The URL can be used to link to this page

REVIEW COMMENTS iroJ ~ @ ~ a w ~ fnl U'/J DEe 11. lU!J J' AX COVEll SHUT GO DEVf.LOPMlNT AND CONSTRllCTION, INC. 33 LAWUNCB LAKE DlUVE BOYJI'tON BEACH, FL S34J6 PIIONB (407) 134.1816 ItAX (407) 734-9848 TO: T AMBRI HA YON FROM: DA VB STEIN DATE: DECEMBER 17, 1996 SUBJECT: REVISION TO LE'ITER DATED OCTOBER J 0, 1996 Number of pages including this one: 1 0...... Ms, Haydn, I am sending you this filcsimi1e to request a few minor changes be made to my letter dated October 10, 1996, The changes I would like involve three areas, The first change I w()uld like to make is to the fint pMllSl"BJlh on page 2. I do not want to go on record as saying that GRB is the Developer, for tin. ianot entirely carreot, The se<lond item is in the second paragraph a1110 on paF 2, I would like to delete from public record the final 2 sentences referring to Mr, MlDer's complaint about the Increased cost of maintenance due to the berm being installed, rbi. is S()IIIething 1 was told by IIOmeone el5e and is hearsay, Therefore, I do not have the right to use his name, The third item is in the fim parl\lfllPh on paso: 2 of the Mmo: letter dated October I O. 1996. When I finished my meetings with the homeowner's only two that 1 met with requested the "Menendez P1u" be iDstaJled, Aft~ further discussions with people in the community, I have been informed there were an additional 1 or 2 homeowner's who would have liked to have had the "M~ Plan" installed, I am sorry for this late request. Iflt Is a problem for you to change what you have already done, then please include thi,facsimile with the packet for the Commission. If you can not do this, please caD me and I wiD lIIIke copies to h8Dd out. r Thanks, ,) --=>~ Dave to 39';'d <l~9 SPS5-PEL-Lap !6:a! 955!/L!/6! RECREATION & PARK MEMORANDUM #96-570 ill DEG I 0 1996 ~@rnnw FROM: Tambri Heyden, Planning & Zoning Director Kevin J. Hallahan, Forester/Environmentalist ;(::rJf / J TO: RE: Lawrence Lake Estates Proposed Landscape Plan - Revision Submittal DATE: December 10, 1996 The above project landscape plan has been reviewed in the field for comparison of quantity and quality of existing landscape materials. The quantity of existing materials are accurate, with some materials shown to be relocated elsewhere on the site. The quality of the landscape materials vary throughout the site. The developer has called for several inspections of the existing landscape materials which required removal/replacement of poor quality materials. This is an ongoing process continuing as part of the above application review in the field. It should be noted that the existing landscape berm is not shown on the plans, My review does not involve landscape design, maintenance or selection of species comparison to the originally approved landscape plan. These issues are considered by the developers representative, usually a landscape architect professional. KH:ad xc: Charles C. Frederick, Recreation & Park Director John Wildner, Parks Superintendent m fllllYJ~fnI NOV 2 2 1996 '/J) ~~~hNgEt~D P)Jvrr~' 9((-(/ I:J <f J'AX covn SHEET GlUt D&VJ:LOPMDIT AND CONSTRUCTION. me. U LAWIlXNCE LAKE DRIVE BOYNTON BEACH, FL 33436 PHONE (407) 734-1816 FAX (407) 734.9148 TO: TAMBRl HAYDN FROM: DA VB STEIN DATE: 11/21/96 SUBJECT: LAWRENCE LAKE EST ArES LANDSCAPING Number of pages including this one: q I am enclosing a copy of the HOA articles which pertain to this issue, Unfortunately, I will not be able to obtain the results of the homeowner vote until the beginning or middle of next week. I am also enclosing a copy ofthe facsimile which I sentto Kevin Hallahan dated October 10. 1996. !0 39\;1d S:~9 8P8G-PEL-L0P 9E:Lt 9GGt!t"!!! December 9, 1996 ill DEe 9 1996 rn To: cc: Boynton Beach Commissioners I Shirley Jaskiewicz - Code Enforcement - Don JohnJ Forestry Subject: Lawrence Lake Estates As you are aware, we have been trying since July to motivate the Berman's to complete landscaping at Lawrence Lake Estates. Pictures of violations have been submitted to Code Enforcement and numerous visits have been made to City Hall to try to resolve this issue. We have been paying maintenance on landscaping they saw fit to install, without ever getting a permit. How do they get away with this? and why must we, who should be protected, and we, who pay the taxes, get stuck with a situation that should have never developed in the first place They have told us that they are leaving if we do not concede to their interpretation of what the landscape should be. We want our property cleared of the Berman trash and the landscape installed at it should have been done - with TREES. The city's Vision program apparently does not expand past the downtown areas. We envisioned a tree lined community. Instead we have messy grasses, dead bushes they call trees, and non- native species planted around the lake, together with construction debris thrown in as a "Berman Bonus". We understand that David Stein is going to make a presentation to the city with downgraded plantings, in an effort to get as much of the cash bond back as possible. Before this presentation takes place, we would appreciate it if your Group makes an on-site inspection of the premises. We plan to attend the meeting as a group to ensure that our best interests are fully represented. Would you please contact the following so we may accompany you on-site. Douglas Miller - 30 Lawrence Lake Dr. 738-9357 Ray Bonaldo - 28 Lawrence Lake Dr. - 736-6225 '{ \, \ "\ MINUTES CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA AUGUST 6, 1996 Motion \ Commissioner Titcomb moved to approve the Consent Agenda with the exceptions of Items B.1 and C.8. Commissioner Bradley seconded the motion, which carried 5-0. C.8 Proposed Resolution No. R96-111 Re: Substitution of Surety. Lawrence Lakes Estates Vice Mayor Jaskiewicz advised that several members of the community are concerned about the lack of landscaping in this development. They are anxious to get the Certificates of Occupancy for the last five homes. However, the City said they had to complete the landscaping plan first or put up a bond. She asked if returning the cash bond to the former owner and getting a Letter of Credit would cover th~se people as well as the cash surety bond. City Manager Parker stated that the Letter of Credit is allowed by the Code, and the City Attorney can