Loading...
CORRESPONDENCE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT Division of Planning and Zoning Building Planning & Zoning Engineering Occupational License Community Redevelopment October 26,2000 Mr. David Layman Greenberg Traurig, P A 777 South Flagler Drive, Suite 300 East West Palm Beach, Florida 33416 Re: Boynton Landings ADAP 00-001 Dear Mr. Layman: Please be advised that the above referenced appeal is scheduled to be heard by the Planning and Development Board on November 28, 2000 at 7:00 P.M. in the Library Program Room, Boynton Beach Library, 208 S. Seacrest Boulevard, Boynton Beach, Florida. A copy of the legal advertisement is attached for your information. A copy of the staff report for the appeal will be mailed to you prior to the scheduled Planning and Development Board meeting. Please contact me at (561) 742-6260 if you have additional questions. Sincerely, - I~~? Michael Rumpf Planning and Zoning Director Cc. Lusia Galav, Senior Planner Nicholas Igwe, Assistant City Attorney Scott Blaise, Code Compliance Supervisor \\CH\;'v1AIN\SHRDA T A \Planningl.sHARED\ \\'P\PROJECTS\Boynton Landings\Applicant Notification.LET.doc America's Gateway to the Gulfstream 100 East Boynton Beach Blvd., P.O. Box 310 Boymon Beach. Florida 33425-0310 Phone: (561) 375-6260 FAX: (561) 375-6259 :. ~l C NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING C - ., NOTICE IS HEREBY Gl, ~N that the following application has been made to the PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD of the CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, for a hearing as indicated, under and pursuant to the provisions of the zoning code of said City: Owner: CSC Boynton Landings, LTD. Request: Notice of Appeal from the June 20, 2000 administrative decision denying Boynton Landing's request for a Minor Modification of the approved Site Plan to place banners at the entrance to the property. Location: 2309 North Congress Avenue Legal Description A parcel of land being all of the plat of POST LA1'IDING, according to the plat thereof as recorded in PLAT BOOK 54, Page 191 of the Public Records in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, as supplemented by that certain Surveyor's Affidavit recorded in Official Records Book 5129, Page 1341, of the said Public Records and as further supplemented by that certain Surveyor's Affidavit recorded in Official Records Book 5179, Page 356 of the said Public Records and lying in Section 18, Township 45 South, Range 43 East, City of Boynton Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida. [The full legal description is on file in the Planning and Zoning Office]. A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPl\'IENT BOARD \VILL BE HELD RELATIVE TO THE ABOVE APPLICATION AT THE LIBRARY PROGRAl"I ROOl\'I, BOYNTON BEACH LIBRARY, 208 S. SEACREST BL YD., BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, ON TUESDAY, NOVEl\'IBER 28,2000, AT 7:00 P.l\tI. All interested parties are notified to appear at said hearing in person or by attorney and be heard or file any written comments prior to the hearing date. Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Planning and Development Board with respect to any matter considered at this meeting will need a record of the proceedings and for such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH PLAL'lNING AND ZONING DIVISION (561) 742-6260 PUBLISH: THE POST November 13, 2000 CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH MEMORANDUM TO: Mike Rumf, Director of Planning FROM: Nicholas I. Igwe, Assistant City Attor e RE: Boynton Landings Appeal DATE: September 14, 2000 I forward to you, a check (No. 02331) in the amount of $200.00 sent to me as appeal fee in the above referenced matter. Given that the Commission is the body to determine the timeliness of the appeal, I am now of the opinion that the subject appeal should be processed. I have attached the check as indicated and recommend that you process the appeal. Thank you. CC: Lusia Galav, Senior Planner~ S:ca/Depts/P1anningjforward of Boynton Landings appeal fee j r~Y>/~' " i' -- '/ O/ir...",.,." ,.~'..c .; n.'i? r;, i 7" .. _. ." - . 1'; ir::. ffh I' . .c~ Q --~ a,1 (... c. lJ ','" l ~ ,-... " .. , .. :J I 5" i f~ I J J '",,' I t -f L .,~,.._ ' . jfJ /! -; i~ . '-.... , ",-"I, PL.-~~- ,. _ ; '__ , ! -....,. 'T ,.,~~ ,. . -~.._.--~~s~~._~(~ ~,~:/gf,)' I ._~ ! The City of Boynton Beach 100 E. Boynton Beaeh Boulevard P.O. Boz310 Boynton Beaeh, Florida 33425-0310 Office of the City AffD"'9 (561) 742-6050 FAX: (561) 742-6054 August 25, 2000 Timothy W. Schultz Greenberg, Traurig PO Box 20629 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-0629 Re: Boynton Landings Appeal Dear Mr. Schultz: We have your letter of August 21, 2000 regarding Boynton Landings Appeal. The City will process your appeal. Please submit the application and the necessary filing fee to Mike Rumpf, Planning and Zoning Director. Thank you. Very truly yours, ~~ofj)~ Nicholas I. Igwe, Assistant City Attorney NII/mlr J Cc: Mike Rumpf, Director of Development James A. Cherof, City Attorney Lusia Galav, Senior Planner David Layman, Esquire Im-~ @rt1 \'fJ ~lml 1 ~- .- _ : ~ !; j" , r;:2 8/o:fiO :J:' . L '-vU ..1' ., ~........... PLMNtNGA~T6--1 i ZONING DEPT. f _ w ....:.,,~j "An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action/ADA Employer" ~~[[~~[~~ ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1~~~~1~ TIMOTHY W. SCHULZ DIRECT DIAL: (561) 650-7971 WEST PALM BEACH OFFICE Email: schulzt@gtlaw.com By facsimile copy 742-6054 and U.S. Mail August 21, 2000 Nicholas 1. Igwe, Esq. Assistant City Attorney City of Boynton Beach 100 E. Boynton Beach Blvd. Post Office Box 310 Boynton Beach, Florida 33425-0310 ~_.P!