Search Results

It's not over yet." That's what Boca Raton Mayor Susan Haynie said after hearing from the Greater Boca Raton Beach and Park District that it's decided not to buy up the city's privately owned beachside land at this time. The district this week, responding to a request from the city, said it has too many other financial commitments to buy the land right now and to buy small pockets of land is not in line with the district's mission to develop parks. The district's "enabling legislation doesn't limit it to only active uses," Haynie said. "That seemed to be the excuse. In my mind, we are asking [the district] to acquire the land for preservation." Late last year, the council reluctantly agreed that a property owner can build on the beach at 2500 N. Ocean Blvd., prompting public outcry. As a result, the city turned to the district to look into buying up oceanfront properties for preservation and public use. The goal in the district's mind was to further preserve the city's gem by creating a continuous stretch of public land, beginning with Ocean Strand Park and moving north, district director Arthur Koski said. District staff reached out to the owners of properties east of A1A that are north of the park and south of Spanish River Boulevard. They learned just one 0.42-acre parcel owned by Grand Bank National Association would be available for purchase. Last week, the district commissioners decided it is not in the district's best interest to spend taxpayer dollars on isolated parcels. Though, they're not closing the door on the subject. "It would have to be part of a whole plan," District Commissioner Dennis Frisch said. "It doesn't make sense to buy a property and pay taxes on it if we can't get everything else. I think land will get pricier and pricier. I don't see how we could afford to do it." Greater Boca beach district moves forward with plan to buy beachfront properties But Frisch said if the city could take the property off the tax roll, then it may make more sense. He said the decision of what's next for the properties is up to the city. "They're going to have to either use some eminent domain or not give variances," he said. "If you don't give variances, you can't build on it. Deputy Mayor Michael Mullaugh said he does not see the city buying properties right now or getting involved with eminent domain, which allows governments to take private property for public use and compensate the owner. Instead, he said the city should review the development rights of the properties along A1A and find out their statuses. The 2500 property, for example, still has more approvals to get before ground can be broken, he said. "Certainly now is the time to be looking at it," he said. "I don't think now is the time to actually talk about making bids on properties." Also this past week, the city's planning advisory review discussed a proposal for a four-story, 14,270-square-foot duplex on the Grand Bank National property. "I think that once the first building goes up, it will pretty much be impossible to do what we're trying to do," Frisch said. "I would say that would be the end of it." The latest beach-property proposal submitted to the city, and another in the works at 2330 N. Ocean Blvd., is "what everybody feared" would happen after the 2500 decision, Frisch said. "The snowball is starting to roll from the top of the hill," he said. "As it gathers speed, it's going to be harder to stop." http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/palm-beach/fl-boca-beachfront-acquisition-up-next-20160411-story.html

Residents came together on Sunday, March 6th to challenge the decision of Boca Raton’s City Officials in retrospect to 2500 N. Ocean Blvd. Boca Save our Beaches gained an abundance of exposure from the community who joined us hand-in-hand to protect one of the last natural, oceanfront areas. A propeller plane flew around the site of 2500 N. Ocean trailing a banner that read, “TELL BOCA MAYOR NO HOUSES ON OUR BEACH SAND!” Volunteers set petition booths on both sides of A1A, urging bikers and runners to stop and take part in our demonstration, securing over 2000 signatures to date. Beach access was provided to participants courtesy of The Ocean Club after a symbolic hands across the sand photo. March 6th was a great success, and most importantly we had a blast meeting our community neighbors. Boca SOB is encouraging the City Council Members of Boca Raton to think about the rare territory of 2500 N. Ocean which provides a home for countless plant and animals who have already faced near total habitat loss. We are here to preserve the only portion of natural beach left in Boca. Awareness is our number one goal at Boca Save our Beaches, and with enough voices in the community, we can urge the City to stop this. We are here to protect our beach, our animals and our City. Look around you. Isn’t it enough? James Hendrey March 15, 2016 at 10:43 am - Reply BAD JUDGEMENT – COUNCIL What should have happened with regard to the Council’s actions on 2500 N Ocean is for them to have supported the ZBOA’s decision – “No variance” for the applicant for a home on the property. For over 40 years, our city and its various administrations have worked diligently – NO CONSTRUCTION ON THE DUNE”. They had established a time honored precedent and the owner of the property should have been aware when he bought it Caveat Emptor. The City Council was told by the owner’s attorney, Charlie Siemon of Gray Robinson, that the applicant would sue!!!!!. So what. The best the applicant could hope for is being reimbursed for his purchase with maybe a small increment for a profit. No, not our Council. Now they want to spend many, many more millions of your tax dollars buying up adjacent land having seen the public outcry. And, now owners of adjacent properties want their right to build on what, up to now, was a NO BUILD AREA. A perfect example of our current Council’s lame decisions. This is just my opinion but I think Gray Robinson and Charlie Siemon and other developers are so close to the Council it is hard to tell them apart. They consistently work together to “take” from the public and in this case, a treasure important to our citizens. This cozy relationship is designed to intimidate our Council who should stand fast and protect the public not obligate them to some amount of your tax dollars (add your own number) This a perfect example of feckless government. In a 2015 letter Charlie wrote that he had their back that now is the time for them to have his, right in his back pocket, I assume. http://bocawatch.org/residents-stand-together-to-save-our-beaches/