address the legalities of a Letter of Credit. The cash bond does not belong to the current owner, and the City was concerned that the current owner would prefer to use the previous owner's money to do the improvements. She asked Mr. Hukill if we are still holding those Certificates of Occupancy. '" William Hukill, Director of Development, advised that a cash surety, in the form of a certified check, was put up in the amount of $24,000. which is more than enough to complete the work. We stopped the Certificates of Occupancy on the last five houses pending either completion of the work or a cash surety to complete the landscaping. They designed the landscaping and have entered into a contract for the work yet to be done. Vice Mayor Jaskiewicz asked if they could leave if we give them the Certificates of Occupancy for the last five homes. Mr. Hukill stated that any developer in the City that posts any kind of a surety can walk away or go bankrupt at any time. If this happens, the City has $24,000 in cash to complete the work that is under contract for a little over $20,000. Motion Commissioner Bradley moved to approve Item III.C.8. Commissioner Tillman seconded the motion, which carried 5-0. ~ -"7 8 '7'Fie City o.f -:Boynton. 'Beacli ~, 'PCa,nnine c:!1' ZD_'t!T '!D.,..,."..n... 1 00 'E. '1Joynuns tZI..:u:Ji ~....... !P.O. '''D~JlO '2.tt>y....r.on. -2Jw:a..::Ji.. ~7"'idia J..$..zs-OJZO (407)37S-6260, PAX,(407)373-6090 ~~ -~-.I!!!!!!!lI._~--..__ ~~ - ::JI::..~'-IL..::....a..:-- DATE:: \~~-::s\~~ PAX Nt.J'M::!9ER. TR..ANEJH%~%NG TO: '~-)":S~-9'gY6 ~ NUMBER OF PAGES BEING TRANSMZ~a (Znc~ud~nq Caver L.~~.r) ~~=O- =:::::::; ,~ -'~ TO. FROM: \ --~ ."--Q- RE: c-:>c- \. r...., -J::...c-~ \ On.. '(Y\~ ~ ::'\.{l __~.- \. ............r-F=....-C" ~ ~~ ...E=-,.-., Sent Sya '-~. ~~ ---v.I..", C=FAX...3'1'o1. _-:1f.rru:rtca's q..ueun:zy ta ~lie qufTse.rearn TRANSMISSION REPORT THIS DOCUMENT (REDUCED SAMPLE ABOVE) WAS SENT ** COUNT ** # 4 *** SEND *** NO REMOTE STATION L D, I START TIME DURATION #PAGES COMMENT 1 407 734 9848 i 12-13-96 4:48PM 3'00" 4 TOTAL 0:03'00" 4 XEROX TELECOPIER 7020 PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 96-664 Agenda Memorandum for December 17,1996 City Commission Meeting TO: Dale Sugerman City Manager Tambri J. Heyden, AICP .--;;;:;1 . Planning and Zoning Director FROM: DATE: December 11, 1996 SUBJECT: Lawrence Lake Estates Landscape plan revisions Please place the above-referenced items on the December 17, 1996 City Commission agenda under Development Plans. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND The Lawrence Lake Estates PUD is located on the east side of Lawrence Road, approximately 600 feet north of Gateway Boulevard (see Exhibit "A" _ location map). The property was rezoned PUD in 1989 for 33 single-family detached homes. The developer who started the infrastructure went bankrupt and the property was taken over by the RTC (Resolution Trust Company). After changes in property owners, the current developer/owner is GRB Development and Construction, Inc. A previous owner received approval of a master plan modification in 1992 to convert a private recreation area (not required) into an open area along Lawrence Road. In 1995, the current developer received approval of a master plan modification to add two additional lots by reducing the open area in half, On August 6, 1996, the Commission approved a surety substitution since the city was still holding cash surety that remained to cover improvements that were still outstanding. The cash surety had been posted by the previous owner, and the city needed replacement surety from the new owner (GRB). At the August meeting, Commissioner Jaskiewicz indicated that several residents of Lawrence Lake were concerned about the fact that landscaping had not yet been completed, As is typical with most developments, common area landscaping, which is a privately owned improvement maintained by the project's homeowners' association once the developer is completed constructed units, is usually the last improvement to be completed, Unless there is some incentive or requirement to do otherwise, units are constructed and issued certificates of occupancy in advance of landscaping being installed. This is not the only current example of a project where most or all units have certificates of occupancy and landscaping is not completed. (As a point of information, one of the proposed land development regulation changes to Chapter 5 is to not require surety to be posted for privately owned and dedicated, though required, improvements, There have been varying positions over the years as to whether the city can delay certificates of occupancy due to incomplete site improvements,) The arrangement made with GRB was to post cash surety to complete the landscaping to prevent delays in certificates of occupancy being issued for the last five homes. With the original plat approval, a common area landscape plan (commonly referred to as the Menendez plan - see attached Exhibit B) was approved to include the entrances, the open area along Lawrence Road, the PUD perimeter and the lake edge. However, through the various changes in ownership, partial landscaping was planted without permit and not as per the approved plan. In 1994, a permit application was submitted to change the approved landscape plan for the open area along Lawrence Road. In Page 2 Memorandum No. 96-664 Lawrence Lake Estales PUD 1995, the permit was amended to further change the landscape plan for the rest of the common areas to reflect the following: a) changes in type of landscape material yet to be planted; b) addition of a perimeter berm that was constructed from surplus fill; and c) to legitimize the changes that had been made without approval, without permit and that are existing (some of this material has died). The above permit revision process has been lengthy, but is nearing completion. Exhibit C is GRB's revised landscape plan. Staff's review of this plan has involved comparing the differences in quantity of trees and shrubs (including a native species comparison) between the original Menendez plan and GRB's plan. As of December 11, 1996 the Planning and Zoning Department has accepted the landscape plan revisions using the methodology shown in Exhibit D, with one exception - location of berms on the plan, as only the south perimeter berm is