.'of the paper only).
4. Cert1fication of documentat1ons shall be charged at $1.00 per document.
5. Used cassette tapes shall be furnished at a ~harge of $1.00 each.
/0- 9-97
Oat! or Request
~
tgnature of Requesttng arty
e. '(~,~\\ .r.&11
...... - ... - ..... - . ..
-----,--------,--~.~--------_.._~ ~-
316-God,Jcj
W
I
/
PUBLIC RECORD REQUEST
10/9/97
1. Tambri Heyden's Building Code Administrator license.
2. Written job description of duties and responsibilities of the Director of Planning and
Zonin&:.,
3. Copies of all signatures as they appear on the plan review for the Clear Copy site plan for
both site plan reviews in 1995 and 1997. Specifically, those officials who approved the
site plans prior to granting site plan approval and building permits.
4. .s;opies of all licenses of City officials who signed the plan review.
.. . ..1 ~J' i '.., _, '..
, ,-
.., '," '.\
~ . " .. ...:. ~:,
~ . ...' 4 ",; :.. . '"
'. : , I '. '. . ,-
-_.~--------------~-~
- _....,---~--_._-~-'- -----
JOSIAS, GOREN, CHEROF, DOODY & EZROL, PA.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SUITE ZOO
3099 EAST COMME:RCIAL. BOULE:VARD
FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33308
STEVE:N L.. .JOSIAS
SAMUE:L. S. GOREN
.JAMES A. CHERO.
CONAL.D .J. DOODY
KERRY L., EZROL
TELEPHONE: (954) 771- 4500
F'....CSIMIL.E (954) 771-4923
LEONARD G. RUBIN
ROBERT W. VALE
MICHAEL D. CIRULLO. JR.
October 20, 1997
Mark E. Roberts, D.D.S.
650 West Boynton Beach Boulevard
Suite #2
Boynton Beach, Florida 33426
Re: Public Records Request
Dear Dr. Roberts:
I am in receipt of your Public Records Request dated October 9, 1997 submitted
to the City of Boynton Beach's Human Resources Department. In response, I have the
following comments:
1. No such record is available.
2. You will be provided with a copy of the job description for the
position of Director of Planning and Zoning.
3. No City signatures of City officials "appear on the plan review."
Thus, your request cannot be processed' without more specific
information.
4. See comment for item three.
Please forward any future public records requests to the City Clerk's Office for
processing. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.
Sincerely yours,
~
LEONARD G. RUBIN
Assistant City Attorney
LGR/lmh
9504001ROBERTS7.l TR
cc: James Cherof, City Attorney
Tambri Heyden, Planning Director
Human Resources Department E.. 'I-- \-'-\ .0\ '\ II C-11
.---- ""'--.
Mark E. Roberts, D.D.S.
650 Wesl Boynlon BClIch Blvd.. Suilc H2. BoynLon Beach. F'L 33426 ,(407) 736-1700
October, 22, 1997
Leonard G. Rubin
Assistant City Attorney
City of Boynton Beach
Boynton Beach, FL 33435
Re: Public Records Request
Dear Mr. Rubin:
Your October 20, 1997 letter states: No City signatures of
City officials uappear on the plan review." Thus, your request
cannot be processed without more specific information.
I have Clear Copy's 1995 site plan review in my possession.
It has the signatures of the officials who granted their approvals.
When officials perform site plan review, their written comments and
signatures are the only way to document their review and approval.
If there are no signatures on the 1997 review, this may be an
indication the site plan review was not done. Please provide me
any and all documentation showin the site plan review was done,
an ~n ~cate why the officials d~ not s~gn t e p an rev~ew.
According to. the City's Land Development Regulations, the
development department, fire department, utilities department,
public.works department, police department, city forester, planning
and zoning department, and technical review committee (TRC) should
each have provided written comments and conditions.
At the September 23, 1997 Board of Planning and Development
hearing, Ms. Heyden indicated Clear Copy's plans were reviewed and
approved by Staff, but Staff had no comments. Please provide me
with all the names of those officials who reviewed Clear Copy's
site plans and gave their approvals with no comments. I request
any and all doc~ments relating to the approval. In addition to the
above, I would like ~ies of the State of Florida licenses fQF
each plan reviewer who gave ~heir approval,
?5
Mark E. Roberts, D.D.S.
ME R : s m
SENT BY ~ACSIMILE: 375-6054 AL.ce~ ~ e<u ~ /o-~v.'!
cc: Reg~nald Stambaugh, Esquire ~1 //.:> <'HAl
E.)(H\On' "Djl
---_.__..._---~--_._._---~
The City of
Boynton Beach
100 E, Boynton Beach Boulevard
P.O, Box 310
Boynton Beach, Florida 33425-0310
Office of the City Attorney
(561) 375-6050
FAX: (561) 375-6054
October 30, 1997
Mark E. Roberts, D.D.S.
650 West Boynton Beach Blvd., Suite #2
Boynton Beach, FL 33435
Re: Public Records Request
Dear Dr. Roberts:
Pursuant to your most recent correspondence of October 22, 1997,
attached are copies of the following:
1. Memorandum No. 97-435, from Tambri Heyden, dated August 19,
1997, directed to the members of the Technical Review Committee,
regarding the Major Site Plan Modification for Clear Copy;
2. Memorandum No. 97-298, dated September 12,1997, from William
D. Cavanaugh directed to Tambri Heyden;
3. Memorandum No. 97-464, dated September 12 ,1997, from Jerzy
Lewicki, directed to File - MSPM 97-002);
4.
Memorandum No. 97-222, dated September 4, 1997, from Mark
Lips, Sanitation Foreman, directed to Tambri Heyden;
5. Memorandum No. 97-291, dated August 28, 1997, from John A.
Guidry, directed to Tambri Heyden;
6. Memorandum No. 07-0052, dated August 21, 1997, from Sg1.
Marlon Harris, directed to Tambri Heyden;
7. Memorandum No. 97-238, dated September 5,1997, from AI
Newbold, directed to Tambri Heyden;
':An Equal Opportunity/ Affinnative Action/ADA Employer"
E. ~ ~~ , '6'\ 1"" '\ 't I'
8. Memorandum No. 97-395, dated August 20. 1997. from John
Wildner, directed to Tambri Heyden;
9. Recreation & Park Memorandum, dated August 26. 1997, from
Kevin John Hallahan, directed to Tambri Heyden;
10. Letterfrom Lake Worth Drainage District, dated September 5,
1997, directed to Tambri J. Heyden.
The cost for copying is $1.65 (11 pages @ $.15 per page) and can be paid
directed to the Finance Department of the City, at the above address.
Very truly yours,
.(jJYU mcwi ~
Rose Marie Lamanna
Legal Assistant
51
Encs. as stated
cc: Leonard G. Rubin, Esq.
Kerry Willis, City Manager
s:ca\c:ases\rt1slpubUc records
- ---_._~------------~--"
MEMORANDUM
o ~7m rn
November 20,1997
ill
'fJJ '.
FROM:
Sue Kruse, City Clerk
Tambri Heyden, Planning Director
James A. Cheraf, City Attorney r#f!jit J
PLANNING ANO
ZONING DEPT
TO:
RE: Dr. Roberts vs. City of Boynton Beach
Attached is a copy of the Summons and Complaint for the above-
referenced new mandamus lawsuit regarding public records. Would you please
review and same and provide me with your comments regarding the records
production.
I appreciate your assistance.
JAC/ral
Encs. as stated
S:caldeplslCily ClerklRoberts
1l!
;
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT IN THE 15TH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM
BEACH COUNTY. FLORIDA
DR, MARK ROBERTS.
CASE NO.: CL 97-010305 A1
Plaintiff.
SUMMONS
L ~"'~\JcD
I.) :;,c:-! c;.
Date: /1 /~/G r T:~e:
8~D(CleJfP{Gti+i~ i' ~ _ -:::r6 (
pro~ ~~rver va:.. T
S' t~r~~~ s::;:.-r:uvt;
Igna ure 'j' , ,_,-,t::-:>'" -
I Am A Certitied ?rcces~er in :;;lCCC I
Standing io and i,1r the J ::> Jud:c:al Circu
f ;-:.
,. ,,.,,,-
U r~ 'j
vs.
THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH.
a Florida
Defendants,
/
THE STATE OF FLORIDA:
To Each Sheriff of the State:
YOU ARE COMMANDED to serve this summons and a copy of the Amended Complaint, Petition For Writ of
Mandamus in this action on Defendant, TIIE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH. a Florida Municipal Corporation., by serving:
JERRY TAYLOR, as Mayor for The City of Boynton Beach for service of process at:
100 E. Boynton Beach Boulevard
Boynton Beach, Florida 33435
Each Defendant is required to serve written defenses to the Complaint on Plaintiff's attorney, whose address is:
REGINALD G. STAMBAUGH, ESQ,
REGINALD G. STAMBAUGH, P.A.
1400 Centrepark Boulevard, Suite 860
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
(407) 687-8100
within 20 days after service of this summons on that Defendant, exclusive of the day of service, and to file the original of
the defenses with the Clerk of this Court either before service on Plaintiff's attorney or immediately thereafter. If a
Defendant fails to do so, a default will be entered against that Defendant for the relief demanded in the Complaint or
Petition.
NOV 1 R 19~1
DATED on
,1997.
DOROTHY W1LKIN
As Clerk of the Circuit Court
(SEAL)
~
By:
KELLl J. DENNO
As Deputy Clerk
1
IMPORT ANTE
Usted ha sldo demandado legalmente. Tiene 20 Dias. contados a partir del recibo de esta notification. para contestar
la demanda adj\U1ta. por escrito. y presentarla ante este tribnnaL Una Hamada telefonica no 10 protegera. Si usted desea que
eI tribunal considere su defensa. debe presentar su respuesta por escrito. incluyendo el ntunero del caso y los nombres de las
partes interesadas, Si usted no contesta la demanda a tiempo. pudies~ perder el caso y podria ser despojado de sus ingreasos
y propiedadwes, 0 privado de sus derenchos. sin previo aviso del tribnnal. Existen otros requisitos legales, Si 10 desea. puede
lISted consultar a lUl abogado inmediatamente. Si no conoce a nn abogado. puede !lamar a una de las officinas de asistencia
legal que aparecen en la guia telefonica.
Si desea responder a la demanda por su cuenta. al mismo tiempo en que presenta su respuesta ante el tribunal. debera
usted enviar por correo 0 entregar una copia de su respuesta a la persona denominada abajo como "PlaintiIDPlaintiffs
Attorney" (Demandante 0 Abogado del Demandante).