Seven beachfront properties have been identified for possible purchase by the Greater Boca Raton Beach and Park District, under a new initiative to set them aside for a public park.The properties would ideally be used to create a park, with a parking lot and a tunnel under North Ocean Boulevard for better beach access, district director Arthur Koski said.These parcels are a rarity in Boca Raton, being among the few remaining privately owned beach-side properties ripe for development or redevelopment. The district, acting on the city's request, would buy them for public use instead. Koski said the seven already identified parcels are just a jumping-off point. More properties could be named as early as next week. Once the district finalizes its list, then district commissioners will decide which landowners to contact about selling. The seven properties are between the Intracoastal and the Atlantic Ocean. Four are side-by-side, just north of Ocean Strand Park. The other three are just footsteps away from the rest. All are between East Palmetto Park Road and Spanish River Boulevard. Greater Boca beach district identifies properties for possible acquisition - So far, two property owners plan to build four-story houses on their land. "It's a special piece of property," Philip Gori, 55, said of his lot at 2330 N. Ocean Blvd. "Of course I don't want to sell." Mayor Susan Haynie said it's always better to have a willing seller, but the city will work with the district to evaluate what options are available to make sure the land is preserved from development. Whether the city would use eminent domain, which allows governments to take private property for public use and compensate the owner, hasn't been discussed, officials said. Boca to greater beach district: Consider buying more beachfront land in our city. There are about five miles of beachfront property in the city, three of which are currently public. In all, the district is looking to buy 2.59 acres, said Briann Harms, the district's assistant director. Terry Story, an agent with Coldwell Banker in Boca, said of the city's beachfront: "It's extremely valuable, and over time, it's only going to become more valuable because there is no more beachfront." Story said she supports the district's initiative to buy up more beachfront land, especially "because they've overdeveloped downtown." "We need more [public] beachfront property," she said. "That's one reason why people are attracted to the Boca Raton area. It only enhances the community." The beach district's goal is to further preserve the city's gem by creating a continuous stretch of public land, beginning with Ocean Strand Park and moving north. "The small parcels by themselves wouldn't be useful," Harms said. Ocean Strand, the city's last sizeable piece of undeveloped oceanfront property, was secured for public use in 1994 at a cost of $11.88 million, saving the 15-acre site near Gumbo Limbo Nature Center from development. The swath of green real estate stretching from the ocean to the Intracoastal is now owned by the district and remains undeveloped. Any newly bought land would serve to further extend the oasis, with one of the properties possibly acting as a parking lot, officials said. How the district will pay for the properties has not been determined. Harms said commissioners likely will look at the budget and projects moving forward, then shift the funds accordingly. "Getting an idea of how much it will cost is the first step," Harms said. These properties could sell for substantial amounts. In 2013, Gori paid $900,000 for his slice of land at 2330 N. Ocean Blvd. "It's irreplaceable," Gori said. In January, the Boca City Council passed a resolution that "requests that the district expeditiously evaluate and consider" obtaining the oceanfront properties for preservation and public use. The move came shortly after the council reluctantly agreed that a property owner can build a 10,000-square-foot, four-story house on the beach at 2500 N. Ocean Blvd. "We have partnered with [the district] in the past, and it's created the type of preservation and public use of our beachfront properties that our residents have relied on," Mayor Susan Haynie said when the resolution passed. With that, the district pinpointed which properties made the most sense to buy, narrowing it down to seven parcels so far. Harms said the district has been gathering contact information on all owners but has not reached out yet. Attorney Keith Poliakoff said his client, whose property at 2500 N. Ocean Blvd. is listed under Natural Lands LLC, bought the land because he fell in love with it. "He bought it for his summer house," Poliakoff said. "He bought it to enjoy it and use it. He's not seeking to develop and flip the property. Right now he has the legal right to build his house on this property." Though, a sale is not out of the question. "Of course with anything else, if there's a legitimate offer … we'd entertain it and respond accordingly," Poliakoff said. On the other hand, Al Petruzzelli said selling his land at 2330 N. Ocean Blvd. is not an option. "I've been here for 70 years," he said. "It's my homestead." President of the Ocean Club Condominium's board, Naeem Mady, said the association is never going to build on its beachfront property at 2401 N. Ocean Blvd. He said it would be wiser for the district to instead put the money toward buying the 2500 property and others that may be developed. "If they want to give us money, we'll take the money, but it's a waste of taxpayers' money," Mady said. "It would not serve a purpose." Staff researcher Barbara Hijek contributed to this report. http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/palm-beach/fl-boca-beachfront-update-20160225-story.html

