REVIEW COMMENTS
-- P"
:4'..
') -""'\
, ,.
.... ....~,
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
MEMORANDUM
TO
Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM:
Nicholas I. Igwe, Assistant City Atto ey
RE:
Boynton Landings vs. City of Boynton ach
(Sign Code violations /display of illegal banners)
DATE:
December 15,2000
Recently the Code Compliance Division issued three citations to Boynton Landings Ltd., the
owner of Boynton Landings apartments, located at 230 N. Congress Ave., for hanging 10 banners
on individual poles at the entrance of the apartment. While the citations were pending in the
court system, Boynton Landings unsuccessfully sought to administratively modify the approved
site plan to permit the banners on the property. Boynton Landings' appeal of the administrative
decision to modify its site plan was denied by the Planning and Zoning Board. Ultimately, the
Commission ratified the Planning and Zoning Board's decision.
On December 14, 2000, the three citations were tried in the county court. We are happy to
announce that our Office prevailed on this matter. Boynton Landings was adjudicated guilty of
the charged offenses and ordered to pay a total of $699 in court costs and fines. Boynton
Landings was ordered to remove the illegal signs by 5 P.M. December 18, 2000. We are thankful
to Courtney Caine, Code Compliance Officer, Scott Blasie, Code Compliance Supervisor and
Code Compliance Division for their professional support and assistance in the prosecution of this
matter.
Thank you.
Cc: James Cherof, City Attorney
Kurt Bressner, City Manager
Quintus Greene, Director of Development
Mike Rumpf, Planning Director
Lusia Galav, Senior Planner
Scott Blasie, Code Compliance Supervisor
Courtney Cain, Code Compliance Inspector
Members ofthe Code Compliance Board
Members of the Planning and Zoning Board ~
SlIgwe filelBoynton Landings Memo:
'--.....--..
Galav Lusia
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Galav Lusia
Tuesday, October 17, 2000 11 :41 AM
Igwe, Nicholas
Rumpf, Michael
Boynton Landings Appeal
Nicholas,
I have prepared the staff report for the above referenced appeal. I have a question for you regarding what constitutes
"public notice" and "due notice to the parties of interest" as provided in Chapter 1, Article VII, Sec. 1 E. HEARING OF
APPEALS. we are planning to put this item on the November 8, 2000 City CJmmission meeting.
Please advise as soon as possible. Thanks.
Lusia
P+D ill 2~/6D
C! ~ 1:1/)'/00
1
/Jrr-tJ;.') _
?
- P()2Fzj tr ~{/fUi-q ~2h .
J; if
~ <'1111~;V
.-yf H:!/,~ L-i h~c/ a.... /i/( /2 _ 0--0--~ J-o'h.- ~,
~/J~ ( I
11'f(~ 2j ~i:AI",- "'-U/a;-(~~:C~ .:2- c'{ h-
--v ~J.i cJ Iv U-4; (c,1>>>U-fl..., (fI{j b()('A:J cYf 20"1 r~)
/}
p~v--fj\ atA. 2f1~~t +-
/ ! '-'
(/
{ 6ch )LevI4~;
~~------- .- .
- [.1,/fJ-~ ^-- 1'<' 2rrl/cz:hv Ca:1.rL i~/l/Ic-c..., ~~1
CY[)~Q.o~ V
David M. Layman,
561/650-7990
~~ff~~[~~
ATTOR:-IEYS AT LAW
1~~~~la
li.bY! II UO -00 I
~ /-:::::\ r-~~7
(f '-'I Ij Ii SJ V
~~U
e-mail: laymand@gtlaw.com
June 29, 2000
VIA FEDEX
Mr. Michael W. Rumpf
Planning and Zoning Director
100 East Boynton Beach Boulevard
P.O. Box 310
Boynton Beach, Florida 33425
Re: Request for Code Review and Appeal of June 20. 2000 Determination
Dear Mr. Rumpf: ()fb.e} il1'2.t dek.~mihcla{lt/V'- . UXLj YVl~de
( () 'J'lJ.Yle..I) 2000 lL~) );Jvt1Sf DD--653
As you know, this firm represents CSC Boynton Landing, Ltd., the owner of the Boynton
Landings Apartments (the "Property"). This letter serves as an 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 respectfully appeal the determination made in your June 20, 2000 letter on the same
grounds originally set forth in our original letter to you requesting a minor modification to the
site plan for the Property. Enclosed please find a check for $200.00 for the appeal fee.
We desire to pursue the approval of the signs where they are currently located and,
accordingly, we also request a Code Review. Pursuant to Chapter 1, Article VII, Section 1. B. of
the Boynton Beach Code, kindly forward our appeal with the documentation we previously
provided you with (i.e., we had previously provided you with (4) copies of the Boynton Landings
survey and photographs of the signs) to the appeal board for placement on the board's next
available agenda.
Please call me at 650-7927 to set up a pre-application Code Review meeting with your
staff.
'.A
Da . .
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Danny Ruda (w/o encl.)
WPBiCANI:-;OF/2707S9/Ssx301'.DOO6l29Ioo/20821 013800
GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.
P.O. Box 20629 WEST PAL'll BEACH. FLORIDA 33416-0629
561-650-7900 FAX 561-655-6222 www.gtlaw.com
777 SOLTH FLAGLER DRIVE SUITE 300 EAST WEST PAUl BEACH, FLORID.~ 33401
MIAMI :\'EW YORK WASHINGTON, D.C. ATLA:-ITA PHILADELPHH Tyso:-;s COR:'iER SAo PALLO
FORT LALDERDALE WEST PALM BEACH ORLA:-;DO TALl.AHASSEE BOCA R.\TON
28
Boynton Beach Code
ARTICLE VII. APPEALS
Sec. 1. Appeals from decisions of an
admini~trative official.
A. ELIGIBILITY. Appeals of decisions of an
administrative official may be taken by any person
aggrieved or by any officer, board, or bureau of the
governing body affected by any decision of an
administrative official under any ordinance enacted
pursuant to the Land Development Regulations of the
City of Boynton Beach.
B. FILING. Appeals shall be filed within
fifteen (15) calendar days after rendition of the order,
requirement, decision, or determination with the
official from whom the appeal is taken specifying the
grounds for the appeal. A current cenified survey
and a fee as adopted by resolution of the City
Commission, plans, drawings, documents and/or
other material constituting the record upon which the
action was taken shall be collected by the
administrative official and, together with the
completed appeal, forwarded to the appropriate
appeal board for placement on the board's next
available agenda.
C. STAY OF WORK. Upon posting of
acceptable surety (see Chapter 7) by the appellant in
an amount equal to 110 % of the potential costs of
delays and damages as certified by a design
professional, all work on the premises and all
proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed
from will be stayed, unless the official from whom
the appeal was taken certifies that by reason of facts
stated in the certificate, a stay would cause imminent
peril of life or property. In such case, proceedings
or work shall not be stayed except by a restraining
order which may be granted by the board or by a
court of record on application, on notice to the
officer from whom the appeal is taken and on due
cause shown.