--": ~,~ .. ~AMvjr;, ---1 .. '". ._j:')~JINr. DfiYI-lJ -~--~-- RE: Boynton Landings Appeal Dear Mr. Igwe: I have reviewed your August 7, 2000, letter to David Layman of this office regarding the City's opinion that the appeal filed by Mr. Layman was untimely. I disagree with your assessment and would ask that the City reconsider its position and submit our appeal to the City Commission, the appropriate body to hear such an appeal. After reviewing this letter, if it is still the City's position that the appeal was not timely filed, and that the City will take no further action on this appeal, please contact me so that I may move this issue to the next appellate level. On May 18, 2000, Mr. Layman sent a letter to the City of Boynton Beach requesting a minor modification of the approved site plan for Boynton Landings. The City denied this request on June 1, 2000. On June 9, 2000, Mr. Layman sent another letter to the City requesting reconsideration of its June 151 decision. On June 20, 2000, Michael W. Rumpf, Director of Planning and Zoning for the City of Bo),nton Beach, responded to Mr. Layman's reconsideration request. It was Mr. Rumpfs decision on June 20, 2000 that Boynton Landings appealed on June 29, 2000. On August 2, 2000, Mr. Rumpf and Ms. Lusia Galav, Senior Planner, met with Mr. Layman and Felix Canino of our office. It was at that meeting that Mr. Rumpf and Ms. Galav informed Mr. Layman and Mr. Canino of the City Attorney's decision that the filing of the appeal was untimely. In a letter to Mr. Layman dated August 7, 2000, you again stated the City's position that the "appeal clock started running on June 1, 2000, when the City officially notified you of denial of your request for modification." Based upon that reasoning, it is your position that our appeal was not timely filed. We respectfully disagree with your position. GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. P.O. Box 20629 WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33416-0629 561-650-7900 FAX 561-655-6222 www.gtlaw.com 777 SOUTH FLAGLER DRIVE SUlTI: 300 EAST WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 MIAMI :'iE'IV YORK WASHINGTO'i, D.C. ATLANTA PHILADELPHIA TYSO'iS CORNER CHICAGO BOSTON PHOENIX WILMINGTON Los A:'<!GELES DE:'<IVER SAO PAt:LO FORT LAUDERDALE BOCA RATON WEST PALM BEACH ORLANDO TALLAHASSEE Nicholas I. Igwe, Esq. Assistant City Attorney City of Boynton Beach August 21, 2000 Page 2 Chapter I, Article VII, Section 1.B. permits an aggrieved party to appeal a decision of an administrative official by filing the appeal "within fifteen 15 calendar days after rendition of the order, requirement, decision or determination with the official from whom the appeal is taken..." A common sense interpretation of this provision reveals that our appeal was timely filed. We are seeking to appeal a decision of an administrative official (Michael Rumpf) and have filed such an appeal within 15 days of his decision made on June 20, 2000. We notified the City of our decision to appeal on June 29, 2000. Article VII, Section 1 itself is entitled, "Appeals from decisions of an administrative officiaL" The City Code does not specify at what level on the administrative ladder a party must appeal from. It simply provides the right to appeal a decision by an "administrative official." Literally, what Article VII, Section 1.B. provides for, in this case, is an appeal of a decision by an administrative official. That is precisely what we are doing, appealing from the June 20th administrative decision by Mr. Rumpf. You also point out in your August 7th letter that nothing in the City Code authorizes an aggrieved party to seek a "reconsideration" of a decision of a city official. And you note that under the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, a motion for re- consideration of a decision does not toll the time period for filing an appeal. First, if it is your position that there is no procedure for seeking reconsideration of a city official's decision, then the Rules of Appellate Procedure do not apply. Second, if the Rules of Appellate Procedure do apply, and I believe that they do, 1 would direct you to Rule 9.020(h) concerning rendition of an order. An order is rendered when a signed written order is filed with the clerk of the lower tribunal. Rule 9.020(f) defines an "order" as a decision, order, judgment, decree or rule of a lower tribunal. And, subsection (b) of Rule 9.020 defines "clerk" as the person or official specifically designated as such or, if no person is so designated, the official or agent who most closely resembles a clerk in the functions performed. Therefore, assuming your position is correct for the moment, and we disagree that it is, before an appellate expiration date can be ascertained, it must first be determined when the June 1st decision was actually filed with the Clerk or person so designated. Despite your contention that no procedure for reconsideration of administrative decisions exists, a review of the June 20, 2000 letter from Mr. Rumpf to Mr. Layman shows a complete reconsideration or "re-examination" of Ms. Galav's June 1st decision. Mr. Rumpf begins his June 20th letter by stating, "I have re-examined this situation that involved 10 banners.. ,"(emphasis added). That is precisely the issue that Ms. Galav was dealing with. And a Thesaurus gives the meaning of the term re-examined, and a synonym for it, as GREE"IiBERG TRAURIG Nicholas 1. Igwe, Esq. Assistant City Attorney City of Boynton Beach August 21, 2000 Page 3 reconsideration. Whatever the semantics, Mr. Rumpf clearly reconsidered Ms. Galav's June 15t decision. Mr. Rumpf, the Director of the City's Division of Planning and Zoning and Ms. Galav's superior, did not simply reiterate what Ms. Galav stated in her June 15t letter. Rather, Mr. Rumpf took an entirely new look at the applicable City regulations and all documents submitted in our application for a minor modification. He determined that the "banners" represent a sign, an issue Ms. Galav did not address. He conducted an analysis of the applicable city regulations and made findings as to why these "signs" were