reflected on the plan. The city forester has made a few status inspections of the landscaping during the landscape plan revision process and has noted that the berms may not be located entirely within the project boundaries, Therefore, during a final landscape inspection, the location of the berms must be verified, Exhibit E contains the city forester's summary of inspections to date which, among other things, indicates that his field analysis of quality of landscape material is nol yet complete. There has been a great deal of interest by the Lawrence Lake Estates homeowners in the revised landscape plan versus Ihe original landscape plan. Hence, certain departments during their review required the developer to obtain 100% homeowner approval of the revised plan. Although knowing this to be impossible, the developer set out to obtain 100% approval through several meetings with the homeowners, The developer states he has 75% homeowner concurrence through signatures (this has not been provided to staff), Various reasons given for lack of certain homeowners' support for the revised plan include: a) the original plan did not show a berm and the berms will be more costly for Ihe homeowners' association to maintain and b) the view from homes that back up to the lake is blocked by littoral zone plantings. Regarding the berm, the cily forester concurs that the berm will cost more to maintain. This is especially true because due to the narrowness of the land between the PUD boundary and the edge of the lake loop road, the berm is narrow and close to the edge of the road and perimeter. On the other hand it does provide additional buffering. Regarding the littoral zone plantings, littoral zone plantings are a city requirement, however staff has worked with the developer to shift these planting groups to maximize lake views. As indicated in Exhibit F, the developer has reached a point in his efforts where he needs to receive from the city direction regarding the issue of whether 100% homeowner acceptance will be required for approval and inspection of the landscaping he's proposing. This issue is critical at this time because progress cannot be made toward installing landscaping until the landscape plan is approved. Page 3 Memorandum No. 96-664 Lawrence Lake Estates PUD ANAL YSIS Revisions to plans are permitted by code. Whether revisions are approvable is determined by whether the revisions meet code. The landscape code does not require a berm nor disallow them. It also does not set forth specifically what species of landscaping (other than a minimum of native material) is required and does not provide regulations for common area landscaping (other than littoral zones around lakes and perimeter buffers in instances where adjacent land uses are not compatible). Therefore, staff uses quantity and quality criteria to determine whether changes can be accepted and whether they can be approved administratively. The developer has met staff quantity requirements. Quality judgements, in this case since material is existing, will be determined at time of final inspection, Therefore, the landscape revisions meet code, provided the berm locations are added to the plan. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Commission not require 100% homeowner acceptance of the landscape plan revisions. Removal of the berms at this time, would require relocation of landscaping. Providing the berms are constructed and located to meet the city forester's specifications itemized in the October 10, 1996 letter in Exhibit F from Dave Stein to Kevin Hallahan, the berm could be an asset to the residents. Regarding the remaining issue of release of surety bond listed in the developer's letter of November 20, 1996 (see Exhibit F), this will be released after the city forester's final inspection which includes implementation of the revised plan and compleling the items of the above-referenced October 10, 1996 letter. T JH:dim attachment xc: Central File D:ISHAREIWPIPROJECTSILAWRNCLKILANDSCAPICCAGENDA. WPD PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 96-664 Agenda Memorandum for December 17,1996 City Commission Meeting TO: Dale Sugerman City Manager Tambrj J. Heyden, AICP '7j;Fd. Planning and Zoning Director FROM: DATE: December 11, 1996 SUBJECT: Lawrence Lake Estates Landscape plan revisions Please place the above-referenced items on the December 17, 1996 City Commission agenda under Development Plans. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND The Lawrence Lake Estates PUD is located on the east side of Lawrence Road, approximately 600 feet north of Gateway Boulevard (see Exhibit "A" - location map). The property was rezoned PUD in 1989 for 33 single-family detached homes, The developer who started the infrastructure went bankrupt and the property was taken over by the RTC (Resolution Trust Company), After changes in property owners, the current developer/owner is GRB Development and Construction, Inc. A previous owner received approval of a master plan modification in 1992 to convert a private recreation area (not required) into an open area along Lawrence Road. In 1995, the current developer received approval of a master plan modification to add two additional/ots by reducing the open area in half. On August 6, 1996, the Commission approved a surety substitution since the city was still holding cash surety that remained to cover improvements that were still outstanding. The cash surety had been posted by the previous owner, and the city needed replacement surety from the new owner (GRB), At the August meeting, Commissioner Jaskiewicz indicated that several residents of Lawrence Lake were concerned about the fact that landscaping had not yet been completed. As is typical with most developments, common area landscaping, which is a privately owned improvement maintained by the project's homeowners' association once the developer is completed constructed units, is usually the last improvement to be completed. Unless there is some incentive or requirement to do otherwise, units are constructed and issued certificates of occupancy in advance of landscaping being installed, This is not the only current example of a project where most or all units have certificates of occupancy and landscaping is not completed. (As a point of information, one of the proposed land development regulation changes to Chapter 5 is to not require surety to be posted for privately owned and dedicated, though required, improvements. There have been varying positions over the years as to whether the city can delay certificates of occupancy due to incomplete site improvements.) The arrangement made with GRB was to post cash surety to complete the landscaping to prevent delays in certificates of occupancy being issued for the last five homes. With the original plat approval, a common area landscape plan (commonly referred to as the Menendez plan - see attached Exhibit B) was approved to include the entrances, the open area along Lawrence Road, the PUD perimeter and the lake edge. However, through the various changes in ownership, partial landscaping was planted without permit and not as per the approved plan. In 1994, a permit application was submitted to change the approved landscape plan for the open area along Lawrence Road. In Page 2 Memorandum No. 96-664 Lawrence Lake Estates PUD 1995, the permit was amended to further change the landscape plan for the rest of the common areas to reflect the following: a) changes in type of landscape material yet to be planted; b) addition of a perimeter berm that was constructed from surplus fill; and c) to legitimize the changes that had been made without approval, without permit and that are existing (some of this material has died). The above permit revision process has been lengthy, but is nearing completion. Exhibit Cis GRB's revised landscape plan, Staff's review of this plan has involved comparing the differences in quantity of trees and shrubs (including a native species comparison) between the original Menendez plan and GRB's plan. As of December 11, 1996 the Planning and Zoning Department has accepted the landscape plan revisions using the methodology shown in Exhibit D, with one exception - location of berms on the plan, as only the soulh perimeter berm is reflected on the plan. The city forester has made a few status inspections of the landscaping during the landscape plan revision process and has noted that the berms may not be located entirely within the project boundaries, Therefore, during a fina/landscape inspection, the location of the berms must be verified. Exhibit E contains the city forester's summary of inspections to date which, among other things, indicates that his field analysis of quality of landscape material is not yet complete. There has been a great deal of interest by the Lawrence Lake Estates homeowners in the revised landscape plan versus the original landscape plan. Hence, certain departments during their review required the developer to obtain 100% homeowner approval of the revised plan. Although knowing this to be impossible, the developer set out to obtain 100% approval through several meetings with the homeowners. The developer states he has 75% homeowner concurrence through signatures (this has not been provided to staff), Various reasons given for lack of certain homeowners' support for the revised plan include: a) the original plan did not show a berm and the berms will be more costly for the homeowners' association to maintain and b) the view from homes that back up to the lake is blocked by littoral zone plantings, Regarding the berm, the city forester concurs that the berm will cost more to maintain. This is especially true because due to the narrowness of the land between the PUD boundary and the edge of the lake loop road, the berm is narrow and close to the edge of the road and perimeter. On the other hand it does provide additional buffering. Regarding the littoral zone plantings, littoral zone plantings are a city requirement, however staff has worked with the developer to shift these planting groups to maximize lake views. As indicated in Exhibit F, the developer has reached a point in his efforts where he needs to receive from the city direction regarding the issue of whether 100% homeowner acceptance will be required for approval and inspection of the landscaping he's proposing. This issue is critical at this time because progress cannot be made toward installing landscaping until the landscape plan is approved. Page 3 Memorandum No. 96-664 Lawrence Lake Estates PUD ANALYSIS Revisions to plans are permitted by code. Whether revisions are approvable is determined by whether the revisions meet code. The landscape code does not require a berm nor disallow them. It also does not set forth specifically what species of landscaping (other than a minimum of native material) is required and does not provide regulations for common area landscaping (other than littoral zones around lakes and perimeter buffers in instances where adjacent land uses are not compatible). Therefore, staff uses quantity and quality criteria to determine whether changes can be accepted and whether they can be approved administratively. The developer has met staff quantity requirements, Quality judgements, in this case since material is existing, will be determined at time of final inspection. Therefore, the landscape revisions meet code, provided the berm locations are added to the plan. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Commission not require 100% homeowner acceptance of the landscape plan revisions, Removal of the berms at this time, would require relocation of landscaping. Providing the berms are constructed and located to meet the city forester's specifications itemized in the October 10, 1996 letter in Exhibit F from Dave Stein to Kevin Hallahan, the berm could be an asset to the residents. Regarding the remaining issue of release of surety bond listed in the developer's letter of November 20, 1996 (see Exhibit F), this will be released after the city forester's final inspection which includes implementation of the revised plan and completing the items of the above-referenced October 10, 1996 letter. TJH:dim attachment xc: Central File D:ISHAREIWPIPROJECTSILAWRNCLKILANDSCAPICCAGENDA WPD EXHIBIT A -rnh.lh~, . ~ q 1 A A otu13)_ L~r~,w . .. ,.~-:-~"'A':. , _}llIIJI . -rm\ _ "SAU~~~10~s" - '.- ~~r.,.:~~~ll.t:{:: I - 0 I PUD.dI1lpW D I I 0 LUI:S.c .J1 IrJl /j ";;!!r)~~C ,--- ITIIu~ ,'L,,~JIEL~~L~;='J tJ- IL I - '. . 'T7-r-, ,~~ ! I. .. .,.. iUL ~ , · ,Ii '<J}) VI r "~:J ..~ .. !~: ~ ' I ~ I ' , " 1[-;l?J~~l~u, ~111I11I:""I,1I111111 ~ - (/ "'; I: : " " 1=:t-:'rE:= --+-lJ-H'=l= <( I 1 I I Cr: I ,/, I llIP~..:: ~_...-.....r-:;--t~ \l. -~--g:1- '.. . JJ' ' "~~ ~ '=~:,:_:.: J=== /-- -rl-/QII :-' I '-, I ~ ___ - ._~! i ~Fr=~-:=T 4=!.1t:::_ '. J......r..la.&.- --=- - f / "II I I" I _ _ I I '14 ,.' ".Ij Jl-. . crm I 0 [fill L ! _ I..J b ' J tlB:1 ' ,- I 1111 m, I J ' .! /1.1 u., JI-I-I-lf: ITI-U 1-1] rTnT I "l"I"!] C '1""'1/ rlll'lIl : I I I <0 L ,i' - r:J~"1 I I I II I II tt _ , [l'JJ I _.1 I _" i ' ; I I'III~I ' :' [[[OTI fIlL/Ill IrH''L:.!D rill, l'iJYTJ i [.LJy,ID ',C"j 1/ . ' ,.,l.U ~~" - -" ,- ' - LLL~1 lJc>v', ","1 (,4'V..lL C _ /(, '---:-~-..,....~~-r-r-T";, ; 1'1" ", -, / " ) " ". i ';' /' !1~!,:"'\I,:i I ':):"0 1 i" MILES ',\ ';;.:;1/, I:_,~<:: I:i}ori/'nl'~: !:~: n III I . !. I' · I ( ~. :' ~ '0 400 Ron r-r-r-T I, /:)':. {j f. I 1.1, I " ').f' ,/ ~I"/ ( . .. 1, " .. ,; "......., L .10 , I J.I'f ,,; i I III I AG ---. I I I '-- - -- I I ..J -, , Pl -~ LUI. r; "MEL~~J: \ \ EXHIBIT B uor 0)> "z r;; c ~cn ;,; n q )> "tl m "tl r )> Z fi' ., ;"i ~ " '!'" ",./ ;,.., \ ~~, , , , ^ t , :>I' , i'j _n~ ,J, . C, " , ,,1 .,. . ~ '1~ .-' ~~'~ ~,--.,,--" - ..., , " '", ~ . ""'. ". " ~I'"'' "f ~ .: .~. ~' ,: i6 ~ .. i r.I ~ ~$ 1 ~I.--"_...__ c- r 1 1 , 1 ",,,' - ~ I.' l. , . ,N 'l~r ~~<--, o r- '<7(-- 1/ I p ..!.. I ~.'r-.f A~" ) ..It . 1- ' '-, n ) , . ./ ,\,", '.r.....J I " ....-, .' I--_m t , ---------- ~' /tl...1 ,'.' CI., " .." ,,;;.. ..:0 . I...,. . IL.' r MATCHU...l / , . .,i.?~i~.:r"~ -~ ~ ~I. . r' ,- LAWRENCE ROAD ~ --" " " '-, - ," -----T I /// I ~ , 1 , I I I . I I t ) '<f) . ., /1 /.'/ / , I " I: ~ I ~ , 0 , Z .. " m :I> , ' ,_ _J I I D';; Ill-rill, Ii -.. '-. ''', !. I " , I 11111 () /J' \ \ \ ./.,;:;- , ~ ,,~c.'" \. \ -'. --y" ",'" ,\ " ,., ,- \\ . f"'" 1,,' . , , I i , , I J , I , , ,. I I I, ~' , , l I ! -1 , I==e ,- ::i o ~; I r ' N , ~ Ii I j,Ij I Z"!J i! ; l' j ~ ",'. .- ~ r- I : ,. ,:; , ' I:; , , II i' , , 'I L-_ _~ ,I Ii ; , , I ;00""." i"'q'" ! pin-uK I illlllll~d~ rrrrrrrrr;rw I Pro,Bct', LAWRENCE LAKE "~...,.:,, ' BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDAj ~ for; ltITnAC;;OA5TAL DEvELoPEns~. ,,, \ ~ ~ A : , ~ ~ :.., ~ Z .. ~~ ~ -t i I I i I I · I' f~ "" II" .~ .~ 1'& c! IS i~ t' Ii' i~ . . l' j<,~, i~ I OM j" I I-'~ <,' I 's _.., :i ,,~ i. ~; ~i ",( ;l~( .,~ ~I l~ il 'j , .;: Il 5~ _;;I J! , ~ \- ... , ~ .,: . . . . . , , . . " 5 -r ~~ Z~ ~~ .~ ~e _ :~ ;~ ;~ ~~ ~~ :: ,I., " " " " ~~o~~~J . ~ ~~ ~ ~ j . , !.: i ! ~/! ? = = = ! u, ~ :~: J."" ,J ".~-~ :....-'" o. " g ~ ,: ~: _!. ~ 0 " . " . . ~ -~- . " . .. '" 01 ... 011 N. N e II II .. e ... ... e ;;'.. ............ g : : : ~. :~ . .. 'h . .... '" N .. ..,., - -- ,--. -t, IJ 0"', N ... ... .. 01 -4j' .. . N .. '" 0 .. CI ~: l. . . . " . " i 'r',~ I~' ,,~,:,v( ( /I,rl >" ~ ~ F'. ~,iJt~, - I'I"i "I'" PI 'il! I" 'I' :~~, !. J Ilill, ~~ l!! ii. ;H! di ~li ~(f?'~11 ,,'. I Ii .'" Iii i,i,' ',j :1: . ~ tll. ; ,:!I I 'ii' .-- ,11 jI -. , ,< ,~"J -4 I _I!: ; H pi i:I i,-if ,0 ~tl'~ '?,.. J .j Ill", f 10 "I" ,I. = i- 1__ ~,i t.l I "!'l,!, , jl' !'-:j.ii :!li Ii; J .. I I -, I "11' ~ 1 . = I" ,~ : ' ~~ ~ r if :!i:: i~:~ :~ _i. I !,l,', i. i': -'i'i: i1lf! , "F !: H~ -~f "-ld ~i n! i Hi a.":: 'iI il'l. . w H iH H ~iH :~ Hi I;' h I'; ~i Iii U !! __.___H~~ .! -~:i-.~f if :; .. 1/ /'" o , .. ,,, 'on f .. " . II , \ ''i'' Ii.lt ill:! J' .,1 \ M.,TCH UNE 1-:-)- ----------------------- --] I',' ~) "'i;.~~~ 1>'~ l!tl -I , ~tJ \Y !.. "". I~ .~' '.'''l " .., 'I", , '.-,. ~~ @ ~~~>--~ \\~"t$ ~t~'- - @) ~:~: I~ I L'''-\; d3\\~' I (,( ~ ((~_.,o)',\ \,\l'ilv> 10) '. I I ~,' ,~ , ~\:"!;,' \,;' '-.,' '., , I ~ 10 I v . ~.,:' , .~ , J ,~~: 1,1., -I: ""~"J ,~ ,em ~~"2: 19" "''''1''' -. ^ ....;~.... 1 .; "~ ;?.". t- (, ,,< -11[;1 '\~ , - ) IJJ "-0 ~~,r' \- :5, ) J. ~ '..1.;:> 1'{ l~ (~) w, ~ -Wr<;1 .,.:-.,; .~<> L. .._ ,~L_!:-,. -, I~"-Ia) ,- - ~1.", t''ttC m ......-/ '!w- dT\, ~ )< .~-~ ;~; 'i'<. \\~ M.,TCHl..E ------------------------ :' .:J\":L 7 " ~ ~-" "I~.....~~ L 9 }), " . '~ ~ ~I ~ c, \1. , " f;..,;.r "-- '.., N) }'I ..~..- ~!J' -. r?- -.~ ,,'- @)~ '" . ~. - ,- \ 1- "I" ,,,1:'" ~~~ r ~ >< F l "'<: n \; .. '\ z .. .. <" .. (~ n) , .. ," ~ ~~- ~ '~ .. ~ II"Jilr '/ (;' if., ' "'I~~~'" A") I~l: I? ~~..... -'~-"-.'- -,".t.. ,,-- - .;J~,,,,, l!1:;J!.~ ~, ~ 0 ,. '" '\..~... . , ". \\~~ '(;:\ \5! Q, , A' \:V' , Ll ~1 , '~~ '2'~ {'Ii . o '". f...U . ,J ", {"-~ {.'/ ~...... '''-~) 6fo~' ~d} 1;... l~ ,.~ . I "..,~ . . . I """"",,,,,,,,,,,1,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"'"'' " " "'"'''' ,';1';';,;,',:,;"""""""""",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''"'"1111'11'''''111 l,,('~'~ !~" H cr:o....crl_> t'O~__~1y}:'~1 . I.e ' ~~ -..t" ........ I 1 I l.-r.. " :t,.:: ~ 1'1 t ;s.,g. ,.~~............ ~_:.~~~.. . \~ ~~, \.'-' '1-'t.~I, 1-\\ ",'" ~"" _ ~~=~'...........\ J ",'" 'f- ___'" "~ " \ . . I",..... " ~ ' ".\-\ / !~'.Ia'. / \ .~~ ,,' \ ' "\\ ,,\ /'.!- "I' N , w' / '-'. , , , , _~~;~~l~~__l " ~ S ~ ~ ( " W, '-W/ -- '\.\"'s ,I' ~ ". ~' \p- " [I --- ... '-' '" N ~"',: \<.. " '1~~1""ti , , t) " 1\ X ,"1 1'1'1 "1' o~: " .. r-, 'i.S;;,[;:;I) I !o?)~< \ 0 'I I (~ '-" I ;.\'t~[iI.1 ;: .1 ,,', I.) ~, ~i ~~ ~"I_ 1"t,1 li; ~' >' , ~ ........,..."...",!; (', ',) (" ~ ,f >, '.. j ,.~' "; :",' ' 1.1' @)~-~ll .J ~~r~fi ell 'il^ ) (;; , \~ LANDSCAPE PLAN SCALE 1": 20' ~ ~~'i- .I~) ;~)""'~'~I y..,q " ~ <:~ '.'.1 ;~' ~ ; ~:., , !~ ~~,~ . l;~ ""'C~. I . O;'l, ""~, ~ 1 ,~ <"-" ;.:\2- ~G r')_~<_ ""'. " "- ... ". " m -~'t I (>:IJ~~\ ~, -..>;; ~'c' I~fu\ ,', ,-' , 1'~J'r l 1;1 ,.,:l" -\\\ , I ~rJ '!1~\A 1- n~~II~ ~. t ./j;;- 1- , ::'/'TI"';-I___ ~ti- '---:l,- ___J__ --fMATC:~;;;-------ig~ _ ~)-to - 1, . . I 1;"1 l\.~' , ' , i \K4 -,,:\,' I' · I' - rq.l-~ V ~ 1 -rf::' "--, -~ ''li''. v I ' , < ['Ill " i~', '.' -------"--.---------- ~ill fl\ ~ - ~'" , " L__ '~ i I I \ 0' ""~~. . - 00 ,.10"" / .' / .,- ' +' / . , 8 r--, In 1:-' ~-l~- r:jJ ,,~{.~.,-o "t, I "-'J + ~) ~.<r:.-t.I ". I Ilt'l tf<:..\,\ ,,.--) \\"'"- <~ \ ~, \~~ (ic];J \ , --1 h:;lt,,_ ~.~ c 0- co \~"' - , i, '.'Ilir ,>IlL'I,;" NOATH '> "'1",'7,6' 'il;;V~IV ,'';'\ I~ MATCH LINE ", t, '~'1 '+.')')(~I>) ,J~ I,) o q"'1 \0 \ \...'t.....r....~ :\...<- , I I I, I . ,r. ~I a ~..~ '," !Io"r--- l '" "'I ~ tv' \1.-:' ,," .,'. \,,: II .L , 'J 1 j~ "" '. , r , I '" '/>It", b \>;: t !> , \ -- . 0 ,. z ,:ub ,. .. r t..! \" (.lO " r;i", /'S.. ~ '~w ..,' \, , , :1 ~ ..,. r ~\H ~ l' _ . PI , , ':"1 '... "" l\C' \- '1"'1 \~~ ~r I,' ,;i, ~ EXHIBIT C ., "I .' t, , ~ I: I : ! ( I f , ; I I , " _J 1_'''1_)'''-.-- ,,=-r-f<~!~._ ~.q,.....u " ~~ .--' " r' " ~ V' ,. ~ o -1 ~ " ~ i , IiI \' I , " \ " " , ;.'1 ( ; :/ )!) ~~~ ~ (' 0-_ ri i I m ,. I ~ . l!l 'I " I' i j'"k at 11. I~ r .. ~f;I~j~ l~~ .' . 3. ~1. Gt ,,' \' iU~~fj Ii ~'f', f~'~~~"~\. "d~~t.->.\: ~ ~. l \t PI". ~,H~~~ H ~,' ,'It... '" t ~ ' iln e · P c~. ~ .. ~ .'''' (' t '-.1 ' ~___,__ :1 ~ . N ~==6'~g&-~ Dt)( ! , I' , , 1'\;\ , ~ 1'1, I I, " .. -i t r ... ,,,, ; ," , '~ .j.. "-.. ','. . '.... \ .c, ""q~PPQ P ~ ~l . ':I~'.'i""""'''~1 ,(- '!: ~ 'J . i . :. \1 );1 I' ,I ,!t!1 ",,\,:.,-, "J!h", ~ ,.,,~, IT' 6"[,'1" "t '(. ~ ~rL.. ( ~'Jil' ~.l~: o -"~. J" ~IJJ~,' ~ ,~~ 'CI~l i:':'~ . ~~'" ~ : . !::I~ 0 ~ ' " ~Pl- :-' , l _.J ~I r: I I r " j ,! ".",. -;r,f, i I' ~ if ~ ,I E~', : 3l- q - 'I i '~i ..1 I \1~li I ,I i I, ' " l , t\! '~I :"i~ll ~': , " , " " EXHIBIT D DECEMBER 5, 1996 LAWRENCE LAKE LANDSCAPING . ENTRANCE LANDSCAPING AS PER APPROVED PERMIT #94-4154: TOTAL TREES TOTAL NATIVE TREES 52 26 TOTAL SHRUBS TOTAL NATIVE SHRUBS 848 424 . MENENDEZ PLAN REQUIRED: TOTAL TREES TOTAL NATIVE TREES 217 109 TOTAL SHRUBS TOTAL NATIVE SHRUBS 1011 506 TOTAL LANDSCAPE MATERIAL REQUIRED PER THE ABOVE: TOTAL TREES TOTAL NATIVE TREES 269 135 TOTAL SHRUBS TOTAL NATIVE SHRUBS 1859 930 . LANDSCAPE MATERIAL ADDED TO THE ENTARNCE LANDSCAPING AT THE TIME OF ADDING TWO LOTS TO DEVELOPMENT TREES SHRUBS QUEEN PALMS 12 COCOPLUM WAX MYRTLE 104 19 TOTAL TREES 12 TOTAL SHRUBS 123 ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING THAT SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE LANDSCAPE PLAN (50% OF THE ABOVE, PER AGREEMENT WITH CITY STAFF) TREES 6 SHRUBS 62 THEREFORE YOUR MODIFIED LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY WILL HAVE THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS: TOTAL TREES TOTAL NATIVE TREES 275 138 TOTAL SHRUBS 1921 TOTAL NATIVE SHRUBS 961 EXHIBIT E GRJI DEVltLOPftUNT AND CONSTll.UCTlON,INC, J3 LAWRENCE L4.KE DRIVE BOYNTON SEA-CU, FL 33436 FHONE (407) 734-1816 FAX (401) 134-9848 November 20, 1996 Tambti Haydn, Assistant City Manager City of Boynton Beach 100 E. Boynton Beach Blvd. P.O. Bolt 310 Boynton Beach, FL 3342'-0310 Dear Ms. Haydn, I 8111 writing you this letter as we discussed. I spoke with BiII Hukill today \\ho suggested as you did that we take this matter to the Commission, During my meeting last night with the homcl1WJ1cr transition bOllfd, tbey 5uggested Ihntlhey would gladly address the Commission to let them know the overwhelming majority of homeowners accept our plan as proposed. The reason I have asked for this meeting is 10 resolve the following issues: I, What items need to be completed to allow the landscape plan 10 be approved? 2. What will we have to accomplish to obtain release of our bond money? 3. Will majority VOte as outlined in the AMociarion by-laws be enough 10 allow the plan to be approved? 4, What mu5t be done: to release the permit for grubbing? Initially Mr, Ken Hall asked we provide bim a majority consensus accepting the bernt, I do not see how one relates to the other but, I Wlderstand his concern of signing, off on the pennit in light of the amoWlt of homeowner involvement, S. My goal is to receive something in writing from the City outlining the step~ that need to be taken to finally resolve these outstanding issues, 1:0 39\1d 8~~.l 8"~~5-Pt L" L(it 9[:/;T- 9~hTIT7:llT Before I continue:, I just waftt to lhaDk Mike Hague, Kevin Hallahan, Jersey Lewicki, Bill Hukill, yourself and the rest of the staff at the building department for being as helpful and courteous as you all have been. lftbere is one thing Ihe City hBs done very well, it has hired Vel}' good people, Following is a list of the steps taken by developer to attempt to obtain an approved landscaping plan This by no means accounts for all effortll to remedy this situation, but it is lit. overview of the most predominant events and discussions. Evidently, after being conftontecl by one or two of the homeowners, 8 City Commissioner told the hllilcjirl,g department to hold all our Cenificales of Occupancy (CO's). Instead of being notified officially by the City, we were informed by a City employee oft'the record. It would have been very unfortunate if we called for a CO in$peCtion to find that three days before a closing we would be lUlable to deliver their harne, We were told at this time we would be able: to obtain CO's if we put up a landscape bond. We met with City and detennlned what the 1U1l0unt should be and we gave the City a check ad a proposed plan. We received the comments which requested among other things that we will be required to obtain one.htmdred percent (100 %) homeowner approval of our plan. I told Kevin Hallahan (penon who made the connncnts) I would give it my best shot, but had mong doubtsu to Iww I could convince all homeowners since I was aware two (2) of them had gone to the City and complained they did not like our landscaping, but for the most part the plants had been installed prior to them purchasing there bomes. We ihen met with most of the homeowners to discuss their concerns and are impJemcntins their sU88estions into the final plan. Needless to say, even with us making scvaaI concessions we have been unable to meet the one-hundred percent (IQOl'A.) requirement. In the interim, we bad SC'Vel'Il meetings with various City Offioials to clarify the requirements for the approval of our landscape plan, It seemed with every meeting additional requirements were asked of us. Mr. Hallahan requested we remove the exotics from the perimeter of my property so as to prevent them from overtaking our landscaping. It costs us ill excess of$~,OOO and we actually had to cleBr norl\ from the neighboring propenies because they presented a hazard to our plan lings as well. My other alternative w.. to call code enforcement, but to facilitate the quickest resolution of the problem I did what the City asked, At another meeting we were informed we would have to landscape the entire plat to all property comers. This will be an additional expen5:e in the neighborhood of 57,500. We agreed without diaculJaion IIld infOID\Cd Mr. Hallahllll8U we want to E0 39';id gd() 8P86-tEL-L0P 9E:LI 9661/11111 do is finalize our landscape plan and finish beautifying the community, At that time we sent a fax outlining what we believed needed to be accomplishcd to release OUT bond money. We never received a response to the facsimilc, and therefore after being informed by a homeowner who had met with Mr. Hallahan and told the one-hundrcd percelll (100%) homeowner approval was still being enforced I called you to ask how we should proceed. As you know, we are preparing to submit the final plan and by the time the Commission convenes on D~ember 3rd, we will know if quantitatively the plan meets the requirements as set forth by the City. Thanks for your help, . .