D. ASSIGNMENT OF APPEALS. The City
of Boynton Beach has several boards/commissions
which deal with a variety of appeals, variances,
exemptions, exceptions, etc., as follows:
1. The building board of adjustment and
appeals will hear and decide appeals of administrative
1997 S-5
decisions or detenninations made in the enforcement
or administration of LDR Chapter 20, Building,
Housing and Construction Regulations and the various
building codes and ordinances adopted by the City.
See LDR Chapter 20, Article VII, Section 2D for
detailed information.
2. The City Commission will hear and
decide appeals of administrative decisions or
determinations in the enforcement or administration of
environmental review pennits; excavation, dredging
and/or fill pennits; major/minor site plan or master
plan modifications and height exceptions.
3. The concurrency review board will hear
and decide appeals of administrative decisions
denying a certification of concurrency and/or a ,
conditional certification of concurrency. I 0Y1f1<?~ II!
r:" (10 'S.QtiI i c..e
4. The board of zoning appeals will hear
and decide appeals of administrative decisions or
determinations made in the enforcement or
administration of all portions of the Land
Development Regulations not specifically enumerated
within the jurisdiction of the City Commission and/or
the building board of adjustment and appeals and/or
the concurrency review board. See LDR Chapter 2,
Section 10 for detailed information.
E. HEARING OF APPEALS. Each board or
commission shall fix a reasonable time for the hearing
of the appeal, give public notice thereof, as well as
due notice to the parties in interest. Upon the
hearing, any party may appear in person, by agent or
by attorney.
F. REVIEW OF ADMINISTRA TIVE
ORDERS. In exercising its powers, each board or
commission may, reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, .
or may modify the order, requirement, decision, or
determination made by an administrative official and
may make any necessary order, requirement,
decision, or detennination, and to that end shall have
all the powers of the officer from whom the appeal is
taken. The concurring vote of a majority of the
members present shall be necessary to reverse any
order. requirement, decision, or determination of any
administrative official or to decide in favor of the
General Provisions
applicant on any matter upon which the board or
commission is required to pass.
G. INDEMNIFICATION. In the eventa claim
or lawsuit is brought against the City, its officers,
employees, servants or agents, the applicant hereby
agrees to indemnify, save, and hold harmless the
City, its officers, employees, servants or agents and
to defend said persons from any such claims,
liabilities, causes of action, and judgements of any
type whatsoever arising out of or relating to the
appeals from decisions of an administrative official
whether the appellant is the applicant or any other
party. The appellant agrees to pay all costs,
attorney's fees, and expenses incurred by the City, its
officers, employees, servants or agents in connection
with such claims, liabilities or suits. Nothing
contained herein, however, shall act as a waiver of
any of the City's immunities provided for in Florida
Statutes, Section 768.28. (Ord. No. 96-49, ~ 7, 1-
21-97)
Sec. 2. Appeals from decisions of the
concurrency review board.
A. ELIGIBILITY. Appeals of decisions of the
concurrency review board may be taken by any
aggrieved party affected by a board decision.
B. FILING. Appeals shall be filed within
fifteen (15) calendar days after rendition of the order,
requirement, decision or determination with the
planning and zoning director specifying the grounds
for the appeal. A fee as adopted by resolution of the
City Commission together with other documents and
materials constituting the record upon which the
action was taken shall be collected by the planning
and zoning director and, together with the completed
appeal, forwarded to the planning and development
board for placement on the board's next available
agenda.
C. HEARING OF APPEALS. The planning
and development board shall fix a reasonable time for
the hearing of the appeal, give public notice thereof,
as well as due notice to the parties in interest. Upon
the hearing, any party may appear in person, by
agent or by attorney.
1997 S-5
29
D. REVIEWING APPEALS. In exercising its
powers, the planning and development board may
reverse or affirm wholly or partly, or may modify the
decision or determination made by the concurrency
review board and may make any necessary order,
requirement, decision or determination, and to that
end shall have all the powers of the concurrency
review board and the planning and zoning director.
The concurring vote of a majority of the members
present shall be necessary to reverse any order,
requirement, decision, or determination of the
concurrency review board or to decide in favor of the
applicant on any matter upon which the board is
required to pass. (Ord. No. 96-49, ~ 7, 1-21-97)
Sec. 3. Appeals from decisions of the board of
zoning appeals, and the building board of
adjustment and appeals.
A. ELIGIBILITY. Appeals of decisions of the
board of zoning appeals and the building board of
adjustment and appeals may be taken by any
aggrieved party affected by a board decision.
B. FILING. Appeals for judicial relief shall be
filed with the circuit court within thirty (30) calendar
days after rendition of a board decision. (Ord. No.
96-49, ~ 7, 1-21-97)
Sec. 4. Appeals from decisions of the City
Commission.
A. ELIGIBILITY. Appeals of decisions by the
City Commission may be taken by any aggrieved
party affected by a commission decision.
B. FILING. Appeals for judicial relief shall be
filed with the circuit court within thirty (30) calendar
. days after rendition of a commission decision. (Ord.
No. 96-49, ~ 7, 1-21-97)
Sec. S. Withdrawal or denial of appeal.
A. REFlLING AFTER DENIAL. Upon denial
of an application for relief hereunder, in whole or in
part, a period of one (1) year must run prior to the
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL
1-000-4-413.70
DATE FILE NO. PROJECT DESCRIPTION MADE
ADAP NAME BY
I 11'5 t=Vl en - ("::0 \ 5:>;:> G\.-h ~:\.J)- -~ \0 Cu.Ai~-E C::J31L D\'"
.~~ Pxk ~~\_~, ~c:, ,,~LJ
r- .
YI~/~'1 <Tl-rJ:r~ ~ ...~- (~~\" '"C::. Q~'(~ S~~I~'tt:"'" lj' !~1
o/r6 pn Q7-oo:") (~-114-</) (~JI J~(~ o riff'" l~ (1~..d ,nl lhl J:.. L. . ~IY' y_../
. ~ .~ ~
D:\SHARE\ WP\FOR.lI.1S\PROJTYPE\A.DAP. WPD
Galav Lusia
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Igwe, Nicholas
Thursday, July 27, 2000 11 :31 AM
Rumpf, Michael
Galav Lusia
RE: Appeal process- Boynton Landings (banners)
Mike: I have reviewed Mr. Layman's letter of June 29, 2000, requesting a code review and appeal of
your department's June 1, 2000 administrative decision denying his request for site plan modification
to allow banners on his client's property. Please consider the following:
Question presented:
Whether Mr. Layman's letter of June 9, 2000 asking for reconsideration, tolls the 15 day period to file
his appeal under DR Part III, Chapter 1, Article VII, section I. B?
Brief Answer: No.
Facts:
On May 18, 2000 Mr. Layman wrote a letter requesting a modification of an approved site plan. On
June 1, 2000 letter denying the request for modification was generated. On June 9, 2000 letter
seeking a reconsideration of the June 1, 2000 decision denying the proposed site plan modification
was made. On June 20, 2000 a letter denying the request to reconsider was generated.