IMPORTANT
Des poursuites judiciares ont ete entreprises contre vous. V ous avez 20 jours consecutifs a partir de la date de
l'assignation de cette citation pour deposer une response ecrite a la plainte ci-jointe aupres de ce tribunal. Un simple coup de
telephone est insuffisant pour vous protegee. V ous etess oblige de deposer votre reponse ecrite, avec mention du numero de
dossir ci-dessus et du nom des parties nommees ici, si vous souhaitez que Ie tribunal entende votre cause. Si vous ne deposez
pas votre res\ponse ecrite dans Ie relai requis, vous risquez de perdee la cause ainsi que votre salaire, votre argent, et vos biens
peuvent etre saisis par la suite, sans aucun preavis ulterieur du tribunal. II y a d' autres obligations juridiques et vous pouvez
requerir les services immediats d'un avocat Si vous ne connaissez pas d'avocat, vous pourriez telephoner a un service de
reference d'avocats ou bureau d'assustabce hyruduqye (figurant a l'annuaire de telephones).
Si vous choisissez de deposer vous-meme une reponse ecrite, il vous faudea egalement, en meme temps que
cette f01TIlalite. faire parvenir ou expedier une copie de votre reponse ecrite au "PlaintiIDPlaintill's Attorney" (plaignant ou a
son avocat) nomme ci-dessous.
~
2
I)J THE 15TH Jl'OICL\L C1RCl'IT COL"RT.
PA.L~1 BE.\CH COL7NTY. FLORID.\
C.\SE ~o. CL 97-010305 AJ
DR. ~L-\RK ROBERTS,
Petitioner,
-,
;
COpy
"en -" 'i\IG
ORIGIN.~.L RECEIV~D ,. 't., 1-,'_1 ,
,---- ---,
\. I
) I
; NOV 1 8 007 I
; J
1
DO~GTHY H. WILKEN
CLERK OF CIRCUIT COURT
CIRCUIT CIViL Dl'JISiON
v.
THE CITY OF BOY~TO~ BEACH,
a Florida ~lunicipa1 Corporation,
Respondent.
A~IENDED COMPLAINT
DR. ~IARK ROBERTS, ("Roberts"), files this Petition and Amended Complaint against
THE CITY OF BOY~TON BEACH (".City"), and says:
Prior to service on the City a Complaint was filed in this action which did not fully state
the relief Roberts requests, specifically lacking a request for the Court to enter an Altematiye
Writ of ~-fandamus. Therefore, Roberts, pursuant to Rule 1.190(a) files this Amended Complaint
as a matter of course and bdore the City's responsive pleading is served.
Roberts presents this Petition for Writ of \1andamus pursuant to Rule 1.630, Florida
Rules of Ciyil Procedure; and a Complaint tor Injunction, pursuant to Rule 1.610, Florida Rules
of Civil Procedure.
PETITIO~ FOR \VRIT OF :\IA~DA:\ll:S
I. .Jt:RISDICTION
~
This Court has jurisdiction over this petition pursuant to Article V. Section 5 (b). Florida
Constitution. which grants circuit courts original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus. This
Petition is brought pursuant to Rule 1.630, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.
II. THE FACTS
'-\'.O\'ER"IE\V
1. Rob~rts is a Florida resid~nt haying a d~ntal practic~ in Palm Beach County. Florida.
Roberts owns property contiguolls to a site known as "Clear Copy"' which has had a sit~ plan and
building construct~d that Roberts contest5 is not in accordance Vl"ith the City of Boynton Beach's
Land D~velopm~nt Regulations ("Land Development Regulations").
2. Roberts uses public records as a principal source of information to assure the Clear
Copy sit~ is in accordance with the Land Development Regulations and the City is acting in
accordance \..-ith Florida law in their site plan approval process.
3. The City is a Florida municipal corporation and has a ministerial duty to permit the
inspection, examination, and copying of the public records of the City by any person desiring to
inspect such records at reasonable times and under reasonable conditions pursuant to section
119.07, Florida Statutes. See Fla Stat. Section 119.07 (1995 & Supp. 1996) (the ;;Public
Records A.cf').
4. Se~tion 119.011 defines "public records" \vhich are open to inspection as follows: .....
all documents, papers, leners, maps, books, tapes, photographs, films, sound recordings, data
processing software, or other material, regardless of the physical form, characteristics, or means
of transmission. made or received pursuant to law or ordinance or in connection with the
transaction of ot1icial business by any agency'"
5. l'sing a series of prete~ls, the City has unlawfully denied Roberts with access to
public records. At first, the City deni~d access by advising documents did not exist, more
!t
specific information was needed, or documents would be provided at a later time. with no
specifi~d date and time, Subseql1~ntly, Roberts provided more specific information and
2
^---,-----~--_.._-_.
additional spc.:ifi.: requests. but the City has not pro\'ided Roberts with all of the information
rel{uested,
B. THE 1:"ITIAL DE:\L-\L
6. On October 8. 1997, Susan \fitchell, an employee of Roberts. made a '\fitten request
to obtain copies of Tambri Heyden and Al :\e\vbold's building code administrator licenses as
required pursuant to Fla. Stat. Section 468 (1995). (Exhibit "A" attached and made a part
hereof). Tambri Heyden, Director of Plarming and Zoning for the City of Boynton Beach, and
AI Newbold are employees of the City of BO)-TIton Beach. Fla. Stat. Section 468.607 (1995)
states, "~o person may be employed by a state agency or local governmental authority to
perform the duties of a building code administrator, plans examiner, or inspector after October 1,
1993, without possessing the proper valid certificate issued in accordance with the provisions of
this part."
7. On October 9, 1997 Roberts visited the Planning and Zoning department and
requested in \..:riting: (1) Tambri Heyden's Building Code Administrator license, (2) a wrinen job
description of duties and responsibilities of the Director of Planning and Zoning, (3) copies of all
signatures as they appear on the plan review for the Clear Copy site plan for both site plan
reviews in 1995 and 1997, specifically including signatures of the officials who appro\"ed the site
plans prior to granting site plan approval and building permits, and (4) copies of aliI icenses of
City officials who signed the plan review. The City employee Roberts met at the Planning and
Zoning Department, "Doris", denied Roberts request and directed Roberts to make the same
request to the City attorney's office.
l!I
8. On October 9. 1997, Roberts requested to the City attorney's office in writing by
tacsimik (1) Tambri Heyden's Building Code Administrator license. (2) a written job
3
d~scriplion of duti~s :'l11d r~sponsibilities ofth~ Dir~ctor of Planning and Zoning, (3) copi~s of all
signatures as they appear on the plan review for the Clear Copy site plan for both sik pian
revie\\s in 1995 and 1997. specifically including signatures of the ofiicials who approved the site
plans prior to granting site plan appro\'al and building permits. and (4) copies of all licenses of
City ot1icials who signed the plan review. (Exhibit "B" attached and made a part hereof).
9. On October 20, 1997, Leonard Rubin, Assistant City Attorney for Boynton Beach,
advised Roberts: (1) that there was no record of T ambri Heyden's Building C ode Administrator
license. (2) that Roberts will be provided with a copy of the job description for the position of
Director of PlaIUling and Zoning, (3) that no city officials' signatures "appear on the plan
review". and more specific information was needed in that regard. (Exhibit "C" attached and
made a part hereof). The City did not provide Heyden's license which she is required to have
under Fla. Stat. Section 468 (1995). The City did not provide either the signatures or the licenses
of the City officials who signed Clear Copy's site plan during the site plan review process. The
City used the prete:>..-t for denying access to the information that more specific information
conceming the officials who signed Clear Copy's site plan review was needed. For some reason,
the City was unable to conclude from Roberts' request that Roberts wanted proof that licensed
City officials had approved Clear Copy's site plan,
C. THE SECO:'\D A TTE:.\IPT
10. On October 22. 1997, Roberts responded to Rubin's October 10. 1997 letter. Roberts
again requested the signatures on the 1997 site plan review: Roberts also requested "any and all
documentation showing the site plan revieW was done" for the Clear Copy site and included the
".
requests for the City's departments' written comments and conditions for the Clear Copy site
plan. Roberts elaborated on the initial request. requesting "any and all documents relating to the
4
approval" and "copies of the State of Florida lic~ns~s for ~al.:h !,lan r~\'iew~r \\ ho ga\'~ their
approval." (Exhibit "D" attached and made a part h~reof),
11. On October 30. 1997, the City pro\'ided Robe"11s \\'ith a list of memorandums trom
various City departm~nts including copi~s of the memorandums. (Exhibit .'E" attached and made
a part hereof). Conspicuously absent. however. was Tambri Heyden's license as required
pursuant to Fla. Stat. Section 468 (1995), the job description for the position of Director of
Planning and Zoning, and the licenses for the City employees who revie\ved Clear Copy's site
plan.
D. THE FI~AL DENIAL
12. Roberts subsequently visited the City attorney's office to obtain the documents
attached to the October 30, 1997 letter. Roberts met with an assistant City attorney and advised
that the documents provided with the October 30, 1997 letter were incomplete. Specifically, the
job description of the Director of Planning and Zoning was missing and the licenses from the
City officials who approved Clear Copy's site plan were missing. The assistant City attomey
responded that he could not get involved with the issue presented and to speak with the City
attorney's secretary. Roberts then spoke with the City attorney's secretary who advised that she
would call Roberts, Roberts never received a call, and no additional information was
forthcoming from the City attorney's office.
13. Having no response from the City attorney's office. Roberts is now compelled to file
this action. ~1any of the requested documents have still not been produced.
14. The requested documents were made or received by the City's employees in
~
connection with the transaction of the City's official business and were prepared with the int~nt .
to communicat~, perp~tuate or fonnalize knowledge. Therefore these documents constitute
5
...-------------
public r~-=ords \\ithin th~ l11eaningofsection 119.011. See She\'in v. Bnon. Harless, SchatTer.
Reid and .-\ssoc., 379 So, 2d 633,640 (Fla. 1980),
15. The City's refusal to provide access to public records and to timely St:lte the basis for
a statutory exemption violaks section 119.07,
III. RELIEF REQl3ESTED
16. The City's continual refusal to permit the inspection and examination of public
records as provided by law is a refusal to perform an official ministerial duty in violation of
section 119.07 of the Public Records Act.
17. A Writ of ~fandamus is the appropriate remedy to compel the City to perform the
specific. legal, ministerial duty of permitting the inspection, examination, and copying of any
original public records by.,any person desiring to do so, at reasonable times, under reasonable
conditions, pursuant to section 119.07.
18, Roberts has a clear legal right to insist upon the performance of the City's ministerial
duty to provide timely access to the requested records or cite, in writing, with particularity, the
basis to withhold the requested records. ~lills v. Dovle, 407 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 4lh DCA 1981);
Von Stephens v, School Board of Sarasota Co., 338 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976),
19, The Petitioner is entitled to an immediate hearing on this Petition, "giving the case
priority o\'er other pending cases." See Fla. Stat. Section 119.11 (1) (1995).
WHEREFORE, Roberts requests that the Court issue an Alternative Writ of~landamus
commanding the City to either produce public records and discontinue a policy and practice of
denying Roberts access to public records or show cause why the relief sought herein should not
It!
be granted: and that the Court grant Roberts all costs and attorney's fees as pro\'ided by section
119,12, Florida Statutes, and such further relief as the Court may deem proper.
6
CO:\IPL.-\I~T FOR :\L-\:\O.-\TORY I~.JF\CTIO\
This is an action for a p~m1an~nt. mandatory injunction brought against th~ City.