not permitted by city regulations, something else Ms. Galav did not do. He went further and found that the "signs" represent an "unapproved modification to the site plan for the subject property," a "significant addition to the maximum sign area for the project that has not been reviewed" and that these "signs" are "subject to the basic sign regulations such as setbacks," all new issues and ones not addressed by Ms. Galav. It is, therefore, very clear that Mr. Rumpf undertook a complete reconsideration of Ms. Galav's June 1 st decision. Even if City regulations do not spell out any procedure for obtaining reconsideration, they do not prohibit such actions by City officials. And it is our position that once a Division Director reconsiders or re-examines an earlier decision by a subordinate city official, that Division Director's reconsidered decision is subject to appeal within 15 days. We also take issue with the manner in which this appeal was handled and, as a result, believe the City of Boynton Beach has violated our client's right to due process. Chapter I, Article VII, Section 1.B. requires that within 15 days of a decision, the appeal shall be filed with the official from whom the appeal is taken. The administrative official is to then prepare the record and forward the record and appeal to the appropriate appeal board for placement on the board's next available agenda. Subsection D.2. of Article VII provides that the "City Commission will hear and decide appeals of administrative decisions or determinations in the enforcement or administration of major/minor site plans, And subsection 4 of Article VII grants an aggrieved party the right to appeal a decision of the City Commission to the Circuit Court. In this instance, our appeal and accompanying record was never forwarded to the City Commission, in violation of Chapter I, Article VII, Section 1.B. Additionally, we have never even received a written response from the City regarding our appeal. Moreover, the City Commission is the appropriate body, sitting in its appellate capacity, to have determined that our appeal was untimely filed, not the City Attorney's Office. The City Commission could have certainly asked for advice from your office, but a written Commission decision should have been issued regarding the timeliness of our appeal. From that Order we could have appealed to the Circuit Court, As it now stands, we have no written decision to appeal as the proper appellate procedures were not followed by the City of Boynton Beach. GHEEI\BERG THAURIG Nicholas I. Igwe, Esq. Assistant City Attorney City of Boynton Beach August 21, 2000 Page 4 I recommend the following, that the City of Boynton Beach treat our appeal as timely filed, forward our appeal to the City Commission and permit the City Commission, sitting in its appellate capacity to determine the issues on the merits. If not, we will be forced to proceed with a Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court and will seek all available relief allowable as a result of the City's failure to properly follow its appellate procedures and its violation of our client's right to due process. -==-- Very truly yours, ~W.~ Timothy W. Sch.g TWS/dj cc: Richard Schlesinger Daniel Ruda James Cherof, Esq. ../ Michael W. Rumpf Lusia Galav \SCHULZT\306186vOl\6K9601 LDOC\8/21/00 GREENBERG TRAURIG u~[[~~[~u ATTORNEYS AT LAW l~~~~lu TIMOTHY W. SCHULZ DIRECT DIAL: (561) 650-7971 WEST PALM BEACH OFFICE Email: schulzt@gtlaw.com Bv facsimile COpy 742-6054 and U.S. Mail August 21, 2000 Nicholas I. Igwe, Esq. Assistant City Attorney City of Boynton Beach 100 E. Boynton Beach Blvd. Post Office Box 310 Boynton Beach, Florida 33425-0310 RE: Boynton Landings Appeal Dear Mr. Igwe: I have reviewed your August 7, 2000, letter to David Layman of this office regarding the City's opinion that the appeal filed by Mr. Layman was untimely. I disagree with your assessment and would ask that the City reconsider its position and submit our appeal to the City Commission, the appropriate body to hear such an appeal. After reviewing this letter, if it is still the City's position that the appeal was not timely filed, and that the City will take no further action on this appeal, please contact me so that I may move this issue to the next appellate level. On May 18, 2000, Mr. Layman sent a letter to the City of Boynton Beach requesting a minor modification ofthe approved site plan for Boynton Landings. The City denied this request on June 1, 2000. On June 9, 2000, Mr. Layman sent another letter to the City requesting reconsideration of its June 1st decision. On June 20, 2000, Michael W. Rumpf, Director of Planning and Zoning for the City of Boynton Beach, responded to Mr. Layman's reconsideration request. It was Mr. Rumpf's decision on June 20, 2000 that Boynton Landings appealed on June 29, 2000. On August 2, 2000, Mr. Rumpf and Ms. Lusia Galav, Senior Planner, met with Mr. Layman and Felix Canino of our office. It was at that meeting that Mr. Rumpf and Ms. Galav informed Mr. Layman and Mr. Canino of the City Attorney's decision that the filing of the appeal was untimely. In a letter to Mr. Layman dated August 7, 2000, you again stated the City's position that the "appeal clock started running on June 1, 2000, when the City officially notified you of denial of your request for modification." Based upon that reasoning, it is your position that our appeal was not timely filed. We respectfully disagree with your position. GREE~BERG TRAURIG, P.A. P.O, Box 20629 WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33416-0629 561-650-7900 FAX 561-655-6222 www.gtlaw.com 777 SOUTH FLAGLER DRIYE SUTE 300 EAST WEST PAUl BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 MIA'dt NEW YORK WASHI!'iGTOI\', D.C. ATLA:';TA PHILADELPHIA TYSO!'iS CORNER CHICAGO BOSTo:-; PHOENIX WIlMPIGTON Los ANGELES DENYER SAO PAULO FORT LAl'DERDALE BOCA R.HO:'; WEST PALM BEACH ORLANDO TALLAHASSEE