A plan to explore acquiring more of Boca Raton's beachfront land for preservation and public use is on hold as the Greater Boca Raton Beach & Park District awaits indication from the city on whether its elected officials are in favor of such a move. District executive director Arthur Koski said Monday that the district will look into buying up all the privately owned vacant beachfront property in Boca to preserve it from development only if there's a consensus from Boca's City Council expressing its support. "Our ability to purchase property is subject to concurrence of City Council," Koski said, citing the district's enabling legislation. District staff had planned to present a report at a district meeting Monday that would identify which parcels are available for purchase, evaluate the costs, assess the liabilities of opening the land to the public and determine how such purchases would affect the district's ability to receive federal funds for beach renourishment. But because staff has not received the go-ahead from the city, the district has not moved forward with its investigation, Koski said. Last month, Boca Mayor Susan Haynie sent a letter to Susan Vogelgesang, chairwoman of the district's board of commissioners, asking that the district "identify all privately owned vacant buildable oceanfront properties in the city and evaluate the possible acquisition of these properties by the district for preservation and public use." Greater Boca district to explore acquiring more beachfront land The push came about a week after the City Council reluctantly agreed that a property owner can build a 10,000-square-foot, four-story house on the beach at 2500 N. Ocean Blvd. In Boca, a lot must stretch at least 100 feet to be developed; the lot is 88.5 feet. But the council, in a 4-1 vote, determined the owner had met the necessary criteria for an exception. District commissioners reviewed the letter at a Dec. 21 meeting and directed staff to first get an understanding from the City Council on its interest in such an endeavor and what the city's involvement would be. In a Dec. 30 email to Koski, Assistant City Manager Mike Woika said the council had not been available to provide input. City spokeswoman Chrissy Biagiotti said Monday a meeting date to discuss the matter has not yet been set. There are about five miles of beachfront property in the city, three miles of which are public, Koski said. Of the remaining two miles, some smaller pieces to the north of Red Reef Park may be able to be bought, he said. Once Koski pinpoints which properties are of interest to the city, he then will be able to determine the cost of buying them. The district was created in 1974 in part to enable the city to acquire what is now known as Red Reef Park. The city borrowed money from the bank to pay for the property, and the district over time reimbursed the city for the cost plus interest. Similar joint agreements were made to pay for land for Patch Reef Park, Sugar Sand Park and Ocean Strand. emiller@tribune.com, 561-243-6531 or Twitter @EmilyBethMiller http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/palm-beach/boca-raton/fl-boca-beach-district-land-acquisition-20160104-story.html

A city decision to allow construction of a four-story beachside mega-mansion on an undersized oceanfront parcel is having a ripple effect. In the wake of the controversial Dec. 8 City Council decision, the Greater Boca Raton Beach and Park District has agreed to identify all privately owned, buildable beachfront properties, obtain available market values for the parcels and find out if council members would support an acquisition if it had public value. “I am certainly not opposed to evaluating the possible acquisition of what beachfront property is available and how it could be used by the public,” said Commissioner Robert K. Rollins. “Let’s make sure we have the consensus of the City Council for us to move forward with this. They are our partner and would be responsible for going through with a bond issue.” The discussion on beachfront property was spurred by a Dec. 16 letter from Boca Raton Mayor Susan Haynie requesting the district take such action. What could be built on privately owned oceanfront property has been a hot topic in Boca since the mega-mansion was approved for 2500 N. Ocean Blvd. City Council members on Dec. 8 reversed a Zoning Board of Adjustment decision that prohibited construction of the 10,000-square-foot house. The Zoning Board of Adjustment had refused to approve variances for property width and front yard setbacks. City Council members defended their decision, claiming the city would likely face litigation because more than a dozen such variances had been approved in the past. Outraged residents warned that the four-story house would forever change the face of the beach, disorient nesting sea turtles, and set a precedent for future development. Originally, property owner Natural Lands LLC had sought two variances to build the 10,432-square-foot house: an 11.5-foot variance from the minimum lot width of 100 feet; and a 14.7-foot variance from the minimum front yard setback of 25 feet. When the issue was appealed to City Council on Dec. 8, the request for a front yard setback was dropped. Natural Lands LLC attorney Charles Siemon told the council the house was a “reasonable” use for the nonconforming parcel and the width variance was essential to make an economically beneficial use of the property. Resident George O’Rourke said the city’s decision to approve the huge house on a nonconforming lot instantly increased the value of other beachside properties. “What they have effectively done is made the (undeveloped) property more valuable. And now the mayor is suggesting that another entity (the district) buy remaining surrounding properties,” O’Rourke said. “What they have done is create extra value in these other properties now.” Jack Fox, president of the Beach Condominium Association of Boca Raton and Highland Beach, was pleased to learn the district will begin researching the availability of undeveloped, privately owned beachfront properties. “We were shocked the city would vote 4-1 to reverse the decision of their own zoning board,” Fox said. Fox said his condo association had worked with the city to get beach lighting reduced to better protect nesting sea turtles, noting that the city had even embedded lights in the roadway to help reduce area lighting. “Here we are, after doing all that work, and someone wants to plop a 10,000-square-foot residence right on the beach that will have big windows and spread light everywhere,” Fox said. “The last thing we wanted was this monstrous residence built on these beaches.” http://thecoastalstar.ning.com/profiles/blogs/boca-raton-planned-seaside-mansion-leads-city-to-explore-beach-pr