20. Rob~rts realleges paragraphs 1 through 18 contained in the Petition for Writ of
~landamus as if set forth fully herein.
21. The City has been and is now in contravention of the Public Records .-\ct. Chapter
119, Florida Statutes, by engaging in policies arbitrarily and unlawfully denying Rob~rts access
to public records without the benefit of a statutory exemption.
22. The City's actions amount to a knowing and willful effort to violate the lettef and
spirit of the Public Records Act.
23. Upon information and belief, the City has instituted a policy of discriminatorily
denying the City with access to public records as evidenced by its continued attempts to find
alternative bases to avoid providing the City with access to public documents.
24. Unless enjoined, the above enumerated policies and practices of the City shall cause
irreparable harm to Roberts by causing him not to have documents needed in evaluating the
Clear Copy site plan in its compliance with the City's Land Development Regulations, an
evaluation that must occur immediately as a petition for Writ of Certiorari is now pending before
the Court to determine whether the City's site plan approval is proper.
25. Roberts has been forced to expend the efforts of the undersigned counsel and has
become obligated to pay a reasonable attorney's fee fOf his services. Such fees and costs are
recoverable against the City pursuant to section 119.12 of the Public R~cords Act.
WHEREFORE. Rob~rts requests that this Court, after an accderated final hearing
~
pursuant to section 119.11 of the Public Records .-\ct, issue a perman~nt mandatory injunction
enjoining and restraining the City and its agents. servants and employees from engaging in
7
pra(ti-:~s that ~ontra\'cn~ th~ Public R~cords .-\ct. and in particular ~njoining and r~strail1il1g th~
City from:
a, discriminating against Roberts in the City's duty to provide access to public records in
a timely manner; and,
b. withholding public documents based on a desire to preclude their review by Roberts
prior to the proper site plan approval for Clear Copy and enforcement of the Land Development
Regulations to which the documents pertain.
Roberts further requests entry of an order awarding costs and attorney's fees against the
City as provided by section 119.12, Florida Statutes, and such further relief as the Court may
deem proper.
Respectfully submitted,
By:
Regl a i
Bar :\0. 571 27
1400 Centrepark Blvd., Suite 860
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Attorney for Petitioner
~
8
I~ THE 15TH JCDICI.-\L CIRCL7IT COeRT.
PAD1BE CHCOl!NTY,F001~; 0 5 fiS-
C AS E :-.J
DR. ~IARK ROBERTS,
Petitioner,
copy
"ECC:1'J:D FQct F\LIN3
ORIGINAL n -
v.
THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH,
a Florida !\lunicipal Corporation,
NO'l 1'l \tfn
THY H WILKEN
OQR~r- CIRCUIT .cC?\'; RT
C~~~\JIT CIVIL Ol~\SION
Respondent.
COMPLAI~T
DR. MARK ROBERTS, ("Roberts"), files this Petition and Complaint against
THE CITY OF BOY~TON BEACH ("'City"), and says:
Roberts presents this Petition for Writ of Mandamus pursuant to Rule 1.630,
Florida Rules of Civil Procedure; and a Complaint for Injunction, pursuant to Rule 1.610,
Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.
PETITION FOR \VRIT OF .'IANDA~"CS
1. .JrRISDICTIO~
This Court has jurisdiction over this petition pursuant to Article V. Section 5 (b),
Florida Constitution, which grants circuit courts original jurisdiction to issue writs of
mandamus. This Petition is brought pursuant to Rule 1.630, Florida Rules of Civil
Procedure.
II. THE FACTS
1!'
A.OVERVIE\V
1. Roberts is a Florida resident having a dental practice in Palm Beach County,
Florida. Roberts owns property contiguous to a site known as "Clear Copy" which has
had a sik plan and building construct~d that Rob~rts cont~sts is not in accordanc~ with
th~ City of Boynton Beach' s Land De\'dopm~nt R~gulations ("Land D~\'dopment
Regulations')
2. Roberts llses public records as a principal source of infonnation to assure the
Clear Copy site is in accordance with the Land Development Regulations and the City is
acting in accordance with Florida law in their site plan approval process.
3, The City is a Florida municipal corporation and has a ministerial duty to
permit the inspection, examination, and copying of the public records of the City by any
person desiring to inspect such records at reasonable times and under reasonable
conditions pursuant to section 119.07. Florida Statutes. See Fla. Stat. Section 119.07
(1995 & Supp. 1996) (the "Public Records Ac1").
4. Section 119.011 defines "public records" which are open to inspection as
follows: ..... all documents, papers, letters. maps, books, tapes, photographs, films, sound
recordings. data processing sofh.vare, or other material, regardless of the physical form,
characteristics. or means of transmission, made or received pursuant to law or ordinance
or in connection with the transaction of official business by any agency."
), Csing a series ofprete:-'1s. the City has unlav.;tully denied Roberts with access
to public records. At first, the City denied access by ad\'ising documents did not exisI,
more specific infonnation was needed, or documents would be provided at a later time,
with no specified date and time. Subsequently, Roberts provided more specific
information and additional specific requests. but the City has not provided Roberts with
""
all of the i nfonnation requested.
2
B. THE I~ITIAL DE;\LU..
6. On October 8, 1997. Susan ~Iitch~IL an employ~e of Roberts, made a written
request to obtain copies ofTambri Heyden and .-\1 ~e\\ bold's building cod~ administrator
licenses as required pursuant to Fla. Stat. Section 468 (1995). (Exhibit "A," attached and
mad~ a part hereot). Tambri Heyden, Director of Planning and Zoning for the City of
Boynton Beach. and .-\1 ~ e,,,'bold are employees of the City of Boynton Beach. Fla. Stat.
Section 468,607 (1995) states, "No person may be employed by a state agency or local
goverrunental authority to perform the duties of a building code administrator, plans
examiner, or inspector after October 1, 1993, without possessing the proper valid
certificate issued in accordance with the provisions of this part."
7. On October 9, 1997 Roberts visited the Planning and Zoning department and
requested in writing: (1) Tambri Heyden's Building Code Administrator license, (2) a
\.\Ti tt en job description of duties and responsibilities of the Director ofPlaIUling and
Zoning, (3) copies of all signatures as they appear on the plan review for the Clear Copy
site plan for both site plan reviews in 1995 and 1997, specifically including signatures of
the officials \\'ho approved the site plans prior to granting site plan approval and building
permits, and (4) copies of all licenses of City officials who signed the plan review. The
City employee Roberts met at the Planning and Zoning Department, "Doris", denied
Roberts request and directed Roberts to make the same request to the City attorney's
office.
8. On October 9, 1997, Roberts requested to the City attorney's of1ic.:e in writing
by facsimile: (1) Tambri Heyden's Building Code Administrator license, (2) a written job
description of duties and responsibilities of the Director of Planning and Zoning, (3)
copies of all signatures as they appear on the plan review for the Clear Copy site plan for
3
.._._~--_.__.---_._-'_.__._-'-,.,.- ..
both site plan reviews in 1995 and 1997. spe~ifi.:ally induding signatures of the 0t1i~i:1ls
who appro\'ed the site plans prior to granting site plan approval and building permits, and
(4) ~opies of all licenses of City ot1i(;ials who sign~d the plan review, (Exhibit "S"
attached and made a part hereof).
9, On October 20. 1997. Leonard Rubin. .-\s5istant City Attorney for Bovnton
. . 01. 01
Beach, advised Roberts: (1) that there was no record ofTambri Heyden's Building Code
Administrator license, (2) that Roberts will be provided with a copy of the job description
for the position of Director of PlaMing and Zoning, (3) that no city officials' signatures
"appear on the plan review", and more specific information was needed in that regard.
(Exhibit "c" attached and made a part hereof), The City did not provide Heyden's
license which she is required to have under Fla. Stat. Section 468 (1995). The City did
not provide either the signatures or the licenses of the City officials who signed Clear
Copy's site plan during the site plan review process. The City used the prete:--1 for
denying access to the information that more specific information concerning the officials
who signed Clear Copy's site plan review wac; needed. For some reason, the City was
unable to conclude from Roberts' request that Roberts wanted proof that licensed City
officials had approved Clear Copy's site plan.
C. THE SECO:\D .-\TTE:\lPT
10, On October 22, 1997. Roberts responded to Rubin's October 10, 1997 letter,
Roberts again requested the signatures on the 1997 site plan review; Roberts also
requested "'any and all documentation showing the site plan review was done"' for the
ltI
Clear Copy site and included the requests for the City' s departments' written comments
and conditions for the Clear Copy site plan, Roberts elaborated on the initial request,
requesting "any and all documents relating to the appro\'al"' and "copies of the State of
...
Florida lic~ns~s for ~ach plan r~\'i~w~r who ga\'~ lh~ir approval." (Exhibit "0" attach~d
and mad~ a pal1 h~r~ot),
11. On Octob~r 30. 1997, th~ City pro\'id~d Rob~rts \\'ith a list of m~morandums
from various City departments induding copies of the memorandums. (Exhibit "E"
attached and made a part hereof). Conspicuously absent, however, was Tambri Heyden's
license as required pursuant to Fla. Stat. Section 468 (1995), the job description for the
position of Director of PlalU1ing and Zoning, and the licenses for the City employees who
reviewed Clear Copy's site plan.
D. THE FI~AL DENIAL
12. Roberts mbsequently visited the City attorney's office to obtain the
documents attached to the O.:tober 30. 1997 letter. Roberts met with an assistant City
attorney and advised that the documents provided with the October 30, 1997 letter were
incomplete. Specifically, the job description of the Director of Planning and Zoning \\'as
missing and the licenses from the City officials who approved Clear Copy's site plan
were missing. The assistant City attorney responded that he could not get involved with
the issue presented and to speak with the City attorney's secretary. Roberts then spoke
with the City attorney's secretary who advised that she would call Roberts. Roberts
never received a call, and no additional information was forthcoming from the City
attorney's office.
13. Having no response from the City attorney's office, Roberts is now
compelled to file this action. \fany of the requested documents have still not been
1t
produced.
14, The requested documents were made or received by the City's employees in
conn~ction with the transaction of the City's official business and were prepared with the
5
illknt tl) communicak. p~rpduak or formaliz~ kJ10\\ kdg~, Thcrd~)r~ {h~se docum~nts
constitut~ public records within th~ meaning of s~ction 119.0 II. S~~ Shcvin \'. BHon.
Har]~ss. SchatT~r. R~id and .-\.ssoc,. 379 So, 2d 633. 6~0 (Fla. 1980),
1 S. The City's r~fusal to provide access to public records and to timely state the
basis for a statutory exemption violates section 119.07,
III. RELIEF REQl!ESTED
16. The City's continual refusal to permit the inspection and examination of
public records as provided by law is a refusal to perform an official ministerial duty in
violation of section 119.07 of the Public Records Act.
17. A Writ of ~,landamus is the appropriate remedy to compel the City to perform
the specific, legal, ministerial duty of permitting the inspection, examination, and
copying of any original public records by any person desiring to do so, at reasonable
times, under reasonable conditions, pursuant to section 119,07.