Nicholas I. Igwe, Esq. Assistant City Attorney City of Boynton Beach August 21,2000 Page 2 Chapter I, Article VII, Section 1.B. permits an aggrieved party to appeal a decision of an administrative official by filing the appeal "within fifteen 15 calendar days after rendition of the order, requirement, decision or determination with' the official from whom the appeal is taken.. ." A common sense interpretation of this provision reveals that our appeal was timely filed. We are seeking to appeal a decision of an administrative official (Michael Rumpf) and have filed such an appeal within 15 days of his decision made on June 20, 2000. We notified the City of our decision to appeal on June 29, 2000. Article VII, Section 1 itself is entitled, "Appeals from decisions of an administrative officiaL" The City Code does not specify at what level on the administrative ladder a party must appeal from. It simply provides the right to appeal a decision by an "administrative officiaL" Literally, what Article VII, Section 1.B. provides for, in this case, is an appeal of a decision by an administrative official. That is precisely what we are doing, appealing from the June 20th administrative decision by Mr. Rumpf. You also point out in your August 7th letter that nothing in the City Code authorizes an aggrieved party to seek a "reconsideration" of a decision of a city official. And you note that under the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, a motion for re- consideration of a decision does not toll the time period for filing an appeal. First, if it is your position that there is no procedure for seeking reconsideration of a city official's decision, then the Rules of Appellate Procedure do not apply. Second, if the Rules of Appellate Procedure do apply, and I believe that they do, I would direct you to Rule 9.020(h) concerning rendition of an order. An order is rendered when a signed written order is filed with the clerk of the lower tribunal. Rule 9.020(f) defines an "order" as a decision, order, judgment, decree or rule of a lower tribunal. And, subsection (b) of Rule 9.020 defines "clerk" as the person or official specifically designated as such or, if no person is so designated, the official or agent who most closely resembles a clerk in the functions performed. Therefore, assuming your position is correct for the moment, and we disagree that it is, before an appellate expiration date can be ascertained, it must first be determined when the June 1 st decision was actually filed with the Clerk or person so designated. Despite your contention that no procedure for reconsideration of administrative decisions exists, a review of the June 20, 2000 letter from Mr. Rumpf to Mr. Layman shows a complete reconsideration or "re-examination" of Ms. Galav's June 1st decision. Mr. Rumpf begins his June 20th letter by stating, "I have re-examined this situation that involved 10 banners.. ,"(emphasis added). That is precisely the issue that Ms. Galav was dealing with. And a Thesaurus gives the meaning of the term re-examined, and a synonym for it, as GREEJ\BERG TRAlIRIG Nicholas I. Igwe, Esq. Assistant City Attorney City of Boynton Beach August 21,2000 Page 3 reconsideration. Whatever the semantics, Mr. Rumpf clearly reconsidered Ms. Galav's June 1 st decision. Mr. Rumpf, the Director of the City's Division of Planning and Zoning and Ms. Galav's superior, did not simply reiterate what Ms. Galav stated in her June 1 st letter. Rather, Mr. Rumpf took an entirely new look at the applicable City regulations and all documents submitted in our application for a minor modification. He determined that the "banners" represent a sign, an issue Ms, Galav did not address. He conducted an analysis of the applicable city regulations and made findings as to why these "signs" were not permitted by city regulations, something else Ms. Galav did not do. He went further and found that the "signs" represent an ''unapproved modification to the site plan for the subject property," a "significant addition to the maximum sign area for the project that has not been reviewed" and that these "signs" are "subject to the basic sign regulations such as setbacks," all new issues and ones not addressed by Ms. Galav. It is, therefore, very clear that Mr. Rumpf undertook a complete reconsideration of Ms. Galav's June 1 sl decision. Even if City regulations do not spell out any procedure for obtaining reconsideration, they do not prohibit such actions by City officials. And it is our position that once a Division Director reconsiders or re-examines an earlier decision by a subordinate city official, that Division Director's reconsidered decision is subject to appeal within 15 days. We also take issue with the manner in which this appeal was handled and, as a result, believe the City of Boynton Beach has violated our client's right to due process. Chapter I, Article VII, Section 1.B. requires that within 15 days of a decision, the appeal shall be filed with the official from whom the appeal is taken. The administrative official is to then prepare the record and forward the record and appeal to the appropriate appeal board for placement on the board's next available agenda. Subsection D.2. of Article VII provides that the "City Commission will hear and decide appeals of administrative decisions or determinations in the enforcement or administration of major/minor site plans. And subsection 4 of Article VII grants an aggrieved party the right to appeal a decision of the City Commission to the Circuit Court. In this instance, our appeal and accompanying record was never forwarded to the City Commission, in violation of Chapter I, Article VII, Section 1.B. Additionally, we have never even received a written response from the City regarding our appeal. Moreover, the City Commission is the appropriate body, sitting in its appellate capacity, to have determined that our appeal was untimely filed, not