Boca Raton officials are looking to the Greater Boca Raton Beach & Park District to buy up all the privately owned vacant beachfront property in the city to preserve it for public use. The push comes shortly after the City Council reluctantly agreed that a property owner can build a 10,000-square-foot, four-story house on the beach at 2500 N. Ocean Blvd. This week, Mayor Susan Haynie sent a letter to Susan Vogelgesang, chairwoman of the district's board of commissioners, asking that the district "identify all privately-owned vacant buildable oceanfront properties in the city and evaluate the possible acquisition of these properties by the district for preservation and public use." Arthur Koski, executive director of the district, said any request made by the mayor is subject to the district commissioners, but history would dictate the entities would work together to purchase available land. He said the commissioners will likely discuss the mayor's letter at Monday's 5:15 p.m. board meeting at the Sugar Sand Park Community Center, 300 South Military Trail. There are about five miles of beachfront property in the city, three miles of which are public, Koski said. Of the remaining two miles, some smaller pieces to the north of Red Reef Park may be able to be bought, he said. Elected officials agree: Better collaboration needed between city of Boca and beach district Once Koski pinpoints which properties are of interest to the city, he then will be able to determine the cost of buying them. "We will be required — if the district buys properties — to have appraisals done on the properties," Koski said. "So, we'll at least have an appraisal as a starting point." During a two-hour hearing on Dec. 8, opponents to developing the 2500 property argued it would destroy everything the city and its residents have done to preserve the beach, opening the door for more property owners to come forward with requests to build on their beachfront properties. "What we've got is special," Boca resident Mark Mannix told the council. "It's a pristine, gorgeous beach, and it's your charge to protect it." Objections also included the light that could disturb sea turtles and the construction plans that "are not in line with the character of the neighborhood." The 2500 lot was created by combining portions of two properties through a series of annexations and transfers. It has remained untouched since it was unified under a deed in 1963. In Boca, the minimum lot size required for development of land is 100 feet. The parcel falls short by 11.5 feet. To be granted an exception to the rule, the property owner had to prove the request met six criteria. In July, the city's Planning and Zoning board unanimously supported the development of the parcel. The Zoning Board of Adjustment voted 3-2 in favor of the owner's request, but four affirmative votes are needed for approval. The land owner appealed to the City Council, which remanded the decision back to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. When the board again did not reach four votes in November, the owner appealed to the City Council for a second time. At the hearing, city staff told the council the owner met all of the necessary criteria to be able to build on the lot and offered examples of six other properties in the area where similar requests were approved. The owner's attorney, Charles Siemon, told the council both federal and state law give his client the rights to build on the private land. "[City] code provides a vehicle for dealing with substandard lots," he said. "This is not out of the ordinary." Council members pointed out that single-family homes had been built on the beach in the past, though most have gradually gone away. Officials also said since the late 1980s, 19 similar requests were made, and all were granted. City Attorney Diana Grub Frieser said such requests stand alone, and it's up to the council to determine whether each property owner meets the required criteria. Councilman Jeremy Rodgers called allowing building on the site "a special favor that should not have been expected at the time of purchase." Ultimately, the council voted 4-1 to allow the development. Rodgers was the dissenting vote. "We are bound by our code and the law," Haynie said. "We may not like something, but it doesn't mean we have the right to impose our personal opinions on it." Haynie said at least two other beachfront lots are buildable. One is to the north of the 2500 property and opposite of the Blue Water Townhouses. Another is a duplex property south of the 2500 property that can be redeveloped. The beach and park district was created in 1974 in part to enable the city to acquire what is now known as Red Reef Park. Similar joint agreements were made to pay for land for Patch Reef Park, Sugar Sand Park and Ocean Strand. "The relationship between the city and the district has been the reason the city has the reputation it does," Koski said. emiller@tribune.com, 561-243-6531 or Twitter @EmilyBethMille http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/palm-beach/fl-boca-north-ocean-boulevard-approval-20151220-story.html

We fight the fights that need to be fought…. Boca Raton is under attack! Residents from all over town are fighting the good fight against the ever-expanding impact on their quality of life; a quality of life that has, over the last decade, dramatically changed through the votes of a ‘developer friendly’ city council. This must end! In the last two weeks, our elected officials voted on two items reflecting their ‘tone deafness’ to the sentiments of residents; to wit: University Village and 2500 N. Ocean; two items both decided on 4-1 votes. The University Village vote has now been approved and is beyond the local body’s action. It, however, is not beyond a circuit court challenge; BocaWatch encourages such a challenge. The 2500 North Ocean vote is not yet beyond local action. Any council member on the prevailing side of that 4-1 December 8th vote may, at the next scheduled City Council meeting, make a motion to reconsider their vote. If a council member were to consider such a procedural move, this action would be placed on the agenda for discussion. That said, when the item is brought forward, any other council member may second the motion to engage the local body to reopen the item for further consideration. So why might a council member consider such a move? Because our most precious asset, our beach is at risk….that’s why….. This item, 2500 N. Ocean, has had two denials at the Zoning Board of Adjustment. After the 2nd denial, the applicant appealed to the city council. That appeal resulted in an affirmative 4-1 approval vote. In conversation with one of the affirmative votes, I was told that a deciding factor was that a denial would be appealed to the circuit court where the city would lose; costing the city substantial attorney fees and creditability. Another reason offered from this affirmative vote was that there have been many other variances granted to properties in this subdivision creating precedent to follow in this current application. And….finally, that to deny the variance would be tantamount to a ‘taking’ by government and therefore actionable for denying the property owner a reasonable use of the land. The applicant’s representative argued that this is private property and that denial of the variance would deny the property owner of the “beneficial use”. He further stated that the property is a substandard lot needing the variance for the development of a single family home. He