18. Roberts has a clear legal right to insist upon the performance of the City's
ministerial duty to provide timely access to the requested records or cite, in writing, with
particularity, the basis to withhold the requested records, ~lil]s v. Dovle. 407 So, 2d 348
(Fla. 41h DCA 1981)~ Von Stephens v. School Board of Sarasota Co,. 338 So. 2d 890 (Fla.
2d DC A 1976).
19. The Petitioner is entitled to an immediate hearing on this Petition, "'giving the
case priority over other pending cases'" See Fla. Stat. Section 119.11(1) (1995).
CO.\IPL.\I:\1T FOR 7\ 1..\:'\ D..\ TORY I:\TJC:'\CTIO:'1"
It<
This is an action for a pennanent. mandatory injunction brought against the City.
20. Roberts real leges paragraphs 1 through 18 contained in the Petition for \\'rit
of \landamus as if set forth fully herein.
G
21. Th~ City has b~~n and is now in contrav~ntion ofth~ Public R~cords ..\ct.
Chapt~r 119, Florida Statut~s, by c:ngaging in polici~s arbitrarily and unlawfully d~nying
Robc:rts accc:ss to public rc:cords \\'ithout the bendit of a statutory exemption.
22. The City's actions amount to a knmving and ,...illful dfort to violate the I~tt~r
and spirit of the Public Records Act.
23. Cpon infonllation and belief, the City has instituted a policy of
discriminatorily denying the City with access to public records as evidenced by its
continued attempts to find alternative bases to avoid providing the City with access to
public documents.
24. Unless enjoined, the above enumerated policies and practices of the City shall
cause irreparable harm to Roberts by causing him not to have documents needed in
evaluating the Clear Copy site plan in its compliance with the City's Land Development
Regulations, an evaluation that must occur immediately as a petition for \\'rit of
Certiorari is now pending before the Court to determine whether the City's site plan
appro\'al is proper.
25, Roberts has been forced to expend the efforts of the undersigned counsel and
has become obligated to pay a reasonable attorney's fee for his services. Such fees and
costs are recoverable against the City pursuant to section 119.12 of the Public Records
Act.
WHEREFORE, Roberts r~quests that this Court, after an accelerated final hearing
pursuant to section 119.11 of the Public Records Act, issue a permanent mandatory
i'iijunction enjoining and restraining the City and its agents, servants and employees from
engaging in practices that contra \'ene the Public Records Act, and in particular enjoining
and restraining the City from:
7
a, discriminating against Roberts in the City's duty to pro\'ide access to public
records in a ti md v m.l!U1~r: and,
. .
b. \..ithholding public docum~nts based on a desire to preclude their re\'iew by
Roberts prior to the proper site plan approval for Ch~ar Copy and enforcement ofth~
Land Development Regulations to which the documents pertain.
Roberts further requests entry of an order awarding costs and attorney's fees
against the City as provided by section 119.12, Florida Statutes, and such further relief as
the COU11 may deem proper.
Respectfully submitted,
By:
mbaugh, Esq.
Bar :-':0.957127
1400 Centrepark Blvd., Suite 860
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Attorney for Petitioner
..
8
---_.."------~-----
. /;/.~ ( J) -1-
. 'f;: ,. .._.l.../Lr/"7 7.~. (,') /' -:f.,,{,/ .
_ Lk f____/ ! <./ / - ---- ...ffi OF 8OYHTOIIIEACH
/ REQUEST ~ MlIC Its:atD IMf~nfJf
Request su~1tted by:
J7;)-- ?C7C
(Name )
(Address)
Requested Infonnat1on:
'.: '.:':K &.. RQIU.Jua. 0.0& .
8:::0 W. BOYNTON BEACH BUIQ.
~UITE 112
S':f~'i\~Tot~ E,~ACH, FlORIDA ~2e
.;j(;/- 73r; -/7CO
(Phone I)
ORO lNAHCE NO.
RESOlUTION NO.
MINUTES:
Meeting & Date (Complete Set)
Meeting & Date (Excerpt Only)
. .
Verbatim Excerpt (Subject to hourly charge
Recording Secretary's Wage):
9THER' ~/7C{."'90"'J'''d' &-p-<~.o c--I ~'rnhJu~ &/dt.7t2 ~'?7~
Al /J tI. , ~;'..L ". j /? /f ;f
UJ de. L.e.g;;..?;tL,~rj.-.f'! -bY? ,;()~ Lc.""': ..,'/!..e~~. ~ tL ~;
!/L /, ~ ~.A ///77 "., C'-;' 'L '~;L/ h.~/;,'1..u :;c,o
() ....~ ,. ,. ~ {/ (/
.~ VzaCJZccJ 7/& P j 1:_. ~-&.-; ~~'. .
NOTICE..I eJ/0~ '0
1. You may inspect the requested records without charge unless the nature or ,~
volume requested requires extensive c1er1cal or supervisory assistance in
which case you will be advised of a special service charge.
2. Plain paper copies shall be furntshed upon payment of 1St if the paper is
copted on one side, and 20t if the paper 1s copied on both sides.
3. Copies of m1crof1che shall be furnished upon payment of 2Sc per page (copy
on one s1d~'of the paper only).
4. Cert1fJcat1on of documentations shall be charged at $1.00 per document.
5. Used cassette tapes shall be furnished at a tharge of $1.00 each.
/'0 - "p- <7 7
Oa te 0 r Reques t
/11~ ~-&~ ))j)d.
SIgnature of Requesttng Party
€)(.t'\ \ <:>'rr 'I ~'I
,
;{ , .,
. . -wi' '/ //./
--!~ ~c.~ ) <..iJ~
. ;
.... N OF BOYNTON lEACH
~T Fat PUBlIC JtEttWtD IMfQbV..Tlt1C
Request submitted by:
Sla-: &d:lY
(Name )
(Addre,,)
Requested Infonmation:
~ ~... r::K e ROBERTS. !J .o.S.
.. . "",\" .
. -. .,. o-,\q.rrO~l gi ''''r: ~I vo
\.. .~ oJ .... .....,
SUITE #2
_ -'V'. .-....<: c: .!-.("~ ~I ORIDA 33426
.. ..~~/- 7 S? -/7C,.;-rO
(Phone .>
ORDlMAHCE MO.
RESOLUTION NO.
MINUTES:
Meeting & Oate (Complete Set)
Meeting & Oate (Excerpt Only)
. .
Verbatim Excerpt (Subject to hourly charge
Recording Secretary's Wage):
OTHER:
~~~
r .
/l~ "' ~ ..//.?-Z::-
tJ
NOTICE:
1. You may inspect the requested records ~1thout charge unless the nature or
volume requested requires extensive clerical or supervisory assistance in
which case you will be advised of a special service charge.
2. Plain paper copies shall be furnished upon payment of 1St if the paper 1s
copied on one side, and 20t if the paper is copted on both sides.
J. Copies of m1crof1che shall be furnished upon payment of 25( per page (copy
on one sid~'of the paper only).
4. Certif~atton of documentations shall be charged at $1.00 per document.
5. Used cassette tapes shall be furnished at a tharge of $1.00 each.
/0- 7- 97
DelC! of Request
arty
e.'(rq~\\ .r.811
A. . _ ~ .
-------------._---~
J
/
/
316-- Gd. Jc.;
PUBLIC RECORD REOUEST
10/9/97
1. Tambri Heyden's Building Code Administrator license.
2. Written job description of duties and responsibilities of the Director of Planning and
Zonin&:..
3. Copies of all signatures as they appear on the plan review for the Clear Copy site plan for
both site plan reviews in 1995 and 1997. Specifically, those officials who approved the
site plans prior to granting site plan approval and building permits.
4. ~opies of all licenses of City officials who signed the plan review.
., :" j
.t f _, ""
:. ,': \
.. . ... .. ...." ~ '.
; . ..... .... ;.. ' .~
. '. : ;. I . '! .-
JOSIAS, GOREN, CHEROF, DOODY & EZROL, PA.
ATTORNEYS AT '.AW
SUITE 200
3099 EAST COMMERCIAL. aOUL.EVARD
FORT LAUDERDA.LE, FLORIDA. 33306
STEVEN L.. JOSIAS
SAMUEL. S. GOREN
JAMES A. CHEROF'
OONAL.O J. DOODY
KERRY L.. EZROL
TEl-EPHONE (954) 771.4500
F'ACSIMILE (9541 771.4923
L.EDNARD G. RUalN
ROBERT W. VALE
MICHAEL D. CIRULL.O. .JR.
October 20, 1997
Mark E. Roberts, D.D.S.
650 West Boynton Beach Boulevard
Suite #2
Boynton Beach, Florida 33426
Re: Public Records Reauest
Dear Dr. Roberts:
I am in receipt of your Public Records Request dated October 9, 1997 submitted
to the City of Boynton Beach's Human Resources Department. In response, I have the
following comments:
1. No such record is available.
2. You will be provided with a copy of the job description for the
position of Director of Planning and Zoning.
3. No City signatures of City officials "appear on the plan review."
Thus, your request cannot be processed without more specific
information.
4. See comment for item three.
Please forward any future public records requests to the City Clerk's Office for
processing. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.
Sincerely yours,
~
..
LEONARD G. RUBIN
Assistant City Attorney
LGR/lmh
950400lROBERTS7L TR
cc:
James Cherof, City Attorney
Tambri Heyden, Planning Director
Human Resources Department
\I l' (I
\.2,'l--M\O\\ '--
._--"--------
'-----
Mark E. Roberts, D.D.S.
650 Wesl l3oynlon Beach I3lvd.. Suile H2. l3oynlon Beach. fL 33426 ,(407) 736-1700
October, 22, 1997
Leonard G. Rubin
Assistant City Attorney
City of Boynton Beach
Boynton Beach, FL 33435
Re: Public Records Request
Dear Mr. Rubin:
Your October 20, 1997 letter states: No City signatures of
City officials "appear on the plan review." Thus, your request
cannot be processed without more specific information.
I have Clear Copy's 1995 site plan review in my possession.
It has the signatures of the officials who granted their approvals.
When officials perform site plan review, their written comments and
signatures are the only way to document their review and approval.
If there are no signatures on the 1997 review, this may be an
indication the site plan review was not done. Please provide me
any and all documentation showin the site plan review was done;
an ~n J.cate why the officials d~ not sJ.gn t e p an revJ.ew.
According to, the City's Land Development Regulations, the
development department, fire department, utilities department,
public,works department, police department, city forester, planning
and zoning department, and technical review committee (TRC) should
each have provided written comments and conditions.
At the September 23, 1997 Board of Planning and Development
hearing, Ms. Heyden indicated Clear Copy's plans were reviewed and
approved by Staff, but Staff had no comments. Please provide me
with all the names of those officials who reviewed Clear Copy's
site plans and gave their approvals with no comments. I request
any and all documents relating to the approval. In addition to the
above, I would like copies of the State of Florida licenses for
each plan reviewer whogave t:.helr approval.
'lj
Mark E. Roberts, D.D.S.