Applicable Law and Analysis:
The above referenced code section permits Mr. Layman to file an appeal within 15 days of an
administrative decision. Nothing in the code permits the filing of a "motion" to reconsider. Under
Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, a motion for reconsideration of a decision does not toll the time
period for filing an appeal. In this instance, Mr. Layman's appeal clock started running from June 1,
2000 when the City advised him of the decision to deny his modification request in writing. As stated
earlier, nothing in the code allows the filing of a "motion to reconsider" and thus Mr. Layman's
appellate right could not have commenced on June 9, 2000 when he filed for reconsideration. It is
clear that the letter seeking to appeal the administrative decision is untimely as that letter was
received more than 15 days of the decision denying his proposed modification. Though not
requested by Mr. Layman, there may be other section of the code that may afford him a relief.
----Original Message----
From: Rumpf, Michael
Sent: Monday, July 24, 20004:47 PM
To: Igwe, Nicholas
Cc: Galav Lusia
Subject: Appeal process- Boynton Landings (banners)
Hey Nick, we need your assistance to confirm the validity of a current appeal application. This apartment complex
purchased and erected entrance banners. Our code prohibits banners so code enforcement cited them. They
1
contacted an attorney to get involI,cQ ""ho says our code doesn't prohibit them. IlleY asked that their site plan be
modified to allow the banners we responded negatively due to code. They then submitted an application an appeal.
Our first review was conducted by June 1 st and findings communicated in a June 1 st letter. We then submitted a 2nd
letter to further drive our point home that it was prohibited. On June 29th they filed an appeal letter.
The code requires that an appeal be sent within 15 days. This means they are too late based on the first
determination. We are meeting with them on August 2nd. Can you confirm that we are correct in our determination
that they are prohibited and that they have exceeded the appeal period? Thanks, MR.
2
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM NO. PZ 00-217
TO: Mike Rumpf
Planning ~d Zo g Director
FROM: Lusia Galav
Senior PI I
DATE: July 24, 2000
SUBJECT: Boynton Landings ADAP 00-001
I have reviewed the information contained in the above referenced file. The applicant has
chosen to appeal the administrative decision regarding banner signs located at Boynton
Landings. I have a concern regarding the validity of the appeal. The applicant is using
your letter dated June 20, 2000 as the start of the required 15-day filing timeframe.
(Chapter 1, Article VII., Sec. 1. B.). However, the original decision was made through the
minor modification process and conveyed through my letter dated June 1, 2000. The
appeal request letter is dated June 29, 2000. I recommend a legal opinion be sought to
verify that the appeal is legitimate.
In the event that the appeal is valid, the code states that this matter would go before the
board of zoning appeals, which is no longer in existence. Therefore, the appeal would be
forwarded to the City Commission for their review and determination. Review of past
appeal applications indicates that a staff report with exhibits, conditions of approval and a
development order, is placed directly on the City Commission agenda. No special
advertising requirements are outlined in the code.
The applicant is also seeking a code revision and has requested a pre-application meeting
to discuss same. A pre-application meeting is set for Wednesday, August 2,2000 at 9:30
AM with David Layman the applicant. Nicholas Igwe, Assistant City Attorney, will also
be joining us. As an appeal may involve further legal action in a court of law, I
recommend that we include the City's legal counsel in all further actions involving this
application.
Galav Lusia
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Rumpf, Michael
Monday, July 24,20004:47 PM
Igwe, Nicholas
Galav Lusia
Appeal process~ Boynton Landings (banners)
Hey Nick, we need your assistance to confirm the validity of a current appeal application. This apartment complex
purchased and erected entrance banners. Our code prohibits banners so code enforcement cited them. They contacted
an attorney to get involved who says our code doesn't prohibit them. They asked that their site plan be modified to allow
the banners we responded negatively due to code. They then submitted an application an appeal. Our first review was
conducted by June 1st and findings communicated in a June 1st letter. We then submitted a 2nd letter to further drive our
point home that it was prohibited. On June 29th they filed an appeal letter.
The code requires that an appeal be sent within 15 days. This means they are too late based on the first determination.
We are meeting with them on August 2nd. Can you confirm that we are correct in our determination that they are
prohibited and that they have exceeded the appeal period? Thanks, MR.
1
Galav Lusia
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Blasie,Scott; Cain, Courtney
Rumpf, Michael; Igwe, Nicholas
Boynton Landings - Banners
Please be advised that the attorney for Boynton Landings
filed an appeal dated June 29, 2000 to the administrative decision regarding the ten (10) "banners" located in the front of
the entrance on Congress Avenue. On the advice of the Assistant City Attorney, Nicholas Igwe, no further citations should
be issued while the appeal is in process.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Lusia
1
OCT-16-00 10:12 AM CODE COMPLIANCE
-
~ - --:
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
~ _. ~ . "'. l00E.Bo;riIaABIICh~ ",." . . -.",~,
~OId/llllee . ,.IqnItnBadl,Fl33>&35 :;-"'-.'._" ,,-
o eo.rty CocIt . (561)375-1120 ~. 08 0036 4
. FLORIDA UNFORM CODE CITAtioN .'
1IlIlIlIInIf*l"" ... .. ,. ~ .. ___.... m ....... .. ~ IIIINt lilt an. '.:
~-;;JO " ./ b~~ ~Go:;6'licJ;~:
~ ". L' ,._J>-" .';., . -., J ' -..':.
'.' rr'jn'7d""'l:;,.,,Ci,;';'c'S"""- ./l"":_,_,}",,,<~;, .
~ -- ." ","" .,- .
A./ (cl7i':'t*'?r.5'~O~.J;f !:U'; .,~,:,
~ '7 ... ZIp
S(J/ --~7"o" r;;"cl;' ;n~':::e~'";J.S:;
r-'
n6 'T'Ji'f'lIo'~l%'r/;~
. .,~:. ,J......... -- ...\"..;. t
l~$.:l; ft~JA..~ "li~' ~'r~~'
.1'!'~.,ozr ::Ft~.
. io~'~:
a~I.i.fJA7IT S~L! 7./~..>.~. ;~ .':~
. '...' :. .'," ;-..~~.." ;J.t'r1!,l;-. '-,\ W ;i\~
/-/7 ,'Br..iJ,'6t-F L.~ ,I~fij /~'.;'i;;>'''''.'''':! .
~ . I. -. ~
..Bt'/ /1" i-;;::..... Or c
~ ". ...'\ - I
ti~rZ:;!;~'~;7
u'C
. .;,,-..,-:,.,,-..8<., . up .
~' ,-,'.' .',~ ~..;!~ ... ~.~ :~"::,; :r-~! ......Jlid1lllllnlG__Sleo.. .'"
7-// ..' ._."'.,'.......~'~...._....., . . .'
_ --L... ...... .:J.\. 1l...\.,_..~,-:"'" ,..~"" " " '.
- . ../J~ cc.. . -:~
N01ICE: m.cIllIllaIIlt..... ~iD s.ctIDn 11U1. FIDrldI-... TIlIIIaIdon Iorllllillll
,... .....11. GlflIIIbcIlan. Yw........ ....... ftllt _.._111...... of iulI',
,.....,. ..., ...... m . .. .... Ilia c..... II. 111......111' III _ 2nd ....... ~
~S.ns_lIr77UD !"lIr1dd..... ,.,.\0 .-,lIlI......aItlI.......,or....... .:
,... "- tflt CIIIIl. .. taut .... 111 .,. IhIIl ..... a..... 01 Jf* rIgIt to canIaIl .