does, however, concede that the granting of the variance is “subject to the discretion of the local body.” These remarks were made affirmatively and loudly. What was not said as loudly, however, was that the applicant had purchased this lot along with property on the west side of A1A; that the lot on the west side has been sold to a third party entity; and, that the applicant, after purchasing these combined lots, sold off the lot on the west side of A1A knowing full well that the remaining property on the east side of A1A would be substandard and not a buildable lot without the need for a variance. What is the local body’s role in a quasi-judicial hearing? In a quasi-judicial hearing, the local body is charged with a ‘fact finding’ task to create a record for a judicial review at the circuit court level. The local body is not charged with pre-determining the outcome of any subsequent circuit court action; fact finders are not judges and should not try to be….. The standard for the fact finding body is “competent substantial evidence.” There are two elements within this standard; to wit; a quantitative element and a qualitative element. The quantitative element goes to the amount of evidence in the record for a court to review; the qualitative element goes to the type of evidence contained in the record. In this matter, there is quantitative evidence to support either the granting or denial of the variance. Let’s also, for the sake of this essay, agree that there is qualitative evidence to support either result. With that as a given, case law demonstrates that courts are very reluctant to overturn the finding of the local body where there is qualitative evidence supporting the decision; it is not a situation where the sheer weight of the evidence wins. Hence, the consideration that a denial would result in a losing court challenge is a predetermination and arguably unsupportable. Cases establish that there is a ‘reasonable use ‘standard employed by the courts. However before getting to this ‘use’ standard, one has to meet the criteria for a variance. In this case, the applicant knew full well that there was no right to build on this lot at the time of their purchase and also at the time of the subsequent sale of the property west of A1A; thus creating the exact circumstance complained of. Moreover, the argument that there have been other variances granted in this subdivision is also without merit. Those variances are for properties on the west side of A1A; a major distinction. The applicant concedes that the granting of a variance is an individual determination to be made by the local body on a case by case basis. Hence, the other variances may be persuasive but are certainly not controlling. What makes this case unique? In the instant case, there are a number of factors distinct to this applicant and this property. Not to be redundant, the most distinctive item is that this is the one and only property that would be on the east side of A1A; a formidable change, if development is allowed, to Boca Raton’s commitment to keep our beach pristine and undeveloped. The argument that a denial would be tantamount to a ‘taking’ also fails on two points….1) the decision is discretionary to the local body; and 2) the applicant created the circumstances upon which he complains. One last comment….staff is not innocent here….staff states that the criteria for granting the variance has been met on all counts. The record evidence to support this conclusory statement is weak. Any council member making this motion to reconsider would have the opportunity to inquire of staff how the determinations were made and on what evidentiary submissions they stand. The attorney for the opposition at the ZBOA hearing made significant argument as to why the criteria have not been met and suggested that a denial is merited. For all these reasons and more, any of the prevailing affirmative votes can motion for reconsideration with the intention of changing his/her vote from granting to denying the variance. The one affirmative voter with whom I have spoken absolutely should make this motion regardless of the risk of a loss in a circuit court action; a legal action threatened, but, as yet, not filed. BocaWatch suggests that all residents interested in stopping this breach of the sanctity of our beach must send a loud message to the city council. Development is second to character; Boca Raton’s beach is our character…. Residents should immediately deluge Councilmember Singer and Mayor Haynie with the demand to make this motion to reconsider. For sure, Councilman Rodgers will second the motion…shaynie@ci.boca-raton.fl.us ssinger@ci.boca-raton.fl.us Subject: RE: 2500 North Ocean Dear __________________: Our beach is our greatest asset. This belief has been a consistent mantra of Boca Raton residents and elected officials for decades. Residents are truly concerned over the granting of a variance for the development of 2500 N. Ocean. The applicant, in this case, contributed significantly to the concerns of which he complains. The record evidence supports a decision in either direction. The granting of a variance is a discretionary action by the local legislative body. Residents believe that had the decision been to deny, the applicant may file an appeal. Residents also believe that given the totality of circumstances, a reviewing court will not overturn the denial. The record contains qualitative evidence to support a denial. Residents are requesting that either or both of you, as members of the prevailing side, file a Motion to Reconsider the Dec. 8th decision with the intent of changing your vote from approval to denial. The residents of Boca Raton are outraged that the city council would, under any circumstances, encroach upon the pristine nature of our beaches. The resulting damage is forever; the greater good is at risk. This is a fight worth fighting…..you reconsideration is the residents’ voice in this fight. Signed_____________________________________ In closing….remember…. ‘We fight the fights that are worth fighting…and saving our beach is certainly one fight we must fight…. http://bocawatch.org/fights-worth-fighting/