'"
MER:sm
SENT BY FACSIMILE: 375-6054 ~~ ~ e<u ~ /o-.J9'_'!
cc: Reginald Stambaugh, Esquire ~7 //.. '" ONAI
E:/(M\OI\ \\Q)I
The City of
Boynton Beach
100 E. Boynton Beach Boulevard
P,O. Box 310
Boynton Beach, Florida 33425-0310
Office o/the City Arrorney
(561) 375-6050
FAX: (561) 375-6054
October 3D, 1997
Mark E. Roberts, D.D.S.
650 West Boynton Beach Blvd., Suite #2
Boynton Beach, FL 33435
Re: Public Records Request
Dear Dr. Roberts:
Pursuant to your most recent correspondence of October 22, 1997,
attached are copies of the following:
1. Memorandum No. 97-435, from T ambri Heyden, dated August 19,
1997, directed to the members of the Technical Review Committee,
regarding the Major Site Plan Modification for Clear Copy;
2. Memorandum No. 97-298, dated September 12, 1997, from William
D. Cavanaugh directed to Tambri Heyden;
3. Memorandum No. 97-464, dated September 12 ,1997, from Jerzy
Lewicki, directed to File - MSPM 97-002);
4.
Memorandum No. 97-222, dated September 4, 1997, from Mark
Lips, Sanitation Foreman, directed to Tambri Heyden;
5. Memorandum No. 97-291, dated August 28, 1997, from John A.
Guidry, directed to Tambri Heyden;
6. Memorandum No. 07-0052, dated August 21, 1997, from Sgt.
Marlon Harris, directed to Tambri Heyden;
.
7. Memorandum No. 97-238, dated September 5.1997, from AI
Newbold, directed to Tambri Heyden;
'I1n Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action/ADA Employer"
E:. 'f...,'I: \ <s', \"
,\_"
Co
8. Memorandum No. 97-395, dated August 20, 1997, from John
Wildner, directed to Tambri Heyden;
9. Recreation & Park Memorandum, dated August 26, 1997, from
Kevin John Hallahan, directed to Tambri Heyden;
10. Letter from Lake Worth Drainage District, dated September 5,
1997, directed to Tambri J. Heyden.
The cost for copying is $1.65 (11 pages @ $.15 per page) and can be paid
directed to the Finance Department of the City, at the above address.
Very truly yours,
.{#Ju mcwi ~
Rose Marie Lamanna
Legal Assistant
sl
Encs. as stated
cc: Leonard G. Rubin, Esq.
Kerry Willis, City Manager
1:c:a~_\ths\PUblic: 1~1
..
~-_._..__._~---------
+
RECEIVED
OCT 15 1097
CITY OF tiOYNTON
BEACH
CITY ClERK'S
OFFICE A~<
~ 9~
Ji)iL 'J'~~ ~<Z: ~<(
ChJA-/ ~1 /vt~,r 0
ll:('M' BOARD OF PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY OF BOYNTON
BEACH IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY,
lIP 9700924 3fl'j
MARK E. ROBERTS
Appellant/Petitioner
(~F"''1!
oru~.s1!. ~~i_, .' ,":, ~'j? !='lLIING
v.
OCT 1 5 1997
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH,
D",";.~D1:--'( ;.~ ~'~-,'1U~.
C~ CiviL -
;ii~l,
'., I, ,~.i' ",
Appellee/Respondent,
/
NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL
and NOTICE OF RELATED CASES
Notice is given that Petitioner, MARK E. ROBERTS, appeals to the Circuit. Court of the
Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, the administrative action of the
Planning and Development Board of Boynton Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, granting the
Motion to approve Mr. Bob Feldman's/Clear Copy's request for Major Modification Site Plan
Approval on September 23, 1997. The Major Modification Site Plan Approval regarded the
development project known as "Clear Copy", located at 660 West Boynton Beach Blvd., Boynton
Beach, Florida. Clear Copy sought approval of a major modification site plan approval for a 3,780
square feet, two story building on a .3145 acre site. A copy of the Minutes of the Regular Planning
and Development Board Meeting is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". The nature of the administrative
action by the Planning and Development Board of Boynton Beach is the final approval of a major
modification site plan application for commercial property located in Boynton Beach, Palm Beach
County, Florida.
There are two related cases still before the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach
County, Florida, The Case Numbers are AP 95-8266 A Y and AP 96-4870 A Y. The three Judges
who are presiding over the cases are Judges Cook, Marra, and Carlisle, JJ. In leu of the fact the three
Judges are already familiar with the facts of this similar case, the Petitioner directs the Clerk to have
this case heard betore Judges Cook, Marra, and Carlisle, JJ. as a matter of judicial economy and
et1iciency and pursuant to local rules of consolidating related cases,
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 15th day of October, 1997, a true and correct copy of the
toregoing document was furnished by hand delivery to the Clerk of the City of Boynton Beach,
Boynton Beach City Hall, Boynton Beach, Florida 33436.
MARK E. ROBERTS, Pro Se
650 West Boynton Beach Blvd,
Suite 2
Boynton Beach, Florida 33426
Telephone: (561) 7}611,700 ,
- J." . '. .
;. ,~.'// , ..... \. I ,.
/ / /../' / / .:1'-
B I . " f~' ,-' .-
Y' y.' _ . ./ ;r
. " ,. '" ,.
MARK E. ROBERTS, D.D.S.
h', b; t ,-' A (/
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETI
COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLO
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1997, AT 7:00 P.M.
~ING AND
ONING DEPT.
PRESENT
Lee Wische, Chairman
Jim Golden. Vice Chairman
Mike Friedland
Stan Dube
Pat Frazier
Maurice Rosenstock
Steve Myott, Alternate
James Reed, Alternate
Tambri Heyden, Planning and Zoning
Administrator
Jerzy Lewicki, Assistant Planner
Leonard Rubin, Assistant City
Attorney
ABSENT
Jose Aguila
1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chairman Wische called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and introduced the members
of the board and Attorney Rubin. Mr. Myott sat at the dais as a voting member.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was recited.
2. INTRODUCTION OF MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS AND BOARD MEMBERS
This item was dispensed with before the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
3. AGENDA APPROVAL
No additions, deletions, or corrections were made to the agenda.
Motion
Mr. Dube moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Vice Chairman Golden
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously,
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
No additions, deletions, or corrections were made to the minutes of the last meeting,
MINUTES
PLANNING AND DEVE PMENT BOARD MEETING
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
SEPTEMBER 23, 1997
Motion
Mr, Rosenstock moved to approve the minutes of the September 9, 1997 meeting as
submitted, Mr, Dube seconded the motion, which carried unanimously,
5. COMMUNICATIONS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
A. Report from the Planning and Zoning Department
1. Final City Commission Disposition of the agenda items from
the last Planning and Development Board meeting
Ms, Heyden reported the following:
The change in canopies on the office building at the Cross Creek Center was approved
by the City Commission meeting as submitted.
The City Commission decided it was important that the Chamber of Commerce
participate at the joint workshop with the City Commission and the Planning and
Development Board. This meeting is tentatively scheduled for mid November. Ms.
Heyden advised that staff discussed tying all the topics into a life safety approach. She
will be issuing a new agenda. Staff has identified a list of properties that they want to
photograph for the slide show. She will honor the board's request regarding a map and
tour so that they can visit the sites on their own prior to the workshop. She provided the
board with a copy of the old Community Design Plan.
6. SWEARING IN OF WITNESSES
All those who planned to testify at this meeting were sworn In by the Recording
Secretary,
7. OLD BUSINESS
None. l
Major Site Plan Modification
'j
'l'
(
N
~
8.
NEW BUSINESS
A. Site Plan
1.
Project:
Agent:
Clear Copy
Bob Feldman
2
MINUTES
PLANNING AND DEVEL_t'MENT BOARD MEETING
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
SEPTEMBER 23, 1997
Owner:
Location:
Bob Feldman
Southeast corner of Boynton Beach Boulevard
and N.W.7th Street
Request for site plan approval of a 3,780
square foot print shop on a .31 acre parcel of
land,
Description:
Bob Feldman was present to answer any questions.
Chairman Wische advised that the members of the board have reviewed the backup
material and are familiar with this project. He opened the public hearing.
Mark E. Roberts, D.D.S. voiced an objection to the application that Clear Copy has
submitted as a major site plan modification, He submitted a letter voicing his objection,
in addition to 13 exhibits and an excerpt of the minutes of the City commission meeting
held on March 19. 1996. (All these documents are attached to the original minutes of
this meeting.) Exhibit 1 is from the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and
for Palm Beach County, which indicates that the initial site plan was quashed.
Therefore, there is no site plan to modify. Exhibit 2 is a mandate from the Court to have
new site plan hearings, not modified site plan hearings. Exhibit 3 is a letter that Dr.
Roberts sent to Mr. Lewicki indicating that the site plan was quashed and that this
needs to be noticed as a new site plan hearing, not a modification of a site plan.
Attorney Rubin stated that the City will concede that it is a new site plan application.
Apparently, it was termed a modification because there was a previously submitted site
plan. However. it was processed by staff as a new site plan application, Dr. Roberts is
correct that the Court squashed the original site plan. It is a new site plan; however, the
procedure would be the same for a major modification or a new site plan.
Ms. Heyden stated that on September 19, 1995, the City Commission approved, subject
to staff comments, a site plan request for Clear Copy, This proposal was for a new print
shop and copy center to be located at the southeast corner of Boynton Beach
Boulevard and N.W. 7th Street, the address of which is 60 W. Boynton Beach
Boulevard. The property is currently zoned neighborhood commercial (C2) and has a
land use plan designation of local retail commercial. The applicant and property owner
is Bob Feldman. The property has a site area of .3145 acres and a building area of
3.780 square feet. After the City Commission approved the site plan, RHS Corporation
filed a Notice of Administrative Appeal. Prior to the resolution of that appeal, the
applicant proceeded through the permit process and the construction process and has
obtained a Certificate of Occupancy. The Court has determined that the City needs to
reprocess this application as a site plan; therefore, we are going back through the
process of site plan approval. This is why this application is before this board now.
3
MINUTES
PLANNING AND DEVEL_~MENT BOARD MEETING
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
SEPTEMBER 23, 1997
With respect to traffic, this has been reviewed by the Palm Beach County Traffic
Division and meets their standards, As requested by the Palm Beach County Traffic
Division, the applicant placed a restrictive covenant on the property that limits the use of '
the structure to a print shop, However, at any time in the future, if there were a desire to
change the use, it would have to go back to the Palm Beach County Traffic Division.
Our Engineering Division has determined that the drainage plans meet the city code
and drainage levels of service,
There are two driveways on 7th Street. The south driveway is ingress only and the north
driveway is egress only,
With regard to parking, access is on the west side of the property and parking spaces
are aligned along the east side of the property. There are 13 parking spaces, including
one handicap parking space. The Engineering Division, Police Department. Fire
Department, and Public Works Department have reviewed this layout and have
determined that the design meets the code with respect to adequate access for "
emergency and sanitation vehicles, In addition, because the property is already !'
constructed, we have the added benefit of seeing that this property works in terms of
access, .