-----.-- I2L- ,,>).aA- 4~ Dave Stein, CFO ORB PO 397d 8<J9 8P85-~U -LOP 9E:LI 9551/lc/11 I I I X. ~ , ' a I . j I, 5.3,7 accept the conveyance, lease, mortsage, alienation or pledge of any ll'<11 or pcrronal property to the Association (other than property c:ollvey(!d !;o the A~""C:,.j[iol; by Builder or VedaraJa); 5.3,8 tenninate or cancel any easements granted hereunder or by !he AS'o<,ualldll; 5.3.9 terminate Dr impair in any fashion any easem~t~, powers or 1'11:111'; oj Ilk' Builder hereunder; 5.3.10 restrict lhe Builder's rights of use, access 10 or cnjlJYl1h:llt of ally jXJrtion of the Property. 01' 5.3.11 cause the As.:ociation to default on any ubLgations uiI;l", any Contract or this DeclilIiltion, In any such matter, the Builder's consent shall be exercised by its "pp"inle,' "" :11<' t.".i1d or other pentJrJ designaled to so act by the Declarant. Scctipn 5~ Ri~hl of Builder 10 Disapprove Actions, This ~~cti'):l 5.4 "\;'y 1i,,1 be amended without the express, ~'ritten consent of the Declarant. ~ ~ ~ Until L'1e initial retail sale of the last Lot to be s('ld by Builder, Ull' Buihkr ~,";dl t:~ cntiue., to appoint one (I) member to the Board. So long a.~ Builder is:ntilled It) appoint Ollt' (l) member to the Board of Directors, the Builder shall have a right '0 dkapprove iltl).. 5.C,~~!l actions of the Ml'llllJors, the Board and aU committees, II.'l is mOre fully pr,wiJ,'J in tho !';",',iPII This nghl ~hall b~ exerd~bJe only by the lluilder, its successors, and 3.'sigm who '1't'l'I11I:l,lI)' take this power in a recorded instrument. No action authorized by Ute Members, the Bo"rd of Dirl'Ctors or an) committee shall become effective. nor shall any actioJl, jXJlicy or prdl'.l.lfJl i)(~ implemented until tell (10) daYE following the: meeting held pursuant to the terms and prov;,\inlls hereof. At any time prior to.~ ellpiraU:m of such ten (10) day period, the Ilud(kl '"'y e~ercise its right III dJsapprove actions of the Board and any committec:, and the ^:o,," ''11,un shall not take any action or implement any policy, progrdm or Rule 01 Rcgul:llion J,rC',IPU ,Iy approved by Ihe Association. 'mis right to disapprove shall nOI e"tend 10 the requiring of allY .."liOl\ 01' CV(lHltcr"ctiol\ on behalf of any committee, or the Board or the A33ociation. The Buildlr 31>ull not u'~ 11:; rit,hl to disapprove 10 reduce the level of services which the Association is obligatt:(] [0 plllvute or to prevent capital repairs or any expenditure required 10 comply wit!. applicable lawx aud regulations Section j." Rirhts of Declare"!, Neither Builder or the Associali,)n shallt<tk.. ;'''y adj,," whIch is detrimenku to Declarant"s inlerest as Developer, induding withol1[ linJlI.I'"'' "")' actions whkh violate city, stale, and/or federal regulations, laws and ordillance~. 7 gllE) :... '.i'! 'If,' : .' ,tr. " :"'" ' .~..' 8~8~-rEl-le~ ~E:Lr 9661if3/Tf ;,~..';. ,",; ,"J , ",.. . , :'" time the original meeting was called, At the r=t\vcncd meeting, if a 4u,)rum is pr~sen\, .."y business which might have been transacted at the meetin& originally called may be tran!.acll:d. If a time and place for reconvening the meeting is not fIXed by those In attendance at the original meeting or if fOJ" any rea.wn a naw dale is f!Xed for reconvening the mcetifl& after adjournment, notice of the time amI pl~ for re<:oIIvening the ~I shall be given to Members in the manner prescribed in section 4. 1* Section 7. Vnte Required, When a quorum is present at...y meeting,.. IlUjority of the '.,J/ VOle represented at such meeting shall decide any question brought beforc the meeting, un] ," .'/,\'" I the Declaration, thc Artlcles of Incorpol'll.tion, these By-Laws or any appllcable law proviJes ~ ' otherwise. I I I I I . . . . . . . . Section 8. Pro~ies. Members may vote by proxy, except to the exlenl lillliu.'d by applicable law. Section 9. Conduct of MoetinlU. The President shall preside o"er all meetings oltlle Association and the secreta!)' shall keep the minutes of the meeting and wronl in a minute t ,..:>1: all resolutions adopted at the meeting, as well as a record of all tran5;Jdions occurnng ;it (tie meeting, Section 10. Action Without a M~tinl!, AIly action which may be taken al a mccting of the Members, may be taken without a meeting if wrillen consent selling forth Ule aClioll :;0 taken is sillncd by all Members. ARTICLE V Election of Bo~rd of Directors Scction I. liluDller 0' Directors. Tho: govemlUlce and admini~,tration of the arfai I S of the Association shall be vested in a Board of DircclOf5. The numtJer of direct '-'\, 01 the Association shall be not less than three (3) nor more than six (6). The initial Board .h:111 c.."sist of the three (3) penons named In the Articles of Incorporation. Section 2. Election or Appointment of Directors, Until the 1'urnover, th~ Class "H" Member shall have the right to appolnl all of the members of the Board of DiIecl(lrs (the "Turnover"), The Turnover shall occur after the earliest of the following eonditiorls: (a) the conveyBllcc of seventy"five percent (75 %) of the LoIS to 0.... ncTS (other than the Declarant, Builder or their afftliates or assign~); (b) December 31, 2002; or (e) such o:arlier date, as determined by the Clus "B' Member, in i13 )Ole and abSOlulC diserction, 3 -.",-, ; , . %5UIZIII ~.~,:.,r;r, ~:.~,~ j~, ,,1 8P85-t>EL'-LI3~""'N ':IE:L T gd~ , I I I I I 13,18.1 ! t'!ay J:.qulpmem, btc,. All ~Ie)'c\es, U1cycles, scooters, skateboards and other play equipment, wadina pools, baby strOllers,~d similar items :lhall be stored so as nollO be visible from streets or property adjacent to a Lot. No such item:l shall be allowed to remain on the Common Area or on Lots 110 as to be :visible from adjacent property when not in use. All swing selS, basketball hoops and backboards, and similar sporUnB or playground equipment may be erceted on LoU provided II is approved by the MC, 13.18.t2 Window Coverlnes,;. AI!,.windows on any .tructurew/uch are visible from the street or d-Ili"a' (lG other lots tball have window coverings which have a white or off-whi\C; baeMn, or blend with the exterior color of the dwelIing, Reflective window coverings are prohibited. ARTICLE XIV, *- GENERAL PROVISIONS _"I/~ . u- ,~" .n....... - Section 14.1 ImIn. The covenants and restrlctlons of thIs Declaration shall run with and bind the Property, and shall inure \0 the benefit of and shall be, enforceable by the Association or the Owner of any Lot, their respective le&al representativl!S, hcirs, successors, and Il3signs, for 11 lerm of thirty (30) years from the dale this Declaration is recorded, after whiCh tlmc they shall be automatically extended for aucce.esive periods of ten (10) years each, unless an instrument in writing, sign~ by sixty sevcn percent (67%) of :the then Owners, has been recorded within the year preceding the beginning of each successive period of ten (10) years, agreeing to chan2e said covenants and restrictions, in whole or in part, or to 1l:nnlnate the same, in which .:aac thia Declantlion shall be modified or terminated as specified therein. Ses;tion 14,2 lImendment. Until the Turnover, the Builder may, in its sole discretion, unilatenilly amend this Declaration In any manner It deems appropriate, "flu Turnover, the Builder may unilaterally amend this Declaration at any lime and from time to tIme if such amendments ia (a) n~sary to Jlorine any provision hereof into complianc:e with any appliC:tble governmental SLaMes, IlIle, requirement or resulation, or judicial determination; (b) necessary to enable any Rputable title insurance <Xlmpany to issue tille insurance coverage on a Lot; (c) required by an institutional or lovernmentallend=- or pllrehuer of mortllage loans, including, for clWIIple, the Federal National Mort&lIe Association or Pederal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, to enable such lender or purchaser to make or purchase mC1rtgage loans on Loti; or (d) nece5saty to enable any 80vemmental agency or reputable private inSUIallCC company to insure mortgage loans on the Lots; or (e) oonect any slenogmphic, scrivener's or surveyor's error or any error of a like nature; pJoYidcd, however, any auch amendm,nt shall not adversely affcet the title to any Lot unless the Owner thereof shill consent thcreln in writing, Prior to turnover, the Class" A" Members shall have no right to amend this DeclaraUon. After the Turnover, (a) any non-BuildeJ initialed amendment, or (b) any Builder initiated amendment which has a materially adverse effect on the Owner of a Lot shall requi:re the affmnatille vote (in person or by alternate) or wnllen consent, or any combination thereof, of Men1b~rs representing sixty-seven percent (67"') of the total, votes in the AS3ociation, including 29 i:!<l9 ,..,..,., . ,.. ~~:, ~~ 8~86-~EL-L0~ 9E:Lt 966t/tZ/lt EXHIBIT F ORB DEv&LOPMDlT AND CONSTRUCTION. me. >>LAwtmNCE J.AI(JI: DlUW 80YJllroN BUCR.IlL 3~ PHONE (407) 734.1&16 FAX (407) 734-9848 October 10. 1996 City of Boynton Bead> clo Kevin Hallahan, City F0r8_ 100 BOyntOll Beach BMI, P,O, Box 310 Boynton Beach, FL 3342~-o31 0 Dear Mr. Hallahan_ I am writing you thi. lttter to darify our diSl;ussian today concerning the landsc:aping at Lawrence Lake E:naICS, A. alwaya, your pic1ance and awareness oftbe optians available, are a great help 111 determining the beat course of aatiClll, ~Iy. it ._ every time we speak a new obstacle arises, further prolanging the lIJlP1'OV8l proce", Before I discuss the INIt obstacle, I would like to reiterate the step. toward approving the landsl;llpe plan. I, Submit landscape drawioas with various mathematical c:otnparisOlls to meet tree and shrub ""until of the liMen" PlaD" , z. Respond to City _,I<I_ta &om ~ou. dtpartments: a. Show wbidI plmtiop "re aubstituted for original submission, b. Meet Datlw aDd JI<lIHI8tMr requir__, c. Clear the perimIIler oftbe PUD ft'om lIIIY c>totic., d, SUlW)' praptrty to dSeImin8 III p1antinp are wltbin boundari.., e, Kin any weeds wblc:h ave th" possibility of encroaching the berm, f, ~d to CCllIIIIIIIIlS of Ken Halllllld Skip Mylar, .' Clear llIlll pille hoo..Jr.vto. ofberrn to pnpare for plantings or sod, h, Clear behind fiCUJ bedp to ready for Il1I1lch, i. Meet with IICl111OO'A'1m'. to elilCUlt resident ccnallllS. j, Callfbr qualitBtivllupeetian of plant material., k. Meet wltb CIty to dIIl:ull acldltlcnal pIaotIns- required, and I. Submit.... p....1br ftnalapproval. 80 39';1d liCl9 8P86-PEL-WP 9f:Lf 9ESf/fZ/ff ORB DBVUOPMENT AND CONSTRUcnON,INC, aa UWUNCl LAKE DIUVl aOlfJll1'ON BEACH. JIL 33436 JlIH'ONH (lO7) 734-1116 FAX (407) 714.9841 October 10, 1996 Page 2 I beti""" these cCIIq)rise all items requelted of the developer. AI discussed, I would like som. 8nur.nee before I COt1lII\IIIce wilb the inJtaIlati<n, that if aIllbece items are taken care of, I will be arentcd . permit, As previCllllly ifj.,.,.ued, I h.ve ipOkcn with ninety percent of the homeowners, Their respan.. primarily dHl with littonIl planting and the detire for us to !Wce the entire community, Thlml wml ClIlIy two bomtowDeq who stamd they would only aa:ept the "Menende: Plan", HopelllUy, by adclIenias po;rtinmt inu.. _ will b. able to permit the landscaping plan, LeI us move back to the I110It ....ltelII that wu brougbt up duriua our meetingtocl.y , You have informed me I will be required to iIutaII p1antillgs (sod or cd1er materials) to the bounder;.s ofth. pun, As dilaJSsed. I undantand the berm IIl1eds sod on the backside oflt to prevent erosion, but you have e8lred I fiU ill the..1I8m IY-'lIdary oftha PUD as weD. One of tile pnme complaints of Mr, Miller is the ouppoeed hip ....iIltmbce rOQuirem8JltS afthe plamings as they exist, If I imsm and plant Ibllt aNA, it .nainly will increase lmdscape m.aintcI1ance costs for the homeowners, In addition, PBC has r__1y paned a IIllW ordinanc:e which requitell certain percentages of PUD's be left in their raw state as a ba'llitat fornatiVll w1ldllft, 11MI duo: to thc IlIte notice ofthi. new ite111 and the fact that all the wildlife is goins to bave 110 refuse once liley tJeslu building to my .outhern border, we should be .bleto leaVllth. ealtem section in ilI'natural SUIte or at most lay down. layer of mulch Sincerely, --:j~ft De"" Stein cc: Tam'llri Hayden 50 391;1d g~9 8P86-PEL-L0P 9E:LI 965I/Io/II