Councilman Scott Singer has responded to the e-mails sent by many of our residents. Thanks to all who took action, and read the Councilman's response, below. Dear Mr. Dicker, Thank you for your email and taking the time to write. I appreciate your concerns and would like to share a little more with you about last week’s vote. The vote dealt only with one specific, privately owned parcel. It does not concern the nearly 5 miles of Boca beaches that are owned by the public orcondo associations and restricted from development. Nor does it deal with any other undeveloped parcels on the beach. Rather, an applicant sought a variance to build a single-family home on one lot, which was 11.5 feet less than the minimum width of 100 feet. I reviewed the city’s history and found that since the late 1980s, 19 similar lot-width variance requests were made, and all 19 were granted. This includes 13 variances located within just a few hundred yards of the site. In addition, both federal and state law give many protections to owners of private property and can impose substantial damages for claims barring its use. I felt compelled to consider all of this background, and the city’s position in a possible lawsuit with potentially large damages and legal expenses that all taxpayers might have to bear. This was not a rezoning, where the council has broader discretion to grant or deny requests. Recently, I voted against a larger rezoning, and have voted no on other requests for variances and technical deviations. In this matter, the applicant had originally requested a second variance on the front-yard setback. I said I could not support that request, and the applicant withdrew it. In this difficult quasi-judicial hearing, I grudgingly voted in favor of the request, which was granted by a 4 to 1 vote. This decision was not pleasant for me, but I felt I had to vote on the record before us. Of course, I appreciate your and other residents’ concerns, including those of the neighbors closest to this site. I also hear and value the views about preserving our beaches, which I share. This lot, though, is the only vacant parcel east of A1A that is less the minimum width, so no other landowner on the beach should be able to point to this decision. The other miles of beachfront will not change because of this limited issue. As highly as I regard concerns about development and natural spaces, I was obligated to consider the specific information before us. I also appreciate your request for reconsideration, but the city code does not allow a motion for reconsideration on resolutions, which this vote was. Thank you again for your thoughts and sharing them with me. Thanks, Scott Joe Pedalino's original mailing to residents follows: Dear Boca Residents, A monumental and symbolic decision was made at City Council last Tuesday night. This has nothing to do with the downtown and high-rises that so many have been vocal about. This is about Boca's greatest natural asset...Our beaches. A piece of property along our sand dunes has been approved for development due to a variance granted by City Council to build over 10,000 sq ft, 4-story mega mansion. The owner bought the property knowing they could not build without variances. The Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBOA) turned it down twice only to be appealed and than approved by our City Council in a 4-1 vote. It's the only area where we can see the ocean along our Boca beach strip, which is what makes our City stand out from the Cities to the north and south. All may not be lost if you write Councilman Scott Singer and Mayor Susan Haynie. You may copy and paste the following letter, just add their names and yours. ssinger@ci.Boca-Raton.fl.us shaynie@ci.boca-raton.fl.us Dear __________________: Our beach is our greatest asset. This belief has been a consistent mantra of Boca Raton residents and elected officials for decades. We, residents, are truly concerned over the granting of a variance for the development of 2500 N. Ocean. The applicant, in this case, contributed significantly to the concerns of which he complains. The record evidence supports a decision in either direction. The granting of a variance is a discretionary action by the local legislative body. Residents believe that had the decision been to deny the applicant may file an appeal. Residents also believe that given the totality of circumstances, a reviewing court will not overturn the denial. The record contains qualitative evidence to support a denial. We residents are requesting that either or both of you, as members of the prevailing side, file a Motion to Reconsider the Dec. 8th decision with the intent of changing your vote from approval to denial. The residents of Boca Raton are outraged that the city council would, under any circumstances, encroach upon the pristine nature of our beaches. The resulting damage is forever; the greater good is at risk. This is a fight worth fighting. Your reconsideration is the residents’ voice in this fight. ________________________________ Signed This is a Publication of BTCA, Inc. http://bocatowerscondo.com/announcement.asp?id=42

This past Thursday night’s ZBOA (Zoning Board of Adjustment) meeting was one of the better meetings held by the City in years because we learned a lot about City Staff. Why? It proved that City Staff does not know the rules. Variances are granted to property owners only if they can prove hardship. That is City code. But, the City’s staff planner was ignorant of this. Why are City employees uneducated and not properly trained on what it is they are supposed to enforce? It comes down to bad management. The applicant bought the land at 2500 N Ocean Blvd. several years ago knowing that under code a lot must be a minimum of 100 feet wide. This lot is 88.5 wide so to build his 10,000 Sq Ft, 4 story residence on the ocean required a variance for width. On top of that, code requires a residence must be 25 feet from the property line facing the street, just like your and my home. Here again, the applicant wanted a variance allowing for 14.5 feet from A1A. The worst part is City Staff supported their application. The applicant can build a smaller, maybe 4,000 sq ft. residence on the property but that isn’t good enough. No, they want 10,000 feet and City Staff says, that’s OK. And, City management, George Brown, in this case, says it’s OK. Is this really a hardship? And, think about where they want to build – in the sea grape along the ocean side of A1A. Mr. Brown was not protecting our or the City’s interests, he was giving away exceptions to the code. One ZBOA member stated we should allow variances that help the property owner. Really? The City is not in the business of supporting the profitability and return on investment of property owners. Why is this guy on the ZBOA? The best part was the heads up response of member Hendrik DeMello who voiced the rule stating “variances may not be granted if a hardship is not shown” and a 6,000 sq ft difference in a residence’s size does not qualify for a hardship. Mr. DeMello won the day for the citizens of Boca Raton and showed that Staff has not a clue with respect to following code. Kudos to Zoning Board of Adjustments for making the “right decision” in a 5-1 vote to not allow the variance in additional size be granted. http://bocawatch.org/how-soon-we-forget-why-we-have-codes/