The landscape design meets the city's landscape code. However, there is a
requirement in the landscape code for a perimeter hedge where parking spaces abut
the property line, Our landscape code allows one to receive credit for an existing hedge \
on an adjacent piece of property if that hedge meets the code requirements. This
hedge. at time of maturity. will meet code requirements. Therefore, a landscape strjp,;~
with hedge, in addition to what already exists on the adjacent property, has not been'
provided,
c
.\
.t
The plans meet the building and site regulations. The building coverage is 37 percent
and the building height is 25 feet.
The elevations that have been submitted. which are actually photographs of the existing
building. illustrate a two-story building with brick colored tile roofing. The exterior walls
are finished with a pink/peach stucco with white raised stucco bands. The windows are
arched with bronze colored shutters. The building has a Spanish/Mediterranean style.
which is compatible with the existing buildings to the east and west.
?- :
The freestanding sign indicated on the plans meets the sign code requirements.
There are no Technical Review Committee comments with respect to this project.
Therefore, staff recommends approval of this project as submitted,
4
-- - ---... _._----_._-_._._._--_.._--_._-~----
MINUTES
PLANNING AND DEVELvPMENT BOARD MEETING
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
SEPTEMBER 23, 1997
At this time. Chairman Wische acknowledged the presence of Mayor and Mrs. Jerry
Taylor.
Dr. Roberts asked Ms. Heyden if she is familiar with the City's Land Development
Regulations and the Landscape Code. Ms. Heyden answered affirmatively, Dr,
Roberts asked her what the word "shall" means in the code.
Dr. Roberts advised that the landscape code states that a landscape strip shall be two
and a half feet wide, The memorandum dated September 14, 1995 (Exhibit 9) that Ms,
Heyden presented to the City Commission states that Clear Copy has not provided a
landscape strip and hedge and has no room to provide it without significantly altering
the site plan. In this memorandum, Ms, Heyden indicates that the buffer did not meet
code, He asked how it meets code now.
Ms. Heyden advised that this is a brand new site plan submittal.
Dr. Roberts referred to AI Newbold's memorandum that states that from his observation
of the tie-in survey, the paving appears to be 1.58 feet wide. With regard to the
exemption that Ms. Heyden referred to, he stated that the landscape code states that it
is only valid when the existing hedge meets all applicable standards of the landscape
code. There are only two standards of the Code. One is that it has to be at least four ",,:
feet tall and not more than six feet high. The second is that it has to be two and a half'
feet wide. He asked Ms, Heyden if it is still her contention that the adjacent landscape
hedge meets code. '
Ms. Heyden advised that she has been interpreting the landscape code for ten and a
half years, Her interpretation of that section is that the existing hedge can be applied to
those standards if it meets code. The standard is the height of the hedge, She said it
meets code.
Dr. Roberts asked if Ms, Heyden prepared the document that was presented to the
board as the addendum backup, Ms. Heyden advised that it was a joint effort between
her staff and herself. Dr. Roberts said it states that the initial site plan was quashed
only because improper notice was given, He asked her if that is her position.
Attorney Rubin advised that the site plan was quashed because of notice. In addition, 'IVf.l.'~
the Court noted that the sidewalk was not the required width. However, that has been 'J ).' '
corrected in the new site plan application. '
Dr. Roberts inquired about the method of garbage pickup that Ms. Heyden is
recommending for this property, Ms, Heyden stated that the dumpster is located
southeast of the building and is currently being picked up by the Public Works
5
MINUTES
PLANNING AND DEVEL..-,PMENT BOARD MEETING
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
SEPTEMBER 23,1997
Department to their satisfaction. They have signed off on this plan without any
comments.
Dr. Roberts asked if it is legal for the City dump truck to encroach on the handicap
parking space when it enters to access the dumpster, Ms. Heyden did not know if that
is happening, She stated that per the Public Works Department, there is no problem ..
with this site in terms of sanitation vehicle access. Attorney Rubin did not know the
answer to Dr, Roberts' question but offered to research that issue. As far as he knows,
the space has been designed adequately.
Dr. Roberts referred to the September 14, 1995 memorandum in which Ms, Heyden
indicated that the City trucks did not have adequate access on the exact same site plan.
Now she is saying they do. He asked if the size of the City trucks has changed since
September 14, 1995,
Attorney Rubin pointed out that Dr. Roberts keeps referring to the 1995 memorandum
and the 1995 site plan, which has been quashed. He stated that what happened in
1995 is not relevant to the approval of this site plan.
Mr. Rosenstock asked Dr, Roberts' what his objection is to this site plan. Dr. Roberts
explained that he owns the building next door. He built the largest building that the City
would allow him to build on over seven tenths of an acre. It is 4,500 square feet. The
Clear Copy property is three tenths of an acre and the building is almost 4,000 square
feet. This building is over 100 percent larger than allowed by the City Building Codes.
He did not think anybody should be granted special favors and be allowed to build a
building that is twice the size of another building. Because this property has been over
built. he is sustaining substantial financial damages. His tenants want him to reduce
their rent because this building blocks his building, The City conditionally approved this
site plan with certain conditions, They have a fiduciary responsibility to assure that the
conditions were met before they issued building permits. Not one of the conditions was
met and the City did not enforce any of the conditions,
Mr. Rosenstock asked if this is true. Ms, Heyden and Attorney Rubin did not know this
to be a fact.
Dr. Roberts stated that one of the conditions was that the City had to verify that the
Sidewalk met code, Attorney Rubin stated that this issue was corrected. He reminded
Or. Roberts that this is a new site plan approval.
Or. Roberts advised that another condition was that the City had to verify that the
existing hedge was conforming. If it was not conforming, the new site plan was required
to .contain an additional buffer zone, The City verified that it was not conforming, yet
building permits were issued. The perimeter buffers are required to be a certain
6
MINUTES
PLANNING AND DEVEL....PMENT BOARD MEETING
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
SEPTEMBER 23, 1997
measurement, which they are not. The property does not meet the size requirements to
allow this size building,
Dr. Roberts stated that he has filed appeals against the landscape approval and the
Certificate of Occupancy, which the City has refused to allow this board to hear. He
stated that as a property owner. he has a right to be protected by the Land
Development Regulations, just as the property owners around him were protected when
he could not build his building twice the size that he would have liked to have built it. He
stated that the fact that the building is there is irrelevant. The issue is whether or not
the site plan meets the code. Ms. Heyden testified that the exact same access on the
site plan. which was substantially the same, did not have proper access. Now she is
testifying that it does. He asked jf the size of the trucks or the conditions have changed.
He stated that since the trucks did not legally have access to the property, and the
applicant testified that his shop was only going to generate one can of garbage per
week. the City only approved curbside pickup for regular garbage. The City never
approved a dumpster on this property because there is no proper access. The City only
approved curbside pickup; yet, the minute the CO was issued, the City illegally brought
a dumpster in and is illegally servicing the property.
Attorney Rubin stated that Dr. Roberts is addressing things that were approved the last
go-round. He advised that Dr, Roberts raised these issues the first go-round when he
filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari, and the only thing the Court found was the
sidewalk, which has been addressed. With regard to the appeals, this is not the proper
forum for that. Also, Dr. Roberts filed a mandamus action against the Cjty to have the
City hear his appeals, and that count was dismissed,
Dr. Roberts asked Ms, Heyden if the site plan that was submitted this evening is
different from the site plan that was previously determined by the Court as not meeting
the essential requirements of the law. Attorney Rubin stated that the Court only
addressed the initial site plan approval. There was an initial site plan approval and a
modification that staff determined was a minor modification, which Dr, Roberts also
challenged, The Court quashed the first site plan approval, which was the one that was
changed, and determined that the other site plan approval was moot. It is the City's
position that they never reached the modified site plan. Therefore, the Court never
really determined whether the modified site plan met the code or not. The sidewalk
issue was an issue in the very first one, and he believes it was corrected by the time it
was modified. The Court never got to the modified site plan.
Dr. Roberts asked if it was the City's argument to the Court that he did not prevail in the
second lawsuit. Attorney Rubin stated that the second lawsuit was rendered moot.
7
MINUTES
PLANNING AND DEVELvPMENT BOARD MEETING
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
SEPTEMBER 23, 1997
Dr, Roberts said the Court awarded him court costs because he prevailed, Attorney
Rubin agreed that Dr, Roberts was the prevailing party in the Petition for Writ of
Certiorari.
It seemed to Mr. Myott that the site plan review has gone through all the departments
and that the site plan, as submitted, generally conforms to the City's development
standards for site plan approval. Ms, Heyden confirmed that this is correct.
Dr, Roberts asked what the responsibilities of the Planning and Zoning Department
would be if it could be demonstrated that the new site plan has code violations. Ms.
Heyden stated that if there had been code violations, one of the Technical Review
Committee members would have listed them in their comments, If something was
overlooked. anybody can bring it up to us and we will see that it gets remedied.
Or. Roberts stated that the current plan that has been submitted has a notation on it that
the City will verify that the existing hedge is two and a half feet wide. For this particular
approval, Ms. Heyden stated that it does not matter jf that notation is on the plan. She /.
stated that only the landscape hedge has to meet that section. Staff has done a site
visit of the existing hedge and the strip. Staff did not have to measure the strip, but they
did it anyway, The hedge meets code.
Dr. Roberts stated that the landscape code states that the strip has to be 30 inches.
Ms, Heyden indicated in a memorandum that the strip is 20 inches. He asked how this
meets the code. Attorney Rubin stated that Ms. Heyden testified that it was the hedge
that had to be in conformance and that it is in conformance, Or. Roberts contended that
the hedge is not 30 inches and, therefore, does not meet the code,
rvlr. Rosenstock asked jf the Clear Copy building occupies more square footage than
permissible by the code and if a modification was granted, Ms. Heyden advised that the
building coverage is only 37 percent on this site and the code allows in excess of that.
Mr. Rosenstock asked if Or, Roberts could have built a bigger building. Ms. Heyden
answered affirmatively. Dr. Roberts explained that he would have had to have certain
requirements met, such as bumper strips and a certain amount of interior landscaping.
He advised -that the night tl1at this was approved, there were three site plans all on the
three corners of this property. Two of the site plans were turned down because one
was four inches too short and another was about eight inches too short, Clear Copy's,
which is 30 inches too narrow, was approved. He felt Clear Copy is being granted
special privileges that the farm store and pizza place were not granted.
Mr. Myott pointed out that the requirement is for a two and a half foot landscape strip,
not for a two and a half-foot hedge.
8
MINUTES
PLANNING AND DEVEL..JPMENT BOARD MEETING
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
SEPTEMBER 23, 1997
Dr. Roberts said the Code states that there has to be 30 inches of planting area
between the pavement on his side and the pavement on Clear Copy's side, but there is
only 20 inches. The Code also states that if the property next to you is vacant, you
have to install a 30-inch hedge. If you come in and there is a 30-inch hedge and it
meets code, you are exempt from putting it in. The Code further states that if you abut
a nonconforming hedge, you are required to install a hedge, He said he has been told
that because his hedge is nonconforming, that he cannot alter his building in any way
without ripping up his whole parking lot to make his parking lot conforming. He has
been granted a nonconforming status on his hedge, which means that he cannot alter or
modify his building in any way without upgrading it to meet the standards. He said Ms.