the City Attorney's Office. The City Commission could have certainly asked for advice from your office, but a written Commission decision should have been issued regarding the timeliness of our appeal. From that Order we could have appealed to the Circuit Court. As it now stands, we have no written decision to appeal as the proper appellate procedures were not followed by the City of Boynton Beach. GHEEi\BERG THAURIG Nicholas 1. Igwe, Esq. Assistant City Attorney City of Boynton Beach August 21, 2000 Page 4 I recommend the following, that the City of Boynton Beach treat our appeal as timely filed, forward our appeal to the City Commission and permit the City Commission, sitting in its appellate capacity to determine the issues on the merits. If not, we will be forced to proceed with a Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court and will seek all available relief allowable as a result of the City's failure to properly follow its appellate procedures and its violation of our client's right to due process. -===-- Very truly yours, ~\tJ. ~ Timothy w. Schirl? TWS/dj cc: Richard Schlesinger Daniel Ruda James Cherof, Esq. Michael W. Rumpf if Lusia Galav \SCHULZ1\306186vOl\6K9601 !.OOC\8/21/00 GREE"'BERG TRAlIRIG 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) 742-6050 FAX: (561) 742-6054 . '".. ~ ,-- August 7, 2000 David M. Layman, Esquire ~ Law Offices of Greenberg Tral1ig P.O. Box 20629 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-0629 i u j,~lLL.. I ~ I nil iilf;' ~ ~."- J-....I ::) ..J Re: Boynton Landings Appeal Dear Mr. Layman: This is in response to your letter of August 2, 2000 to Mike Rumpf, Director of Planning and Zoning, requesting that your appeal of an administrative decision denying your request for modification of approved site plan in the above referenced development be processed. Please consider the following: On May 18, 2000, you sent a letter to the City asking for a minor modification of approved site plan in the above referenced development. On June 1, 2000, the City officially denied the above request through a letter to you. Further, the letter advised that the proposed modification to permit banners on the premises is prohibited under the City Code. On June 9, 2000 you sent a letter to the City, asking the City to "reconsider" its administrative decision denying your request for minor modification. On June 20, 2000, the City sent you a letter denying your request for "reconsideration". That letter also advised you of your option to submit an application for code review. On June 29, 2000, you sent a letter appealing the June 20, 2000 letter denying your request for "reconsideration" and also asked for code review. The City's Land Development Regulation (LDR) permits an aggrieved party to appeal an administrative decision of a city official. Under LDR, Chapter 1, Article VII (B), an appeal "shall be filed within 15 calendar days after rendition of the order, requirement, decision, or determination with the official from whom the appeal is taken". Nothing in the City Code authorizes an aggrieved party to seek a "reconsideration" of a decision of city official. Under Florida Rules of Appellate ''An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action/ADA Employer" Procedure, a motion for reconsideration of a decision does not toll the time period for filing an appeal. In this instance, your appeal clock started running from June 1, 2000, when the City officially notified you of denial of your request for modification. As stated earlier, nothing in the Code allows for "reconsideration" of an administrative decision and thus the appeal clock could not have commenced from June 29, 2000 when you asked the City to "reconsider" its administrative decision. Therefore, it is clear that your letter of June 29, 2000, seeking to appeal the administrative decision was untimely as that letter was received more than 15 days of the June 1, 2000 decision denying your proposed modification. Please be advised that the City does not customarily hold checks and that checks are processed and cashed as they are received. Therefore, the City is currently processing the return of your $200 appeal fee. Further, staff is ready to assist you in moving fOlWard with your request for a code review whenever you are ready. Should you have any additional questions or comments on this matter, please contact me directly. Very truly yours, " n. ,~r, (1 --- \ ~t ~(L/ ~~"~ ,-, L.-) ~>'l--0'~ Nicholas I. Igwe, j Assistant City Attorney NII{mlr Cc: James Cherof, City Attorney Mike Rumpf, Director of Planning and Zoning Lusia Galav, Planning Coordinator Ca/dept/planning/boyntonlanding/Layman Ltr David M. Layman, 56]/650-7990 o~~~~~~~o ATTOR'IEYS 4T LAW I~~~~ID e-mail: laymand@gtlaw.com August 2, 2000 VIA FEDEX \~ R ~~R- \\- W ~-r~ D \!i t!l LS ''''-, " ~- 3 ',.,u'C ~ 0-...... >"'~ ! '" ~~_. _..-J : PLANI,J';'\\IC, 1.\) ZON1NC':l2fG ~. .~__t ~r. ~ichael VV.Ftumpf Planning and Zoning Director 100 East Boynton Beach Boulevard P.O. Box 310 Boynton Beach, Florida 33425 Re: Bovnton Landin2s: Appeal Dear ~r. Rumpf: Thank you for taking the time to meet with us this morning. As you know, this firm represents the owner of the Boynton Landings Apartments (the "Property") and we have a pending application for Code Review and an appeal of the determination made in your June 20, 2000 letter regarding the signs located at the Property. VV e were shocked that you stated that our appeal had been denied because it was deemed to be untimely and were therefore unprepared to discuss this issue at this meeting. As we mentioned during the meeting, we had filed the appeal, paid the $200 appeal fee, inquired in writing as to the status of the appeal (please see my July 18,2000 letter) and therefore reasonably thought that the appeal had been processed as the check was cashed and we had not heard anything to the contrary until this morning's meeting. As you know, Chapter 1, Article VII, Appeals, of the City's Code provides in pertinent part that: "B. FILING. Appeals shall be filed within fifteen (15) calendar days after rendition of the order, requirement, decision, or determination with the official from the whom the appeal is taken specifying the grounds for the appeal. . . ."