IiIcIIIIon, IIlll jUIlpn ~ ba... ...... ,au for.. __ 01.....1* Inhctian..._.
"...-...ftI.s 'u, ~:'7n.. ;;;.~;;" ,.:'~ \,::,:;,,: :.;
'So., ~ " ,.. . ;'.._.'.>;"./ .' DATEllWEOFISSUANCE
',"-"'/':.:- .<"~ ..- /''/- / .
........_ ULI .,.",' ..,....Q All
C. /~~ ~~ ~' .. ,::.'.-' /j
......... / .
" ~ ..1 ,'. J 'F .. - t .
C ;' t' ~ ( .- - ,.," ,/ f/," './r .r:.
.,...,CIIIoer '
WlI1II CIolh lllIoo YILl.OW IIndloIUI ...., ~ ~ ILIEICIoll'aOlb _
561742613313
P.02
'~'--,r ,..J~W1~..n,~~. '~,,~ -:C~~;"'T;}!p.~~.,
.. ",.:.., ,. CITY.OF BOYNTON BEACH', '~. ;"'/
.' "'4."........(... ;~.:.~":..arEa...,l_~ '''- '-',,'.,~ ":'j' it,
~~e::OR;~:~U:;:;~:~~i1i
1111 ~........,..~~.~ ~~~!~~_+-"'llI!c
";,'f""'''''''';~,;.>,~ .,4~~-". ..... .... ...QA.'
..Y (/~''1 ';..( .~.~... "J .2<,o<:?'f3:,~.tlt,>-
'~;';}/i~;;. ~".: 'i';-,.' c... A" T~ /~!ireC(
. . 1-., "'t- '-," . ." . ..:.....,'~ ...._.
;:.... ~.r~:::~;'2:: I' '9" ""'''';,~;~::;::;
.... ~ ~. " . ~
..... '11((./. .s~c..3 LL , .
. '.lJ'''':'':'Io.:.-'~~~ . ;"';"i'~'';';';.~~_/~':;
;t.I(Yff, )!?4:ff" Or IJ,~,.i'/. :,pl.;. .:,; . AiL:.,
:....-4,-.\=.~..&. t ( r('..~-r.....;_
.~.~./ ,,". ".: ,i, . ..
_ ~--':-.~ ~ <- ;."~:;:~'7 H+ f'lIII,rpaldllliMltll.,.pIuI.c.
'; ..L V (e"'<:iT.;~'~", -~:"U;"(,r'0 ~~ oe.
;~" NOllCE: _............., ~ iolactlall 11U1. FlorIdI..... TlII...... Iaf.
: . ,..,-~II...iIhcIIIn..,.,......1IIIDw drill -~"'........, of PI
;.. .....,...,........ IIId .... .. clIIlIolIlI . m.......llllt11 2nd .... .
.'. prlIItdM $.771.Ga<<77Qa 1Iartda __........ ",,"'ljIpIIcIIIlIc/IlI /lIIIIIlr.,,...
;.: '-lIItl hIlllIIe a.n III" Ccut... l' .,............ .......row rItN Io-*t
;. :-IftlIC...IIIll,.,......., III............,., IDr __ "If _aGO. /lII' "*'*"
~ ." . .
- . '.......~ " .:y.,~"" .,:..j .,... ~ '~"'" .' ..~.'...r-.J. ,,'.
.-' '~7/~...q~;'~',_)~r<~- :~';- ~;;7~.;;.~:~~:~.:': ';'i,,~.,::~\:
. lI"J~"""'" /)
~~~ ~"'~7~r.'~ :::,~:7~
(a(/"~7 {C,/~., '0: ~~,'inii
-- ... IIIr ...
.. (,~. (~.~~~f c- r- c.,/ri.. r"" .\;.:.
llIflIra.b C*a 'fIWIW IlNIIofUI ...,QIII ~ IUl!fClM'lOlta
~~...:..:&.II._,~~-.. .~.;.. -,iT '~~~...'.~':";'~ .~~:-.
David M, Layman.
561/650-7990
~~[[~~[~~
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
I~~~~I~
r-- EXHIBIT "G"
e-mail: laymand@.gtlaw.com
May 18, 2000
~ ~MA: J~9'-
J
PlANNING AND
lONING DEP!
VIA FEDEX
Mr. Michael W. Rumpf
Planning and Zoning Director
100 East Boynton Beach Boulevard
P.O. Box 310
Boynton Beach, Florida 33425
Re: Request for Minor Site Plan Modification for Boynton Landings
Dear Mr. Rumpf:
This firm represents CSC Boynton Landing, Ltd., the .owner of the Boynton Landings
Apartments (the "Property"). This letter serves as a request:;.for a minor modification to the
Boynton Landings site plan.
Enclosed please find a check for $100.00 for this application for the minor modification,
four (4) copies of the Boynton Landings survey (we could not obtain copies of the site plans) and
photographs of the architectural accents being added to the site plan. These architectural accents
were recently added to the Property and for your convenience are shown on the attached surveys
plans as red dots.
As you can see from the photographs, these accents are an architectural enhancement to
the entranceway to the Property. These sturdy poles are painted with Benjamin Moore exterior
gloss material and are designed to withstand sustained winds of 120 miles per hour and were
installed by direct burial with the bottom 36" section below grade. These architectural
enhancements cost over $7,000.
We respectfully request a minor modification to the Boynton Landings site plan for these
architectural enhancements to the Property.
Please call me at 650- 7927 if you have any questions or need any additional information.
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Danny Ruda (w/o encI.)
GREENBERG TRAGRIG HOFnu.:'i LIPOFF ROSE:'i & QUE:'iTEL, P.--\..
WPB;C"r-;INOF,~70759:5sx301' DOC5118:00'~08J:1.'O~8'IJox 20629 WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33416-0629
561-650- 7900 Fu 561-655-6222
iii SOLTII FLAGLER DRIVE SlilTE 300 E.\ST WEST PAUl BEACH, FLORIDA 33401
MIAMI NEW YORK WASHI:'iGTO:'i. D.C. PHILADELPHIA 5,\0 PAULO
FORT L.\l!DERDALE WEST PAUl BEACH ORL.\:'iDO TALL.\!L\SSEE BOL\ RATO:'i
CCE~iff(\;~
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.
Sincerely,
- "tL~i deau
ca~~alav, AICP
Senior Planner
Cc: Michael W. Rumpf, Director of Planning and Zoning
Scott Blasie, Code Compliance Administrator
I:\SHRDA T A \PlanningISHAREOIWPlPROIECTS\BoynlOn LandingslSoynlOn Landings doc
America's Gateway to tlte Gulfstream
100 East Boynton Beach Blvd.. P.O. Box 310 Boynton Beach. Florida 33425-0310 Phone: (561) 742-6260 FAX: (561) 742-6259
4v-R r' (}u- 0:.1 /
~lBfr"H"
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:
J:<) S'
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.D 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 ~rossing 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
.
(
(~
EXHIBIT "H"
s
General Provisions
jewelry and the like, but not used merchandise
generally. No outside storage or display shall be
permitted in connection with such uses.
AP ARTl\fENT - 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, EFFlCIENCY - 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 STATION - 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
is so erected as to permit its being raised t9 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~PArn - Any road, path or way that is
open to bkycle 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 A.l'lD 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.
OCT-16-~~ 10:12 AM CODE COMPLIANCE
-
-
~-
... .
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH - "
~ " ~ . .... 100 !. 8cIrriIan SftcIIllllUI.wwd' ".^, ' :....:.. .', .'
~Oll:II/lIftCt . "'...-.n....I'l3:W3S :.....,.,."..., ',-
Q eo.ny Code ' (56t)375-f120, ~. 08 00364 ..
FLORIDA UNlFORMCOOE CITATIoN. . . ,:,
,.. ~ ~ ... III ,.,,.... ___...."....... as '*- tIIIIw "'" la'
=;":,10 c<16~:,{,o"J:O'+~I::~:;
~ tJi .... . . a. . _~
. R rr";,,'Yo~,""Lt;;"cI'~cJ";!.1; J"/;",~~,;,.:I ~
~/ - .,.. ,.'" .,.
A/ {' (")/1/:'f':~5' :J'90~J;4 !:;r; ,,~~
~ '7 ... ZIp
B6,";-7"'o" ~~"cJ;' ;n~::::J:3(i".J..S:~
r"'. ,
..8~ "1;; r~ c" 0" c:' n '~' .r:r ~',!~'t;i~'; I::~
~ '" -. .... '. I . . .}i::. ........_ .111 ........ .~.
'~~':lr~~::/r~Y.,rr _. _ ,"". ""J~~':i';&i. ':~
~~ -,-~ ?<)..,,: ~':
/ ) 7 " .;;;::" ~ -:.;-:':~. / :~'; :'7]:*: -: .w..i~l:
/-1 ; ~t'/~7 7~, ,'-~ ,Ittr'li I-;~ l:~~"~~;
U'c.
· :, " .;;..~;:......ih" . ...
<.; ;. ,~r.-..,.;,: '"'~'..: :~;;~r"P,! ,..,1I.....,0.....$Ieo.". .
~ / / .... '"" 'i.~.w-.lt ~. . ' ,~
.-J- ' ',"' - , .....: ~ ,,/.J3 'c.c.. ,~~:;:
II01ICE: 1* clIIllM II ...... pu>WWIt. ScllDft 11U1. Fb1da SIIIIuiL 'TIll wlOldon lilt IIIlIcII
,.,..~II...1IdII8cIlan. Yow......__..IIIlt~..~oI~...
hIwIw....... ..... ...... Md ....... cIllIIIan ... -' .11'__* III II'- 2rld....... _
jIIlIricIId s.nua arnua I'laddII SlIIuII. '''I'IIo..,_~... ~OI''''''' .
.... fluonllle an... COld... 10'" ... ........... aI,.. lil"'IoCllllUM. "
.. cIIIIan, IIIlI ~..., '-..... ..... yw far.......... 01._-'1* /nhciIoft.. :.
..,ti~~' .:..:.~'~:;;ii.~;';~~;.d~~:~~~~~':.:;;~~~!.::' ,<~
......"- ~ .,'
/" .,~., ~. ,.-' _ ',:-":;.','~;&'. .DATrII"IIEOfISSUAHCf ..~
.-$....JO'~:-- /."~ ..;..."./ -/ .
.......,~ Lll.. 'llIIt .',.':. ,Q All
f. / / ~ c('.:)
C. /',-...."'.0 .. -::'" ;J / . -
-- /" -
(" ~:'/G
1111.. CIllw
(",,-,.;, './ t;. '/(/ ;;"
I
~1_ClIIoo I'IUDW/_, .~I~~ ,ILI&ICIIot'.~ _.
EXH'lBIT'IJ".,
5617426838
P.€'2
-..
~-,. . ,~,!"~'~'''':''r.r;,'~-:~~:''';"~~,~~.,
" '.'. ~" ;:CITY'OF sOYNrol.iSEACH ..~.~ ;:~-~,
.. -4',-4'-:f..; ;~':. -,':iOoEIIIlalliie..a,~ ,~ ~'..'. ,; '!:'r~.
~~'::OR~:u:;;:t:t:~el1i
1llI.....,...cdall N".~~~.~~~ !~~_~... tlItc
'l~'-;; .~~. '~V~'~{I'~-:2'1'; w. 1~o<?~ ~'2'r~
" ,B:;/j/i~)i-~'- ~i c... ,,~T~~/kiiJ~cl
. . ... 1...,- ..... ..... . 0,1 " ....~...\.'''' .. . -.
:>~';;~t:;($~:;.:;':~~
[. .A/CV'';~'~':e~:;;:: of' /),,~;;. :r~r~;~t~~'~~
:. ..~-.,-~~~ :4. I I. ,,'~.: - 1':\.......
CIIuIlIcdcIn
I." ....~.;:~.. ~:''':', .
;,': -.. y- '.;~~_: ~..";.:,.:" '3~:::7'f..:.~ ......paIII....t..,.piuI.c.
;;'. ' ...L- V !i!"""T..~... .~..lt.,.i1'''I'~'.J ~2 0<.
~.!: '..NOTa: T1liI............. plftUIIIt'ie-.-. 1IU'l,,..,....... ........ IIIli(
; . . ,..,..~..... iIfI1cliIft. ToIw....-n1lMlM daII_--........... 'III.,
," '--w.... ....... tIId __1lIII cllIIIoII '-. -. III iii_ Ill.. 2Illl.... '
;'. ~ Pf'D"ldId 5.m._. 71SAlG 1'laddII........... PlY ltIe........ cMI......., OfnqlMat
, . """Iroft'lll'- CIIIlt "'II'- c.ut .....10 .,.1IIeII CIIlIlIlIIIIIt. .....,.. _ 10_
;, ..'-'CllIlIOll, -......., '-..... "J'ClllIIlt Ill...,.. 0I~..... i* laIlIcaIln
i _0. ..
> ";'":: 'Sl .., ~:Y: :."'''' ",...;,.j '. :' ..: ,,' -::.;:;.: "; ~.'. ..~;., ,,":- ~'- ..;'.
", ~J......~(<j,:Y""(e~. ,7 ~",:,.:;f:~ ~:.>.;. .~.,~'~:~.;.:.
. "Z'" --- /;,
. ~ ~ .... ,,','" - ''l.'', .' DATVtWOFISSlJANCE
~: ~A.- C~' .27rf '- ,. .',.' .
........,QIIar, Ul.. ,.,. ,:.~;':';;.' ,;;'" 0 4JI
/,/ -L /"" J' ~S-'.'mw
;.f!.t....T.H7 { ,cN? ....: _.
..' ~tY.t. (~.~~~f'c-r- '",/("':,__ c..v::. }""':.
.,. '" CIIIeoo
Mlm/Cllrft.. Y!U.OWJ......
.~~~_.~.i-- ~
" .~I~~.,~~~CIIrft~_.
.,'
c-
o~tt~~t~D
.. 'T T " If ." 1; ",. .. or L A oJ'
r~~~~'o
G.
EXHIBIT "J"
r'
D.l'..~ M 12ynur.
So 1/650. 7~~(J
e..u~d i:J.YIU'::.la~(.~:J.lw "':lo,uh
J1Jn~ 9, 2000
VIA TF.LF.FAX - 742-6259
Lusi.a Galav, AIC?
Sc:nior Plannt:r
Cit)' of Boynton Beach
D~pa.'1:mem of Developmem
Di visivn of Plan.'11ng a.'1d Zonmg
100 East Boymor. Beach Boukvard
Boynton Bt:ach, FL 3342:5
Reo: Boynron Landing~
MMSP 00-033
Dea: Ms. Galav:
1 received your lener clJocc::ming BoynIon Landmgs Also ~tIachcd IS 4 City of Boymon
Bt:ach Code Citallon whIch was i53ued June 6, 2000, just a day or rwo after I recen'.ed'.yOl..lT h:rt~r
in the mail.
. lam sure it is. the: plL.'"Pose of your Code to prohibit obnoxious, ugly ba.'11lcrs wnh words
like ;'Rent Me" on them, not the very attractive stanchions located at BoynTOn LandLng, wluch
include cloth decorations. . Your Code specifically excludes from the definition of b.snners
. "expositional" signs. .The word "exposition" is detined in the diCTionary as something designc:d 10
co.nvey information. The cLoth anached to the stanchions at Boynton Lancing include the: words
"Boynton Landing", specifically conveying information to the public.
These' architectural accents are quite attractIve if you will take the time fO see The:n. r do
not believe that th~)' are prohibired by your Code. they are attractive a.'1d I would rcGuc::st Uwl YOll
recor:sider.
SinciJ Iii
~ 1J;f.
DaVid M. L~)in::.m
DML/lm
cc: Michael Rumpf (via telefax.)
James A. Cherof. Esq. (via re!eiax..).I:l<C .!J<HK...., P.A
P.ll a",. 2oo~~ ~t,T PAUl 5rAe... fLL,".".. :i'Hlo-lj(,~'J
:'(.1.650. :-"'00 FA,,;6 L .65 5-6~t:! ...... ..114" ,'ulll
;';"' So...,... k.....CL.~ OK'" ;'oITt: 100 EA,.. WIUT P,L" IU:,41:h, F"JIII!>" 33-1UL
"1..... Nt.... 'I:C,K~ 1\'....,"..":)...,, O.i" ^,"~..."'T\ PllIt,DEL1-"" L'hl"" C"""t:/I S^o j>,,~o
f'Ollr L."~IU;Xll.... t; ~t" P,...)I Bu.... OllL...SDV T....~AH,.~H.. 8", ~ R..T,,:"
TUL-17---":lc:.llo:JIU 1:::';l.1~ r-KUI'I l",.Ct:.t::t-::I-1lU v.r!:J
,.,.- --. .. . - .- - "'--r .- .',
cnv OF BOYtt. - lEACH
g=~al 1.:':r..t'~oa 00371 I
FLORIDA UNFORII COPE ClTATJON
1lIiI .Il.'~ r............-...-,-......... --- '*-
II ~lD7'1 /7..l:~;~1~.~~1
Goy~}-ro,=. I OM ~/1y S I!
- ~ 30 9 A) COn9/'riS~ U C. I
e:~nl ~~Cl-1 ?f ~ !
BOflner. Crr~ No T 1
\ ,ei&~}e{/ ~' _-ch~ r;~t~~ I
rh -..2J A~7 _lL s~c :3 0 ..f'"i- l
C;iiii"--. ~
prv-lt ~~r ~/vl&"-. Df,rJr~V?,.,,-t,y I
l
... . t
.............1t~,..CGe i
JIIIlIIC5::( JP <.> U I
JII01a: _...... ,=~1 ..... all......... ""........,... wlIICIl I
.'............ ""...........................".. '
..... ............... .,..tIII ..... . AI - _!III 2rwI __ II I
",........"...."..-~...........,.,""'.........~......, ........ :
........lII'OIIIlfl.. c::.I...............,.........,."I'Il.. --- I
...cIIIIII.~,.~..............,.*---.\l:I... ........ 1
I
MSQIIEGFISI5VA.ue*. I
0- I
i
1
I
&\I&tc.ohQllcte t
J:t/
'~ ~----.
"':77 -7'"" -,'"
. 1- C~A~ /' ~~~
.........
(7)uriL,~,~ c..~, '.~ 27?'l
MII_ / .-
I ('rLJ,. ~~Al jj;~~.~ f".-
'.GlMr /
t _'~'" ~~ ,.10Idtl1.
~........... -..,-.---'..- '.-' ...-."~" '--" ..........
u....
,'-'
wr-.v .i. ~ .......-t. i :Mt ,
r.v.:J.c..
r-
EXHIBIT ilK"
rnTI4J p. ;r:'
~@timlf1L"
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 tlte Gulfstream
100 EOIst Boynton Beach Blvd.. P.O. Box 310 Boynton Beach. Florida 33425-0310 Phone: (561) 375-6260 FAX: (561) 375-6259
".,-~
( .
(
EXHIBIT "L"
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 inquici.es),
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,
"-J...t.. ",) .-::>
/~'-<.~
Michael W. Rumpf
MWRlnl
Cc: Nicholas Igwe, Assistant City Attorney
J:\SHRDA T AIPlanning\sHAREDIWP\PROJECTSlBoynton LandingsIL.ym.n 6-10-00.doc
David M. Layman,
561/650-7990
r~ ~~[[~~[~~
ATTOR:'IEYS AT L-tW
r~~~~I~
rr -J-;:1'7 r
c--
C/o-uut
EXHIBIT "M"
~
e-mail: laymand@gtlaw.com
June 29, 2000
VIA FEDEX
Mr. Michael W. Rumpf
Planning and Zoning Director
100 East Boynton Beach Boulevard
P.O. Box 310
Boynton Beach, Florida 33425
Re: Request for Code Review and Appeal of June 20. 2000 Determination
Dear Mr. Rumpf:
As you know, this firm represents CSC Boynton Landing, Ltd., the owner of the Boynton
Landings Apartments (the "Property"). This letter serves as ari,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 respectfully appeal the determination made in your June 20, 2000 letter on the same
grounds originally set forth in our original letter to you requesting a minor modification to the
site plan for the Property. Enclosed please find a check for 5200.00 for the appeal fee.
We desire to pursue the approval of the signs where they are currently located and,
accordingly, we also request a Code Review. Pursuant to Chapter 1, Article VII, Section 1. B. of
the Boynton Beach Code, kindly forward our appeal with the documentation we previously
provided you with (i.e., we had previously provided you with (4) copies of the Boynton Landings
survey and photographs of the signs) to the appeal board for placement on the board's next
available agenda.
Please call me at 650-7927 to set up a pre-application Code Review meeting with your
staff.
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Danny Ruda (w/o encl.)
WPB/CANr.-IOF/2707S9ISsx3011.00C'6129/00i20821.0 13800
GREE:'IBERG TRAIJRIG. P.A.
P.O. Box :!0629 WEST P.\DI BEACH. FLORIDA 33416-0629
561-650-7900 FAX 561-655-6:!22 www.gtlaw.com
777 SOUTH FLAGLER DRIVE SUITE 300 EAST WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401
MIAMI NEW YORK WASIIINGTO:'l. D.C. ATU:oiTA PHILADELPH[A TYSONS CORNER SAO P,\!:LO
FORT LAUDERDALE WEST PAL.\{ BEACH ORLA:'/DO T\LUHASSEE BOCA R.\TO:'l
David M. Layman.
561/650-7990
o~ff~~f~o
,\TTORNEYS AT LAW
r~~~~lo
EXHIBIT "N"
e-mail: laymand@gtlaw..::om
August 2, 2000
VIA FEDEX
.-
1m R (p:l ~-IT-';, \:fl ~ - f-"
D 15 ~ - -.-- ,
\ ~~3",
· - p}tm~'li:EL -1 _:
Mr. Michael W. Rumpf
Planning and Zoning Director
100 East Boynton Beach Boulevard
P.O. Box 310
Boynton Beach, Florida 33425
Re: Bovnton Landin2s: Appeal
Dear Mr. 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.
We 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.
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 SUITE 300 EAST WEST PUM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401
MIAMI NEW YORK WASHINGTO'i. D.C. ATLA:>ITA PHILADELPHL\ Tyso'lS COR:>IER CHICAGO
S..\U PAULO FORT LAL'DERDALE WEST PALM BEACH ORLA:'/OO TALLAHASSEE BOCA R,\TOI'i
EXHIBIT "N"
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: James A. Cherof, Esq.
WPBiCAN1NOF!2707~91~sx30 1'.000'8102100120821.013800
The City of
Boynton Beach
EXHIBIT "0"
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
....
j -j~-} ;} ('~ .
I :,., J ,"--.......-- '''_._
f ,( I
,1 i i
i Ir i' "
I ,,!_.; ~ .I" .. j 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 "reconsiderationll. 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'l
and also asked for code review.
The City's Land Development Regulation (LOR) permits an aggrieved party to
appeal an administrative decision of a city official. Under LOR, 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 takenll. Nothing in the City Code authorizes an aggrieved party to seek
a "reconsiderationll of a decision of city official. Under Florida Rules of Appellate
''An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action/ADA Employer"
EXHIBIT "0"
Procedure, a motion for reconsideration of a decision does not toll the tim~
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 forward 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,
~\ &t-L, 4~, ~ ,~ (-,
L.-) '1l,L/~
Nicholas 1. 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
D~[[~~[~D
ATTORIIEYS AT LAW
l~~~~ID
EXHIBIT lip"
TIMOTHY w, SCHULZ
WEST PALM BEACH OFFICE
DIRECT DIAL: (561) 650-7971
Email;schulzt@gtlaw.com
August 21,2000
Bv facsimile COpy 742-6054
and U.S. Mail
--
01,'-;' - ,
I . '~'-f1i'JI";,'t':' . --.......;
-"'__ :.'1""''''.''''''''1'
--~')r:"T'
~._---.-
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
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 1 st 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. 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 PAUl BEACH, FLORIDA 33416-0629
561-650-.900 FAX 561-655-6222 www.gtlaw.com
7.7 SOUTH FUGLER DRIVE SUITE 300 EAST WEST PAUl BEACH, FLORIDA 33401
\:.11 NEW YORK WASHINGTON, D.C. ATLANT.A PHILADELPHIA TYSONS COR:'iER CHICAGO BOSTOi'i PHOENIX WILMINGTON Los A:'iGELES DENVEIl
5,\0 PAULO FORT LAUDERDALE BOCA RATON WEST P.AUI BEACH ORUNDO TALLAHASSEE
-';~ .
EXHIBIT "P"
Nicholas 1. 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 I.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 ih 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 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
GREF.'RERC TR.\URIG
-1 ~ \.
.-t ...
.'
EXHIBIT "P"
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 SI
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 "si~ificant 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 I.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 I.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.
GnEENBF:RG Tn,.\lJRIG
-,' ~.-.. ,..
, ..-
EXHIBIT "P"
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,
~W. c{j~
Timothy W. SCh.{[
TWS/dj
cc: Richard Schlesinger
Daniel Ruda
James Cherof, Esq.
../ Michael W. Rumpf
Lusia Galav
ISCHULZ1\306186vOl\6K9601 !.DOC\8/2I/00
GREE:\BF.RG TRAURIG
The Ci-ry of
Boynton Beach
EXHIBIT "Q"
1 00 E. Boynton Beach Boulevard
P.O. Bo%310
Boynton Beach, Florida 33425-0310
Office of the City Attorney
(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,
~dLo-fj)~
Nicholas 1. Igwe,
Assistant City Attorney
NII/mlr J
Cc: Mike Rumpf, Director of Development
James A. Cheraf, City Attorney
Lusia Galav, Senior Planner
David Layman, Esquire
.
Imr~ @ fa w ~Iml
: u~ ! AUG 2 8 '" -~ .. ; ) .
! - - Jl. l"~
DII"I'~-~~'-.--l
("L..l"\h.J.~JP~G :!i'.}D
ZONll~G OEPT.
... --...,......
"An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action/ADA Employer"
o~[[~~[~o
ATTOR:'lErS AT LAW
1~~~~lo
EXHIBIT "R"
TII"lOTHY W, SCHULZ
\\'FST p.\) \.1 BEACH OFFICE
DIRECT DIAL: (561) 650-797 I
Email: schulzt@gtlaw.com
September 12, 2000
----
,; f~~i
"--2.._ ! i.;:
Bv facsimile copv 742-6054
and U.S. Mail
Nicholas 1. Igwe, Esq.
Assistant Ci ty 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 received and reviewed your letter dated August 25, 2000, written in response to
our August 21, 2000, letter regarding the above cited appeal. After reading your letter, I was
unsure as to the City's position on this matter. Your letter does state that the City will process
our appeal. As a result, it is my understanding that all materials already sent to the city are to be
forwarded to City Counsel, who will then place the matter on their agenda and sit in an appellate
capacity. However, your letter also states that we should submit the application and the
necessary filing fee to Mike Rumpf. I was unsure as to whether your letter was referring to an
application and fee for the appeal or some other type of application.
In order to avoid confusion, please accept this letter as our Notice of Appeal from the
June 20, 2000, decision of Mike Rumpf, denying Boynton Landings' request for a minor
modification of the approved site plan. Enclosed is our check in the amount $200.00 for the
filing of this appeal. Please have all materials that we previously filed with the City as part of
our request for minor modification of the approved site plan forwarded to the City Counsel, said
materials constituting the appellate record. I would suggest that we discuss an appropriate date
for City Counsel to hear arguments on this matter.
GREE:'lBERG TRAURIG, P.A.
P.O. Box 20629 WEST PAUl BEACH. FLORIDA 33416-0629
561-650-7900 FAX 561-655-6222 www.gtlaw.com
777 SOUTH FLAGLER DRIVE S[;ITE 300 EAST WEST PALM BEACH. FLORIDA 33401
:'>11 \MI NEW YORK WASHINGTO:'l. D.C. ATLANT.o\ PHILADELPHIA TYSO!\lS COR:'IER CHICAGO BOSTO:'l PHOE!\IIX WILMI!\IGTON Los A!\IGELES DENVER
S,~o PAULO FORT LAUDERDALE BOCA RATON WEST P,UM BEACH ORLA:'iDO T,ULAHASSEE
EXHIBIT "R"
Nicholas 1. Igwe, Esq.
Assistant City Attorney
City of Boynton Beach
September 12, 2000
Page 2
If my understanding of your letter is incorrect, please call me in order to discuss.
c-
Very truly yours,
\~w.SY'
Timothy W. Schulz
TWS/dj
Enclosure
cc: Richard Schlesinger
Daniel Ruda
James Cherof, Esq.
"/Michael W. Rumpf
Lusia Galav
\SCHULZl'J07947vOl\6LM301 !.DOC\9/5/00
GREENBERG TRAVRIG
EXHIBIT" "
Conditions of Approval
Project name: BOYNTON LANDINGS APARTMENTS)
File number: ADAP 00-001
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
PUBLIC WORKS
Comments: NONE
UTILITIES
Comments: NONE
I FIRE NONE
Comments:
I POLICE
Comments: NONE
I ENGINEERING DIVISION
Comments: NONE
I BUILDING DIVISION
Comments: NONE
PARKS AND RECREATION
Comments: NONE
FORESTERJENVIRONMENTALIST
Comments: NONE
PLANNING AND ZONING
Comments: NONE
ADDITIONAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDITIONS
Comments:
1. To be determined.
ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS
2. To be determined.
J:ISHRDATAIPLANNINGISHAREDlWPIPROJECTSIBOYNTON LANDINGS ADAP 2000lCC 12-5-00 COND, OF APPROVAL.DOC
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM NO. 00-200
TO: City Commission
/7
/;1c;.~
THROUGH: Michael Rumpf
Planning and Zoning Director
~
FROM: Lusia Galav ~&
Senior Plan~
DATE: October 12, 2000
SUBJECT: Boynton Landings Appeal (ADAP 00-001)
Project Name:
Boynton Landings Apartments
Location:
2309 North Congress Avenue
Owner:
CSC Boynton Landings, Ltd.
Agent:
David M. Layman, Greenberg Traurig, P.A.
Request:
Notice of Appeal from the June 20, 2000, decision of the
Planning and Zoning Director, denying Boynton Landings'
request for a minor modification of the approved site plan.
BACKGROUND
Request for Minor Modification
On May 19, 2000 the Planning and Zoning Department received a request for
Minor Modification from David M. Laymen, agent for CSC Boynton Landings, Ltd.
The Minor Modification application requested the addition of ten (10)
"architectural enhancements" located in the front setback on either side of the
entrance to the Boynton Landings Apartments (see Exhibit "B" Site Plan). The
letter indicated that these architectural accents had already been placed on the
site.
Staff reviewed the application and conducted a site visit. The ten (10)
"architectural features" as described by the applicant are "banners" as defined by
the Land Development Regulations Chapter 1, Article II (see Exhibit "0").
Banners are prohibited per Chapter 21, Signs, Section 3. 0 (see Exhibit "E"). A
letter denying the request was written and sent to Mr. Layman on June 1, 2000
by Lusia Galav, Senior Planner.
Subsequent to receipt of the denial letter, Mr. Layman addressed a letter to Ms.
Galav, indicating that a code citation was issued to his client CSC Boynton
Landing, Inc. on June 6, 2000 (actually June 8, 2000) regarding the prohibition of
permanent banners in the City of Boynton Beach. Mr. Layman also requested
that the decision for denial of the Minor Modification be reconsidered. At this
time, Ms. Galav involved Mr. Rumpf, the Planning and Zoning Director, in the
matter. Mr. Rumpf issued a letter on June 20, 2000, reconfirming the denial of
the requested Minor Modification. It is this letter from Mr. Rumpf that Mr. Layman
is addressing his appeal.
Request for Appeal
The appeal procedure from a decision of an admini$trative official is setforth in
Chapter 1, Article VII, Sec. 1 of the Land Development Regulations (see Exhibit
"F "). Staff received the request for appeal on June 30, 2000. The request for
appeal is dated June 29, 2000, which is nine (9) days after the date of Mr.
Rumpfs letter but 28 days after the original letter of denial from Ms. Galav. Staff
requested the City Attorney to review the validity of the appeal. Mr. Nicholas,
Igwe, Assistant City Attorney researched the matter. A meeting was held with Mr.
Laymen on August 2, 2000 to discuss the appeal. After this meeting,
correspondence was exchanged between Mr. Layman and Mr. Igwe resulting in
the decision to process the appeal. Mr. Igwe made the determination that the City
Commission is the body to determine the timeliness of tile appeal.
The chronology of correspondence regarding this ;T,,3tter is found in Exhibits "G"
through "R" attached.
CONCLUSIONS
The following are the pertinent facts of this case regarding the denial of the Minor
Modification.
1. A site plan cannot be modified to permit a use that is specifically
prohibited in the Land Development Regulations.
2. Permanent Banners are specifically prohibited in Chapter 23 - Signs.
3. The code Compliance division issued three citations to the property owner
in accordance with the banner prohibition as stated in the code.
4. The banners are currently located within the 40 foot front setback required
and approved for the project and within the 20 foot utility easement along
Congress Avenue.
5. The owner did not apply for or receive a building permit from the city to
erect the banners on the site.
RECOMMENDATION
If the City Commission finds that the appeal as presented is valid and meets the
requirements of Chapter 1, Article VII, Sec. 1 of the Land Development
Regulations, then staff recommends the following:
1. Deny the appeal
2. Affirm the administrative decision to deny the minor modification request
for the banners at Boynton Landings Apartments.
In addition, staff would not support a code review to permit banners under any
circumstance other than those exceptions currently permitted by the code.
ADAP 001 MEMO
LIST OF EXHIBITS
BOYNTON LANDINGS - ADAP 00-001
A. Location Map
B. Site Plan
C. Photos of Banners
D. Definition of "Banner"
E. Chapter 21 Signs - Banners Prohibited
F. Appeal Procedure
G. Letter dated May 18, 2000 - Request for Minor Modifi.:ation
H. Letter dated June 1, 2000 - Denial of the Minor Modification Request
I. Code Citation No. 08-00364 dated 6-8-00 and No. 08-00111 dated 6-22-00
J. Letter dated June 9, 2000 - Request to Reconsider
K. Code Citation No. 08-00371 dated 7-17-00
L. Letter dated June 20, 2000 - Reconfirmation of Denial
M. Letter dated June 29, 2000 - Appeal of June 20, 2000 Letter of Denial
N. Letter dated August 2,2000 - Request for Appeal
O. Letter dated August 7,2000 - City Attorney Response
P. Letter dated August 21,2000 - Response to 8-7-00 Letter
a. Letter dated August 25, 2000 - Second Letter from City Attorney
R. Letter dated September 12, 2000 - Clarification of Appeal Request
10/17/00