Heyden is stating that although the hedge is nonconforming for Dr. Roberts, it is
conforming for the adjacent property owner, He did not think this was fair, Ms. Heyden
could not verify that anybody from the City has told Mr, Roberts this.
Mr. Myott asked if Mr. Roberts could obtain a variance for this situation, Dr, Roberts
said he cannot because the condition was created by himself.
Dr. Roberts stated that he can produce records indicating that his property is considered
nonconforming and that when the Land Code was changed in 1992 he was
grandfathered in and can continually use his property as long as he does not alter it.
Or. Roberts stated that in the backup material, Ms, Heyden indicates that the City
Commission previously approved this modified site plan. He asked how she came to
that conclusion. Attorney Rubin questioned the relevance of this. but advised the City
Commission did not approve the modification, Instead, they ratified the Planning and
Zoning Director's determination that it was a minor modification,
Dr. Roberts stated that this site plan has never been approved. This is a new site plan
and it is irrelevant whether or not the building exists. He again asked if the size of the
garbage trucks has changed in the last two years, Ms. Heyden did not know that the
size of the trucks has changed. However, she stated that the Public Works Director is
satisfied that his sanitation vehicles can access this site adequately.
Motion
Mr. Dube moved to approve Bob Feldman's/Clear Copy's request for site plan approval
of a 3.780 square foot print shop on a .31 acre parcel of land. Mr. Friedland seconded
the motion, which carried 6-1. Mr, Rosenstock cast the dissenting vote,
9
MINUTES
PLANNING AND DEVEL..JPMENT BOARD MEETING
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
SEPTEMBER 23, 1997
9. COMMENTS BY MEMBERS
Mr. Myott felt the site plan could have been prepared more clearly and would appreciate
it if the department would ask for very clearly drawn site plans, He felt if site plans are
clearly drawn, it might help us to avoid conflicts like this in the future.
Mr. Rosenstock recalls Mr. Aguila pointing out that the color of this building was not the
color that was approved, yet nothing has been done about it. In addition, he recalls that
when this was approved, the applicant said that there was not going to be the need for a
dumpster on the property because he did not have much waste. He stated that when he
was Chairman of this board, every applicant had to sign all the plans and the City
Attorney drew up a form stating that the applicant would comply with all the requests
and conditions of all the City departments. He felt someone should follow-up to be sure
the requests and conditions are met.
'() C
v
Ms. Heyden stated that the building is painted the color that was approved, When the
building came through for the first site plan, it was pink. The staff comment was that the
building be changed to a peachy shade of pink. This board accepted that. A problem
arises if you are not specific and do not tie it down to a specific color chip or a name of a
color. Mr, Rosenstock suggested making applicants produce a chip,
Ms, Heyden advised that the board decided that the color was not an important enough
issue to require the applicant to come back before them and gave staff the authority to
work out that issue. With respect to the dumpster, when the board approves a site plan
subject to staff comments, there is still refinement that occurs during the permit process.
Mr. Rosenstock felt this board should know what the final decision is going to be. Ms,
Heyden stated that during the refinement process, as part of permitting, if the changes
meet the criteria in the code for a minor, they do not come back to this board. If the
board is concerned about this, she suggested that the minor criteria in the Code be
revisited,
Vice Chairman Golden inquired about Meadows Square Shopping Center, Ms. Heyden
stated that the decision has been made that since they have finished the building and
painted it already, that the City should not ask the applicant to repaint it. She explained
that City staff had indicated to the applicant that they did not need a permit.
Mr. Myott suggested requiring that people come before this board for color changes on
commercial property. Ms, Heyden advised that this would require a change to the
Code. She suggested bringing this up at the upcoming workshop and will add it to the
agenda.
10
MINUTES
PLANNING AND DEVE )PMENT BOARD MEETING
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
SEPTEMBER 23, 1997
10. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the board, Mr. Dube moved to adjourn
the meeting at 8:00 p.m, Vice Chairman Golden seconded the motion, which carried
unanimously. _
~ b~J4
Eve Eubanks'
Recording Secretary
(One Tape)
11
, DEVELOPMENT ORDER
('LT' ~,,)F BOYNTON BEACH, FLORI~
e e. . /"' -<'~'?C//U./"7
~
PROJECT NAME: Clear Copy
rn ~@~nwrn rn
~!""li'" I --~"j.-
L.,vl ' -,.. '. ~ I
-.......
PLANNING AND
ZONING DEPT
APPLICANT: Robert Feldman
APPLICANT'S AGENT: Robert Feldman
AGENT'S ADDRESS: 660 W. Boynton Beach Boulevard
DATE OF HEARING BEFORE CITY COMMISSION: October 7,1997
TYPE OF RELIEF SOUGHT: Major Site Plan Modification
lOCATION OF PROPERTY: 660 W. Boynton Beach Boulevard
DRAWING(S): SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO.
THIS MATTER came on to be heard before the City Commission of the City of Boynton
Beach, Florida on the date of hearing stated above. The City Commission having considered the
relief sought by the applicant and heard testimony from the applicant, members of city administrative
staff and the public finds as follows:
1. Application for the relief sought was made by the Applicant in a manner consistent with
the requirements of the City's land Development Regulations.
2. The Applicant
LHAS
HAS NOT
established by substantial competent evidence a basis for the relief requested.
3. The conditions for development requested by the Applicant, administrative staff, or
suggested by the public and supported by substantial competent evidence are as set
forth on Exhibit "B" with notation "Included".
4, The Applicant's application for relief is hereby
.2L GRANTED subject to the conditions referenced in paragraph 3 hereof.
DENIED
5. This Order shall take effect immediately upon issuance by the City Clerk.
6. All further development on the property shall be made in accordance with the terms
and conditions of this order.
7. Other
DATED: ~~/<S /997
~~~~/?I~
City Clerk
\\CHIMAIN\SHRDA T A\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\CLEAR COPY\MSPM\DEVELOPMENT ORDER.doc
EXHIBIT "B"
Conditions of Aooroval
Project name: Clear Copy
File number: MSPM 97-002
Reference: The olans consist of I 1 sheets identified as 1st Review. Maior Site Plan Modification. File #
MSPM 97-002 with a August 18. 1997 Planning and Zoning date stamo marking.
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
PUBLIC WORKS
Comments: None X
UTILITIES
Comments: None X
FIRE
Comments: None X
POLICE
Comments: None X
ENGINEERING DIVISION
Comments: None X
BUILDING DIVISION
Comments: None X
PARKS AND RECREATION
Comments: None X
FORESTER/ENVIRONMENTALIST
Comments: None X
PLANNING AND ZONING
Comments: None A
ADDITIONAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDITIONS --
1. NONE
ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS
2. ~ be: de:lellllille:d. ~q~
/bme
s:\projects\cond of appr\
MINUTES
CITY COMMISSION V\ .~KSHOP MEETING
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
OCTOBER 7, 1997
7. Proposed Resolution No. R97 -170 Re: Approving renewal
of contract with Child Care Resource and Referral, Inc., for
substitute teachers in the Latchkey Afterschool Program for the
1997 -98 fiscal year
8.
Proposed Resolution No. R97 -171 Re: Ratifying
appointment of Vance & Doney, PA to provide 1....-
related to the development of the Downtov
Improvements Project
the
~
\
" ~
,
c;;::-
"
1. Major Site Plan Modification for Clear Copy
~
'"'
"
f .~
"
\
~
''-.J
Commissioner Bradley pulled this item from the Consent Agenda for discl
D.
Ratification of Planning & Development Board Action
2. New Site Plan for Woolbright ..,Q'ulcal
Office............POSTPONED FROM AUGUST 19, 1997 CITY
COMMISSION MEETING
E. Approval of Bills
A list of these bills is attached to the original minutes of this meeting on file in the City
Clerk's Office.
F. Approve draft language in Request for Proposal for a Classification
and Compensation Study and authorization to solicit proposals from
qualified firms to complete this work
Commissioner Jaskiewicz pulled this item from the Consent Agenda for discussion.
G. Approve disinterment of cremains from Sunrise Building, Section G.
Niche F-3 requested by Lori Ann Holman Faroni
The cremains are being removed for the purpose of burial in another state.
j
\
I
i
,
H. Approve request by Edward & Jois Wallschlag to transfer Cemetery
Lots 109 and 110 to Seth Chase, 1009 SW 3rd Way, Boynton Beach,
Florida 33426
These lots are in Block B of Boynton Beach Memorial Park.
I. Approve Records Disposition Request #10 submitted by Code
Compliance and approved by the State
17
-------.
MINUTES
: CITY COMMISSION WORI\~HOP MEETING
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
OCTOBER 7, 1997
This Records Disposition Request was authorized by the State.
Motion
Commissioner Jaskiewicz moved to approve the Consent Agenda with the exception of
the minutes, which were approved separately, and Items C.1, C.8, and F. Vice Mayor
Titcomb seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Motion
Vice Mayor Titcomb moved to approve the minutes as amended. Commissioner
Bradley seconded the motion, which carried unanimously,
II. ADMINISTRATIVE
A. Accept resignation from Eleanor Krusell, Regular Member, Advisory
Board on Children & Youth
Motion
Commissioner Jaskiewicz moved to accept Ms. Krusell's resignation from the Advisory
Board on Children and Youth, Commissioner Bradley seconded the motion, which
carried unanimously.
B. Appointments to be made
Appointment
To Be Made
II Bradley
MayorTaylor
II Bradley
II Bradley
MayorTaylor
II Bradley
I Bradley
MayorTaylor
III Jaskiewicz
I Titcomb
I Titcomb*
II Bradley
I" Jaskiewicz
II Bradley
MayorTaylor*
I Titcomb*
Board
Adv. Bd. on Children & Youth
Adv. Bd. on Children & Youth
Adv, Bd. On Children & Youth
Civil Service Board
Cemetery Board
Cemetery Board
Code Enforcement Board
Community Relations Board
Community Relations Board
Community Relations Board
Community Relations Board
library Board
Senior Advisory Board
Recreation & Parks Board
S.H,I.P. Affordable Housing
S,H,I.P. Affordable Housing
18
-_.~..,~.~._---"----_...---.-
Alt
StulReg
Reg
Alt
Reg
Alt
Alt
Alt
Alt
Reg
Reg
Alt
Alt
Alt
Reg
Alt
Length of Term
Expiration Date
1 yr term to 4/98 TABLED-1
1 yr term to 4/98 TABLED-1
2 yr term to 4/99-1
2 yr term to 4/99 TABLED-1
3 yr term to 4/00 TABLED-1
1 yr term to 4/98 TABLED-1
1 yr term to 9/98 T ABLED-1
1 yr term to 4/98 T ABLED-1
1 yr term to 4/98 TABLED-1
3 yr term to 4/00 TABLED-1
3 yr term to 4/00 TABLED-3
1 yr term to 4/98 T ABLED-1
1 yr term to 4/98 TABLED-1
1 yr term to 4/98 T ABLED-1
1 yr term to 6/98 TABLED(3)
1 yr term to 6/98 T ABLED(3)
----------
MINUTES
CITY COMMISSION '^ _~KSHOP MEETING
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
OCTOBER 7, 1997
V. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Set Workshop Date for Presentation by City Staff on the subject of
Utility Billing
City Manager Willis advised that the six-month period expires in November and the
vendors are anxious to speak to the Commission.