2500 N Ocean Blvd It is of major importance for the Zoning Board of Appeals (“ZBA”) to deny the application for a variance to the setbacks for 2500 N Ocean Blvd. The applicant , Natural Land, LLC, knew full well when they purchased this land in 2011 that it was a non-conforming undersized parcel. Why would they do this? Because they were confident that their law firm, Gray Robinson, could manipulate the ZBA and the City Council to their advantage. They came close at the first meeting of the ZBA. Of the 6 members of the board present; one member recused himself for what he felt was a conflict. The other 5 voted three to two in favor. However, it requires 4 affirmative votes to pass. The application was denied. Leading up to this meeting, the only notification required is to any property owners within five hundred feet of the proposed project; The Ocean Club. The meeting was scheduled in August. Nobody was in residence. The appeal of the ZBA denial was for just a month out at 10am on the first day of the Jewish Holiday. The hope was for another low attendance. Council for the applicant argues that this type of variance is common place and should be no big matter. He uses comparisons from properties that are significantly west of A1A and closer to the intercoastal water way. It is likely that all were part of a planned development in the early 80’s. They are not on the east side of A1A. In the mid 80’s, the City worked tirelessly with developers to preserve our beach. Most parcels of land along A1A had land on both the east and west side of A1A. The Ocean Club was originally planning to build on the east side right on the beach. In this instance the City Council worked with the developer and transferred the density from the east side to the west side allowing for a higher building on the west side. Similar deals were made with the Yacht and Racquet Club and San Remos. Couple these deals with a few city purchases and a large donation and you have what is there now: real natural land! From the house at 2330 N Ocean Blvd, which was built 70 years ago under Palm Beach County jurisdiction, all the way to the city line, there are no buildings on the east side. It is probably the most significant natural asset in Boca Raton. At the first ZBA meeting in August, it was pointed out Natural Land, LLC owned parcels on both the east and west side of A1A. It was mentioned that maybe a similar deal as with the Ocean Club could be discussed. Two days before the appeal to the City Council of the ZBA’s denial, Natural Land, LLC transferred the west parcel via a special warranty deed to another entity for $10. That entity was formed on September 11, 2015! For the City Council meeting on the 22nd, the Ocean Club Association, retained Attorney W Tucker Gibbs. He put on an impressive presentation concerning law associated with Variances and what is required to grant one. It was enough to cause the City council to pass it back to ZBA. However, having watched the tenor of the board members, I believe had the council voted then, it would have passed. If you want to preserve our most precious asset, keep our local officials from being manipulated, twisted or maybe worse, stand up and let them hear your voice. Oh, by the way, what Natural Land, LLC wants to build is a 10,000 square foot 4 story, 46 foot high single family structure. Just what our sea turtles want to see when they first hatch! Further, there are two other parcels on the east side waiting to see what our city government does with 2500. If granted, 2330 already has plans to drop that house and put up a monster. The third is across and south from the Yacht and Racquet Club, and I have been told it is under contract. Only your voice and involvement can untwist our local city government, preserve the intent of previous City Councils and save our beaches. http://bocawatch.org/our-most-precious-asset-at-risk/

I wish to thank the hired guns at Gray Robinson for working over the the Mayor & members of City Council the past many, many months, greasing the skids for probably granting not 1 but 2 variances so a house that does not meet City Code can be built at 2500 North Ocean Blvd. This is exactly why we residents voice our objection to over-development. The City Council does not enforce the City’s codes; there are too many exceptions made to benefit one party at the expense of the many in Boca Raton. Were our City leaders to vote based on Code, we residents would not be up in arms. Follow the Code and we will be behind all residential and commercial projects but once you vote outside the Code, you are voting against all of us, in this case, those who enjoy the beach line along A-1-A. Why is this so hard to understand? By voting to grant these 2 variances, our City leaders will be opening the door for further granting of variances on the East, or ocean side, of A-1-A. They will have set a precedent and I know anyone with modest intelligence knows this. Your City Council will forever change the beach line. Why would they do this? Taxpayer’s only ask that Council follow the Code, versus granting variances so easily just so someone can spoil the beach and make money. Is there something in it for the Council because it makes no sense?. All the condominiums on the West side of A1A have played by the rules. They own property on the ocean but elected NOT TO BUILD structures on that stretch of beach. They could have built cabanas or other structure but wanted to save the natural beach. Why don’t our City leaders see it this way? Ask them, why? Maybe it’s because they are being worn down by the repeated rhetoric from these hired guns who are in it to make money from such projects, the rest of us be damned. The citizens love the natural beauty of this beach area as we look over our shoulder to see old Florida in all its natural beauty. If City leaders approve this, it will not be the only home on the dunes. Allow one and two or more will follow. This stretch of beach will be changed forever. Given the applicant has hired guns, no doubt this residential project will get the go ahead. You, the citizen, can make a difference. All of us need to voice disapproval of these 2 variances, if you do not, this will pass. Please do not allow it to happen. It’s up to all of us – every single voice counts. Please contact our Mayor and Council members and voice your “NO” on granting variances on the 2500 North Ocean Blvd. property. We should not start developing the beach after all these years. There is no need to grant the variances other than greed and your City Council should be shamed for even thinking of doing it. Reminder: March 2017 election time can’t come too soon James Hendrey Publisher’s note: This item is not at this time being considered by the City Council. It has been sent back to the Zoning Board of Appeals for further consideration. BocaWatch suggests that interested residents should plan to attend the ZBOA meeting when the item is scheduled for action. BW will keep you posted on any upcoming dates. The ZBOA is our first line of defense to oppose granting either or both of the two variances needed for the building project to move forward. The ZBOA is required to accept public input at the meeting for their official record. That record becomes part of the recommendation sent to the City Council for final decision. Thanks are extended to James and Nancy Hendry and to Mark Mannix for their good work in bringing this matter to the attention of the observing public. http://bocawatch.org/good-bye-beach-dunes-on-a1a-say-the-many-residents-who-travel-this-road/

Another day and another item crossed off my bucket list. On December 21st I attended my first Greater Boca Raton Beach and Parks District board meeting! This raises two questions: Why was this on my bucket list? What was the compelling topic that inspired me to attend that particular meeting? To the former, I have to admit, I made that up. It was never on my bucket list. To the latter, it was due to the main agenda item of addressing the issue of protecting additional beachfront property from further development. I was duly impressed by the tone of the board members. Again, this was my first meeting, but I felt they were committed to preserving and enhancing our beautiful natural resources. Further, the board appeared to be less political then some of our City’s prominent boards – and that is good. At the end of the meeting I left feeling as though more questions had been raised as opposed to answers being provided, which was no fault of the Beach and Parks District. The reason the beachfront property issue appeared on the agenda, according to one board member, was a “surprise letter” received from Mayor Susan Haynie requesting that Beach and Parks consider the purchase of remaining, undeveloped beachfront properties within the City. The Mayor’s letter was written in reaction to pushback she received for voting in favor of a variance to accommodate building a ten thousand square foot mansion on a pristine ocean front parcel at 2500 N. Ocean Blvd. Without the variance the mega-mansion could not be built. This attempt at crisis management begs the first question. Question 1: Madame Mayor, if you truly care about our fragile dunes and beachfront, why did you vote to approve the variance in the first place? During City Council’s discussion prior to the vote at the December 8th Council meeting, it was stated that numerous variances had been granted in the past for properties east of the Intracoastal Waterway. None of which compare to the unique property at 2500. The prior variances for this stretch of N. Ocean Blvd were granted for properties WEST of N. Ocean Blvd, not to the EAST of N. Ocean Blvd which is where the subject property lies. Further, all variances are discretionary and each variance stands on its own merit with precedence not a determining factor. There was additional evidence that worked in favor of not approving the variance: The City’s Zoning Board of Adjustments, not once – but twice, denied the Variance for valid reasons. That fact alone gave Council the necessary cover to take on the fight against approval. However, Council’s favored land use attorney, Charles Siemon, threatened a lawsuit if the variance was not granted and that appeared to make four Council Member votes cower. Correction: The votes of the Mayor Haynie and Council Member Scott Singer cowered. Anti-resident Council Members Robert Weinroth and Michael Mullaugh votes were already in the bag for development – which is always the case. Only Council Member Jeremy Rodgers made the courageous “NO” vote, which apparently represents the sentiment of many of Boca’s residents. Question 2: Why is the City Council so eager to spare the City from a potential legal battle and cost against a development issue but will go the full distance and legal expense to battle residents when the latter protests development issues? Such was the case for the infamous Archstone Project, a.k.a. Palmetto Promenade. The sad irony is the City uses the resident’s tax money to fund the legal expense. Question 3: What was the case for the “Greater Good” of Boca Raton by approving the variance when the purchaser of the property knew upon acquisition that the land was not suitable to build the ego-satisfying mansion? Bringing this back to the Beach and Parks District meeting, the majority appeared to favor initiating a dialogue with the full City Council to see if there is an appetite by all Council members to further pursue the idea of purchasing remaining beachfront property, since the letter received from the Mayor was unilateral and not the official position of the City Council. If Council so d esires, an evaluation of costs to acquire, maintenance expense, safety issues, etc. would then be the next steps in the process. Based on prior acquisitions, these costs would no doubt be funded by the issuance of bonds paid for by the taxpayer. Question 4: Do you find it curious, or frustrating, that due to the granting of the variance all the remaining surrounding property has higher value and now the idea of purchasing the property comes forward at what will be a higher cost? Through her own statements at the December 8th meeting, Mayor Haynie suggested that this could encourage adjacent property owners to request development rights on the dunes. It would be quite simple to cast Mayor Haynie in the same light as the other anti-resident Council Members. Despite her rhetoric and campaign flyers, the Mayor’s votes have been solidly in favor of high-density development during her time in office. It’s no secret that the development community goes to great effort and expense to fund campaigns in order to place the right politicians in power. It helps to have friends in high places. Questions 5 and 6: Is the Mayor sincere in this endeavor to protect beachfront property? Is she simply “passing the buck”, or is it an attempt at damage control to appease an upset and energized constituency so as not to jeopardize her future political ambitions? Her most recent vote provides the most likely answer. As always . . . It’s not what they say – It’s how they vote that matters. http://bocawatch.org/the-beach-front-property-hail-mary-pass/