[emphasis added] Based upon our review of Chapter 1, Article VII, Appeals, of the City's Code, we believe that your statement today that the appeal was not timely filed is incorrect. Specifically, the appeal was an appeal of the decisions made in your June 20, 2000 letter. The appeal was filed on June 29, 2000, well within the 15 day appeal period. Thus, we respectfully request that this appeal be processed. In the event that your decision regarding the appeal is not changed, please provide us with the decision in writing so that we may request an appeal of that decision as well. GREE'IBERG TRAURIG, P.A. P.O. Box 20629 WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33416-0629 561-650-7900 FAX 561-655-6222 www.gtlaw.com 777 SOl:TH FLAGLER DRIVE SeITE 300 EAST WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 MIA.\fI NEW YORK WASHINGTON, D.C. ATLA"'TA PHILADELPHIA TYso]';s COR]'\"ER CHICAGO 5.:\0 PAl:LO FORT LAl:DERDALE WEST PAL.\f BEACH ORLo\NDO TALLAHASSEE BOCA R.HO'l Mr. Michael W. Rumpf August 2, 2000 Page 2 Please call me at 650-7990 if you have any questions or need any additional information, cc: J ames A. Cherof, Esq. V.'PIYCA~INOF'270759!5sx301 '0008/02:00:20821.013800 David M. Layman, 561/650-7990 ~~ff~~f~~ ATTOR,EYS AT LAW 1~~~~1~ e-mail: laymand@gtlaw.com July 18, 2000 VIA FEDEX d DJrfl@m... r. -~ ,.H il ~ -- 't i! : ~j1':i I , \ Mr. Michael W. Rumpf Planning and Zoning Director 100 East Boynton Beach Boulevard P.O. Box 310 Boynton Beach, Florida 33425 '- '- PLAN;'i;I' ZONINr. - J --., Re: Boynton Landines: Second Code Citation Dear Mr. Rumpf: As you know, this firm represents the owner of the Boynton Landings Apartments (the "Property") and we have a pending application for Code Review and an appeal of the determination made in your June 20, 2000 letter regarding the signs located at the Property, We have been informed that a second citation (Citation No. 08-00371, please see attached copy) has been issued for the same violation. Could you please inform the Department that is issuing citations related to the pending request for Code Review and the appeal, and request that they refrain from issuing any further citations until this matter has been reviewed through the appeal process? Please call me at 650-7927 to discuss the status of the appeal and to set up a pre- application Code Review meeting with your staff. Enclosure cc: Mr. Danny Ruda (w/o encl.) \\'PB!CANI~OF!270759/5sx30 I' OOC!7I1 8:00;2082101 3800 GREEI\"BERG TRAl'RIG, P.A. P.O. Box 20629 WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33416-0629 561-650-7900 FAX 561-655-6222 www_gtlaw.com 777 SOl:TH FLAGLER DRIVE SUITE 300 EAST WEST PALM BE4.CH, FLORIDA 33401 MIAMI NEW YORK WASHINGTO"l, D.C. ATL.4.:'ITA PHILADELPHI-I. TySO:'lS CORNER SAO PAULO FORT LAt:DERDALE WEST P4.LM BEACH ORLA'iDO TALLAHASSEE BOCA R.HO:'l TUL -17-:-.-:.~ ~~~~ 15: 03 FPm1 CEEBRH ID ,;FB arv OF BOYh .,t,I BEACH n ~ AM'-- lGtE. ...1IeIdI...... w....., _ __..... R.... : Oc..rrCM ..".... No.Ot 00371 I FLORIDA utlFOiW CODE crrAlJON .... I\.~. ....._.,.,_.._......~..........IIII ~ II ~D7] li.nL~~~I~~t~1 DO;/~J7a~:. LO/'1(::/';";; S 1 .. ~ seC( ;t/ Con9/'e:iS. /lu e I e~~l ~<131 ?f~~ I ftoflner. ~r~ No T j ~ . t a ,i/,AJe('/ ~''/7 ._-r;; e r/ ~- I CcItt ' Q....... r, -iL.. ~1(71L 4CC :3 0 -- ~. i tIiii.. ~ #<>r;t ~~ -r ~/p/~ al',.D-~~/t'y I ~....~:<.....s r-.-.........~ I - J t/ .............,......CGIII i ..J-- 1......' ?.r?. {. > l.> I IIJ01I'.I: TN.....,... ':"'~ s ......,............ n., .w.IIIlII'-...... 1 ............... .,..,................................. . ........,......... -""Mc.,t...... III. 1. 1 nl .,.. 2nlf __ II I .......................-.....""JIIf..................., ........ ~ .......lIIf'OIItfl..c:.-....__..........tff*' ...-..... ! ""cIlIIlII,_tll_ .....,.........~"'___..IV_. w lrthdIIlfl.- 1 . J .~~~. .. ~A4 I";~~ ............. uu 0?i'..rt"-I;,c '" (>/',1' 2 7~'( Mlt.... / (~~ ("~~ j/;ro ,t:, t'< --.. / r .....,~...~,.... ",lOilllfLnu - . ~. .... ....., .. . ~ - '" . -. ..-. ....-..-.- _.. . "'" .... ~OF_IA~ iJ" ; f ) j t _/~0III0f T~ IL; DAl..J ] I, LAyr'lAH P. C12 TnT~1 ::;'. M;' 1~.f-----u~.1 '-J1"\;./7 <~::~i~r U DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT Division of Planning and Zoning Building Planning & Zoning Engineering Occupational License Community Redevelopment June 20, 2000 Mr. David Layman Law Offices of Greenburg Traurig P.O. Box 20629 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416 Subject: Boynton Landings MMSP 00-033 Dear Mr. Layman: I have re-examined this situation that involves ten (10) banners hung on individual poles at the entrance to the above-referenced project. I understand that no attempt was made to obtain permission from the city prior to erecting the poles and banners, and that you are now requesting that the new elements be considered as some type of signage rather than simply a decorative banner. Since the new features indicate the name of the subject apartment complex, I must agree that they represent a type of sign. Furthermore, in my opinion, the features have an attractive appearance. However, the city's regulations clearly prohibit banners as signage, and the definition for a "banner" matches the features that your client has displayed at their entrance. I also must disagree with your argument that the city's regulations are intended to address obnoxious banners or pennants rather than pure signs, as the definition of a banner refers to them as "signs" which are objects used to promote a business. Notwithstanding the definition of a banner and the prohibition of same, I must also indicate that given the fact that the new features are "signs" (as they advertise a place of business), they represent an unapproved modification to the site plan for the subject project, they represent a significant addition to the maximum sign area for the project which has not been reviewed, and are subject to the basic sign regulations such as setbacks. Furthermore, based on the argument that Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) are not subject to all regulations applicable to properties within conventional zoning districts, but may be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, you may think that the subject banners are not subject to the same America's Gateway to the Gulfstream 100 East Boynton Beach Blvd.. P.O. Box 310 Boynton Beach, Florida 33425-0310 Phone: (561) 375-6260 FAX: (561) 375-6259 prohibitions applicable to other zoning districts. Regardless of this position, I must indicate that staff will exercise extreme caution when reviewing a site plan modification request which represents a deviation from conventional code (and our responses to prior similar inquiries), given the possible precedence that may be established which could unintentionally justify the approval of subsequent banners, which may not be as visually friendly as your clients features. With that explanation, and considering the investment made by your client, I suggest that you relocate the banners to the interior of your project where they would not be construed as project signage, but rather used as site decorations or enhancements for the lakefront, recreation area or sales office. If you still desire to pursue the approval of the signs where they are currently located, you have the option of submitting an application for Code Review which is a request to amend the city's regulations. If you desire the latter, please contact this office to set up a pre- application meeting with staff. Sincerely, r---- -:;? Michael W. Rumpf MWRlnl Cc: Nicholas Igwe, Assistant City Attorney J:ISHRDA T AIPlanning\SHAREDI wPIPROJECTSIBoynton Landings\Layman 6-20-00.doc JJII-09-ZJOO 04:04prr Frcrn-mENBE~G TRAURIG, PI.,. +5616556222 T-5~5 P.J02/002 F-98a D.l. ,Q M I ~>,m:lr. So I !650-7~~() ~~tt~~t~D .... i Tuft ., t. ,.., 4 'f L. ^ \I" r~~~~lo e.ln~.1 1:J.;Y~11~.la-t(.5a.J"" t.:\Jlr, June 9, 2000 VI A TfLf.FAX - 742-6259 Lusia Galav, ATC? Sc:nior Plann~r City of Boynton Beach Depa."'rmem of Developmem Division of f'lanmng and Zomng 100 East Boymor.. Beach Boulevard Bayman B~a.ch, FL 33425 Rf: Bo}'nton Landing~ MMSP 00-033 Dea:- Ms_ Gala\!: 1 receIved your letter clJnccming Boymon Landmgs Also ~nachcd IS 4 City ofBcymon B~ach Code Cital10n whIch was i55ued June 6, 2000, just a day or two after! recen/ed"your h:twr in the mail. lam sute it is!hr pwpose of your Code to prohibit obnoxious, ugly banners wnh words like "Rent Me" on them, not the very attraclive stanchions located at BoynIOn Landmg, whtch include cloth d~coration~. Your Code specifically excludes from tht: definiLion of banners . "expositional" signs. The word ""exposition" is detined in the diCTionary as something designc:d to co.nvey information. The cloth attached to the stanchions at Boynton Lancing include the words "Boynton Landing", specIfically conveying infonnation to. the public. These architectural accents are quite attractive if yOU will Take the time to see them 1 do. not behevc; thal th~y are prohibited by your Code, They are attractive and I would rt=quc::st lh4t YOIJ recansider SiW~. DavId M. l~Ylr.;in DML/lm cc: Michael Rumpf (via telefax) James A. Cherot: Esq. lvia te!fiax")ullc Tlt'~K...., p.A P.u a".20b:!lt ""bT PALM BrACll. t1."I(,I>... :-S:S4lo-01l~~ :'(.1.1150.;'0100 F.... ~oL-t,55-6~lZ ...... ~Un' '....m ,i~ :;0'.11"11 f."cu:" D"HI ~'.IT.. ~OO E",T WI!~T P,La iH:"c", f'''J1.0A lj-iUL MI'.u !\tw \:""1" ~,,,,,",.";~u" D.'- A1.~A~T' PIlIl,DJ:l1-Ul'l l"hl.~, C"IIt\tK 5,,01'''1.0 f'o'n~"LIlt:kl>"I.: \lI,q PAI.lIB~...o.:ll Olll"P\[){, T^1.L^K..~HI. Bu,..R...TlJ:\ ~<~d)? \;/.7 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT Division of Planning and Zoning Building Planning & Zoning Engineering Occupational License Community Redevelopment June 1,2000 David M. Layman Law Offices of Greenberg Traurig P.O. Box 20629 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-0629 Re: Boynton Landings MMSP 00-033 Dear Mr. Layman: In response to your request for administrative review and approval of modifications proposed to the above-referenced, approved site plan, please be informed that the proposed change shown on the revised plan dated 5/19/00 are in violation of the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations. The ten (10) "architectural accents" as described in your letter dated May 18, 2000 and shown in the photographs are defined as "banners" and as such are prohibited per Chapter 21, Signs, Section 3.D., a copy of which is attached for your information. Please be advised that the existing ten (10) banners are not permitted and must be removed from the site. Please contact me at (561) 742-6260 if you have additional questions. _ ~IY, Jl a;~~14 ~v Lusia Galav, AICP Senior Planner Cc: Michael W. Rumpf, Director of Planning and Zoning Scott Blasie, Code Compliance Administrator J :\SHRDA T A IPlanninglSHAREDI WP'PROJECTS\BoynlOn Landings\Boynton Landings.doc America's Gateway to the Gulfstream 100 East Boynton Beach Blvd., P.O. Box 310 Boynton Beach, Florida 33425-0310 Phone: (561) 742-6260 FAX: (561) 742-6259 ADA f ()lJ- (k) I Am~KJ;\~U\ 4 Boynton Beach Code question prevents signage allowable under the provisions of this ordinance from adequately identifying the business or other activity located on such property. The board of zoning appeals may only grant a variance to: A. Allow a setback less than that required under the chapter; B. Allow the area and/or height of a sign to be increased by up to twenty-five (25) percent of the maximum allowable height or area; or C. Allow the number of signs to be increased over the maximum allowed by this code. No variances may be granted to signs expressly prohibited by this chapter. (Ord. No. 96-61, ~ 1, 1-21-97) Sec. 2. Exemptions. The permit requirements of this chapter shall not apply to the following signs, provided however, that said signs shall be subject to other provisions of this code: I) . '1 /- oil ;< .(J A. Real estate signs not exceeding five (5) square feet in area which advertise the sale, rental or lease of the premises upon which such signs are located. These signs must be set back ten (10) feet from the property line, meet the structural requirements and must not exceed four (4) feet in height. Only one (1) such sign is allowed per street frontage. B. A single residential yard sign, not exceeding three (3) square feet in area (Beware of Dog, Watch your Step, Name and Address, etc.). C. Window/door signs using less than twenty (20) percent of the total glass area facing in anyone direction. This area is not included in the total sign area allowed under this chapter. These signs are not permitted in residential zoning districts. D. Political signs. These signs must comply with Article III, Section 6.0 of this Chapter. 1997 S-5 E. Flags. " .~ F. Bulletin boards not over eight (8) square feet in area for public, charitable or religious institutions when the same are located on the premises of such institutions . G. Occupational signs denoting only the name and profession of an occupant in a commercial building, public institutional building or dwelling house and not exceeding two (2) square feet in area. H. Memorial signs or tablets, names of buildings and date of erection, when cut into any masonry surface or when constructed of bronze or other incombustible materials. 1. Traffic or other governmental signs, legal notices, railroad crossing signs, danger signs and such temporary, emergency or non-advertising signs as may be approved by the city. J. Signs indicating the address and/or name of the residential occupants of the premises, not exceeding two (2) square feet in area. K. Vehicular signs. L. Bus shelter signs. Sec. 3. Prohibitions. The following signs and related equipment are prohibited in all districts: A. Any sign and/or sign structure which does not meet all the criteria set forth in this chapter. B. Animated/fluttering signs C. Balloons D. Banners (not including special civic event, recreational, expositional or temporary business identification signs) E. Bus bench signs F. Festoons General Provisions jewelry and the like, but not used merchandise generally. No outside storage or display shall be permitted in connection with such uses. APARTMENT - A room or a suite of rooms occupied, or which is intended or designed to be occupied, as the home or residence of one (1) individual, family or household, for housekeeping purposes. APARTMENT, EFFICIENCY - A dwelling unit consisting of one (1) room, other than a bathroom, and providing cooking facilities. APPLICANT - See "Developer." ARCADE - A permanent, roof-like structure open to the weather on one (1) or more sides, constructed of rigid materials. which is cantilevered from the building wall, attached to and supported by the exterior building wall or supported by freestanding columns or pillars. ARTERIAL ROAD OR STREET - A route providing service which is relatively continuous and of relatively high traffic volume, long average trip length, high operating speed, and high mobility importance, In addition, every United States numbered highway is an arterial road, and every street shown or described as arterial according to the current or most recent functional classificatlon contained in the City of Boynton Beach Comprehensive Plan, as adopted and amended, is an arterial. AUTO PARTS SALES (RETAIL) - Sale of auto pans from a commercial establishment for installation and use off-premises. AUTOMOBILE - An automobile or motorcycle, as defined by the rules of the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE ST AnON - The use of a building or other structure, on a lot or parcel of land which includes any retail sale of gasoline or other motor fuels. AWNING - A structure made of cloth or metal with a metal frame attached to a building, when the same 1997 S-5 5 is so erected as to permit its being raised to a position flat against the building when not in use. BALLOON - A container made of non-rigid material filled with air or gas and designed to be tethered. BANNER - A sign having the characters, letters, illustrations or ornamentations applied to cloth, paper, film or fabric of any kind, with only such materials for a backing. Banner shall not include national, state, municipal, civic or church flags, awnings or canopies. BAR OR COCKTAIL LOUNGE - An establishment which serves or includes the serving of beer, wine or liquor to patrons other than in conjunction with the serving of meals. BICYCLE PATH - Any road, path or way that is open to bicycle travel, which road, path or way is physically separated from motorized vehicular traffic by an open space or by a barrier and is located either within the highway right-of-way or within an independent right-of-way. BILLBOARD - A sign normally mounted on a building wall or freestanding structure with advertising copy which refers to something other than the name and primary character of the business on the premises or is located on a remote site from service or site referred to by the sign copy. BLOCK - A parcel of land surrounded by streets, waterways, railroad rights-of-way, parks or other public space. BOARDING AND ROOMING HOUSE - A building other than hotel or motel providing lodging and where meals are or are not served for compensation. BOATEL - Yachtel. BRIDGE - A structure, including supports, erected over a depression or an obstruction, such as water or a highway or railway, and having a track or passage- way for carrying traffic as defined in chapter 316 or other moving loads.