This workshop was scheduled for Friday, November 7, 1997, at 4:00 p,m, in
Commission Chambers.
VI. PUBLIC AUDIENCE
Dee Zibelli, 440 Ocean Parkway, spoke of what she considered the unprofessional way
that the Commission eliminated Todd Kotas' position from the budget, and the way Mr.
Kotas was treated. She felt one of the reasons that this position was eliminated was
because Mr. Kotas did not agree with the Commission about the boat storage and the
downtown revitalization. She felt politics should stay out of Civil Service and protection
should be given to both the employer and the employees.
Dr. Mark Roberts said he prevailed in two lawsuits against the City and the City was
ordered to pay him Court costs. He has yet to receive payment from the City. He would
like the City to look into paying the Court costs. He felt the City Commission is doing a
great disservice to the City residents by voting tonight in the manner that they did. He
recommended that the Commission reconsider their vote with regard to the Clear Copy
issue.
I
I
\
Reginald Stambaugh, the attorney for RHS Corporation and Mark Roberts, stated that
Item 0.1 was placed on the Consent Agenda. That item is a major site plan
modification for Clear Copy. He stated that the Circuit Court heard a case quashing the
site plan approval for Clear Copy and a new site plan should be before the Commission.
He objected because proper notice and proper procedural due process has not been
provided and the essential requirements of law are not being followed. A major site
plan modification is not tantamount to approving a new site plan, There are specific
criteria to be followed with a major versus minor site plan modification that is not
relevant to these proceedings and the Commission's ratification of a committee's
decision is misplaced. He urged the Commission to reconsider prior to any type of
appellate proceeding. He requested the Commission to examine the documents that
Dr. Roberts and RHS Corporation provided to them yesterday. Those documents were
also presented before the committee whose decision the Commission is ratifying this
evening.
James Miriani, 728 N.E. 8th Avenue, spoke on behalf of some of the senior citizens and
requested everyone to speak into the microphones.
21
MINUTES
CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
~
OCTOBER 7, 1997
Victor Norfus, 261 North Palm Drive, invited everyone to the second Family Pilgrimage
on October 16, 1997 at Ezell Hester Center from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. He stated that
in December of 1996, many black residents of Palm Beach County met in Lake Worth to
rekindle the spirit of the Million Man March that was held on October 16, 1995 in
Washington D,C, A Family Pilgrimage was developed from that group of residents. Its
main purpose is to make a positive difference in our community. The second pilgrimage
will be held at Ezell Hester Center. Our purpose is to apprise the community about
what is going on in the community and inform them of the different activities that they
can get involved in to improve the community.
No one else wishing to speak, Mayor Taylor declared the Public Audience closed,
VII. PUBLIC HEARING
Description:
Woolbright Medical Office
Basehart Consulting, Inc.
Joseph R. Jingoli
Southwest corner of Woolbright Road and Lake Worth
Drainage District (LWOO) E-4 Canal
Request to amend a previous rezoning condition which limits
building height to one story or 15'
A.
Project:
Agent:
Owner:
Location:
All those who intended to testify were sworn in by Attorney Cherof. He advised that the
documents in the Commission backup package this evening will automatically be made
part of the record. If anyone wants other documents to be part of the record, those
documents should be identified and given to the clerk,
Bob Basehart, agent for this project, stated that he is an AICP certified planner. He has
been in the planning business for 19 years in government and 11 years in the private
sector. This property was rezoned to office commercial (C-1) in 1987 and there were
four conditions placed on the approval of the project at that time. The first was that the
distance between the commercial buildings and the adjacent homes should be
maximized. The second condition was that there be a six-foot high concrete block wall
along the southern and the western boundaries of the property, The third condition was
that the parking lot lighting be directed away from the adjacent residences. The fourth
condition was that the building height be limited to 15 feet. or one story. This fourth
condition is the only condition he wished to address this evening.
He believed that eliminating this one-story limitation enhances the ability to comply with
the first condition. He wants to build two 18,000 square feet medical office buildings on
the site. He believes that the site pan that was submitted and approved earlier this
evening is superior to the plan that was submitted in 1987. The 1987 plan was
speculative and there were no real tenants. He now has a real project ready to go. If
two stories are allowed, the site coverage can be reduced, resulting in more open
22
MINUTES
CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
OCTOBER 7, 1997
space. Twenty-three percent of the site will be impervious area. It allows better site
circulation so that the traffic on the site circulates better and more efficiently and allows
the parking to be closer to the buildings. By allowing two stories, he can centralize the
placement of the buildings and put parking closer to the buildings so that people do not
have to walk as far from their car to the buildings. It enables the buildings to be placed
farther away from the residential property line, The end result is a more functional and
attractive site and this would be a better asset to the property owner and the City. He
referred to the letter from Bill Lynch, the President of the Leisureville Homeowners'
Association, in support of this request.
Tambri Heyden, Director of Planning and Zoning, concurred with the applicant's
comments and had no rebuttals. She referred to a comment on Exhibit C, which would
retain the original three remaining conditions,
Lee Wische, 1302 S.W. 18th Street. advised that Palm Beach Leisureville had no
objections to this project.
Commissioner Jaskiewicz inquired about the height of the building. Mr, Basehart
advised that the building would be 22 feet high with a three-foot parapet to hide the
mechanical equipment.
Motion
Vice Mayor Titcomb moved to approve this item. Commissioner Bradley seconded the
motion. which carried unanimously.
VIII. BIDS
None.
IX. DEVELOPMENT PLANS
None.
X. NEW BUSINESS
A. Items for Discussion Requested by Commissioner Matt
Bradley
1. Grant Application Partnership with Motorola and School
District - Request for $2,500 for Congress Middle & Poinciana
Elementary Schools for problem solving
program..............,...POSTPONED FROM 9/16 MEETING
23
.._---~"~---------------
DEVELOPMENT ORDER
CIT )F BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDP
ee:~~
~
PROJECT NAME: Clear Copy
00
~ ~ WI ~
ill
APPLICANT: Robert Feldman
APPLICANT'S AGENT: Robert Feldman
OCT I n ~Qm
~ }w~J
AGENT'S ADDRESS: 660 W. Boynton Beach Boulevard
DATE OF HEARING BEFORE CITY COMMISSION: October 7,1997
PLANNING AND
ZONING OEPT
TYPE OF RELIEF SOUGHT: Major Site Plan Modification
LOCATION OF PROPERTY: 660 W. Boynton Beach Boulevard
DRAWING(S): SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO.
THIS MATTER came on to be heard before the City Commission of the City of Boynton
Beach, Florida on the date of hearing stated above. The City Commission having considered the
relief sought by the applicant and heard testimony from the applicant, members of city administrative
staff and the public finds as follows:
1 . Application for the relief sought was made by the Applicant in a manner consistent with
the requirements of the City's Land Development Regulations.
2. The Applicant
LHAS
HAS NOT
established by substantial competent evidence a basis for the relief requested.
3. The conditions for development requested by the Applicant, administrative staff, or
suggested by the public and supported by substantial competent evidence are as set
forth on Exhibit "B" with notation "Included".
4. The Applicant's application for relief is hereby
1.... GRANTED subject to the conditions referenced in paragraph 3 hereof.
DENIED
5. This Order shall take effect immediately upon issuance by the City Clerk.
6. All further development on the property shall be made in accordance with the terms
and conditions of this order.
7. Other
DATED: f'Cbn~A~ /997
~j9;r~~,~
City Clerk
\\CH\MAIN\SHRDA TA\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\CLEAR COPY\MSPM\DEVELOPMENT ORDER.doc
EXlllBIT "B"
Conditions of Approval
Project name: Clear Copy
File number: MSPM 97-002
Reference: The plans consist of llsheets identified as 1st Review. Maior Site Plan Modification. File #
MSPM 97-002 with a August 18. 1997 Planning and Zoning date stamp marking.
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
PUBLIC WORKS
Comments: None X
UTILITIES
Comments: None X
FIRE
Comments: None X
POLICE
Comments: None X
ENGINEERING DIVISION
Comments: None X
BUILDING DIVISION
Comments: None X
PARKS AND RECREATION
Comments: None X
FORESTER/ENVIRONMENT ALIST
Comments: None X
PLANNING AND ZONING
Comments: None A
ADDITIONAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDITIONS --
I. NONE
ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS
2. .:fo Dt:: dt::lt::rmint::d. ~,(/~
/bme
s:\projeds\cond of appr\
~***************************x~***************************************************
*
'"
CERTIFICATE
OF
OCCUPAl:-TCY
*
't:
't
BUILDI1\fG
DIVISIOl'-T
"
;;:
CITY
OF
BOY 1\T T 0 ]>T
BEACH
'"
:t
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"
BUILDI~r~ FE2~IT ~IJ.
DATE PERMIT :SSUZD
DATE ISSUED
'"
'"
::c 00004:.41
1.,.j....
7../ l. 6/'. '3 5
S TJE D I ~l I .s I .: ~,r
PROPERTY ADDRE33
"
LAKE BOYNTON EST; PLAT 1
660 W BOYNTON BEACH ELV
*
:<
OB
43
TitJI.f S HF
4-5
SECTION
29
SUB DVSN BLOCK
01 002
LOT
024-0
PLAT/'BOOL/PAGE
BOOK 13 PAGES
*
CITY
R,~NGE
'"
F.?E:.
IE.s~J~= FOR:
'"
C:~~E~::AL BUILDING
'7 s:~ _~"~.T: ~
:- :=:~,T .3.." 2.r:
~..!. ::. v;:; ~
;.. _ ~ ~ . .oJ "
:: :.. E _l~ ? COP Y
-:
- J~~EE. ~A::!N~ AJ[EE3S
:ON:EACTG~ 'MAIL:NG ADDRE33
-. ":" .,.., '\ --
. -..... -
-..... '-'.'.'
-- -"\.i....~
-' .-'...o....l....... ,
CLiO INe
l~~~S OA~ ARB'-? rRI~~
BCY:i:O~ ~IA:~ FL 33~ZE
~':?N!=~ E~AC~ F: 33436-6:3~
:HE AS:7E ~A3 :NSPECTED AND ~s APPEOVED FOR ALL UTILITY SERVICE3 AND
'"
0::~?A~:7; AND ?OR USE STATED IN THE PERMIT ONLY.
~~r :~!E~:~ ~ERVISE FEE OF $
544.46 HAS EE~~ FAIr.
"
'"
~ ~ ~ * ~ ~ ~ ~ x x ~ ~ ~ ~ x ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ x ~ ~ ~ ~ % ~ ~ ~ % ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ x x ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ * ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ * ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ * ~ ~ * ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :